Strengthening Foreign Language Teacher Preparation Through Teacher-Supervisor Exchange

Strengthening Foreign Language Teacher Preparation Through Teacher-

Supervisor Exchange Eileen W Glisan

Indiana University of Pennsylvania Valerie 1 Sullivan

Woodland Hills Senior High School

ABslRACE Recent national reports call Tor a reorganization of the teacher preparation pmcess through closer collaboration between basic and higher education. This article describes how a uniuersity super- uisor o f Spanish and a cooperating high schoolSpanish teacher participated in a one-week exchange o f professional duties for the purpose of understanding each otherb roles more fully. The results of the exchange pmmpted the redesign of the teacher preparation program to integrate the efforts of the university and school district in the deuelopment of foreign language teachers.

Introduction Teacher training has been one of the targets of the

harsh criticism that education in the United States has experienced in the past decade. Reports such as those of the Carnegie Forum (3) and the Holmes Group (6) have advocated sweeping changes in an educational system that is reproached for not preparing teachers to teach today’s students effectively. Among the changes recommended by these reports are the elimination of the undergraduate teacher education major in favor of a graduate program, greater subject area mastery, more rigorous entrance and exit standards for teacher education programs, and a professional education component that requires prospective teachers to spend more time observing in the schools and working with children (Carnegie Forum, 3; Holmes Group, 6). A key element of revitalized teacher education programs recommended by these reform movements is closer collaboration among the educators who prepare future teachers (Goodlad, 5; Olson, 13 ). When collaboration takes the form of closer part-

Eileen W Clisan (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is Associate P r e fessor of Spanish at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Indiana, PA. ValerieJ. Sulliuan (M.A. candidate, University of Pittsburgh) is a teacher of Spanish at Woodland Hills Senior High School, Pitts- burgh, PA.

nerships between higher education and basic education, more educative experiences for preservice teachers are likely to be the result.

Traditional Roles of Higher Education and Basic Education in Teacher Preparation

Historically, teacher preparation programs have been developed on the basis of what might be called a “linear approach’ to involvement by higher education and basic education constituencies. That is, the university first provides all of the coursework-liberal arts, content-specific, and education -including the preliminary clinical experiences such as prestudent teaching practica and courses in teaching methodology. Then, typically in the student’s last semester as an undergraduate, the university releases him or her to a public school counterpart, who has the primary responsibility for supervision and “training.” The degree to which ar- ticulation takes place between the university supervisor and public school cooperating or clinical teacher is unfortunately often left to chance because of issues involving, among other things, lack of time in which to collaborate. Figure 1 (see nextpage) depicts this traditional model currently being followed in many teacher preparation programs where the roles of the university and public school are practically mutually exclusive.

Research done by Britzman (2) verifies that the

Foreign Language Annals, 26, No. 2, 1993

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - SUMMER 1993

~

UNIVERSITY

C I -, Pre-student tec

I -, Pre-student tec U R

E --3c0ds W

R K

0 ‘4

+ Student Teaching Supervision

0 I

I I Student Teacher Conferences

and Seminars

FIGURE 1

Traditional Model for Foreign language Teacher Preparation

Teacher

SCHOOL SITE

ching I

ching I1

Student Teaching

.t Clinical Supervision Student Teacher Daily School Routine

greatest influences on preservice teachers’ behavior are, first, their own language learning experiences and, second, their student teaching experience. As a by-product of a linear-type model of teacher preparation, sites for student teaching are often selected on the basis of geographical considerations or the willingness of certain teachers to accept student teachers. Rarely are sites chosen on the basis of effectiveness of the cooperating teacher or com- patibility of the teacher’s approach with the methodology course and long-range goals of the program. In this situation, student teachers soon confront a dichotomy between what they learned in their coursework and what they see and are expected to do in practice. It is quite common for student teachers to receive mixed signals from the university supervisor and cooperating teacher regarding the effectiveness of their teaching. As Phillips (14) notes, “Student teachers become vic- tims of the methods/practice contrast and soon realize that their performance and evaluation clearly depend upon adapting to the standard of the cooperating teacher” (p. 36).

John Goodlad (5), one of education’s most dedicated advocates of teacher education reform, elaborates this existing discrepancy between theory and practice by describing conditions he observed in student teaching programs throughout the country:

The most glaring disjunture between theory and practice occurred at the point where

students left the campus to engage in their student teaching experiences ... campus- based and school-based faculty rarely came together to discuss a mutually shared mis- sion for student teachers ... Students often found themselves in a clash between campus learnings and school-based re- quirements. (p. 8)

Kennedy (8) corroborates Goodlad’s claims and further asserts that a primary reason for the lack of teacher effectiveness is that the content of college courses does not match the level of difficulty of the content taught in schools. Therefore, teachers are often left to draw on their own memories of subject matter that they learned years ago as students. In many cases, teachers are only a few steps ahead of what they are teaching their students.

Compounding these problems even further is the lack of prestige in the teacher education discipline. In many large colleges and universities, professors are penalized for being involved in collaborative projects with basic education rather than produc- ing scholarly research. Goodlad (5) notes that in his interviews at teacher education institutions, the teacher education faculty ‘:..were well aware that neither they nor their work occupied a high place in the priorities of their institutions” (p. 5). Further- more, basic education faculty have also suffered from lack of encouragement in participating in the teacher preparation process. In most cases,

218


cooperating teachers receive little, if any, release time for their work with student teachers and the minuscule amount of financial compensation they might be given is a goodwill gesture at best.

The findings summarized above reflect the cur- rent status of many teacher trainins programs in foreign languages: (1) the teacher training program belongs to the university; (2) the university provides the theory behind the practice; and (3) the public school provides the hands-on practice. In this linear model, the responsibilities between higher education and basic education are clearly delineated and efforts at collaboration are often given lip service only.

Higher Education-Basic Education Partnerships as a Catalyst for Change The Carnegie and Holmes Reports both argue for

a reorienting of efforts in the preparation of teachers away from the university-controlled program to one that is more school-based, involves practicing teachers, and develops professionals (Lange, 9). Goodlad (5) calls for team-based participation among teacher trainers as a vehicle for a reform in- itiative. Goodlad (5) believes that the first step in changing teacher training programs should be organizational: basic education faculty should work in tandem with higher education faculty in planning a teacher education program of preparation. According to Goodlad (5), “Any teacher education program conducted without the collaboration of schools is defective. And I mean collaboration where the schools are equal partners” (p. 13). Goodlad (5) further supports the idea that student teaching and internship work be done in a “profes sional development center” that is operated by both the university and the school district. This idea of professional practice schools, similar to teaching hospitals in the field of medicine, was suggested by both the Carnegie and Holmes Reports.

Other authors have advocated a closer-knit relationship between basic and higher education in preparing teachers. Phillips (14) has suggested involving cooperating teachers in the teaching of the pedagogy course in an effort to bring the world of practice closer to the theory. Keith (7) proposed an interactive framework for teacher preparation in which teaching is directly connected with its use in schools. As Lange (9) explains:

The school-university relationship changes the nature of the questions asked about teacher preparation; it focuses questions dif- ferently: “How can the school-university collaboration make experiences for developing teachers more educative?’ rather than “How much more of this [foundations] or how much of that [clinical experiences] is needed to train a teacher?” (p. 250)

With schools playing more of a central role in teacher preparation, many individuals can be involved in collaboration: the developing teacher, other teachers, university faculty, and school administrators. In this new type of partnership, ex- emplary classroom teachers share their experience and expertise in methods classes at the university. University faculty, in turn, spend more time in the real world of the schools, deliberating with teachers and working with students (Olson, 13).

Goodlad (4) has identified the following characteristics of successful collaboratives:

1) The partner-institutions must be different. 2) The institutions must overlap at some point

to benefit their own self-interests. 3) Each institution must recognize that satisfy-

ing its own self-interest means satisfying the self- interest of the other.

More specifically, Tetenbaum and Mulkeen (15) formulated nine key features of a model for an in- tegrated teacher development program built upon collaboration between basic and higher education. Their program includes: 1) many field-based teacher development opportunities; 2) an organiza- tion of theory and practicearound the resolution of real problems in actual classes; 3) technology- driven modes of instruction; 4) an experimental sharing among beginning and experienced teachers, higher education supervisors, cooperating teachers, and professional staff; 5) much attention to the professional development of the preservice teacher; 6 ) a competency-based program oriented toward knowledge, skills, and attitudes appropriate for each experiential level identified, taught, prac- ticed, and evaluated; 7) an expert team consisting of school staff, university faculty, community con- sultants, and others; 8) a critical mass of professionals within a school setting who develop teachers through problem-solving that involves risk taking and experimentation; and 9) an open-

219


endedness of the model that indicates the lifelong process of professional development (cf. Lange, 9, p. 256).

Partnership Projects in Action The Carnegie and Holmes Reports have en-

couraged the development of several types of collaborative programs and partnerships between basic and higher education in the past several years. Six years ago a collaborative teacher education program was initiated between Northern Arizona University and the Flagstaff School District in an effort to address the criticisms of teacher training programs cited by the 1983 “Nation at Risk” report (VerVelde, Horn, and Steinshouer, 17). The “Program for Learning Competent Teaching” places university professors, basic education teachers, and student teachers in cooperation with one another at the school site, as preservice teachers receive experience-as-training. The student teachers teach a minimum of two hours per day four days a week, during which they collaborate with their own colleagues, university faculty, and cooperating teachers. After teaching, students attend lectures, plan lessons, and discuss their progress. Fridays are spent planning lessons for the next week and viewing presentations designed to broaden their world knowledge. Students’ coursework is enhanced by seminars conducted by the classroom teachers and other members of the community.

In this Northern Arizona collaborative program, the experiences shared by students and instructors drive the course content, and preservice teachers greatly benefit from their firsthand experiences in the teaching process. The school district reaps benefits from this partnership as they often obtain new employees from these beginning teachers, while the university takes pride in preparing well- educated teachers within a realistic setting. In the words of the authors, the program “...provides a bridge between experience and ideas” (VerVelde, Horn, and Steinshouer, 17, p. 20).

Specific to foreign language teacher education is the partnership formed in 1986 by the University of Minnesota Second Languages and Cultures Teacher Education Program and the Foreign Language Program in the Anoka-Hennepin Schools, a suburban district near Minneapolis

(Lange, 9; Mellgren and Caye, 10; Mellgren, Walker, and Lange, 11;). The result of this partnership is a post-baccalaureate preparation in which students complete two summers of coursework at the beginning and end of a nine-month intensive program that includes on-campus study and a year of clinical experience in the schools. The clinical experience is organized into three stages that occur during the academic school year: 1) awareness: students observe classroom teaching and student-teacher interaction in classes across the curriculum; 2) practice: preservice teachers do tutoring, lead small groups, and conduct microteaching lessons with peer groups and real classes; and 3) induction: in a student teaching experience, preservice teachers have responsibility for the curriculum and instruc- tional program over two six-week periods.

The Minnesota program is directed by a team of university and school personnel, including Second Languages and Cultures and Education staff, two University of Minnesota teacher supervisors, a school postbaccalaureate coordinator, and cooperating teachers in different languages in the various schools of the district. The school coordinator is released from teaching for one hour daily in order to observe students and communicate with teachers and university staff. Cooperating teachers receive university credit for their participation in the program, including a continuing seminar in which the university and school district collaborate on problems that arise in the partnership and program. The entire teacher preparation program not only offers professional development, but also provides a database for research concerning teacher preparation and continuing teacher competence (Lange, 9).

Many collaborative efforts are beginning to be supported financially by the corporate sector. Olson (13) describes a program called “Teachers for Tomorrow,” in which the AT&T Foundation has committed some $3 million to universities, local schools systems, and teachers’ unions in five cities to develop collaborative programs for preparing teachers for jobs in urban schools. The foundation anticipates that these projects will change the way inner-city teachers are prepared as well as increase the numbers of inner-city teachers and reduce at- trition rates (Olson, 13). Similar types of collaborative efforts are on the increase, as reflected

220


by the information gathered by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, with the Ford Foundation and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education in 1991. In their first publica- tion of information on professional development schools, the Clinical Schools Clearinghouse listed over 100 such schools across the country (Olson, 13). Goodlad’s National Network for Educational Renewal is working with 12 teacher education sites in order to develop university-school based collaboratives (Olson, 13)!

An Exchange Between a Cooperating Spanish Teacher and a University

Supervisor: The First Step in Collaboration For the past five years, Indiana University of

Pennsylvania (IUP), a state leader in teacher education, has been establishing closer ties with several school districts in an effort to create multicultural, multiracial urban student teaching centers that bring together the best of theory and practice.2 Since the establishment of two urban sites, IUP faculty and basic education teachers and staff across some eight disciplines have joined together volun- tarily to plan for and develop the student teaching experience. Credit-bearing seminars in urban/ multicultural education were prepared by basic education faculty and are taught by them at thesite. This initial effort to strengthen the student-teaching experience soon led to other areas of collaboration, such as in the content of the methods courses held at IUP as well as the prestudent teaching clinical experiences.

As a second phase of this collaboration, IUP, the Pittsburgh School District and Woodland Hills School District received funding from the Penn- sylvania Academy for the Profession of Teaching to conduct an exchange program between six IUP faculty supervisors and their teacher counterparts in the two school districts. Funding was obtained by David Rotigel, IUPs Coordinator for the Urban Student Teaching Centers. Participants of the project were expected to: I) exchange duties during a specific period of time in the academic year; 2) engage in professional development activities designed to enhance the ability to teach urban youth; 3) provide professional development for preservice teachers; 4) report on and disseminate the results of the exchange by means of journal articles

and conference presentations; 5) participate in the creation of a structure for the continuation of the dialogue between university and school district faculty members; and 6) attend meetings of the Academy in support of the exchange. The grant subsidized costs for substitute teachers at the basic education level, as well as travel and lodging ex- penses for all participants to attend meetings and conduct conference presentations3

As a part of this program, Eileen Glisan, Associate Professor of Spanish at IUP, and Valerie Sullivan, teacher of Spanish at Woodland Hills High School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, exchanged professional duties for five working days. This exchange was the culmination of four years of work in developing the urban student teaching program in foreign languages. Glisan and Sullivan establish- ed the following objectives for the exchange, as per- tinent to their own collaboration in the teacher preparation program in Spanish:

1) to more fully understand each other’s roles in the teaching and educational development of students;

2) to discover ways to strengthen the teacher preparation program in Spanish through further collaboration; and

3) to disseminate information and share insights attained from the project to others in the foreign language field by means of publications and presentations.

In Fall 1991, Glisan and Sullivan exchanged duties for one week, during which they: 1) taught each other’s classes; 2) supervised student teachers; 3) participated in professional staff and committee meetings; and 4) fulfilled other routine professional duties, such as student advisement. Glisan’s responsibilities at the high school included teaching one Spanish 2 class, three Spanish 4 classes and one Spanish 5 class; conducting the daily student teaching seminar for all student teachers at the site, and working with Sullivan’s student teacher in Spanish. Sullivan’s duties at the university included teaching a Spanish phonetics course, the elementary school foreign language methods course, and the secondary level foreign language methods course; observing and supervising two student teachers in Spanish (including the one placed at her high school); attending several committee meetings; and meeting individually with

221


student advisees. A particularly interesting aspect of this exchange was that Sullivan had one of Glisan’s student teachers during that semester, so both partners had the opportunity to work closely with a student teacher while assuming a different supervisory role. Throughout the exchange, each participant kept adaily log in which they described their experiences, insights, and feelings.

Outcomes of the Exchange: A Second Step in Collaboration

What were the results of this exchange? The partners reflected upon the exchange in terms of the roles they each play as both Spanish teachers and teacher trainers. They were surprised to find that a five-day exchange could give them such valuable insights into their pedagogical approaches and their teacher preparation program. Their experiences during the exchange week enabled them to:

1) learn about students in a different age group and at a different level of instruction;

2) gain a first-hand understanding of each other’s roles in the ongoing process of preparing teachers; and

3) identify ways in which continued collaboration and exchange opportunities could be used as a vehicle for strengthening their teacher education program in Spanish.

In reflecting upon her experiences with the high school students with whom she interacted during the exchange, Glisan noted in one of her daily log entries:

One of the most valuable aspects of this experience is being able to reacquaint myself with high school teaching, after having been away from it for 10 years. Today’s teachers have so many challenging responsibilities to deal with at the same time. Many of their students have severe home problems facing them each day such as drug abuse, poverty, and dysfunctional family lives. They can’t help but bring these difficulties to school with them. Perhaps the violence in today’s schools is due in part to the feelings of anger and helplessness students often experience ... The teacher has to workvery diligently to maintain students’ attention and interest level . . .

From Glisan’s perspective, this experience brought

a university supervisor back in touch with the real world of the classroom: realistic expectations of what can be accomplished, the importance of understanding today’s diverse student population and the problems they bring to the learning situation, and the need for strategies for communicating with students and exciting them about learning. One of Glisan’s goals in preparing preservice teachers has been to help her students develop a learner-centered approach to teaching language. This exchange enabled her to see that she needs to provide her preservice teachers with a more in- depth study of today’s students. In addition, preservice teachers need greater opportunities to interact with students on a more continuous basis throughout the program, rather than only during student teaching. This ongoing interaction with real students must be given more importance if preservice teachers are to gain an understanding of the kinds of students they will teach and effective ways to teach them.

Sullivan also gained new insights concerning the nature of the preservice teacher, as evidenced in the following log excerpt:

It was enlightening today to see how many questions students had regarding how high school students think, react, and behave in language classes. I realize now just how much the education students have to learn during student teaching, aside from how to teach Spanish. Sometimes we forget that they have little experience interacting with diverse types of high school learners prior to walking into the high school as student teachers ...

Sullivan’s experiences throughout the week proved to her that preservice teachers cannot learn about the high school learner by means of receiv- ing information in one or two university courses. Gaining a true understanding of students results from experiencing a variety of situations in the classroom and interacting with students. These insights confirmed the value of combining the student teaching experience with the daily seminars in an effort to merge practice with reflection.

In addition to learning a great deal about the student population, each partner also gained a clearer understanding of the important role the other plays in the teacher preparation process. Glisan reflected


on the following in her log: I am finding it a challenge to be energized in each of the classes and still find strength to work with Val’s [cooperating teacher’s] student teacher during every minute of my free time. Conferencing sure takes a lot of time and energy! ... In our student teaching seminar today, we talked about strategies for making our course content relevant to students’ lives and for engaging them in meaningful activities ... Val’s interaction with student teachers in this seminar certainly gives students a unique opportunity to vent their anxiety, share ideas and concerns, and formulate new insights and approaches, while they are in the process of developing their teaching skills.

Only by experiencing Sullivan’s job could Glisan truly appreciate the amount of time and commit- ment cooperating teachers give in working with student teachers. She could also see how important it is for student teachers to be knowledgeable about their content areas and about the principles of learning and teaching when they begin their student teaching. This preparation enables the cooperating teacher to focus more on teaching approach, style, and interaction with students. In addition, Glisan found the daily student teaching seminar to be a powerful tool for bringing together theory, practice, and reflection, and for helping the student teacher to explore hidher experiences and feelings.

The following log entry illustrates Sullivan’s view of the university supervisor’s role:

Today I thought I could have used more student interaction in the methods class. I kept them all interested but mostly they interacted with me alone. I was so tired ... that I found myself disconnected. There’s so much ground to cover! ... Students really need more time to digest it all and share ideas with o n e another and with the instructor.

Sullivan was overwhelmed to see how much content a one-semester methodology course covered. Students have only one course in which to learn about all aspects of teaching foreign languages, from principles of language learning and teaching to daily lesson planning to testing

language skills. The pressure to cover the many elements does not allow sufficent time for discussion and interaction among students.

Another positive outcome of the exchange was the opportunity for Glisan and Sullivan to work with their student teacher while assuming each other’s role. For Glisan, working with her student teacher in a real classroom enabled her to combine discussion of theory and actual practice effectively. Glisan could see her student teacher’s growth as the two of them worked closely together in discuss- ing lesson objectives, designing lessons (many of which they team taught), preparing materials, and reflecting on lessons that had been taught. In addition, Glisan gained a better understanding of her student teacher’s abilities and difficulties as a result of working with him for fivedays, rather than observing only a few classes throughout the semester. The student teacher also felt that the opportunity to work with Glisan helped him to make greater connections between what he had learned in the methodology class and his classroom teaching.

In assuming Glisan’s role as the university supervisor, Sullivan observed o n e of the student teacher’s classes, after which a three-way conference was held as it usually is after each supervisor visitation. From Sullivan’s perspective, the university supervisor cannot have a real impact on the student teacher’s progress by observing three or four times during the semester; continuous interaction is necessary. The exchange enabled the two partners to learn a great deal about the type of guidance student teachers require during the student teaching experience.

A Model for Teacher Preparation Based on a School/University Partnership:

A Third Step in Collaboration All Glisan and Sullivan needed was one week of

performing each other’s duties to realize that the traditional model of teacher preparation they had been following was not effective. The traditional model, as described earlier, does not provide for the type of collaboration they had experienced during their exchange. On the basis of the insights describ ed in the previous section, the two partners redesigned the following elements of the traditional linear type of program to provide opportunities for true team-based collaboration:

223


1) Preservice teachers will be placed in the urban centers for Prestudent Teaching I and II , during the sophomore and junior years. They will have more opportunities to teach classes and participate in the student teaching Seminar.

2) The two partners will exchange duties for five days each fall, over the course of the entire semester. In the methodology classes at IUP, Sullivan will present lessons dealing with unit and daily planning, testing, cooperative learning, and multicultural education. At the high school level, Glisan will verify the effectiveness of new teaching strategies, such as lessons based on a whole- language approach and interactive listening and reading. These lessons will be videotaped so that they can be used in the methodology classes and/or on-site seminars.

3) To the extent feasible throughout the semester, Glisan will participate in the student teaching seminars held at the school in order to interact with her students as they experience teaching. This aspect provides an effective transition from the methodology course to the field.

This new model that Glisan and Sullivan designed for foreign language teacher preparation is depicted in Figure 2. It shows the various com- ponents of the teacher preparation program in foreign language and the ways in which the university and school might integrate their efforts more closely while increasing the participation of the school as students move closer to student teaching. The model involves the collaboration of the co-

operating teacher from the first prestudent teaching experience through the methods course and student teaching, while integrating the collaboration of the university supervisor more with the school- based experiences.

Conclusion The insights that Glisan and Sullivan gained in

this exchange could only have been learned by experiencing each other's professional roles first hand. Many university supervisors have never taught at the basic education level, and many basic education teachers have not kept abreast of research findings and innovations in teaching. Thus, the exchange enabled the two partners to address these issues in a way that would not have been possible by other means such as by attending a conference or reading a journal article dealing with innovative models for teacher preparation.

Since the exchange took place in Fall 1991, the teacher and university partners have begun to im- plement the new program design. The program is now becoming a true team effort in which both the school and university share in the responsibility of preparing future language teachers. Over the next year, the changes in the program will be fine-tuned and assessment will take place during each year in order to evaluate formally the effectiveness of the new model. It is expected that we will gain addi- tional information concerning how teachers can be prepared effectively, how their competencies develop and can be maintained, and how the

FIGURE 2 Interactive Model for Foreign Language Teacher Preparation:

The Spectrum of Collaboration

UNIVERSITY

C 0 U R s E W O R K

UNIVERSITY + SCHOOL SITE

he-student teaching I

Nb Re-student teaching II

b Methods 4 Student

Student Teacher Conferences

Clinical Supervision J i

SCHOOL SITE

Teaching

nan I .* ..

224

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - S U W E R 1993

university and school district can become more equal partners in the process.

O n a broader scale, several other partners who participated in t h e exchange are interested in Glisan and Sullivan’s new interactive model, since they have experienced similar dissatisfaction with the traditional model for preparing teachers. Ex- change groups are assessing their exchanges in light of t h e findings presented here. Ongoing seminars between university and basic education faculty will provide a forum for all pairs to exchange experiences and strengthen programs.

The results of a one-week exchange have under- scored the validity of Goodlad’s (5) claim that the first major change needed in strengthening teacher education is to ‘:..put all those groups together with equal authority-those w h o teach educat ion courses, those who teach the content, and those who supervise the student teachers” (p. 11).

NOTES See Thomas (16) for a description of an exchange be-

tween a fifth grade teacher and an eleventh grade English teacher in Hurst, Texas. As a result of their experience, these two teachers gained a greater understanding of teaching at a different level; made a connection between the two grade levels, which involved plans to share writing samples; obtained new teaching strategies; and gained new confidence in their own teaching abilities.

The teacher education degree program at IUP follows the four-year undergraduate model.

Two administrators also participated in the exchange: two high school principals and the Dean and Associate Dean of IUPsCollegeof Education. Theentire project was directed by IUPs Coordinator for the Urban Student Teaching Centers at the two sites in collaboration with directors at the two high schools.

REFERENCES Brandt, Ron. “On Teacher Education:A Conversa- tion with John Goodlad.” Educational Leadership 49 (November 1991):ll-13. Britzman, D. P. “Cultural Myths in the Making of a Teacher: Biography and Social Structure in Teacher Education.“ Harvard Educational Review 56

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. A Nation &pared: Teachers b r the 2lst Century. New York: Carnegie Education Foundation, 1986.

(1986):442-56.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

1 1 .

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Goodlad, John. “School-University Partnerships for Educational Renewal: Rationale and Concepts,” in Kenneth A. Sirotnik and John Goodlad, eds., School- University mrtnerships in Action: Concepts, Cases, and Concerns. New York: Teachers College Press, 1988.

“Why We Need a Complete Redesign of Teacher Education.‘‘ Educational Leadership 49 (November 1991):4-10. Holmes Group. Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holrnes Group. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group, Inc., 1986. Keith, M. J. “We’ve HeardThis Song ... Or Have We?’ Journal o f Teacher Education 38(1987):20-25. Kennedy, Mary M. “Some Surprising Findings on How Teachers Learn to Teach.” Educationalkader- ship 49(November 1991):14-17. Lange, Dale L. ‘A Blueprint for a Teacher Develop ment Program,” 245-68 in Jack C. Richards and David Nunan, eds., Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mellgren, Millie Park and Leslie Ann Caye. “School- University Collaboration in Second Language Teacher Educati0n:Building a Successful Partner- ship.” Foreign Language Annals 22(1989):553-60.

, Constance L. Walker, and Dale L. Lange. “The Preparation of Second Language Teachers Through Post-Baccalaureate Education.” Foreign Language Annals 21(1988):121-29. National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC.: Department of Educa- tion, 1983. Olson, Lynn. “Teacher’s Guide to School Re orm.” Teacher Magazine (May/June 1992):2&45. Phillips, June K. “Teacher Education: Tat, of Reform,” 11-40 in Helen S. Lepke, ed., Shaping the Future: Challenges and Opportunities. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (1989). Tetenbaum, T. J. and T. A. Mulkeen. “Designing Teacher Education for the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Higher Education 57(1986):621-36. Thomas, Gretchen. “Bring Down the Wall.” Educa- tional Leadership 49( November 199 1):79-80. VerVelde, Peggy, Pat Horn, and Elizabeth Stein- shouer. “Teacher Education: On Site, On Target.” Educational Leadership 49 (November 1991):1820.

(1990).

225

Documents

Strengthening Foreign Language Teacher Preparation Through Teacher-Supervisor Exchange