P4

INTERNS AND THE INTERNSHIP
Authentic Service Learning: A
Foundational Practice for Effective
School-Community Partnerships
VOLUME 11 ISSUE 1 SUMMER 2015
P4
PDS PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Building Community: Socialization
into the Partnership
P8
PDS RESEARCHERS AND RESEARCH
Action Research Stimulates Deliberate Investigation at Professional
Development School
P12
Partners
PDS
Blurred Lines: Clearing the Fog of Effective Clinical Practice
Beyond Traditional Semester Learning
Marisa Dudiak, Towson University
Cheryl Dembroski, Katie Kelly, Ronald McNair
Elementary School
teachers. It is easy to comprehend why it is one
of the valued three aspects of pre-service teacher
preparation programs.
It seems to be clear in the minds of most educators
dedicated to preparing our future teachers that the
Professional Development School (PDS) model
has tremendous value. The National Research
Council (NRC) report, Preparing Teachers:
Building Evidence for Sound Policy, identifies
clinical preparation or field experience as one
of the three “aspects of teacher preparation that
are likely to have the highest potential for effects
on outcomes for students,” coupled with content
knowledge and the quality of teacher candidates
(p.180). Providing a critical field experience
during the Pre-K to 12 traditional school year has
been a cornerstone for filling the pipeline of new
A concept that is less clear includes identifying
solid opportunities for interns to continue to build
on field experiences outside of the typical university
semesters. The authors of this article ask, “Why
does the PDS experience have to stop at the
end of the university semester?” An established
university and PDS partnership didn’t think so…
they extended the teacher education experience
for their interns into the lazy, hazy days of summer!
Towson University and Ronald McNair Elementary
School in Montgomery County, Maryland saw
a valuable opportunity to invite their current and
new interns to take a voluntary but active role in
an established summer Kindergarten readiness
program with one of their existing PDS partners.
Merging Existing Programs and Forging New
Partnerships
At Ronald McNair Elementary School, the
JumpStart program was already in place as a
tool to promote school readiness for incoming
Kindergartners before the official start of the school
year. A program like this helps incoming students
gain more confidence in their surroundings while
learning some of the expectations that will be placed
upon them at the start of kindergarten. During the
month of July, up to forty rising Kindergarteners
participate in either of two, 2-week, half-day
JumpStart sessions. Though some literacy and
math concepts are developed, the critical focus of
Blurred Lines CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
2
A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
Marcy Keifer Kennedy
P1
INTERNS AND THE INTERNSHIP
Blurred Lines: Clearing the Fog of
Effective Clinical Practice Beyond
Traditional Semester Learning
P4
INTERNS AND THE INTERNSHIP
Greetings Fellow Members of the National Association
for Professional Development SchoolsAs I look outside and see spring in full bloom, it makes
me think of new beginnings. As members of NAPDS,
this is an exciting time of new beginnings.
New beginnings are usually accompanied by new
relationships. I was recently asked to describe what
I do in five words or less and after thinking for a long
while, I replied, “I facilitate and nurture relationships”.
The National Association for Professional Development
Schools is an organization like no other. The fact that
membership spans across so many different arenas,
including teacher candidates, teachers, school
administrators, representatives from state departments
of education, and higher education faculty, makes our
association unique and provides the opportunity to
develop relationships that are beneficial for all.
As we move into this new NAPDS year, it is important to
again help people understand how this year is different
than the years before. For the first time, NAPDS will stand
independently as an association, as well as host our own
conference in March 3-6, 2016 in Washington D.C. As an
association, we have depended on and appreciated the
support given through our relationship with the University
of South Carolina. This relationship has enabled us as
an association to now stand on our own.
As we look to the future, let us all take time to not only
continue to facilitate new relationships and nurture the
existing relationships that we have between P-12 and
higher education, but to also think about how we might
effectively include other stakeholders in the important
conversations around professional development school
work. By reaching out to our local, state, and national
legislators, we can begin to make PDS work a more
critical element in our country’s education conversation.
As professionals engaged in this work, we all have
very important perspectives that are vital in helping
to form current and future policy and reform. As an
association with the Nine Essentials to help guide our
work, we understand the impact of this work on teacher
preparation, professional development across schools
and teacher preparation programs, opportunities for
research and inquiry that impact practice, and most
importantly the positive impact on students across this
country and beyond. Let us continue to work together
to spread the word in our local educational communities
in an effort to build our association and the impact that
we can have on the national and international stage.
With valuable resources like the PDS Partners
Magazine, the School-University Partnerships Journal,
our new NAPDS.org website, and our upcoming
Washington D.C. conference March 3-6 at the
Doubletree in Crystal City, we enjoy the benefits of
a strong foundation, but we are looking for more this
year. As a member of the leadership team, I can tell
you that this is a very exciting time of growth. We
are looking to expand our membership and increase
our membership benefits to more fully support you as
NAPDS members. We are also looking to partner and
create synergies with others who have similar visions
in hopes to have a more profound impact on the field of
education and teacher preparation. We have big ideas
and big dreams, and with the inspiring commitment of
the leadership team members, there is a great deal to
be excited about.
I hope you are excited, and if you continue to have
questions, please contact me (President@napds.
org) to find answers. Again, this is a time of change
and the most important asset we have as we move
forward is the emphasis that we place on the important
relationships that we have with one another and the
new relationships that we hope to create to further the
NAPDS agenda.
I look forward to seeing you all in Washington D.C. in
March 2016.
Sincerely,
Marcy Keifer Kennedy
President, National Association of Professional
Development Schools.
PDS PARTNERS EDITORS
Ron Siers, Jr., Senior Editor, Salisbury University
Cathy Ramey, Assistant Editor, Mardela Middle and High School
Jenny McFadden, Assistant Editor, Salisbury University
INTERNS AND THE INTERNSHIP
Ron Siers, Jr., Salisbury University, [email protected]
Cathy Ramey, Mardela Middle and High School, [email protected]
PDS PARTNERS & PARTNERSHIPS
Coralee Smith, Buffalo State College, [email protected]
Ann Thomas, West Hertel Academy, [email protected]
PDS RESEARCHERS & RESEARCH
Ron Beebe, University of Houston-Downtown, [email protected]
Nicole Marker, Scarborough Elementary School, nmarker@
houstonisd.org
Authentic Service Learning:
A Foundational Practice for
Effective School-Community
Partnerships
P6
INTERNS AND THE INTERNSHIP
Collaboration: An Early Field Experience Co-Teaching Example
P8
PDS PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Building Community: Socialization
into the Partnership
P9
PDS PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Reforming Mathematics Education
through Partnership
PDS RESEARCHERS AND RESEARCH
Action Research Stimulates Deliberate Investigation at Professional
Development School
PDS RESEARCHERS AND RESEARCH
Comparing a PDS Yearlong Field
Experience With a Traditional
Field Experience Model: A Pilot
Study
PDS RESEARCHERS AND RESEARCH
PDS Evaluation Plan: Continuous
Improvement Cycle
PDS INQUIRIES AND IDEAS
The Money Is All Gone…Now
What Do We Do? One PDS
Partnership’s Approach to Sustainability
PDS AND ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS/ COMMUNITY SETTINGS
The Path of a Clinical Teacher
Preparation as a Conduit for
Innovation in Education
P12
P14
P16
P18
P20
PDS INQUIRIES & IDEAS
Karen Foster, Alabama A&M, [email protected]
Jennifer Douthit, MLK, Jr. Elementary School, jennifer.douthit@
hsv-k12.org
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & PDS
Belinda Karge, California State University-Fullerton, bkarge@
exchange.fullerton.edu
Helene Cunningham, Mariposa Elementary School, hcunningham@
bousd.k12.ca.us
PDS & ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS/COMMUNITY SETTINGS
JoAnne Ferrara, Manhattanville College, [email protected]
Barbara Terracciano, Thomas A. Edison Elementary School,
[email protected]
Amy Simmons, Thomas A. Edison Elementary School, asimmons@
portchesterschools.org
3
INTERNS AND
THE INTERNSHIP
Blurred Lines CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
the program is to build a solid foundation so the
participating children will begin their kindergarten
year with strong social skills and an understanding
of classroom routines and rules. JumpStart played
a key role to introduce and solidify the concept of
“school culture” that many of the students lacked.
in their prior experiences to enhance the current
JumpStart program.
It was decided by the authors that the NAEYC
student chapter members would be responsible for
designing several literacy activities that could be
differentiated and implemented with small groups
of students. Based on feedback from the current
JumpStart teachers at an orientation, the interns
embraced the task and created three activities
that would focus on improving letter and sound
recognition. The activities were:
• Bottle Cap Letter Matching (Figure 3): K
students match the upper and lower case letters
from one location to another.
• Wikki Stick Names and Letters: Using the
letters in their names, K students bend the
flexible wikki sticks into the letters.
• Name and Picture Cards: K students recognize
their classmates’ names/letters and match it to
a picture taken on the first day of JumpStart.
Figure 1: Collaboration Cycle
The other partner in this collaboration was a new but
energetic Towson University (Towson, Maryland)
student chapter of the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Chapter
members were asked to consider a valuable “field
experience” outside of the traditional internships
and “extend their learning” by partnering with
the current JumpStart program. The majority
of the student chapter members were interns in
the undergraduate early childhood education
program at Towson University and just finished
a robust spring semester of coursework and field
placements.
The authors were not sure if the appeal of more
teaching and assessment with young children
would be a strong enough draw for these preservice teachers. Could they be burned out
from traditional semester learning? Would
continuing in a different learning capacity be
seen as a value-added experience? Those
original concerns were pleasantly appeased as
the volunteer schedule was quickly filled with
three daily interns. Consequently, it was time to
empower them, in order to bring what they learned
Figure 2: JumpStart Schedule
The interns recorded notes about what they
observed during the three literacy activities. This
helped them to share insights based on student
performance. The information was recorded on a
shared document. Interns coming in the next day
were asked to review the shared document prior
to their scheduled time so they could be aware of
any adjustments.
New Partnership Adds Value
The partnership was equally valuable to the two
master Kindergarten teachers who developed the
JumpStart program and implemented it for eight
years. They benefited from having the extra help
in multiple ways. Interns helped transition the
kindergarten students into the classroom each
day by welcoming them, calming any anxieties,
and reading with them. While the teachers were
teaching the whole group, the interns sat with the
kindergarteners on the carpet, helping them to
sit appropriately and maintain focus. The interns
led the read aloud, allowing the teachers ample
time to observe the Kindergarten students during
instruction. Having an extra set of eyes making
anecdotal observations was always helpful; the
interns also made some behavioral observations
about the Kindergarteners and shared those
insights with the teachers.
In addition to their direct and active engagement
with the K students, the interns also benefited from
the opportunity to observe and co-teach with the
program’s master teachers in the new summer
setting.
You might ask, “But don’t they already get these
experiences in their current program?” Yes, it is
true that the intern volunteers have the opportunity
to design and implement developmentally
appropriate literacy and math learning activities
throughout their undergraduate coursework and
field experiences. The value-added component of
the JumpStart program enhanced their traditional
program by giving interns the chance to see Early
Childhood routines being established with the
Figure 3: Bottle Cap Letter Match
youngest learners. Depending on their program,
interns do not always have the chance to observe
and understand the typical Pre-K to Kindergarten
transitions in an established timeframe.
The pre and post JumpStart surveys completed by
the volunteer interns indicated that the time spent
during the summer months was well worth the
effort. The majority of survey respondents shared
an interest to participate in order “to gain more
experience teaching younger children” so that
they would “take what they learned in JumpStart
to the next level of their coursework and PDS
exposure.” Some qualitative comments captured
from the post survey indicated a positive experience:
“I found spending my summer break in the
JumpStart program a worthwhile experience,
because I was able to observe model teachers
assist young children as they adapted to their new
learning environment. As a new teacher, I was able
to get a better understanding of the importance of
assisting a new student’s adjustment to a new
classroom environment and a new routine.”
“I really enjoyed volunteering at Jump Start this
summer. Summer is usually a very busy time for
my family. When I was offered the opportunity
to volunteer at Jump Start, I could not pass it up,
even if it meant missing some family time.”
What Was Next for the Partnership? Was the
Blur Still There?
As they entered the second summer of the
partnership, there were some “clear” lessons
learned from the first venture that the authors’ felt
could enhance the program. Those adjustments
are included in table 1:
The Partnership Vision is Clear
At the end of its second summer, the authors of
the partnership wanted to reflect on their original
question--“Why does the PDS experience have to
stop at the end of the university semester?” After
looking at the successes of both summer
experiences, they were encouraged as they
witnessed the drive and enthusiasm of the student
chapter members who committed their time to the
JumpStart program. Though the summer months
are traditionally meant to be used as a “break” from
Blurred Lines CONTINUED ON PAGE 13
4
Authentic Service Learning: A Foundational Practice for
Effective School-Community Partnerships
Chris Widdall, Valerie Behr, Kim Wieczorek, State
University of New York College of Cortland
Jo-Anne Knapp, Caryl E. Adams Elementary School
"After performing service-learning hours
for this semester, I learned that servicelearning is more than volunteering.
Throughout my service learning this
semester, I learned what it means to apply
my knowledge toward the community
and to have a positive influence on
the community. For example, after
learning how to make and publish an
audiobook, I was happy to donate it to
my practicum classroom because I felt
like I had something positive to offer the
classroom community." (K. Kall, personal
communication, April 2013)
Taken from a pre-service teacher’s end of the
semester reflection, this excerpt highlights the
ways in which service learning can foster a healthy
professional development school partnership while
teaching pre-service students the importance of
making connections with their school community.
According to Dewey (1916/1944), the true
meaning of education is the “reconstruction or
and through the inclusion of other school staff along
with the cooperating teachers in becoming part of
the pre-service teaching experience (Greenburg,
Pomerance, & Walsh, 2011; Rodgers &Keil, 2007;
Zeichner, 2002), we have enhanced our preservice students’ field experiences. While our
PDS is still in its developmental phases, over the
last four years the college-school partnership has
grown through the use of authentic service learning
within one of our partnerships. In order to reach
this goal for high quality field placements within a
healthy partnership, authentic service learning is
included as an educational practice and was in fact
a foundational element that helped to develop the
Professional Development School partnerships
before its official formation in the fall of 2013.
Prior to the fall of 2013, several complex problems
prevented our partner school from taking a more
active role in preparing pre-service teachers. Like
many other schools, these issues included the
direct impacts of national educational reforms such
as the implementation of the Annual Professional
Performance Review (APPR) and Common Core
State Standards (CCSS), the progression of 21st
Century skills integration, and the school’s work
to meet a diversity of student and family needs.
AUTHENTIC SERVICE LEARNING
ALLOWED FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION AND
THEN REFLECTIONS ON THOSE ACTIONS
FROM ALL PARTNERS WITHIN THE
LARGER COMMUNITY.
reorganization of experience which adds to the
meaning of experience, and which increases ability
to direct the course of subsequent experience”
(p. 74). In translation, a key element to quality
education is continual engagement and reflection
on one’s own life experiences, to improve,
decipher, and/or realign the next experiences.
Conceptually connected to experiential learning
and foundational to authentic service learning,
Dewey’s ideas remain a core component of
the current Professional Development School
(PDS) partnership with the Whitney Point Central
School District (WPCSD) and the Childhood/Early
Childhood Department at the State University of
New York College at Cortland (SUNY Cortland).
SUNY Cortland’s childhood/early childhood
program, which is a large teacher preparation
program located in a rural area, began developing
PDS partnerships in 2010. By building on evidence
based practices such as utilizing whole school
placement sites, implementing community-based
field experiences, requiring university supervision,
The adoption of authentic service learning as
an instructional practice allowed stakeholders
to address several complex problems that
all partnership parties were experiencing. As
the partners discussed ways to meet these
challenges, authentic service learning was
considered a positive approach to begin looking
at ways to solve the problems at hand. Authentic
service learning allowed for immediate action and
then reflections on those actions from all partners
within the larger community. It also encouraged
cooperative learning, promoted skills of teamwork
and citizenship, and generated deeper meaning
at a personal level for all participants (Eyler &
Giles, 1999; Natale, 2011). Teachers and school
personnel were far more open to service learning
components versus simple field observations
due to the nature of the work. Authentic service
learning was built within the context of course
syllabi and connected projects that could meet
the college course objectives while addressing
the host teacher’s needs for classroom support.
Service learning activities allowed students,
teachers, and parents to witness outcomes from
school partnerships through events, their own
students, and classroom members’ engagement,
which is not always the case in field observations.
The partnership, with service learning as
its foundation, began with cooperative and
collaborative opportunities for practicum teachers
to contribute directly through academically
embedded service learning. Projects and authentic
service learning opportunities at first centered on
technology integration, such as the creation of short
movies featuring classroom students for Open
House events. The movies were a great success
with pre-service teachers, school-age students,
parents, and teachers. Pre-service teachers were
able to see the immediate excitement children have
while showing their loved ones their daily school
activities through film. The movie activity allowed
all to work collaboratively, use 21st Century Skills,
engage in new technologies, and create a product
that was used for student, parent, and practicum
teacher engagement. Cooperating teachers also
saved these products to use as part of the memory
walk as the school year ended.
As trust grew between college faculty and the
partnering school faculty, further service learning
was embedded within the practicum experience.
The inclusion of the writing and illustration of
flyers for teachers to send home about academic
programming, the use of practicum teachers as
guest readers for family literacy events, and the
implementation of lessons with constructivist,
student-centered experiments and activities for
full day teaching events. Immersion into the
school climate and community continue to be
created through several service learning/teaching
opportunities that include regular classroom
instruction, after-school tutoring services, handson community activities, curriculum servicelearning initiatives, specialized math/reading
events, and full day teaching and immersion
opportunities. These avenues of service through
immersion allow in-class and alternative teaching
opportunities, a component that is vital in the
partnership as the implementation of the CCSS
and teacher evaluation systems like the APPR limit
classroom teaching opportunities for practicum
students (Greenburg, et al., 2011).
Approaching the fourth year of our PDS
development, we now offer ongoing service
learning opportunities. These augment the health
of this partnership. When we started in 2010, we
placed three pre-service teachers in buildings
within the K-6 setting. In 2014, we placed 73
students in this same k-6 setting. As noted before,
as we continued to offer service learning, our host
teachers were able to see the value of pre-service
practicum teachers, which increased our ability to
secure clinically rich field experiences.
As the partnership began to grow, some preliminary
data was collected during the 2011 and 2012
5
school years. Data showed that over 385 service
hours were completed in connection to the several
service-learning activities/projects generated
during the practicum student placements. As a
more formal partnership was being considered,
more detail about the service learning activities
was collected in the spring of 2013; 20 practicum
students within the WPCSD had completed
approximately 241 hours of service learning
activities. Reflections by practicum teachers and
evaluations by host teachers indicated positive
outcomes and a desire to continue the service
learning activities.
Mutually Beneficial: Outcomes as a PDS
In the fall of 2013, the WPCSD and SUNY
Cortland Childhood/Early Childhood program
signed a PDS agreement placing one single block
of students together in the WPCSD Elementary
building with grades PreK-3, for both the fall and
spring semesters. Data collected indicated that 44
students completed 678 hours of service learning
to the school community and PDS partnership
in the 2013-2014 school year. The service
learning activities include supporting multiple
evening or weekend events such as Beddie
Bye Reading, Math Nights, Science Nights,
Celebration of Young Children, Fundraising
Carnival, updating classroom teacher’s websites,
participating in after school tutoring, and several
other independent activities arranged with host
teachers.
However, along with these community and
classroom based activities, there were
several technology enriched service learning
activities included, so that pre-service teachers
could learn, create and then help teach their
cooperating teachers new 21st century skills,
while cooperating teachers could monitor content
and learning outcomes. Examples of these
technology enriched authentic service learning
projects included: showcasing classroom
activities with movie creations for parents, 40
audio books for in school use for students with
IEPs, 38 informational fliers for educational
enrichment or community tasks announcements,
mobile learning activities embedded into Read
Across America day, iPad mentoring, helping
host teachers build their classroom websites,
and 33 technology enriched educational gaming
activities. The combination created an authentic
service learning community with a professional
development connection.
More exciting than the raw numbers were the
connections in learning that was developed
by the students, as was evidenced in almost
every reflection completed at the end of the
terms. To share all would be laborious, but
without some evidence of purposeful learning
outcomes, the use of authentic service learning
as an educational instruction practice might
be obscure. So in brief, from a few practicum
students, we heard the following: “Authentic
service learning was a great way to get in touch
with the community around the school. It makes
real and positive connections for everyone who is
involved.” “While taking part in different service
learning opportunities through my observation
placement, I have learned the importance of
really working with my host teacher. I have also
discussed with my host teacher how we both felt
the event went, and how to make future attempts
better.” “I have seen how service learning can
reap great benefits. As a teacher, it is important
to communicate and collaborate with the people
in the community and that includes parents.”
“Participating in service learning activities such
as Parents as Reading Partners, Math Night,
and Science Day allowed me to see how these
activities benefit not only students but the school
community and parents as well.”
In addition to service learning opportunities, our
PDS partnership offers professional development
workshops, such as a Co-teaching Workshop with
Marilyn Friend and Teaching with Poverty in Mind
with Eric Jensen. Teaching candidates also have
professional development opportunities from the
host school, such as their recent attendance at
an after-school workshop about proctoring state
standardized examinations for students with
mandated and documented test accommodations,
along with attendance to an Open House
Community Meeting on their new anti-bullying
polices.
Building an ongoing beneficial sense of
professionalism means faculty members and host
teachers working side by side, aiming for the same
goals for themselves and their shared profession
of teaching. In an interview with one of our Host
Teachers (personal communication, April 2013),
she highlighted this relationship by expressing her
thankfulness for the partnership between SUNY
Cortland and WPCSD and its impact on the school
community by stating,
"I would just like to say how grateful I
am to have this relationship with SUNY
Cortland. You know our district has this
stigma for being ‘hickville’ and so….I am
just thinking about the fall festival, and
the carnival, literacy night, and PTA Night
Out….when parents see SUNY Cortland
students coming they have a renewed
respect for us because it is not just this
little farm school; it is where people are
coming to learn because we are good
teachers."
Stakeholders within this developing Professional
Development School model are continuing to
research the effectiveness of these unique
authentic service-learning components in their
partnership. As the partnership moves forward,
we are seeking ways to capture what seems
often unattainable numerical data on how our
partnerships affect the learning outcomes of the
students. Furthermore, together we are also
progressing toward implementation of additional
best practices such as co-teaching classrooms
for student teachers (Bacharach, 2010).
However, we continue to advocate for authentic
service-learning as an educational practice within
the partnership.
Ongoing Conclusions
Authentic service learning is more than just
giving teaching candidates tasks to do to feel
good about themselves. Service learning
allows all participants to generate meaningful
and emotional connections that will allow for
deeper learning and life-long skills that can
promote citizenship throughout any community.
When a child says to you, “Thank you so much
for trusting me,” or a parent says, “It is exciting
to see what our children can do,” or a young
teaching candidate notes, “I never dreamed that
being a teacher was about being such an active
part of the community,” you know the spirit of
service has planted a seed in tomorrow’s future.
Educational partnerships that allow authentic
service learning to flourish can be the rich soil
in which these seeds can grow. Within the
context of partnerships for effective Professional
Development Schools to grow, authentic service
learning seems essential.
Principal Knapp noted that the mutual benefits of
the partnership are many and worthy of an article
of their own. As a partner school, Knapp stated, we
embrace the opportunity to have the pre-teacher
candidates in the classroom providing small
groups and individual targeted support in reading
and math. Relationships are built between the
candidates and students that are vital to a climate
of trust and risk-taking in learning. Also gratifying
is the community of teachers, administrators,
teaching candidates, and faculty members who
work together.
Faculty members, teachers and administrators
walk the hallways of the schools where they
place teaching candidates together and see
daily work that inspires them. With the current
pressures in educational reform, host teachers
may forget about the extraordinary things they
do in terms of literacy, math, and interaction with
the world created for their young students and for
teaching candidates placed in their classrooms.
Faculty members and the schools’ administrative
leadership team feel it necessary to remind such
excellent educators of the impact they are having.
This is central to the health of this partnership, and
authentic service learning is helping all parties
engage in the continuing practice to promote such
excellence.
Practicum student Michel Logan (personal
communication, April 2013), a second semester
Junior, noted this in his final reflection, summarizing
well the contents of this paper and the partnership
members’ thoughts on authentic service learning
as a viable component in our PDS partnership:
"By encouraging service learning,
educators become open to a vast
resource of other educators and staff,
which ultimately aid in the understanding
of more beneficial practices and
pedagogies to better the education of
our students. With national educational
reforms on the rise, including Annual
Authentic Service Learning CONTINUED ON PAGE 21
6
Collaboration: An Early Field Experience Co-Teaching Example
Curtis Nielsen, University of Northern Iowa
Matthew Switzer, BCLUW Schools
teams and offered to these teacher candidates his
expertise in all areas of teaching.
Introduction
Context
Co-teaching has been a staple in the special
education field for many years. Schools
customarily use co-teaching as a practical solution
to serve students with Individualized Education
Plans (IEPs), allowing these students to complete
their full school day with their classmates in the
regular classroom. Murawski (2005) describes
co-teaching as professional teachers instructing
a diverse group of students in a single space.
Explanations for this programmatic structure have
included, among others, needed socialization and
academic accommodations for the IEP student.
However, when one looks at a co-teaching model
from a teacher point of view, one finds that a
significant piece of co-teaching is collaboration.
In fact, Chapman and Hyatt (2011) claim that
effectiveness of co-teaching depends on the
collaboration that exists between the co-teachers.
Additionally Murawski (2005) states, “Co-teaching
requires parity and the knowledge that both
partners’ expertise will be valued” (p. 80). Just as
any world-class orchestra makes beautiful music,
co-teachers that are in sync and exhibit parity in
their work create an atmosphere where students
can thrive and grow academically, socially and
behaviorally.
In the Fall of 2013 a graduate level course, “CoTeaching and Early Field Experiences” was offered
for teachers from the school. The course, taught
at the school by the field experience coordinator
assigned to the school, included 12 teachers.
The course introduced the basic concepts of
co-teaching and culminated with each teacher
creating a plan that would allow them to facilitate
a pair or collaborate with a Level 2 student in a
co-teaching arrangement. A sixth grade teacher
asked to be assigned two Level 2 students so
that he could implement his plan. This plan will
be explained in An Example of the Level 2 CoTeaching Experience section of this paper.
Teacher Candidates
The teacher candidates that participated in this
co-teaching experience were at the sophomore
level and accepted into the teacher education
program at the University of Northern Iowa. They
have completed the first of four levels and were
currently in Level 2. The requirements for the Level
2 student include:
• participation in a classroom for minimum of 25
hours with a certified teacher
… WE BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THIS EXPERIENCE TEACHER CANDIDATES HAVE ACQUIRED THE BEGINNINGS OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF COLLABORATIVE TEACHING.
The creation of positive collaboration between
co-teachers does not come easily. Give and
take on the part of each of the co-teachers is
a must and the focus of the collaboration must
be on student progress. How does one learn
and experience collaboration as a teacher?
The authors believe this central question
has a simple answer. Having a collaborative
experience early on in the teacher education
program affords teacher candidates firsthand
knowledge of co-teaching. Teacher candidates
must experience it to be able to learn about
co-teaching effectively. You can’t teach
collaboration from a typical textbook-driven
university classroom setting.
This paper will explain a process which early field
experience teacher candidates, sophomores,
were involved with in the Fall of 2013 and Spring
of 2014 in a mid-western elementary school.
A sixth grade classroom teacher served as the
mentor teacher of these collaborative co-teaching
• planning, teaching and reflecting on two lessons
during the experience
• completion of a teacher work sample reflecting
on all parts of the field experience and applying
theory to the practice of teaching
Additionally, during this field placement the
Level 2 students participate in once-a-week
Level 2 PLC meeting with their Field Experience
Coordinator. These meetings were designed to
replicate the PLC process the classroom teachers
conducted weekly. The typical PLC meeting
at this school is organized at the grade level
and is concentrated on data of those particular
grade level students. However, the Level 2 PLC
meetings were designed to follow one of three
generative topics which lend focus to the Level
2 PLC meetings. These topics were classroom
management, instructional strategies and student
motivation. These topics also coincided with a
weekly blog journal students completed during this
six-week field experience.
Field Experience Coordinator
The Field Experience Coordinator is responsible
to make placements for students in classrooms,
observes teacher candidates working with K-12
students, assists teacher candidates with lesson
plans, serves as a liaison from the university to the
school and teaches graduate level courses per the
needs of the school’s staff. These full-time, university
faculty serve multi-faceted roles within the school.
Teacher Candidates Placement
When the teacher candidate registers for the Level
2 class they are required to complete an electronic
general information form. Information such as,
name, email, phone, previous placement, requests
they may have and an information section that gives
teacher candidates an opportunity to provide other
information about themselves. Most importantly, the
form asks for their Level 1 placement. This is key
because teacher candidates are required by the
State to have a wide range of experiences during
their matriculation. It is important to not place the
teacher candidate at the same grade level or school
as their Level 1 experience. Typically if the Level 2
student had a placement in lower elementary for
Level , then they are placed in an upper elementary
classroom for Level 2. In this co-teaching process
the random selection of teacher candidates is
tangentially dependent on their previous experience.
During the first week of the Level 2 class the Field
Experience Coordinator met on campus with
all Level 2 students in seminar-type meetings.
At the seminar meetings the Field Experience
Coordinator provided the Level 2 students with
general information about the field experience and
some introductory teaching strategies. Within this
period of time the random selection of students
for the co-teaching field experience takes place.
The Field Experience Coordinator sends each of
these Level 2 students an email explaining their
placement and the co-teaching process. They
can opt out of the co-teaching experience if they
choose. The Level 2 student is asked to send
a confirmation email back if they would like to
participate in the co-teaching experience.
An Example of the Level 2 Co-Teaching
Experience
Level 2 field experience students were partnered
in this co-teaching model with a mentor teacher
who had taken the “Co-Teaching in Early Field
Experiences” class. The intent was to guide and
direct the Level 2 lessons and participation through
the co-teach model. Prior to the field experience,
the sixth grade teacher made an initial contact
with the Level 2 students via email, explaining the
objectives and expectations of their co-teaching
time in class. The email is as follows:
Miss _____ and Miss ______,
I am excited to be your mentor teacher for
your Level II learning experience. Really,
7
I see my role more as a lead learner with
you as there are some things I want
to learn as we work together in your
teaching experience. Here are some of
the things I will throw at you and work with
you in the next 6 weeks:
•Planning and teaching with 6th grade
English/ Language Arts curriculum
from the Iowa Core, specifically,
Reading Literature standards.
•Integrating technology and 21st
century skills into our lessons.
•Finding a rigorous and relevant
lesson, and assessing learning.
Take a look through those resources and
be ready to rock! Some things I’d also like
you to consider
I think it would be extremely valuable for
you to start my classes every morning
you’re here (this is not required, but a
fantastic and easy way to get in front of
the kids and get experience starting a
classroom day)- which means I’d need
you here around 8:40 Mon/Wed/Fri. The
students go to Specials at 8:55.
We will plan your lessons on days that
you are not in the weekly PLC meeting
from 9 am - 9:30 am. I will plan on having
you work with small groups of students
in reading. Your lessons will involve
beginning a new novel with these 6th
graders. That puts us about 3-4 weeks
of planning until your lessons.
Since there are two of you in this
experience, part of our focus will be
learning how to use co-teaching as a
delivery model for instruction. We’ll work
on this together.
Finally, let’s do our lessons on Google
Docs so we can collaborate and make
comments as we build the lesson plan. I
can help you with Docs if you need it
(please give me commenting rights, that’s
the best way for me to give you feedback
and ask questions).
Thanks! I am excited! Let me know if you
have comments, questions or concerns.
During the field experience, the teacher
candidates had an opportunity to plan between
two and three times per week with the mentor
teacher. These planning sessions involve
discussing a particular model of co-teaching and
how the mentor teacher would model a method in
class. Teacher candidates created lesson plans
using Google Docs, and shared the document
with the cooperating teacher. This allowed the
mentor teacher to provide continuous feedback
on lesson objectives, classroom management and
lesson pacing, along with generalized comments
on small group work, literacy, and technology.
Keeping a written feedback loop with times for
verbal reflection with a mentor teacher and the
field experience coordinator is an intentional piece
in the Level 2 experience.
After the common planning time, the mentor
teacher would assign each teacher candidate a
small group of students to work with on specific
literacy objectives relating to the common
core. After the small group work, the mentor
teacher again met with the teacher candidates to
discuss the lessons. The small group work leads to
models of co-teaching, where the mentor teacher
would work with a large group of students while
teacher candidates would parallel teach, support,
alternate, team, or station teach.
The mentor teacher modeling occurs during the
first three to four weeks of the experience, with
continuous opportunities for feedback and reflection.
Teacher candidates are also planning four lessons
during this time for teaching in the final two weeks
of the experience. The four lessons attempt to
introduce and assess a skill using no more than two
co-teaching models. The teacher candidates have
the opportunity to utilize the mentor teacher in the
lessons, although this is not a requirement. Lessons
are observed by the field experience coordinator
and mentor teacher. After each lesson, teacher
candidates again have the opportunity to reflect on
the lesson with both the field experience coordinator
and mentor teacher. During the reflection time,
teacher candidates are given a chance to change or
modify the following lesson as needed.
What Was Learned?
The collaboration between the randomly selected
Level 2 partnerships varied. Level 2 co-teaching
pairs that exhibited a strong collaborative
connection tended to converse outside of class via
Facebook, Twitter, email and during face to face
meetings on lesson topics and experiences they
had in the classroom. Some even shared rides
to and from the field experience school. Lessons
were typically well thought out and planned. The
co-teaching lessons typically modeled a format
which Mastropieri and McDuffie (2007) called,
“one teach, one assist” (p. 392). As the lessons
progressed it was not uncommon for the Level
2 student “assisting” to interject a comment and
the two would then adjust their roles to match
with what the 6th grade students needed at that
moment. In these cases collaboration could be
called very sophisticated given the brief time the
Level 2 students had been in contact.
In some cases the randomly selected Level 2
students exhibited group effort that was less
than collaborative. In these cases the first sign
of difficulty was when Level 2 partnerships
struggled with co-planning and reported rarely
communicating outside of their field experiences.
Being able to efficiently work together during
lesson delivery was then nearly impossible.
It would seem reasonable that what we have seen
in the Level 2 co-teaching partnerships from this
one classroom experience could be consistent
with what one may see in new, randomly selected
partnerships of certified teachers in schools
across the country. Murawski (2005) believes
that co-teaching is like a marriage that takes trust
and communication to be effective. Likewise in a
co-teaching experience Cook and Friend (1995)
endorse voluntary co-teaching partnerships to
increase the chances of their effectiveness. A sixweek experience with pre-service teachers who
are randomly paired in a required class certainly
has its limitations on the formal advancement
teacher candidate knowledge of co-teaching.
However, when we examine our initial question,
How does one learn and experience collaboration
as a teacher,? we believe that through this
experience teacher candidates have acquired the
beginnings of an understanding of collaborative
teaching.
What’s Next?
The next logical step for this process is to conduct
exit interviews specific to the Level 2 co-teaching
model explained here. Currently there exists
a survey that all Level 2 students complete
following the conclusion of their field experience.
This survey does not specifically address a coteaching experience. Gaining the views of the
co-teaching Level 2 experience from participating
teacher candidates and mentor teacher points of
view could be invaluable to the future direction of
this procedure. This information could be used
to adjust, modify and adapt the experience both
in regards to the role of the teacher candidates,
mentor teacher and the field experience
coordinator.
Finally, in the future we hope to specifically look at
the experience with the goal of making this process
more contextually adaptable and available to more
teacher candidates.
References
Chapman, C. & Hyatt, C. H. (2011). Critical
conversations in co-teaching: A problem
solving approach. Bloomington, IN.
Solution Tree Press.
Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching:
Guidelines for creating effective practices.
Focus on Exceptional Children 28(3), 1-16.
Mastropieri, M.A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of
qualitative research. Exceptional Children
73(4), 392-416.
Murawski, W.W. (2005). Addressing diverse needs
through co-teaching: Take baby steps!
Kappa Delta Pi, Winter, 77-82.
Curtis Nielsen is an Assistant Professor at the
University of Northern Iowa; he can be reached
at [email protected]. Matthew Switzer is
the Director of Curriculum and Innovation for
the BCLUW Schools in Conrad, Iowa; he can be
reached at [email protected]. ■
8
PDS PARTNERS AND
PARTNERSHIPS
Building Community: Socialization into the Partnership
Cassandra Caruso-Woolard, Susan Kiger, Della
Thacker, Bradley Countermine, Indiana State
University
Robin Thoma, Vigo County Schools
Indiana State University’s productive PDS
partnership with Vigo County Schools is built on
mutual trust, common goals, and a deep respect
for the expertise brought by each partner. Our
teacher candidates are “immersed” into extended,
truly clinical field experiences equally mentored by
classroom teachers, education faculty including
teaching graduate assistants, and content
discipline faculty. In the immersive field experience,
candidates teach and document impact on student
learning through a work sample that challenges
the candidates to carefully examine, defend, and
refine practices on the basis of outcomes data.
Candidates also work in the school-at-large to
encounter the school as a learning community
wholly dedicated across disciplines to supporting
P-12 student achievement.
effective instructional experiences for the P-12
students at the hosting sites. Furthermore, our
partner collaboration team co-planned and carried
out an orientation experience for hosting teachers
to introduce the immersive field experiences, to
share the activities and documentation that was to
proceed in and from the experiences, to share the
mechanisms by which campus-based faculty would
rotate to the various sites continuously throughout
the immersive experience, and to ensure that
a continuous loop of evaluative feedback to
improve our program was in place. Although
more typical, periodic feedback mechanisms
were to be used, we stressed the value of having
immediate insights shared that would enable
us to be quickly responsive where needed. Of
equal importance, and by virtue of campus-based
faculty rotating through the various field sites, we
were also positioned to share those insights with
others in informal conversations so that multiple
perspectives could be gained in service of
delivering a widely-informed response. Moreover,
… WE HAD ESTABLISHED AN ONGOING
BASIS FOR TRUST AND A SENSE OF
COMMUNITY.
Central to our work is the contribution of
classroom teachers who have joined our ranks
as clinical faculty associates (CFAs) functioning
as educational affiliates to the university. Critically
important to ensuring the most positive culture
within our partnership, the relationship established
with our CFAs continues through the years as
they play a pivotal role in jointly socializing new
faculty and teaching graduate assistants into the
learning community. Given the intensive nature of
our immersive field experiences, new faculty and
teaching graduate assistants must experience a
timely and smooth transition into expected roles
in order to best meet the needs of our teacher
candidates and the P-12 population we serve.
The socialization process and roles carried out
to ensure the success of new faculty, graduate
assistants, and CFAs is essential to safeguard
best practices that are innovative and applicable.
Therefore, our PDS practices are a shared
commitment among our joint faculty, clinical faculty
associates, graduate assistants, and candidates.
Means of socializing new members into the
partnership has it antecedents in processes
established at the inception of revitalization
efforts for the partnership. At 10 years into the
partnership, grant funding allowed partners to
collaboratively envision and refine practices. Of
critical importance was development of vertically
and horizontally articulated immersive field
experiences that would result in teacher candidates
being more pragmatically engaged and coherently
mentored through a developmentally responsive
program; the outcome being seamless and highly
changes internal to our schools/university and
external in the form of legislative edicts were
immediately responded to and enfolded into the
curriculum for teacher candidates. What we
found from having co-created this program and
ensuring a well-informed, collegial, collaborative,
and continuous presence onsite was that we
had established an ongoing basis for trust and
a sense of community. What we also found was
that bringing new faculty into the fold, whether
that was a school-based faculty, campus-based
faculty, or a teaching assistant from among the
graduate assistants, was a transition smoothed
by mentoring from among all the members of this
learning community.
As new members join the community, they
are engaged through direct introductions and
planning activities, through the transparency of
information, and through immediate involvement in
collaborative deliberations among partners eager
to welcome and inform the new colleague. This is
seen as indispensable in providing a true school–
university culture that incorporates and promotes
such a dynamic team. Through participating in the
ongoing, joint deliberation of the objectives for each
program level, new members assist in ensuring a
smooth transition that scaffolds teacher candidate
knowledge based on real world competency
promoted in the immersive experience. The
engagement of this teamwork permeates each
class of our program at the introductory level,
through the middle school level, and onto the high
school level to ensure our candidates are prepared
for their student teaching experience.
In the presence of community, such as we have
been so careful to create and maintain, socialization
is intentional. Teacher candidates are treated as
evolving professionals and developing colleagues,
not simply as students in a class. Both on-campus
and field-based activities and debriefing discussions,
mentored equally by university and public school
faculties, focus on theory to practice applications
and emphasize data-based decision making as it
occurs in the classroom. For example, after rigorous
co-planning with our partners, teacher candidates
are pragmatically assigned to an experienced host
teacher to plan, teach, assess, and remediate a
unit of instruction. Teacher candidates produce
a reflective work sample based on that teaching
experience that documents impact on student
learning. Through debriefing with host teachers
and campus-based faculty, candidates carefully
examine, defend, and refine practices on the
basis of outcomes data. Additionally, the teacher
candidate experiences the school as a learning
community through a number of structured activities
and participates as a co-teacher in the classroom.
Before, during, and after these experiences, teacher
candidates are methodically debriefed via classroom
discussions, formal and informal evaluations, and
individual meetings. These required consultations
enhance and embrace the field experience, building
reflexive capacity for our teacher candidates. And
it is through these activities and discussions in
which teacher candidates participate as active
members of the learning community that constitute
our partnership. They experience, first hand, that we
are a school–university culture that is “committed to
the preparation of future educators that embraces
their active engagement in the school community” as
stated in the nine essentials of PDS. Moreover, they
witness the teaming that is central to our partnership,
and to their future practice as teachers, and come to
understand that through responsible participation in
the activities and discussions, they join this culture.
However, our immersive experiences do not end
at student teaching, and our efforts to promote
professional collaboration and mentoring continue.
To warrant unification and retention among our
students, our program will implement an additional
component to further augment the already
immersive experience by promoting a mentorship
capacity among all colleagues. Colleagues Helping
Implement Lifelong Learning (CHILL) will provide
unification and a smooth transition among all
classes and practica through the student teaching
experience and, perhaps, beyond. The mission
of CHILL is for teacher candidates in our program
to take the lead in helping each other build further
a community of professionalism, leadership, and
collaboration through a cross-curricular, crossgenerational approach. This is yet another
example of our continuous efforts to maintain best
practices that determines student success.
The CHILL component of our program will
enhance the immersive experience and call
our teacher candidates to action to lead a
Building Community CONTINUED ON PAGE 22
9
Reforming Mathematics Education through Partnership
David R. Snow, Montana State University Billings
Jeri Heard, Highland Elementary School
Dean Lapke, Highland Elementary School
It’s Monday morning in a classroom on the
campus of Montana State University Billings
(MSUB). Small groups of college students are
handed email printouts that prompt a flurry of
discussion, and their determined conversation
easily fills the 90-minute session. Like so many
other Professional Development School (PDS)
partnership programs, the level of engagement
experienced by these students today is so powerful
that these moments will eclipse all other moments
they will spend in this classroom.
These college students are teaching candidates
enrolled in MSUB’s elementary math methods
course, and the emails that inspire so much
thought and activity are provided by classroom
teachers at Highland Elementary, MSUB’s
partner school. Each email directs a small group
of candidates to prepare a lesson on indicated
content, and it describes the exposure that
is needed (e.g. introduction, exploration, or
review). From this information the small group of
candidates is charged with designing an engaging
30-minute lesson that they will, in turn, deliver to
a small group of Highland students on the coming
Wednesday morning.
During the Wednesday sessions at Highland, the
classroom teacher, university course instructor,
and the building principal will observe the small
group lessons, and will provide feedback to
encourage reflection and to inform the next round
of lessons. The candidates will visit Highland six
times during the semester. All involved report
that the program experience is a positive one
for the candidates, the host teachers, and the
students. The empirical study of these outcomes
is underway.
PDS and Mathematics Education
Like many teacher preparation institutions,
MSUB has embraced a largely traditional
approach to field experiences for its pre-service
candidates. With only a few exceptions, like
the Highland partnership, these traditional
practices continue. Elementary education majors
begin field experiences, including observation
and tutoring, early in their programs. These
experiences eventually lead to traditional student
teaching placements in which the candidates are
encouraged to demonstrate teaching proficiency
by emulating their host teachers.
Although there are a variety of advantages
and disadvantages associated with traditional
field experience models like the one that MSUB
employs, it is particularly obvious that the quality of
mathematics instruction suffers. Most elementary
education majors (like most adults) are less
comfortable with mathematics than they are with
other subject areas. For this reason, the process
of merely emulating host teachers perpetuates a
system that has produced so much math anxiety.
Even in cases where the host teacher is a good
math teacher, which is often true, the pre-service
teacher, who is uncomfortable with math teaching,
is likely to identify and adopt the most superficial
aspects of a given lesson. Common practices
such as show-and-do instruction, practice problem
sets, and review games are seen by candidates
as ways to help students prepare for standardized
tests, but shallow engagement on the part of the
students does little to encourage the depth of
understanding necessary for a strong foundation
in mathematics.
This is why MSUB embarked on an effort to
reform math methods instruction in the fall of
2013. The partnership was established with
Highland with the primary goal of creating a
shared vision of how mathematics should be
taught in schools. Not only did this new program
force the teaching candidates to face the realities
of life in classrooms (a universal advantage of
PDS interventions), but it vastly increased the
number of people who could inform the shared
vision. Inclusion of a variety of stakeholders
(classroom teachers, the building principal, school
district personnel, the university methods course
instructor, and the candidates themselves) has
created an open forum for discussions around
what good math teaching is, and it has created a
mechanism that encourages steady improvement
in teacher preparation and instruction. All of
the stakeholders report that the program has
encouraged more and better discussions around
what is becoming a shared vision for good math
instructional practices.
Shared Vision
As the program began, we encountered some
difficulties in developing a shared vision for
mathematics instruction. The trouble seemed to
reside in the different perspectives embraced by
our partner institutions. Tradition dictates that the
university attends to a theoretical perspective as
the basis for more practical discussions about
classroom strategies and approaches. On the
other hand, school personnel are encouraged
by day-to-day realities to embrace appealing
strategies that are presented to them in the form of
instructional programs and materials. Although the
ultimate goal of good teaching is apparent in each
of these perspectives, pre-service candidates are
likely to perceive them as oppositional.
It is important to note that the pre-service
candidates are likely to sense this opposition
keenly because these varying perspectives are
the foundation of their performance evaluations.
The candidates are graded on lesson design
and implementation in their methods courses,
and they will be evaluated again as student
teachers and eventually as professionals. Any
significant change in the evaluation framework
will encourage the candidates to reject prior
perspectives rather than to embrace anything
new as welcomed enrichment. It was determined,
therefore, that a shared vision of good math
teaching would help us to avoid this problem
and to bring more continuity to the candidates’
teacher preparation.
We were eventually able to find our shared
vision by looking first to the school district
efforts to improve student math scores. A series
of programs have been recently adopted and
each has been well-received by the classroom
teachers at Highland. For example, the teachers
have embraced a new program that has their
students brainstorming and explaining a variety
of approaches to solving math problems. The
challenge was to encapsulate this program
along with other new programs in an evaluative
instrument that would be robust enough to include
the specific characteristics of existing and future
programs while still meeting the functional needs
of the host teachers and candidates. The result of
this effort is the Engagement Rubric presented in
Table 1.
The observation upon which the Engagement
Rubric is constructed is that student cognitive
engagement in mathematical concepts should be
the goal of every lesson design. This observation
was clearly supported by the activity preferences
of the Highland teachers, and it is equally
well supported from a theoretical perspective.
Although it is common to hear discussion around
more specific design goals that encourage
engagement (e.g. the use of certain technologies
or grouping strategies), we also recognize that
the mere use of these specific strategies in no
way assures student engagement. Use of the
rubric, therefore, requires the user to consider a
much wider range of information in assessing the
potential for student engagement (when it is used
to gauge the quality of lesson plans) and actual
student engagement (when it is used to gauge
lesson implementation).
A set of short example lesson descriptions should
help to illustrate the continuum defined by the
Engagement Rubric:
Level 1: Students working in small groups
are asked to color appropriate regions of
geometric shapes to represent fractions
with step-by-step instructions provided
by the teacher. (Note that the student
engagement here is likely to be in the
coloring, not in the mathematics.)
Level 2: Students working in small groups
are being shown how to draw a picture
of a fraction, then asked to draw one of
their own at a level of equal complexity.
(Note that the engagement here is likely
to be toward emulating the teacher’s
example rather than thinking deeply
about fractions.)
Level 3: Students are given an introductory
presentation about fractions, then asked
to work in small groups to draw a set
10
Table 1: Mathematics Engagement* Level Rubric
Engagement
Level
1
No Mathematical
Engagement
2
Minimal Mathematical
Engagement Across the
Lesson
3
Moderate Mathematical
Engagement Across the
Lesson
4
Frequent Mathematical
Engagement Across the
Lesson
5
Continual Mathematical
Engagement Across the
Lesson
Quantification
Description
It appears as though about no
student time is being / will be
spent engaged in mathematics.
These are often activity designs in which instruction is being delivered to passive and likely
disinterested learners (e.g. lecture, rote memorization, or choral response), or designs in which the
focus is directed away from cognitive engagement in target math concepts (e.g. students coloring
shapes instead of thinking about their attributes, or students involved in extensive data collection
activities without being asked to consider data collection protocol or analyses).
It appears as though about a
quarter of student time is being
/ will be spent engaged in
mathematics.
These are often activity designs in which the teacher and/or a few students can carry the
activity load (e.g. show-and-do instruction, interactive lecture and demonstrations, whole-class
questioning) or designs in which the students are active but left largely unchallenged with respect
to math concepts (e.g. repetitive practice, review games/competitions).
It appears as though about half
of student time is being / will be
spent engaged in mathematics.
These are often activity designs that are built around significant student challenges but do not take
full advantage of their potential to engage students in target math concepts (e.g. projects or labs
that provide a few moments during which students are challenged to think deeply about math),
or designs which present a small variety of challenges grouped into repetitive-practice categories
(e.g. problem sets with several small sets of similar problems).
It appears as though about
three quarters of student time is
being / will be spent engaged in
mathematics.
These are rich activity designs that provide multiple opportunities for students to be challenged
(e.g. designs in which students repeatedly analyze, synthesize, interpret, present, discuss, and/
or debate challenging target math concepts). A carefully designed problem set representing an
appropriate and rigorous progression of challenges would fit into this category.
It appears that about all student
time is being / will be spent
engaged in mathematics.
These include any number of rich activity designs that provide many opportunities for students to
be engaged while also providing the teacher with mechanisms through which the students can be
more deeply challenged throughout activity implementation.
* “Mathematical engagement” here is defined as students thinking deeply about mathematical concepts, the connections between mathematical concepts, and
the ramifications of their newfound knowledge.
of different fractions with one or two
challenging problems appearing at the
end of the set. (Note that there is deep
engagement here, but it only appears
toward the end of the lesson.)
Level 4: Students working in small groups
are asked to illustrate each fraction in
a challenging progression of different
fractions, then asked to submit their final
drawings for a grade. (Note that some
mechanisms for encouraging greater
depth of thought are avoided in this
design. Not asking the students to explain
or defend their work, for example, is a
missed opportunity.)
Level 5: Students in small groups are
provided with fractions paired with
representations, and they are asked to
provide explanations for the numerator
and denominator and how they affect
the representation. Students are then
asked to present their explanations to the
teacher or to the class. (Note that the task
here is not more difficult than those at the
other levels, but it does have the students
thinking solely about the underlying
concepts of fractions. The student
dialogue and presentations provide the
teacher with opportunities to encourage
greater depth of thought. Such designed
opportunities are a characteristic
common to Level 5 designs.)
The most important observation to be made
with respect to this set of examples is that these
classroom activities would appear quite similar.
One can imagine that each of the small groups
described would stay on task, they would be
active, and they would be involved in discussion.
The striking differences, however, lie in the
experiences being had by the students. At each
successive level, the students are being more
thoroughly challenged and are, therefore, more
likely to come to a deeper understanding of
underlying mathematical concepts.
Encouraging teaching candidates and classroom
teachers to think about the experiences of their
students in these ways is the goal of the rubric
and of the partnership. If all of our new and veteran
teachers use the rubric to provide their students
with lessons that will engage them in mathematical
thinking, then the rubric has served its purpose,
and a shared vision for good math teaching will
have been established.
Currently the Engagement Rubric is being used
to evaluate candidate lesson plans in the math
methods course at MSUB, to evaluate candidate
lesson implementation in the Highland sessions
(by the course instructor and by the host teachers),
and as a tool for the Highland teachers to gauge the
quality of their own planning and implementation.
In the future we hope that the use of rubric can
be extended to the elementary education math
content courses at the university, and to other
schools in the district. We are pleased that the
rubric seems to be allowing the candidates to
have a more seamless transition from the campus
classroom into the schools, but we are just as
pleased that its addition to the partnership has in
many ways enhanced the discussion around good
math teaching.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Mary Susan
Fishbaugh, Ken Miller, and Jenny Randall of
MSUB, and Brenda Koch, Kathy Olson, and
Kim Anthony of Billings School District 2 for
their efforts in advancing this program. Special
thanks to all of the staff of Highland Elementary
for their consistent support and encouragement.
Also note that our program design was strongly
influenced by the work of Shannon Henderson at
the University of Alabama, so we are indebted to
her as well.
David R. Snow is an Assistant Professor at
Montana State University Billings; he can be
reached at [email protected]. Jeri
Heard is the Principal at Highland Elementary
School; she can be reached at heardj@
billingsschools.org. Dean Lapke is a 5th Grade
Teacher at Highland Elementary School; he can be
reached at [email protected]. ■
11
PDS Partners Call for Submissions
Editors’ Corner
Ron Siers, Jr., Salisbury University
Cathey Ramey, Mardela Middle & High School
Jenny McFadden, Salisbury University
Our editorial team is excited to bring you the
Summer 2015 edition of PDS Partners. Articles
submitted and reviewed for this edition come
from Texas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, California,
Montana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Iowa.
We hope that each of you will have time this
summer to reflect deeply on the nature of our PDS
work. Few things fire the soul more passionately
than the relentless drive to follow our dreams and
be who we are. The tremendous success of the
PDS movement in this country comes from the
consistent engagement in activities and tasks that
we all care about. Our partners throughout the
world awake each day with a clarity of purpose
to reach new goals. This desire is consistent,
diligent and unyielding. We applaud all of you
who have not wasted any days this past year
wallowing in the mire or following the edicts of
someone else’s desires or goals. NAPDS is
strong because of each of you.
Brendon Burchard (2014) posits that may
individuals today seem to “choose lives of
indolence” (p. 201). As we recharge our
energies during the next few months, let us
choose to not be afraid of the powerful demands
of greatness. Let us choose to carry the banner
of NAPDS with pride and resolve for the rest
of the educational community. We can be a
shadow or a light for others. We hope that each
of you choose to shine your light brightly within
each PDS site next fall. The ability to inspire
greatness within our networks is a choice we
each make.
We welcome your thoughts, comments, concerns,
and ideas for our magazine and look forward
to seeing you at the NAPDS Conference in
Washington, D.C. in March of 2016.
References
Burchard, B. (2014). The motivation manifesto: 9
declarations to claim your personal power.
New York, NY: Hay House, Inc.
Ron is an Associate Professor, Chair and PDS
Liaison at Salisbury University (Salisbury, MD); he
can be reached at [email protected]. Cathy
is a History Teacher at Mardela Middle & High
School (Mardela Springs, MD), a veteran Mentor
Teacher and Site Coordinator for the Wicomico
County PDS partnership; she can be reached at
[email protected]. Jenny is a Doctoral Student
at Salisbury University; she can be reached at
[email protected]. ■
PDS Partners is published three times per
year (Winter, Summer and Fall) by the National
Association for Professional Development
Schools (NAPDS). Past issues and submission
requirements can be viewed at napds.org.
NAPDS Leadership Association
President: Marcy Keifer-Kennedy, Ohio University
President Elect: Donnan Stoicovy, State College Area School
District, PA
Past President: Cindy Stunkard, Kutztown University
Secretary: Drew Polly, University of North Carolina Charlotte
CFO: Doug Rogers, Baylor University
Board of Directors:
Karen Hassell, Retired, Waco, Texas
Rebecca West Burns, University of South Florida
Michael Cosenza, California Lutheran University
Committee Chairs:
Membership & Elections: Krystal Goree, Baylor University
Conferences & Programs: Jean Eagle, Miami University, Ohio
Awards: Peggy Lewis, Ball State University
Policy & External Relations: Danielle Dennis, University
of South Florida
Publications & Communications: Vacant
Web/Social Media: Nanette Marcum-Dietrich, Millersville
University
Journal Editor: Kristien Zenkov, George Mason University
Magazine Editor: Ron Siers Jr., Salisbury University
Stories From the Field Editor: Tom Habowski, LampeterStrasburg School
12
RESEARCHERS
AND RESEARCH
Action Research Stimulates Deliberate Investigation at
Professional Development School
Rachelle Meyer Rogers, Douglas W. Rogers,
Baylor University
Janae N. Beauchamp, University High School,
Waco ISD
Professional Development School (PDS) participants
engage in and routinely reflect upon best practice,
according to NAPDS Essential 5 (Brindley et al., 2008).
Likewise, PDS participants should share their work
both within and outside of their campuses. Our story
relates how a secondary PDS team at a low-performing
school engaged in a deliberate investigation of practice
and publically shared the results.
Background
The mission of the Baylor-Waco Independent School
District Partnership, established in 2002, is to prepare
new teachers, support professional development,
conduct inquiry to improve professional practice, and
improve student learning (Baylor-Waco Independent
School District Partnership Council, 2002). In 200910 the PDS partnership decided that all interns would
engage in action research projects to investigate
classroom practices as a capstone experience.
While action research has many definitions and can
fall under a variety of paradigms, Dana & YendolHoppey (2009) summarized the concept of action
research as teachers select wonderings that matter
to them and then collect data to find answers. Dana
and Yendol-Hoppey (2008) also stressed the value
of action research to the education process; “Rather
than sweeping the problems under the carpet and
pretending they don’t exist, teachers who conduct
action research…welcome problems by deliberately
naming them, making them public, examining them,
and making a commitment to do something about
them” (p. 11).
Within a few years of establishing the action
research requirement, PDS participants observed
a disconnect among mentor teachers, interns, and
university faculty regarding collaboration on their
examinations of classroom practices. The action
research project had become an assignment
conducted exclusively by the interns with limited or
no connection to the mentor teachers or persistent
campus issues; action research had ceased to
be a collaborative effort. Therefore, the PDS
partnership decided to address the gaps among
mentor teachers, interns, and university faculty so
that the PDS community could refocus on working
together to improve learning for all parties.
During the summer of 2013, the Baylor-Waco PDS
Partnership offered professional development for
mentor teachers to learn about action research and
specifically encouraged them to engage in action
research in collaboration with their interns during the
2013-14 academic year. The day-long professional
development session focused on the four phases of
the action research cycle. The first phase created an
understanding of action research and why it is critical
for teachers to engage in the process and examine
classroom practice. The second phase helped mentor
teachers form researchable questions (wonderings).
During the third phase, participants brainstormed
what data to collect, how to collect data, and how to
analyze data. The day ended with a discussion of
ways the partners could share research findings both
within and outside of the PDS campuses.
The day was a great success, but particularly for
two secondary English Language Arts and Reading
(ELAR) teachers, Mrs. Beauchamp and Mrs. Talley.
Talley previously served as a mentor teacher on the
PDS campus for several years and Beauchamp
would be a first-time mentor teacher for the upcoming
academic year, having previously supervised junior
level candidates on the same PDS campus. Both
Beauchamp and Talley had supervised candidates
conducting action research projects, but had limited
or no engagement in the process.
Just prior to the action research professional
development experience, Beauchamp and Talley
had participated in a campus-level conversation
about student performance on the state reading/
writing assessment. The secondary PDS scores
were well below the state average. Statewide,
37% of all 9th graders passed the end-of-course
reading/writing exam; on campus, only 27% of 9th
graders passed. Even more alarming, only 16%
of 10th graders on campus passed the state exam
compared to 35% of all 10th graders statewide.
Campus administrators strongly encouraged the
9th and 10th grade ELAR teachers to develop a
plan to improve students’ reading/writing scores.
The two ELAR teachers, Beauchamp and Talley,
decided to implement what they had learned at the
action research professional development; they
left that day with a plan to deliberately investigate
reading practices in their classrooms. Beauchamp
stated, “From the summer professional
development, we became very passionate about
the idea of having students read young adult
literature. To prove that if you give students a book
that has a high interest level, their love for reading
may not blossom instantly, but it is a start.”
Deliberate Investigations
As the 2013-14 school year began, the PDS
campus enrolled a freshman class consistent with
its average size (about 400 freshman/year) and
demographics. The entering 9th grade class had
the following fairly typical characteristics:
• 20% had been retained at least once;
• 40% had failed the state exam in reading/writing
in a previous year;
• 80% were reading at least one year below grade
level; and
• 90% were considered at-risk based on state
testing criteria.
As a result of participating in the action research
professional development, Beauchamp and Talley
were ready to pursue the following wondering--how
does young adult literature impact students’ reading
skills and attitudes towards reading in the classroom?
In August, an ELAR intern, Ms. Kelm, was placed with
Mrs. Beauchamp who immediately shared the action
research plan to investigate the impact of building a
curriculum around young adult literature. Ms. Kelm
excitedly joined the collaboration with Beauchamp
and Talley. The ELAR teachers and intern substituted
the young adult novel Divergent for a more traditional
novel previously included in the curriculum.
The mentor teachers and intern cooperatively
planned lessons around the book that incorporated
all the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills
(TEKS) included on the state exam. According to
Beauchamp, “Because of our planning, we were
able to cover every TEK that was tested on the state
exam in the very first semester. We were not just
reading the book; we were bringing in informative
text and poetry and comparing it to all other crossgenres that are heavily tested.” Talley also added
that the students were extremely excited to read,
“We had students asking us to read more young
adult literature books and other teachers had to
confiscate the books because students were reading
them in their classes.” The excitement to read
extended beyond the students. Talley reported that
parents were asking for extra copies of the young
adult literature books so that they would know what
their children were so excited about and constantly
talking about at home. While the informal feedback
from students and parents seemed to support the
young adult curriculum and lesson plans, more
formal data was needed to address the wondering.
Gathering the Evidence
As part of the action research assignment, interns
are expected to gather three forms of data. Kelm
(the intern), Beauchamp, and Talley worked together
to determine what forms of data would best address
their wondering. The team decided to gather student
surveys and focus group interviews, observational
notes, and district based assessments.
All participating students completed an anonymous
survey consisting of open response questions
that focused on students’ opinions of young adult
literature compared to classical texts. Students
were randomly selected to participate in small
focus group sessions where students were asked
questions pertaining to their attitudes about reading
and if they had noticed any changes in their
perspectives on reading. Throughout the year,
the mentor teacher and intern took observation
notes that focused on student engagement as well
as class discussions when reading young adult
literature. Finally, district-based assessments were
analyzed and compared every six weeks in order to
track improvements in reading.
The Results
The surveys, focus groups, observations, and
district assessments all showed positive results.
13
Consequently, the ELAR action research team
determined that high school students prefer young
adult literature to classical texts. According to the
intern, “Students consistently commented that
they understood young adult literature more, and
they feel that they connect better to stories when
literature is written in ‘their’ language.” Positive
results were not only supported through qualitative
data such as students’ comments and teachers’
observations, but through quantitative data as
well. Students’ scores consistently improved on
the district-based assessments.
Sharing the Findings
According to NAPDS Essential 5, engagement
in and public sharing of the results of deliberate
investigations of practice is critical for all PDS
participants (Brindley et al., 2008). In April of each
academic year, Baylor University hosts an action
research symposium where all interns and mentor
teachers from the PDS campuses and partner
campuses across five districts are invited to share
their research findings in a poster format. At the
action research symposium, this ELAR team shared
their findings with other candidates, teachers, campus
administrators, and district administrators, from PDS
and partner campuses from five area districts as well
as faculty and administration from the university.
The Greater Impact
While data gathered for the action research project
supported changes to classroom practice, greater
ripples occurred after the symposium. The 9th
and 10th graders in Beauchamp/Kelm’s and
Talley’s classes improved substantially on the state
assessment. Due to changes in how the state
reported scores (separate reading/writing scores
in 2013 and a single combined score in 2014), it
is difficult to make direct comparisons. However,
46% of both PDS 9th and 10th graders passed the
end-of-course ELAR exam--an increase of nineteen
percentage points for 9th graders and an increase
of thirty percentage points for 10th graders. Though
the scores are still below the state average, each
grade level showed substantial gains.
The state assessment gains coupled with the
classroom data helped the ELAR team make
a compelling case for increased administrative
support. Campus administrators supported
the original research initiative, but did not fund
purchasing the young adult novel. The ELAR
teachers personally funded the acquisition of
the novels for classroom use. A new request
for additional young adult novels, supported by
the classroom and state assessment data, was
enthusiastically approved and funded by campus
administrators for the upcoming academic year.
Students were not the only ones to feel the impact
of the action research project. The educators
gained as well. According to Kelm (the intern),
“Action research gave me more motivation and
more purpose to what I am doing here… you
realize this can go somewhere. It gives meaning
and purpose to what you are doing. You feel like
what you are doing has worth.”
Professional development in action research
continues every summer for all faculties assigned
to PDS and partner campuses. The number of
participants climbs as excitement about examining
professional practice and sharing results within a
PDS community spreads. When the ELAR team
was asked if research was a part of teaching, there
was consensus. According to Beauchamp, “That
day in the summertime was what I needed. I knew
what action research was, but I didn’t know what all
went into it or how we can make it better or useful.
It helped me. You get to collaborate not only with
people at your campus, but all other PDS faculty.”
Talley agreed and added, “Yes, teachers constantly
make adjustments, but what we do not do is record
and document it. We now know how and realize
research is what can make changes in a school.”
Kelm added to the conversation by stating, “We
are in the best position to observe and research.
We are interactive with kids every day one on one.
We see them grow; we see them change. I think
absolutely we should research. We have the best
way to do it, and I think that is our job.” NAPDS
Essential 5 at its best.
References
Baylor-Waco Independent School District
Partnership Council (2002). Baylor
University-Waco Independent School
District Professional Development School
Guidelines. Waco, TX.
Brindley, R., Field, B., and Lessen, E. (2008).
What it means to be a professional
development school. National Association
for Professional Development Schools.
Dana, N.F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The
reflective educator’s guide to classroom
research: Learning to teach and teaching to
learn through practitioner inquiry (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Dana, N.F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2008). The
reflective educator’s guide to professional
development: Coaching inquiry-oriented
learning communities. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Rachelle Meyer Rogers is a University Liaison &
Assistant Clinical Professor at Baylor University;
she can be reached at Rachelle_Rodgers@baylor.
edu. Douglas W. Rogers is an Associate Dean at
Baylor University; he can be reached at Doug_
[email protected]. Janae N. Beauchamp is a
Mentor Teacher at University High School; she can
be reached at [email protected]. ■
Blurred Lines CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3
Table 1
Adjustment or Enhancement
Schedule less interns in a day
but increase the number of days
Reasons Why
During the first summer, three or more interns were scheduled each
day. It was determined this number inhibited the amount of direct
involvement interns had with the K students.
For the second summer, the schedule limited the interns to two per
session but increased to 5 days a week vs. 3 days the previous year.
During the first summer, the program was held in an existing
Kindergarten class at Ronald McNair Elementary School.
New location for the program
Adding a technology component
During the second summer, the program had a temporary move
to another building. As an added experience, the interns played a
significant role in setting up the JumpStart program classroom in a
developmentally appropriate manner.
With the addition of a grant from Towson University, the partnership
purchased Livescribe Smart Pens to use directly with K students in
an instructional capacity and for the master teachers to use in an
assessment capacity.
The interns developed the learning activities utilizing the smart pens that
would be used with the K students in guided or independent manner.
typical pre-service teacher preparation experiences,
the “future teachers” embraced the opportunity and
have now made it part of their ongoing journey.
Google Drive Resource
Find many of the resources discussed in this article
at the following shared drive folder:
http://tinyurl.com/jumpstartarticle
References:
The National Research Council (2010). Preparing
Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound
Policy. Washington, D.C.
Marisa Dudiak is a Program Coordinator for Towson
University; she can be reached at mdudiak@
towson.edu. Cheryl Dembroski is a Kindergarten
Teacher at Ronald McNair Elementary School;
she can be reached at Cheryl_L_Dembroski@
mcpsmd.org. Katie R. Kelly is a Kindergarten
Teacher at Ronald McNair Elementary School; she
can be reached at [email protected]. ■
14
Comparing a PDS Yearlong Field Experience With a Traditional
Field Experience Model: A Pilot Study
Dr. Cherry Steffen, Kennesaw State University
Dr. Charlease Kelly-Jackson, Kennesaw State
University
Dr. Sohyun An, Kennesaw State University
Dr. Gwen McAlpine, Kennesaw State University
Dr. Alyssa St. Cyr-Williams, Labelle Elementary
Introduction
Within the last decade, there has been an
increasing focus on teacher quality and how to
effectively reform schools and teacher preparation
programs in efforts of improving the educational
achievement of all students (Mitchel, 2013).
Research on teacher education reform highlights
the importance of consistency between teacher
preparation programs and K-12 classrooms
(AACTE, 2010; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005).
In response, Kennesaw State University (KSU)
in partnership with Cobb County School District
in Georgia developed an innovative Professional
Development School (PDS) plan to address
inconsistencies between the two entities and
reform K-12 teacher preparation.
Traditional versus Yearlong
Traditionally, during the first semester of the senior
year, teacher candidates in our education programs
take a methods block that entails completing four
methods courses in ten weeks which include four
full weeks in the field. During the second semester,
teacher candidates are placed in a different school
and a different grade level. The school districts
randomly assign these placements. In this model
candidates are not expected to co-teach with their
assigned collaborating teacher (CT). Candidates
gradually accept responsibility for the planning and
implementation of all subject areas; the CT acts
as a facilitator. Teacher candidates are assigned a
different university supervisor for each of the two
semesters.
In contrast, teacher candidates in the yearlong
experience complete the methods’ field
experience associated and student teaching in
the same classroom with the same CT. Unlike
the traditional model, yearlong candidates begin
the experience during pre-planning and continue
THE URBAN EDUCATION MODEL
PREPARES INTERNS USING A TWO-YEAR
OPTION THAT FOCUSED ON CRITICAL
ISSUES, INCLUDING CULTURALLY AND
LINGUISTICALLY RELEVANT PEDAGOGY,
DIFFERENTIATION, FAMILY ENGAGEMENT,
AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY.
Over a six-year period, federal funds have been
used to cultivate an Urban Education (UE) PDS
model of teacher preparation that informed KSU’s
Education Preparation Programs (EPP). The UE
model prepares interns using a two-year option that
focused on critical issues, including culturally and
linguistically relevant pedagogy, differentiation,
family engagement, and instructional technology.
In order to address issues arising in urban
schools, we (partnered K-16 educators) have
implemented approaches recommended for urban
schools (Grant, 1994; Murrell, 2001), such as coteaching (Friend & Bursuck, 2011; Friend & Cook,
2000), coaching (Barkley, 2005; Knight, 2009),
and increased time in the field (Kleinsasser, Bird,
& Warne 2000; Spooner, Flowers, Lambert, &
Algozzine, 2008). For the purpose of this study,
we compared a traditional single-semester field
experience with the UE model that included a oneyear internship in a PDS.
at the school through the entire year. In addition,
teacher candidates are paired with a collaborating
teacher based on personal and professional
compatibility. This pairing was achieved through
the use of a questionnaire and an interview
process. The expectation was that the CT and the
teacher candidate would work closely together to
plan, implement and assess instructional units
throughout the year. Professional development
(PD) and coaching based on High-impact
instruction: A framework for great teaching (Knight,
2013) were provided for the teaching teams (CT
and teacher candidate). Additionally, for the
yearlong experience, teacher candidates were
assigned one university supervisor for the year.
one-year internship in a professional development
school, we planned a five-phase mixed method
research study (Gay & Airasian, 2003; Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Phase One consisted of a
survey and interview with university supervisors
who had experience in both traditional and yearlong
programs in the professional development school.
Phase Two will consist of a survey and interview with
the CTs. Next, Phase Three will focus on teacher
candidate performance data. Lastly, Phase Four will
involve interviews with principals who have hired
teacher candidates from both models; and Phase
Five will complete the study with a final analysis and
evaluation of the two contrasting models.
More specifically, we have completed data
collection for Phase One in which we identified
five university supervisors who had experience
in both traditional and yearlong programs in
the professional development school. All five
supervisors agreed to participate in the research.
These supervisors had at least 20 years of
educational experience, most being retired
principals. The survey was composed of openended questions that focused on the advantages
and disadvantages of the traditional and yearlong
models; hiring preferences; and relationships
between the supervisor and teacher candidate.
Preliminary Findings
Regarding the traditional model, university
supervisors reported advantages of candidates
having a varied experience and the opportunity for
a “fresh” start. A key disadvantage the supervisors
cited was a lack of time for getting to know the
classroom, school and surrounding neighborhood.
Overwhelmingly, the university supervisors
preferred the yearlong field experience to the
traditional model. The advantages of the yearlong
experience centered on the opportunities to
become more involved in the school community
and to develop deeper content and pedagogical
knowledge. Disadvantages noted by the
supervisors included the possibility that, if the
working relationship between the CT and teacher
candidate were ineffective they were assigned to
continue to work together for a full school year in
a situation that would not benefit the CT, teacher
candidate, and, more importantly, the students in
the elementary classroom.
When asked about the preference for hiring
traditional versus yearlong, all the supervisors
stated that they would prefer to hire teacher
candidates in the yearlong experience. Some of
the comments are listed below:
Framework of the Research
“Because I can measure their growth and
see the maturation of candidates into
ready and excellent instructors.”
In order to examine the impact of a traditional singlesemester field experience versus the impact of a
“Hands-down, year-long. The end product
is greater.”
15
“NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, I PREFER
THE YEARLONG. We spend time
developing a relationship during the first
semester, and if we are separated, we
lose this connection, and are then forced
to try to develop new relationships. The
year-long experience provides quality
supervision and teacher development.”
As research by Griffin et al. (2006) indicates, fewer
than one in three of K-12 teacher candidates
receive content in their university courses on
working collaboratively in schools. This yearlong
PDS model seems, at this preliminary stage,
seems to provide the training teacher candidates
need to work in 21st century schools. The yearlong
model can lead to more effective teaching in which
the two co-teachers share control of the classroom
from planning through evaluation. As one of the
CTs explained it: “We achieved synergy in our
teaching and even in our thinking” (M. Alley1,
personal communication, April 9, 2014).
Discussion
As the findings reveal, supervisors with experience
working with teacher candidates in both traditional and
yearlong student teaching experiences found that the
yearlong experience was superior to the traditional
experience. While there were some disadvantages
to the yearlong experience, supervisors, without
exception, expressed a preference for the yearlong
experience as it related to teacher preparation.
Previous research confirms that an extended
amount of time in the field (either before or during
the final student teaching experience) does help to
better prepare teachers for the experience of fulltime teaching. (Andrew 1990; Boser 1990; DarlingHammond 1998; Griffin 1998; Carusso 2000;
Darling-Hammond and Youngs 2002; Nieto 2003;
Weisner & Salkeld 2004; Beck and Shanks 2005).
Our preliminary findings confirm that there is a
positive impact when teacher candidates participate
in a yearlong student teaching experiences.
In addition to the supervisors’ evaluation of the two
models, there are other supporting evidences. First,
districts outside of our professional development
schools partnership are requesting yearlong
internships based on this models’ reputation. To
date, four area school districts changed from the
traditional model of student teaching to yearlong
internships and several others are exploring
this as an option. Second, the fact that a higher
percentage of the yearlong teacher candidates
have been hired immediately after graduation
than those from the traditional model evidences
the effectiveness of the yearlong model.
While supervisors noted that a poor candidate-CT
relationship was a possible disadvantage of the
model, there is a policy in place that provides for
reassignment of teacher candidates if necessary.
However, we found a mismatched candidate and
CT to be a rare occurrence due to the deliberate
placement of teacher candidate with compatible CTs.
1
Pseudonyms are used to protect anonymity.
Future Directions
Our research to date, Phase One, has focused
solely on university supervisors. Future research
will include a focus on the reactions of the CTs and
teacher candidates, providing a more complete
picture of the impact of the yearlong model on these
stakeholders. In addition, future research will focus
on teacher candidate outcomes during the yearlong
internship as well as experiences during the first year
of teaching. Another direction for research would
place an emphasis on the impact on K-12 students
of the yearlong versus the traditional model.
References
American Association of Colleges of Teacher
Education (AACTE). (2010). Reforming
teacher education: The critical clinical
component. Washington, SC: AACTE.
Andrew, M. D. (1990). The differences between
graduates of four-year and five-year
teacher preparation programs. Journal of
Teacher Education, 41, 45–51.
Barkley, S. G. (2005). Quality teaching in a
culture of coaching. Lanham, Maryland:
Scarecrow Education.
Beck, J., & J. Shanks. (2005). A case study
of teacher education reform: Issues
and challenges. The New Educator, 1,
333–343.
Boser, J. A. (1990). The effect of a yearlong internship on first-year teaching
performance: Studying the effectiveness
of the internship. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Mid-South
Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA. Retrieved from files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED326520.pdf 7/27/2013
Caruso, J. J. (2000). Cooperating teacher and
student teacher phases of development.
Young Children, 55, 75–81.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Educating teachers
for the next century: Rethinking practice
and policy. In The education of teachers:
Ninety-eighth yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part I,
ed. G. A. Griffin, 221–56. Chicago: National
Society for the Study of Education.
Darling-Hammond, L., & P. Youngs. (2002).
Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What
does “scientifically-based research”
actually tell us? Educational Researcher,
31(9), 13–25.
Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. (2011). Including
students with special needs: A practical
guide for classroom teachers. Boston:
Pearson.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions:
Collaborative skills for school
professionals. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gay, L.R. & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational
research: Competencies for analysis and
applications. (7th ed.) Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Grant, C. (1994). Best practices in teacher
preparation for urban schools: Lessons
from the multicultural teacher education
literature. Action in Teacher Education,
16(3), 1-18.
Griffin, C. C., Jones, H. A., & Kilgore, K. L.
(2006). A qualitative study of student
teachers’ experiences with collaborative
problem solving. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 29, 44-55.
Griffin, G. A. (1998). Changes in teacher
education: Looking to the future. In The
education of teachers: Ninety-eighth
yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part I, ed. G. A. Griffin,
1–28. Chicago: National Society for the
Study of Education.
Kleinsasser, R., Bird, M. & Warne, J. (2000).
Roles and responsibilities of participants
in professional development schools. In
Chance, 61–70.
Knight, J. (2009). Coaching: Approaches and
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corin
Press.
Knight, J. (2013). High-impact instruction: A
framework for great teaching. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative
Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(2nd ed.) New York: Sage.
Mitchel, L. (2013). Everyone teaches and
everyone learns: The professional
development school way. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Murrell, P. (2001). The community teacher: A new
framework for effective urban teaching.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Nieto, S. (2003). Challenging notions of “highly
qualified teachers” through work in a
teachers’ inquiry group. Journal of Teacher
Education, 54, 386–398.
Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. (2005).
Knowledge to support the teaching of
reading: Preparing teachers for a changing
world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spooner, M., Flowers, C., Lambert, R., &
Algozzine, B. (2008). Is more really
better? Examining perceived beliefs of an
extended student teaching experience.
The Clearing House, 81(6), 263-269.
Weisner, J., and E. Salkeld. 2004. A dialogue
between a pre-service teacher and
university supervisor. Tech Trends:
Linking Research and Practice to Improve
Learning, 48(3), 12–16.
Cherry Steffen is an Associate Professor at
Kennesaw State University; she can be reached
at [email protected]. Charlease KellyJackson is an Assistant Professor at Kennesaw
State University; she can be reached at ckellyja@
kennesaw.edu. Sohyun An is an Assistant
Professor at Kennesaw State University; she
can be reached at [email protected]. Gwen
McAlpine is an Associate Professor at Kennesaw
State University; she can be reached at gwn.
[email protected]. Alyssa St. Cry-Williams
is an Assistant Principal at LaBelle Elementary
School; she can be reached at [email protected].
Funding was provided by the U.S. Department
of Education through the Teacher Quality
Partnership Grant Program ■
16
PDS Evaluation Plan: Continuous Improvement Cycle
Kristin Brynteson, Northern Illinois University
Tris Ottolino, Northern Illinois University (Retired)
Jennie Hueber, DeKalk Community Unity School
District #428
Introduction
Professional Development Schools (PDSs)
are complex and multifaceted organisms.
Understanding and measuring the success of
such an evolving system can be just as difficult as
creating the relationship itself. Thus, developing
a holistic evaluation process that captures all
aspects of the PDS relationship is essential in
monitoring the continuous improvement cycle of
the PDS. A clearly defined evaluation process
alone does not lead to successful continuous
improvement. Both partners must be engaged in
the process and willing to collaborate on a selfexamination of the entire PDS system. This shared
commitment to a joint self-study is the key to using
evaluation methods and metrics as a basis to
continuous improvement (PDS Essential #4).
Background
In 2008, DCUSD 428 and NIU formed a
collaborative partnership to develop and
implement a high school level Professional
Development School (PDS) to coincide with
the opening of the new high school in August
2011. The DHS-NIU PDS at the high school
focused on the implementation of the ThreeTiered Response to Intervention (RtI) Model to
improve student achievement and behavior. The
framework of the PDS was modeled on the three
main goals outlined in the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
Standards for Professional Development
Schools: a) enhancing student achievement, b)
improving teacher preparation, and c) continuing
professional development. A joint DHS-NIU
Design Team coordinated the development and
implementation of the PDS. Part of the design
and implementation was to establish PDS goals.
The Design Team established the following goals
for the high school PDS.
BOTH PARTNERS MUST BE ENGAGED
IN THE PROCESS AND WILLING TO
COLLABORATE ON A SELF-EXAMINATION
OF THE ENTIRE PDS SYSTEM.
During the 2010-2011 school year, DeKalb Community
Unit School District (DCUSD) 428 and Northern
Illinois University (NIU) implemented a Continuous
Improvement Process designed to promote
collaborative reflection of the PDS. This process
was developed through a joint effort between both
partners and has been reviewed and revised over the
course of the past four years. The process includes
cross-institutional teams, who identify objectives and
activities that align to the district’s goals, collect both
quantitative and qualitative evidence on the impact of
those objectives and activities, and use the findings
to provide recommendations to be used in future goal
setting. The process also includes dissemination of
the Continuous Improvement Process results to all of
the stakeholders.
This continuous self-examination promotes the
highest level of program quality and institutional
accountability that is aimed at driving the PDS
toward excellence. Getting to this point, however,
was not easy. Broadening a school improvement
process to a district-wide improvement process
meant that we needed to reflect on the process
itself. The result is a streamlined Continuous
Improvement Process for the entire PDS.
In this article, we will outline the Continuous
Improvement Process and discuss the lessons
we have learned through the four years of
implementation and growth.
• World-class student achievement that
includes academics, activities, and citizenship.
• Rigorous curriculum that matches
expectations of higher education and the
workplace.
• Superior preparation of pre-service
teachers, whose skills match the needs of
today’s classrooms, including proficiency
in skills for improving achievement of lowachieving students.
• Excellence in professional learning that
supports DHS and NIU faculty in their pursuit of
globally competitive student achievement.
• Comprehensive communications plan that
leads to regional and national recognition.
The first four goals were adopted as district goals
in 2011, as they are aligned to the PDS framework
identified above. These four goals provide the
structure for the evaluation process. Note: The
process was initially referred to as PDS Evaluation,
and was changed to Continuous Improvement
Process to better represent the collaborative and
reflective practices of the process.
Continuous Improvement Process Overview
The Continuous Improvement Process was
developed through a joint effort between DCUSD
428 and NIU. The process was modeled on the
NCATE PDS self-evaluation process and uses
the NCATE PDS standards as the measurement
tool. Our Continuous Improvement Process was
designed to promote collaborative reflection
of PDS activities and initiatives through the
following:
• establishing overarching goals for the district
PDS;
• identifying objectives and activities within each
level (elementary, middle school and high
school) that align to the district’s PDS goals;
• collecting both quantitative and qualitative
evidence on the impact of those objectives and
activities; and
• providing recommendations based on the
findings to be used in future goal setting.
The four phases of the Continuous Improvement
Process are: plan; data collection; review evidence;
and report. A more detailed explanation of each
phase is outlined in Continuous Improvement
Process section of this article.
Site Councils drive the Continuous Improvement
Process. Site Councils were created to represent
both DCUSD 428 and NIU. A Site Council is
comprised of district and university stakeholders,
which includes parents and students. Typically a
school district would be represented by one Site
Council; however, this district established a Site
Council for each level.
At the end of each yearly cycle, a report is
compiled on the outcomes of the self-reflection
that include recommendations for the upcoming
school year. Site Councils use this report to
plan future actions. A summary of the report is
also made available to all stakeholders on the
university and district websites.
This continuous self-examination promotes the
highest level of program quality and institutional
accountability all aimed at driving the PDS toward
excellence.
Continuous Improvement Process
The Continuous Improvement Process consists of
four phases: planning, data collection, review of
evidence, and reporting. As seen in figure 1, this
process is cyclical and repeated yearly.
Planning
Planning activities take place very early
in the school year. During the first year of
implementation, it was necessary for the Site
Council to first establish the goals of the PDS.
(For the DHS-NIU PDS, the Design Team
established these goals.) These goals remain
in place as the guiding framework for the PDS
partnership. In subsequent years, the planning
has centered on activities aligned to the goals.
Once goals are established, the Site Councils
identify measurable objectives and activities
for the current school year using a planning
worksheet. Recommendations from the previous
17
Reporting
The results of the review of evidence phase are
compiled and assembled into a report. This report
is distributed to all stakeholders and posted on the
partners’ websites.
Once the report is complete, the Continuous
Improvement Process begins again.
Lessons Learned
The Continuous Improvement Process has been an
integral part of the DCUSD 428 - NIU PDS for the
past four years. Over these four years, the process
has been refined and streamlined to provide the
most valuable results with an efficient use of time
and resources. The first year the process provided
useful results but was very time consuming and
labor intensive. Each year improvements were
made to the process to reduce the amount of time
needed to collect and review the evidence. For
example, the worksheets used for planning were
created to provide a simplified and consistent
method for identifying objectives and reporting
data. The creation of a simplified format provided a
scalable model that could be implemented in other
PDS districts.
From this process our team has learned the
following:
Figure 1: Continuous Improvement Cycle
year’s Continuous Improvement Process guide
the development of the objectives and activities
for the next school year.
The planning process is very structured and
guided by the following components found on the
planning worksheets provided to each of the Site
Councils. The planning worksheets assist the Site
Councils in identifying the following:
• measurable objective(s) for each goal; and
• activities, evaluation methods, needed
resources, and person(s) responsible (Activity
Lead) for each objective.
Once completed, the worksheets are kept on
record and used to guide the third phase of the
Continuous Improvement Process. Worksheets
from the prior school year can also be used to
assist with the current school year planning.
Data Collection
During the school year, the data identified during
the planning phase is collected. Data collection
and reporting for each activity is the responsibility
of the Activity Lead.
Review of Evidence
At the end of each school year, the Site Councils
are responsible for reporting the data based
outcomes of each activity including findings. The
worksheet can be used as a resource for this
phase. Although not required, it is recommended
that the Site Councils provide an analysis and
reflection of the outcomes. Questions can be used
to guide this reflection. Examples of questions
include the following:
• Were the activities successful?
• How do you know your activities were
successful?
• What is your future plan regarding the activities?
The review of the evidence phase continues by
examining how the year’s activities align to the
NCATE PDS Standards. The Site Council develops
a “Statement of Standing” for each element of the
NCATE PDS Standard. According to the NCATE
Handbook for the Assessment of Professional
Development Schools, a statement of standing is
a “tentative statement …that draws, in a holistic
way, on the evidence and the conclusions at the
element level” (p. 32). In order to write a statement
of standing, the summary of the year’s activities
are compared to each element of the NCATE PDS
standard to identify areas of success or areas in
need of improvement. The statement of standing
guides the development of recommendations used
for planning the next year’s activities.
THIS CAN ONLY BE
ACHIEVED THROUGH
COLLABORATION,
JOINT EFFORT, AND
SHARED VISION.
• place the ownership of the Continuous
Improvement Process on the Site Councils;
• identify an Activity Lead for each activity;
• create a simplified worksheet for consistency in
the planning process;
• use a set of standards as a measurement tool
for accountability; and
• make the results meaningful.
By working through this process and developing
a simple yet effective Continuous Improvement
Process, we have allowed for our PDS program
to evolve and change based on the needs of the
partners while maintaining a focus on excellence.
This can only be achieved through collaboration,
joint effort, and a shared vision.
References
National Association for Professional
Development Schools. (2008, April 13).
NAPDS Releases Policy Statement
on Professional Development School.
Retrieved from http://www.napds.org/
nine_essen.html
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education. (2011). Handbook for the
assessment of Professional Development
Schools. Washington, DC.
Kristin Brynteson is the Assistant Director of the
Center of P20 Engagement at Northern Illinois
University; she can be reached at kbrynteson@
niu.edu. Tris Ottolino is a PDS Coordinator; she
can be reached at [email protected]. Jennie
Hueber is the Director of C&I for the DeKalb
Community Unity School District #428; she can be
reached at [email protected]. ■
18
INQUIRIES AND
IDEAS
The Money Is All Gone…Now What Do We Do?
One PDS Partnership’s Approach to Sustainability
Stacie Wolbert, Edinboro University of
Pennsylvania
Teresa Szumigala & Andrea Gloystein, Roosevelt
Middle School
Beginning in 2005, the School of Education (SOE)
from a state system university began initiatives to
develop Professional Development School (PDS)
partnerships within their region. Funded through a
Congressional grant, a multiple school partnership
was established within an urban district.
Developing the partnership from a contractual
perspective was somewhat simplistic; nurturing
the relationship between the stakeholders was a
more complicated and deliberate process that took
time, trust and the commitment of those involved.
This article details the efforts of an urban middle
school and its university partner to overcome the
fiscal realities challenging its maintenance and
progress.
The Fundamental Effects of Financial Support
Throughout the course of the grant that funded
the PDS partnership, both the university and the
school district experienced the benefits of the
Nine Essentials incorporated into the culture of
their work. A strong foundation with a steering
committee and roles, as well as a vision and
mission statement was set. Working relationships
and friendships developed. The quality and
prevalence of professional development,
mentoring and research activities increased
greatly. Academic rewards were realized for K-12
students and programming structures to develop
family/community relationships garnering success.
Teacher candidates experienced deeper, more
meaningful experiences. There were setbacks
and issues, but overall the partnership was moving
in a positive direction. The faculty from the district
and university, teacher candidates and P-12
students felt the positive impact of the work being
done. The PDS initiative was making a difference
in lives of stakeholders.
Establishing a partnership requires commitment
and belief in the benefits provided by the
partnership for all stakeholders. The partnership
has the potential to energize faculty and practice.
However, over time, issues and problems come
to light— faculty and administration may lose
interest or change and fiscal concerns may arise.
Throughout the nine years of the partnership,
hurdles have been present; stakeholders worked
to jump these hurdles together. Over the past
several years however, the hurdles have been
overshadowed by larger impediments.
Sustainability is one of the most important
elements of a PDS partnership. With a shared
mission, a common vision, and continued support,
a PDS partnership can weather changes in faculty
and administration. It can adapt to and overcome
mandates and policies initiated beyond the district
and university to continue to meet its goals. By
keeping the Nine Essentials of a PDS at the heart
of the partnership, the PDS can overcome many
of the challenges it faces. While the decision
to create a PDS partnership is easy, sustaining
the partnership once the “money is all gone” is
extremely difficult and poses many challenges
(Ganesan, Das, Edwards, and Okogbaa, 2004).
The Depletion of Fiscal Resources
This article’s focus is on the efforts of the founding
partners to overcome the financial challenges they
face to rebuild what has been lost and continue to
move forward. Economic hardship has befallen the
partners. Faculties on both sides of the partnership
are experiencing furloughs (retrenchment),
increased class sizes and heavy workloads. The
district has experienced school closures, district
realignment and continuing deficits. The university
has undergone a downsizing of faculty members
through attrition and lack of hiring due to budget
concerns as well as retrenchment. Adjunct and
temporary faculty are increasing in number but do
not necessarily have the same understanding of
our commitment to PDS endeavors.
move forward so that we can further the education
profession, raise student achievement and
advance equity within the schools and community
under these financial constraints?”
The loss of financial support impacts how
professional development for students and teacher
candidates is delivered. The elimination of faculty
release time becomes an issue. Without the
release time to nurture it, participant involvement
in the PDS partnership can mean added
burdens to an already overburdened faculty— a
consequence that will automatically eliminate
some faculty members from both partners
because they are simply too busy to include PDS.
With financial concerns causing redistricting as
well as faculty and administrative changes, the
leadership within PDS changes as well. When
facing minor changes, this is something that can
be overcome; it becomes more difficult, however,
with major or continuous changes as have been
seen in recent years. This particular partnership
has seen complete change evidenced by the fact
that not one single founding member of the PDS
partnership is involved today.
THE COMMITMENT OF THE
STAKEHOLDERS IS THE CRITICAL
COMPONENT THAT IS ALLOWING THE
PARTNERSHIP TO OVERCOME THE
ISSUES CAUSED BY THE LOSS OF
FINANCIAL BACKING.
The discontinuance of grant support is another
fallout of the financial hardships affecting this
PDS partnership— a partnership which has been
severely compromised by grant support not being
sustained. Despite continuing to rely on university
and district financial support, the funding from
these resources has yielded diminishing returns.
Coupled with a budget crisis at both the district
and university levels, the progress made is being
eroded. While money is not the key ingredient
to a successful partnership, lack of financial
support causes deeper issues than just having
the funds to accomplish initiatives. It also impacts
the availability of personnel, as well as their
understanding and commitment to the partnership.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Knowing the benefit of the partnership and the
difference it can make in the lives of children,
teacher candidates, faculty, administration, and
the community, the question becomes, “How do
we rebuild what we have lost and continue to
Facing the challenge of sustainability with a lack
of consistent leadership has been a dilemma.
Every year it becomes a time for educating new
faculty and administration on what it means to
be a PDS while convincing them that though
the partnership requires commitment and time,
the benefits do outweigh the hardships. As we
move further away from those first years, so
characterized by heavy involvement and great
support, the challenges become greater. While
the participants currently involved have great
passion and belief in the partnership, more
hands are needed to effectively impact student
achievement and improve teacher practice.
Through the following initiatives we have made
some headway in this area.
Alternative Funding and Collaborations
The partnership continues to look for alternative
funding. Although a large grant has not been
obtained, initiatives are being supported
through smaller, specific grants. We also look
19
for collaborative opportunities with related
organizations.
Expanding Horizons
One of the missions of the partnership at the
middle level has been to make students more
aware of the opportunities they have to attend
college. The urban middle school is just over
20 miles from the university. While the distance
is not great, the expense in transporting all of
the students in the school to and from campus is
high. The partners have agreed that the desire is
to bring the students to campus during each year
of middle school (grades 6-8). Each year has a
different focus. The first year is to “open their eyes”
to what the campus is, to tour it, and to open the
students’ minds to the idea of attending college.
We also incorporate learning experiences across
campus that tie to the middle school’s curriculum
such as a visit to the university’s planetarium.
The second year is focused more on what they
need to do to gain admission to a university.
To gain an understanding of the expectations
and requirements that they should meet while
in high school, the students hear presentations
from admissions counselors, meet with current
students, and learn about what the university
offers in programs, majors, and potential
careers. The third year is to be more specific to
the areas of interest the students have shown.
This third stage is still being developed and
planned, however the expectation is that it will
involve small group in specific departments. This
three-year sequence is an expensive endeavor
that we would not be able to deliver without
financial support from College For Every Student
(CFES, 2012). CFES is a nonprofit organization
that is committed to increasing the academic
aspirations and performance of underserved
students.
While this program benefits the middle school
students, it is also providing opportunities for
teacher candidates early in their program to
work with urban middle school students. They
chaperone and escort the students throughout
the day, provide information about what it is like
to be a college student, and they gain first-hand
experience working with students.
Entrepreneurial Endeavor
‘Experience is the best teacher,’ and one of
our goals for teacher preparation is providing
extensive experiences for our teacher candidates
to be in schools, working with students and faculty.
In early semesters, we strive to provide structured
experiences that allow the teacher candidate to
focus on certain aspects of teaching while still
providing a valuable education experience to the
middle school students. Collaborating with Junior
Achievement (JA) has provided that opportunity.
According to their website, JA is a volunteer
delivered program that fosters work-readiness,
entrepreneurship and financial literacy skills
in grades K-12. It uses experiential learning to
help students to set attainable educational goals
leading to future employment.
EXPERIENCE IS THE BEST TEACHER,
AND ONE OF OUR GOALS FOR TEACHER
PREPARATION IS PROVIDING EXTENSIVE
EXPERIENCES FOR OUR TEACHER
CANDIDATES TO BE IN SCHOOLS
The university has joined with the urban middle
school each semester. Teacher candidates in
their sophomore year, enrolled in two team-taught
courses that focus on adolescent development
and middle school features and practices are
trained and provided the curriculum to deliver in
the classroom. The professors assigned to the
courses collaborate with the faculty at the middle
school to coordinate and deliver the program.
Providing prepared lessons allows the teacher
candidates to focus on developing relationships
with the students, gain an deeper understanding
of adolescent development, become more aware
of the issues facing urban middle school students,
and practice classroom management. Because JA
is a volunteer-run program, there are no financial
demands.
Environmental Education
While the partnership is always looking for
organizations to work with that will benefit
students, teacher candidates and faculty, often
grants are obtained to meet specific goals.
In an effort to increase interest in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics,
faculty members applied for and received a
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) grant that provided resources for
teacher candidates to design and deliver handson environmental lessons and experiences for the
middle school students in an after-school program.
The students focused on several different areas
of environmental education, then identified the
area in which they felt that they had become
an “expert,” followed by a culminating activity
where expert groups were provided a simulated
situation to resolve. The students then presented
their projects at the university to parents, teacher
candidates, university faculty and administration.
These types of enriching experiences provide
valuable experience and knowledge to all
stakeholders.
Grant Funded Professional Development
Many of the initiatives focus on the students’
and teacher candidates’ educational growth.
Professional development for in-service teachers
and university faculty has also been included.
Because of the lack of funding, graduate courses
can no longer be provided without tuition and
there is no money for release time for teachers;
therefore, it becomes more difficult to organize and
deliver professional development.
University faculty obtained a grant from The PAPennLake National Writing Project Supporting
Effective Educator Development Grant. This
grant provided workshops for teachers in the
middle school that would focus on content literacy
skills and strategies aligned to the PA Common
Core, providing support for faculty to implement
the strategies with the support of peers and PD
providers. University faculty and PA-PennLake
affiliates throughout the region provided
workshops. Through the grant resources, release
time and stipends were made possible.
We March On
It would be wonderful to say we have overcome
the obstacles facing the partnership. In reality,
there will always be situations and issues we need
to overcome. The commitment of the stakeholders
is the critical component that is allowing the
partnership to overcome the issues caused by
the loss of financial backing. Lack of funding has
complicated matters, but we are unwilling to let it
be an issue that ends the partnership.
References
College for Every Student. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.collegefes.org/
Ganesan, R., Das, T.K., Edwards, C., &
Okagbaa, O.G. (2004). Challenges in
science enhanced education in elementary
classrooms through university-school
district partnerships. Frontiers in Education,
34th Annual, 1, 20-23.
Junior Achievement of Northwestern
Pennsylvania (2011). Retrieved from
https://www.juniorachievement.org/web/
ja-usa/home
National Association for Professional
Development Schools (2008). What it
means to be a professional development
school. Retrieved from www.napds
Stacie Wolbert is the Chair at Edinboro University
of Pennsylavani; she can be reached at swolbert@
edinboro.edu. Teresa Szumigala is the Principal at
Roosevelt Middle School; she can be reached at
[email protected]. Andrea Gloystein is the
Title 1 School Wide Support and the PDS Liaison
at Roosevelt Middle School; she can be reached
at [email protected]. ■
20
PDS AND ALTERNATIVE
SCHOOLS/COMMUNITY SETTINGS
The Path of a Clinical Teacher Preparation as a Conduit for
Innovation in Education
Felipe Golez, California State University, Long
Beach
Introduction
The Urban Teacher Education Academy
in a Clinical Home (U.T.E.A.C.H.) program
was recognized by AACTE as a sustainable
partnership that works (AACTE, 2010). Since
then, we have discovered that a clinical teacher
preparation program is also a conduit for intended
reform and innovation in public schools. Spurred
by the report, High Hopes, Few Opportunities:
The Status of Elementary Science Education in
California (CFTL, 2011), we proposed changing
the culture of Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics (STEM) teaching in elementary
schools through the use of the UTEACH clinical
residency program as a conduit for bringing STEM
Education to STEM depleted schools due to
compliance with No Child Left Behind. The College
of Education in Collaboration with the College of
Natural Science and Mathematics was awarded
a $900,000 grant to use U.T.E.A.C.H. as a means
for getting STEM back into elementary school
teaching. The result was a renewed presence of
When I left the elementary classroom I was
determined to develop a resistance theory for
elementary age students. I was, however, hired as
a research assistant in a Professional Development
School (PDS) setting. It was during that time and
in that applied setting that I first realized the power
of applied clinical teacher preparation. Much to
my personal chagrin, and fear laden, I was forced
to rebuild the direction of my dissertation. In the
back of my mind, I had envisioned leaving the
classroom for a room with a view in academia’s
ivory tower, only to be thrust back in a deeper way
into examining teacher preparation as a vehicle
for improving schools. My social reconstructionist
intentions were turned on their head readjusting
my path as a progressive change agent in public
schools. This was my very first introduction to
the PDS Clinical Program Structure with yearlong
teaching methods and student teaching at the
same school site.
My first opportunity to become engaged in a
clinical program occurred at CSU Long Beach
from 2000 to 2003. Supported by the soft money
of an early tech industry foundation grant, we
named it Collaborative and Onsite for Optimal
THE SUCCESS AND SUSTAINABILITY
OF THE UTEACH PROGRAM HAS BEEN
HIGHLY ATTRACTIVE TO FUNDERS.
STEM in our clinical sites and a strong positioning
for future funding.
It is my intention in this article to outline how
we moved the UTEACH program toward a
sustainable program, free of soft money funding.
I will also discuss the process of UTEACH, a
clinical preparation program, becoming a lightning
rod for bringing new ideas into urban schools
and reciprocally enhancing the experience for
new teachers, practicing teachers and university
faculty. It is my contention that worthy reform
will enter urban schools using site based clinical
teacher preparation as a vehicle for reform. In
addition, the collaborative school change process
acts as a force to strengthen and influence the
development of the clinical residency program
itself.
Early History of UTEACH
"What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger"
(Friedrich Nietzche, Kelly Clarkson)
The early history of UTEACH began with my
dissertation Shifting the Paradigm in Preservice
Teacher Education (Golez, 1995) 20 years ago.
Learning (COOL). I again witnessed the power
of a clinical co-teaching model as a stimulant
for school reform. The clinical home of this PDS
site began with 12 student teachers in a yearlong school based placement. The students also
took methods classes on site. During this tenure
there was growth in the school’s Academic
Performance Index (API) from 500 to 740. The
true benefit to the school, however, was the
building of a learning community at the clinical
site. There was also simultaneous growth in
ELA and Math Standardized Test scores and
a reduction of teacher turn over at what had
been an avoided Title 1, North Long Beach
urban school. What was most remarkable was
a noticeable qualitative change in school milieu
among students, staff and teachers. This could
not be solely attributed to the presence of the
COOL option. The principal of the school at the
time, however, noted that the program was the
catalyst for significant change.
funds diminished, COOL moved toward a
plethora of sustainable site based Curriculum
and Instruction Master’s Degree programs. It also
drew in a colleague, Dr. Linda Symcox, with whom
I continue to do collaborative ventures to this day
(Golez, F. & Symcox, L., 2005). Involvement
in collaborative PDS type projects connects
one professionally with colleagues with similar
academic intentions. In this process we were
able to have 42 teachers with Masters’ degrees
at the Bret Harte clinical site. We also discovered
what we labeled the “Loop of Learning.” This loop
included a site based master degree program
with a co-teaching model in the classrooms,
participants who engaged in action research
and a clinical teacher preparation program. The
fatal flaw in the loop was that eventually all the
master teachers at the site earned their master
degrees. We eventually built this into seven site
base cohorts per year with 25 teacher graduate
students at each site. They were engaged in
action research that improved some aspect of
the teaching and learning at their school sites. At
the same time, the funding for the COOL clinical
program gradually dissipated. We received limited
support from College or University funding, but
simultaneously received national recognition from
National Commission for Teaching and America’s
Future (NCTAF) accompanied by a small Metlife
Grant ($50,000). As teacher preparation numbers
suffered a downturn in California the COOL Option
teacher preparation program disappeared while
the Urban Teaching Academy (UTA) featuring site
based master degree action research programs
grew.
Sustainability: Urban Teacher Education
Academy in a Clinical Home (UTEACH), 2008
to present
Built on a foundation of existing off campus
methods courses and year-long student teaching
in a blended Integrated Teacher Education
Program (ITEP) we made a concerted effort to
resurrect a clinical teacher preparation program
that could be sustained within the existing
institutional structure. We founded and built a new
clinical program by making contested adjustments
to the already existing teacher preparation
structure. Along the way a critical mass of clinical
program supporters grew within the academic
institution and collaborating school districts. The
UTEACH clinical program emerged growing from
10 students at one site to 60 students at 4 sites.
It was then recognized by National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) as
a model clinical teacher program in a partnership
(NCATE, 2011).
Sustainability Begins: Urban Teaching
Academy (2003-2008)
Using the Urban Teacher Education Academy
in a Clinical Home (UTEACH) Clinical Program
as a Conduit for School Change
The university presence at the clinical site moved
out of teacher preparation. As the foundational
After continually seeing growth in both Title
1 sites and non-Title 1 urban sites, in both
21
API and Standardized Test Scores, it became
evident that the presence of a clinical program
like COOL would positively influence the quality
of a clinical site. Student teachers in a cohort
and a university presence in a school brought
change to the perspective and pedagogy that
positively influenced a school’s milieu. Using
student teacher development as a vehicle for
change facilitated master teachers’ pedagogical
discussions. The “Loop of Learning,” with site
based master’s degree program and clinical
preparation happening at the same time was
powerful but difficult to sustain. True school
improvement, however, was evidenced by a
change of school ambiance. At the original COOL
option site we had seen a rise in API scores of over
200 points accompanied by rising standardized
test scores. We witnessed a change in teacher
transiency with the school faculty transfer rate
disappearing.
THE INCREASED
PRESENCE OF STEM
CURRICULUM TO
FUNDERS AT THIS
TIME IS A STRONG
SELLING POINT
FOR CONTINUED
FUNDING.
As UTEACH became established we began to
see a growth in standardized test scores and
API scores again at different clinical teacher
preparation sites. This provided an indication
that positive school change seemed to occur with
the presence of a clinical program. Influenced
by High Hopes, Few Opportunities: The Status
of Elementary Science Education in California
(CFTL, 2011), which highlighted a lack of STEM
education in California Elementary Schools, we
sought and received sizeable grant funding to
address this need at our clinical sites as model
for dissemination. We again discovered that
we were preparing student teachers who were
prepared to teach STEM in elementary schools
and that the teaching of STEM was moving into
our clinical sites. The co-teaching clinical teams
were teaching STEM as were their colleagues.
In the process, we conducted Family STEM
nights designed and conducted primarily by the
UTEACH student teachers. What emerged was
a school community event with families, teachers
and children engaged in STEM activities. It
pointed to a need to involved the community in
future school change projects.
The success and sustainability of the UTEACH
program has been highly attractive to funders.
The increased presence of STEM curriculum to
funders at this time is a strong selling point for
continued funding. One of the ways, besides
required reports, we have used is to provide guided
tours for funders and individuals close to funding
through the clinical sites. In addition, we extended
invitations for funders to our Family STEM nights.
Currently, our focus has shifted to become more
involved in STE “A”M education in schools, with
an intense focus on advancing inquiry based
teaching essential to Common Core Standards.
We have discovered that changes not only occur
among co-teaching clinical teams but also among
other school based teachers and university
faculty. What we also learned was that reforms
or changes that we highly believed in were more
easily presented to funders as a concept worth
supporting. In addition, if an innovation or change
is worth making, a clinical program is among the
best conduit for helping it happen.
In conclusion, a project worth funding, that you
believe in, is attractive to funders when you
build a successful record of bringing positive
intentions to fruition using a vehicle that also
prepares the highest quality future teachers.
The combination is hard to resist for funders and
foundations searching to put their resources to
the best use.
References
American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. (2008, June).
American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. (2010, June).
Center for Teaching and Learning. (2011) High
Hopes, Few Opportunities:
Golez, (1995). Shifting the Paradigm in
Preservice Teacher Education.
Dissertation.
Golez, F. & Symcox, L. (2005). Refashioning
the Professional Development School
Through Masters Certification. Towson
Publications.
NCATE (2011). Long Beach Panel on Clinical
Teacher Education. NCATE Partnership
Meeting. Long Beach, CA.
Partnerships that work. Turning around low
performing schools. AACTE’s Day on the
Hill, Washington, D.C.
Reforming Teacher Preparation: The Critical
Clinical Component, AACTE’s Day on the
Hill, Washington, D.C.
The Status of Elementary Science Education in
California. Sacramento, CA.
Felipe Golez is a Professor at California State
University, Long Beach; he can be reached at
[email protected]. ■
Authentic Service Learning CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5
Professional Performance Review,
the advancing of Common Core State
Standards, and the new Education
Teacher Performance Test, educators
all around can use support from one
another! By educators implementing
and supporting service learning within
their curriculum, we as teachers promote
a sense of support for each other to
ultimately ease our feelings in an evergrowing difficult educational field."
References
Bacharach, N. (2010).Utilizing co-teaching during
the student teaching experience. St. Cloud
University. Retrieved fromhttp://www.
aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/
Content/Root/Programs/
TeacherEducation/07_s_cloud.pdf
Dewey, J. (1916/1944). Democracy and
education. NY: The MacMillan Company.
Eyler, J. & Giles, J. (1999).Where’s the learning
in service-learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Greenburg, J., Pomerance, L., & Walsh, K.
(2011). Student teaching in the United
States. National Council on Teacher
Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.
org/edschoolreports/studentteaching/docs/
nctq_str_full_report_final.pdf
Natale, R. (2011). Authentic service learning
grows at GCC. Gaucho Gazette, 13(3).
Retrieved from http://www.gccaz.edu/
NewsAndEvents/CollegeNews/March2011/
AcademicAffairs/ authenticsericelearning.
htm
Rodgers, A. & Keil, V. (2007). Restructuring a
traditional student teacher supervision
model:
Fostering enhanced professional
development and mentoring within
a professional development school
context. Teaching &Teacher Education:
An International Journal of Research and
Studies. 23(1),63-80.
Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures
of student teaching. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 29(2).Retrieved fromhttp://
www.teqjournal.org/Back%20Issues/
Volume%2029/VOL29%20PDFS/29_2/
sp02zeichner29_2.pdf
Chris Widdall is an Assistant Professor at
the State University of New York College of
Cortland; he can be reached at Chris.Widdall@
cortland.edu. Valerie Behr is a Lecturer III at
the State University of New York College of
Cortland; she can be reached at Valerie.behr@
cortland.edu. Kim Wieczorek is an Associate
Professor at the State University of New York
College of Cortland; she can be reached at
[email protected]. Jo-Anne Knapp
is the Principal of Caryl E. Adams Elementary
School; she can be reached at Jknapp@wpcsd.
org. ■
22
Building Community CONTINUED FROM PAGE 8
professional partnership among candidate
colleagues in all content areas and special
education. At the end of the spring semester
(2014), the various program-level classes met
to deliberate if CHILL would be an asset to our
program. The completed questionnaires from our
teacher candidates overwhelmingly convinced us
of the need to implement such an organization.
During the summer months of 2014, a cadre of
candidates at the immersive field experience and
student teaching levels, and recent graduates
who are entering their first year of teaching,
met on a regular basis to develop a systematic
approach to move the CHILL component of our
program forward through the fall semester. Thus
far, this cadre of teacher candidates and recent
graduates has brainstormed ideas and delegated
responsibilities such as articulating the purpose of
CHILL, the establishment of CHILL as a student
organization, and applying for faculty-led travel
grants all to enhance the effectiveness of the
teacher education program. Flyers and sponsors
for the initial welcome meeting (cookout) have
also been designed and prepared by the students.
After our initial CHILL welcome meeting, four
other meetings throughout the fall semester have
been established. The topics of each meeting
will enhance the schedule already in place at
each level. For example, the first meeting of the
fall semester will include introductions, further
explanation of the purpose of CHILL, and group
mentoring assignments. The second meeting is
scheduled just prior to our teacher candidates
entering the field for classroom observations. At
this time, CHILL will review journaling techniques
and the module packets assigned for each level.
The third meeting of CHILL will take place after
immersive field experiences are completed to
assist students with writing their mandatory
unit reports. Finally, the fourth meeting of the
semester will consider the usefulness of the
CHILL program—how well it helped students
negotiate the challenges of the semester. These
deliberations will be used by faculty and the
planning cadre to enhance our teacher education
program. Although the topics of each meeting are
also covered during regular class time at each
level, the purpose is to incorporate a student-led,
cross-generational component to network and
mentor each other through the program.
Cassandra Caruso-Woolard is an Instructor at
Indiana State University; she can be reached at
[email protected]. Susan
Kiger is a Professor at Indiana State University;
she can be reached at [email protected].
Della Thacker is an Associate Professor at Indiana
State University; she can be reached at Della.
[email protected]. Robin Thoma is a Teacher
at Terre Haute North Vigo High School; she can
be reached at [email protected]. Bradely
Countermine is an Instructor at Indiana State
University; he can be reached at bcountermine@
sycamores.indstate.edu. ■
Visit our new website at
www.napds.org
Non-Profit
Organization
US Postage
PAID
Permit #766
Columbia, SC
College of Education
University of South Carolina
Wardlaw 113B
Columbia, SC 29208
Phone: 803–777–1515
Fax: 803–777–3035
E–mail: [email protected]
nadps.org
SUPPORTING COACHING SCHOOL—UNIVERSITY
PARTNERSHIPS
The Journal of the
National Association for
Professional Development Schools
| PLANNING | ENGAGING | FOSTERING
| EXPLORING | CREATING | UNDERSTANDING
School-University
Partnerships Submissions
Kristien Zenkov, Senior Editor, George Mason University
School-University Partnerships is committed to advocating for collaborative
ventures across the PreK-12 and college and university communities
as vehicles for the discovery and sharing of knowledge that shapes
educational best practices. Honoring the voices of both school-based
and university-based educators is central to the mission of the National
Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS), and SchoolUniversity Partnerships seeks manuscripts that represent partnerships
across stakeholders. The journal strongly encourages submissions that
reflect collaborative partnership initiatives. Submissions may focus on
(but are not limited to) original school-university research designed and
implemented collaboratively, descriptions of effective pedagogies and
content delivery in PDS contexts, explanations of successful partnership
models and structures, examples of measures of assessment and results
of evaluative processes, and analyses of the professional development of
all constituents involved with school-university partnerships.
Complete Submission Guidelines can be found at www.napds.org.
Submissions and any inquiries regarding past submissions can be made
to: [email protected]
JOIN US ON FACEBOOK
WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/GROUPS/NAPDS
AND ON TWITTER
@NAPDS9