GATEways 2015 (Volume 26, Issue 1)

Volume 26, Issue 1 October 2015

Feature Article The Domino Effect: Saving Sea Turtles

by Teaching Teachers about Sea Turtle Conservation This article coincides with the SRATE conference session by the Georgia Sea Turtle Center on Jekyll Island and focuses on the effectiveness of sea turtle workshops conducted

along the Georgia coast.

Increased knowledge and improved attitudes and behaviors toward sea turtle conservation for educators who participated in focus workshops were compared

to those who visited the Center as a school field trip. The study revealed an increase in knowledge of sea turtles and a high level of concern for conservation in all participants.

Integrating the edTPA in an Existing Internship Seminar: Lessons Learned

GATEways to Teacher Education

GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATORS

Beginning in 2015, teacher candidates in Georgia are required to pass the edTPA portfolio assessment to be

eligible for a teaching certificate. This paper describes the design of candidate support in one

educator preparation program during a pilot of the edTPA in the year prior to full implementation.

Modified Course Agreements: Tools for Student Success A Modified Course Agreement is specifically designed for students requiring modifications in content area classes. The general and special educa-

tion teachers collaborate on the MCA so students can be held responsible for, become successful in, and learn content area curriculum. This tool gives

teachers a method to assure that learning pertinent information required in content areas can be achieved by students with low incidence disabilities.

Power in Collaboration: First Year Teacher and School Library Media Specialist Design and Deliver Projects The team of teacher and school library media specialist form a powerful combination in curriculum development and delivery of instruction due to the

specific training of both roles. This case study revealed how collaboration between a first year teacher and a school library media specialist impacted student

achievement based on each student’s specific identified learner style, with a primary focus on visual learners.

Preparing Teachers to Combat the R Word This article discusses how the R word referencing individuals with special needs impacts the culture of schools. The authors

examine how using the R word creates a hostile school environment that causes a “normal” versus “different” binary opposition and continues to

dehumanize a segment of the school population.

They postulate the word should be eradicated from the schooling process.

Understanding the Influences of ESOL Preservice Teachers’ Prior Experiences in Their Learning Process This investigation explored the ways ESOL preservice teachers’ prior experiences shape their learning and growth in teacher preparation programs,

particularly in the area of reading instruction. The study found that ESOL preservice teachers’ prior experiences influenced their learning and growth

Inside this issue:

The Domino Effect: Saving Sea Turtles Integrating the edTPA in an Existing Seminar

1 8

Modified Course Agreements: Tools for Success

13

Power in Collaboration

21

Preparing Teachers to Combat the R Word

33

Understanding Influences of ESOL Teachers’ Experiences

40

in the development of professional expectations, views of reading and articulation of visions of reading instruction, and professional dispositions.

Don’t miss the back cover!

Special points of interest:  GATEways article submission requests  GATE 2015 Conference information

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

The Domino Effect: Saving Sea Turtles

by Teaching Teachers about Sea Turtle Katie Higgins, Georgia Sea Turtle Center, and Conservation Patricia Norris Parsons, Armstrong State University Ocean literacy is defined as “an understanding of the ocean’s influence on you – and your influence on the ocean,” (National Geographic Society, 2006). The principals guiding the Ocean Literacy Network (OLN) were designed to infuse the marine sciences into the US National Science Educational Standards, which upon their original publication included almost no mention of the marine environment or the importance of oceans and other aquatic habitats (Cava, Schoedinger, Strang, & Tuddenham, 2005; Strang & Tran, 2010).

Participating entities in the OLN include the National Marine Educators Association (NMEA), National Geographic Society, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and American Zoological Association.

The efforts of the OLN collaboration have been instrumental in moving K-12 education curriculum in the United States toward one of integration among formal and informal educators and marine scientists in an attempt to heighten awareness of a myriad of marine conservation issues. The recent publication of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (2015) has created a basis for integrating OLN goals into the classroom and fostering collaborations among those who teach science and those who practice science. Scientific inquiry can be defined as the asking of an initial question and the process of investigation to learn the answer. It is a conceptual bridge between informal and formal educators. Inquiry is a key element to the NGSS and specifically referenced as an integral part of practices within the threedimensional framework of the standards, which include practices, core ideas and crosscutting concepts (NGSS, 2015). However, while the teaching of scientific inquiry is an element of the

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

programs offered through marine education institutions such as the Georgia Sea Turtle Center (GSTC), the very nature of inquiry requires more sustained contact with students than that achieved during a typical field trip experience (Bitgood, 1989). Therefore, the weight of inquiry lies on teachers and teacher-scientist collaborations to truly bring the power of science into the classroom and to get the students out of the classroom and into the world of scientific discovery. One potentially powerful means to this end is the exposure of science teachers to career scientists and field research, giving them first-hand experience and thereby empowering them to teach what they know rather than theory gleaned from textbooks or other media sources (Ivey, Colston, & Thomas, 2015).

The GSTC was established in 2007 with the mission to fill several roles in the conservation of the loggerhead and other sea turtle species locally on Jekyll Island, statewide in Georgia, and beyond.

The GSTC’s mission states, “Through sea turtle rehabilitation, research and educational programs, the Georgia Sea Turtle Center staff work to increase awareness of habitat and wildlife conservation challenges, promote responsibility for ecosystem health and empower individuals to act locally, regionally, and globally to protect the environment” (GSTC, 2007). The bolded words are the authors’ addition, highlighting the areas in need of further evaluation, some of which were initiated by this study. In order to meet the challenges created by increased development on Jekyll Island, the need for a more stringent assessment of this mission is paramount to meeting the challenges of more human interaction with the island’s nesting sea turtle population.

PAGE 1

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

The GSTC holds a fortunate role in the overall scheme of sea turtle conservation and education along the Georgia Coast. It receives an average of 130,000 visitors each year, approximately 8,900 of whom are students participating in school field trips (GSTC, 2015). While there are numerous dedicated researchers and environmental educators working with sea turtles on the various barrier islands, GSTC is the only center dedicated to the rehabilitation of sea turtles in addition to its active beach monitoring program during the nesting season, from May through October (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2015). This combination of conservation efforts allows the GSTC education staff to guarantee an opportunity for visitors to see live sea turtles as well as wildlife veterinary medicine in action. Few other facilities in Georgia can offer the same level of integrated effort between researchers, rehabilitators, and educators, and certainly even fewer can offer the same level of experience with as enigmatic and charismatic a creature as the sea turtle.

Compared to the over 8,900 students seen at the GSTC during a calendar year, only about 16 to 45 teachers are able to participate in teacher-focused workshops each year along the Georgia Coast. The workshops range from one to two day events designed to expose teachers to various aspects of the sea turtle life cycle during the summer nesting months to a full semester post-graduate biology course for teachers pursuing their master’s degree in education at Armstrong Atlantic State University. While the number of teacher participants are few in comparison to visitation at the GSTC, the continued efforts in teacher workshops has been justified due to a belief in the domino effect of teaching those who have access to teaching hundreds more.

This study is designed to test the theory that teachers will take their perceived gain in knowledge of sea turtles and apply that to their curriculum by teaching their students about sea turtles and engendering a level of conservation-mindedness and stewardship toward the planet. This study is the first of its kind to effectively evaluate the efficacy of such workshops in the state of Georgia and has required the collaboration of sea turtle conservationists and educators all along the coast.

The primary questions to be addressed through this study are: 1) Are teachers incorporating the

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

knowledge gained about sea turtles in lessons for their students? 2) Are teachers who participate in sea turtle focused workshops more conservationminded than those who simply visit the GSTC as part of a field trip program? The pervading assumption among non-formal educators is that workshops are extremely effective in engaging teachers in sea turtle education. Personal observations lead to the belief that by giving participants additional knowledge and hands-on experience in the field, workshops facilitate an increased level of conservation attitude and encourage behaviors which should benefit sea turtles and other wildlife. Theoretically, these teachers then should be able and motivated to take this experience into the classroom and teach their students about sea turtles and the importance of their conservation. This study serves to extract evidence and quantify this effect.

Methods Pre-existing evaluation methods at the GSTC have focused on the first part of the GSTC’s mission: increasing visitors’ knowledge base and awareness of conservation concerns to assure meeting performance standards for various funding organizations including NOAA and AmeriCorps.

After each educator program, evaluations are performed to test visitors’ knowledge of information covered in each program. Additionally, customer feedback via social media platforms such as Facebook and Travelocity are regularly monitored to help estimate customer satisfaction of various programs which can then be used for marketing purposes. However, little is known about the GSTC’s effectiveness in reference to the attitudes (responsibility) and behaviors (empowerment to act) of the Center’s guests towards conservation (Lo, Chow, & Cheung, 2012; Dimopoulos, Paraskevopoulos, & Pantis, 2008).

Survey Design As the objective of this study is to measure the impact of the GSTC education programming and facility on the attitudes and behaviors of visitors, a survey tool was designed in collaboration with 2014 AmeriCorps Education Member Lisa Schlembach and Dr. Gary Green of the University of Georgia.

PAGE 2

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

The survey consisted of 49 questions designed to measure three major concepts: knowledge of, attitude toward, and behavior in regard to sea turtle conservation. Nine questions about basic sea turtle biology were set up with three response options: true, false, or unsure. Attitude was measured in two separate sections with a series of five-point Likert scale questions. The first nine questions asked participants to decide how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of actions or opinions in regard to sea turtles. The next five questions asked them how important they felt certain actions are in contributing to sea turtle conservation. Behavior toward sea turtle conservation was measured in two ways: the first was a series of eight questions asking participants to estimate how often they performed various conservation-minded actions.

These questions were also ranked on a 5-point Likert scale. The second behavior-focused question was given only to those who had previously taken a teacher workshop focused on sea turtles. This question asked the participants to estimate how many others, presumably students, they had subsequently taught about sea turtles and their conservation concerns.

Survey Participants Teachers who participated in sea turtle focused workshops along the Georgia Coast and teachers who brought their students to the GSTC for a field trip experience were the targeted audiences for this study.

Sampling Methods Of the original 150 emails sent to teachers who had participated in workshops, 27 bounced back as non-existent which left 123 emails delivered. Of those, 45 people opened the email while only 20 took the survey (n=20). Therefore, the survey response rate for the online version of the survey was calculated at 44.4 %.

Surveys were conducted in person on paper for teachers visiting the GSTC on field trips. These surveys were conducted as school groups booked reservations and as the primary researcher was available to identify a willing participant. The inperson survey response rate was substantially higher than the online response rate, with a 100% survey response rate. However, the number of inhouse teachers surveyed was also much lower

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

(n=7). Completed surveys were manually entered into an Excel file.

A total of 20 of educators participated in the online survey. Seven participated in person after visiting the GCTC and 20 participated via an emailed survey. The survey was conducted over a three-week time period. The email was sent from a business email address and contained the words “Help us help sea turtles” in the subject line.

Teachers were offered an incentive of 10 % discount on the GSTC online gift shop for participating in the survey. The email management software reported how many emails were opened and how many bounced and why. With this information, survey response rates were easily calculated.

Analysis All responses were analyzed separately and comparative t-tests were run between teachers who had participated in workshops and those who visited the GSTC as part of a field trip experience.

Any t-values of less than or equal to .05 were considered significant.

The answers to the nine basic sea turtle knowledge questions were tallied with a 1=correct and a 0=incorrect. An answer of “unsure” was scored as a 0. The total percent score was then tallied and an average correct score was calculated.

The attitudes and opinions about sea turtle conservation questions comprised two sections for of fourteen total questions in a Likert Scale format.

For each section, the average score was used to compare workshop and non-workshop participants.

Furthermore, Cronbach’s alpha was applied to attitudinal questions to determine reliability among each set of related questions (Institute for Digital Research and Education, 2015). This analysis was applied to determine efficacy of survey design (Dimopoulos et al., 2008). Not all questions measured attitudes considered positive to the conservation of sea turtles. Therefore, an overall direction was considered with 5 being more correlated to a conservation minded attitude and 1 being associated with negative conservation attitude. Several rankings were converted to reflect this overall numeric direction. An example of this conversion was for a question such as “I would purchase or have purchased an item made from a sea turtle.” While the scale was such that 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, the

PAGE 3

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

converted ranking for a participant who responded with a 1 was translated to a 5 for strongly conservation-minded. Alternatively, a response to the question “I believe more or stricter laws are needed to protect sea turtles” of 5 was left with this value, also indicating a participant with strong conservation values.

The eight questions designed to measure respondents’ behavior in reference to sea turtle conservation using questions about their tendency to act in reference to daily activities, such as recycling, composting, writing letters or doing clean-ups, were also averaged across the series of questions and compared using t-tests among workshop and non-workshop respondents.

Additionally, this section was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha to determine reliability of the survey tool. The additional question of how many students each workshop participant had taught about sea turtles as a result of the workshop experience was analyzed by adding the minimum and maximum ranges and reporting them as an overall minimum impact for workshop efficacy.

Results Survey Response Of the total respondents surveyed (n=27), 9 have not participated in any kind of teacher workshop but have visited the GSTC either individually or as part of a school field trip. The other 18 are former participants in various workshops and courses designed to give teachers hands-on experience with sea turtles and one-onone interaction with sea turtle professionals. t-Tests When results were analyzed, knowledge and conservation attitude were found to be quite high for all teachers surveyed (see Table 1). While workshop participants did have a higher average score of 93 % for general sea turtle knowledge as compared to 85 % for non-workshop participants, results did not show significant differences between these two sets of data. Overall, no significant differences between teachers who participated in workshops and those who did not were determined for the range of survey questions (see Table 1).

Conservation-based behaviors were found to be slightly higher for teachers who participated in workshops, but again, no significant differences

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

were found between the two data sets. Therefore, the assumption that workshops are more influential than field trips on teachers’ knowledge of sea turtles and attitudes and behaviors towards conservation of sea turtles must be rejected.

Survey Reliability After analyzing the survey tool using the Cronbach alpha statistical test, the survey tool appeared less than ideal for measuring knowledge of and attitude toward sea turtle conservation. The resulting Cronbach value of the knowledge section of the survey was only .514, disappointingly lower than the suggested .70 minimum value for a reliable result (Dimopoulos et al., 2008). It is not known if this variance could be due to a number of guesses made by participants, the small sample size (n=27), or simply due to the fact that the Cronbach scale is more appropriately used to analyze a Likert scale gradient rather than a binomial one (Dimopoulos et al., 2008).

The attitude section of the survey was analyzed using only two of the original nine questions, a Cronbach alpha value of .729 was achieved (see Tables 2 & 3). The original value was .404 and contained a number of items negatively or poorly correlated to each other indicating that the questions could not be effectively aggregated to answer a single question of whether the participants felt strongly either way about sea turtle conservation (see Table 2). By removing all items with a corrected item-total correlation of less than .2, the Cronbach alpha value was increased to .532, which still did not fit into the minimum requirements of a reliable survey tool. Only when reduced to two highly correlated questions was the Cronbach alpha value increased to acceptable levels (see Table 3).

The analysis of the behavior portion of the survey showed a more favorable Cronbach’s alpha figure of .709 using 11 of 12 questions. While this value would be acceptable for answering the research question of level of conservation behavior among survey participants (Dimopoulos et al., 2008), corrected item-total correlation values indicated that some questions were not as reliable as others (see Table 4). Carpooling and turning off the tap to conserve water while washing dishes both had a lower value than .20, indicating that they were not as reliable an indicator of participant

PAGE 4

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Table 1 Comparison of Overall Average Scores for Each of the Three Major Precepts Measured with the Survey Tool (p values all > .05) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comparisons

Workshop Participants

Non-Workshop Participants

t-test

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Knowledge Attitude Behavior

93 % 4.37 % 3.91 %

85 % 4.30 % 3.73 %

0.23 0.66 0.35

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2 Item-Total Statistics at Cronbach alpha = 0.404 Using Six of Nine Questions ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Questions

Scale Mean If Item Deleted

Scale Variance If Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach’s alpha If Item Deleted

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Touch Equal Rights Enjoy Wild Stricter Laws Human & gt; ST Want Pet

19.846 21.000 19.615 20.038 21.231 19.615

11.815 9.760 9.926 8.838 12.425 11.606

.043 .238 .389 .382 .011 .168

.354 .467 .644 .511 .363 .480

.452 .329 .248 .219 .478 .376

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 3 Item-Total Statistics at Cronbach alpha = 0.532 Using Three of Nine Questions ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Questions

Scale Mean If Item Deleted

Scale Variance If Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach’s alpha If Item Deleted

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Equal Rights Enjoy Wild Stricter Laws

8.889 7.519 7.963

4.641 4.721 3.806

.296 .522 .518

.088 .354 .363

.729 .431 .391

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4 Administrator Participant Survey Results: Statement Rankings ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Questions

Scale Mean If Item Deleted

Scale Variance If Item Deleted

Corrected ItemTotal Correlation

Squared Multiple Correlation

Cronbach’s alpha If Item Deleted

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sustainable SF 41.286 19.693 .263 .280 .710 Support Conservation 40.929 20.958 .402 .480 .686 Write Letter 41.464 17.369 .654 .674 .634 Clean-Up 40.750 22.417 .212 .197 .706 Carpool 42.679 21.115 .197 .652 .714 Money 42.179 18.819 .508 .634 .663 Water 41.000 22.222 .068 .498 .733 Clean-Up 41.893 17.358 .559 .655 .649 Bags 41.250 20.861 .225 .503 .709 Tell Friends/Family 41.286 18.138 .627 .685 .643 Recycling 40.643 22.460 .370 .350 .699 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

PAGE 5

GATEways to t Teacher E Education A jo ournal of the Georg gia Association of T Teacher Educators

conservation behavior. When both of o these questions were removeed from the an nalysis, the Cronbach h’s alpha valuee jumped to .7 756. Anotherr t-test was run for both attitude and behavior b aggregatee questions using corrected d values; however, no significan nt differences were establisheed between wo orkshop and non-workshop n p participan nts, solidifying g the acceptan nce of a null hypothesiis between theese two sub-aaudiences.

The Dom mino Effect Of thee 18 respondeents who partiicipated in sea turtle worrkshops, 6 had d a workshop within the laast year and 12 1 had a work kshop betweeen two and fiv ve years ago. These teachers estimated d teaching another 26 680-3790 peo ople about seaa turtles and their consservation issuees following this t experiencce.

These resu ults indicate that t for every y one teacher taught abo out sea turtless, approximattely 149-210 additionall people learn ned about thesse creatures (ssee Figure 1).. If this figuree can safely be extrapolated d to the 174 4 known sea tu urtle worksho op attendees along the Georgia coasst, these work kshops may haave reached frrom 25,906 to o 36,636 addiitional peoplee.

Diiscussion Formaal educators were w elected as a the study population n due to the efforts e and im mportance placced on teacherr-focused workshops each year by vario ous sea turtle programs alo ong the Georg gia coast. o worksho ops to formal Several orrganizations offer educators either as an amenity a or thrrough state-

VOL LUME 26, ISSUE 1

Quality grantss. These workkshops fundded Teacher Q are iintended to caapacitate teacchers through handson rresearch experience and coontact with auuthentic consservation effoorts for the enndangered logggerhead sea tturtle. As all sea turtle focused program ms are perm mitted throughh the Georgiaa Departmentt of Natuural Resourcees in their effo forts to raise aawareness abouut this speciess and its speccific human-reelated threeats, they are aalso charged with proving the efficcacy of each oof these progrrams.

One obstaclee faced for thiis study was a low respponse rate by individuals w who, in theoryy, have a connnection with tthe subject m matter. The incclusion of sea tturtles in the subject line oof the originall email and the additionaal incentive foor completingg the survvey was expeccted to have a larger impacct than was experienced.. However, inn today’s fast--paced, techhnology-heavyy world, emaails can easily go unnooticed. One ppotential folloow-up measurre to achiieve more datta would be too make phonee calls to thosse who did noot open their eemails, providded the phonne numbers aare available.

While statistiical analysis sshowed no siggnificant diffe ferences betweeen teachers w who participaated in worrkshops whenn compared too those who caame to the G GSTC as partt of a field triip, there was eevidence that participants hhave taken thhe informationn taught throough teacher w workshops annd applied theem to theirr own lesson plans within the classroom m. One hunddred percent of the responndents who repported partticipation in a workshop allso reported teeaching studdents themselvves. Some repported as highh as “5000-1000” studeents, and one reported “ovver 1,000 and counting” stuudents have bbeen instructeed within less than a year oof completingg the workshoop.

Althhough the sam mple size for tthis study is ssmall, this information iis highly encoouraging.

In addition too the goal of aanswering quuestions detaailed in this sttudy, the objeective of statisstically testiing the surveyy tool was acccomplished uusing the totall data set of nn=27 responsees. In effect, tthis study has been a pilot sstudy for use of the surveyy tool to STC’s morre broadly meeasure the imppact of the GS educcation effortss and the efficcacy of the orgaanization’s m mission statem ment in referennce to incrreasing awareeness, promotiing responsibbility, and emppowering indiividuals to actt to protect thhe enviironment (GS STC, 2007). W While not an iideal tooll, the analysiss required for this study wiill allow impprovement.

PAGE 6

GATEways to t Teacher E Education A jo ournal of the Georg gia Association of T Teacher Educators

Reeferences Bitgood, S. (1989). School field trips: An A overview.

Visitorr Behavior, 4(2 2), 3-6. Retriev ved from http://w www2.informaalscience.org/rresearches/VSA Aa0a2f0 0-a_5730.pdf Cava, F., Schoedinger, S S., Strang, C., & Tuddenham, P. (2005)). Science conttent and standa ards for ocean literaccy: A report on n ocean literacyy. National Geogrraphic Society and National Oceanic O and Atmosspheric Admin nistration. Retriieved from http://w www.coexplorration.org/oceaanliteracy/docu ume nts/OL Lit2004-05_Fin nal_Report.pdff Dimopoulo os, D., Paraskeevopoulos, S., & Pantis, J.D. (2008)). The cognitiv ve and attitudin nal effects of a conserrvation educatiional module on o elementary schooll students. The Journal of Environmental Educa ation, 39(3), 47 7-61.

Georgia Seea Turtle Centeer. (2007). Mission. Retrieved d llisland.com/ from http://gstc.jeky h Georgia Seea Turtle Centeer. (2015) [prog gram records].

Unpub blished raw datta.

Institute fo or Digital Reseaarch and Educaation. (2015).

SPSS FAQ. F Retrieveed from http://w www.ats.ucla. edu/stat/spss/faq/alph ha.html Ivey, T., Colston, C N., & Thomas, T J. (2015). Bringing space science down to t earth for preeservice elemen ntary teachers. Electronic Jou urnal of Sciencce Educa ation, 19(2). Reetrieved from http://ejse. h southw western.edu/artticle/download d/13785/9486 Lo, A. Y., Chow, A. T., & Cheung, S. M. M (2012).

Signifficance of perceeived social ex xpectation and impliccations to conseervation educaation: Turtle conserrvation as a casse study. Envirronmental Manag gement, 50(5), 900-913.

Next Geneeration Sciencee Standards. (20 015). Next genera ation science standards: for states, s by statess.

Retrieved from http://www.nextgen nscience.org/ next-g generation-science-standards National Geographic G Socciety. (2006). Ocean O literacy:: The esssential princip ples of ocean scciences K-12.

Washiington, DC: Naational Geograp phic.

Georgia Department of Natural N Resourcces. (2015, Maay).

Carettta caretta. Retrrieved from htttp://www. georgiiawildlife.com//RareReptiles Strang, C., & Tran, L. U. (2010). NMEA A Special Repo ort on Ocean Literacy. National N Marin ne Educators Allian nce. Retrieved from f http:// oceeanliteracy.wp p2. coexplloration. org/occean-literacynetwork/foundationss/nmea-special--report/

VOL LUME 26, ISSUE 1

About the Au uthors Katiie Higgins, BS S Ms. Higgins holds a Bachelor off Science in Bioology from Portl tland State Uniiversity in Oreggon and is currrently workking toward heer Master of Arrts in Zoology through Miam mi University of Oxford, Ohhio’s Project Drragonfly.

Her teaching experrience runs thee spectrum of aan informal enviironmental eduucator to a certiified teacher off English as a seccond language (CELTA) from m Cambridge U University; she aalso holds a Ceertification in P Pedagogical Apptitude (CA AP) with a focuus in teaching bbiology to midddle school and high school stuudents from thhe University off Cordoba, Spaiin. Her currentt role as the Edducation Coordinator at the Georrgia Sea Turtlee Center on Jekkyll Island, Georgia allows her tto combine herr passion for biiology and connservation withh her commitm ment to educatioon.

Patrricia Norris Paarsons, EdD Dr. P Parsons’s expeerience in educcation has spannned over 30 yearrs, starting at thhe University oof Georgia undder E. Paul Torrrance, at ARAM MCO Oil Com mpany in Saudi Arabia undeer Madeline Huunter, in New Z Zealand with D Dame Marie Clayy, in London foor Montessori ttraining, and inn Scotland for ttraining with sppecial needs chhildren. Her edducational philoosophy has evoolved though thhese experiencces and workking with studeents of all agess in several couuntries. Her lead ership style foccuses on building relationships among stafff members andd students in thee educational oorganization in orrder to foster leearning. Speciffically, she values team mwork, collabooration, and datta-driven assesssment. She belieeves that in thee global world of today, technnology is an essenntial tool to prromote teachingg and learning in the classsroom. She is ccommitted to ssupporting and encoouraging pre-teeaching candiddates to be preppared and refleective decision makers, dediccated to teachinng diverse learnners and encouuraging them too be responsiblle citizens and stewards of thee environment.

PAGE 7

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Integrating the edTPA in an Existing Internship Seminar: Jennifer Edelman, University of West Georgia Lessons Learned

Beginning in fall 2015 teacher candidates in the state of Georgia are required to successfully complete and pass a teaching performance assessment (edTPA) in addition to the already required content assessments (GACE) in order to qualify for an initial teaching certificate. The Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC) identifies the edTPA as a way to “increase the effectiveness of beginning teachers” (GaPSC, 2015). This change has implications for educator preparation programs (EPPs) in Georgia as well. Beginning in the 2015-2016 academic year, EPPs will be evaluated by the state using Preparation Program Effectiveness Measures. The edTPA falls under the measure of teacher candidates’ content knowledge, which accounts for 30% of an EPP’s overall assessment (GaPSC, n.d.) These changes demonstrate the high-stakes nature of the edTPA, both for the teacher candidate and the educator preparation program.

The edTPA was cooperatively developed by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). Secondary teacher candidates complete three tasks that demonstrate their knowledge of the teaching cycle within their discipline. The first task requires teacher candidates to describe their school setting, plan 3-5 connected lessons on a central concept or focus, and reflect on the decisions made in planning those lessons. In the second task, teacher candidates teach the lessons from Task 1 and videotape the classes. They then complete a reflection on their instruction. Finally, Task 3 asks teacher candidates to report on the assessment practices and tasks they used in their learning segment, as well as provide evidence of

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

effective feedback for student work. There are five rubrics for each task in the edTPA; the descriptors are such that a level 3 performance demonstrates that a candidate performed at an acceptable level and is ready to begin teaching (SCALE, n.d.). Pearson has recruited and trained edTPA scorers in each discipline to evaluate the portfolios. While many EPPs in Georgia already included a performance assessment, the edTPA provides a standardized template by which EPPs can be equitably evaluated across the state (Peck, Singer-Gabella, Sloan, & Lin, 2014). The edTPA was nationally validated in 2013 and is being implemented at various levels in more than 30 states at the time of writing (SCALE, n.d.).

Designing an Immersive Experience for Teacher Candidates This study was implemented at a regional comprehensive university in the Southeast.

Participants were students completing an initial certification program in secondary education at the undergraduate or master’s levels. The teacher candidates completed the edTPA portfolio as part of the internship seminar course accompanying their teaching internship, typically in the last semester of study at the university. In addition to completing the portfolio and a reflection paper incorporating the InTASC principles, teacher candidates participated in a hiring simulation, with a focus on résumés and cover letters, and a simulated parent-teacher conference. The secondary education program had little difficulty integrating the edTPA into its program as the three tasks mirrored assignments that were already part of the coursework (see Figure 1).

PAGE 8

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Figure 1. Existing Seminar Assignments Replaced by edTPA edTPA Task 1

• Replaced Assignments • School profile • Unit plan

edTPA Task 2

• Replaced Assignments • Videotaped teaching • Reflection on teaching

edTPA Task 3

• Replaced Assignment • Impact on student learning reflection

to the instructors of the seminar that teacher candidates have ample opportunity to read, discuss, and reflect on the task descriptions in the handbooks. This provided an opportunity to model the active learning and inquiry pedagogy valued by the program, so teacher-led lecture was minimized to allow time for activities that required teacher candidates to read the handbook, reflect on what the task requires, compare and contrast their thoughts with others in their discipline, and finally create a set of notes for use in preparing the artifacts required in each task.

Examining scoring criteria

Immersion Sessions The internship seminar course traditionally meets on six Saturdays throughout the semester from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm. In order to receive edTPA scores from Pearson prior to the end of the semester, the mornings of the first four seminar meetings were conducted as edTPA “immersion sessions” for teacher candidates to be introduced to each task and have the opportunity for peer review and feedback on completed tasks. Prior to attending the first session, teacher candidates were required to watch a brief “Intro to edTPA” video created by the instructor of the course. This video gave a brief overview of the changes in teacher certification in Georgia as well as a discussion of how each of the tasks is connected to each other.

Teacher candidates were also required to print two edTPA handbooks: that of their discipline and the handbook entitled “Making Good Choices.”

These handbooks were made available through the edTPA integrated platform provider; in this case Tk20 was used. Students printed each handbook on single-sided pages and three-hole punched them to add to a binder for ease of use.

Approximately 30 minutes of the first session were spent reorganizing the handbooks so that all of the information necessary for each task was combined in a separate section, thereby combining the two handbooks into a single resource to make it easier for teacher candidates to quickly access the information.

Making sense of the tasks Each session began with activities designed to help teacher candidates understand what was being asked of them in the task. It was important

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

After determining what each task required, attention was turned to how teacher candidates’ portfolios would be scored. Again, emphasis was put on building teacher candidates’ understanding of the rubrics through review of the rubrics, discussion with others in their discipline, and creation of notes to use in preparing each task.

Peer review and self-evaluation Each task was assigned at a session and then due by the following meeting. The internship seminar was scheduled to meet approximately every two weeks so teacher candidates had ample time to complete each task prior to the next meeting. Candidates were asked to partner with another person in their discipline and complete a peer review sheet that listed each of the rubrics along with the evidentiary sources for evaluating the task and “look fors” for each level of the rubric. Additionally, teacher candidates engaged in a self-reflection that asked them specific questions about the task. For example, in Task 1, the self-reflection checklist asks if teacher candidates have saved each of their artifacts in the required format as described on the Task 1 Evidence Chart. This self-assessment checklist was included as a way to ensure that teacher candidates were completing all of the required elements in the proper format, thus avoiding difficulties due to file formatting when transferring the portfolios from Tk20 to Pearson.

Sample Session: Session 3 This section describes the specific activities that teacher candidates completed as part of the third session in order to give the reader a better

PAGE 9

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

idea of what occurred during a session. Prior to this session, teacher candidates had completed Tasks 1 and 2. The goal of this session was to introduce and decode Task 3 and engage in peer review of Task 2.

Making sense of Task 3.

For this task, teacher candidates are asked to provide student work samples, evidence of feedback, an assessment commentary, and the evaluation criteria they used in their assessment.

The session began with students engaging in a protocol called “Structured Conversations” (Expeditionary Learning, n.d.). The purpose of this activity was to introduce the sections of Task 3 to the teacher candidates and to begin to make sense of what each piece required of them.

Teacher candidates began by independently reading the section “Analyzing Student Learning” in Task 3. After reading, they completed a graphic organizer that asked them to record their initial thoughts. Teacher candidates discussed their initial thoughts with an elbow partner for approximately three minutes. After that discussion, the teacher candidates completed a reflection on the discussion they had. Finally, they re-read the section and recorded any thoughts they had after the reading, discussion, and re-reading.

This protocol was repeated for the sections on feedback, analyzing students’ academic language understanding and use, and use of assessment to inform instruction. This graphic organizer was not collected in order for the teacher candidates to have it for reference as they completed the task.

To assess the teacher candidates’ understanding of the task, they completed an activity called “Tweet.” In this activity, teacher candidates worked with a partner to summarize the section “Analyzing Student Learning” in 25 words or fewer. Following that, they summarized both “Analyzing Student Learning” and “Feedback” in 25 words or less. The activity continues by adding another section in each round until teacher candidates are asked to summarize all four sections of Task 3 in 25 words or fewer.

Using Poll Everywhere (“Poll Everywhere,” n.d.), teacher candidates texted their final summaries so they could be displayed on the board for everyone to see. This activity allowed the instructor to quickly evaluate whether or not the teacher candidates understand exactly what is required of

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

them and the principles they must demonstrate in this task.

Examining scoring criteria.

This activity was designed to develop teacher candidates’ understanding of the rubrics that will be used in scoring their submission. In the previous sessions, teacher candidates had engaged in peer review using simplified rubrics that list the evidence that will be used and what the evaluators might be looking for as they review the portfolio.

To assist the teacher candidates in a critical analysis of the rubrics, they were asked to develop peer review sheets for Task 3. Teacher candidates read each rubric for Task 3 and recorded the sources of evidence that matched the rubric as well as “look fors” in demonstrating proficiency on the rubric.

Peer review and self-evaluation.

The peer review sheet for Task 2 covers rubrics 6-10. Teacher candidates were asked to exchange materials with one another and evaluate the artifacts. The rubrics had been simplified to include what might indicate an emerging performance, a proficient performance, and an advanced performance. Additionally, each rubric lists what evidentiary source should be considered for the criteria. Teacher candidates were asked to take this feedback from their peers and revise their submissions to maximize the likelihood of receiving a passing grade.

After completing the peer review, teacher candidates were asked to assess their completion of the task. These responses were collected and provided the instructor with information about teacher candidates’ progress in the portfolio. In the Task 2 self-assessment, teacher candidates reported on the videos and commentary they completed. Of special importance is the formatting and compressing of videos. Teacher candidates must indicate if their videos are less than 100mb (as required by Pearson) and are in an acceptable format (e.g., .mov, .mp4). Although this information is available on the Task 2 Specifications Chart, many students do not initially follow those instructions, so this checklist acts as another reminder to do so.

PAGE 10

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Lessons Learned #Iloatheedtpa Fall 2014 was the first semester in which our teacher candidates were required to complete the edTPA. These teacher candidates were in their final semester at the university and had not been exposed to or practiced any of the “official” pieces of the edTPA in their coursework. As such, many teacher candidates reported feeling as though they were being asked to do something extra that was of no consequence to them since it was not required for their initial certification (Personal Communication). The instructor repeatedly explained that the edTPA replaced multiple assignments that were previously a part of the seminar (Figure 1), and that completing the edTPA was a requirement of completing the seminar, which did affect their ability to earn their initial teaching certificate. Teacher candidates were, for the most part, compliant in the tasks, though their feelings about edTPA were made perfectly clear in the Tweet activity during session #3, when hashtags such as “iloatheedtpa” were seen at the end of their postings to Poll Everywhere.

The teacher candidates enrolled in seminar during Spring 2015 had the benefit of an introduction to the edTPA in their coursework during the previous semester. This resulted in an increase in the teacher candidates’ willingness to engage in the edTPA tasks. There was a marked decrease in the questions about the requirement to complete the portfolio, which resulted in less emphasis put on the idea that this assessment would be consequential for licensure and more on the idea that it was an assignment that needed to be completed in order to pass seminar and graduate in the spring. This change shows that incorporating the tasks and language of the edTPA throughout an educator preparation program’s coursework will help teacher candidates understand how the pieces of the portfolio fit together and be better able to address all of the required elements during the seminar semester.

Candidates also reported that they felt as though the seminar instructors did not give enough detailed, explicit instructions on exactly what to do to complete the edTPA (student

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

evaluations). They also remarked on the lack of feedback that instructors gave. According to the edTPA Guidelines for Acceptable Candidate Support, instructors may not edit or critique a portfolio before it is submitted for official scoring, assist candidates in selecting the video for their portfolio, or offer alternative responses on the prompts (SCALE, 2014). While this point was discussed with the candidates in several seminar meetings, many remained unsatisfied with the level of assistance they received. Interestingly, this feeling was reported more frequently in the spring 2015 course evaluations as compared with the fall 2014 ones. Candidates in the spring 2015 seminar had completed a draft edTPA during their strategies coursework, receiving detailed instructions, extensive feedback on their portfolio, and the opportunity to revise and resubmit their materials. Even with this additional support, by the time they reached seminar, candidates seemed to have forgotten this feedback and assistance.

This information shows the need to emphasize the design and purpose of the edTPA. The edTPA is an assessment that must be completed by the teacher candidate and reflect his or her own independent work at the end of the program.

Support of the types that candidates requested is not appropriate when preparing the final edTPA portfolio. Instructors should plan to be even more transparent about the limitations of their involvement and clearly define their roles in the candidates’ preparation of the edTPA portfolio.

Finally, candidates struggled with the technology needed to complete the edTPA. Each task has an evidence chart that lists the name, number, and types of files that must be submitted for each piece of the portfolio. The number of candidates who were unable to create a single file for their lesson plans, scan and upload student work as PDFs, and use the appropriate file extensions was surprising. It was anticipated that candidates would struggle with the video requirements for Task 2 so several video tutorials for student assistance had been located, evaluated, and linked in an online course platform. In future semesters, tutorials for how to combine documents into a single file and how to scan and upload student work will be included, and the file extension requirements will be emphasized. This will assist the candidates in transferring their files

PAGE 11

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

from Tk20 to Pearson without receiving errors and having to reformat pieces.

Conclusions As with any high-stakes assessment, there are some drawbacks. Candidates in the pilot year had difficulty seeing the edTPA as anything other than another hoop to jump through before graduation.

This view may change when the portfolio is consequential to their receiving a teaching license.

The data received at the program level was interesting and did identify areas where candidates performed low across the board but did not include enough detail for the program to accurately pinpoint exactly what should be emphasized.

Moving from the pilot year into the first year of implementation for licensure, several changes to the immersion sessions are planned. First and foremost, the four immersion sessions will be combined into a single day at the beginning of the semester. Hopefully this change will help candidates better understand the connection between all three tasks. This change should also allow candidates to complete the tasks in a more natural alignment with their internship classroom schedule. Though there will not be immersion sessions during the completion window for edTPA, there will be online help sessions and open computer labs for candidates to use while uploading their portfolios. Instructors plan to emphasize the importance of including reasoning and justification for instructional decisions that candidates make and continue to push them to reflect on how their lessons impacted student learning.

The edTPA has the potential to provide teacher candidates and EPPs in Georgia valuable feedback on their readiness to teach. Candidates’ scores on the assessment will clearly identify areas of strength and areas of need, which could be used to develop a personalized induction plan for beginning teachers. EPPs can use that same information for program review and improvement. The edTPA, when completed to the best of a candidate’s ability, can reflect what kind of teacher he or she is and will be.

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

References Expeditionary Learning. (n.d.). Appendix: Protocols and resources. Retrieved from http://commoncoresuccess.elschools.org/resources Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (n.d.).

Preparation program effectiveness measures (PPEMs). Retrieved from http://www.gapsc.com/ GaEducationReform/PPEMs/PPEMs.aspx Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2015).

Georgia educator preparation reform. Retrieved from http://www.gapsc.com/GaEducationReform/ GaEducationReform.aspx Peck, C. A., Singer-Gabella, M., Sloan, T., & Lin, S. (2014). Driving blind: Why we need standardized performance assessment in teacher education.

Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 8–30. doi:10.3776/joci.2014.v8n1p8-30 Poll Everywhere. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www. polleverywhere.com Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity. (n.d.). edTPA. Retrieved from https://scale. stanford.edu/teaching/edtpa Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity.

(2014). edTPA: Guidelines for acceptable candidate support. Retrieved from https://secure. aacte.org/apps/rl/resource.php?resid=164&ref= edtpa

About the Author Jennifer Edelman, PhD Dr. Edelman is an Assistant Professor of Education at the University of West Georgia. She earned her doctorate in mathematics education from the University of Wyoming and works primarily with preservice math and science teachers at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Her research examines how preservice teachers develop mathematical knowledge for teaching with an emphasis on how teachers learn to use curriculum materials.

PAGE 12

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Modified Course Agreements: Tools for Student Success Helen T. Dainty and Laura M. Graves, Tennessee Technological University

As a pre-service teacher, one can be overwhelmed when trying to understand how to meet the needs of or individualize for every student.

Future teachers will be bound, at least in 45 states, to follow the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (CCSS Initiative, 2015). All states are bound to provide free, appropriate public education to students with disabilities, which was guaranteed under the 94th Congress (1975) landmark legislation Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142), and teachers, especially special educators, are to adhere to the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) code of ethics when working with students with disabilities which demands that special education teachers possess the skill and knowledge base so they can collaborate with general education teachers to accommodate and modify for students with special needs whose least restrictive environment is a general education content area class (CEC, 2014). Therefore, where better to learn how to modify than in preparatory classes?

There are two important facts to remember about the CCSS: all students need to be prepared for their future, whether that is college or career readiness; the CCSS are shared goals which allow teachers to determine lessons and amend those lessons to accommodate individual needs. CCSS goals are designed to help students learn the knowledge and skill base to face their futures successfully (CCSS Initiative, 2015).

So how does one follow all of these mandates yet respect and acknowledge that persons with a low incidence disability, such as an intellectual disability, may need to learn differently or even have alternate learning expectations? Differentiated instruction is a way to look at teaching and learning so that needs for individuals are being met. In the current climate of Common Core, a teacher must address standards and

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

teach students individually. One must remember that “Curriculum tells us what to teach: Differentiation tells us how� (Tomlinson, 2000a, p. 8). Tomlinson goes on to discuss that differentiation is a philosophy which allows teachers to teach all learners at various levels through multiple means of representation.

Instruction can be differentiated in four main ways: content, process, products, and learning environment.

Content refers to what the student is required to learn.

Process is activities or assignments which help foster learning of content. Products are culminating activities, while learning environment addresses just that – the classroom climate (Tomlinson, 2000b).

The Modified Course Agreement (MCA) is a contract among the general education teacher, the special educator, the parents, and the student outlining the essential questions or key concepts (content), the vocabulary (content), and the assignments/assessments (process and products) for which the student with a disability will be responsible for learning and completing in regard to a lesson, chapter, or unit. It could be considered a type of study guide, but it is definitely a modification. Modifications are changes in the curriculum, instructional level, or performance criteria, which are used for students who may not be able to comprehend all the required content for a subject (Tennessee Department of Education, 2014).

Modifications include alternate assignments/assessments, high-interest low-level vocabulary books, and MCAs. Modifications can be pathways to differentiated instruction.

There are several research-based strategies utilized in the philosophy behind the creation of MCAs and several steps in the process. It is best for both the general and special educator to collaborate on creating these as each will bring an expertise to the table. The general educator brings contentspecific knowledge while the special educator brings

PAGE 13

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

pedagogical knowledge about modifying lessons and assignments (Fenty, McDuffie-Landrum, & Fisher, 2012; Murawski, 2012). Together they create an MCA which differentiates instruction and meets the standards-based curriculum for students with special needs. Pre-service teachers, both studying to be general educators and special educators, need to learn how to create an MCA so that they are prepared to collaborate and differentiate instruction.

At Tennessee Technological University the MCA is taught in a required course for all general education majors and in undergraduate and graduate special education courses. The students are graded by a common rubric on all aspects of creating the MCA which are discussed here.

Creating MCAs Step 1: Determining Essential Questions or Key Concepts (Content) When determining essential questions for an MCA, one must consider Bainbridge and Holman’s (2011) discussion of essential concepts for teaching the CCSS. They concur that students will be able to make connections between what they are currently learning and what they will need to know in the future if essential questions are developed.

Therefore, yes-no or factual questions are not considered essential to learning concepts as one might consider them “dead-end” questions, which means connections are not able to be made when answering them. When planning a lesson, a teacher must ask him/herself, “If there are only one to three key concepts a student must learn from this chapter, what would they be?” The answers to that question should be the essential components for which a student will be held accountable. These essential components should be applicable to future learning in specific academic content or in life, cross curriculum, and/or be a foundation for additional areas of focus. The emphasis is on applicable concepts, not facts solely for regurgitation (see Table 1).

The choice of questions is not necessarily right or wrong, unless factual in nature, but is instead a matter of good and better. Think about teaching a lesson about Christopher Columbus and his journey to America. One may choose a question such as “Who did Christopher Columbus encounter when he landed on the shores of America?” This may be a typical question asked on a social studies test. The

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

answer, however, is “dead-end” in that the answer is a fact. Take that same concept and reword the question to something like “What do explorers encounter when traveling into unknown territories?”

That answer requires the student to think about various persons, animals, diseases, etc., and it also allows one to use the same question and apply it to exploring space, under the sea, an unknown mountain, or any uncharted territory. That is an essential question or key concept. The teacher will be teaching about Christopher Columbus but broadening the essential question so it is applicable in the future. A question discussing the tools used by Columbus as he navigated around the globe could be broadened to be applicable to other explorers and tools by asking, “What tools did explorers use based on the region of exploration?” Another example is when teaching about WWII; rather than asking, “What were the causes of WWII? or “Who were the Allies or Axis powers?” one could ask, “What are some common reasons for war?” and “How do allies and enemies impact wars?” Both of these questions can be used whenever one discusses wars or conflicts throughout history.

Table 1 Additional Examples of Non-essential and Essential Questions Non-essential Questions Who are the generals of the civil war?

Essential Questions What are important qualities of successful military leaders like a general and why are they important?

What are the parts of a How are plants and plant and animal cell? animals alike and different in what they need for survival?

What is a business in your How do businesses impact community? communities?

Essential questions or key concepts are going to be how, what, why, and compare/contrast types of questions as long as the answer is not simply factual in nature. According to Wiggins and McTighe (2005), essential questions do not have an easy answer and they require students to make connections. When creating essential questions, two to three would be the maximum number required for each lesson, as the level of thinking required to make the necessary connections can be challenging for students, especially those with low incidence disabilities.

PAGE 14

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Step 2: Choosing Vocabulary (Content) Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) assert that there are too many words to teach and that “not all words call for attention” (p. 7). The discussion includes grouping words in tiers and understanding what it really means to know a word. There are three main tiers in which to group words: Tier One is composed of the most basic/common words which often need no instruction (ex: book, tree, house); Tier Two words are those which cross curriculum or multiple domains and should be taught in depth (ex: ethnic group, compromise, friction); Tier Three words are those specific to a discipline and are low frequency words to which students should be exposed but not held accountable on an assessment (ex: altissimo, conveyance, hypothecate).

Dale (as cited in Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002) identified four stages of familiarity with what it means to know a word including: (1) never saw it before, (2) heard it, but have no idea what it means, (3) recognize that the word has something to do with the subject, and (4) know it well. For an MCA, the vocabulary words that one chooses to teach to mastery are Tier 2 words at Stage 4 level. These are the words that students must know well and be able to use in a variety of subjects or contexts. When creating an MCA and choosing vocabulary words, the teacher must also choose words which will enhance the understanding of the essential questions or key concepts (see Table 2). Using the essential question “What tools did explorers use based on the region of exploration?” as an example, the key vocabulary would be determined based on the type of exploration. So if exploring the moon, the teacher may include words such as spacecraft, antenna, or lunar vehicle, while the study of undersea explorers may focus on sonar or underwater vehicles. Virtually all explorers will use a type of compass so that would also be a Tier 2 word to be known at the Stage 4 level.

When creating an MCA and choosing the vocabulary for students to know at Stage 4, one must ask the following questions: (1) Will the student need it when he/she is 21? (2) Is this a word that the student will have heard previously or will need to know for the future in the specific content area? (3) Does the vocabulary cross curricula? (4) Is the word addressed in the standards-based curriculum? and (5) Does the word enhance the understanding of the

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

essential question or key concept? If the word is aligned with at least three of the five questions, it would be an important word to teach. Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) recommend approximately three new words to be taught per story read, while Beck, McKeown and Kucan (2002) ascertain that approximately 400 words per year taught to a student would significantly contribute to word knowledge.

That would average to approximately ten words per week. It is recommended that there are no more than ten words per MCA. The MCA designates a section for review words (see Figure1) and if a student struggles with mastery or if the word will continually emerge in future content, it can be placed on the review list indefinitely.

Table 2 Essential Questions and Matching Vocabulary Essential Questions What are important qualities of successful military leaders like a general and why are they important?

How are plant and animal the same and different in what they need for survival?

How do businesses impact communities?

Corresponding Vocabulary courage, competence, leader, selfless service, communicator

food ,water, energy, habitats, companionship, shelter Community, economics, laws, ethics, businesses

Step 3: Determining Assignments (Process and Products) Any assignment or task given to a student before he or she is tested on the material can be considered a formative assessment. Formative assessments are tools to gauge student mastery during the lesson, drive instruction, and monitor whether re-teaching or re-pacing is required. Assignments, whether in class or homework, should be designed so that students can practice previously taught skills or concepts or can show mastery of designated concepts (see Table 3). This can be accomplished through differentiated instruction, specifically the process and product components as discussed by Tomlinson (2000b).

The process includes activities or assignments that help foster learning of content. In regard to the MCA, that would be the learning of both essential concepts and vocabulary. Bender (2012) discusses multiple ways to differentiate instruction. He discusses the use of technology through activities

PAGE 15

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Figure 1 Modified Course Agreement Template Modified Course Agreement Student Name: ________________________________________________________________ Subject: ________________________________________________________________ Grade: ________________________________________________________________ Chapter or Lesson Title: _________________________________________________ State or Common Core Standard: _________________________________________________ Key Concepts/Essential Questions: (EQs cannot be yes/no or factual) 1. ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 2. ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 3. ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ New Vocabulary: ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________

Review Vocabulary ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________

_____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________

Assignments: (an assignment for each EQ)

Due Dates

1. ________________________________________ ________________________________________

________________

2. ________________________________________ ________________________________________

_______________

3. ________________________________________ ________________________________________

________________

Summative Assessment date: ___________________ I, _____________________________, agree to complete all the required assignments outlined on this Modified Course Agreement.

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

PAGE 16

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

such as game-based learning, the use of WIKIs, WebQuests, and blogging. Bender also encourages project-based learning and learning centers; these activities should include multiple ways of representation, which is a component of the Universal Design for Learning. Murawski and Spencer (2011) advocate that it is important to give students choices on how to display what they have learned. The importance of teachers supplying models for the various activities is emphasized.

Dean, Hubbell, Pitler and Stone (2012) encourage the use of the following five nonlinguistic representation strategies: creating graphic organizers; making physical models or manipulatives; visualizing mental pictures; creating pictures, illustrations, and pictographs; and engaging in physical/kinesthetic movement (p. 64). Several of these activities are non-paper/pencil and would be graded by a rubric. “The ultimate goal for these strategies is to produce nonlinguistic representations of knowledge in the minds of students so they are better able to process, organize, and retrieve information from memory” (Dean, Hubbell, Pitler & Stone, 2012, p. 64-65). That is what learning is all about, and the MCA is a tool for students with disabilities to achieve that goal. Therefore, assignments which are not focused on typical paper/ pencil tasks will better help students understand and retain concepts. Tomlinson (2000b) concurs by stating students should have options to demonstrate learning through activities such as puppet shows, blueprints, murals, or creation of their own culminating activities. Tomlinson also stresses the use of rubrics in grading these hands-on activities. If there are 25 students in a class, there are 25 assignments to grade, whether they are the same assignment or variations, so why not meet the needs of individual students through differentiation of assignments which enhances the understanding of vocabulary and essential concepts?

Using the essential question “What tools did explorers use based on the region of exploration?” and the vocabulary words of spacecraft, antenna, compass, and lunar vehicle, a teacher could offer a choice of the following activities: search the Internet for various types of spacecraft and determine similarities and differences through a chart, create your own lunar vehicle using the NASA website, or allow hands-on use of a navigational compass. The teacher would, of course, change the tools based on

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

the uncharted area of exploration, though the assignments could be similar. Dean, et al. (2012) caution teachers to examine the activities and assignments to guarantee that students are engaged in the process of understanding the key concept and not just involved in the project without making the connection to the reason for doing it. In the 21st century, learners are expecting to learn and be taught by visual and audio media and assignments included on the MCA are a means to accomplish that expectation (Dean, et al., 2012). It is recommended that the teacher create as many assignments as there are essential questions or key concepts. They are encouraged to create multiple assignments for each question and allow the students a choice. The assignments for students with an MCA can indeed be the same assignments for all students in the classroom, but the criteria for grading can be modified by modifying the rubric or the assignment criteria.

Table 3 Essential Questions and Assignments Essential Questions What are important characteristics of successful military leaders like a general and why are they important?

Assignments Interview a soldier and ask about the qualities of their leaders, then create a Venn diagram to compare and contrast similarities and differences.

How are plants and Take two plants and feed animals the same and and water one of them but different in what they need not the other. Take pictures for survival? weekly to document changes and then create a picture journal showing the differences.

How do businesses Create your own community impact communities? with materials provided; include three major businesses and prepare to say why you have chosen those three.

Step 4: Summative Assessments (Products) The Tennessee Department of Education (2014) defines a modification as “a change in what is being taught to or expected from the student.

Modifications change what the student is taught or expected to learn” (p. 125). The entire MCA is considered a modification, as the teacher is choosing specific concepts and vocabulary for the student to

PAGE 17

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

learn. The assignments can be the same for the entire class and modified in terms of changing the grading criteria. The fact that students are often assessed by end-of-book or chapter tests is a reality in most classrooms. How can a child with an MCA be held accountable for all of the information required on this type of test? Realistically, they should only be held accountable for the key concepts and the vocabulary on the MCA; therefore, the teacher must modify the book test. Cain (2001) poses the concept that part of teaching is holding students accountable and having them take responsibility for their learning. Students with disabilities will struggle with this unless teachers modify the curriculum and the assessments. “Teachers who are truly committed to their students cherish them so strongly that they insist that the students develop themselves so that they can face the future confidently. Such teachers demand thought, insight, and skills. They do not abandon” (p. 703). This mindset aligns with the CCSS, CEC code of ethics, and Public Law 94-142 in that teachers need to prepare students for the future, and part of that is taking responsibility.

Prater (2007) points out that students need to be engaged in their learning; in order for this to happen, the learning activities must be related to the curriculum being taught, and activities should allow success to be attainable for students. A summative assessment such as a test is something that a child with an MCA should be able to succeed at doing, and the material on the test needs to be directly related to the content on the MCA. Teachers often give the book test to students with an MCA and then modify by telling students to only answer the odds or evens, even though those questions may not match content learned, or by deducting fewer points for each incorrect answer. The student should be given a test which he/she is expected to complete in entirety because it matches content learned. The student should be held accountable for only the information required on the MCA and should be given a specific test to assess that knowledge.

Therefore, the teacher must modify the test to match the MCA. Public Law 94-142 and its reauthorizations uphold the tenets that tests should not discriminate and education programs can be individualized to meet student needs (94th Congress, 1975). The MCA addresses the individualization, and the modified test addresses

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

both the nondiscriminatory test practices and the individualization.

So, how does a teacher modify a test? There are a variety of ways in which a test can be modified. The first would be to make the modified test look exactly like the book test but have the content be directly aligned to the MCA. The teacher can choose only the questions from the book test which match MCA content, and then create the modified test. A second way to modify a test is to limit the number of choices.

Matching tests can have a reduced number of corresponding items to match and multiple-choice tests can have fewer choices. Regardless of the modification method, the content on the modified test must match the MCA. The third possibility is to include a word bank for a fill-in-the-blank test where there was not one provided on the original test.

Again, content must match the MCA, so technically some questions may be reworded, added, or eliminated. The fourth option could be a short answer rather than a long essay. For this test, it would be logical to use the essential questions as the essay questions. The last option would be to reword the questions using less technical language and avoiding Tier 3 words.

The textbook definition of friction could be a force between surfaces that resists the movement of one surface past the other surface. A less technical definition for a test could be the force between the tires of a car and the road that will slow the car’s speed. Another example from a matching test could be the definition of constitution, which could be defined as a fundamental principle by which a state or nation is governed. When examining how to make that definition less technical, the teacher needs to consider using synonyms and making the definition as applicable to future learning as possible, which is the same strategy used to create essential questions.

So what is a constitution? It is a written agreement, or a document, or a contract. Use the synonym above based on the grade level or vocabulary word the student knows. The less technical definition could be a written document which outlines rules and laws which must be followed. The teacher is teaching about the constitution but equating it to a type of document or agreement, such as a renter’s contract, which outlines the rules the tenant must follow. By modifying the tests in one or multiple ways, the teacher is differentiating the instruction and the

PAGE 18

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

assessment to meet individual needs of his/her students.

To recap the process of creating an MCA, the teacher must: (1) develop two or three essential concepts by choosing the most important and applicable concepts in the chapter or lesson, (2) choose a maximum of 10 vocabulary words or terms which will enhance the understanding of the essential questions and will be required for future learning, (3) choose assignments/products for each essential question which will foster the learning of context, and (4) create a modified test which matches the content of the MCA. Testimonials for Using the MCA MCAs were developed by a P-12 special education teacher, have been implemented in a school district in Middle Tennessee for the past 20 years, and presented several times at local school districts and at the Tennessee CEC Conference in February 2006. The original MCA has undergone revisions to align with standards and best and effective research-based practices. In 1995, a very small sampling of four teachers was asked to comment on the use of MCAs with their students with special needs. These were the only general education teachers using the MCAs (See Table 4 for questions and responses). When commenting on how the MCA could be improved, general feedback was that the MCA was the root of the improvement teachers saw in their classes. In addition, when the teachers were also asked if the modified test was an effective assessment tool, the response was predominantly yes. Since 1995, MCAs have been a staple in the Middle Tennessee school district for the modification of content for students with low incidence disabilities.

When pre-service teachers are questioned at the end of each semester, the MCA is always mentioned as a tool they used when teaching. They also state that it helps them to teach all of their students because, when preparing the MCA, they analyze what concepts they are teaching and why they are important.

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Table 4 Questions and Teachers’ Responses What do you see a What do you see a How can the strengths of the weaknesses?

MCA be MCA program? improved?  Improvement  Remaining  Increase in of self-esteem need for onestudent for students on-one ownership and assistance for  Increased responsibility many students feelings of (See bottom line success for  The MCA of Figure 1) students and used as a teachers  Greater student participation  Positive feelings about tests

crutch for more capable students  Time taken to fill out the form

Final Thoughts The Modified Course Agreement was developed in 1993 as a tool to help students with disabilities who were included in the general education classroom for science and social studies. It follows the guiding principles set forth by Public Law 94142, the landmark legislation for special education and the Council for Exceptional Children code of ethics. It relies on research-based strategies and aligns with a standards-based curriculum while differentiating instruction. The goal as educators is to prepare students for the future, whether that be college or career readiness. Therefore, the MCA is taught to pre-service teachers at Tennessee Technological University and also to practicing teachers throughout the various adjacent counties to the university. Teachers often ask for methods they can use in order to modify curriculum, and the MCA serves as an effective method.

References Bainbridge, K., & Holman, B. (2011). The common core: Clarifying expectations for teachers and students.

Columbus, OH: McGraw Hill Education.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002).

Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Bender, W. N. (2012). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: New best practices for general and special educators.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

PAGE 19

GATEways to t Teacher E Education A jo ournal of the Georg gia Association of T Teacher Educators

Cain, M. S. S (2001, May).. Ten qualities of the renewed d teacheer. Phi Delta Kappan, K 82(9), p. p 702-705.

Common Core C State Stan ndards Initiativ ve. (2015).

Preparing America’ss students for success. s Retrieved from http://www.cor h restandards.org g Council for Exceptional Children.

C (2015). Special Educa ator Profession nal Preparation n. Retrieved fro om http://w www.cec.sped d.org/Standardss/Special-EducatorProfesssional-Preparaation Dean, C. B., B Hubbell, E. R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012)). Classroom in nstruction thatt works: Researrchbased strategies for increasing stud dent achievemeent.

Denveer, CO: McRel..

Fenty, N. S., S McDuffie-L Landrum, K., & Fisher, G. (20 012).

Using collaboration, co-teaching, and a question answeer relationshipss to enhance co ontent area literracy.

Teaching Exceptiona al Children, 44 4(6), 28-37.

94th Congrress. (1975, No ovember 29). PL P 94-142.

Retrieved from http://w www.gpo.gov//fdsys/pkg/STA ATUTE89/pdff/STATUTE-89-Pg773.pdf Murawski,, W. M. (2012)). 10 tips for ussing co-plannin ng time more m efficiently y. Teaching Exxceptional Childrren, 44(4), 8-15 5.

Murawski,, W. M., & Speencer, S. (2011). Collaboratee, commu unicate, and diifferentiate: Ho ow to increase studen nt learning in to oday’s diverse schools. Thou usand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Prater, M. A. (2007). Tea aching strategiies for studentss with mild m to moderatte disabilities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tennessee Department off Education. (2 2014, October).

Specia al education fra amework, 2014 4: Instructiona ally approp priate individu ualized educatiion plans.

Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov//education/ Tomlinson n, C. A. (2000aa). Reconcilablee differences?

Standaards-based teacching and diffeerentiation.

Associiation for Supeervision and Cu urriculum Develo opment, 58, 6-11.

Tomlinson n, C. A. (2000b b). Differentiatiion of instructiion in elem mentary gradess. ERIC Clearin nghouse on Elemeentary and Early Childhood Education.

E (ER RIC Docum ment Reproducction Service No. N ED443572)).

Vaughn, S., & Linan-Tho ompson, S. (20 004). Researchbased methods of rea ading instruction. Alexandriaa, VA: ASCD. A Wiggins, G. G & McTighe,, J. (2005). Und derstanding byy design n, Expanded 2nd edition. Alex xandria, VA: ASCD D.

VOL LUME 26, ISSUE 1

About the Au uthors Heleen T. Dainty, P PhD Dr. D Dainty, an Asssociate Professor at Tennesseee Techhnological Uniiversity, has ovver thirty yearss in the fieldd of special eduucation. She teaches undergraaduate and gradduate students m majoring in speecial educationn and the incluusion courses ffor general eduucators. She haas led multtiple personnell preparation prrograms and reesearch proggrams in higherr education.

Lau ura M. Gravess, PhD Dr. G Graves, an Asssociate Professsor at Tennesseee Techhnological Uniiversity, receivved her undergrraduate degrree from the Unniversity of Teennessee and Ph.D. from Tennnessee Technoological Univerrsity. Her experrience incluudes eighteen yyears of teachinng in special aand general educcation classroooms at P12 schoools and nine yyears at the univversity level.

PAGE 20

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Power in Collaboration: First Year Teacher and School Library Media Specialist Design and Deliver Visual Phyllis R. Snipes, University of West Georgia Learner Style Projects Susan Levine, Hawthorne Elementary School Jennifer Pope, Atlanta Public Schools O. P. Cooper, University of West Georgia

Learning Literacies Fable (with apologies to George Reavis) Once upon a time the animals decided they must do something heroic to meet the problems of a “new world,” so they organized a school of literacies.

They adopted an activity curriculum consisting of Viewing, Listening, Moving, and Thinking. Each animal took all subjects to make it easier to administer the curriculum.

The rabbit was excellent in Moving. In fact, he was faster than his instructor. But his grades in Viewing were barely passing, and he was also very poor in Thinking. Since he was low in viewing ability, he had to stay after school nearly every day.

He also had to drop Listening in order to practice Thinking. By the end of the semester, his physical health was so impaired that he became only average in Moving. But average was acceptable in school so nobody worried about that…except the rabbit.

The cat started at the top of the class in Listening but had a nervous breakdown because she fell behind due to so much makeup work required for Viewing.

The owl was excellent in Viewing until he developed frustration in Thinking class where his teacher made him follow an exact sequence when travelling from tree to tree. He almost starved to death trying to follow the new sequence rather than watching for the signs of his prey at dinnertime. He received a C in Thinking, D in Moving, and lost five pounds from lack of food.

The elephant was a problem child and was disciplined severely. In Thinking class, he had exceptionally high scores on all work, but was so slow that he was always late to class. He constantly

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

had to do extra work after class to try to get a passing score on his Moving assignments. As a result, he gained 500 pounds and finally stopped coming to class altogether.

At the end of the year, an abnormal opossum who could view the world at night and also think, listen, and move a little had the highest average and was valedictorian.

(Adapted from “The Animal School: A Fable,” by George Reavis, ca. 1940. Public domain.)

Identification of specific need and context This animal fable serves as a clear statement about traditional design of instruction and how it impacts opportunities for children to learn. While many teachers and library media specialists embrace integrating newer technologies and innovative ideas into their lessons, that inclusion does not necessarily reach little Johnny in the way he best learns in the classroom. Oftentimes, educators do not consider how individual students best learn and what type of instruction speaks to the obvious learning style of those students. While some educational leaders purport that learning styles should not drive instructional strategies since they are not a factor in student achievement (Farooq, 2011; Pashler, 2009), some have found results that indicate the best way to teach an individual is to teach in the manner in which the individuals best learn (Lauria, 2010; Moustafa, 1999).

The authors believe it is imperative to find the student’s best learning modality to design effective instruction. Then, activities geared for that method of learning can be developed (Nolan, 2003).

According to Brewer (2005), “by using multiple

PAGE 21

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

intelligence strategies, students have a positive educational experience and transfer what they have learned to problems they might encounter in life” (p.

21). Lauria (2010) indicates there is a dire need for instruction that is differentiated based on unique learning needs. “A few minor accommodations on my part, in conjunction with encouraging and allowing students to use their preferred modes of learning in class and during homework, were extremely effective” (Lauria, 2010, p.28).

The ideal combination for identifying learning styles and designing instruction for individual students is to build a team of teacher(s) and school library media specialist(s). According to a study by Kimmel (2012), teachers want a librarian with whom to plan instruction, who “needs to be involved with the curriculum and an active member of planning who brings resources accompanied by ideas” (p.93).

Working in collaboration with teaching faculty and other academic professionals, librarians can play an important role in helping students learn to create visual materials (Palmquist, 2008). According to Cooper (2008), children are all visual learners from birth; they learn by viewing images and generating visual information throughout the day. The team of teacher and library media specialist can tap into the importance of visual literacy with children from a very early age through conversations, teachable moments, and planned instruction.

The goal of this case study was for the collaborative team to determine if students identified as visual learners were more responsive and productive than other style learners when completing visually oriented projects co-designed by the teacher and school library media specialist. Using the Personal Use Learning Style Evaluation (PULSE) inventory tool, visual learners were specifically identified and projects were developed that utilized online tools where all students produced visual projects. Four of Gardner’s learner styles (visual, auditory, spatial, and kinesthetic) were utilized based on his work with the intelligences (1983). Results from this study should have implications for employing differentiation of instruction based on learner styles, particularly for visual learners.

Activities were developed that utilized online tools where all students produced visual projects.

Eisenberg, Lowe, Spitzer, and Spitzer (2004) indicate that, when students look at visual information such as photographs, illustrations, or

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

computer graphics, understanding is based on their previous perceptions of the world in order to make sense of the visual images. Since the identified visual learners in the class had gained life-time understanding, mainly through visual means, it was logical to assume there would be positive outcomes on visual projects for these learners more so than other type learners. Auditory, Kinesthetic, and Sequential learners were also identified through the PUSLE inventory prior to the study.

Definition of Visual Literacy and Rationale “Visual literacy” is a rather fluid term, expressed by visual literacists in the manner best associated with the particular content being discussed. For example, the term “visual literacy” was first coined in 1969 by John Debes (1969), co-founder of the International Visual Literacy Association. Three years later, Fransecky and Debes revised the original definition as follows: Visual Literacy refers to a group of visioncompetencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visible actions, objects, symbols, natural or man-made, that he encounters in his environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, he is able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, he is able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communication. (Fransecky & Debes, 1972, p.7) A simpler and more direct definition was later offered by Wileman (1993) indicating visual literacy as “the ability to ‘read,’ interpret, and understand information presented in pictorial or graphic images” (p. 114). Brill, Kim, & Branch (2007) conducted a study in an attempt to bring about consensus of the definition of visual literacy among scholars. In the final analysis, a common definition was offered as a first step in the development of a universal definition of visual literacy: A group of acquired competencies for interpreting and composing visible messages. A visually literate person is able to: (a) discriminate and make sense of visible objects as

PAGE 22

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

part of a visual acuity, (b) create static and dynamic visible objects effectively in a defined space, (c) comprehend and appreciate the visual testaments of others, and (d) conjure objects in the mind’s eye. (Brill, Kim, & Branch, 2007, p.55) While a finite definition and taxonomy for visual literacy does not presently exist, for the purposes of this case study, the definition of visual literacy is centered around “the manner in which students interpret their thoughts and learning into visual projects.”

The rationale for conducting this study was to make a statement about the importance of visual literacy among K-12 students who are visual learners. With differentiation touted to be essential for optimal student growth (Kimmel, 2012), the collaborative team of teacher and school library media specialist was the logical force for designing instruction to explore the visual learner style project impact on visual learners.

With the concept of visual literacy as “the manner in which students interpret their thoughts,” it was predicted that the third grade visual learners should perform well and respond positively when presented with visual application activities designed and taught by the team. Results from three projects completed by visual learners, as well as students with auditory, kinesthetic, and sequential learner styles, were analyzed in this study.

Procedures This case study involved a very culturally and economically diverse third grade class of 15 students in a suburb of the capital city in a Southeastern state.

The make-up of the students included two special education students, three gifted students, and one English Language Learner. Nearly 50 % of the class is on free or reduced lunch.

The purpose for using these 15 students was twofold. First, it was determined that having different students complete the three projects might lessen the validity of the study. Second, the school library media specialist was unable to schedule required class times for the three projects with additional classroom teachers.

The classroom teacher who contributed to the study realized a need to identify how the students in her class best learn. She and the school library media specialist collaborated to determine a method for

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

analyzing students to identify their predominant learning style(s). The decision was made to employ the PULSE inventory tool to identify student styles.

Following that process, they worked to design and conduct three lessons built around visually-based, interactive applications and procedures. Results were examined to reveal perceptions of the students about the three lessons to see if visual learners responded more favorably than auditory, kinesthetic, or sequential learners. The projects were also assessed to determine differences in final products.

A case study design was used for this project.

Data for case studies is generally collected from six sources of evidence via documents, records, interviews with the participants involved in the study, both participant and direct observations, and physical artifacts (Yin, 2009). These sources are among the most commonly used in gathering data for case studies and were used in gathering data for this study.

Discussions will be presented separately for the three projects, which are a book advertisement using Wordle and PowerPoint, a Discovery Education Board Builder, and a Solid Figure Design Challenge.

The procedures for each will be described in detail, along with personal communications of the classroom teacher and school library media specialist.

Learner Style Analysis All 15 students took the Personal Use Learning Style Evaluation to determine primary and/or dual learning styles. The PULSE consists of 16 electronic games in which four styles are measured: visual, sequential, kinesthetic, and auditory. Each of the four areas of style are equal to 100 %, so it was possible to score the same in multiple areas, a fairly common occurrence with this class. Instant feedback is given in the form of a line graph, along with 16 suggested activities with supporting video explanations of each activity.

The assessments were conducted in the library media center, where students rotated to the computers so all could complete the activity (see Images 1 and 2). After completing the analysis, students were coded by number for anonymity.

PAGE 23

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Image 1 PULSE screen example

Image 2 PULSE screen example

(characters, places, problems) with one or two words. They then typed the words into a Word document and cut and pasted into the Wordle website to make a ‘word cloud.’ The resulting word cloud can be rearranged; different fonts, colors, and backgrounds can be chosen, and the results display the words occurring most often as largest with less frequently occurring words as smaller sizes. The students then copied the Wordle image using print screen, pasted it into a PowerPoint document, resized it to fit, and found a picture of the book to add to the resulting slide. Afterward, I interviewed the students on the process of creating the Wordle.

School library media specialist: First, we gave the students a broad overview of Wordle by showing them a Wordle Book Review Planning Document and then showed my sample ‘Lunch Money’ Wordle to put the planning document in context. Students were encouraged to document any book they knew about for their first Wordle book review so that they could get the hang of going through the steps needed while staying in their comfort zone.

We think this will be a wonderful way to represent their ideas in a visual format.

The overview session was held in the library media center using a Promethean board, Windows-based PC computers, Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, Internet Explorer or Chrome for picture searches, and the Wordle website.

Project 2: Discovery Education Board Builder

The learner style analysis and three lesson activities were conducted over a time period of about two months.

Project 1: Book Advertisement using Wordle and PowerPoint Initial strategy: Students will use a variety of images to express their thoughts and ideas about a favorite book. Final products should reflect the student’s learner style based on words chosen, colors, and position of words and pictures on the Wordle. Students will respond to a questionnaire coded to specific learner styles to determine interest and involvement in the visual activity.

Classroom teacher: Our first project was one in which students created a list of words associated with a book they chose by filling in blanks based on prompts

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Initial strategy: Students will create an electronic poster board where they incorporate a variety of visual and audio components based on their understanding of their chosen topic. Each student’s work should reflect his/her learner style(s) based on quantity and quality of videos, graphics, documents, etc., used on the board. Students will respond to interview questions to determine interest and involvement in the visual activity.

Classroom teacher: Students were already somewhat familiar with Discovery Education Board Builder, so a great deal of time was saved with this project as opposed to the Wordle project. I told students they could pick any science topic, and most of them chose some sort of gemstone, mostly diamonds.

PAGE 24

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

The students’ ability to effectively search for information was an issue on this project, so it somewhat hindered the focus on visual applications.

During the second session, the library media specialist had students continue their work on their chosen board in a type of contest mode.

School library media specialist: The project expectation was to use 6-8 Discovery Education assets [visual elements] on their boards. The assets needed to be related to the content. The goal was to expose students to a way of creating a digital poster board. The visual learners should be more engaged in [incorporating] the multimedia assets and have more knowledge about their topics than traditional methods because they are more drawn in by the pictures, videos, animations, etc.

Students had a final 30 minutes to complete their design work on their board. Sessions for this project were held in the technology lab and library media center using a Promethean board, Mac computers, the Discovery Education Board Builder website, and tally sheet with comments.

Project 3: Solid Figure Design Challenge Initial strategy: To show both creativity and sequential knowledge, students will design at least three solid shapes with limited resources within a short time frame. This type of activity demonstrates how students use their specific learner style as they work together to create the shapes. Students will respond to interview questions to determine interest and involvement in the visual/kinesthetic activity.

Classroom teacher: For the third lesson, I thought it might be insightful to use an activity that involved visual and kinesthetic elements. Students were to design solid figures from a limited supply of index cards and tape, a ruler, scissors, and a pencil. I sorted them by numbers into heterogeneous groups, gave them ten 3x5 index cards, eight inches of tape, explained the purpose and expectations of the challenge, and gave them 20 minutes to create three solid shape designs.

This lesson was conducted in the third grade classroom using a Promethean board, 10 index cards per group of three or four, eight inches of tape per student group, and a ruler, scissors, and pencil per student.

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Outcomes While some of the findings from the three projects conducted clearly show that the visual learners did perform according to their identified learning style, some other outcomes were inconclusive. Some of the data collected was measurable, but some will be reported in narrative form since it was gathered through interviews and teacher/library media specialist observations.

Design of the three lessons and results from the activities conducted in this case study were examined based on the descriptions for learning styles as described in PULSE (2014), which are based on Gardner’s (1983) intelligence types.

For the visual learner, the best way to take in and remember what is being taught is through looking at and using visual cues to retain new information.

For the sequential learner, the best way to take in and remember what is being taught is through some form of rigid structure or memorization of the process involved.

For the kinesthetic learner, the best way to take in and remember what is being taught is through the use of movement and touch.

For the auditory learner, the best way to take in and remember what is being taught is through activities that have a high level of lecture or verbal interaction. Remember, it is not about being part of the conversation, but listening to the conversation. (PULSE, 2014) PULSE Learning Style Outcomes The purpose of using the PULSE Learning Style Outcomes program was to identify the specific learner style of each student in the class (see Figure 1). Of the 15 students who completed the PULSE assessment, 12 were either primarily or secondarily visual (five primary, seven secondary). Two students had a visual score the same as another learning style: one kinesthetic as primary style; one auditory as secondary style. Of the students whose primary learning style was visual, four out of five had auditory as their secondary learning style. Also it is interesting that of the seven students who were secondarily visual, four were primarily kinesthetic learners. All kinesthetic learners were secondarily visual. Most of the students ranked lowest in sequential learning, with only three of 15 students primarily sequential learners.

PAGE 25

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Figure 1 Learner Styles and Scores

style, meaning that these students answered the questions coded for their learner style affirmatively.

Four of five (80 %) of the visual learners specifically responded as predicted on first question; five of five (100 %) responded as predicted on the second question, indicating that they did enjoy the visuallydesigned project at a level of 90 % favorable.

Image 3 Wordle example

The most outstanding connections between learner styles is the fact that four of the five primarily visual learners were secondarily auditory learners. Likewise, it is of great interest that all four primarily kinesthetic learners were secondarily visual learners (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Learner Styles Graph of Visual Learners

Image 4 Wordle example

Lesson 1: Book advertisement using Wordle and PowerPoint Outcomes The strategy for this lesson was for students to create a Wordle that represented a book (see Images 3 and 4). The activity of creating the Wordle went very well; however, difficulties arose regarding cutting, pasting, and resizing Wordles for PowerPoint slides. This indicates that previous logistical lessons on use of PowerPoint would be advisable. After completion of the project, students were surveyed about color, words, design and shape, and activity using an instrument with questions coded to represent the various learner styles. Based upon responses from the students, 11 of 15 (73 %) responded as predicted by their predominant learner

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

A final question was asked where students identified their favorite type of book (see Figure 3).

All primary and secondary visual learners preferred graphic novels, fantasy, chapter, or picture books, all but one of which have strong visual components.

This, too, shows the visual learners had a preference for visually-based learning when given their choice of reading materials.

PAGE 26

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Figure 3 WORDLE Analysis of Comments from Interview.

Image 6 Discovery Education Board Builder example

Numbers are based on positive responses to questions coded to learner styles. Students who responded as predicted by predominant learning style are starred (*).

Lesson 2: Discovery Education Board Builder Outcomes This lesson was much more difficult to evaluate using measurable outcomes. Students created a Discovery Education Board Builder, which is an interactive online poster of sorts (see Images 5 and 6). They could embed images, videos, songs, etc. from the Discovery website as well as include text in text boxes. While the number of visual and audio elements students embedded can be counted, the actual quality of the content is not as easily evaluated. For this reason, analysis will focus on interview question results and teacher/school library media specialist observations of student work and products.

The student’s specific learner style is evident as comments from student interviews and the teacher/library media specialist are analyzed.

Examples of these direct student quotes that reveal elements of their learner style and observations of the library media specialist can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Board Builder Comments from Interviews

Image 5 Discovery Education Board Builder example

Based on the comments, four themes seemed to surface. Students liked to design (color, content,

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

PAGE 27

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

creativity) boards, students liked to look at other boards, students liked the informative nature of the boards, and students disliked the board project. One hundred percent of the primarily visual learners commented on liking the design and enjoyed looking at other boards. Auditory learners did not like the project. Sequential learners liked the information aspect of the project. Kinesthetic learners enjoyed the design aspect of the project.

Considering the initial strategy for this lesson, it appears the interest and involvement of visual learners in this activity was made evident in the comments from both students and teacher/school library media specialist.

Image 8 Design Challenge

Lesson 3: Solid Figure Design Challenge Outcomes The final lesson was a visual/kinesthetic activity where students were to build three solid shapes using eight inches of tape, ten 3/5 index cards, scissors, a ruler, and a pencil (see Images 7 and 8).

The strategy was to observe how various learner style students work together within the group, and determine what the individual perceptions were of the activity.

Image 7 Design Challenge

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Teacher comments: I asked each group to complete three solid figures in the allotted time, and it was interesting to watch how each group bore out the different tasks. One group worked cooperatively, sharing materials and each working on a shape. One group seemed to be working more on their own rather than working cooperatively. The students were all dismayed at the amount of tape they received, and after about five minutes of being badgered about not enough tape, I relented and gave each group an extra inch so they had nine inches total. In fact, most of the complaints about the challenge were specifically about the lack of tape, which I found amusing.

For the most part, they seemed to enjoy the activity and were pleased with the work they had done. When the challenge was complete I asked the students to spend about 7-10 minutes giving me feedback, on a half-sheet of paper, on what they thought about their experience--what they liked, didn’t like, and what they might change.

Thirteen of the 15 students responded positively in at least some way. Two students framed their responses with complaints first, but later wrote

PAGE 28

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

about the things they liked. One said, “I didn’t like it because you had to draw out the shapes and tape them together,” which amused me since it was essentially the same as saying, “I didn’t like it because of what it was.” This student is an auditory learner, with visual as their third preference. As I anticipated, all the visual students except one enjoyed it, especially the visual/kinesthetic learners.

Of the 15 students who participated in all or part of the challenge, only two said that they had ‘hated it.’ I found it interesting that of the two students who ‘hated’ the activity both had issues not really with the challenge itself, but with their group dynamics. These particular students tend to not do very well in group situations overall; both of them often seem to need to be the center of attention and like for things to go their way.

One is also a sequential learner, far ahead of the other learning styles profiled, and I wonder how much this played a role in the dislike of the activity, since once the expectations were given they were left to their own devices.

The things the students said they liked about it were that it was hands-on and creative, and many responded that they enjoyed the challenge.

Most of the complaints were about the supplies, or what they thought of as the lack thereof; eight of 15 students wished that they had had more supplies; six mentioned tape specifically, although one student said, ‘My favorite part was when we ran out of tape’ (7-VA). Some wished that they had had more time. I think in retrospect that as we hadn’t really done a design challenge before, I probably should have given them a few more minutes, but most of the groups attempted, if not completed, three shapes, which was the expectation.

One especially revealing comment came from Student 17 (K) who said, “I liked the challenge because it was very, you know, challenging. I also liked when we were about to finish and everyone was running around!”

In order to address group dynamics among the various learner styles, the teacher developed a rubric outlining the desired behaviors of students based on five elements: participation and motivation, teamwork and leadership, creativity and problemsolving, accuracy of design, and organization and management (see Figure 5).

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Figure 5 Design Challenge Rubric

It is interesting to note that all visual learners, except one kinesthetic/visual learner, received three and four ratings on “Participation and motivation.” The next rankings were twos and threes for all visual learners on “Creativity.” The two lowest ratings for visual learners were “Accuracy of design” and “Organization and management,” except for one visual/kinesthetic/sequential learner. This particular learner was the highest ranked student in the class with 17 total points across the rubric. These ratings would suggest that visual learners scored highest in participation in the visual project. Visual learners were also high in creativity scores. In examining other learner style results to identify consistencies in ratings, all sequential learners received threes and one four for the element of “Creativity.” Beyond this, no other trends could be identified. Since the visual learners rated high on participation and creativity, it may be assumed that they were more involved and creative in the design of the visual product than students with other learner styles (see Figure 6).

PAGE 29

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Figure 6 Design Challenge Sorted by Learner Style

Reflections on using Visual/Media Literacy The third grade projects covered in this case study were not traditional visual lessons based on printed materials; they involved computer technology, online applications, presentation software, and activities that require student Internet access and interaction. Upon examination of the strategies used for the projects and the data generated, it can be concluded that visual lessons using various technologies do indeed have a positive impact on visual learners, as they rated higher on motivation and creativity than other style learners.

While some other style learners also made positive comments regarding these interactive visual lessons, results from some project data suggested they were not as interested and involved as the visual learners.

Below are some basic tips from the teacher and library media specialist for future visual/media literacy lessons:  Conduct a learner analysis inventory of students in the class early in the school year, after examining a variety of assessment tools.  Include as varied a selection of activities as possible to reinforce learning.  Prepare students with any basic prerequisite skills needed before conducting visual lessons.

For example, incorporate basic computer skills prior to teaching an online lesson; teach basic searching techniques prior to teaching an information-gathering lesson.

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

 Following a visual lesson, interview students to gain insight into student learning and comprehension.  To ensure student buy-in, allow students to select topics for projects when possible.  Do not hesitate to adjust visual lesson requirements during teaching if appropriate.

Questions to consider arise based on some findings in this study. Results of the PULSE inventory give one pause to question the rate of coincidence with certain style learners. Is there a strong link between visual and auditory learners since 80 % of the predominantly visual learners in this case study were secondarily auditory learners?

Generally speaking, are kinesthetic learners also predominately visual learners since 100 % of the predominately kinesthetic learners in this case study were also secondarily visual learners? According to West (as cited in Stokes, 2001), Instructional materials as well as teaching styles should be matched with cognitive styles for greatest learner benefits. However, the extent to which individuals are polarized in their brain’s abilities to deal with verbal and visual modes of thought is not fully understood, although it is rare for individuals to deal equally effectively in both modes. (West, as cited in Stokes, p. 2) It is for this reason that teachers and school library media specialists should collaborate and take the initiative to identify cognitive styles in order to prepare engaging and productive lessons, including visual and media-rich lessons, so that students who best learn through those modes can thrive.

Differentiation of instruction based on identification of learner styles impacts student learning, and the best way to make certain students receive the most pedagogically well designed activities is through teacher and school library media specialist collaboration.

References Brewer, S. (2005). Tapping into multiple intelligences to teach information literacy skills. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 21(9), 19-21.

Brill, J. M., Dohun, K., & Branch, R. (2007). Visual literacy defined -- The results of a Delphi study: Can IVLA (operationally) define visual literacy? Journal of Visual Literacy, 27(1), 47-60.

Cooper, L. Z. (2008). Supporting visual literacy in the school library media center: Developmental, socio-

PAGE 30

GATEways to t Teacher E Education A jo ournal of the Georg gia Association of T Teacher Educators

culturaal, and experieential consideraations and scenarrios. Knowledg ge Quest, 36(3)), 14-19.

Debes, J. (1969). The loo om of visual litteracy--An overviiew. Audiovisu ual Instruction, 14(8). 25-27.

Eisenberg, M., Lowe, C. A., Spitzer, K.. L., & Spitzer,, K. L. (2004). Informatio on literacy: Esssential skills for fo the infformation age. Westport, Con nn: Libraries Unlim mited.

Farooq, M. & Regnier, J.. (2011). Role of o learning styles in the quality of learn ning at differen nt levels.

Inform matica Econom mica, 15(3), 28--45.

Fransecky,, R. B., Debes, J. L., & Assocciation for Educaational Commu unications and Technology.

T (1972)). Visual literacy: A way to leearn--A way to teach. Retreived from m ERIC databaase. (ED 06488 84).

Gardner, H. H (1983). Fram mes of mind: The Th Theory of multip ple intelligencees. New York: Basic B Books.

Kimmel, S. S C. (2012). Seeeing the cloud ds: Teacher librarian as broker in n collaborative planning with teacheers. School Librraries Worldwide, 18(1), 87-96.

Lauria, J. (2010). ( Differeentiation throug gh learning-sty yle respon nsive strategiess. Kappa Delta a Pi Record, 47 7(1), 24-29..

Moustafa, B. M. (1999). Multisensory approaches a and d learnin ng styles theory ry in the elemen ntary school: Summary of referencce papers. Retrrieved from ER RIC databaase. (ED432388) Nolen, J. L. L (2003). Multtiple intelligencces in the classro oom. Education, 124(1), 115--119.

Palmquist, N. N. (2008). Creating Imag ges to Understaand Visuall Literacy. Kno owledge Quest,, 36(3), 20-23.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., M Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009)). Learning sty yles: Concepts and a evidence.

Psycho ological Sciencce in the Public Interest, 9(3)), 105-119.

PULSE useer guide – Teacher. (2014). Toronto, T ON: LEAR RNstyle, Ltd. Reavis, G. (ca. 1940). Th he Animal school: A Fable.

Retrieved from http://agsc.tamu.ed du/384/ AnimaalSchool.pdf Stokes, S. (2001). Visuall literacy in teaching and learnin ng: A literaturee perspective. Electronic E Jourrnal for thee Integration off Technology in n Education. 1(1).

1 Retrieved from http://ejite.isu.edu/V Volume1No1/ Stokess.html Wileman, R.E. R (1993). Visual V communiicating. Englew wood Cliffs,, NJ: Education nal Technology y Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study s research: Design and methods. Los Angelees, CA: Sage Publications.

P

VOL LUME 26, ISSUE 1

A About the Auth hors Phylllis R. Snipes,, PhD Dr. S Snipes workedd in P-12 schoools as a kinderggarten, first, and second grade cclassroom teaccher for six yeaars. She has heldd the position oof elementary, m middle, and higgh school meddia specialist inn Georgia schoools for 10 yearrs and receiived National B Board Certification in Librarry Media statuus in 2002. Phyyllis has servedd on the Georgiia Govvernor’s Inform mation Technollogy Policy Coouncil and was Media Coordiinator for the C Carrollton Georrgia School Distr trict for 15 yearrs. During this time, she taugght as an adjuunct faculty meember at the Unniversity of Weest Georgia and Georgia State University. Foor the past eighht years she has w worked as an A Associate Profeessor at the Unniversity of Wesst Georgia teaching in the fullly online School Library Meddia & Instructioonal Technologgy Program. Shhe earned her P Ph.D. from Geeorgia State Unniversity in 19992. Her focuus is to present practical classsroom applicatiions for meddia specialists aand teachers thrrough use of nnew technnologies and pproven best praactices.

Susaan Levine, MA AT Ms. Levine is a connnected educattor serving as a TeacherLibrrarian at Hawthhorne Elementaary School in A Atlanta, GA. She has earneed several recoggnitions includding Librrary Media Speecialist of the Y Year from her ddistrict, a GAIIT Technologyy Innovation grrant award, andd National Boarrd Teacher Cerrtification. Herr latest endeavoors include creatting a communnity service theemed “Maker-D Difference” spacce in her libraryy and helping tto open the HIP P Acaddemy, a primarry school in western rural Keenya. Sue has oover thirteen yyears of P-12 exxperience, seveen of which she ttaught in the arreas of Reading, ESOL, and Special Educcation. She alsso worked as ann adjunct instruuctor at Georrgia Perimeterr College for ovver ten years teeaching reseaarch skills andd applied technoology. Sue wass recently seleccted as a Fulbrright Distinguisshed Teacher aand will traveel to New Zealland from Febrruary-June 2016 to inveestigate ways too create a moree inclusive andd accessible schoool library for sstudents with eexceptionalitiess and learnning differencees.

PAGE 31

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Jennifer Pope, MAT Ms. Pope teaches third grade in a small public inclusion school in Atlanta. She received her BA in theatre from Berry College and MAT in elementary education from Mercer University. She serves on her school's STEM and Media/Technology committees and completed a gifted endorsement last year. She has also participated in a School Master Gardener course and assisted in RT3funded research in the school setting. Pope's primary interests in education are experiential learning and curriculum integration. .

O. P. Cooper, EdD Dr. Cooper’s public school experience includes high school English teacher and coach, media specialist and district coordinator of media, and assistant superintendent for technology. He also served as director of one of the Georgia Department of Education's Technology Training Centers. He has taught courses in media and instructional technology at the University of West Georgia since 2006 and, in addition, serves as the program coordinator for the School Library Media/Instructional Technology Program in the Department of Educational Technology and Foundations.

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

PAGE 32

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

“Someone Behind me Yelled, Joseph R. Jones and Sybil Keesbury, Mercer University ‘Look at that Retard!’”: Preparing Teachers to Combat the R Word

“I remember as a teenager, walking through a department store and someone behind me yelled ‘Look at that retard!’” said Potter. “It was hurtful. I remember turning around and saying ‘That’s just not ok! What you called me was just not ok.’” (AbilityPath.org, 2011, p. 6) In a recent informal interview, participants were asked the following question: “Is it ever okay to use the R word [the term traditionally used to reference individuals with special needs]?” The respondents’ comments ranged from “the word should never be used” to “one can retard the timing of the engine.”

All of the participants were educators, and two were practicing educators with PhDs in Special Education from a comprehensive research university. However, a young woman with a master’s degree in education stated, “retarded can be used if it is not used as an insult to another person.”

The respondents’ comments, as with the broader society, show differing opinions about the use of the R word. For example, one participant believed it was appropriate to use the term when discussing the timing of an engine, or in a manner that did not reference another human being. Conversely, one participant believed the word should never be used because of its horrendous connotations.

Professors in a teacher preparation program and former practicing classroom teachers have witnessed the pain the R word has caused so many students.

The word is overwhelmingly used in American schools as a derogatory term against individuals with special needs. As such, it is necessary to discuss the use of the R word and its impact on the schooling process. In doing so, teachers and teacher educators will hopefully realize the necessity to eradicate this

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

word from the schooling process in order to create a safer school environment for students with special needs.

The Etymology of the R Word According to the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 2015), retarded as an adjective is defined as “held back or in check; hindered, impeded; delayed, deferred.” Further, as an adjective the word is “characterized by deceleration or reduction of velocity.” In 1895, the word was used to mean a “diagnosed with or characterized by learning difficulties or an intellectual disability; spec. having an IQ below 70; designating a person regarded as mentation deficient; slow, dim, feeble-minded.” In physics the word means “designating a potential or other parameter of an electromagnetic field in which an allowance is made for the infinite propagation speed of the radiation, the potential due to a distant source being expressed in terms of the state of the source at some time in the past.” As a noun, the word means “the fact of being slowed down or delayed with respect to action, progress, or development; lateness, slowness; a delay or slowing down,” and can be traced back to 1781. Moreover, as a verb, the R word is defined as, “to hold back, delay, or slow (a person or thing) with respect to action, progress, etc.,” and can be traced back to 1490. Further, as a transitive verb, the word means “to put off to a later time; to defer, postpone, delay.” In 1909, the word became more prominently used within education and psychology as a noun meaning “a person displaying or characterized by developmental delay or learning difficulties, and a child whose educational progress or level of attainment has fallen behind that expected for his or her age” (Oxford University Press, 2015).

PAGE 33

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

In modern society the word is still being used within two major academic disciplines: music and science. In music, a retard is a musical notation that signifies a slowing of tempo that will most likely return to its original tempo at any given point in the piece. For example, one may say “I see the retard on the page,” or “Why don’t we try retarding there?”

The use of the word in these instances has no connection to intellectual abilities, and there is no plausible possibility of the word not being utilized within the music world. Conversely, the word is slowly disappearing within the science community; the word “retardation” is slowly being replaced with “electrophoretic mobility shift assay” and “mobility shift electrophoresis.” However, the replacement is quite slow; in fact, the change has been occurring since the 1990s (Hensel, personal communication, June 7, 2014).

In discussing the use of the word in education, Altieri (2003), a special education faculty member in a teacher preparation program wrote, The word “retarded” derives from the term “mental retardation.” Years ago, that was a clinical diagnosis used to describe people with intellectual disability. But words evolve and change meaning, as words tend to do, and the words “retard” and “retarded” have evolved into insults.

In 2010, President Obama signed Rosa’s law, changing the term to Intellectual Disabilities. When discussing the renaming of the category to Intellectual Disabilities, the issue within the field seemed to focus on how the public understanding of the disability impacts the terminology. An intellectual disability is a broad term that falls under the umbrella of developmental disabilities, which can include a variety of other disabilities and categories. Though the title of the category was changed, the term “mental retardation” is still used in a number of places within the realm of education.

Although the above discussion of the word revolves around academic discourse, the reality of the usage is quite troubling. Recently during a walk across campus, the word was heard seven times during ten minutes. Within broader society, the word is also quite prevalent. In 2014, Lebron James, a famous basketball player, used the term (Associated Press, 2014). In another instance, a chief executive officer used the word in reference to how much individuals with special needs should be paid

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

(Gettys, 2014). These are only a few examples.

From a quick Google search, there are numerous other examples discussing someone using the word in public, predominantly in a negative manner.

Although there appear to be different meanings and uses for the word, a majority of the American population uses the word in a hateful manner toward individuals with special needs. The word causes anguish and misunderstandings. As such, it is the aim of the authors to discuss how teachers and teacher educators can erase the R word from the K12 schooling process, providing a safe and affirming learning environment for students with special needs.

Unnormalizing Education Applied to the R Word In essence, unnormalizing education involves breaking free from the binary oppositions of language and social constructions. Jones (2014) postulates the process of schooling is one of the most powerful normalizing factors in students’ lives; thus, the process of schooling can be the conduit to unnormalize years of socialized normative beliefs.

Jones argues unnormalizing education involves several actions that must take place. Three attributes of unnormalizing education can be applied to the use of the R word: disrupting binary oppositions, destroying the hierarchy of hate language, and a recognizing a connection to bullying (Jones, 2014).

In doing so, educators can combat the use of the R word in K-12 schools.

Disrupting the Binary Opposition According to researchers (Pepler & Craig, 2000; Dubin, 2007), students who have been identified as having special needs are often viewed as having a lower social standing within the school community, which causes them to become targets for bullying behaviors. Because of the bullying behavior, students with special needs become more visible to everyone in the classroom and school who witnesses the bullying (Carter & Spencer, 2006). The raised visibility and bullying creates a normal versus different binary opposition that exists within the classroom and school. The binary opposition causes students to not be able to recognize all of the commonalities among all students in the classroom and school. Thus, it hinders the ability to see the best in all individuals.

PAGE 34

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

In this capacity, the R word continues to perpetuate the binary of normal versus different. A recent study examined how the R word was used among American youth between the ages of 8 and 18 years. The results showed 92 % of youth had heard someone use the R word in an insulting manner (Siperstein, Pociask, & Collins, 2010). This impact of the R word on the binary opposition can best be described by Joseph Stephens, a Virginia Special Olympics Athlete, who stated, What’s wrong with ‘retard’? I can only tell you what it means to me and people like me when we hear it. It means that the rest of you are excluding us from your group. We are something that is not like you and something that none of you would ever want to be. We are something outside the ‘in’ group. We are someone that is not your kind. I want you to know that it hurts to be left out here, alone.

(Stephens, 2015).

According to Altieri (2003), society has, “ascribed a range of devalued social roles to those whose differences we judge as deviant, and people with disabilities have been perceived as objects of pity, charity, ridicule, menace, and dread” (p.133). Thus, it is the attitudes and the judgments concerning normal and different that control and limit the lives of students with special needs (Smith, 1999).

Moreover, language plays a tremendous role in the acknowledgement of those attitudes and judgments.

Stephens’ (2015) beliefs about himself and how others perceive him are derived from the use of the R word. For him, the R word seems more destructive. As such, it is important to conceptualize the power of language and how language can impact the lives of the one who is labeled as different. For Stephens, the R word contains great power, which helps to reinforce the binary opposition of normal versus different. The R word is the scarlet stamp that solidifies the separation of “those students” from the “normal students.” In essence, the R word becomes an identity marker, a label from which one is unable to escape. Thus, we must remove the R word from schools; in doing so, the removal dismantles the binary.

Destroying the Hierarchy of Hate Language In addition to disrupting the binary oppositions that exist within language and society, unnormalizing education requires individuals to

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

recognize and destroy the hierarchy of hate language that exists within schools.

A few weeks ago, a student made the statement, “I am so retarded. I forgot my book.” The student was immediately reprimanded for using the language, and offered the excuse, “I didn’t mean it like that. I meant I am an idiot because I forgot my book.” As with this student’s usage, there are numerous websites that propose the meaning of the R word ranges from stupid to boring, including a notion of disgust with one’s physical appearance.

Pop culture has caused the word to morph from traditionally being a term to label an intellectual disability to slang that maintains several meanings.

The term is used widely across social settings.

Although there is a social movement to eradicate the word from usage, the word is still popular to use within several contexts, with no ramifications for its use. In fact, there were few, if any, reprimands for the use of the R word. Lebron James is still playing basketball, and the executive is still employed. Yet, if the N word were used in these circumstances, the results of such a use would likely be different because the use of the N word is treated more severely in society and, by extension, schools. In fact, recently several celebrities were publically humiliated for using the N word. One celebrity lost millions of dollars and endorsements.

The same principle is transpiring in our schools.

The N word is never allowed to be used in schools.

In most instances, students who use the N word are immediately punished (Jones, 2010); most who use the R word do not receive the same severe punishment, yet both words are hurtful to a specific population. Because of a vast difference in treatment for each word, society has structured the words within a hierarchy of hate language.

By not addressing hate language equally, the ideology of hatred is being perpetuated. In essence, it is modeled to students that racist language is worse and one should never use it. Conversely, language directed toward students with special needs is not as bad and in some cases is acceptable to use; often there is no attempt to reprimand the student using the language. Moreover, by not addressing the R word, teachers are reinforcing and validating Stephens’ feelings of being ostracized and unwanted in classrooms and schools. Therefore, every use of the R word, regardless of its intentionality, must be

PAGE 35

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

addressed. Further, it is an implication of bullying through hate language.

The R Word and Bullying In order to combat the intolerance directed toward students with special needs, educators must address the use of the R word because allowing the use of the word creates an atmosphere in which bullying students with special needs is acceptable.

For students with special needs, the R word has the power to disenfranchise them and opens the door for physical acts of violence. A school culture that allows the use of hate language toward a population of students is more likely to allow physical violence against the same marginalized group.

Because of this, it is imperative for educators to conceptualize the reality of the impact bullying has on the lives of students with special needs.

According to AbilityPath.org (2011), Tyler Long’s diagnosis with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) caused unique personality traits that made him unpopular in school. His mother, Tina Long, says being different made him a target of bullying. Classmates took his things, spat in his food and called Tyler names. On October 17, 2009, 17-year-old Tyler’s battle with the bullies led to a tragic end. Depressed, he hanged himself before school and committed suicide. It devastated his family and engulfed a community to seek answers. (AbilityPath.org, 2011, p. 6) Indeed, bullying students with special needs is a tremendous challenge in schools (Carter & Spencer, 2006; Gill & da Costa, 2010; Raskauskas & Modell, 2011; Rose & Monda-Amaya, 2012). In fact, students with special needs are two to three times more likely to be bullied than the general population of the school building (AbilityPath.org, 2011; Swearer, Espelage, & Napolitano, 2009).

Specifically, 47 % of parents reported that their children had been hit by peers or siblings, and 50 % of parents reported their child were scared of their peers; 9 % of the students with special needs were attacked by a group of students and hurt in their “private parts”; in terms of social interactions, 12 % indicated their child had never been invited to a birthday party, 6 % were almost always picked last for teams, and 3 % ate alone at lunch every day (AbilityPath.org, 2011). Furthermore, students who self-reported taking ADHD medication experienced

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

more bullying than their peers (Unnever & Cornell, 2003; Wiener & Mak, 2009) Moreover, most students with special needs were told not to tattle on others who had bullied them nearly twice as often than their non-special education counterparts.

These are extremely heartbreaking statistics, and they paint a dismal picture of the culture of schools with regard to bullying and how it impacts students with special needs. Bullying individuals with special needs is a tremendous problem in schools, which becomes more acceptable in the school community because of the use of the R word. The acceptance of the R word opens up the possibility for greater intolerance toward individuals with special needs.

Implications During the informal interviews discussed earlier, a professor of special education in a teacher preparation program stated: We have a program for developmentally disabled young adults. One day during the semester, a group of young people led a campus campaign to stop the word. Posters were hung around campus and a pledge table was set up for people to sign a pledge to stop using the R word.

What was interesting was one of the posters said "Flip the Bird at the Word." My first reaction was OOOH but then realized I think that about several posters on campus, and it was more generational then offensive. That night I received an e-mail from another faculty member saying this poster should never have been put up and what are we teaching these students. I realized then how powerful this campus-based program is. If we are going to give voice to these young people we can't just start censoring their voices. We discussed this with the students and one young man said I would rather have someone flip me the bird than call me retarded.

The student’s statement is powerful, and addresses the truly painful nature of the R word and how language impacts educational environments. It further illuminates the necessity to eradicate the word from society, specifically schools. Thus, practicing teachers must begin attempting to eliminate this word from schools through realizing the detrimental aspects the R word has on students with special needs. Teachers and teacher candidates must realize how the R word becomes a conduit for reinforcing the “normal” versus “different” binary.

PAGE 36

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

As such, the R word continues to dehumanize a population of individuals in the community, and in doing so, causes society to remove social value from those individuals. The binary must be broken and replaced with commonalities in all populations. The R word can only be eradicated from society when teachers and teacher candidates break free from the hierarchy of hate language. The R word must be treated in the same manner as all other forms of hate language. Teachers can no longer allow any form of hate language to exist within their classrooms and school community.

In order for the R word to disappear, teacher preparation programs must do more to address this problem. In a majority of colleges of education, preservice teachers who are not seeking special education certification receive little formal training and coursework addressing the emotional needs of students who are classified with special needs. Thus, teacher candidates who are not special education majors are not equipped to address the emotional realities of teaching students with special needs in a fully inclusive school environment. Because of their lack of formal training, many of these students do not truly conceptualize how this specific population is marginalized and how the teacher should construct a classroom that combats such marginalization. In many instances, these students are taught to rely on an inclusion teacher to meet all of the needs of the students with special needs, when in reality a coteacher may not exist. Thus, teacher preparation programs must reconceptualize how non-special education majors are being prepared to meet the emotional needs of students with special needs.

Moreover, within teacher education programs there is little formal training to instruct teacher candidates to address bullying within their classrooms. Thus, the authors advocate for all students in teacher education programs to receive formal training discussing bullying and specifically, bullying students with special needs. Additionally, authors posit the training must instruct students how to address all uses of the R word in their classes and how the R word should be addressed with the same severity as other forms of hate language. This training can be conducted in a seminar course or added to all pedagogical methods courses within the department. In order to meet these challenges, instructional strategies can be implemented to address the three areas discussed: binary

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

oppositional thinking, the hierarchy of hate language, and the R word and bullying.

Teacher education programs must provide avenues that cause students to recognize how this binary functions within society and schools; moreover, students must be taught how to design lessons that use curriculum to address the challenge to celebrate and create tolerance within society. For this assignment students are not creating new curriculum; rather, they are constructing activities that can be implemented within the curricular framework addressing the academic objectives and addressing issues of tolerance and acceptance for individuals with special needs. These activities must be infused into the current school curriculum and join seamlessly with other activities within the classroom. A simple example is to provide students a reflective journaling activity as a “sponge assignment” when they enter the room. The journal activity would ask students to discuss how the character with special needs is treated in a text they are currently reading and how the treatment is or is not a mirror of society. It could also ask students to agree or disagree with the way the character is treated. This simple activity creates a metacognitive space that causes the students to reflect on how individuals with special needs are treated in the community. In doing so, it can lead to recognition of how society views individuals with special needs as being anti-normal. Further, the activity can also begin to create a greater sense of empathy in students’ lives.

In addressing the hierarchy of hate language, students can be provided with case studies that examine the impact of hate language within schools.

These case studies provide a lens through which students are able to grapple with how hate language is used within schools and how such language is addressed; more explicitly, how the R word is left out of most conversations examining hate language when used in educational settings. In these discussions topics such as “white privilege,” “straight privilege,” and “ability privilege” can also be reviewed to enable students to conceptualize how society has placed hate language into a hierarchical structure. These discussions become the catalysts that help students truly see how hate language is treated very differently in schools depending on the words being used. Further, these discussions lead to classroom management strategies that address all

PAGE 37

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

uses of hate language appropriately in educational settings.

In preparing teacher education students to address bullying broadly, teacher education programs must begin discussing bullying with all teacher candidates in a formal manner, which can be done through adding curriculum materials that explore anti-bullying instructional strategies with pre-service students. In initial certification programs, the impact bullying behaviors have on students’ education can be presented with the text Bullying in Schools: A Professional Development for Educators (Jones, 2012). The book is an edited collection from the point of view of parents, students, and educators.

At the end of each chapter, the editor has listed three or four discussion questions to help guide further reflection about the topics discussed in the chapter.

This book provides students with practical advice about bullying and how to address it at each grade level. It also discusses the intersection between bullying and individuals with special needs. There are other curriculum materials that can be used effectively to teach students about bullying practices; however, the texts must incorporate all grade levels.

This article began with a quotation from Lauren Potter, an actress on the television show GLEE. Potter’s words paint a vivid image of one person’s struggle with hate language in society. It is a struggle that should not exist, and changing society’s use of language is a tedious task. In essence, it involves combatting years of social hegemony, but it something that we must do and can do through the process of schooling. By eradicating the R word from the schooling process, we open up the possibility of removing it from society. In order to accomplish this task, we must begin with teacher preparation programs and the way we prepare all of our teacher candidates to meet the needs of students with special needs.

References AbilityPath.org (2011). Walk a mile in their shoes: Bullying and the child with special needs. Retrieved from: www.abilitypath.org Altieri, E. (2003). Seeing disability in new ways. In L. Bustle (Ed.), Image, inquiry and transformative practice: Engaging learners in creative and critical inquiry through visual representation. 131-176. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Associated Press. (2014, January 30). Lebron James apologizes for word. ESPN. Retrieved from www.espn.go.com Carter, B., & Spencer, V. (2006). The fear factor: bullying and students with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education , 21(1), 11-23.

Dubin, N. (2007). Asperger syndrome and bullying: Strategies and solutions. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.

Gettys, Travis. (2014, January 29). Rich CEO tells ‘Daily Show’ the mentally retarded are maaaybe worth $2 an hour. Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com Gill, M. & da Costa, J. (2010). Students with disabilities in mainstream schools: District level perspectives on anti-bullying policy and practice within schools in Alberta. International Journal of Special Education 25(2), 148-161.

Jones, J. (2010). Making safe places unsafe: A discussion of homophobia with teachers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Jones, J. (2012). Bullying In Schools: A Professional Development for Educators. Seattle, WA: Kindle Direct Publishing.

Jones, J. R. (2014). Unnormalizing Education: Addressing Homophobia in Higher Education and K12 Schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Oxford University Press. (2015). Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from www.oed.com Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2002). What should we do about bullying: Research into practice. Peacebuilder, 9-10.

Rose, C. & Monda-Amaya, L. (2012). Bullying and victimization: Effective strategies for classroom teachers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(2), 99-107.

Raskauskas, J. & Modell, S. (2011). Modifying antibullying programs to include students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(1), 60-67.

Siperstein G., Pociask S., & Collins M. (2010). Sticks, stones and stigma: A study of students’ use of the derogatory word term ‘retard.’ Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(2), 126-134.

Smith, P. K. (1999). Bullying and harassment in schools and the rights of children. Children & Society Journal, 17, 294-303.

Stephens, J. F. (2015). The r-word is exclusive. In “Advocates explain why the r-word is so hurtful when used in jokes or as part of everyday speech.” RWord: Spread the Word to End the Word. The Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation for the Benefit of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities. Retrieved from www.rword.org

PAGE 38

GATEways to t Teacher E Education A jo ournal of the Georg gia Association of T Teacher Educators

Swearer, D., D Espelage, D., D & Napolitan no, S. (2009).

Bullyin ng, Prevention n & Interventio on: Realistic Strateg gies for Schoolls. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Unnever, J. J & Cornell, D. D (2003). Bully ying, self-contrrol, and ADHD. Journall of Interperson nal Violence, 81(2), 8 129-14 47.

Wiener, J. & Mak, M. (20 009). Peer victtimization in childreen with Attentiion Deficit/Hyp peractivity Disord der. Psychology gy in the Schoolls 46 (2), 116-1 131.

About the t Authors Joseph R. Jones, PhD Dr. Jones is i a former high h school English teacher and is nationally known for his research addreessing bullying g and homophob bia in education nal environmen nts. He has published copiously c on th hese topics and d was presented d with a national award fro om Auburn Uniiversity for his scholarship p. He currently y teaches at Meercer University y.

Sybil Keessbury, Ed.D Dr. Keesbu ury focuses herr academic worrk on Autism Spectrum Disorders D and Behavioral B Dissorders. Prior to teaching att Mercer Univeersity she taugh ht special education in i the public scchools of North h Carolina. Heer certificatio ons include Preeschool Handiccaps Birth – Ag ge 9, Emotional and Behavior Disorders K-12, as well as National Board B Certified Exceptional Needs N Specialisst Early Child dhood through h Young Adult.

VOL LUME 26, ISSUE 1

PAGE 39

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Understanding the Influences of ESOL Preservice Teachers’ Prior Experiences on their Learning Process in Eudes Aoulou, Georgia Perimeter College Teacher Preparation Programs

There is an increased interest in preservice teachers’ prior knowledge. This interest is due to the fact that lack of attention to these teachers’ background knowledge is increasingly perceived as problematic (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). The problematic aspect of lack of attention to students’ background knowledge may be well-understood from a Vygotskyan perspective. According to Vygotsky (1978; 1986), for students to reach their potential, their current level of development as well as their knowledge needs to be established. While attention to students’ antecedents in general is necessary, such an attention is crucially needed in teacher preparation programs, and specifically in ESOL teacher preparation programs.

Prospective teachers come to teacher preparation programs with a set of beliefs and understandings that may or may not support their learning and growth in these programs. For example, it is argued that preservice teachers tend to implement practices learned as students (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Lortie, 1975;). While those practices might be good, students are not generally savvy of the different bodies of knowledge informing those practices (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Likewise, they may not be aware of the particular contexts in which those instructional strategies work, as their experiences are context-bound (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

Another reason why it may be important to attend to teacher candidates’ prior experiences is that these candidates, like all goal-oriented individuals, come to teacher preparation programs with more or less clear expectations. According to the Expectancy

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Theory (Vroom, 1964), individuals have clear expectations about performance, and they expect that particular performances lead to specific outcomes. Thus, teacher candidates’ expectations before entering teacher education programs may shape their views of coursework and fieldwork and their experiences in those programs.

Furthermore, prospective teachers’ prior knowledge may influence the ways they process information during their preparation and the ways they interact with students. Tracey and Morrow (2006) contend that “From a constructive viewpoint, learning occurs when individuals integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge” (Tracey & Morrow, 2006).

Due to these reasons, a study establishing the ways in which prospective English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teachers’ prior beliefs, understandings, and expectations shape their learning and growth in teacher preparation programs is of special importance to teacher educators, teacher education researchers, and/or professional development consultants. In fact, this insight may shape the ways teacher preparation programs are designed and the ways teacher educators and professional development consultants design meaningful coursework and fieldwork experiences in order to coach preservice teachers to reach their full potential. Teacher education researchers may also draw on this knowledge to further their understandings of specific aspects of preservice teachers’ cognition and growth in particular subject areas.

PAGE 40

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Literature Review Research on background knowledge has initially focused on P-12 education. This line of research has investigated the gap between home and school experiences and found that educational practices that fail to incorporate students’ background knowledge are ineffective (Baker et al., 2010; Dooley & Asaf, 2009). In particular, Baker et al. (2010) found that student achievement depends on prior teachers and prior achievements, on whether students have educated parents and receive support for school work, on academic abilities of peers, on whether they are tutored, whether they go to summer camps, and on community and parent involvement.

Unlike P-12 education, knowledge of the role of teacher education students’ prior experiences and beliefs tends to be informed by theoretical or conceptual works. Several of these works have focused on prospective teachers’ antecedents as related to their experiences as P-12 students and how such antecedents affect their own classroom practices (Darling-Hammond, 2006; DarlingHammond & Bransford, 2005; Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992).

In the area of ESOL teacher education, some empirical studies have been conducted. Some of these studies have found that ESOL preservice teachers’ prior beliefs and experiences have powerful influences on their learning and performance (Johnson, 1994; Milambiling, 1999; Peacock, 2001; Reeves, 2009; Rymes, 2002). Some preservice teachers use their prior experiences as an asset during learning and performances (Johnson, 1994; Milambiling, 1999, Rymes, 2002). This is particularly true when these experiences are positive (Johnson, 1994). However, preservice teachers’ prior experiences may also be detrimental to their learning and growth (Milambiling, 1999; Peacock, 2001; Reeves, 2002).

Although there is some empirical research in this area, the general observation is that ESOL teacher education programs tend to omit the cognitive and sociocultural constructive view of teacher learning or they often fail to integrate preservice teachers’ antecedents, prior knowledge, biographies, and prior experiences into teacher education (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Kumaravadivelu, 2001; Reeves, 2009). This is not surprising because attention to backgrounds and to prior experiences and beliefs is a new development in ESOL teacher education

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

(Tarone & Allwright, 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2001).

It is argued that the post-methods teacher educator is the one who recognizes that prospective teachers are not atheoretical clean slates. Post-methods ESOL teacher educators recognize and value the voices and visions that preservice teachers bring to teacher education programs. ESOL teacher education programs should therefore engage teacher candidates in constant dialogue to help them articulate their visions and to think critically.

This study, which was part of a larger investigation, was undertaken to fill the existing gap observed in the current literature. In fact, although there were empirical studies in this area of interest, some of these studies generally focused on ESOL preservice teachers prepared to teach adult language learners in intensive English as a Second Language programs. Others focused on preservice teachers prepared to teach P-12 students but did not specifically focus on their prior beliefs, understandings, and expectations, or they focused on these teachers’ beliefs and values as they emerged and changed in teacher preparation programs.

Taking this gap into account, this study was conducted to investigate prior beliefs, understandings, and expectations of ESOL preservice teachers and the ways in which antecedents affect their learning and growth in teacher preparation programs, particularly in the area of second-language reading instruction, as the bulk of instruction at the P-12 level focuses on reading.

The research question driving this inquiry is: How do ESOL preservice teachers' prior experiences and beliefs inform and shape their process of becoming teachers in teacher preparation programs, particularly in the area of second-language reading instruction?

Methods Context of the Study The context of the study focused on preservice teachers in a graduate-level initial preparation program for ESOL teachers. Offered by a large urban research university in the southeastern United States, this ESOL teacher preparation program is a nontraditional four-semester program that prepares P-12 ESOL teachers for teaching primarily in urban and suburban high-need schools. These schools are situated in a highly diverse metropolitan city in the United States. The four-semester preparation is not

PAGE 41

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

at the undergraduate level, but at the graduate level where the preservice teachers have already obtained a content area degree or an academic preparation at the undergraduate level and are seeking a Masters of Arts in Teaching. Generally, many of these teacher candidates are mid-career professionals who have had a different career but now desire to enter the teaching profession.

The program admits prospective teachers in cohorts and offers a master’s degree leading to initial teacher certification in ESOL and a reading endorsement. The cohort takes a sequence of education courses in the major beginning in a summer term; however, prospective teachers can be admitted into the program any semester and enroll in courses in social foundations, educational psychology, research, or applied linguistics.

The program is delivered in collaboration with faculty from the P-12 schools in the urban or suburban surroundings of the university. Most of these schools serve as sites for field experiences or are formal professional development schools and often recruit most of the teacher candidates who complete the program successfully. In addition, the program is committed to placing interns in highneed schools with diverse populations of students.

Participants Participants were selected from a course in which most of the ESOL preservice teacher cohort members were enrolled. The nine participants who agreed to participate in the study and signed the consent form were all female, including eight Caucasians and one African-American. The average age of the participants was 30 with the oldest being 51 and the youngest being 22 at the beginning of the study.

All of the participants were college-educated people with a degree in ESOL-related fields, seeking initial teacher certification in ESOL; except the 22year-old participant, they were all mid-career professionals. All of them had developed some expertise in their former professions or jobs and some had achieved leadership roles in such positions.

At the beginning of the study in the summer of 2010, the program offered two courses on campus, one in cultural understandings for the bilingual/ESOL teacher and the other in theory and pedagogy of reading. All of the participants, with the

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

exception of one, were enrolled in both courses. One participant was enrolled in the cultural course and in an online course focused on special education but was not enrolled in the reading course. In addition to the two education sequence courses, most of the participants were enrolled in general linguistics, a course offered by the Department Of Applied Linguistics in the College of Arts and Sciences at this university.

Data collection Data collection was comprised of several different steps, the first two of which were the focus of this study. The first step consisted of collecting demographic data on the participants’ personal backgrounds in general as well as collecting data pertaining to both prior experiences with secondlanguage learning and reading and previous beliefs about ESOL teaching and learning. During the second step, data on how pre-service teachers’ personal backgrounds were used and addressed as they progressed in their program coursework was collected. The third step contributed to the purposeful selection of key informants who became the primary focus for data collection in field experiences.

The first step of data collection focused on gathering information related to pre-service teachers’ demographic profile as well as to their personal background. To do this, a demographic and background survey and the Language Teaching/Learning Beliefs Questionnaire were administered. The demographic and background survey was designed to collect data about the participants’ background information as related to second-language learning and teaching experiences and the length of exposure to such experiences. The Language Teaching/Learning Beliefs Questionnaire was used to collect information related to the beliefs held by the participants regarding second-language teaching and learning prior to entrance into teacher preparation programs (Brown & Rogers, 2002). The questionnaire addresses areas such as the role of linguistic knowledge in ESOL teaching, four language skills, vocabulary, grammar, communication, the role of the ESOL teacher, errors in second-language teaching and learning, and pronunciation.

In addition, documents submitted during the teacher candidates’ interview process such as

PAGE 42

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

reflections on prior experiences with learning a second language were obtained from the program coordinator and from the ESOL faculty. The information in these documents was used to supplement or to confirm the information collected through the administration of the demographic and background survey and through the Language Teaching/Learning Beliefs Questionnaire.

All the data in Step 1 served the purpose to gather information about the preservice teachers’ amounts of exposure to second-language learning and reading and about prior beliefs and experiences.

More specifically, the survey and questionnaire instruments were used to understand variations within the cohort.

During Step 2, course field work was examined and interviews with preservice participants were conducted. This step consisted of attending two courses in the summer two times a week for twothree hours each time to note the interactions taking place in class and collect relevant course artifacts.

The objective was to understand how the participants’ backgrounds and prior knowledge shaped their understanding and learning in their teacher preparation courses and how teacher educators drew on students’ backgrounds. Analysis of data from these sources allowed the design of interview questions to follow up or clarify what was learned from class attendance and course artifacts.

Data Analysis Analysis of the data related to the demographic survey and the beliefs questionnaire resulted in the identification of patterns confirming some categories in the reflective essays, such as significance of background. At the same time, the observational data confirmed similar categories found in the reflective essays, such as immersion. The data collection and analysis became interactive leading to the identification of meaningful relationships between the nature or type of prior ESOL learning experiences associated with preference for immersion across data sources using a constantcomparative technique (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Relationships between concepts and categories were clarified or refined using axial coding of the working hypotheses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

For data reduction purposes, a second analysis was conducted to identify categories that had similar

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

meaning or that were closely related in meaning to the research interests, such as “Views of ESOL reading,” “Similarities in L1 and ESOL reading processes,” and “Differences in L1 and ESOL reading processes.” In subsequent analysis, the categories “Similarities in L1 and ESOL reading processes” and “Differences in L1 and ESOL reading processes” referred to or fell under a larger category “views of L1 and ESOL reading,” so the categories were collapsed and refined in the initial analysis in order to obtain categories more representative of meaningful units.

After analyzing the data obtained in the interviews, the data was analyzed across sources: reflective essays, demographic survey, language teaching/learning beliefs questionnaire, observations, and interviews. The interview data was a summative data source because they were informed by data obtained from all of the other sources used. Thus, interview data better integrated and reflected the diversity of categories and concepts. Other data sources were then used to triangulate findings that emerged from the interview analysis.

Course assignment data was an additional summative data source. These data were very useful as many of them were reflective pieces and showed how participants drew on personal background.

Again, a constant comparative analysis was used by breaking all the texts into units and analyzing them line-by-line. Such deep and intensive analysis of course assignment data confirmed many of the previous categories and concepts from interview analyses but provided clarifications about relationships between categories. The course assignment analyses also revealed other important categories and concepts. Because additional categories and concepts emerged, additional member checking and peer debriefing took place (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). As a result of the peer debriefing, the preservice participants were contacted via email for clarification about some categories or themes that seemed to emerge, and categories and themes were refined, resulting in the elimination of some categories and the expansion of others.

Results Results indicate that the participants’ prior experiences shape their learning and/or performance

PAGE 43

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

in three important ways encompassing (a) professional expectations and interests, (b) views of reading and articulations of reading instruction, and (c) understandings of English language learners’ struggles, needs, and perspectives.

Professional Expectations and/or Interests The participants’ backgrounds shaped their expectations for their programs as well as what they would learn in the process of becoming ESOL teachers. These expectations spurred participants’ motivations and willingness to learn and develop specific knowledge and skills. The expectations were that the knowledge necessary or relevant for teaching ESOL students and for working with English language learners coming from various backgrounds would be developed. For example, Shekinah commented, I anticipate answering the following throughout the duration the course: • How does the ESOL instructor harmonize the diverse and potentially conflicting cultures within the classroom?

• How does the ESOL instructor capitalize on the individual child's culture in order to cultivate language? More specifically, does the instructor utilize L1[the primary language] to advance reading & writing in ESOL within the confines of the Georgia public school system?

• How does the ESOL instructor communicate effectively with parents who may have limited or no English language skills?

My hope is that Martin and Nakayama's text, select articles, class discussion, and course assignments will answer my questions about intercultural communication in the classroom.

(Course Assignment, summer 2010) Shekina’s prior beliefs or assumptions made her focus and seek answers to questions of interest to her as she engaged in coursework. This kind of information was important because it indicated the reasons why some of the participants engaged more with some specific learning materials than others.

She was not the only participant to have degrees of engagement associated with whether or not coursework met expectations. Ashley clearly expressed her frustrations when coursework did not match her expectations:

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

I have been disappointed with some of my coursework and pleased with other coursework.

Some of my classes so far have not seemed to offer me any real knowledge that I can use in the classroom while others have been exceptionally helpful. Perhaps my expectations were excessive. (Follow-up interview, October 2010) Although there seemed to be no explicit link between what Ashley said and her background, the last sentence of her comment indicated her background and/or prior expectations might be influential on her perception of coursework. The influence of her background on her perception could be better understood in light of her following comment during the interview: With my B.A., I felt like I was not prepared to go into the classroom to teach. I learned about how we learn language and how the brain processes language. But I did not learn how to apply such knowledge in classroom. Of course, we had a class on methods. But I didn’t feel prepared as for how to deal with students in P-12 classrooms. This ESOL program is more focused on education whereas Applied Linguistics is about Arts and Sciences. Field experiences in this program will prepare me better for teaching students. (Follow-up Interview, October 2010) The participants also used their prior experiences to understand or to seek understanding of various aspects of ESOL teaching or ESOL classroom contexts. These understandings affected complex sociocultural and linguistic issues and classroom management and practices. Ruth, for instance, explained, In the school [where] I was a teacher, students are invited into the United States and they are asked to immerse in the culture. But those students are college adult students. With public schools, the scenario might be a little bit different. They might be forced to speak English at school. But when they go home, they might face the obligation to use the language of their parents. So I am learning how to handle issues like that. How do you handle situations where students are using their first language at home but English at school? These are the things I am trying to learn now. (Interview, July 2010) Ruth’s concern was related to how to reconcile home language and school language or how to bridge the

PAGE 44

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

gap between home and school. Similar concerns were raised by other participants although the focus was somewhat different. Deborah, for instance, used her understanding of cultural issues implicit in the American society in general to raise sociocultural issues affecting today’s classroom. She commented, It’s clear then, that the teaching of indigenous children must be rooted in the interconnectedness of all aspects of the world we live in. The question this leaves me with is, how might we teach this value in a mainstream American context – a context in which most children do not enter the classroom with an explicit understanding of their connection to others, to the earth, or to the past. (Deborah, course assignment, summer 2010) Although reference to background was not apparent in the excerpt above, Deborah was drawing on her prior knowledge of typical P-12 students versus native Indian students. She could not have made such a comment if she did not have prior knowledge of typical P-12 students. Deborah used that prior knowledge to express her concern as related to the possibility and practicality of teaching all students, using their cultural background. She expressed a need to understand how to bring together and address the cultural background of all students in a single classroom. Observational data confirmed similar concerns. The following is an excerpt from field notes of a conversation in a summer course focusing on reading theories and pedagogy: Student: What do you do when language resources are not available when you encounter particular ELL [English language learner] students?

Instructor [to the class]: What do you do with students coming from like 20 language backgrounds?

Classmate: Some teachers use only English because of the many languages present in the classroom.

Throughout this classroom conversation, teacher candidates wanted to know how to handle situations in which students represent various linguistic backgrounds. The participants’ discussion of the ways to handle classrooms of students coming from various linguistic backgrounds led them to articulate part of their vision for ESOL instruction. For example, Ruth, who expressed her struggles or concerns about bridging the gap between home

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

language and school language, articulated the following vision: “I would recognize and capitalize on the first language of my ESOL students because I believe that they can transfer their L1 skills to the L2.”

Abigail shared the same vision as Ruth when she projected, “I think that I will encourage my students to use their L1 to learn and transfer that to English.”

Ruth and Abigail were not the only participants to suggest that they will use or draw on their English language learners’ primary languages.

Clearly, the results above indicate that participants’ personal backgrounds and prior knowledge provided a foundation for their professional interests and expectations and prompted engagement with coursework. The topic of expectations and interests even surfaced as the participants tackled the issue of how to deliver reading instruction, particularly ESOL reading instruction. The degree of their engagements varied depending on whether coursework did or did not meet or not their interests and expectations.

Views of reading and visions of reading instruction Generally, participants’ prior experiences learning literacy and ESOL reading during P-12 education and ESOL reading at college and abroad contributed to the ways the participants viewed reading and articulated their vision of reading instruction. Using such experiences, almost all the participants discussed issues as related to meaningfulness and authenticity, students’ interests, motivation, and whole language adoption in relation to ESOL reading instruction. They indicated that finding out about students’ interests and providing them with reading materials related to their interests is crucial. They believed that such strategies promoted students’ love of reading and literacy. The following excerpt illustrates the point well: I will teach them that reading is a natural thing to do. That’s how I grow experiencing reading.

Like you eat, you read, you grow. I will teach based on what interests them, what they find fascinating. I will make it authentic... I will have them read to accomplish tasks instead of reading to decode, reading to accomplish certain things such as using a recipe. (Shekinah, Interview, July 2010).

PAGE 45

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Clearly, Shekinah seemed to be situated in the whole language paradigm by her insistency on reading as “a natural thing,” “what interests them,” and “make it authentic.”

In the same vein, Ruth expressed her preference for providing her future students with interesting reading materials and an authentic literacy environment to promote their students’ literacy learning. For example, Ruth commented, I envision having a big library in my classroom where students can go and choose books they like. They can choose the books they are interested in. I don’t want to force them. I want them to choose and read freely. This applies for both L1 and L2 students. (Summer interview) Ruth’s vision of reading might be linked to her childhood literacy experiences with her grandfather: Every Wednesday afternoon during second grade grandpa Schneider would pick up me up from school and we would drive to one of two locations, the bowling alley or the Bentonville Public Library… the library trips with my grandpa are very clear memories that have affected my view on the importance of reading and literacy… During our library visits he would allow me to go by myself to the children’s section to pick out my books for the week.

(Course assignment, summer 2010) Sarah expressed almost the same view as far as interesting materials are concerned. She said: “The first thing I want to make sure to implement in my reading instruction is get interesting materials for my students” (Course assignment, summer 2010).

Sarah’s vision of reading might also be linked to her childhood reading experiences as she wrote, “I was a kid who walked around with my nose buried in a book” (Course assignment, summer 2010).

As one could understand, the reading instruction visions expressed above are general in nature or specifically to primary language contexts. However, their views were also probed as they specifically related to ESOL reading.

ESOL reading viewed as more difficult Most of the participants believed that secondlanguage reading was more difficult than primarylanguage reading. Reasons for holding such a view of the difficulty of ESOL reading include lack of vocabulary, lack of scaffolding, inappropriate reading instruction on the part of former teachers,

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

and lack of linguistic knowledge. For instance, Rosaline explained, I find it more difficult because the words are completely different. The same thing applies to some letters, especially when you encounter a dialect of the language. I had tried to read a couple of novels in Spanish. It was not easy. I think that in ESOL instruction, such parameters need to be taken into account. (Interview, July 2010) In Rosaline’ explanation, second-language reading appeared difficult because of lack of general linguistic knowledge and of vocabulary in particular.

Another participant attributed her difficulty reading in a second language to her former teacher’s inability to provide appropriate reading instruction and relevant scaffolding. Elizabeth explained, I think that part of it is that if the teacher was able to provide students with materials that are more along their skills level and proceeds in a more successive fashion, I think that will be more helpful. I did not see that in the ESOL instruction I have been exposed to. (Interview, July 2010) Because they did not have a clear view of appropriate ESOL reading practices, some of the participants clearly expressed their interest in learning more about ESOL reading instruction to ESOL students during their teacher preparation programs. They expressed their desires and expectations to learn how to provide reading instruction to English language learners. Sarah noted in an interview, “I am not exactly sure [how to provide ESOL reading instruction]. I think that I would learn in the course of the following semesters.” Similar expectations were expressed by Ruth in an interview: “I hope to learn from this program how to teach reading efficiently. We touch upon scientific-based reading and other theories and how good it is to incorporate more than one theory in one’s reading instruction.”

ESOL reading viewed as easier During an interview, it was determined that Dorcas and Shekinah viewed ESOL reading instruction as easier than primary-language reading.

They justified this view by pointing out the fact that the students had already developed reading skills in their first language and had already developed a substantial linguistic and semantic knowledge.

Shekinah’s justifications for this viewpoint were

PAGE 46

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

particularly illustrative. During her interview she commented, It wasn’t like my L1 reading experiences because when I started reading English, I didn’t know how to read. That experience was difficult because I struggled a lot. I struggled because I was learning how phonemes and sounds work together. By the time I started learning to read in L2, that aspect of learning to read wasn’t a challenge any more. I have already known how to form words. So I found my L2 reading as pleasurable as my L1 reading whereas speaking in L2 is more difficult and demanding in terms of energy. Reading in L2 was not as difficult as reading in L1.

Essentially, the participants in general have a more or less well-articulated view and vision of primarylanguage reading instruction because of their experiences during P-12 education. Generally, their view and vision reflected the constructivist perspective of literacy instruction and that of whole language in particular. On the other hand, they have a less articulate and mixed view of second-language reading because of the scant experiences they had with this reading. Because of such limited view and vision of ESOL reading instruction, participants indicated during interviews that they expected to learn or develop their understanding of ESOL reading instruction during teacher preparation programs.

Understanding and empathizing with ESOL students’ struggles, needs, and perspectives The participants heavily drew on their prior experiences to understand, and at times, empathize with English language learners’ struggles, needs, and perspectives. They could relate to their ESOL students. Almost all of the participants used their prior ESOL learning or travel-abroad experiences to express such understandings. Ruth captured the point about understanding these students’ perspectives and struggles when she mentioned, I had some sensitivity when dealing with them [my students]. I could see things from their perspective. I know the struggles of not understanding. I remember one experience in Germany when I went to buy ice cream. The seller kept asking me ‘what did you say?’ in a way that made me feel like I was stupid (Interview, July 2010).

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

Ruth’s language learning experience in Germany led her to show sensitivity and to appreciate her students’ perspective and to relate to them. To emphasize these important professional dispositions, she added, in the course of the interview, that travelabroad experiences “help me relate to my students in ways that are totally different from what might be my relations to my students if I had not had those experiences” (Interview, July 2010). Similar views were shared by Rosaline as she argued, “Because of my background with a second language and my ability to relate to people from other cultures, I feel like I would be a great ESOL teacher candidate” (Interview, July 2010).

Another participant who used her prior experiences learning an ESOL to understand English language learners’ linguistic needs was Dorcas. She explained, They need the language. Now, I started looking at the flip side of that: I want to help children be able to communicate in English… From those [prior] experiences [realizing especially how language is a powerful tool in communication], I develop a strong desire to teach English to nonnative speakers and help them communicate well. Teaching ESL [English as a Second Language] is like empowering students and giving them a voice. I don’t want language to be a barrier to their success. (Interview, July 2010) In Dorcas’ comments, she asserted that the students need the English language because of issues of power and success in society. Indeed, Dorcas suggested that the English language is a powerful tool or the key to students’ academic, economic, and social success. She also implied that the English language is necessary for her students to participate in the political process or in the democratic debate.

Abigail expressed similar views, although from a different perspective. She commented, They [prior experiences] make me more aware of other cultures and give more understanding. I feel like I have a doorway to other people’s world. When I meet somebody from another culture I can speak their language. It broadens my mind and makes me think about things differently because different languages express ideas differently. (Interview, July 2010).

Abigail’s experiences enabled her to be openminded, to change the ways she thinks, and to

PAGE 47

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

understand how people from other cultures represent the world.

Finally, in her admission reflective essay and during one interview, Ashley explained that she could understand the affective needs of ESOL students because of her own experiences learning as an ESOL student. Later, during the summer interview, Ashley crystallized her belief saying, I came to this conclusion based on my own experience. I took Chinese at the college level.

During my Chinese learning experience, I did not find reasons why I should learn Chinese here. So I was not motivated. But if I [were] in China, I could have been more motivated to learn. I did think that motivation is the most important factor. Without motivation, you can’t learn at all. In the United States here, there is reason and motivation to learn English: you want to speak the language.

For Ashley, motivation was crucial in learning a second language. Without the fuel of motivation, she believes that learning a second language is doomed to failure.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to understand the ways ESOL preservice teachers’ prior experiences, understandings, and expectations shape their learning and growth in teacher preparation programs, particularly in the area of ESOL reading.

Results indicate that the participants’ antecedents shaped their engagement with coursework in important ways.

One of the enduring findings of this study was the role that participants’ prior experiences played in their academic and professional expectations and interests in their preparation programs. This finding is not surprising in the sense that human beings are goal-oriented and have expectations (Locke & Latham, 2006; Vroom, 1964). According to Locke and Latham, goal-setting suggests that one is dissatisfied with one’s current condition and aims for a more fulfilling outcome. Because of these goals, human beings tend to focus more on certain things and ignore others because of the motivational forces driving them (Owens & Valesky, 2007). This pattern was clearly illustrated by the participants in this study.

Although this finding is not surprising, it is unique in that it revealed ESOL preservice teachers’

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

prior expectations may influence the ways they engage with coursework, particularly in the areas of diversity, capitalization on the primary language to develop ESOL reading and writing, communication with English language learners’ parents, relevant skills to teach ESOL students, and ESOL reading.

Specifically, the preservice teachers in this investigation expected to gain knowledge related to ways to handle diversity, the use of English language learners’ first language in the classroom, and how to bridge the gap between home and school languages. They also expected to acquire skills pertaining to communication with their students’ parents and to how to deliver ESOL reading instruction effectively.

The uniqueness of this finding is that there is now an idea of what the motivational forces driving ESOL preservice teachers might be. This finding is very important since motivation and learning are intricately linked (Brown, 2007). The literature on motivation suggests that the amount of energy invested in learning activities and tasks is proportional to how learners perceive the strategic importance of the knowledge and skills embedded in those activities and tasks (Locke & Latham, 2006).

Failure to tap students’ motivation de facto undermines the learning process. Thus, this finding has at least two important implications for ESOL teacher preparation programs.

First, it may be informative to design programs in ways that allow systematic collection of data related to preservice teachers’ expectations prior to their admission in teacher preparation programs. The data collected could then be shared with faculty members in order to design courses that integrate the preservice teachers’ expectations. By doing so, the courses become more relevant and boost these teachers’ motivations, thus increasing their probability of learning and growth.

Second, the information collected may assist individual course instructors in the ways they organize specific course activities and tasks in order to coach preservice teachers. Attention to preservice teachers’ expectations may assist faculty in the ways they choose specific instructional strategies and course contents to achieve specific course outcomes.

This knowledge may also facilitate the collaborative nature of the learning process more effectively as interested parties engage in meaningful and relevant learning activities.

PAGE 48

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

Additionally, the participants’ prior experiences influenced the ways they viewed reading and their vision of reading instruction to English language learners. This is an interesting finding because of its centrality to the research question and is consistent with the extant literature. In fact, previous research has shown that preservice teachers’ views of reading date back to their schooldays, and that such views influence their reading instruction or their perspectives on reading shape their instructional practices (DeFord, 1985; Gupta & Saravanan, 1995; Many, Howard, & Hoge, 2002; Shaw, Dvorak, & Bates, 2007).

The preservice teachers in this study viewed reading as accessing meaningful and interesting materials that one enjoys because of their P-12 experiences. Thus, they envisioned exposing their own students to the same practices. While such views are supported by current literature (Tracey & Morrow, 2006), the question of whether those views of reading and reading instruction would automatically work for their students remains open for several reasons.

First, the participants’ experiences took place in a primary language context, but their students were English language learners. These students did not have the linguistic resources that the preservice teachers had. English language learners are generally confronted with the daunting task of acquiring and figuring out how the target language works and how cultural practices influence the use of the target language (Brown, 2007). So, it seems that simply providing access to interesting and meaningful materials to English language learners would not produce the miracle of reading effectively. These students need more than that.

The second reason was that the participants’ views were largely dominated by the constructivist and whole language views of reading. While nothing is wrong with such views of reading, effective reading instruction is informed by a larger repertoire of theoretical lenses (Tracey & Morrow, 2006). For example, English language learners may need instruction in phonics, skills, and strategies at various stages of their development as effective readers (Gunning, 1996).

Finally, the participants’ general struggles with the ways ESOL reading instruction works may paralyze their instructional practices largely based on their views of reading dating back to their

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

schooldays. The probability that they may not effectively reach their students was high because of the incompatibility of their instructional practices with their students’ characteristics. Although primary- and secondary-language reading share many key features, ESOL reading requires more than primary-language reading because of the linguistic, cultural, affective, and other issues generally involved in second language learning (Brown, 2007).

Obviously, this finding has important implications for ESOL teacher education programs and teacher educators. It is not sufficient to have relevant prior experiences. Teacher educators need to know the ways preservice teachers use these experiences to learn and grow and how they can help prospective teachers to activate and engage their background knowledge in a critical and constructive way. Failure to do so may contribute to preservice teachers’ development of misconceptions that can later affect their instructional practices in negative ways.

More concretely, teacher educators need to help prospective teachers make their background knowledge visible and think about such experiences more critically. For example, these teachers need to know how to develop background knowledge, the context of its development, when it works, and how it may or may not work with their future students and in their future instructional contexts.

Finally, ESOL teacher education programs may develop tools that assess preservice teachers’ instructional visions when these teachers are near the end of their preparation. These tools may enable the program designers to assess the rationale and coherence of their visions and provide relevant feedback to teacher candidates before they exit their preparation programs.

The last finding is related to the ways the participants’ antecedents shaped the way they understand and show empathy toward English language learners. This finding is also consistent with the current literature (Johnson, 1994; Milambiling, 1999; Rymes, 2002).

Showing sensitivity and empathy to students in general and to English language learners in particular is one of the hallmarks of effective and culturally relevant teaching (McLaughlin, 2010).

When English language learners realize that their teachers understand and consider their struggles and

PAGE 49

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

needs, their learning and subsequent performance improves. In this area, the participants appeared to be at the top of their game. Teacher educators need to encourage and reinforce these important professional dispositions.

In summary, this study offered insights to the ways preservice teachers use their prior experiences to construct knowledge and to grow in teacher preparation programs. It revealed that three important areas in which these teachers’ antecedents play a key role include professional expectations and interests, views of reading and reading instruction, and professional dispositions.

Although these findings are interesting, care must be taken in their generalization for several reasons. First, the fact that the participants were all female preservice teachers definitely limits the scope of the study and the generalization of its findings.

Another limitation of the study stems from the fact that it did not allow for observations of these preservice teachers in their own classrooms. Such observations may help develop a clearer picture of what they actually learned in their preparation programs as well as the weight of prior knowledge and experiences throughout the process. Because of these limitations, future research needs to include both genders and follow preservice teachers in their own classroom.

References Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., & Rothstein, R. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Brown, J. D., & Rogers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, D. H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson Education.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds). 2005.

Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading and Research Quarterly, 20(3), 351-367.

Dooley, C. M. & Assaf, L. C. (2009). Context Matters: Two teachers’ knowledge about language arts

VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1

instruction in this high-stakes era. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(3) 354-391.

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing of the knowledge-base of language teacher education.

TESOL Quarterly, 32, 397-417.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.

Chicago: Aldine.

Gunning, T G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children. Needhan Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gupta, R. & Saravanan, V. (1995). Old beliefs impede student teacher learning of reading instruction.

Journal of Education for Teaching, 21(3), 347-360.

Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teachers and Teacher Education, 10, 439-452.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537-560.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting. Association for Psychology Science, 15(15), 265-268.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Many, J. E., Howard F., & Hoge, P. (2002). Epistemology and pre-service teacher education: How do beliefs about knowledge affect our students’ experiences?

English Education, 34, 302-322.

McLaughlin, M. (2010). Content area reading: Teaching and learning in an age of multiple literacies. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Milambiling, J. (1999) Native and non-native speakers: The view from teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Modern Languages Association. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdeliv ery/servlet/ ERICServlet?accno=ED444353accno= ED444353 Owens, R. G. & Valesky, T. C. (2007). Organizational behavior education: Adaptive leadership and school reform. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 32, 307-332.

Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29, 177-195.

Reeves, J. (2009). A sociocultural perspective on ESOL teachers’ linguistic knowledge for teaching.

Linguistics and Education, 20, 109-125.

Rymes, B. (2002). Language in development in the United States: Supervising adult ESOL preservice

PAGE 50

GATEways to t Teacher E Education A jo ournal of the Georg gia Association of T Teacher Educators

teacheers in an immig grant communiity. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 431-4 452.

Shaw, D. M., M Dvorak, M. J., & Bates, K. K (2007). Prom mise and po ossibility - hope for teacher education: Preservice literacy instru uction can hav ve an impact.

Readin ng Research an nd Instruction, 46, 223-254.

Tarone, E., & Allwright, D. (2005). Seccond language teacheer learning and student second d language learnin ng: Shaping the knowledge-b base. Second langua age teacher ed ducation: Intern national perspeective, 5-24. Mahwah, M NJ: Laawrence Erlbau um Associates.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddliie, C. (1998). Mixed M methodology: Combining qualitativve and quantita ative approa aches. Thousan nd Oaks, CA: SAGE Publiccations.

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow w, L. M. (2006)). Lenses on readin ng: An introducction to theoriees and models.

New York: Y The Guillford Press.

Vroom, V.. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley y.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Min nd in society: The T developmen nt of mental higher processses. Cambridg ge, MA: Harvaard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Tho ought and Lang guage. Cambriidge, MA: MIT M Press.

About the Author Eudes Aou ulou, PhD Dr. Aoulou u has taught ES SL and Commu unication at Georgia Peerimeter Colleg ge. His currentt research intereests include exp ploring and understanding En nglish languagee learners’ comprehension of various textts and the ways teachers off these studentss support them m.

VOL LUME 26, ISSUE 1

PAGE 51

The Georgia Association of Teacher Educators is an organization of educators from Georgia's public and private schools.

Those wishing to become members or renew membership GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATORS

may find an application online.

GATEways to Teacher Education

We’re on the Web! gaate.org

is a refereed online journal with national representation on its editorial review board, published by the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators.

Each issue is non-thematic. The journal, published annually in October, is soliciting manuscripts concerned with teacher education, including teaching and learning, induction, in-service education, and pre-service education.

Project descriptions, research reports, theoretical papers, debates, papers espousing a particular point of view, and descriptions of activities or issues in teacher education at the local, state, or national level would be appropriate topics for the journal.

Editors: Dr. Judy Butler, University of West Georgia Dr. Janet Strickland, University of West Georgia Copy Editor: Dr. Robyn Huss, University of West Georgia

Join us at the GATE 2015 Fall Conference Conference Registration forms are available on the GATE home page:

Jekyll Island Club Hotel

gaate.org

371 Riverview Drive Jekyll Island, GA 31527

Make Hotel Reservations Directly with the Hotel Room Reservations: 800-535-9547; 912-635-2600 FAX 912-635-2818 www.jekyllclub.com

October 8-10, 2015