Georgia Association of Teacher Educators Volume 29, Issue 2 Spring 2019
GATEways to Teacher Education
Cover artwork by Peyton Blair, 4th grade, Bethlehem Elementary School, Bethlehem, Georgia 3rd Place Winner in the GATE 2018 Conference Program Art Contest “Cultivation, Collaboration, Rejuvenation�
GATEways to Teacher Education Spring 2019: Volume 29, Issue 2
Contents The Impact of Teachers with Differing Levels of Degree Attainment on Student Performance in Mathematics By Marie-Katharina Call, Scott B. Watson, Deana Jones, and Brandon D. Ratliff
Page 1
Research shows the majority of states compensate teachers more highly for completing graduate degrees. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in mean scores and/or pass rates of fourth-grade students on the Georgia Milestones End of Grade Assessment in Mathematics for teachers with various levels of degree attainment.
Investigating the Science of Every Day: A Top Ten List of Suggestions for Teachers, Students, and Parents By Erin F. Klash, Shelly H. Bowden, and Dr. Gilbert Dueñas
Page 9
The teacher-parent relationship should be collaborative in nature to ensure the best educational experience possible for the child. Drawing on our experiences in early childhood and elementary classrooms, we offer a “Top Ten” list teacher preparation programs can share with students for use in their own classrooms to facilitate parental involvement in the science of every day.
Making the Most of E-Books: What Do Georgia Teachers Need? By Shannon Howrey
Page 14
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore e-book use among Georgia teachers. Qualitative analysis revealed that the teachers in this study seemed more enthusiastic about using e-books in their classrooms than those nationwide, but they were often unaware of the resources available to them or how to incorporate them effectively into their reading curriculum.
Preparedness of Special Educators: An Examination of Viewpoints among Teacher Educators and Preservice Teachers By Laurie A. Sharp and Frank Goode
Page 26
Teacher competence is an important factor in K-12 student achievement, particularly among students with exceptionalities. The purpose of this study was to explore viewpoints of 46 teacher educators and 31 preservice teachers who were affiliated with special education teacher preparation programs in a Southern state regarding the preparedness of future special educators.
Rethinking Teacher Preparation: Does Action Research Fit into the Transformation? By Charlease Kelly-Jackson , Anete Vásquez, Marrielle Myers, Raynice Jean-Sigurm, and Sohyun An
Page 41
Action research has long been considered a valuable pedagogical tool used to promote practicebased learning among teachers. This study utilized a mixed method approach to explore what teacher educators perceive as challenges and benefits to providing preservice teachers with opportunities to engage in action research.
Understanding One’s Racial and Cultural Identity: A Precursor to Becoming a Culturally Responsive Teacher By Winston Vaughan
Page 54
This paper describes how selected strategies used in a foundations cultural diversity course in a teacher education program helped pre-service teachers to self-reflect on their personas from a cultural perspective in order to try to ascertain certain aspects of their racial/cultural identity.
Using Supports to Improve Teacher Work Sample Portfolio (edTPA) Outcomes By Kathleen Fabrikant, Cynthia Bolton, Cindy S. York, and Angie Hodge The purpose of this study was to determine how to support teacher candidates’ completion of edTPA, a performance-based assessment, by determining which supports were most useful. This study also addressed how cooperating teachers and supervising faculty viewed their role as a support to teacher candidates, specifically in the development of the edTPA portfolios.
Page 60
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
The Impact of Teachers with Differing Levels of Degree Attainment on Student Performance in Mathematics Marie-Katharina Call, Lemoore Union High School District, Scott B. Watson, Liberty University, Deana Jones, Northwest Georgia RESA, and Brandon D. Ratliff, Poquoson City Public Schools
Over thirty years ago, T. H. Bell founded the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). At that point in United States history, it was clear that changes needed to be made within the educational system to keep up with a global market (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The report A Nation at Risk described how education in the classroom must prepare students for the workforce in the real world (Sunderman, 2010). This educational reform was not a short-term innovation or fix; rather, it was reinforced even more deeply by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB further emphasized the necessity for all students to show growth by stating that having teachers who are highly qualified is a key to student success in the classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Since the early 2000s there have been three main requirements for teachers to be considered highly qualified across the nation: 1) attainment of a bachelor’s degree, 2) completion of state certification/licensure, and 3) proficiency in the subject they teach (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Although there has been an abundance of research to link the impact of teacher preparation programs and other factors such as compensation and years of service in the field of education to student achievement over the past three decades (Darling-Hammond, Chung Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2010), research on the link
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
between teacher educational attainment levels and student achievement is lacking (Conway, Eros, & Stanley, 2010). Teacher quality is “repeatedly cited as the most important schooling factor influencing student achievement” (Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013, p. 29). This conclusion, however, does not clarify what factors specifically lead to some teachers being superior to others in terms of their impact on student achievement scores. At present, very few states require teachers to obtain a master’s degree in order to become fully certified, though financial compensation is consistently correlated to teachers’ levels of educational attainment. The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) includes over 112 major school districts across the nation (NCTQ, 2013). Data shows that 96% of these districts compensate teachers with master’s degrees more highly than those with only bachelor’s degrees (NCTQ, 2013). In the state of Georgia, teachers are compensated for earning graduate credits, a master’s degree, and higher levels of education. However, with budget cuts and lack of funding for public school systems, providing teachers with additional compensation for educational attainments which have not been proven to improve student achievement can be viewed as fiscally irresponsible. Policymakers continually push for measurable data (Darling-Hammond, 2006), but there is an absence of this in the field of graduate degrees and their impact on student academic achievement.
PAGE 1
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
The framework for the present study was based on a variety of different theories, but the main foundation is on Schultz’s (1971) human capital theory. Schultz’s work describes how education and the knowledge gained from formal schooling are keys to the success of society. Schultz explains how education in and of itself works like any other economy with goods and services; the better the goods produced, the better the economy will run. In the state of Georgia, teachers are required to hold a bachelor’s degree to be considered “highly qualified,” but no higher levels of college educational attainment are required (Georgia Department of Education, 2016).
analyzed were the impact of teachers’ different levels of degree attainment (bachelor’s, master’s, educational specialist, and doctoral degrees) on fourth-grade students’ scores and overall student passing rates on the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment scores in mathematics. Research Question Is there a difference in the mean scores of fourth-grade students on the Georgia Milestones End of Grade Assessment in Mathematics for teachers with various levels of degree attainment (bachelor’s, master’s, educational specialist, and doctoral degrees)?
Problem and Purpose
Participants and Setting
Research indicates that teacher quality is the most important factor impacting student achievement (Goldhaber et al., 2013), but the question of exactly what makes a “quality” teacher remains unknown. Limited research has been conducted which shows that teachers’ graduate degrees have little to no impact on student achievement (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007). The specific purpose of this causalcomparative study was to determine whether there is a positive relationship between teachers with graduate degrees and fourth-grade student scores on the Georgia Milestones End of Grade (EOG) Assessment in Mathematics at all public elementary schools within the state of Georgia.
The data for this study were drawn from information which was formally requested from the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE). Data were collected for the entire state of Georgia, specifically for all teachers in the state who teach fourth-grade mathematics. During the 2015-2016 school year, there were a total of 1,319 public elementary schools in the state of Georgia (GaDOE, 2016). Racial and ethnic population distribution for this study was based on data collected for all districts in the state in March of 2016. The GaDOE (2016) reports that statewide there were: 256,633 Hispanic students, 3,392 American Indians, 67,134 Asians, 645,940 Black students, 1,936 Pacific Islanders, 715,722 White students, and 59,095 Multiethnic students. The researchers were able to gather data on the overall number of fourth-grade math teachers in each educational attainment category. There were a total of 1,728 teachers with bachelor’s degrees, 2,256 teachers with master’s degrees, 936 teachers with educational specialist degrees, and 83 teachers with doctoral degrees (GaDOE, 2017).
Method and Design Although NCLB states that for teachers to be “highly qualified” they must hold a bachelor’s degree and show subject-matter proficiency (Marszalek, Odom, LaNasa, & Adler, 2010), specific teacher characteristics such as educational attainment level remain an active area where research and inquiry are needed (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). This study seeks to perform further research in order to understand the impact that various levels of teacher degree attainments have on fourth-grade students’ Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment scores in mathematics. The research design for this study was causal-comparative in nature. The factors
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Instrumentation The instrument used for this study was the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in fourthgrade mathematics from the 2015-2016 school year. The Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment was selected because it is given on an annual basis and is a standard assessment given across
PAGE 2
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
the entire state (GaDOE, 2016). The purpose of the Georgia Milestones assessment is to measure students’ mastery of state content standards. The GaDOE ensures the validity of Milestones assessments through careful development of test items which align to the curriculum (GaDOE, 2016). For the 2015-2016 Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in fourth-grade mathematics, the median reliability indicator was 0.92, with the minimum reliability value at 0.91 and the maximum reliability at 0.93 (GaDOE, 2016). Data Analysis For this study, the mean scores of the student pass rates on the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in fourth-grade mathematics test were compared for various teacher degree levels using an analysis of variance (ANOVA). An ANOVA was used because it “is a statistical procedure that compares the amount of betweengroups variance in individuals’ scores with the amount of within-groups variance” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007, p. 106). In this case, an ANOVA was conducted in order to compare the means of
the four distinct categories of educational attainment: bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, educational specialist degree and doctoral degree. Descriptive Statistics A total of 129,852 students took the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in fourth-grade mathematics in this summary dataset, taught by a total of 5,003 teachers. Many teachers had a master’s degree (45.09%), and the highest proportion of the students were taught by those teachers with a master’s degree (43.77%). Overall, 40.47% of the students passed, and pass rates were similar between each teacher’s degree type. The highest average math score was from students taught by teachers with educational specialist degrees. Tables 1 and 2 provide descriptive information about the teachers and the students included in the study, along with passing percentages of students. Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of students for the math scores on the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in fourth-grade mathematics.
Table 1 Descriptive Information: Teacher and Student Frequencies and Percentages Variable Students who Completed Gr. 4 Milestones EOG
Highest Degree Completed by Teacher
44,487
34.26%
Master’s degree
56,831
43.77%
Education Specialist
26,628
20.51%
1,906
1.47%
129,852
100.00%
Bachelor’s degree
1,728
34.54%
Master’s degree
2,256
45.09%
936
18.71%
83
1.66%
5,003
100.00%
Total
Education Specialist Doctorate Total
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
%
Bachelor’s degree
Doctorate
Teachers
n
PAGE 3
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Table 2 Frequencies and Percentages of Student Performance Fail
Pass
n
%
n
%
Bachelor’s degree
27,905
62.73%
16,582
37.27%
Master’s degree
33,258
58.52%
23,573
41.48%
Education Specialist
15,004
56.35%
11,624
43.65%
1,135
59.55%
771
40.45%
77,302
59.53%
52,550
40.47%
Doctorate Total
Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Math Scores Variable
M
SD
Bachelor’s degree
512.84
48.10
Master’s degree
517.87
49.87
Education Specialist
520.88
50.63
Doctorate
516.75
50.12
Gr. 4 Milestones EOG Math
Results To assess the summary data, a one-way ANOVA was performed. The ANOVA allowed for evaluation of the null hypothesis and showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of fourth-grade students on the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in Mathematics for teachers with various levels of degree attainment (bachelor’s, master’s, educational specialist, and doctoral degrees). The following section presents the results of the ANOVA. Prior to conducting the ANOVA, the Hartley’s test of variance proportions was used to compare variances between groups. Each variance proportion in Hartley’s test was less than 1.5, meaning that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (Stevens, 2009). A one-way ANOVA was used to compare mean scores of fourth-grade students on the
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in Mathematics whose teachers had various levels of highest degree attainment (bachelor’s, master’s, educational specialist, and doctoral degrees). The results of the analysis were statistically significant, F(3, 4999) = 164.45, p < .0003, indicating that significant differences existed between teachers with different levels of degree attainment. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference was used as a post hoc analysis to determine where the differences were. In general, students who were taught by teachers with bachelor’s degrees scored significantly lower than those taught by teachers with master’s degrees or educational specialist degrees. Table 4 presents the ANOVA summary table for the analysis of student grades. Table 5 presents the detailed comparisons of teacher degree levels and student scores.
PAGE 4
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Table 4 ANOVA Source Table for Mean Grades Source
SS
Between Groups
df
Variance
45186.5266
3
15062.1755
Within Groups
12094695.7618
4999
2443.64
Total
12139882.2884
5002
F
P
6.2255
.0003
Table 5 Teacher Degree Comparison of Students’ Scores Variable
p
mean difference
Bachelor's degree vs. master's degree
0.008
5.030
Bachelor's degree vs. specialist degree
0.003
8.040
Bachelor’s degree vs. doctorate degree
0.894
3.910
Master's degree vs. specialist degree
0.394
3.010
Master's degree vs. doctorate
0.997
1.120
Educational specialist degree vs. doctorate degree
0.884
4.130
Discussion The results of this research are relevant to educational research because many studies relating to teacher education level and student achievement are outdated and provide inconclusive results (Zhang, 2008). The bulk of the literature found on this topic cites data from the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1996). Although NELS:88 is a valid study for measurement purposes (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1996), it is over two decades old and the results of studies which reference its findings vary widely, making it impossible to draw accurate conclusions about the current relationship between teacher educational attainment and student achievement (Zhang, 2008). Additionally, in the early 2000s more research on the relationship between teachers’ education level and student achievement was conducted (Wayne & Young, 2003). The research spanned elementary to high school grade levels in order to provide greater generalizability of results, but the results remained inconclusive (Goldhaber et al., 2013; Wayne & Young, 2003; Zhang, 2008).
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Although the quest to increase student success and determine what factors most impact student achievement was examined in 1966 when the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare implemented the Equality of Educational Opportunity Study (Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005), the concept of increasing student achievement and relating this measure to teacher quality truly came to light with the establishment of the NCLB Act of 2001, which pushed for statewide assessments to be implemented in order to measure student progress on a yearly basis (Virginia Department of Education, 2006). One such quantitative evaluation is the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in Mathematics, which was the chosen instrument for this study. The Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in Mathematics was selected because it is a standard assessment given across the entire state (GaDOE, 2016) and provides enough current information to encompass relevant data from the last five years. Using the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in Mathematics for this study also provides the advantage of increasing the validity of results over a locally created assessment because of its
PAGE 5
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
comparatively high reliability. Additionally, using the Georgia Milestones EOG Assessment in Mathematics allows the population for this study to consist of 129,852 students and 5,003 teachers. The necessity for a complete understanding of the link between student achievement and teacher education level is not only academically necessary because of the gap in literature, but it is also practically necessary from an economic viewpoint. Unlike various other factors such as route to teacher certification or teacher mentorship, higher teacher education level directly correlates with increases in teacher salary (Johnson & Cornman, 2008; NCTQ, 2013). Authors of past studies have expressed strong opinions about school systems compensating teachers with advanced degrees more highly than those teachers who hold a standard bachelor’s degree, since there was no clear evidence that teacher education levels have an impact on student achievement (Harris & Sass, 2011; Zhang, 2008). The results of this study indicate that significant differences do exist in student average math scores between degree attainment groups, and therefore aligning compensation is appropriate.
Student Pass Rates Aligned to Teacher Degrees 46.00% 43.65%
44.00% 41.48%
42.00%
40.45%
40.00% 38.00%
37.27%
36.00% 34.00% Bachelor’s
Master’s
Specialist
Doctorate
Pass Rate
Figure 1. Student pass rates The literature review covered the fact that through NCLB, the government began requiring that all teachers attain at least a bachelor’s degree to gain licensure and be considered “highly qualified” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004), but research from this study suggests that teachers with educational specialist degrees, when rated purely by their students’ EOG Assessments, may actually be the most highly qualified teachers.
Conclusions
Implications
The results of this study, along with an indepth literature review, allow the researchers to conclude that teacher degree level has a direct and measurable impact on student achievement. Even though there are many factors which influence student achievement and overall teacher quality, teacher degree level was an area that needed to be examined not only for the benefits of student growth, but from a financial standpoint as well. It is important to point out that although all teachers who held degrees above the bachelor level had students with higher passing rates than those with only bachelor’s degrees, this increase was not linear, as is shown in Figure 1. Interestingly, it also indicates that teachers who held a doctorate degree had lower student pass rates than those who held master’s degrees or educational specialist degrees.
Teacher quality has been “repeatedly cited as the most important schooling factor influencing student achievement” (Goldhaber et al., 2013, p. 29). However, exactly which factors make a high-quality teacher have remained unclear. There is a definite gap in literature on research which explores the link between teacher educational attainment levels and student achievement (Conway et al., 2010). Identifying the link between teacher education level and student achievement scores is significant in the field of education for two reasons: (a) Teachers are often compensated more highly for advanced degrees (NCTQ, 2013), and prior to this study this was done on the assumption that teachers with advanced degrees were of better quality than those who held only a bachelor’s degree.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 6
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
(b) Educational attainment levels of teachers (bachelor’s, master’s, educational specialist, and doctorate) have a direct impact on student achievement, which allows for a clear route to school improvement when it is needed. The data gained from this study may assist the nation’s educational system to properly compensate teachers based upon their true quality and improve student achievement by providing all students with high-quality teachers who can help them thrive. This study indicated that all levels of teachers with advanced degrees had superior scores and pass rates as compared with those who did not, but it also found that teachers holding an educational specialist degree, not a doctorate, provided the highest student achievement scores. The reason for this seeming incongruity will need to be investigated through future research in this area. The knowledge that has been gained through this study can help districts make better financial choices in terms of teacher compensation, allow them to refine their hiring practices, and pinpoint ways in which they can help current teachers grow. References Conway, C., Eros, J., & Stanley, A. M. (2010). Perceived effects of the master of music in music education on P 12 teaching practice. Research Studies in Music Education, 31(2), 129-141. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120-138. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council and School Redesign Network at Stanford University. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Georgia Department of Education. (2017). Data Collections. Atlanta, GA. Georgia Department of Education. (2016). Regional Educational Service Agencies. Atlanta, GA. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance. Developments in School Finance, 197-210. Goldhaber, D., Liddle, S., & Theobald, R. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17(1), 69-86. Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798-812. Johnson, F., & Cornman, S. (2008). Findings from the Pilot Teacher Compensation Survey: School year 2005-06 (Report No. 2008-440). Marszalek, J. M., Odom, A. L., LaNasa, S. M., & Adler, S. A. (2010). Distortion or clarification: Defining highly qualified teachers and the relationship between certification and achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(27), 1-29. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from http://datacenter.spss.org/sites/2259653e-ffb345ba-8fd604a024ecf7a4/ uploads/ SOTWAANationatRisk1983.pdf National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). NCTQ Teacher Contract Database. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/contract-database/home Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, students, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. Schultz, T. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and research. New York: The Free Press. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge Academic. Sunderman, G. (2010). Evidence of the impact of school reform on systems governance and educational bureaucracies in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 226-253. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). New No Child Left Behind flexibility: Highly qualified teachers. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/methods/ teachers/hqtflexibility.html Virginia Department of Education. (2006). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers. Richmond, VA. Wayne, A. J., & Young, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A
PAGE 7
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89122. Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations (Working paper). Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teacher and Policy. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Teacher Prep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf Zhang, D. (2008). The effects of teacher education level, teaching experience, and teaching behaviors on student science achievement. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 155.
is interested in research and work surrounding educational leadership, new teacher preparation, and teacher support. Brandon D. Ratliff, EdD Dr. Brandon Ratliff currently serves as the Director of Accountability, Student Achievement, and Technology for Poquoson City Public Schools and as an Adjunct Assistant Professor for Old Dominion University. He has worked as a central office administrator, an adjunct college professor, a principal at all levels from K-12, and a special education teacher during his career in public education. His interests are principal preparation and instructional practices.
About the Authors Marie-Katharina Call, EdD Dr. Marie-Katharina Call is an online teacher at Lemoore Online College Preparatory High School. Her previous work experience includes working as an instructional technology resource teacher and a special education teacher. Her research interests focus on the areas of teacher education and studentteacher relationships. Scott B. Watson, PhD Dr. Scott Watson currently serves as a Professor and as Chair of Quantitative Research in the School of Education at Liberty University. He previously worked as a professor at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina, and as a teacher and administrator in public schools in Florida. His interests are science education and teacher preparation. Deana Jones, EdD Dr. Deana Jones currently serves as a School Improvement Specialist at the Northwest Georgia Regional Education Service Agency. Her previous work experience includes classroom teacher, academic coach, and school administrator. Dr. Jones
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 8
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Investigating the Science of Every Day: A Top Ten List of Suggestions for Teachers, Students, and Parents Erin F. Klash, Shelly H. Bowden, and Gilbert Dueñas, Auburn University at Montgomery
Science is all around us. As a parent, I, Erin (first author), have always facilitated opportunities for my son, Jeff (pseudonym), to see the science in everyday life. He has frequently reciprocated by pointing out nature and science in the vast world around us. As a former elementary teacher of science, as well as in my role as a parent, I wondered what information I could share with educators to assist them in providing suggestions to parents of their students about how they, too, could incorporate science into daily routines. Zeece (2005) articulated that parents are the first literacy teachers of the students we teach. Adapting this assertion, we firmly believe that parents are our students’ first teachers of not only literacy, but life, which includes science. In true David Letterman style, a “Top Ten” list of strategies educators can offer to encourage parents to incorporate scientific discovery and discussion with their children, daily, follows: Health Science 10. “But it’s not a school night! Do I HAVE to go to bed?” The short answer is . . . YES! I know, firsthand, the frustration behind this discussion, and speculate it is probably giving parents across the nation gray hair and wrinkles. However, the science behind it is fascinating. According to Martorell, Papalia, and Feldman (2014), elementary-aged children between the ages of 513 need, on average, 9-11 hours of sleep per night, and teens, ages 14-17, need almost as much sleep at 8-10 hours. The authors also
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
discussed the need for quality sleep, including bedtime routines and the use of technology while trying to go to sleep. Quality sleep is important for quality wakefulness, which is essential to attention and learning in the classroom. It is easy to give in and let children stay up extra late, especially on weekends, holidays, and during the summer, but science indicates it’s best to stick to those school-week bedtime routines and appropriate amounts of sleep. 9. Swimming and Nerf Wars and Kickboxing, Oh My! The body is meant to be in motion. This is a scientific opportunity on the most basic of levels. Children need exercise to grow and develop in a healthy manner. Whether parents and teachers and their child(ren) choose to participate in an organized sport, or fun, physical activities are facilitated at home, Tremblay et al. (2016) recommended that children should have approximately 60 minutes of daily exercise. Using a wealth of local and internet resources, teachers can create a list of physical activities available locally that parents can enjoy with their children to have fun exercising! 8. Ah . . . The pool and/or beach. Both provide many great opportunities for discussions related to health science. From staying hydrated with plenty of water to using sunscreen to keep from burning, the pool/beach provides an outlet for teachers and parents to share simple tips with children to keep them
PAGE 9
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
healthy, safe, and having fun. We know we should apply sunscreen with high Sun Protection Factor (SPF) levels to reduce skin damage in the immediate context, but we should consider longterm effects of sun damage. Drinking lots of water instead of sugary drinks keeps children and adults hydrated. Putting healthy snacks in the beach bag and discussing the benefits of doing so can help children develop healthy eating habits for the duration of their childhood and throughout their adult years. Weather 7. “Mom! Look! It’s a SHELF CLOUD!” - Jeff Having been reared in the south, Jeff is no stranger to terrific storms. When Jeff was a toddler, he would become petrified with fear upon hearing thunder and seeing lightning. So, I would open the window blinds, turn off the lights, and lie down with my child to watch nature’s powerful light show and explain what was happening. Thunderstorms are the result of different air masses colliding. As we know, thunder is the result of the lightning breaking the sound barrier through intensively hot vibrations. Sometimes, if conditions are correct, tornadoes can form. The Seymour Simon series of books on weather-related phenomena, for example Weather (1993), Storms (1992), and Lightning (1999), are excellent tools for mid-to-late elementary aged children, although I purchased a stack and read them to Jeff as a preschooler. Gail Gibbons’ book, Tornadoes, printed in 2010, is also an excellent, kid-friendly resource to explain the destructive spiraling windstorms. Ultimately, we invested in The Weather Channel’s (2003-2010) Storm Stories series featuring Jim Cantore, and bought a collector’s edition of DVDs. Weather is fascinating and, throughout the year, we experience a vast array of storms. Educators can use teachable moments to share information with students and parents about weather-related events native to geographic locations.
Photo Credit: Erin Klash Pets 6. “Bob hasn’t eaten in 3 months.” - Jeff Bob is our ball python, and each spring/summer, she does not eat for a prolonged period of time, lasting for 3-5 months. Learning about caring for pets is a scientific principle. Having a pet, whether it is a four-legged furbaby, or a scaly, slithery snake, provides an excellent opportunity to have scientific discussions and discovery about the unique needs of each pet and why they might exhibit certain behaviors. If a pet is not an option, visiting a local humane society or zoo could provide an excellent learning opportunity for teachers, parents, and children.
Photo Credit: Erin Klash Life Science 5. “Why are there dead fish along the seashore?” - Jeff Have you ever seen or heard stories of someone going to the beach, only to find hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead fish located
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 10
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
along the coastline? What would you do if you experienced this? What if all of the dead fish appeared to be of the same species? On one family trip to the beach, this is exactly what we experienced, and we were perplexed. Through scouring the local newspaper, we found that certain forms of algae can cause oxygen deprivation in the water, especially during the warm months, killing certain species of fish, which, depending on their location, could wash ashore during the low tide, according to the Northwest Florida Daily News (McKeon, 2016). The tides are another terrific topic for discussion about the beach. Questions like this can facilitate valuable learning opportunities both in and out of the classroom.
various plants and animals (NSTA, 2014). Taking photos and creating a digital photo album can help children relive the experiences and make excellent connections to science content in classrooms. Physical Science 3. Have you ever been to a NASCAR race? Have you been to any car race? Have you ever had the thrill of seeing cars fly around a 2.5 mile track at speeds of over 200 miles per hour – and NOT fly off the track? That is the power of many physical science forces. Recently, I had the privilege of taking Jeff to a Daytona 400 race. While I was primarily interested in the fast speed at which the cars were whizzing by, Jeff was questioning the “structural integrity of the grand stand due to the vibrations of the cars” as they zoomed past us. He was intrigued by the engineering and physical science component of the race. Of course, in racing, there are a variety of scientific factors at play, including the driver’s physical health and condition. Sporting events provide many opportunities for scientific conversations and observations.
Photo Credit: Erin Klash 4. “The Lone-Star State” Texas provides many opportunities for road trips and scientific discovery. Whether visiting sandy shores of the Gulf of Mexico, the plains of east Texas, or the exquisite scenery of the northwest, a variety of flora and fauna exist within each of these regions. Examining the plant and animal life, more specifically, the ecosystem locally, cross-state or cross country can provide a venue for children to explore, discover and make sense about varying habitats and those plants and animals that survive in that setting. As children progress from kindergarten through the fifth grade, a classroom curriculum can intentionally guide children’s learning about the basic characteristics of plants and animals to great detail about ecosystems and traits of
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Photo Credit: Erin Klash Engineering 2. “Mom! I have a design to create an airplane that will fly faster than an F-18!” – Jeff From the moment Jeff could sit up, I knew he was destined to be an engineer of some kind. Play, through designing, creating, and building, is a fundamental component of engineering. Children develop ideas, design structures, create
PAGE 11
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
them through various means, and build them. All of these activities help to develop engineering skills, as well as facilitate creative and critical thinking. Materials as simple as Legos, wooden blocks, or even cardboard can be used to facilitate imaginative, engineering play. “Masterpieces” that are constructed based on imagination will be relished. Our children will, eventually, change this world. Providing opportunities at school and at home for them to experiment with creativity and engineering could, ultimately, encourage them to enter a STEM (science, technology, engineering, or math) field.
Discovery Channel’s video database, or visit a natural history museum, if possible, to help their child learn more about space and the vast phenomena of our universe – or multiverse. Science is all around us. On a fundamental level, we are science. Teachers, encourage parents of your students to dwell on the science of day-to-day life by engaging in fun, meaningful activities that facilitate the notion that science is real and all around us. As William Miller (2000) is credited with saying, The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. (p. 281) . References
Photo Credit: Erin Klash 1. And the number one way to facilitate science in everyday life is . . . ? Space and imaginative play. I will never forget the day my family walked into a restaurant, sat down, and was approached by our waiter. Through conversation, he asked where we were from. Before I could answer, Jeff stated that he was “from a planet in the multiverse 93 billion [a made up number] light years away and am on Earth visiting.” Obviously, this is humor at its finest, but the origin of this conversation was based in science. In 2017, scientists found even more “Earth-like” planets in various solar systems and galaxies, and have been contemplating the notion of the “multiverse” for several years, dating back to at least 2011. Space is highly motivational for many children, and there is much scientists have yet to learn about it. Teachers can encourage parents to check out books about space from the local library, help their children do internet research about space topics, access the
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Cantore, J. (Host). (2003-2010). Storm stories [Television series]. Atlanta, GA: The Weather Channel. McKeon, J. (2016, July 14). FWC tests water where dead fish wash up. Northwest Florida Daily News. Fort Walton Beach, FL. Retrieved from http:// www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20160712/fwc-testswater-where-dead-fish-wash-up Gibbons, G. (2010). Tornadoes. New York, NY: Holiday House. Martorell, G., Papalia, D. & Feldman, R. (2014). A child’s world: Infancy through adolescence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Miller, W. (2000). In Calaprice, A. (Ed.) The expandable quotable Einstein. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. National Science Teachers Association (2014). Access the next generation of science standards by topic. Retrieved from http://ngss.nsta.org/Access StandardsByTopic.aspx Simon, S. (1992). Storms. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Simon, S. (1993). Weather. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Simon, S. (1999). Lightning. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Tremblay, M. S., Carson, V., Chaput, J. P., Gorber, S. C., Dinh, T., Duggan, M., Faulkner, G., Gray, C. E., Gruber, R., Janson, K., Janssen, I., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Kho, M. E., Latimer-Cheung, A. E., LeBlanc, C., Okely, A. D., Olds, T., Pate, R. R., Phillips, A., Poitras, V. J., Rodenburg, S., Sampson, M.,
PAGE 12
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Saunders, T. J., Stone, J. A., Stratton, G., Weiss, S. K., & Zehr, L. (2016). Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for children and youth: An integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41, S311 – S327. Zeece, P. (2005). Using literature to support low literate parents as children’s first literacy teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(5), 313-320.
About the Authors Erin F. Klash Dr. Erin Klash is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at Auburn University Montgomery. Her research interests related to this topic include instructional strategies teachers use to facilitate positive learning environments in the elementary classroom setting. Shelly H. Bowden Dr. Shelly Bowden is a Professor in the College of Education at Auburn University Montgomery. Her research interests related to this topic include mentoring and creating naturalistic classroom environments. Gilbert Dueñas Dr. Gil Dueñas is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at Auburn University Montgomery. His research interests include classroom communities that embrace experiential learning, multiple modes of content acquisition, and ways in which classroom teachers acknowledge children’s diverse ways of learning.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 13
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Making the Most of E-Books: What Do Georgia Teachers Need Shannon Howrey, Kennesaw State University
Technology is a valuable tool for learning to read and reading to learn (International Literacy Association, 2010). E-books can not only motivate children to read more, but can also positively impact reading skills, particularly in children who are reading below grade level or who are English language learners (Cahill & McGill‐Franzen, 2013; Tsung-Ho & Yueh-Min, 2014). Despite the promise of e-books, however, relatively few teachers use e-books in their classrooms. In a large-scale study of teachers nation-wide, over 90% had access to computers, the Internet, and technical support, but only13% integrated e-books or other digital reading experiences into their curriculum (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011). The purpose of this study was to examine this issue more locally by gaining an understanding of the perceptions of Georgia teachers regarding e-books in their classrooms. Specifically, the study sought to gauge the use of e-books in their classrooms and their perspectives regarding e-books and e-book use. This data may benefit teacher educators, teacher leaders, school technology specialists, and administrators as they consider how to encourage and support teachers in harnessing the benefits of digital reading experiences for Georgia children. Theoretical Framework Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge, or TPACK theory (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), supports the rationale for this study. The TPACK model imagines technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge as separate but overlapping areas. For example, technology and content knowledge (TCK) “supports the
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
decision-making processes and skills necessary to choose appropriate technologies to support content learning” (Young, Young, & Shaker, 2012, p. 26). Technology and pedagogy form technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), or the ability to “design lessons and activities that use technology to assist in the acquisition of the content” (Young et al., 2012, p. 26). Technology training that supports teaching and learning with e-books in the reading content area is one example of TPACK. This goal furthers the current International Literacy Association (2010) call for teachers to “use technology to motivate students, bridge the gap between students’ social and academic uses of technology, and, in many cases, provide access to technology for their students.” This study seeks to further understanding of the teacher element of TPACK, particularly as it pertains to Georgia teachers. Definition of “E-Book” There is no one commonly accepted definition for an e-book (Tripathi & Lal, 2016). However, the generally agreed upon criteria is that an e-book has all the features of a print book plus any number of digital features (Vassiliou & Rowley, 2008). Lai (2016) states that e-books take print text “from a single plane into three dimensions, and integrate multimedia functions, such as video and animation. They provide a richer reading experience, enhance students’ motivation and interest in reading, and make learning more lively and interesting” (p. 51). Some e-books enhance the story experience through animation, sound, music, video, and hyperlinks. Others increase the level of
PAGE 14
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
interaction by allowing the reader to edit the text by “inserting, deleting, or replacing text; mark[ing] passages by highlighting, underlining, or crossing out words; and add[ing] comments by inserting sticky notes, attaching files, or recording audio comments; and manipulate[ing] the page format, text size, and screen layout” (Larson, 2012, p. 123). E-books may also contain read-aloud features and search features that “allow the user to instantaneously locate specific words or phrases within the text or turn to a particular page” (Larson, 2012, p. 123). Some may offer opportunities for commenting or sharing reactions with other readers (Vassiliou & Rowley, 2008) and provide opportunities to listen to one’s own voice while reading (de Oliveira, Camacho, & Gisbert, 2014). E-book definitions are diverse and may contain all, any combination, or none of these features and simply allow access to print text via a screen. Research indicates that the unique characteristics of e-books have the potential to improve reading ability by increasing motivation, improving language and decoding skills, and furthering comprehension. In this study, e-books are defined as texts primarily meant to be read by the student, with one or more features that may enhance, but do not replace, the print reading experience. Review of Research E-Books and Effects on Reading Ability Motivation. Motivation is a key factor affecting reading ability: Readers who read more are better readers (Stanovich, 1986). E-books offer accessibility to a wide range of topics and genres, and provide mobility that allows reading to take place in a variety of settings. These qualities can strengthen home/school learning connections and increase reading time outside of school (Hwang, Pan, Liu, and Liu, 2012). Children in general tend to find e-books more appealing than print books (Moody, Justice, & Cabell, 2010; de Oliveira et al., 2014; Hess, 2014; Zipke, 2013), and e-books can motivate even the most reluctant readers (Parette, Blum, & Luthin, 2015). In a review of the research, Union, Union, & Green (2015) concluded that Electronic books have shown the ability to engage students and motivate them to read. When motivated students are engaged in
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
reading, their reading comprehension and achievement as well as their vocabulary improve. Thus, portable technology intervention seems able to significantly improve student performance in K-5 learning environments. (p. 79) Language and decoding skills. Interactive technology, such as that offered by e-books, seems to have a positive effect on phonemic awareness skill development (Shamir & Lifshitz, 2013), a skill considered the most important precursor to decoding ability (Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.). Additionally, e-books with vocabulary features appear to provide the support necessary for early readers to understand and use more language. In one study, for example, kindergarten students who read e-books with built-in vocabulary support were more likely to read and understand the words than those who read ebooks without the support (Korat, 2010). Comprehension. E-books also seem to foster reading comprehension skills. Research comparing traditional and e-book stories indicated that third-graders’ comprehension was higher with the e-books (Matthew, 1996). Children remembered more informational text when reading e-books than they did with the same version in print (Tsung-Ho & Yueh-Min, 2014), and seemed to use more comprehension strategies in general (de Oliveira et al., 2014). Ebooks also seemed to improve comprehension by offering narration and built-in dictionary features. The comprehension skills are transferrable: students can transfer the skills gained from reading e-books print books and other visual media (Smith, 2001; van den Broek, Kendeou, & White, 2009). Readers with specific needs. While virtually all readers can benefit from e-books, the use of e-books can greatly support students who are below grade level in reading, have special needs, or are English language learners. Neuman (2009) explained that the multi-media nature of e-books offers features that provide the additional support needed for readers who may not be on grade-level. Lin and Chen (2007) found that the dictionary features of e-books can support English language learners by
PAGE 15
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
augmenting background knowledge and defining vocabulary. In summary, quality e-books can provide enjoyment of and offer support for reading skills and understanding to nearly all learners. Choosing Quality E-Books While e-books in general provide a plethora of benefits for early and elementary readers, not every e-book is equally beneficial, and some can actually be detrimental to the reading process (de Jong & Bus, 2003). Guidelines should be followed to ensure that the e-books are of high quality (Shamir & Korat, 2009). Yokota and Teale (2014) suggest that guidelines apply to ebooks that include and go beyond those for print books. Considerations for both include how well the story is told, the craft of the author’s language, and the quality and appropriateness of the illustrations in helping to tell the story. There should be a variety of genres, themes or topics, and cultural representations. The digital considerations should include whether or not the digital features align with the text, and they should take into consideration how children learn. Voice, music, and sound effects, if included, should match the story’s tone and the illustrations should be the right size and shape to fit the device. For younger readers, e-books should have multiple modes of interaction. Other considerations include whether or not children can read along and read alone (Cahill & McGillFranzen, 2013) and ensuring that the interactive features should complement the story rather than detract from it. Teachers should be aware of these guidelines when choosing appropriate ebooks for their classrooms, have a goal in mind of how the e-books support literacy instruction, be aware of the features of the e-books, and understand how e-books can appropriately address specific areas of need (Bates et al., 2017). Teachers’ Perceptions of E-books Studies of teacher perceptions of e-books indicate that they see advantages and disadvantages to using them for classroom reading instruction. Zipke (2013) interviewed ten teachers who were novices at using e-books. Each teacher read a chapter of a grade-
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
appropriate book on a Kindle and evaluated its use in terms of their students. The teachers found reading on the Kindles enjoyable, thought that the dictionary function would increase vocabulary, and appreciated that there were so many books to choose from. However, they were uncertain regarding how they would complement the language arts standards, particularly the one about using strategies to find the meanings of new words, and were concerned about the cost. Larson (2012) had 49 pre-service teachers read a children’s novel on an e-book over three weeks, along with viewing the lesson plans of other teachers who had incorporated like technology. She found that a little over half of the participants (53%) believed that the ebooks increased comprehension, with 16% believing that it decreased comprehension, and the rest believing that it neither increased nor decreased comprehension. They found the features of highlighting, the ability to adjust font size, the built-in dictionaries, and the notestaking features to be the most valuable. In summary, e-books offer many benefits to readers beyond what print books can provide. Teachers seem, overall, to have positive views on the use of e-books in the classroom. The question then arises as to why, nationwide at least, do so few teachers implement them? The purpose of this study is to try to understand the gap with a focus on Georgia teachers. Method Participants The teacher participants in this study (all women) were taking the third course needed to attain a reading endorsement add-on to their teaching certificate as part of an online master’s degree in elementary education at a large university in Georgia. This convenience sample (n=17) was stratified in that it represented eleven school districts and two private schools. Four of the school districts were in suburban areas, three were rural, and three were urban. The five largest school districts in the state were represented, and the others ranged from medium to relatively small in student number. Each elementary grade was represented at least two times and preschool was represented one time. The teachers ranged in years of experience from two to fourteen, with
PAGE 16
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
about half who had just completed their third year of teaching. Fourteen of the teachers ranged in age from mid- to late-twenties, and three were over the age of 30. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Research Design, Data Collection, and Analysis Qualitative methods were used to analyze written reflections, open-ended survey questions, discussion postings, correspondence with school districts, and closed-ended survey questions. Responses were grouped into the categories of benefits, concerns, and needs. Responses were then compared and contrasted to develop themes within the initial groupings. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The data analysis process also included numerical data. Sandelowski (2001) explains that numbers are integral to qualitative research, as meaning depends, in part, on number. As in quantitative research, numbers are used in qualitative research to establish the significance of a research project, to document what is known about a problem, and to describe a sample. (p. 230) Coded and numerical responses were placed into the appropriate categories using a matrix display (Aulls, 2004; Higgins and Rice, 1991) for quotation and counting purposes. Each instrument is provided in Appendix A with descriptions explained below. Reflections. The participants were required to read and summarize a journal article about the use of e-books in early reading instruction, and then write a paragraph-long reflection on how the article related to their own experiences with ebooks. Each reflection was viewed at least three times (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992) for descriptive words or phrases that referred to specific concerns or benefits of e-books (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Two participants summarized their articles without reflecting, and one explained that she didn’t have any e-books and therefore could not reflect on them. This left 14 participants whose responses were sorted into initial categories of teacher concerns, teacher benefits, student concerns, and student benefits.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Open-ended survey. Voluntary class member participants (n=11) completed an anonymous survey for which they received 0.2% of total class points in extra credit. The openended questions on the survey triangulated the reflection data (O’Donoghue & Punch, 2003) by querying what they considered the best and worst features of e-books, how motivated their students were to read e-books versus print text, and in what ways, if any, they used the e-books for home/school connections. These survey responses were initially coded with the themes found in the reflections. If the responses did not fit the existing themes, new categories were created. Discussion postings. The teachers worked in discussion groups of about five people each throughout the semester. For one week’s assignment, each person in each discussion group was required to read an article of their choice about using technology for teaching reading. Every teacher posted a summary of his or her article, read the other group members’ articles, posted responses to each, and responded back to their peers regarding their own article. These postings provided an opportunity for students to share and discuss challenges and successes with technology for teaching reading. Each discussion thread was read twice to find any reference to ebooks. Postings were sorted into the same themes as the survey and reflections, with new themes added as needed. Closed-ended survey questions. As stated earlier, voluntary participants (n=11) completed an anonymous survey, which included closedended questions on the frequency of use, the names of e-book apps or systems used, and the quantity of training the teachers had received on e-books. These responses were counted and compiled and provided a context for the reflection data (Cohen & Manion, 2000). School district email correspondence. Curriculum administrators and directors from each school district in which the participants worked were contacted by email and asked about e-book availability that the district provided to its teachers. Six districts replied to the email, which represented two urban, one rural, one town, and two suburban districts. The responses were counted and compared and contrasted by district.
PAGE 17
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
The purpose of this data was to triangulate what was reported by the teachers and to ensure that the teachers were accurately representing their districts on the availability of e-books. Trustworthiness, creditability, and transferability. Multiple data sources and the open-ended nature of the reflections, survey, and discussion postings collected over the course of three months helped provide credibility to this study. Although the participant number was limited by the boundaries of the online class enrollees, the teachers’ replies reflected what was available to all the teachers within in their schools. They also represented a cross-section of urban, rural, town, suburban, and private schools across the state. These qualities added to the transferability of the findings to larger populations (Denscombe, 1998; Shenton, 2004). Dependability and confirmability. Multiple reviews of the categories and themes at different points in the process, triangulated data sources, and an audit trail that included coding matrices helped ensure dependability and confirmability of the findings (Shenton, 2004). Findings Analysis of the reflections, open-ended survey questions, and discussion postings revolved around benefits of e-books to teachers and students, concerns they had, and needs they had in regard to using e-books. Themes within these categories are explained below and summarized in Table 1. Benefits The most common theme throughout the data was the extent to which e-books promoted student engagement. This was evident in statements such as, “I was a little weary of ebooks at first, but after seeing how much my students love it, it has totally changed my perspective,” and “The illustrations, story elements and story content is something that the reader can relate and connect to.” Four teachers pointed out that the reading experiences might be engaging because they mirrored the technology that the children used for fun outside the classroom, and another indicated that the ebooks also promoted engagement for younger children by allowing all the students to see the
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
pictures during read aloud via the interactive board. Learning support was another benefit cited by the teachers. Specifically, they appreciated the highlighting features, virtual page turning, dictionary features, and read-aloud abilities. One teacher additionally noted the sticky note feature and another thought that the zoom-in feature was helpful. She stated that, “I've encouraged my readers who are still on second grade or below to use e-books and other websites that have the same features as e-books. I think it’s great for younger students who need some help with phonemic awareness. It definitely helps them to read along as well.” Three teachers noted the ability of e-books to improve fluency by providing audio and/or having a feature that allowed students to record themselves, although another teacher pointed out that the choppy, unnatural audio on her particular e-books negatively affected fluency. Another benefit cited was the adaptability of the e-books in content, ability level, and progress monitoring. One teacher mentioned how well the e-books complimented her science and social studies content units. The wide variety of levels available to meet differing reading levels and the ability for students to move at their own pace was cited repeatedly. Four teachers stated that these features affected the students’ reading advancement. One stated, “I see significant growth in reading levels from students who use the e-books regularly when compared to those who do not.” They also noted the accountability factor of the e-books that kept track of student progress, such as through end-of-book quizzes and recordkeeping features. Teachers also felt that the e-books were helpful in developing technology literacies. This was a hot topic on the discussion boards. One stated, for example, “Do you have access to PebbleGo? It is a great child friendly resource to gather information. Students need to become digitally literate. The article I had read said that being literate is no longer just reading and writing, but being able to use online tools.” Another teacher responded, “I think the idea of introducing digital literacy as early as Pre-K and kindergarten is really beneficial to students in this day and age.” A teacher of older students noted
PAGE 18
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
the usefulness of e-books to online research skill development: “I try to integrate the idea of find answers by searching Google or National Geographic Kids. I prompt the students to tell me what I should type in the search bar and then I read results so we can think about and pick one that sounds like it will best answer our questions.” Reviews regarding e-books and home/school connections were mixed. Four teachers lauded the ability of e-books to allow students to practice at home, with one citing the dual- language feature as integral. However, four others stated that most students at their school did not have Internet access at home, and they were therefore unable to access them there. Concerns Some teachers had concerns regarding the use of e-books. Three teachers noted that the students were easily distracted by all the features, with one concluding that, “I think it is important to teach them that these devices are not toys but educational tools and should be used with purpose.” Teachers of children in kindergarten and first grade had the most concerns. They thought that new readers might be overwhelmed with ebooks that had many extra features, that vision might be impaired, and that the children might become too dependent on the read-aloud function. Additionally, three teachers felt that ebooks could be detrimental to emergent and early reading skills. One of the teachers summed up these concerns by stating, I want them to understand the parts of the book, and other rules of print before reading from a screen. Other rules being that we read left-to-right and word-by-word. I want students to be able to track, isolate, and segment words with their fingers in order to learn decoding before continuous exposure to e-books. One teacher of older students recognized that teaching reading comprehension skills would be different on e-books than with regular books, which caused her to hesitate in using them: “I am also not comfortable leaving my students with only the digital version. It took me a good
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
couple months to teach them how to take notes when reading to help with the comprehension, I am also hesitant using the digital version by itself.” In short, the teachers in this study shared concerns that the added features of the e-books could not only be distracting to students, but could possibly even hinder the development of print reading skills. Needs Teachers related needs of reliable and sufficient technology, affordability of e-books, and time and expertise needed to train students on the e-books. Two teachers mentioned that the technology at their schools was either lacking or unreliable. One teacher stated, “My biggest challenge is getting technology to work, and not having enough for every student. It is frustrating when technology does updates, is not charged, the internet not working, or something else.” Others had technology that worked but not enough devices. Affordability of e-book apps was also a factor: “I only tend to run into problems when the apps I want for my students cost money, and I am unable to acquire them at school.” The need for professional development on ebooks was a theme found multiple times throughout every data source. For example, one teacher stated that: “I sometimes feel that we have too many resources and do not know where to start looking into them. When there is [sic] a lot of resources, a teacher needs time just to ‘dig in’ to each one to figure them out. I feel that technology is a plethora of resources tied into one name. Sometimes we just need time to sit down and explore, design, and plan around one particular resource.” Another one said, “Sometimes I feel that we are resource overload. The moment I have free time to view a resource something else comes up.” Two teachers noted the need for training their students. One said, “I have been trying to do a better job recently of explaining it thoroughly and I have found that it makes a big difference!” The benefits, concerns, and needs of the teachers are summarized in Table 1.
PAGE 19
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Table 1 Benefits, Concerns, and Needs of Teachers Regarding E-Books Benefits
Concerns
Needs
Student engagement
Distracting
Reliable technology
Learning support
Detrimental to early reading skills
More devices
Adaptability
More difficult to comprehend
Affordability
Digital literacy skills
Training
Home connections n=14
None of the teachers had had training specifically on how to use e-books. Teachers expressed a need for training on how to effectively implement them into the curriculum. Specifically, they wanted to “understand the possibilities,” how to “incorporate them and utilize them daily,” and how to use them for whole class activities, small groups,
assessments, learning centers, and in the content areas. One was not sure what she wanted to learn. She said, “I am sure that there are things that I do not know about e-books, but I do not know what I do not know.” This data was compiled numerically and explained below in Table 2.
Table 2 Close-Ended Survey Data Frequency of E-Book Use
Student Preference Over Print Books
E-Book Sources Reported
E-Book Training Received
E-Book Training Needs
Weekly (3)
More (9)
Razkids (5)
None (11)
Understand possibilities (1)
2-4 times weekly (3)
Less (1)
Tumblebooks (4)
Same (1)
iRead (3)
Daily (3)
Pebblego (2)
Never (2)
Trueflix (2)
Incorporate and utilize them daily (1) How to use for whole, small group, assessments (1)
FreedomFlix (2)
How to put in learning centers (3)
Epic (2)
Use in content areas (1)
Bookflix (1)
Access more (2)
Story Online (1)
Not sure (2)
Destiny (1) Digital library books (1) MackinVIA (1) Newsela (1) National Geographic Kids (1) Wegivebooks (1) PM e-books (1) n= 11
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 20
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Use and Access Closed-ended survey data (n=11) queried the frequency of e-book use among teachers, their perceptions of student preference, the apps or e-book sources used, and the quantity of training received. Nine participants used e-books in the classroom at least one time per week. Nine teachers noted that their students preferred the e-books to print, one said that her students liked them equally, and another said that her students preferred print books. Teachers had access to a wide variety of e-books. Raz-Kids
was reported by five of the eleven teachers, Tumblebooks by four, iRead by three, and Pebblego, Trueflix, FreedomFlix, and Epic by two each. Reports from school districts revealed no commonalities between the e-books they thought they provided to their teachers and the ones that the teachers reported. There were no differences in the quantity of sources between the urban, rural, and suburban districts, and two of the respondents mentioned that individual schools chose some of their own sources (see Table 3).
Table 3 School District Reported Data on E-Books Availability District Type
Reported E-Book Availability
Urban (2)
District 1: Bookflix, Epic, Newsela, Readworks District 2: Discovery Education, Compass Learning, individual school purchases
Rural (1)
District 1: Storyline Online, Reading A-Z, Kidsread.com, Story-It
Town (1)
District 1: LAZ Readers, FreeBooks, Moral Stories, Storia, Reading Rainbow, â&#x20AC;&#x153;up to individual schoolsâ&#x20AC;?
Suburban (2)
District 1: Galileo, EBSCO e-book K-8 collection District 2: District Digital library, Destiny
n= 6
Summary The teachers in this study clearly understood the value of e-books for engaging and supporting readers. They appreciated the adaptability of e-books and the ability to use them for teaching digital learning skills. Some noted the potential of building home connections through e-books. Compared to teachers nationwide, the Georgia teachers who had access to e-books and sufficient technology in this study claimed that they used them at least weekly. While there were a few concerns of distraction, inappropriateness for early grades, and comprehension difficulties, every teacher desired reliable technology in their classrooms and training on e-books for themselves and their students. Of note was the wide variety of e-books
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
by school, the differences between what teachers reported they had versus what district administrators thought they had. Implications The purpose of this study was to gain insight on the use of e-books by Georgia teachers and what, if anything, could bolster more frequent and effective e-book use in the classroom. When considered together, the findings rend the following recommendations to Georgia school administrators and teacher educators: Compared to teachers of reading nation-wide, the Georgia teachers in this study were far more likely to utilize e-books in their classrooms. They indicated a willingness and excitement for using e-books, but also apparent was their need to know
PAGE 21
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
what was available to them and how they could specifically use them throughout reading instruction. All of the teachers in this study indicated a need for training in how to use ebooks. It may be that the e-book mechanics are relatively simple and seem to be self-explanatory, thereby falling off the radar of identified technology training needs. In the TPACK model, this study indicates that what teachers actually need is training in the middle realm of “Technology Pedagogy,” or how to use e-book technology within their reading curriculum. Therefore, the implications of this study include the need for better communication between technology/reading directors and teachers and a need for schools to offer more content-specific professional development to their teachers. They also imply a need for literacy teacher-educators to incorporate opportunities to explore and apply ebooks into their reading methods courses. These activities might include Webquest-type assignments, in which they explore and critique various e-book sites, interviews with and observations of how teachers in their field experience placements incorporate e-books, and field-based assignments in which they write, deliver, and reflect on lesson plans that prominently feature the use of e-books. Qualitative and empirical data on how to incorporate these activities and others may help other literacy teacher educators with the specifics needed for doing so successfully. Limitations The teachers in this study were all participating in a master’s program with a reading endorsement. These teachers may have therefore represented teachers who were more motivated to learn and try new things in their classrooms, such as e-books. Not all teachers may be as enthusiastic about learning how to use e-book technologies. Field work within schools could widen the participant pool to teachers of other education levels and content areas and be useful in gathering more information about how teachers use e-books in the classroom. Conclusion and Need for Further Research There is a critical need for developing teachers’ ability to use technology within the
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
specific content areas (International Society for Technology in Education, 2019; King et al., 2013; Stobaugh & Tasell, 2011). We do know that simply adopting a new technology does not necessarily improve learning (Hegarty, 2004), and that professional development should be hands-on and specific to the content area (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, & Bransford, 2005). This type of professional development does not seem to be happening in Georgia, or at least in the eleven school districts mentioned in this study, and the participants’ responses indicated that such training is needed. For students to fully gain the benefits of ebooks, teachers need to understand not just how to use e-books, but how to use them in specific ways to teach reading. Further research is needed about how to expose teachers to the possibilities, rather than simply the technological aspect, of ebooks in the reading curriculum. With such targeted professional development, teachers will be more inclined to use e-books, helping to ensure reading success for Georgia’s children. References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aulls, M. C. (2004). Students’ experiences with good and poor university courses. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 303-335. Bates, C. C., Klein, A., Schubert, B., McGee L., Anderson N., Dorn, L., McClure, E., & Ross, R. H. (2017). E-Books and e-book apps: Considerations for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 401-411. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Cahill, M., & McGill‐Franzen, A. (2013). Selecting “app”ealing and “app”ropriate book apps for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 3039. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. de Jong, M.T., & Bus, A.G. (2003). How well suited are electronic books to supporting literacy? Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(2), 147-164. doi:10.1177/14687984030032002 de Oliveira, J., Camacho, M., & Gisbert, M. (2014). Exploring student and teacher perceptions of e-
PAGE 22
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
textbooks in a primary school. Comunicar (English edition); 21(42), 87-95. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine De Gruyter. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World (pp. 358-389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harris, J. B., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007, April). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: Curriculum-based technology integration re-framed. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association conference, Chicago, IL. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343-351. Hess, S. A. (2014). Digital media and student learning: Impact of electronic books on motivation and achievement. New England Reading Association Journal, 49(2), 35-39. Higgins, N., & Rice, E. (1991). Teachers' perspectives on competency-based testing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 59-69. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312-333. doi:10.1002/RRQ.002 Hwang, W., Pan, S., Liu, Y., & Liu, H. (2012). Preliminary study of investigating potential applications and research with e-readers. Instructional Technology & Media, 100, 49-58. International Literacy Association (2010). New literacies and 21st century Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/ defaultsource/where-we-stand/new-literacies-21st-centuryposition-statement.pdf?sfvrsn=6 International Society for Technology in Education (2019). ISTE Standards: Educational Technology Standards to Transform Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/ Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24-31. King, J. R., Schneider, J. J., Kozdras, D., Minnick, V., Welsh, J., Brindley, R., Feger, M. V., & Kirby, A. (2013). The multiple ways technology supports preservice teacher education: A foray into multimedia literacies. Journal of Reading Education, 38(3), 1427. Larson, L. C. (2012). It’s time to turn the digital page: Preservice teachers explore e-book reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 280-290.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Lai, C. (2016). Integrating e-books into science teaching by preservice elementary school teachers. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 2(1), 57-66. Lin, H., & Chen, T. (2007). Reading authentic EFL text using visualization and advance organizers in a multimedia learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 83-106. Matthew, K. (1996). The impact of CD-ROM storybooks on children's reading comprehension and attitude. Journal of Education Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 379-394. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x Moody, A. K., Justice, L. M., & Cabell, S. Q. (2010). Electronic versus traditional storybooks: Relative influence on preschool children’s engagement and communication. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 294–313. doi:10.1177/ 1468798410372162 National Association for the Education of Young Children. (n.d.). Technology and young children. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/content/ technology-and-young-children Neuman, S. B. (2009). The case for multimedia presentations in learning: A theory of synergy. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 44-56). New York, NY: Routledge. O'Donoghue, T., & Punch K. (2003). Qualitative educational research in action: Doing and reflecting. New York: Routledge. Parette, H. P., Blum, C., & Luthin, K. (2015). A quantitative features analysis of recommended noand low-cost preschool e-books. Early Childhood Education, 43, 181-190. Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 24(3), 230-240. Shamir, A., & Korat, O. (2009). The educational electronic book as a tool for supporting children’s emergent literacy. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 168181). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Shamir, A., & Lifshitz, I. (2013). E-books for supporting the emergent literacy and emergent math of children at risk for learning disabilities: Can metacognitive guidance make a difference? European Journal of Special Needs, 28(1), 33-48.
PAGE 23
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63-75. Smith, C. R. (2001). Click and turn the page: An exploration of multiple storybook literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 152-183. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.36.2.3 Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360â&#x20AC;&#x201C;407. doi:10.1598/ RRQ.21.4.1 Stobaugh, R. R. & Tasell, J. L. (2011). Analyzing the degree of technology use occurring in pre-service teacher education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(2), 143-157. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tsung-Ho, L., & Yueh-Min, H. (2014). An investigation of reading rate patterns and retrieval outcomes of elementary school students with E-books. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 218-230. Tripathi, A., & Lal, J. (2016). Library Consortia practical guide for library managers. New York, NY: Chandos Publishing.
Union, C. D., Union, L. W., & Green, T. D. (2015). The use of eReaders in the classroom and at home to help third grade students improve their reading and English/ language arts standardized test scores. TechTrends, 59(5), 71-84. van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & White, M. J. (2009). Cognitive processes during reading: Implications for the use of multimedia to foster reading comprehension. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multimedia and literacy development: Improving achievement for young learners (pp. 5773). New York, NY: Routledge. Vassiliou, M., & Rowley, J. (2008). Progressing the definition of e-book. Library HiTech 26(3), 355-368. Yokota, J., & Teale, W. H. (2014). Picture books and the digital world. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 577-585. Young, J. R., Young, J. L, & Shaker, Z. (2012). Describing the pre-service teacher technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) literature using confidence intervals. Tech Trends, 56(5), 2533. Zipke, M. (2013). Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thoughts on e-readers in the elementary school classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 18(3), 421-441.
Appendix A Survey Questions 1. About how often do you use e-books in your classroom? Daily, weekly, monthly, never? Explain your answer. 2. What features do you appreciate the most in e-books? 3. When your students use e-books, are they more motivated, less motivated, or about the same as they would be when reading print books? 4. What features do you like most and least about e-books? 5. Do you use e-books to make home-school connections? If so, how? 6. What e-books do you have access to at your school? 7. Which e-books do you regularly use? 8. Have you received any training on e-books? Discussion Posting Prompt This week you will share one short journal article on technology related to reading for teaching and/or learning. Provide your group members with a one-page handout in which you share the highlights of the article in 5 to 10 bullet points. Pictures would be nice, but are not required. Provide an elaborated idea of how this technology could work within the reading curriculum for your grade level. Finally, read each group member's handout and respond. The Reading Teacher has many great onepage technology articles. You could also use TechTrends or Journal of Technology and Education, LiteracyandTecnology.org (online journal) or another.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 24
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Reflection Assignment 1.
2. 3.
Read Bates, C. C., Klein, A., Schubert, B., McGee, L., Anderson, N., Dern, L., McClure, E., & Ross, R. H. (2017). E-Books and e-book apps: Considerations for beginning readers. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 401-411. Elaborate on several considerations that should be given when using e-books with emergent and early readers. [Note: The responses for this part of the reflection were not used in this study] Do you have anything to add from own experiences with e-books with your students? [Note: The responses to this part of the prompt were included in the data]
Correspondence with School Districts Email sent to district information technology specialist and/or literacy curriculum specialists at the eleven school districts of the participants: Hello ___________, My name is ________________, and I am a professor at __________ doing research on e-books in reading education. I was wondering if the ________ school district subscribes to any e-book sites. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thank you,
About the Author Shannon Howrey, PhD Dr. Howrey is an Associate Professor of Reading and Literacy Education at Kennesaw State University. Her research interests include the use of technology for reading, university-community partnerships, and social/emotional learning through children's literature.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 25
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Preparedness of Special Educators: An Examination of Viewpoints among Teacher Educators and Preservice Teachers Laurie A. Sharp and Frank Goode, West Texas A & M University One of the most impactful factors in terms of student achievement is teacher competence (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goldhaber, 2016; Hattie, 2003; Hightower et al., 2011; Konstantopoulos & Chung, 2011; Rice, 2003). Much literature has attributed teacher competence to the quality of their respective teacher preparation programs (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heiling, 2005; Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013; Leech & Haug, 2015). Darling-Hammond (2012) emphasized that teaching competence begins with teacher educators who engage in efforts to improve “how teachers are prepared” and prime preservice teachers “to enter the classroom truly ready to succeed” (pp. 12-13). Competent teachers are necessary for all K-12 students, especially students with exceptionalities, to experience effective instruction (McLesky & Brownell, 2015; Sledge & Pazey, 2013). Although existing literature that explores preparedness among future special educators is limited, there are some concerns expressed regarding specific aspects of preparedness. For example, McCall, McHatton, and Shealey (2014) contend that special education teacher preparation programs do not fully address evidence-based practices specific to special education, including the “knowledge, skills, and dispositions” required among special educators (pp. 64-65). As such, novice special education teachers enter schools ill-equipped for the specialized, continuallyevolving requirements of their profession (Johnson, 2015). Williams, Martin, and Hess (2010) noted the following were specific
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
examples of requirements for which novice special educators were not adequately prepared: (a) competence with writing Individualized Education Plans, (b) connecting results of assessments to the general education curriculum, (c) ascertaining how a student’s exceptionality impacts their involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, and (d) implementing functional behavioral assessments and using data to create functional behavioral plans. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2015) released nationally-recognized professional standards that define the content knowledge, skills, and behaviors required of novice special educators. With these discipline-specific professional standards in mind, the purpose of the present study was to explore the following research question: How do teacher educators and preservice teachers view the preparedness of future special educators? Eliciting the viewpoints of those who deliver and those who complete preparation program requirements provides a comprehensive understanding of preparedness among future special educators. Findings from the present study will add to the limited existing literature and provide special education preparation program stakeholders with vital information regarding areas of strength and areas needing improvement. Review of Relevant Literature In an era of standards-based reform within the United States, concerns with K-12 student academic performance prompted efforts to
PAGE 26
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
improve teacher competence, which in turn, placed teacher education programs under scrutiny (Chung & Kim, 2010). To ensure that novice teachers entered classrooms as competent educators, teacher preparation programs reorganized their respective curricula to address professional standards for teacher preparation at the national level, such as the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (formerly the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education) and the Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium. Although systematic efforts to standardize teacher education programming have created a greater sense of uniformity with how teachers are prepared (Chung & Kim, 2010), they have not been without criticism (Apple, 2001; Chung & Kim, 2010; Cochran-Smith, 2001; Delandshere & Petrosky, 2004; Hinchey & Cadiero-Kaplan, 2005; Krise, 2016) and raised doubt as to whether a set of teaching principles could be developed that were applicable for teachers among all disciplines and certification areas (Delandshere & Petrosky, 2004). With this in mind, Woolf (2015) noted that while teaching itself was a complex profession, special educators operated in a uniquely different capacity than other teachers. For instance, special educators work in partnership with a wideranging number of school campus and district professionals and collaborate with parents and families. Special educators also manage extensive
caseloads where each case is individualized to the diverse needs of a particular student. The distinctive professional practices and skills required among special educators have underscored the importance of addressing discipline-based professional standards within special education teacher preparation programs. The professional standards developed by the CEC (2015) have provided special education preparation programs with the necessary guidance to ensure preservice teachers graduate from their programs as competent special educators. As shown in Table 1, these professional standards delineate 28 central concepts for novice special educators regarding learner development and individual learning differences, learning environments, curricular content knowledge, assessment, instructional planning and strategies, professional learning and ethical practice, and collaboration. Although existing literature has expressed concerns with preparedness among special educators (Johnson, 2015; McCall et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2010), no known studies have explored preparedness in relation to the CECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s professional standards among both teacher educators and preservice teachers. In the present study, using these professional standards provided a basis for successful preparation program requirements and exploring both viewpoints developed a baseline for attaining a desired preparation model that produces competent special educators.
Table 1 CECâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2015) Professional Standards for Novice Special Educators Initial Preparation Standard
Central Concepts
Standard 1: Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences
1.
Standard 2: Learning Environments
3.
2.
4. 5.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Understands how culture, family background, and language impacts learning of students with exceptionalities. Uses understandings of human development to address the individual needs of students with exceptionalities. Works with others to create learning environments for students with exceptionalities that are culturally responsive, inclusive, safe, and engaging academically and socially. Uses instructional and motivational interventions to teach adaptability to diverse settings among students with exceptionalities. Knows how to intervene appropriately and safely when students with exceptionalities experience crisis.
PAGE 27
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Standard 3: Curricular Content Knowledge
6.
7. 8.
Understands key elements of the discipline that is taught and how to design cross-disciplinary instruction to facilitate learning progressions among students with exceptionalities. Uses content knowledge to individualize cross-curricular content instruction for students with exceptionalities. Modifies curricula to promote accessibility among students with exceptionalities.
Standard 4: Assessment
9.
Standard 5: Instructional Planning and Strategies
13. Considers individual differences among students with exceptionalities to select, develop, and adapt learning experiences. 14. Supports the teaching and learning process among students with exceptionalities with technology. 15. Knows of augmentative and alternative communication devices that support learning among students with exceptionalities. 16. Implements strategies to foster communication skills and language development among students with exceptionalities. 17. Works with others to develop and implement individualized education and transition plans for students with exceptionalities across a variety of contexts. 18. Promotes generalized and mastery learning among students with exceptionalities. 19. Addresses cross-disciplinary knowledge and skills among students with exceptionalities.
Standard 6: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
20. Guides professional practices with knowledge of ethical principles and standards of professional practice. 21. Understands how professional practices are shaped by foundational knowledge and current issues and trends in education. 22. Understands the complexities of diversity and how diversity may enrich special education and related services. 23. Recognizes the importance of lifelong learning and actively engages in professional learning activities. 24. Advances the special education profession by participating in leadership activities. 25. Provides guidance to special education support staff and volunteers.
Standard 7: Collaboration
26. Uses fundamentals of effective collaboration. 27. Works as a collaborative resource with others. 28. Uses collaborative methods to support well-being among students with exceptionalities in diverse settings.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Selects and uses psychometrically sound assessments that reduce bias among students with exceptionalities. 10. Applies knowledge of assessment principles and practices to analyze assessment results and uses these results to plan instruction for students with exceptionalities. 11. Uses multiple assessment results and works in collaboration with others to plan instruction for students with exceptionalities. 12. Engages students with exceptionalities to work towards learning progressions by providing them with continuous feedback.
PAGE 28
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Theoretical Framework The present study was guided by understandings related to social constructionism. Social constructionism explains how the social realities of an individual are created as a result of their interpretations of subjective experiences (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Harré, 2002). These interpretations shape how individuals understand their views of reality. The use of social constructionism for the present study’s theoretical framework was appropriate because it considers the influence of interpersonal aspects involved with special education teacher preparation (Brownell, Ross, Colón, & McCallum, 2005; Kennedy, Alves, & Rodgers, 2015). As preservice teachers engage with required coursework and experiences in their respective teacher preparation programs, teacher educators develop content knowledge and pedagogical understandings using a plethora of interactive approaches. Through these interactions, both teacher educators and preservice teachers become familiar with levels of competence and formulate viewpoints concerning preparedness. Methodology Sampling To obtain a representative sample, we used purposive sampling techniques among preservice teachers and teacher educators who were affiliated with special education teacher preparation programs in a Southern state. First, we obtained a listing of all state-approved teacher preparation programs from the state’s education agency website and filtered it to include only university-based traditional certification programs for special education. Next, we performed Internet searches on each university’s website to identify and retrieve email addresses for the director of each teacher preparation program to obtain a participant pool of preservice teachers seeking special education teacher certification. During our web searches, we also identified faculty members who teach special education courses for preservice teachers and collected their email addresses to create a participant pool of special education teacher educators. Our sampling techniques resulted in
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
the identification of 55 teacher education programs and directors, along with 283 teacher educators. Instrumentation The present study utilized a survey research design. We created an electronic survey in Google Forms that included closed-ended, Likert-type questions for respondents to indicate their viewpoints regarding levels of competence with the central concepts for novice special educators articulated in the CEC’s (2015) professional standards. The survey instrument collected demographic information (e.g., gender, age) and included seven sections with 28 closedended, Likert-type questions. For each question, possible responses utilized the following fivepoint scale: Not At All Prepared, Slightly Prepared, Somewhat Prepared, Very Prepared, and Extremely Prepared. To establish validity with the survey instrument, the questions were modeled after the CEC’s (2015) professional standards and central concepts for novice special educators. We also conducted a pilot test with 20 individuals to ensure that the electronic survey was understandable, technologically-sound, and collected the intended data. Reliability for the survey instrument was determined using Cronbach’s alpha, which was α = 0.95. Data Collection and Analysis We conducted the survey during the fall of 2017 and kept the survey period open for three months. During the first month, we contacted each teacher preparation program director and requested permission to disseminate the survey among preservice teachers in their respective special education teacher preparation programs. At the same time, we emailed the teacher educators invitations to participate and tracked their participation throughout the survey period. At the beginning of each of the next two months, we sent reminder emails to individuals who had not yet participated. When the survey period closed, we tabulated responses for each question and analyzed data quantitatively with descriptive statistics by reporting frequencies and percentages.
PAGE 29
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Findings We collected 46 completed surveys from teacher educators, which yielded a response rate of 16.25%. Of these, 10 teacher educator respondents were male and 36 were female who ranged in age from 20-29 years (n = 1), 30-39 years (n = 7), 40-49 years (n = 13), 50-59 years (n = 9), 60-69 years (n = 14), and 70-79 years (n = 2). The majority of teacher educator respondents (n = 41) also indicated that they had five or more years of experience with preparing preservice teachers who were seeking special education teacher certification. Of the 55 teacher preparation programs, 12 directors agreed to disseminate the survey among preservice teachers who were seeking special education teacher certification on our behalf. These efforts resulted in the collection of 31 completed surveys. Of these, 3 preservice teacher respondents were male and 28 were female who ranged in age from 20-29 years (n = 30) and 30-39 years (n = 1). The majority of preservice teacher respondents (n = 23) indicated that they had been officially admitted as candidates to their respective teacher preparation programs. Below, we have presented the results for each survey question organized by the seven CEC (2015) professional standards. We reported frequency counts and percentages in numeric
forms for teacher educators and preservice teachers. We also noted congruence, or lack thereof, between viewpoints concerning each central concept for novice special educators. Standard 1: Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences For the first CEC (2015) professional standard, survey respondents indicated their viewpoints of preparedness related to learner development and individual learning differences. This survey section consisted of two questions, which attained viewpoints toward novice special educatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preparedness with the following central concepts: (1) understands how culture, family background, and language impacts learning of students with exceptionalities; and (2) uses understandings of human development to address the individual needs of students with exceptionalities. As shown in Table 2, the majority of teacher educators and preservice teachers indicated that novice special educators were either Somewhat Prepared or Very Prepared with each of these two central concepts. Closer examination of data revealed teacher educators held higher views of preparedness for the first central concept. Alternatively, teacher educators and preservice teachers held congruent views of preparedness for the second central concept.
Table 2 Standard 1 - Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences How prepared are future special educators with:
1
2
3
4
5
Understands how culture, family background, and language impact learning of students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
---
3 (6.5) 4 (12.9)
16 (34.8) 13 (41.9)
22 (47.8) 12 (38.7)
5 (10.9) 2 (6.5)
1 (2.2) --
-6 (19.4)
15 (32.6) 11 (35.5)
22 (47.8) 12 (38.7)
8 (17.4) 2 (6.5)
Uses understandings of human development to address the individual needs of students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
Note. 1 = Not At All Prepared; 2 = Slightly Prepared; 3 = Somewhat Prepared; 4 = Very Prepared; 5 = Extremely Prepared Percentages are in parentheses.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 30
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Standard 2: Learning Environments For the second CEC (2015) professional standard, survey respondents indicated their viewpoints of preparedness related to learning environments. This survey section consisted of three questions, which attained viewpoints towards novice special educators’ preparedness with the following central concepts: (3) works with others to create learning environments for students with exceptionalities that are culturally responsive, inclusive, safe, and engaging academically and socially; (4) uses instructional and motivational interventions to teach adaptability to diverse settings among students
with exceptionalities; and (5) knows how to intervene appropriately and safely when students with exceptionalities experience crisis. As shown in Table 3, the majority of teacher educators and preservice teachers indicated that novice special educators were either Somewhat Prepared or Very Prepared with each of these three central concepts. Closer examination of data revealed teacher educators held higher views of preparedness for the third central concept. Alternatively, teacher educators and preservice teachers held congruent views of preparedness for the fourth and fifth central concepts.
Table 3 Standard 2 – Learning Environments How prepared are future special educators with:
1
2
3
4
5
Works with others to create learning environments for students with exceptionalities that are culturally responsive, inclusive, safe, and engaging academically and socially. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
---
-3 (9.7)
16 (34.8) 15 (48.4)
26 (56.5) 9 (29)
4 (8.7) 4 (12.9)
Uses instructional and motivational interventions to teach adaptability to diverse settings among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-1 (3.2)
1 (2.2) 3 (9.7)
16 (34.8) 11 (35.5)
21 (45.6) 12 (38.7)
8 (17.4) 4 (12.9)
Knows how to intervene appropriately and safely when students with exceptionalities experience crisis. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
10 (21.7) 6 (19.4)
20 (43.5) 10 (32.3)
12 (26.1) 9 (29)
4 (8.7) 4 (12.9)
Note. 1 = Not At All Prepared; 2 = Slightly Prepared; 3 = Somewhat Prepared; 4 = Very Prepared; 5 = Extremely Prepared Percentages are in parentheses.
Standard 3: Curricular Content Knowledge For the third CEC (2015) professional standard, survey respondents indicated their viewpoints of preparedness related to curricular content knowledge. This survey section consisted of three questions, which attained viewpoints towards novice special educators’
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
preparedness with the following central concepts: (6) understands key elements of the discipline that is taught and how to design crossdisciplinary instruction to facilitate learning progressions among students with exceptionalities, (7) uses content knowledge to individualize cross-curricular content instruction
PAGE 31
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
for students with exceptionalities, and (8) modifies curricula to promote accessibility among students with exceptionalities. As shown in Table 4, the majority of teacher educators and preservice teachers indicated that novice special educators were either Somewhat Prepared or Very Prepared with each of these three central
concepts. Closer examination of data revealed teacher educators and preservice teachers held congruent views of preparedness for the sixth central concept. Alternatively, teacher educators held higher views of preparedness for the seventh and eighth central concepts.
Table 4 Standard 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Curricular Content Knowledge How prepared are future special educators with:
1
2
3
4
5
Understands key elements of the discipline that is taught and how to design cross-disciplinary instruction to facilitate learning progressions among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
1 (2.2) 6 (19.4)
21 (45.6) 14 (45.2)
16 (34.8) 7 (22.6)
8 (17.4) 2 (6.5)
Uses content knowledge to individualize cross-curricular content instruction for students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-4 (12.9)
-3 (9.7)
17 (37) 14 (45.2)
22 (47.8) 7 (22.6)
7 (15.2) 3 (9.7)
Modifies curricula to promote accessibility among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
-8 (25.8)
12 (26.1) 10 (32.3)
22 (47.8) 9 (29)
12 (26.1) 2 (6.5)
Note. 1 = Not At All Prepared; 2 = Slightly Prepared; 3 = Somewhat Prepared; 4 = Very Prepared; 5 = Extremely Prepared Percentages are in parentheses.
Standard 4: Assessment For the fourth CEC (2015) professional standard, survey respondents indicated their viewpoints of preparedness related to assessment. This survey section consisted of four questions, which attained viewpoints towards novice special educatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preparedness with the following central concepts: (9) selects and uses psychometrically sound assessments that reduce bias among students with exceptionalities, (10) applies knowledge of assessment principles and practices to analyze assessment results and uses these results to plan instruction for students with exceptionalities, (11) uses multiple assessment results and works
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
in collaboration with others to plan instruction for students with exceptionalities, and (12) engages students with exceptionalities to work toward learning progressions by providing them with continuous feedback. As shown in Table 5, the majority of teacher educators and preservice teachers indicated that novice special educators were either Somewhat Prepared or Very Prepared with each of these four central concepts. Closer examination of data revealed teacher educators and preservice teachers held congruent views of preparedness for the 9th and 11th central concepts. Alternatively, teacher educators held higher views of preparedness for the 10th and 12th central concepts.
PAGE 32
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Table 5 Standard 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Assessment How prepared are future special educators with:
1
2
3
4
5
Selects and uses psychometrically sound assessments that reduce bias among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-1 (3.2)
1 (2.2) 7 (22.6)
14 (30.4) 9 (29)
24 (52.2) 12 (38.7)
7 (15.2) 2 (6.5)
Applies knowledge of assessment principles and practices to analyze assessment results and uses these results to plan instruction for students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
4 (8.7) 6 (19.4)
12 (26.1) 12 (38.7)
23 (50) 9 (29)
7 (15.2) 2 (6.5)
Uses multiple assessment results and works in collaboration with others to plan instruction for students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
1 (2.2) 5 (16.1)
16 (34.8) 10 (32.3)
22 (47.8) 11 (35.5)
7 (15.2) 3 (9.7)
Engages students with exceptionalities to work towards learning progressions by providing them with continuous feedback. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
---
2 (4.3) 6 (19.4)
14 (30.4) 12 (38.7)
21 (45.6) 8 (25.8)
9 (19.7) 5 (16.1)
Note. 1 = Not At All Prepared; 2 = Slightly Prepared; 3 = Somewhat Prepared; 4 = Very Prepared; 5 = Extremely Prepared Percentages are in parentheses.
Standard 5: Instructional Planning and Strategies For the fifth CEC (2015) professional standard, survey respondents indicated their viewpoints of preparedness related to instructional planning and strategies. This survey section consisted of seven questions, which attained viewpoints toward novice special educatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preparedness with the following central concepts: (13) considers individual differences among students with exceptionalities to select, develop, and adapt learning experiences; (14) supports the teaching and learning process among students with exceptionalities with technology; (15) knows of augmentative and alternative communication devices that support learning among students with exceptionalities; (16) implements strategies to foster communication skills and language development among students with
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
exceptionalities; (17) works with others to develop and implement individualized education and transition plans for students with exceptionalities across a variety of contexts; (18) promotes generalized and mastery learning among students with exceptionalities; and (19) addresses cross-disciplinary knowledge and skills among students with exceptionalities. As shown in Table 6, the majority of teacher educators and preservice teachers indicated that novice special educators were either Somewhat Prepared or Very Prepared with each of these seven central concepts. Closer examination of data revealed teacher educators held higher views of preparedness for the 13th central concept. Alternatively, teacher educators and preservice teachers held congruent views of preparedness for the other six central concepts associated with this professional standard.
PAGE 33
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Table 6 Standard 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Instructional Planning and Strategies How prepared are future special educators with:
1
2
3
4
5
Considers individual differences among students with exceptionalities to select, develop, and adapt learning experiences. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-1 (3.2)
-4 (12.9)
17 (37) 16 (51.6)
21 (45.6) 8 (25.8)
8 (17.4) 2 (6.5)
Supports the teaching and learning process among students with exceptionalities with technology. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
1 (2.2) --
4 (8.7) 8 (25.8)
18 (39.1) 11 (35.5)
16 (34.8) 9 (29)
7 (15.2) 3 (9.7)
Knows of augmentative and alternative communication devices that support learning among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
3 (6.5) 4 (12.9)
8 (17.4) 5 (16.1)
19 (41.3) 13 (41.9)
13 (28.3) 6 (19.4)
3 (6.5) 3 (9.7)
Implements strategies to foster communication skills and language development among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
1 (2.2) 2 (6.5)
4 (8.7) 7 (22.6)
21 (45.6) 12 (38.7)
13 (28.3) 6 (19.4)
7 (15.2) 4 (12.9)
2 (4.3) 4 (12.9)
3 (6.5) 4 (12.9)
18 (39.1) 10 (32.3)
18 (39.1) 10 (32.3)
5 (10.9) 3 (9.7)
Promotes generalized and mastery learning among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-3 (9.7)
1 (2.2) 6 (19.4)
12 (26.1) 7 (22.6)
25 (54.3) 10 (32.3)
8 (17.4) 5 (16.1)
Addresses cross-disciplinary knowledge and skills among students with exceptionalities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
4 (8.7) 5 (16.1)
18 (39.1) 10 (32.3)
19 (41.3) 11 (35.5)
5 (10.9) 3 (9.7)
Works with others to develop and implement individualized education and transition plans for students with exceptionalities across a variety of contexts. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
Note. 1 = Not At All Prepared; 2 = Slightly Prepared; 3 = Somewhat Prepared; 4 = Very Prepared; 5 = Extremely Prepared Percentages are in parentheses.
Standard 6: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice For the sixth CEC (2015) professional standard, survey respondents indicated their viewpoints of preparedness related to
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
professional learning and ethical practice. This survey section consisted of six questions, which attained viewpoints towards novice special educatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; preparedness with the following central concepts: (20) guides professional practices with knowledge of ethical principles
PAGE 34
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
and standards of professional practice, (21) understands how professional practices are shaped by foundational knowledge and current issues and trends in education, (22) understands the complexities of diversity and how diversity may enrich special education and related services, (23) recognizes the importance of lifelong learning and actively engages in professional learning activities, (24) advances the special education profession by participating in leadership activities, and (25) provides guidance to special education support staff and volunteers. As shown in Table 7, the majority of
teacher educators and preservice teachers indicated that novice special educators were either Somewhat Prepared or Very Prepared with each of these six central concepts. Closer examination of data revealed teacher educators held higher views of preparedness for the 24th central concept, and preservice teachers held higher views of preparedness with the 25th central concept. Alternatively, teacher educators and preservice teachers held congruent views of preparedness for the other four central concepts associated with this professional standard.
Table 7 Standard 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Professional Learning and Ethical Practice How prepared are future special educators with:
1
2
3
4
5
Guides professional practices with knowledge of ethical principles and standards of professional practice. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-1 (3.2)
1 (2.2) 8 (25.8)
5 (10.9) 7 (22.6)
27 (58.7) 9 (29)
13 (28.3) 6 (19.4)
Understands how professional practices are shaped by foundational knowledge and current issues and trends in education. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
---
1 (2.2) 7 (22.6)
10 (21.7) 9 (29)
24 (52.2) 10 (32.3)
11 (23.9) 5 (16.1)
Understands the complexities of diversity and how diversity may enrich special education and related services. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-1 (3.2)
-2 (6.5)
5 (10.9) 9 (29)
26 (56.5) 14 (45.2)
15 (32.6) 5 (16.1)
Recognizes the importance of lifelong learning and actively engages in professional learning activities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
---
1 (2.2) 5 (16.1)
7 (15.2) 7 (22.6)
23 (50) 14 (45.2)
15 (32.6) 5 (16.1)
Advances the special education profession by participating in leadership activities. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
---
2 (4.3) 3 (9.7)
10 (21.7) 12 (38.7)
28 (60.9) 9 (29)
6 (13) 7 (22.6)
1 (2.2) 2 (6.5)
2 (4.3) 5 (16.1)
22 (47.8) 7 (22.6)
18 (39.1) 11 (35.5)
3 (6.5) 6 (19.4)
Provides guidance to special education support staff and volunteers. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
Note. 1 = Not At All Prepared; 2 = Slightly Prepared; 3 = Somewhat Prepared; 4 = Very Prepared; 5 = Extremely Prepared Percentages are in parentheses.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 35
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Standard 7: Collaboration For the seventh CEC (2015) professional standard, survey respondents indicated their viewpoints of preparedness related to collaboration. This survey section consisted of three questions, which attained viewpoints towards novice special educators’ preparedness with the following central concepts: (26) uses fundamentals of effective collaboration, (27) works as a collaborative resource with others, and (28) uses collaborative methods to support well-being among students with exceptionalities
in diverse settings. As shown in Table 8, the majority of teacher educators and preservice teachers indicated that novice special educators were either Somewhat Prepared or Very Prepared with each of these three central concepts. Closer examination of data revealed teacher educators held higher views of preparedness for the 26th and 27th central concepts. Alternatively, teacher educators and preservice teachers held congruent views of preparedness for the 28th central concept.
Table 8 Standard 7 – Collaboration How prepared are future special educators with:
1
2
3
4
5
Uses fundamentals of effective collaboration. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-1 (3.2)
1 (2.2) 7 (22.6)
15 (32.6) 14 (45.2)
19 (41.3) 8 (25.8)
11 (23.9) 1 (3.2)
Works as a collaborative resource with others. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
1 (2.2) 3 (9.7)
14 (30.4) 14 (45.2)
21 (45.6) 10 (32.3)
10 (21.7) 2 (6.5)
Uses collaborative methods to support well-being among students with exceptionalities in diverse settings. Teacher educators (n = 46) Preservice teachers (n = 31)
-2 (6.5)
-3 (9.7)
12 (26.1) 10 (32.3)
24 (52.2) 12 (38.7)
10 (21.7) 4 (12.9)
Note. 1 = Not At All Prepared; 2 = Slightly Prepared; 3 = Somewhat Prepared; 4 = Very Prepared; 5 = Extremely Prepared Percentages are in parentheses.
Discussion and Implications The professional practices of special educators are uniquely different than those of general educators (Woolf, 2015). Due to the specialized nature of their role, special educators must enter schools as capable and collaborative teaching professionals. Thus, teacher preparation programs must ensure that their coursework and program requirements cultivate competent special educators (McLesky & Brownell, 2015; Sledge & Pazey, 2013). Although limited, existing literature has expressed some concerns regarding the preparation of special educators (Johnson, 2015; McCall et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2010). The present study sought to add to
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
this limited literature by exploring how teacher educators and preservice teachers view the preparedness of future special educators with each of the 28 central concepts articulated in the CEC’s (2015) professional standards. Using social constructionism as a theoretical lens (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Harré, 2002), the present study took into account the influence of interpersonal aspects involved with special education teacher preparation (Brownell et al., 2005; Kennedy et al., 2015). Our reported findings have illuminated current viewpoints of preparation among those who deliver and those who complete special education teacher preparation program requirements.
PAGE 36
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
With respect to the viewpoints of teacher educators, all of these respondents were seasoned professional experts in preparing special educators. Findings in the present study revealed that teacher educator respondents held high views of preparedness with 22 of the 28 central concepts delineated in the CEC’s (2015) professional standards. For each of these central concepts, the majority of these respondents indicated that preservice special education teachers were Very Prepared. This finding has presented a bright spot among the previous studies that have touted concerns and inadequacies with the preparation of special educators (Johnson, 2015; McCall et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2010). Although identifying program areas needing improvement and developing action plans to address deficiencies is of great importance, it is equally important for teacher educators to highlight areas of strength and continue implementing related preparation efforts. By contrast, preservice teacher respondents indicated a mixture of moderate and high views of preparedness. These respondents indicated that they were Somewhat Prepared with 15 of the 28 central concepts delineated in the CEC’s (2015) professional standards and Very Prepared with the remaining 13 central concepts. However, it is important to exercise caution when interpreting data reported by preservice teaching professionals. Preservice teachers are at the beginning stages of their professional journey and engaged in preparatory learning experiences to develop their professional competence and confidence (Roberts, Benedict, & Thomas, 2013; Tangen & Beutel, 2017). Due to their lack of experience, preservice teachers are not yet fully familiar with the realities of their future profession and often hold viewpoints that are “different than the actual professional world waiting for them” (Gavish, 2017, p. 167). This is not to say that the viewpoints of preservice teachers are inconsequential. On the contrary, knowing these viewpoints informs teacher educators of the conceptions and thinking of preservice teachers, which may then lead to appropriate revisions with subsequent preparatory efforts (Bauer, Johnson, & Sapona, 2004; Thomas, 2013).
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Findings from the present study have pointed to two implications for teacher preparation program stakeholders in relation to program assessments of special education preparation requirements. First, these findings have suggested the importance of conducting external audits with novice special educators who are program completers. Special education requirements and services in schools experience continuous shifts, which, in turn, impact how special educators are prepared (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). During their initial years of teaching, novice special educators are well positioned to provide valuable feedback regarding “what worked and did not work” in their preparation programs (West & Hudson, 2010, p. 73). Obtaining this feedback empowers teacher preparation program stakeholders to adjust and invigorate their program requirements to ensure currency and relevance with special education preparation requirements. Findings have also suggested the importance of utilizing discipline-based, professional standards during internal audits of special education preparation requirements. As noted by Delandshere and Petrosky (2004), it is improbable that one set of teaching principles can be developed that is applicable among teachers in all disciplines and teaching certification areas. Therefore, teacher preparation program stakeholders must ensure that special education program requirements address and develop competence with the recognized professional standards, such as the CEC’s (2015) professional standards for novice special educators. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research While findings of the present study have added empirical data to an under-researched area, there were a few limitations. First, we limited our research sample to teacher educators and preservice teachers affiliated with teacher preparation programs in one Southern state. However, we set this limitation deliberately since each state observes state-specific teacher licensure requirements (Cappello & Farnan, 2006; Darling-Hammond & Cobb, 1996). This
PAGE 37
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
limitation also accounted for possible differences with preparation efforts among the types of pathways (i.e., alternative, traditional) and program types (i.e., higher education institutions, non-higher education institutions) available for teacher certification. With this in mind, we recommend that future research efforts replicate our methodology to ascertain the viewpoints of teacher educators and preservice teachers on a state-by-state basis specific to the different pathways and program types that are offered. The low number of survey respondents was another limitation with the present study. Although the survey response rate for teacher educators met Baruch’s (1999) recommendation of 60 +/- 20 for academic studies in behavioral sciences using a conventional population, findings would have been strengthened with a larger number of respondents. The present study relied upon information publically posted on each university’s website to create a participant pool of teacher educators. However, the information we collected from websites may have been inaccurate or incomplete. Although our survey response rate met the recommended standard, we recommend future studies use more robust sampling techniques to ensure collected information for participant pools is most accurate and complete. On the other hand, the survey response rate among preservice teacher respondents fell a little short of Baruch’s (1999) recommendation. Creating a participant pool of preservice teachers in the present study was a bit more complicated and likely impacted the number of respondents. Since universities take precautions to protect the privacy of their students, we sought permission to disseminate our survey among preservice teachers from the director of each teacher preparation program. However, out of 55 directors, 34 directors were nonresponsive, four directors stated that their preparation programs no longer included teaching certification for special education, three directors requested additional information, one director indicated that approval from their university’s Institutional Review Board was required, and one director declined to participate. Only 12 directors agreed to share
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
information with their preservice teachers, and we are unsure of the total sample size for preservice teachers because we did not disseminate our survey directly. Due to this limitation, we were unable to send monthly reminder emails among preservice teachers to encourage participation, as we did with teacher educators. We recommend that future studies use sampling techniques and data collection methods that facilitate communication with preservice teachers directly and lead to larger levels of participation. Conclusion Teacher preparation programs have the extraordinary responsibility to produce competent novice teachers who are well prepared for their impending professional roles and responsibilities. It is clear that nature and requirements associated with the field of special education encompass more complexities than those associated with general education. Thus, it is incumbent that teacher preparation programs ensure that their program requirements are aligned with current professional standards and implement learning experiences that prepare future special educators for the realities they will encounter as novice teachers. As teacher preparation program stakeholders engage in continuous program assessments, we encourage them to elicit data from multiple perspectives. Eliciting data solely from preservice teachers greatly limits interpretations of findings due to their inexperience, which influences views of professional competence and confidence. On the other hand, obtaining data from seasoned experts provides teacher preparation programs with viewpoints from the professionals who are knowledgeable, skilled, and practiced. By exploring multiple perspectives, teacher preparation program stakeholders will gain a more comprehensive understanding of their program’s strengths and areas needing improvement. Moreover, relying on data retrieved from seasoned experts provides teacher preparation programs with a more accurate representation that portrays a less dismal picture of teacher preparation.
PAGE 38
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
References Apple, M. W. (2001). Markets, standards, teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 182-196. doi:10.1177/ 0022487101052003002 Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421-438. doi:10.1177/001872679905200401 Bauer, A. M., Johnson, L. J., & Sapona, R. H. (2004). Reflections on 20 years of preparing special education teachers. Exceptionality, 12(4), 239-246. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex1204_5 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colón, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242-252. doi:10.1177/ 00224669050380040601 Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377. doi: 10.1177/001440291007600307 Cappello, M., & Farnan, N. (2006). Teacher preparation programs situate school curricula in the larger context of teaching and learning. In S. D. Lenski, D. L. Grisham, & L. S. Wold (Eds.), Literacy teacher preparation: Ten truths teacher educators need to know (pp. 64-75). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Chung, H., & Kim, H. (2010). Implementing professional standards in teacher preparation programs in the United States: Preservice teachers’ understanding of teaching standards. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 7(2), 355-377. Retrieved from http://eng.kedi.re.kr/khome/eng/kjep/ pubList.do Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Higher standards for prospective teachers: What’s missing from the discourse? Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 179-181. doi:10.1177/0022487101052003001 Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44. doi:10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000 Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the teaching career. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 8-13. Retrieved from http:// journals.sagepub.com/home/pdk Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. (1996). The changing context of teacher education. In F. B.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 14–62). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1-51. doi: 10.14507/epaa.v13n42.2005 Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political rationales and ideological stances of the standardsbased reform of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.002 Gavish, B. (2017). Special education trainee teachers’ perceptions of their professional world: Motives, roles, and expectations from teacher training. Teachers and Teaching, 23(2), 153-170. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1204285 Goldhaber, D. (2016). In schools, teacher quality matters most. Education Next, 16(2), 56-62. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org Goldhaber, D., Liddle, S., & Theobald, R. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.01.011 Harré, R. (2002). Public sources of the personal mind: Social constructionism in context. Theory & Psychology, 12(5), 611-623. doi:10.1177/ 0959354302012005895 Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders. govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Buildingeffective-learning-environments/Teachers-Make-aDifference-What-is-the-Research-Evidence Hightower, A. M., Delgado, R. C., Lloyd, S. C., Wittenstein, R., Sellers, K., & Swanson, C. B. (2011). Improving student learning by supporting quality teaching: Key issues, effective strategies. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/ eperc_qualityteaching_12.11.pdf Hinchey, P. H., & Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2005). The future of teacher education and teaching: Another piece of the privatization puzzle. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(2), 1-35. Retrieved from http://www.jceps.com/ Johnson, E. S. (2015). Increasing rural special education teacher candidates’ ability to implement evidencebased practices: A program description of the Boise State University TATERS program. Rural Special
PAGE 39
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Education Quarterly, 34(1), 5-9. Retrieved from http://acres-sped.org/journal Kennedy, M. J., Alves, K. D., & Rodgers, W. J. (2015). Innovations in the delivery of content knowledge in special education teacher preparation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(2), 73-81. doi:10.1177/ 1053451215579268 Konstantopoulos, S., & Chung, V. (2011). Teacher effects on minority and disadvantaged students’ Grade 4 achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 104(2), 73-86. doi:10.1080/ 00220670903567349 Krise, K. (2016). Preparing the standardized teacher: The effects of accountability on teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 31(2), 24-32. Retrieved from http://journal.jctonline.org/ index.php/jct/index Leech, N. L., & Haug, C. A. (2015). Teacher workforce: Understanding the relationship among teacher demographics, preparation programs, performance, and persistence. Research in the Schools, 22(1), 1526. Retrieved from http://www.msera.org/ publications-rits.html McCall, Z., McHatton, P. A., & Shealey, M. W. (2014). Special education teacher candidate assessment: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(1), 51-70. doi:10.1177/0888406413512684 McLesky, J., & Brownell, M. (2015). High-leverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (Document No. PR-1). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/ tools/best-practice-review/ Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Roberts, C. A., Benedict, A. E., & Thomas, R. A. (2013). Cooperating teachers’ role in preparing preservice special education teachers: Moving beyond sink or swim. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(3), 174-180. doi:10.1177/ 1053451213496162 Sledge, A., & Pazey, B. L. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness through meaningful evaluation: Can reform models apply to general education and special education teachers? Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(3), 231-246. doi:10.1177/ 0888406413489839 Tangen, D., & Beutel, D. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of self as inclusive educators. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(1), 63-72. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1184327 Thomas, C. N. (2013). Considering the impact of preservice teacher beliefs on future practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(4), 230-236. doi:10.1177/1053451213509490
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
West, E. A., & Hudson, R. F. (2010). Using early career special educators voice to influence initial teacher education. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(1), 63-74. Retrieved from http:// www.wholeschooling.net/Journal_of_Whole_Scho oling/IJWSIndex.html Williams, J. M., Martin, S. M., & Hess, R. K. (2010). Personnel preparation and service delivery issues in rural areas: The state of the art. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 29(4), 31-39. Retrieved from http://acres-sped.org/journal Woolf, S. B. (2015). Special education professional standards: How important are they in the context of teacher performance evaluation? Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(4), 276-290. doi:10.1177/0888406414557284
About the Authors Laurie A. Sharp, EdD Dr. Sharp is the Dr. John G. O’Brien Distinguished Chair in Education at West Texas A&M University in Canyon, Texas. In her current role, Dr. Sharp works with school districts located in the Texas Panhandle to coordinate research projects that identify best practices in education. Dr. Sharp facilitates a myriad of learning activities for adult learners, actively participates in professional service, and maintains an extensive scholarship record. Dr. Frank Goode, EdD Dr. Goode is an Assistant Professor at West Texas A&M University in Canyon, Texas. Dr. Goode serves as the current director of special education programs and is a faculty team member of the University’s Center for Learning Disabilities. Dr. Goode’s research interests include self-determination among students with disabilities, teacher preparation program evaluation, and the provision of experiential education in teacher preparation programs.
PAGE 40
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Rethinking Teacher Preparation: Does Action Research Fit into the Transformation? Charlease Kelly-Jackson, Anete Vásquez, Marrielle Myers, Raynice Jean-Sigurm, and Sohyun An, Kennesaw State University
It is no secret that quality teachers are one of the most important elements for student success. Yet around the country, education policy reformers, teacher preparation programs, and stakeholders are still having conversations and questioning how to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers. Understanding that quality teachers can be defined in a multitude of ways (Wiens, Hessberg, LoCasale-Crouch & DeCoster, 2013), our definition is shaped by whom we serve as an Education Preparation Provider. For this paper, we define quality teachers as critically reflective and responsive lifelong learners who are well prepared in content and pedagogical content knowledge. Our primary role as teacher preparation faculty is to not only prepare and mentor the next generation of educators to serve students directly and indirectly, but also to engage in research and/or reflective thinking that removes barriers to learning at all ages. We want our teachers to leave our program with a strong, professional voice and the ability to engage students, parents, and colleagues in critical conversations for change (Phillips & Carr, 2014). Many teacher preparation programs use capstone projects, inquiry projects, teaching improvement projects, or some other activity that could be considered action research in order to produce such educators. Action research has long been considered a valuable, practitioner-based, pedagogical tool used to promote practice-based learning with teachers (Mitchener & Jackson, 2012). In other words, it is a “process in which participants
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
examine their own educational practice systematically and carefully” (Ferrance, 2000, p. 1) in order to improve pedagogy and student learning (Phillips & Carr, 2014). Action research “(a) helps teachers develop new knowledge directly related to their classrooms, (b) promotes reflective teaching and thinking, (c) expands teachers’ pedagogical repertoire, (d) puts teachers in charge of their craft, (e) reinforces the link between practice and student achievement, (f) fosters an openness toward new ideas and learning new things, and (g) gives teachers ownership of effective practices” (Hensen, 1996, as cited in Hine, 2013, p. 152). It is grounded in inquiry and reflective traditions and employs a systematic, cyclical methodology (Bogdan & Bilken, 1992; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Lewin, 1948; McNiff, 1988; Mitchener & Jackson, 2012). In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of action research in teacher education programs (Barbre & Buckner, 2013; CochranSmith & Lytle, 1990; Gore & Zeichener, 1991; Mitchener & Jackson, 2012; Noffke, 1992; Sagor, 1992). Its inclusion stems from the belief that systemic reflection by teachers on teaching, learning and curriculum equates to teacher professional growth (Lederman & Lederman, 2015). Action research involving preservice teachers “represents a unique genre within the action research tradition and has the potential to shape teacher identity in powerful ways” (Phillips & Carr, 2014, p. xii). Studies have shown action research to be an invaluable tool for self-improvement in practice and planning
PAGE 41
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
(McNiff, 1998; McNiff & Whitehead, 2010; Mills, 2000; Mitchener & Jackson, 2012; Patton, 2002). For preservice teachers, action research is a process of learning, in community with others, to think and act critically, to recognize and negotiate political systems, and to focus passion growing in one’s identity as a teacher. This process evolves from a desire to become a caring, intelligent, transformative educator, and includes honing the art and science of planning, assessment, and a critical reflective practice . . . The result of action research for preservice teachers is the beginning of a journey in becoming a teacher living the teaching/research life to simultaneously improve teaching practice, student outcomes, and systems of schooling to be more just and equitable for all children and adolescents. (Phillips & Carr, 2014, p. 8) Additionally, action research has the potential to bridge the gap between theory and practice (Hine, 2013; Johnson, 2012), a void teacher preparation programs continuously try to fill. Teacher education literature defines this gap as the difference between the ideas and theories taught in a teacher preparation program and the practices found in school instruction (Mitchener & Jackson, 2012). By incorporating action research into teacher preparation, we are supporting the notion that preservice teachers need to see the connection between theory and practice and should be able to take responsibility of their own learning to teach, reflect on their practices, and become teacher researchers (Loughran, 2004). Although action research is recognized in the literature as an important tool in promoting reflective practice and educational change, we recognize the challenges many faculty might face when attempting to incorporate this tool into a curriculum packed with content and pedagogical content knowledge requirements, field experience requirements, and licensure requirements. Limited studies have focused on how it looks at the initial certification level (Bachelor or Master of Arts in Teaching degree). This research will address the following questions: 1) What do teacher educators perceive as challenges to providing preservice teachers with opportunities
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
to engage in action research? 2) What, if any, benefits exist to integrate action research into teacher education programs? This study will suggest implications for teacher educator program enhancement and inform future programmatic changes. The findings of this study will thereby equip teacher educators with strategies to further improve their own quality and effectiveness in preparing preservice teachers for the realities of the classroom. Review of Literature Action research in education provides practitioners with a fertile source of ideas for practice and praxis, new knowledge and understanding about how to improve educational practices, and fresh approaches to solving issues in the school environments (Keegan, 2016; Mills, 2011; Stringer, 2008). It is a “disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action. The primary reason for engaging in action research is to assist the actor in improving or refining his or her actions” (Sagor, 2000, p.3). Historically in education, action research has been seen as a practice used by experienced, inservice teachers (Mitchener & Jackson, 2012; Phillips & Carr, 2014; Sagor, 1992; Sagor, 2000; Sagor, 2011). The benefits of action research on teachers include its contribution to the teacher’s professional development, its capacity to generate knowledge and new practices, and the value of the teacher as a researcher (Keegan, 2016). It brings teachers together to discuss, reflect on ideas, and encourage one another (Rust & Meyers, 2006), creating a self-reflective community dedicated to developing educational ideas and practices (Carr & Kemmis, 1986), all of which are important features in the preparation of preservice teachers. Hence, the recent increase of action research in teacher preparation programs (Mitchener & Jackson, 2012). In education, action research plays a significant role in the preparation of preservice teachers (Hine, 2013; Holter & Frabutt, 2012; Perrett, 2003). Price (2001) posits that examining the pedagogy and curriculum of action research requires a critical appraisal of the ways in which pre-service teachers come to know and understand research and
PAGE 42
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
teaching, as well as the factors that shape what they know and are able to do. (p. 44) He studied 11 preservice teachers’ experiences doing action research during student teaching. Using various forms of data (transcripts of audiotapes of classroom dialogue, pre and post course questionnaires, action research journals, preservice teachers and their students writings, informal interviews, videotapes of classroom work and school and district wide documents), Price showed how action research can develop and enhance preservice teachers’ commitments, ideas, and practices. Through their projects, the preservice teachers learned how teaching threaded together strands of their lives (p.70) spilled over into the goals they had for their students. According to Price (2001), action research has the potential to enhance preservice teachers’ understandings of teaching and encourage them to develop their professional voices and perspectives about teaching. Yet, studies that focus on preservice teachers’ learning about teaching are limited in the field. Grossman’s (2005) review of literature detailed how teacher preparation programs and faculty incorporated action research into their courses. These studies suggest that the inclusion of action research was limited to episodic activities that simply exposed preservice teachers to teaching as inquiry driven and reflective as opposed to allowing them to engage in learning from practice. Thus, Grossman pushed for more work that focused on teaching learning over time and “what it means to learn from experience” (p. 451). Using Price’s (2001) work as a springboard, Mitchener & Jackson (2012) chose a case study approach to explore the impact of action research on the teacher-learning journey of a preservice teacher in a middle grades teacher preparation program. Their study examined the viability of threading, an educative experience where preservice intertwine/connect past and current teaching experiences with their visions for their students (Price, 2001) to lessen the gap between the participant’s teaching goal and student learning. Data gathered revealed a meaningful depiction of learning from practice and the promise practice-based professional development can have on a teacher’s
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
professional growth and career. The study “details how action research gets enacted over time as a negotiated, cyclic process to improve practice as informed by student learning, a process that lays the groundwork for future professional development” (Grossman 2005; as cited in Mitchener & Jackson, 2012, p. 61). According to Deemer (2009), preservice teachers who utilize action research in their classes experience a better appreciation and understanding of methodically exploring a plethora of issues related to education. Through action research, preservice teachers become “researchers and knowledge creators, engaging in systematic inquiry into their own experience and critically using formal knowledge to inform their inquiry and help interpret findings” (Goodnough, 2010, p. 920). While action research can take many forms in teacher preparation (Barbre & Buckner, 2013), it is still considered a necessary and invaluable tool in the preparing of teachers to be effective practitioners (Capobianco & Feldman, 2010; Goodnough, 2010; Megowan-Romanowicz, 2010; National Research Council, 2000). Methodology Situational Context The authors of this study are teacher educators at a large, public, comprehensive university in the Southeastern region of the United States. Each participated in a yearlong, university-funded Faculty Learning Community (FLC) entitled, Improving Teacher Quality and Fostering Reflective Habits of Mind and Professional Self-Efficacy through Action Research in Teacher Preparation. The goals of the FLC were to enhance members’ knowledge about action research, improve the quality of teaching among teacher education faculty, and ultimately, foster reflective habits of mind and professional self-efficacy for the teacher candidates they serve. FLC members met monthly to discuss various readings and develop a plan to determine what teacher educators perceive as challenges to providing preservice teachers with opportunities to engage in action research and to identify benefits of integrating action research into teacher education programs. These queries initiated and informed this study.
PAGE 43
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Procedure The study was announced via email to teacher education faculty in the Elementary and Early Childhood and Secondary and Middle Grades Departments at one large, public, comprehensive university in the Southeastern region of the United States. The message described the study as an investigation to determine the opportunities and challenges in attempting to integrate teacher action research into teacher education programs from a teacher educator perspective and to investigate teacher educator attitudes about the need to teach teacher action research in initial certification programs. The survey link took participants to an informed consent page that further explained the study, data collection procedures, and confidentiality and storage of the data. Participants who agreed with the informed consent statement were provided access to the survey. No demographic data were collected for this study. Participants Using a nonrandom sampling method, a total of 30 teacher educators, representing 51% of the 59 teacher educators in the Elementary and Early Childhood and Secondary and Middle Grades Departments, completed the survey. These participants were selected because they teach in the undergraduate and/or graduate programs. Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected using an online survey developed in Qualtrics, a web-based software. A survey was used for data collection because it was a time and cost-effectuve way to garner feedback (Sue & Ritter, 2007). The 16-question survey comprised of three types of questions: Likert format (closed-ended); dichotomous (closed-ended); and free response (open-ended), which created quantitative and qualitative databases. Quantitative and qualitative in nature, this study lends itself to be described as a convergent mixed method. In this approach, the researcher generally collects quantitative and qualitative data at the same time and merges these data in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
research problem. In this design, contradictions or incongruent findings are explained or further explored. The Likert and dichotomous questions provided numeric data for comparison, while the free-response questions provided text data for coding and theme development (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Quantitative data resulted from Likert-scaled items on the survey participants completed. The same survey also contained questions with dichotomous responses (yes/no) as well as nominal responses with two or more categories with no intrinsic order (yes/maybe/no and Bachelor/Master/Specialist/Doctoral). Because the most desired information was about teacher educator perceptions of challenges to providing preservice teachers with opportunities to engage in action research, a five-point scale was provided for participants: completely disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral, somewhat agree, and agree. The scale was applied to propositions to be responded to by degrees of approval. We view this data as ordinal because it can be ranked from negative to positive in degrees. We did not see a normal distribution in most responses; hence, we are reporting the data by number and/or percentage of each level of response (GĂśb, McCollin, & Ramalhoto, 2007; Sullivan & Artino, 2013). We realize there are limitations to using this type of data. Respondents may avoid using extreme response categories (central tendency bias), agree with statements as presented (acquiescence bias), or try to portray themselves in a more favorable light (social desirability bias) (Subedi, 2016). Researchers utilized inductive analysis (Patton, 1990) to make sense of the qualitative data. This approach allowed the authors to â&#x20AC;&#x153;explore the data without prior hypothesis. . . . It permits the researcher to discover reality without having to fit it into a preconceived theoretical perspectiveâ&#x20AC;? (Best & Kahn, 1998, p. 242). Data sets were read multiple times and individually coded by the authors. Each provided a rationale for the classification and generated a research memo with broad coding categories based on emerging patterns from the data. Analyses were shared and coding categories were discussed until consensus was found. Coding categories were refined and merged, producing broad
PAGE 44
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Heppner & Heppner, 2004; Miles & Huberman, 1984). As a study with an instrument with both quantitative and qualitative databases, it is important to speak on validity. In quantitative research, Joppe (2000) notes, validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit ‘the bull’s eye’ of your research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of others. (p. 1) However, some qualitative researchers have argued that validity is not applicable in qualitative studies and have chosen to develop their own concepts of validity or adopt more appropriate terms such as quality, rigor, and trustworthiness (Davies & Dodd, 2002; Golafshani, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001). For this paper, we adopted the term trustworthiness to address our qualitative databases. Trustworthiness of the data was garnered through co-coding procedures with three of the five authors. We used the constant comparative method and applied an open coding procedure (Anderson & Burns, 1989). Using axial coding, codes were assigned to the data (Burnaford, 2001). Once codes were developed, they were compared across all sets of data to ensure thematic coherence (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). After the data were collapsed (Taylor & Bodgan, 1984), codes were regrouped based on similarities across the data set. Themes were generated based on the research questions and the study’s purpose. Coding and sorting procedures were shared with a colleague outside of the study for feedback and criticism. Results and Findings Quantitative Results Overall, the quantitative results of our study yielded contradictory information. While fewer than half the participants felt that teacher candidates should graduate knowing how to conduct classroom-based action-research, more than 75% strongly agreed that candidates should
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
graduate knowing how to perform tasks that would readily be informed by or enhanced through knowing how to conduct action research. The qualitative data may provide an explanation for this incongruity. Participants were asked several questions about action research. When asked at which level action research should be taught, 46.67% responded at the initial certification level, and 46.67% responded at the Master’s degree level. One participant (3.33%) believed that action research should be taught at the Education Specialist degree level and another at the Doctorate level. There are many approaches and forms of action research in teacher education (Barbre & Buckner, 2013; Price & Valli, 2005), due primarily to the various theoretical orientations implemented by action researchers (Norasmah & Chia, 2015). To some teacher education faculty, the edTPA (Teacher Performance Assessment), a national, summative performance assessment used to evaluate teacher candidates’ quality and preparation, could be utilized as action research. When asked if the completion of edTPA was a form of action research, only five (16.67%) participants responded yes, fifteen (40%) replied no, and thirteen (43.33%) responded maybe. This comprehensive assessment emphasizes three tasks (planning, instructing, and assessing) and includes artifacts demonstrating candidates’ abilities to implement the tasks during student teaching (Burns, Henry, & Lindauer, 2015). Specifically, the completion of various parts of edTPA (i.e., Task 4, Assessing Students’ Mathematics Learning in the Elementary Education edTPA Handbook) could be considered an action research project. Participants were also asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement to the following statement: Teacher candidates should graduate knowing how to (See Table 1). Findings revealed that most participants agree that preservice teachers should know how to make data-driven decisions (76.67%), utilize the power of systematic reflection on their own practice (76.66%), respond to the needs of their students (90%), and respond to the needs of their teaching context, (80%). Participants also felt strongly about the ability for preservice teachers
PAGE 45
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
to continue to grow professionally (89.66%) and have a sense of agency in their role as professionals (86.21%). It should be noted that only 46.67% of participants stated that preservice teachers should know how to conduct classroom-based action research. As researchers, we were baffled by this because all of these skills or abilities that participants felt preservice teachers should know how to do upon graduation are those that would be supported and enhanced through action research (Hine, 2013). According to Mills (2011) action research encourages teachers to become continuous learners. It also empowers teachers (Johnson, 2012) when they are proficient in collecting and using data to make informed decisions about their own schools and classrooms (Book, 1996; Fueyo & Koorland, 1997; Hensen, 1996). Empowered teachers can employ practices that best serve the needs of their students (Johnson, 2012) and, because of this, they are galvanized to make changes related to teaching and learning resulting in enhanced student achievement (Marks & Louis, 1997; Sweetland & Hoy, 2002). Surprisingly, the ability to conduct classroom-based action research received the lowest response for agreement from study participants. Table 1 Teacher Candidates Should Graduate Knowing How to
eight participants (26.67%) indicated yes, while 10 (33.33%) indicated no. Twelve respondents (40%) indicated maybe. When asked if room/time can be created to teach action research in their current initial certification programs, fourteen (46.67%) responded yes, while 5 (16.67%) responded no. Eleven (36.6%) participants (36.6%) responded maybe. Over half of the participants (n=18, 60%) showed significant interest in creating time to teach action research in their initial certification programs and believed it would be beneficial. Four (13.33%) did not believe it would be beneficial while eight (26.67%) were unsure and responded maybe. Sixteen (53.33%) participants were interested in teaching action research to undergraduates, while fourteen indicated no interest (23.33%) or unsure/maybe (23.33%). These data were astounding considering that 27 (90%) of the faculty members did not learn how to conduct action research in their initial certification program (Table 2) and only 13 (43.33%) had conducted action research in their own classroom as a PK-12 educator. The remaining faculty (56.67%) had not conducted action research in their classrooms. Table 2 Number of Participants Who Learned How to Conduct Action Research in Their Teacher Certification Program #
Answer
%
Count
1 2
Yes No
10 90
3 27
100
30
Total
When asked to reflect on the structure of our current initial certification programs and determine if there is time to teach action research based on pre-existing curricular requirements,
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
In reviewing the data holistically, we found ourselves with more questions. The faculty indicated that they thought teacher candidates should graduate with skills and abilities that would be strengthened by action research. More than half of the faculty (66.67%) responded yes or maybe when asked if time could be made in our current curriculum to teach action research, and 60% of the faculty were interested in creating time for action research. When asked if theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d like to teach action research, 76.66%
PAGE 46
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
responded yes or maybe. However, when responding to what preservice teachers should comprehend upon graduation, knowing how to conduct action research garnered the lowest level of agreement. This lead us to wonder what teacher educators perceive as challenges to providing preservice teachers with opportunities to engage in action research and what, if any, benefits exist to integrate action research into teacher education programs. Qualitative Results: Challenges The qualitative section of our study aligns with current literature on the challenges presented when integrating action research into undergraduate teacher preparation programs. As an open response question, participants were asked to identify possible challenges to teaching preservice teachers to engage in action research. Several key ideas emerged in the data and were organized into the following five themes: lack of time, constraints of partner districts, topics of greater importance, and readiness of preservice teachers. Lack of time. According to the University System of Georgia, a baccalaureate degree must contain a minimum of 120 semester hours and may not exceed the minimum exclusive of physical education activity, basic health, or orientation courses that the institution may require. A baccalaureate degree program must require at least 21 semester hours of upper division courses in the major field and at least 39 semester hours of upper division work overall. Exceptions to the 120 semester-hour baccalaureate rule must be made in the form of a request for Board approval to increase credit hours in the program. (2018) Because of state and university mandates, our Bachelor of Science degrees in both Early Childhood Education and Middle Grades Education have had to request a waiver to increase our minimum semester hours to 123 and 131-132 hours, respectively. Faculty indicated that “so much of our curriculum is mandated by outside entities. Because of this, it is hard to stay within the credit hour limit” according to one participant. This was a strong
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
refrain from many participants who also wrote that “the almost totally prescribed curriculum leaves little time for action research.” Another faculty member commented on all of the traditional components of teacher education that must be attended to: pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, educational philosophy, developmental psychology, foundations of education, classroom management, technological pedagogical content knowledge, and clinical experiences just to name a few. Six other participants also commented upon the lack of time. Many participants focused on the statemandated edTPA, making statements such as, “preparation for edTPA has also taken a lot of class time.” Others expressed criticism of the assessment exhorting that the “profit motivated edTPA requirements based upon the flawed public school model, where true developmentally appropriate individualized instruction seldom takes place, makes useful action research extremely difficult.” Some respondents, however, commented upon how we might even consider integrating action research into our existing programs. One participant wrote, “I believe in data driven teaching and impart what I can to students, usually in the context of differentiation/supports/edTPA requirements. To do action research justice, it would need to be a course in and of itself or in conjunction with an assessment course, in my opinion.” Other faculty, however, agreed that that the “time it would take to actually teach the processes of an action research project – [an] entire class should be devoted to action research.” Incorporating action research into our current program seemed impossible to others who observed that the “program would have to be reorganized.” One participant simply asserted that “AR is not essential in initial TP. There is no time for anything non-essential.” Constraints of partner districts. Speaking directly about the school systems with whom we partner, one participant remarked that “getting permission from schools for candidates to collect data and conduct research when they are not employees of the district” would be a big challenge. Another was specifically concerned
PAGE 47
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
about candidates being able to acquire “IRB permissions at the district level.” More importantly, one respondent wrote that it would “not practical for a preservice teacher to impose an action research agenda on a collaborating mentor teacher.” The need for stronger partnerships and shared accountability is discussed in many other studies. Levin and Rock (2003) and Kotsopoulos, Mueller, and Buzza (2012) found that most mentor teachers see their responsibility as assisting preservice teachers in becoming teachers rather than serving as a co-researcher; thus, the sole responsibility for completing an action research project falls on the preservice teacher who often receives very little support. The hierarchical structure in most field placement situations also adds stress to preservice teachers as they work to meet the expectations of their mentor teachers (Burbank & Kauchak, 2003). Topics of greater importance. One participant concurred with the previous assertion and responded, “We are so overloaded with things to teach in our undergraduate program that I think action research can wait until the graduate degree.” Some specific topics rated as more important were offered by another participant who noted, “There is enough work to create teachers who acknowledge and work to change deficit orientations to children, overcoming the cultural norms about what counts as teaching/education; further, they have plenty of work to learn to listen to children, and make instructional decisions based on children rather than the discipline; thirdly, they have plenty to learn about being critical of education itself, as a means to perpetuate white supremacy--and to develop strategies to work inside the system, to change the system, and teach students the same.” Readiness of candidates. Another challenge that was mentioned was the readiness of preservice teachers. This was expressed in various ways. Some participants worried that “students are learning basics of teaching; with teaching requirements, research might be too much to ask for” particularly given “students’ time commitments.” Due to student maturity, some faculty felt that there may be “push back
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
from students [because] they may not see the importance or value” of action research. Furthermore, concern was expressed regarding preservice teachers’ “lack of knowledge.” One participant specifically pointed out that “action research is one of the hardest forms of qualitative research since the researcher has to wear two different hats at the same time. They have to be a teachers and researchers at the same time.” This theme has emerged in other studies as well. Ulvik and Riese (2016) reported that their teacher candidates saw action research as a big task to fulfill and worried about competing tasks that needed to be completed during the term related both to their master’s studies and to subject didactics. Some of the challenges they expected to face were time pressure, thinking through a practice they had not yet developed and doing research in an unfamiliar class. (p. 449) Qualitative Results: Benefits Although a number of challenges were identified in our data set, a host of benefits were also listed. While we identified four themes among the obstacles listed, we only identified one theme in the benefits. Thankfully, this theme was positive benefits for preservice teachers. Based on the data, we further coded the responses in this theme and identified five subthemes: developing reflective practitioners, building confidence, empowering preservice teachers, preparing preservice teachers to individualize instruction, and helping preservice teachers learn to be systematic. Developing reflective practitioners. A key element of the action research process is posing a question, devising a strategy or plan, collecting data, and then reflecting on whether or not the goal was achieved or if the question was answered. This reflective process then drives the next phase of the research. Participants in this study offered a number of statements that led to the emergence of a code. Each of these examples alluded to the ways in which the action research process could foster the development of reflective teachers. Specifically, faculty indicated that by engaging in the action research process, we could “produce reflective practitioners” and “develop
PAGE 48
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
student teacher’s reflective abilities.” Respondents also indicated that the ability to reflect is a beneficial trait for teachers to have. Building confidence. This theme highlights the conjecture that knowing and using the action research process will lead to increased confidence from teachers. One respondent indicated that action research helps “teachers become more confident in their teaching practices.” Another faculty member commented that including action research in our programs will lead to the production of “knowledgeable, confident teacher candidates.” Although we did not ask participants to explain or further unpack their language from these responses, this is definitely a theme that we would want to further discuss in a focus group. While we can offer conjectures about how action research could “produce confidence,” the word confidence itself is subjective. Empowering preservice teachers. The focus of this sub-theme relates to teacher agency. On the surface, empowering a preservice teacher seems to closely relate to building their confidence. And although there is definitely a relationship between empowerment and confidence building, we teased these apart because the examples in this theme offered specific ways that teachers could use their empowerment to make instructional decisions. Calvert (2016) stated that “teacher agency is the capacity of teachers to act purposefully and constructively to direct their professional growth.” (p. 52). Biesta, Priestley, and Robinson (2015) define teacher agency as teachers’ “active contribution to shaping their work and its conditions—for the overall quality of education” (p. 624). We take these two definitions together that teachers have agency when they have the freedom to make decisions for themselves and their students as opposed to always being directed what to do. A few quotes from our participants that highlight this theme are: Preservice teachers “could investigate a problem of practice that THEY identify. In edTPA they are answering other people’s questions. They would have more ownership if they were asking their own questions.”
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
“Being able to identify and solve problems within the context of their own classroom.” “Teacher motivation and efficacy will be enhanced.” Learning to individualize instruction. Individualized student instruction is a hallmark of good teaching. Teachers need to be able to assess the needs of each student and tailor instruction that builds from their strengths. Although many teacher education programs address differentiation, truly providing individualized instruction plagues even seasoned teachers. A number of benefits to using action research in undergraduate programs suggested that action research can, “help teachers develop a better understanding of their students’ needs.” Additionally, respondents stated that preservice teachers “will be able to meet the needs of diverse learners” and “respond to diverse needs of children.” Learning to be systematic. “Anecdotal evidence simply does not carry weight in a datadriven world. Classroom teachers would be much better advocates for the students and teaching methods if they could support their claims with empirical evidence.” This participant’s quote sums up the spirit of this theme. Given the current state of schools and schooling, teachers are being required to justify their instructional decisions with data. While anecdotal notes are an important component of the data collection process, our respondents overwhelmingly stated that data collection, analysis, and reporting need to be more structured. Specifically, faculty indicated that the action research can help preservice teachers, “use data to answer questions” and lead to the “systematic examination and improvement of practices.” Another key component that manifested in this theme is the idea of objectivity. One faculty member commented that action research can support the “objective examination of effectiveness.” This is a critical element of a systematic approach because issues of validity, reliability, member checking, or validation from an outside expert would undoubtedly be included in the research process. In a time where historically marginalized students (particularly
PAGE 49
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations) continue to be overrepresented in special education and grade retention practices, objectivity in data collection is paramount. Discussion What is it that we, as teacher educators, expect pre-service teachers to know and be able to do at the end of their student teaching? How can learning to teach intertwine commitment to children, to content, to pedagogy, and to change? How can action research encourage pre-service teachers’ growth and development as teachers? What and how will pre-service teachers engage in the process of research? (Price, 2001, pp. 70-71) We, too, agree and recognize that all these questions need to be considered when developing and implementing action-research activities for preservice teachers. The commitment to action research in teacher preparation programs needs to be strategically and carefully situated in the process of learning to teach. It is vital that preservice teachers have the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of their specific subject area(s), their own teaching style and practice, areas of strength, and also those that need improvement. In fact, this is the very thing teachers are expected to continually do when they enter the field (Barbre & Buckner, 2013). When considering the possibility of implementing action research in teacher preparation, it is clear there will be challenges. Faculty may question whether their programs reflect what we believe is critical to initial teacher success, where action research rates on our “priority list” compared to other topics (e.g., culturally responsive pedagogy, edTPA), or even if our undergraduate students can really handle action research in meaningful ways? Given these concerns, which are all important, are we committed to overcoming challenges to ensure our future teachers are empowered, confident, have a strong, professional voice, develop as reflective practitioners and have the ability to engage students, parents, and colleagues in critical conversations for change (Phillips & Carr, 2014)?
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Limitations As with any study, this one was not without its limitations. Our population selection is a limitation; the data and participants represent only one university. The sample size of educators presented a limitation for the study in terms of the ability to generalize findings to a broader population of teacher educators. Because the purpose of the study was to explore teacher educators’ perceptions of challenges as it relates to integrating action research into teacher education programs and identifying any benefits to integrating action research in teacher education programs, this limitation did not hinder the overall value of the study. Finally, we also came to wonder if all of our respondents understood action research. One participant wrote that “data driven instructional decisions based on valid classroom assessment (such as that required by edTPA) is not action research because the purpose is local and immediate. It is not research and is not intended for distribution. AR is not essential in initial TP. There is no time for anything non-essential.” By its very nature, action research is local and immediate and is often used as a tool for teachers to investigate their own problems of practice. Further Research This study provided insight to researchers regarding action research and teacher preparation programs. It furnished a snapshot of how teacher preparers view the challenges and benefits involved when action research is incorporated into teacher preparation programs. With more and more focus on reflective teaching practices and the ability to educate new teachers in this process (Hong & Lawrence (2011), additional studies regarding this topic are critical in providing additional information about the future of action research in teacher preparation programs. There are several next steps to continue in the effort to improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers. The first step will be to reconcile the quantitative data with themes from qualitative coding. Next, ascertain school administrators’ beliefs and attitudes about teacher action research and practicing teachers’
PAGE 50
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
beliefs and attitudes about teacher action research. The final step to this research will be to triangulate data from all stakeholders: university faculty, P-12 administrators and inservice teachers. References Anderson, L., & Burns, R. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study of teachers, teaching, and instruction. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Barbre, J., III., & Buckner, B. (2013). Utilizing action research during student teaching: Should every teacher preparation program be doing this? SAGE Open, 3(1), 1-6. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in Education. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(6), 624-640. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). London: Allyn and Bacon. Book, C. L. (1996). Professional development schools. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (4th ed., pp. 194-210). New York, NY: Macmillan. Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model for professional development: Investigations into effective collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 499-514. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.003 Burnaford, G. (2001). Teacher’s work: Methods for researching teaching. In G. Burnaford, J. Fischer, & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry (pp. 49-82). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burns, B., Henry, J., & Lindauer, J. (2015). Working together to foster candidate success on the edTPA. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 6(2), 18-37. Calvert, L. (2016). The power of teacher agency. Learning Forward, 37(2), 51-56. Capobianco, B. M., & Feldman, A. (2010). Repositioning teacher action research in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 909-915. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical. Lewes, UK: Falmer Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health research, 12(2), 279-289.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Deemer, S. (2009). Using action research methodology to unite theory and practice. Teaching Educational Psychology, 3, 1-3. Ferrance, E. (2000). Action Research. Providence, RI: Brown University. Fueyo, V., & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 336-344. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0022487197048005003 Göb, R., McCollin, C., & Ramalhoto, M. F. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 601-626. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. Retrieved from https:// nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss4/6 Goodnough, K. (2010). Teacher learning and collaborative action research: Generating a “knowledge-of-practice” in the context of science education. Journal of Science Teaching Education, 21, 917-935. Gore, J., & Zeichner, K. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119-136. Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. CochranSmith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425-476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (4th ed., pp. 53-66). New York: Macmillan. Heppner, P. & Heppner, M. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation, and research: A guide for students in the helping professions. Stamford, CT: Thomson Learning. Hine, G. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151-163. Holter, A. C., & Frabutt, J. M. (2011). Action research in Catholic schools: A step-by-step guide for practitioners (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: Alliance for Catholic Education Press. Hong, C.E., & Lawrence, S. A. (2011). Action research in Teacher Education: Classroom inquiry, reflection, and data-driven decision making. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 4(2), 2011. Johnson, A. P. (2012). A short guide to action research (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm Keegan, R. (2016). Action research as an agent for enhancing teaching and learning in physical
PAGE 51
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
education: A physical education teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective. The Physical Educator, 73, 255-284. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press. Kotsopoulos, D., Mueller, J., & Buzza, D. (2012). Preservice teacher research: Early acculturation into a research disposition. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(1), 21-36. Retrieved from http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2012.643653 Lederman, J., & Lederman, N. (2015). Taking action as a researcher or acting as a researcher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 117-120. Levin, B. B., & Rock, T. C. (2003). The effects of collaborative action research on preservice and experienced teacher partners in professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 135-149. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487102250287 Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict: Selected papers on group dynamics (1935-1946). New York: Routledge. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Loughran, J. J. (2004). Student teacher as researcher: Accepting greater responsibility for learning about teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2), 212-220. Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implication of teacher empowerment for instruction, practice and student performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3102/01623737019003245 McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillian. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2010). You and your action research project (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2010). Inside out: Action research from the teacher researcher perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 9931011. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Mills, G. (2000). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. London: Prentice Hall International. Mills, G. E. (2011). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Mitchener, C., & Jackson, W. (2012). Learning from action research about science teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 45-64. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Noffke, S. E. (1992). The work and workplace of teachers in action research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 15-29. Norasmah, O., & Chia, S. (2015). The challenges of action research implementation in Malaysian schools. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2491, 43-52. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Perrett, G. (2003). Teacher development through action research: A case study in focused action research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 1-10. Phillips, D., & Carr, K. (2014). Becoming a teacher through action research: Process, content, and selfstudy. New York: Taylor & Francis. Price, J. (2001). Action research, pedagogy, and change: The transformative potential of action research in preservice teacher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 43-74. Price, J., & Valli, L. (2005). Preservice teachers becoming agents of change: Pedagogical implications for action research. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 57-72. Rust, F., & Meyers, E. (2006). The bright side: Teacher research in the context of educational reform and policy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12, 69-86. Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sagor, R. (2000). Guiding school improvement with action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sagor, R. (2011). The action research guidebook: A four state process of educators and school teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465-478. Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551-555. Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Subedi, B. P. (2016). Using Likert type data in social science research: Confusion, issues and challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences, 3(2), 36-49. Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L.A. (2007). Conducting on-line surveys. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541542. Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2002). School characteristics and educational outcomes: Toward
PAGE 52
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 703-729. Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York, NY: Wiley. Ulvik, M., & Riese, H. (2016). Action research in preservice teacher education–a never-ending story promoting professional development. Professional Development in Education, 42(3), 441-457. University System of Georgia. (2018). Academic programs: Academic Affairs Division: Credit hour requirements. Retrieved July 1, 2018, from https:// www.usg.edu/academic_programs/changes/credit_ hour_requirements Wiens, P. D., Hessberg, K., LoCasale-Crouch, J., & DeCoster, J. (2013). Using a standardized videobased assessment in a university teacher education program to examine preservice teachers’ knowledge related to effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 33, 24-33.
Vásquez has been recognized as an exceptional educator at the national, state, and institutional level receiving the Milken Educator Award, being a regional finalist for Florida Teacher of the Year, and winning the University of South Florida Provost’s Outstanding Undergraduate Teaching Award. Her research interests include all aspects of the clinical preparation of teachers to serve diverse learners. Marrielle Myers, PhD Dr. Myers is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Kennesaw State University. Dr. Myers has over 15 years of experience in tutoring, teaching, and providing professional development for various areas of K-12 mathematics. Her professional development work and research presentations have taken her across the country as well as to the Caribbean and South America. Dr. Myers’ research interests include preparing preservice elementary teachers to teach mathematics to culturally and linguistically diverse students, teaching mathematics for social justice, and supporting preservice teachers of color in navigating field placements. Raynice Jean-Sigur, PhD Dr. Jean-Sigur is a Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Kennesaw State University. She along with her colleagues began the Birth through Kindergarten Undergraduate program which offers certification and non-certification in Birth through Kindergarten education. She currently serves as the program coordinator for the EdD, EdS, and MEd programs in Teacher Leadership.
About the Authors Charlease Kelly-Jackson, EdD Dr. Kelly-Jackson is an Associate Professor of Science Education in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Kennesaw State University. Her research interests and scholarship include preservice and inservice teacher learning and professional development, specifically around science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); culturally relevant/responsive pedagogy; and professional development school (PDS) partnerships. Dr. Kelly-Jackson served as the coordinator for the faculty learning community that served as the springboard for this research study.
Sohyun An, PhD Dr. An is an Associate Professor of Social Studies Education in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Kennesaw State University. She received BS and MS degrees in social studies education from Seoul National University in South Korea, and her PhD degree in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of WisconsinMadison. Her teaching and research are informed by critical race theory, AsianCrit theory, social justice education, and global citizenship education.
Anete Vásquez, PhD Dr. Vásquez is an Associate Professor in the Department of Secondary and Middle Grades Education at Kennesaw State University. Dr.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 53
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Understanding Oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Racial and Cultural Identity: A Precursor to Becoming a Culturally Responsive Teacher Winston Vaughan, Xavier University As we educate pre-service teachers for changing demographics within our schools in the 21st century, it is paramount for them to fully understand themselves from a cultural and racial perspective. Banks (2001) suggests that we must first understand ourselves from the perspective of who we are and where we came from before we can begin to understand others. According to Banks (2001), Bennet (2003), and Brown (2005), knowing valuing and sharing the subconscious and conscious cultures of self is a precursor to cross-cultural competence. Therefore, if pre-service teachers are going to be fully prepared for the changing demographics in our schools and be more culturally competent educators, they must first examine themselves from a cultural/racial perspective. They should examine themselves and reflect on their personas to learn what factors played into who they are today, and from a cultural perspective examine the prejudices, biases, and misconceptions they might have about individuals who may be different from themselves. Teacher educators and students alike should seek to understand their personal evolution, as this shapes our notions of selves as individual and interdependent identities (Vavrus, 2006). Banks (2001) argues that one-third of our nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s school children are students of color. Further projections show that by the year 2020 about 48-50 percent of the student population will be students of color (Banks 2006; Nieto & Bodie, 2008). Likewise, the rise of students whose first language is not English has also been challenging
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
for educators. In some cases more than 100 different languages have been documented, which indicates that many students in our nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schools are culturally different from their teachers. Research suggests that with the changing demographics in our schools, teacher education programs must prepare teachers with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that will enable them to be more culturally responsive in the classroom, enabling them to meet the challenges of a changing school population (Banks, 2001; Delpit, 1995; Gay, 2000; LadsonBillings, 1995; Nieto & Bodie, 2012). On the other hand, Bennett (2003), Brown (2005), and Gollnick and Chinn (2009) in their research suggest that in order to raise the crosscultural cognizance and sensitivity to diversity of pre-service teachers, opportunities should be provided for them to examine and reflectively clarify and share the foundations of their own cultural frames of reference (race, class, ethnicity and religion). Likewise, Banks (2001) and Sleeter (1995) advocate for diversity training with selfexamination exercises which require them to examine their own cultural identities before exploring the culture of others. Banks (2015) also advocates for programs that will help students explore and clarify their cultural identity so that they can recognize and respond sensitively to the complex cultural identities and characteristics found in the classroom. Self-reflection. therefore, is a critical step in developing cultural identity as a teacher. Our identities begin to develop when we are willing to critically examine ourselves and our culture in the
PAGE 54
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
face of others. In doing so, we will be able to perceive our own culture and ourselves more completely. Culturally Responsive Teaching According to (Gay 2010), culturally responsive teaching calls for educators to engage in more comprehensive instruction that utilizes the cultural background of their students as a tool for engagement. It emphasizes the idea of teaching to and through personal and cultural strengths validating and affirming what students bring to the classroom. Gay (2000) defines culturally responsive teaching as using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively. It is based on the assumption that when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of reference of students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly. Gay (2010) also argues that our current education system is based on the Eurocentric model that forces other minorities to conform to the system. Therefore, in order for teaches to engage in culturally responsive teaching and learning, they must first understand the system and try to create learning environments where studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cultures are valued, respected, and incorporated into the teaching learning process. Cultural Identity According to Blackledge and Pavlenko (2001), identity may be defined as a negotiation between how one sees oneself and how one is seen by others. Phinney (1993) posits three stages of ethnic identity. The first is Unexamined Ethnic Identity. This suggests a lack of exploration of culture and cultural differences. There is no cultural thought and cultural ideas provided by parents, society and media are readily accepted. The second stage is Ethnic Identity Search. There are questions and exploration of culture to learn more about it. There are questions about what your beliefs are, where they came from, and why you have them. There is also a willingness to
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
examine your own culture with comparisons to other cultures. Finally there is Ethnic Identity Achievement. At this stage individuals have a clear sense of their identity and are able to navigate it through a complex world which can be very interconnected and intercultural. Cultural Identity is about how individuals or groups see and define themselves and how others may identify them. This is formed through socialization and the influence of social institutions and media. Tatum (1997) argues that the concept of identity can be very complex, influenced by the family, history, and social and political factors. According to Gollnick and Chinn (2002) and Sheets and Hollins (1999), cultural identity may change throughout life in response to economic, political, educational, or social experiences. Having an awareness of self-concept and cultural identity provides the foundation for how students define themselves. The readiness of teachers to recognize their own cultural identities and how these shape attitudes toward learning is an important first step in recognizing and respecting learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cultural identities (Freire, 1998). Exploring oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cultural and ethnic identity is essential to self-understanding, autonomy, and interdependence. Pre-service teachers should be cognizant of the fact that having good understanding of themselves is a prerequisite for understanding others, especially those students who may be different from themselves. The purpose of this paper is to describe how some selected strategies used in a foundations cultural diversity course in the teacher education program at a Midwestern university helped preservice teachers self-reflect on their personas from a cultural perspective in order to try to ascertain certain aspects of their racial/cultural identity. The intent is to share some of the various strategies students engaged in during the initial phases of the course to help them understand who they are and what cultural biases/prejudices they might have before trying to understand students from culturally diverse backgrounds. This course consisted of primarily white students who attended private Catholic schools and who in most cases had very little experience with diversity in their communities or
PAGE 55
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
schools. To help students gain a better understanding of themselves, strategies were developed that would allow them to self-reflect on their cultural identities and experiences The intension was to help them become more culturally sensitive and aware in order to develop new knowledge and dispositions about ways of thinking pertaining to issues of diversity. Students The majority of students were white female undergraduates and graduates specializing in Early Childhood Education, Special Education, Middle Childhood Education, Montessori Education, and other disciplines outside of education. For all students this was the first required course taken in cultural diversity. Course Description “Cultural Diversity in Educational Settings” is one of the courses designed to meet the diversity requirements set by the state. All students majoring in Early Childhood Education, Special Education, Middle Childhood Education, and Montessori Education are required to take this course to meet the requirements for graduation. In this course students explore areas pertaining to race, class, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion, stereotyping racism, and discrimination, and the impact on the process of schooling. They also engage in self-reflection exercises from a racial/cultural perspective, which helps them to better understand their cultural identities to before they try to understand the education process. Process Research indicates that before one can begin to understand others, one must first understand oneself. At the beginning of the course, students are asked to critically self-reflect on their experience with diversity by examining their world with respect to diversity through an exercise called My World. In this exercise, students examine their lived experiences with respect to diversity and how those may impact their teaching of diverse learners. Then they are required to self- reflect on their racial/cultural identities by designing a Cultural Puzzle and on
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
their world as it relates to diversity by identifying with Banks’ Stages of Cultural Identity. Cultural Puzzle The Cultural Puzzle, based on the work of Brown (2005) is a self-reflecting activity that encourages students to examine their cultural and racial identity by designing a cultural puzzle highlighting the cultural forces that have made them who they are today. In self-reflecting, each student designs a puzzle depicting how they became the person they are today; they examine how, what, and by whom their current persona was shaped. Information is gathered by conducting family interviews that include the current generation (siblings, cousins, extended family), at least two from the previous generation (parents, aunts/uncles, primary care givers), and at least two generations prior (grandparents, extended family). If students are quite knowledgeable of their cultural/racial identity they would not be required to do family interviews. In designing their puzzles, students are asked to be as creative as possible during the process. Puzzles can be in all shapes and formats including real puzzles with pieces, collages, and pictures of themselves with their descriptors around them. However, to further elaborate on this, students are given Brown’s (2005) vision of her cultural puzzle and asked to compare it to their own puzzles. Brown’s puzzle consists of cross-cultures, dialect, ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, family, religion, urban elements, and ability. Students then discuss the comparisons and any significant aspects of their puzzles as well as Brown’s vision. After comparing and contrasting their puzzles, the preservice teachers are then required to rank the various categories that they have included in their puzzles from 1-10, with 10 being the most important and 1 being the least important. They next select the two most important elements and write a brief paper discussing why these two selections have played the most significant role in shaping their racial/cultural identities. Finally, they are required to present the major aspects of their puzzles to their classmates.
PAGE 56
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Stages of Cultural Identity Banks (2015) suggests a typology that attempts to outline the basic stages of the development of cultural identity among individuals. Stage 1 is Cultural Psychological Captivity, when the individual internalizes the negative societal beliefs about his/her culture that are institutionalized within society, there is low selfesteem, cultural self-rejection and shame of his/her cultural group and identity. Stage 2 is Cultural Encapsulation, when the individual is ethnocentric and practices cultural separation, participates within his/her own setting, and believes that his/her cultural group is superior to other groups. Stage 3 is Cultural Identity Clarification, in which the individual accepts self and has clarified attitudes toward his/her own culture, responds more positively to other cultures, and is able to understand the positive and negative aspects of his/her culture. Stage 4 is Biculturalism, when the individual has the attitudes, skills, and commitment needed to participate within his/her own cultural group as well as within another cultural group. Stage 5 is Multiculturalism and Reflective Nationalism, in which the individual has reflective, cultural, and national identifications; the skills, attitudes, and commitment needed to function within a range of ethnic and cultural groups within his/her nation; has a strong commitment to the nation/state and its values such as human dignity and justice; and views the USA as multicultural and multilingual country. Finally Stage 6, which is Globalism and Global Competency, indicates that the individual has reflective and positive cultural, national, and global identifications as well as the knowledge, skills, and commitment needed to function within his/her nation and the world. Using the Stages of Cultural Identity, preservice teachers examine their identities and their world to ascertain some perspective with which stage(s) they might identify. They then write a short paragraph explaining how and why they identify with their selected stage. Observations Examining the designed puzzles and their presentations, it was discovered that many
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
commonalities emerge among students. Very evident were family and religion. However, in comparison to Brown’s (2005) vision, preservice teachers in general identified primarily with family and religion, and in fewer cases gender. Students seemed not to identify with most of Brown’s vision. Therefore, from the cultural puzzles, students’ presentations, written papers, discussions, and observations, it became very evident that families and religion were the most common in shaping most of the pre-service teachers’ racial /cultural identities. Some students had interesting comments. One student suggested that family was the most significant because her family molded her values, beliefs, and outlook on life. Her parents promoted the values of love, family, kindness, and education and helped her to become the person she is today. Another student commented that her parents taught her everything she knew and they are always a reminder to be a good, respectful person. A third student said that her family has given her opportunities to succeed, unconditional support, and has taught her the value of family because they are the people who will always be there for her. Finally, with respect to religion, one student stated that growing up as a Catholic was the basis for the morals and values that were instilled in her from childhood, and everything she was involved with centered around her faith because it is the center of life. With reference to identifying with Banks’s Stages of Cultural Identity, preservice teachers tend to identify mostly with Cultural Identity Clarification and Globalism and Global Competency. In Cultural Identity Clarification the individual accepts self and has clarified attitudes toward his/her own culture, respond more positive to other cultures, are able to understand the positive and negative aspects of his/her culture. Cultural pride is genuine and there is self-acceptance. In Globalism and Global Competency, the individual has reflective and positive cultural, national, and global identifications along with the knowledge skills and commitment needed to function within his/her nation and the world.
PAGE 57
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Some comments from students with reference to Cultural Identity Clarification were as follows: “I definitely have ideas, beliefs and value my own culture, but I am always openminded towards other cultures and races other than my own.” “I identify with this stage the most. I feel that I am accepting to other cultures and find them very interesting.” “I feel like I am in this stage because I accept the culture I am associated with and have positive influences on other cultures.” “I relate to this stage because I do accept myself as an individual and I have much respect for all cultures. I can view a story from multiple perspectives since I am not close-minded.” “I would consider myself in stage 3 because I have a well informed and clear attitude about my own culture. I try to ignore stereotypes and accept everyone no matter what their culture is. My attitude is not that my culture is better, but each culture is valuable and contributes their own unique characteristics.” Discussion From paper presentations, discussions and observation of puzzles, students seemed to have a general understanding of who they are, but evidence does not support that they have a true sense of the deeper underpinnings of the forces that might help to shape their lives. No student produced a puzzle as to how Brown (2005) envisioned the activity. Most puzzles depicted something that was significant to their personal histories (cars, clothes, shoes, animals, etc.). Preservice teachers did not have a good understanding of how developed identity determines behavior, such as who you are as a person determines the kind of clothes you wear, the kind of car you drive, as well as the kinds of food you eat. Observations from the stages of cultural identity suggest that preservice teachers identified with the stages that showed that they are confident with who they are as a person and their ability to make contributions to the nation as well
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
as from a global perspective. This observation is of interest since Banks (2015) suggests that individuals are likely to experience stage 3 when they have attained a certain level of economic success and have had positive experiences with members of other cultural groups. Most preservice teachers in this situation have not reached certain levels of economic success, and from earlier observations it was discovered that the majority of the preservice teachers lack diversity experience. With the changing demographics in our nation’s schools, teacher educators in preparation programs must be willing to provide opportunities for preservice teachers to selfreflect on their identities in order to gain a better understanding of who they are as a person and in society before embarking on the journey of trying to understand other people’s children. Meece (1997) advocates that having a good understanding of their own ethnic and cultural identities will help white teachers have a better understanding of minorities, especially pertaining to stereotypes, and misconceptions. References Banks, J. A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum and teaching (4th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural Diversity and Education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th ed). Boston: Pearson. Banks, J. A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (6th ed). NewYork: Pearson. Bennett, C. (2003). Comprehensive multicultural education: theory and practice (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Blackledge, A., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 5, 243-257. Brown, E. L. (2005). Service Learning in teacher education: Creative strategies for alternative routes to certification. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38(1), 61-74. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. NewYork, NY: The New Press. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
PAGE 58
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (2009). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Meece, J. L. (1997). Child and adolescent development for educators. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165. Nieto, S., & Bodie, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: A sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Nieto, S., & Bodie, P. (2012). Affirming diversity: A sociopolitical context of multicultural education (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Phinney, J. S. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity development in adolescence. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61-79). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Sheets, R. H., & Hollins, E. R. (1999). Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sleeter, C. E., (1995). White pre-service students and multicultural education coursework. In J. M. Larkin & C. E. Sleeter (Eds). Developing multicultural education curricula (pp. 81-94). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?: And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books. Vavrus, M. (2006). Teacher identity formation in a multicultural world: Intersections of autobiographical research and critical pedagogy. In D. Tidwell & L. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Self-study and diversity (pp. 89-113). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
About the Author Winston Vaughan, PhD Dr. Vaughan is an Associate Professor in the School of Education at Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH. His research interests are culturally responsive teaching and learning, multicultural education, middle childhood social studies education, and adolescent development.
PAGE 59
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Using Supports to Improve Teacher Work Sample Portfolio (edTPA) Outcomes Kathleen Fabrikant and Cynthia Bolton, Armstrong State University, Cindy S. York, Northern Illinois University, and Angie Hodge, Northern Arizona University
Educator preparation programs (EPPs) have been the target for change on national, state, and local levels. This changing landscape has included all areas of education preparation from candidate selection, pre-service curricula, and comprehensive field experiences to data collection, candidate/completer tracking, and performance assessment. The ultimate objective for many of these changes is that beginning teachers will have the pedagogical skills and expertise in planning, management, and assessment on the first day of school. One initiative the state of Georgia has implemented to meet this objective is a national high-stakes work sample portfolio assessment, edTPA. Understanding how it was supported at the site at which the current research took place could lead to ease of implementation for other institutions. edTPA is a national performance-based assessment that focuses on the content pedagogy and student learning in a classroom (Wie & Pecheone, 2010). It has been adopted by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC) as a high stakes assessment for all preservice candidates eligible for a Certificate of Eligibility or Induction Certificate. Both GaPSC and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation endorse edTPA as a tool for program accreditation. In an era in which teacher education has been challenged to demonstrate its effectiveness, performance assessments have emerged not only as useful measures of teacher performance but also as a way to
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
evaluate the quality of credential programs for state accountability systems and program accreditation. (Pecheone & Cheung, 2006, p. 23) This study focused on the teacher candidate supports built through the collaborative efforts of faculty, staff, and cooperating teachers. This ongoing study illustrates how the collaborative team listened to candidate and faculty voices and engaged stakeholders as they constructed specific supports in response to data gathered. Background One of the integral supports provided for our teacher candidates as they complete the mandated edTPA portfolio (AACTE, 2016) for certification is the professional development of the faculty who teach and guide them. The motivation and pedagogical content knowledge of the faculty are the foundations of student outcomes. Schieb and Karabenick (2011) highlighted several themes leading to successful motivation through professional development. From systemic reforms such as curriculum alignment to the mentoring of candidates through the edTPA process, the understanding and engagement of the faculty is necessary. To that end, professional development workshops were designed to teach supervising faculty the process of local scoring by the edTPA Coordinator. An analysis of data gathered each semester led to supports tailored to the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s candidates in an effort to result in a successful completion of the edTPA portfolio requirement (Petty, Heafner, Lachance, & Polly,
PAGE 60
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
2016; Suleiman & Byrd, 2016). Curricular revisions and updates helped candidates better understand the process and requirements earlier in the program of study (Hobbs, 2015). The use of exemplars (Burns, Henry, & Lindauer, 2015) by candidates proved to be a useful support as evidenced by program completer surveys at the end of each semester. Another important support suggested by the work of Burns et al. and Greenblatt (2016) was that cooperating teachers should be better informed about the edTPA process and how its requirements impacted their student teachers. Research has shown that supports are necessary for a successful completion of the edTPA portfolio and the types and frequency of those supports can be generalized to some degree, but they should also be designed around the unique needs of teacher candidates at specific universities (Barron, 2015). This case study explored how one university utilized specific supports designed to guide candidates as they developed their edTPA portfolios. The purpose of this study was to determine how to best support teacher candidates’ edTPA completion. The following research questions were examined: Given multiple supports during the edTPA process, which supports did teacher candidates find most useful? After implementation of an edTPA state requirement, how did cooperating teachers view their role as a support to those candidates specifically in the development of their edTPA portfolios? How did supervising faculty view their role as a support to teacher candidates as the students completed the edTPA portfolios? Methods Study Context This study took place at a public university in southeastern Georgia with an enrollment of about 7,000 students. Most (72%) of the teacher education candidates in this study were placed within the same large (~35,000 students) school district as the university, with only a few (28%) placed in outlying counties. The schools included urban, suburban, and rural districts
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
with a wide diversity of enrolled students. The study was conducted over eight semesters: spring 2014, fall 2014, spring 2015, fall 2015, spring 2016, fall 2016, spring 2017, and fall 2017. Background and Participants The university created an edTPA pilot program that consisted of volunteers from each of five programs (BS and MS Early Childhood Education, Special Education Masters of Arts in Teaching, BS in Mathematics, and Visual Arts) during the spring 2014 semester when the university was notified by the state that edTPA would be mandatory for all program completers beginning fall 2015. During the academic year 2014-2015, though every teacher candidate was required to submit a portfolio for local scoring, only randomly selected candidates representing each program and level submitted portfolios for official scoring by Pearson that were paid for by the college. That feedback was used to further develop candidate supports for edTPA as well as plan professional development for supervising faculty. Initial supports for candidates in the pilot semesters included video support seminars, LiveText and Pearson submission support, edTPA portfolio exemplars, and the edTPA resource library. All resources were available in LiveText and included seminar PowerPoint presentations and resources for supervising faculty, content mentors (faculty experts in content areas), and cooperating teachers. Plans for assessing the impact and effectiveness of the supports resulted in the development of teacher candidate surveys, supervising faculty surveys, and cooperating teacher surveys and structured interview protocols. Teacher candidates were surveyed at the conclusion of the official LiveText submission seminars from fall 2015 through fall 2017. Surveys were provided to both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers for those same three semesters. Cooperating teachers were also interviewed using the structured protocol at the conclusion of the fall 2016 semester. Participants consisted of the university’s teacher candidates who were completing student teaching and were required to complete edTPA
PAGE 61
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
during one of the eight semesters during which data were collected (spring 2014, fall 2014, spring 2015, fall 2015, spring 2016, fall 2016, spring 2017, and fall 2017). Teacher candidate participants were both undergraduate and graduate students completing an educator preparation program. Cooperating teacher participants consisted of six teachers across different program areas (elementary education; music; visual arts; and secondary history, science, and mathematics). Supervising faculty participants consisted of fifteen university academic and clinical faculty. Table 1 shows the number of teacher candidate participants and program areas represented by those candidates involved across the eight semesters. The fall 2015 semester was the first semester the edTPA was required for candidates to pass in order to be eligible for a state Induction Certificate or Certificate of Eligibility. Programs for candidates included early childhood, special education, health and physical education, secondary science, secondary history, secondary English language arts, secondary mathematics, art, and music. Early childhood, special education, and secondary education are offered at both the Bachelor of Science and Master of Arts levels at the university involved in this study. Table 1 edTPA Teacher Candidate Participation Semester 1- Spring 2014 (Pilot) 2 - Fall 2014 (Pilot) 3 - Spring 2015 (Pilot) 4 - Fall 2015 5 - Spring 2016 6 - Fall 2016 7 - Spring 2017 8 - Fall 2017
Candidates
Programs Represented
9 26 22 72 71 69 72 63
5 9 8 9 9 9 9 9
Data Collection Instruments Data collection consisted of teacher candidate surveys (semesters 1-8), cooperating
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
teacher surveys (semesters 1-6), as well as supervising faculty (semesters 6-8). In order to obtain richer data, structured interviews with cooperating teachers were conducted during semester 6. Teacher candidate survey. Teacher candidates responded to a survey at the end of each of the eight semesters (see Table 1). The survey was modified for clarity during the first three semesters, as the edTPA was being piloted, and only scores for semesters 4-8, when the edTPA was required (identified as highly consequential) were used for this study. The final survey consisted of ten prompts: 1. How many clock hours did you spend compiling the portfolio (outside of teaching/personal responsibilities)? 0-20; 21-40; 41-60; 61-80; 81 or more 2. Rank in order of VALUE the following support structures provided: Friday seminars; Content mentors; edTPA handbooks; edTPA exemplars; LiveText submission support; Video support seminars/learning commons; Other (please explain) 3. Please explain selection of “other” in Q2. 4. What types of things did the process mentor (university supervisor) do to provide edTPA support? (Please check all that apply). Provide information about deadlines; Help you locate our support resources; Help you with challenges (if any) at your school; Open ended comments… 5. What types of things did the content mentor do to provide edTPA support? (Please check all that apply). Meet with you on a regular basis; Give you timely feedback about your portfolio documents; Be available for questions/concerns; Open ended comments… 6. How helpful was: (rated on a 5-point scale of 1 [not helpful at all] to 5 [excellent support]): Process Mentor (university supervisor); Content Mentor; Cooperating teacher; Video support seminars/learning commons; Submission support seminars
PAGE 62
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
7. How much support did you get in the use of Academic Language? (rated on a 5point scale of 1 [not helpful at all] to 5 [excellent support]) 8. What type of technology recording device did you use to record your video? Smartphone; Tablet; Video/Digital camcorder; Laptop; Support/Tripod; Open ended comments… 9. How has the edTPA portfolio impacted your teaching and learning? (rated on a 5 point scale of 1 [waste of time], 2 [learned nothing new], 3 [somewhat useful, but too time consuming] to 5 [excellent support]) 10. Completing edTPA, what kind (if any) obstacles occurred? Focus student(s) moved away; Trouble with video permission slips; Video transfer/audio/technical issues; Lack of feedback from Content Mentor; Open ended comments… The survey questions were developed from a document analysis from the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE) materials available in the AACTE resource library as well as documents and PowerPoint presentations from College of Education (COE) sponsored seminars and informational sessions on edTPA (SCALE, 2015a). Cooperating teacher survey. The cooperating teacher survey was developed by the edTPA Coordinator, the Director of the Office of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice Placements (OFECPP), and the Associate Dean, all of whom were active participants in supporting the candidates during their last two years and especially during their final semester. The cooperating teacher survey consisted of 21 questions: 1. Which area do you teach? 2. How many years have you taught or worked in schools (either public or private)? 3. Please rate your satisfaction: Our Office "The Office of Field Experiences, Clinical Practice, and Partnerships" Armstrong State University 4. Please explain (OFECPP):
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
5. Please rate your satisfaction: Cooperating Teacher Handbook 6. What could we do to improve? (Cooperating Teachers Handbook): 7. Please rate your satisfaction: Cooperating Teacher Orientation (in person or webinar) 8. What could we do to improve? (Cooperating Teacher Orientation): 9. Please rate your satisfaction: University Supervisor 10. What could we do to improve? (University Supervisor): 11. Please rate your satisfaction: Intern (teacher candidate) 12. What could we do to improve? (Intern): 13. Please rate your satisfaction: LiveText Field Experience Module (FEM) 14. What could we do to improve? (Field Experience Module): 15. Did you provide support for your intern's edTPA portfolio development? 16. If yes, please explain (edTPA support): 17. Are you willing to serve as a cooperating teacher again? 18. Please explain (willing to serve again): 19. Overall, do you feel adequately prepared to serve as a Cooperating teacher? (Yes / No) 20. Please explain (prepared): 21. How can our Office of Field Experience at Armstrong State University more effectively support you? The questions on the survey were developed from informal discussions with cooperating teachers as well as from their responses to a general survey sent to them by the OFECPP each semester, which only marginally addressed the cooperating teacher’s role in classroom supports for edTPA. Cooperating teacher structured interview. Structured interviews of the fall 2016 cooperating teacher participants were conducted during the spring 2017 semester in order to gain more in-depth data regarding their perceptions than was evident through the survey. The purpose of the interviews was to determine how cooperating teachers viewed their role in relation to edTPA as their candidates taught in their classrooms and completed the classroom
PAGE 63
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
requirements of the edTPA portfolio. Six teachers from various content fields (elementary education; music; visual arts; and secondary history, science, and mathematics) volunteered to be interviewed. The structured interviews consisted of 10 questions: 1. How much did you know about edTPA before you met your intern? 2. Was the intern able to explain edTPA to you adequately? 3. Did the University Supervisor explain edTPA to you? If so, was it helpful information? 4. How do you perceive your role in supporting your interns in the edTPA process? 5. Do you believe that any of those supports could take away from your own teacher’s responsibilities? 6. Did you have to adjust your curriculum to accommodate edTPA? 7. What do you believe would be the most useful way to explain edTPA to cooperating teachers? 8. How do you envision your role as support for our intern’s edTPA requirements? 9. How can the university better support you in providing edTPA information? 10. In your opinion, was too much of your time spent on support for your candidate’s edTPA? The interviews were conducted by the second author of this paper who was a member of the research team. Supervising faculty survey. Perceptions of the professional development of faculty and clinical faculty (supervising faculty) who served as process and/or content mentors were also gathered via survey at the end of semester six as a way of formally gathering data rather than informal conversations about how to improve supervising faculty training. This survey consisted of nine of questions: 1. Did this training help you connect the commentaries with the rubrics? Yes – No, Please explain: 2. Do you have a better understanding of the appropriate type of advice you can
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
share with you candidates regarding edTPA? Yes – No, Comments: 3. Do you feel more confident about advising your candidates about edTPA? Yes – No, Comments: 4. Did working collaboratively with a colleague(s) to determine rubric scores help in your decision? Yes – No, Comments: 5. After learning the true Pearson score for your test portfolio, were you surprised at how close or far away your scores were? Yes – No, Comments: 6. How helpful were all four training sessions in helping you to determine the thinking behind national scoring? 1 (least helpful) 2-3-4-5 (most helpful) 7. Was the extra tutoring in how to work in LiveText with the edTPA portfolios helpful? Yes – No, Comments: 8. Do you feel more confident that you have the tools to appropriately guide your candidates through edTPA? Yes – No, Comments: 9. As a whole, were these training sessions helpful to you? 1 (least helpful) 2-3-4-5 (most helpful) The survey questions were developed by the edTPA committee after discussion of what data might help improve the process for the following years. Data Collection Procedures and Descriptions of Supports This study began during the pilot implementation of edTPA in spring 2014 through fall 2017. EdTPA was fully implemented during fall 2015. The study continued through the fall 2017 semester. As shown in Table 2, teacher candidate supports have been developed each semester. Table 2 describes the supports and which semesters they were utilized.
PAGE 64
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Table 2 Timeline and Description of Resources and Supports Provided Resource / Support
Description
Ad hoc edTPA team Semesters 1-4
This team was led by the Associate Dean, chair of the Assessment Committee, and included the Director of Field Experiences, LiveText Coordinator, and faculty representatives from each department. The charge was to plan pilot submissions, train faculty, supervisors, and cooperating teachers as well as communicate to stakeholders information regarding edTPA, and collect, analyze, and evaluate edTPA data to build supports for student success.
Process mentor (supervising faculty) Semesters 1-5
Process mentors were the university supervisors in charge of the candidatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; student teaching experiences. They had general knowledge about the edTPA process but no content specific knowledge.
Content mentor support (university faculty) Semesters 1-7
Content mentors were university faculty who were experts in their content areas and attended each seminar with their teacher candidates for edTPA presentations. They were given time to work with their candidates during each seminar and could also meet with them at other convenient times. That format was based on feedback from the 2014 seminar, when content mentors were not fully aware of the edTPA guidelines that had been shared with the candidates. The second year (2015), both candidates and mentors heard the same information from the same resources. Previously, clinical faculty only served as process mentors, which translated to supporting the deadlines and processes of edTPA, but with no knowledge of the content required in the edTPA portfolios. However, clinical faculty expressed a need to learn more about the requirements of the contents for edTPA. Based on that feedback, a series of four seminars was developed for the supervising faculty to be trained in local scoring and appropriate feedback for the teacher candidates.
Friday seminars Semesters 1-8
Seminars were held five times throughout the semester for a half day. The COE sponsored seminars held during the semester (across all eight semesters) provided additional instruction to candidates, supervisors, and mentors about edTPA tasks and rubrics. Originally, seminars were designed to give candidates information about student teaching and offer professional development opportunities. Since the implementation of edTPA, the majority of the four hour seminars was spent on understanding the parameters of the performance portfolio. Materials from each COE seminar, and an edTPA checklist were provided online for each candidate. Resources were reviewed during the seminars with time for questions and discussions and time at the end for work with content mentors. Each seminar ended in a discussion about what was going well and what was not. Candidates were given time to work with their content mentors and university supervisors and were able to ask questions at that point. Questions and discussions helped to plan subsequent seminars and professional training for content mentors and cooperating teachers.
Video support seminars/learning commons Semesters 1-8
Video editing seminars were offered to help candidates understand how to upload their videos with correct formats and size. Learning Commons was an additional place in the university student union where there were people on hand to help with any technology related issues.
LiveText submission support Semesters 1-8
Candidates were provided support for any LiveText portfolio issues by the LiveText administrator on campus. LiveText was used by students to store all of their documents, and get feedback from any content mentors, cooperating teachers, and process mentors. The LiveText portfolio was set up to provide candidates a place to create and edit their portfolio prior to submitting it to Pearson.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 65
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Pearson submission support seminars Semesters 1-8
Staff from LiveText, Education Preparation programs (EPP), and IT were on-site to assist in uploading documents and videos to the Pearson website. This seminar was scheduled for two hours, but would last up to four hours if candidates needed the time.
edTPA handbooks Semesters 1-8
The edTPA Resource Library (SCALE, 2015a) website contained all of the official edTPA publications created by SCALE for use by candidates, cooperating teachers, and content mentors. It contains more than 100 resources, however, our candidates were provided with content specific resources in their LiveText account for their use.
Cooperating teacher Semesters 1-7
Cooperating teachers were the teachers in the K-12 schools where the teacher candidates were student teaching. The cooperating teachers were provided with the edTPA guidance to supervising teachers document (SCALE, 2015b), which clearly details what kind of support is allowable and what is not. In addition, two university faculty created a webinar to help the cooperating teachers know what they could and should do to help teacher candidates with regarding the edTPA.
edTPA portfolio exemplars Semesters 4-7
Exemplars were developed in-house by the university based on a survey of graduating candidates in Spring 2015. Almost all candidates, and many faculty members, indicated a desire to see exemplar portfolios for their content areas. Exemplars were created from edTPA pilot participants in the 2014 semesters.
edTPA Coordinator Semesters 5-8
The position of an edTPA Coordinator was created to provide a position created central focus for training and coordinating of seminars and candidate supports.
edTPA Committee Semesters 5-8
The creation of an edTPA Committee served as an advisory group to review new policies and supports for candidates.
Seminar video recordings Semesters 5-8
Each edTPA seminar was recorded to provide access and support for candidates.
Professional development seminars Semesters 6-7
A series of four local training seminars were given to faculty to prepare them for serving as content mentors for the clinical faculty and/or teaching candidates
Interactive activities Semesters 6-7
A Teaching for Equity (Whittaker, 2016) segment was added to the first seminar to allow candidates to explore the rubrics that require equity in teaching. An interactive worksheet was provided for candidates to use throughout the seminar. A second interactive worksheet provided candidates with a place to summarize their video components and time stamps as required by content area. The first part was filled out before attending the video support seminar, the second part, during the seminar, and the third part before the final submission seminar.
Summer edTPA Camp Between semesters 7 and 8
The camp consisted of 50 invited Cooperating Teachers to campus for an all-day edTPA workshop. There were interactive sessions held in general and by content area to address specially the requirements of edTPA.
Boot Camp Semester 8
On campus Boot Camps were developed for Fall 2017, that were program-driven and relieved individual faculty from mentoring each candidateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s portfolio individually. Each program developed their own supports specifically designed for that content area. Some materials and presentations were provided by the edTPA Coordinator, as general supports that crossed all content areas. These included interactive work on scoring their past colleaguesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; portfolios and deep dives into the rubrics.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 66
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Beginning in the first pilot semester, teacher candidates were provided with the following resources and structures: seminars, content mentors, cooperating teachers, process mentor support, edTPA handbooks and resources, an ad hoc edTPA team, and LiveText and Pearson submission support (see Table 2). These remained as resources across all semesters with a few modifications based on ongoing data analysis and results, as noted below. Seminars for candidates were held on campus four times a semester. During the first seminar, an overview of edTPA was reviewed. Teaching for equity (Whittaker, 2016) was presented with an interactive sheet for candidates to use during a discussion of rubrics that ask for evidence of equity in teaching. The Context for Learning and the Context for Learning for Task 4 for elementary grades candidates were also covered in depth during that seminar. The second seminar focused almost exclusively on the Task 1 and planning documents to include lesson plans, instructional materials, planned assessments, and the planning commentary. Each of the first five rubrics was also discussed in depth. The third seminar focused on Task 2. Interns were given a threepart “assignment” to complete during the seminar, at the video support seminar, and for the final submission seminar. That visual aid was designed to help candidates critically analyze their videos. Rubrics 6-10 were covered in depth and video permission forms were collected and scanned into candidate’s LiveText accounts. The fourth seminar covered Task 3 and reviews of the first two tasks, as well as an in-depth review of rubrics 11-15 and what artifacts from Task 1 were to be completed in Task 3. For elementary education students, a separate seminar was given the same day as the first seminar by a faculty member who was an expert on Task 4 and guided them through it. Each seminar and professional development session was video recorded and posted in LiveText for candidate review. In addition, the PowerPoints, which included technical screen shots, were also posted the day of the seminar for candidates to review as needed. Each semester, there were two to four courtesy placements away from the campus area.
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Blackboard Collaborate was used to bring distant placements into the seminar virtually and provide someone to answer their questions during the seminars if needed. Modifications to Resources and Supports Starting in fall 2015 (semester four), 10 edTPA exemplars were added, one for each content area. Exemplars were developed inhouse by the university based on edTPA participants in the pilot semesters. Starting in spring 2016 (semester five), the ad hoc edTPA committee was disbanded and a permanent edTPA committee was formed. Also in spring 2016, the process mentor resource was removed. Originally, the process mentor and content mentor were two different resources getting different information and training. After spring 2016 the training for the two was combined into supervising faculty training so they received the same information. In addition, process mentors were no longer needed as the edTPA process had been communicated and learned by all university faculty involved. In the spring 2016 semester, the creation of the position of edTPA Coordinator and a permanent edTPA committee were added. The necessity for a central point of contact for candidates, faculty, and cooperating teachers had become evident. The coordinator had five responsibilities: a) to have an in-depth knowledge of all edTPA content areas used by university candidates, b) to deliver professional development to faculty undertaking the mentoring of candidates through the edTPA process, c) to serve as a resource to faculty, candidates, and schools, d) to attend and present at regional and national edTPA conferences, and e) to maintain a candidate database and chair a retake committee for candidates. The edTPA Coordinator was also responsible for chairing the edTPA committee which included members from each teacher education program at the university. It had the responsibility of determining candidate supports, the structure of the submission seminar, the EPP’s retake policy, and a continual restructuring of how the university can better support teacher candidates. With policies in place and approved, the edTPA committee better defined the role of faculty support for teacher candidates. Spring 2016 also
PAGE 67
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
began the video recording and storage of seminars for participants to refer to at any time. These recordings were housed in LiveText and accessible 24/7. Seminar days were restructured during fall 2016 and spring 2017 (semesters six and seven), to give candidates free time to write and collaborate either with their colleagues or with their faculty content mentors. In most cases, their content mentors were also their university supervisors in the classroom. A professional development seminar time was included before lunch for which candidates were given credit toward their Intern Keys requirements (Georgia Department of Education, 2014). Other interactive activities were added starting in fall 2016. These included the Teaching for Equity emphasis in the first candidate seminar, a interactive worksheet for students to use to track their Task 2 video preparation, and a "ticket in the door" for the final submission seminar which included how each file was named, the number of files required, and the type of document. Cooperating teachers were interviewed during the spring 2017 semester to determine their perceptions of the role they played in appropriately supporting their candidates as they developed their edTPA portfolios. Also during the spring 2017 semester, three university supervisors hosted interactive discussion sessions about topics in Intern Keys, which closely mirrors the Teacher Keys evaluation used by the state to evaluate teachers. Topics included how to plan and complete authentic assessments, how to differentiate effectively, and the importance of professional communication. Data Analysis The survey data from teacher candidate participants from fall 2015, spring 2016, fall 2016, spring 2017, and fall 2017 were used to rank all of the supports and resources available in terms of how participants perceived their usefulness to completion of the edTPA. Two prompts from the survey were analyzed for this paper: Prompt 2, Rank in order of VALUE the following support structures, and Prompt 6, How HELPFUL was [each support resource listed]. Prompt 2 listed the following supports: edTPA
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
seminars, content mentors, edTPA handbooks, edTPA exemplars, LiveText submission seminar, and video support seminar. For spring 2015 and fall 2016, two additional supports were added: peer support and edTPA resources, which included Making Better Choices, Rubric Level Progressions, and other resources available on the edTPA website. Prompt 2 required participants to rank order their preference for usefulness of provided resources. A score was then calculated for each support and allowed a comparison of the supports. Survey prompt 6, regarding the helpfulness of each support resource, was rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not helpful at all) to 5 (excellent support). That prompt listed support personnel such as the process mentor (university supervisor), content mentor (program faculty), cooperating teacher, video support (Learning Commons), and submission support (LiveText Coordinator). The cooperating teacher survey contained both open-ended and Likert-scale questions. The questions regarding satisfaction (Q3, Q5, Q7, Q9, Q11, and Q13) were provided the following choices: Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neither, Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied. In addition, each satisfaction question asked the participant to either explain the response or describe what the university could do to improve. Frequency counts were calculated for the satisfaction questions and explanations and descriptions were analyzed for trends and patterns to see what themes emerged as far as possible improvements. The cooperating teacher interviews were transcribed and analyzed for any trends or themes that emerged from the interviews regarding the supports for the edTPA procedure. Qualitative procedures were followed. The researchers coded the reflections according to in vivo coding practices (King, 2008). This entailed “the practice of assigning a label to a section of data . . . using a word or short phrase taken from that section of data” (King, 2008, p. 472). The intent was to keep the participants’ own words as a way to capture their reflective thoughts. A theme was defined by looking at the topics discussed by the most participants. The researchers then individually and qualitatively
PAGE 68
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
analyzed the interview transcripts across themes by looking at interview response statements to determine what themes emerged. As patterns and trends developed, they were discussed by the research team utilizing memoing (van den Hoonaard & van den Hoonaard, 2008) and were used to design new supports and to discontinue those supports no longer needed. In addition, discussions with cooperating teachers provided the researchers additional perspectives on the classroom effects of edTPA and any supports provided there. University supervising faculty surveys were analyzed for yes/no frequency and open-ended comments were documented. Unfortunately, very few participants provided any comments to the survey, so analysis for trends or themes could not be done. Future surveys will be reworded to encourage more comments and fewer closed-ended responses.
Results The research purpose for this study was to determine which supports developed by the university, the candidates, supervising faculty, and cooperating teachers were perceived to be the most useful for completing the edTPA portfolio. Teacher Candidate Surveys Shown in Figure 1 are the scores from Teacher Candidate Prompt 2: Rank in order of VALUE the following support structures. These are indicated by semester. The edTPA handbooks were the most valuable to all students across all three semesters, whereas the least valuable support structure for all three semesters was the video support seminar.
edTPA Support Value Scores Forced Ranking 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Fall 2015 Spring 2016 edTPA edTPA LT Video Content edTPA Task Handbook Submissio Support Mentors Exemplars Seminars s n Seminar Seminar
edTPA Peer Resources Support *
Fall 2015
4.02
4.5
4.83
4.5
4.03
3.75
0
0
Spring 2016
4.04
5.89
7.15
6.17
4.26
3.5
6.17
5.65
Fall 2016
5.5
5.81
6.98
5.5
4.7
3.91
4.48
5.55
Spring 2017
5.37
5.8
7.24
5.68
4.39
3.97
4.79
5.49
Fall 2017
6.08
0
7.77
6.15
5.32
4.53
5.17
6.42
Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Fall 2017
Figure 1. edTPA Support Value Scores
As far as resources provided in Teacher Candidate Prompt 6, the helpfulness of each support resource was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (see Figure 2). This again is indicated by semester. Fall 2015 participants indicated the
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
submission support was the most valuable resource for them. Spring 2016 and fall 2016 participants indicated the Cooperating teacher was the most valuable resource for them.
PAGE 69
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Overall Helpfulness Scores of 4 (very) or 5 (excellent support) on 5 point scale 100% 90% 80%
90% 84% 75% 74%
80% 73%74%
70% 60%
62% 58%
63% 58%58%
89% 81% 73%
58%
50% 46%
50%
64%
58% 41%
40%
54% 44%
45%
29%
30% 20% 10% 0% Process Mentor
Content Mentor* Fall 2015
Cooperating Teacher
Spring 2016
Fall 2016
Video Support
Spring 2017
Submission Support
Fall 2017
Figure 2. Overall Helpfulness of Support; *Content Mentor changed to Boot Camp Leader Fall 2017 Cooperating Teacher Surveys and Interviews The survey was sent to 72 cooperating teachers and completed and returned by 46 teachers across five different school districts and six different subject areas, for a response rate of 64%. Survey data showed that overall, teachers were satisfied with much of the supports provided to both them and the teacher candidates. For example, 45 of the 46 were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Office of Field Experiences, Clinical Practice, and Partnerships at the university and with the university supervising faculty. Forty-four were satisfied or very satisfied with the cooperating teacher handbook; 40 were satisfied to very satisfied with the LiveText Field Experience Module; while 39 were satisfied or very satisfied with the Cooperating Teacher Orientation. Additional data stemming from structured interviews of six cooperating teachers in spring 2017 resulted in solid indicators of supports that should be developed in the future. Six teachers were interviewed from various content fields and grade levels. Teachers in the content areas of art (K-8), music (K-5), elementary education (Grade 4 and Kindergarten), secondary science (Grade 7), and secondary history (Grade 11) were
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
interviewed either in person or by telephone. All of the teachers had completed at least five years of teaching in the public schools. The schools chosen included magnet schools, Title I schools, suburban schools, and urban schools. The results showed that the amount of knowledge shared by the university supervisor with the cooperating teacher greatly influenced the teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s confidence in supporting the intern. Often, the intern was overwhelmed with the demands of full-time student teaching and the development of the comprehensive edTPA portfolio; therefore, they really could not explain to their cooperating teacher the kind of support needed for the portfolio. Cooperating teachers had several suggestions for the best way for them to be better informed about edTPA including a short online module, a PowerPoint, a binder with the information, or a webinar. Although there was an online resource for them to use, it was simply too time-consuming in addition to their other classroom duties. The most popular idea was a face-to-face meeting such as a work day on campus. That solution provided the best way to reach each cooperating teacher, to answer specific questions, and to provide resources both on paper and online. This idea was then turned into the Summer Boot
PAGE 70
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Camp that took place between semesters seven and eight (see Table 2). Supervising Faculty Survey Survey data were compiled from supervising faculty after they completed their edTPA local training in fall 2016. Fifteen faculty from College of Education departments (Early Childhood, Elementary, and Special Education and Secondary, Adult & Physical Education, as well as Mathematics, Music, and Art Education) were trained during four three-hour seminars conducted by the edTPA Coordinator using the
model developed by SCALE (2015a). Redacted edTPA portfolios written by our own university candidates were examined with appropriate permissions from candidates, and faculty scores were compared to actual Pearson scores. A survey of seven open-ended questions and two Likert-scale questions were completed by the 15 supervising faculty. There were one or two comments written by the participants for the open-ended questions, but most participants simply circled “yes” (See Table 3).
Table 3 Supervising Faculty Survey Results Question Q1. Did this training help you connect the commentaries with the rubrics?
Yes / No Frequency
Comments
Yes = 15 No = 0 Yes = 15 No = 0
I didn’t understand how the prompts were aligned with the rubrics. Rereading and talking about appropriate feedback to candidates helped. Offering us solutions and taking them helped too.
Q3. Do you feel more confident about advising your candidates about edTPA?
Yes = 14 No = 1
It helps to know what is acceptable I learned how important the deadlines are and how they translate to a candidate’s passing edTPA.
Q4. Did working collaboratively with a colleague(s) to determine rubric scores help in your decision?
Yes = 14 No = 1
Talking it through helped me understand why in depth responses are scored at a higher level. Working together as a group and looking closely at the rubrics was eye-opening.
Q5. After learning the true Pearson score for your test portfolio, were you surprised at how close or far away your scores were?
Yes = 15 No = 0
I was happy to be so close. I was 2 levels away on a few, but now that I have looked at them again, I can understand why. I scored a lot closer than I thought I would.
Q7. Was the extra tutoring in how to work in LiveText with the edTPA portfolios helpful?
Yes = 14 No = 1
A little – mostly the difference between the submit and resubmit button and how the candidate sees our feedback and where it appears.
Q8. Do you feel more confident that you have the tools to appropriately guide your candidates through edTPA?
Yes = 15 No = 0
I understand the process better now. Now I see what the reasoning is behind the rubric level scores
Likert-Scale Questions
On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being the least helpful and 5 the most helpful:
Q6. How helpful were all four training sessions in helping you to determine the thinking behind national scoring?
14 answered 5 1 answered 4
Q9. As a whole, were these training sessions helpful to you?
15 answered 5
Q2. Do you have a better understanding of the appropriate type of advice you can share with you candidates regarding edTPA?
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 71
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
Discussion Although teacher candidate perceptions seem to be consistent over the first six semesters, the structured interviews of cooperating teachers yielded some new insights into the development of the edTPA portfolio in the classroom. The following section will discuss the perceptions of curriculum revisions on teacher candidates to address the expectations and alignment of edTPA within program courses, an examination of the perceptions and needs of cooperating teachers, and needs and concerns voiced by supervising faculty. Candidate Preparation Candidates continued to report feeling “overwhelmed” by the task of developing the edTPA portfolio. Almost 60% of the candidates reported that edTPA took 61 or more hours to complete on the fall 2016 edTPA survey. In order to prepare candidates for this rigorous indepth assessment, both graduate and undergraduate programs have aligned coursework with edTPA best practices. All candidates use an EPP lesson planning template recognized by the National Council on Teacher Quality as an exemplary format. That template with its corresponding rubric is a Key Assessment in all educator preparation programs and is aligned with edTPA Planning Task 1. In addition, methods courses have required the videotaping and critique of instruction with input by the supervising faculty as well as the cooperating teacher. Finally, a stand-alone assessment course is now part of graduate programs, while an entire “mini-edTPA” assignment is embedded in the undergraduate courses. Internship requirements have been adjusted to reflect the use of performance evaluation standards, Intern Keys, which mirror the state’s teacher evaluation standards (Georgia Department of Education, 2014). Using both Intern Keys and edTPA as assessments of teacher candidates during the student teaching semester has created what one cooperating teacher called a realistic way to prepare for one’s own classroom using “the same book with a different cover.” Friday intern seminars were reworked during 2016-2017 to give candidates
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
time to write and work on their edTPA portfolios and included a session on “Teaching for Equity” (Whittaker, 2016) using an interactive activity designed to help candidates connect assets, differentiation, and deeper learning to individual rubrics. Furthermore, an additional interactive format was introduced to aid candidates as they assessed their videos for Task 2 in the Video Support Seminars. That allowed candidates to finalize time stamps as they trimmed their videos and properly named their Task 2 files according to their individual handbooks. Candidate surveys indicated that providing both a process mentor and a content mentor was confusing for candidates and also placed a heavy work burden on faculty in addition to their regular duties. To remedy this shortcoming, university supervisors were trained in local scoring evaluation by the edTPA Coordinator, who was a nationally certified scorer. Candidates also reported a disconnect between their curricular supports and the requirements of compiling the edTPA portfolio. Over the past three semesters, significant program curriculum revisions have been developed and approved by the university-wide curriculum committee. Those changes and revisions in candidate edTPA supports are discussed below. Cooperating Teachers The face-to-face and phone interviews with selected cooperating teachers yielded information not previously recognized. The cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the edTPA process aligned with McLee’s (2015) perspective that the edTPA portfolio was a realistic preparation for the world of the real classroom. As resulting from the interviews, most of the cooperating teachers felt they had adequately supported their teacher candidates as far as helping the candidates plan lessons, but felt that they themselves did not know enough about edTPA to really understand the requirements of their teacher candidates. All cooperating teachers agreed that they would welcome a time in person, and perhaps on campus, to have a forum to ask questions and understand more
PAGE 72
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
about edTPA. The teachers had been provided with a webinar and SCALE documents (SCALE, 2015b) that outlined the role of the cooperating teacher, but all indicated the need for more information. The Office of Field Experiences Director and the edTPA Coordinator traveled to schools with at least three cooperating teachers to give them a crash course on edTPA in spring 2016, but it was widely felt that more information was needed. The cooperating teachers also felt that coming together in person would help them understand the parameters of their supports to better assist their teacher candidates. Teacher candidates indicated they continued to need edTPA support from cooperating teachers to identify their focus students (as required in their edTPA portfolio to indicate a high, medium, and low-performing student) as well as in planning for when lessons would be taught. Supervising Faculty A total of 15 clinical and academic faculty attended a series of five seminars, two to three hours each, designed to provide local evaluation training (Barron, 2015) as approved by SCALE (2015a). All faculty indicated that they did not understand the rubrics nor the thinking behind them deeply enough. All were experienced university supervisors who understood best practices of teaching. The faculty felt that the preparation of the edTPA portfolio certainly met the requirements of best practices, but also felt it was a heavy burden for teacher candidates. Supervising faculty dug deeply in the edTPA rubrics, using institutional portfolios as their training modules, in order to increase understanding. All faculty going through the training scored within one level (adjacent) of the Pearson score, indicating their acceptable understanding of the scoring process. The creation of the position of edTPA Coordinator has also, over the two semesters of fall 2016 and spring 2017, assisted in all faculty being trained in a working knowledge of how to score edTPA portfolios. Training was based on previous trainings of faculty to prepare them for local evaluation of portfolios (Barron, 2015) before edTPA became a state requirement. That training took place during the fall 2016 semester
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
and included tenure track as well as clinical faculty, all of whom were actively involved in mentoring and supervising candidates as they completed their edTPA portfolios. Conclusions and Implications The teacher candidate supports outlined in this study have been added and modified over the past three semesters based on results of teacher candidate surveys, cooperating teacher surveys, and the supervising faculty surveys after local edTPA scoring training. An edTPA team, established during the 2014 pilot year, was comprised of the Associate Dean, Director of Field Experiences, LiveText Administrator, edTPA Coordinator, and department heads. That team has attended and presented at edTPA conferences, maintained strong relationships with the State Professional Standards Commission and other institutions of higher education using edTPA, and participated in webinars for edTPA coordinators across the state. That participation has resulted in a wide network of experts who advise the EPP in what is considered acceptable candidate support which has changed markedly over the past two years (e.g., Understanding Rubric Level Progressions was not available to candidates until 2015). In addition, an ad hoc edTPA Committee was formed in fall 2016 and charged with planning and improving edTPA policies, seminars and boot camps, curricular recommendations, and procedures for implementation and submission support. The edTPA committee is comprised of faculty from all EPP across the university, department heads, the Associate Dean, edTPA Coordinator, Live Text Administrator, and Director of Field Experiences. The training of supervising faculty to serve as edTPA mentors for teacher candidates has provided candidates with support and feedback. Curricular changes are developmentally preparing teacher candidates for the edTPA portfolio assessment. However, there continues to be faculty content mentors who are tasked with mentoring candidates through edTPA with no release from a full workload. Our attempt to give the best possible support to our candidates while relieving the workload of non-supervising faculty has been a primary focus during 2016-2017
PAGE 73
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
academic year. Using the combined knowledge of several state universities as well as our regional edTPA consultant, the edTPA Committee is developing foundational supports for our candidates that are program-based. Because each program has designed its own curricular supports and best knows its content area, it is logical that the programs would become the base of support for their majors. Professional development and local scoring training will be available for any new supervising faculty each semester. This study was limited to one university’s EPPs. Future research at this institution should be continued with implications studied for future edTPA support needs. This research can be expanded to include more in-depth perceptions of the edTPA process with the development of an open-ended question survey and focus groups to include both candidates and content mentors. Similarly, replicating this study at other universities would be valuable in the creation of a body of research that could result in more universal best practices for support of teacher candidates in the completion of edTPA. We believe that the results from this study, along with the descriptions of the supports provided, can help other teacher preparation programs beginning an edTPA portfolio requirement. Starting a new program can take a lot of trial and error and it is hoped that being able to see what worked for one university will help reduce the errors at another university. References American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2016). edTPA. Retrieved from edtpa.aacte.org Barron, L. (2015). Preparing pre-service teachers for performance assessments. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 3(2), 70-76. Burns, B. A., Henry, J. J., & Lindauer, J. R. (2015). Working together to foster candidate success on the edTPA. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 6(2), 18-37. Georgia Department of Education. (2014). Georgia Department of Education TAPS Standards. Retrieved from https://www.gadoe.org/SchoolImprovement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness/ Documents/FY15%20TKES%20and%20LKES%2 0Documents/TAPS_Reference_Sheet%206-514.pdf Greenblatt, D. (2016). Supporting teacher candidates completing the edTPA. In D. Polly (Ed.),
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
Evaluating teacher education programs through performance-based assessments (pp. 184-200). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Hobbs, E. L. (2015). The edTPA experience: Student teachers’ perceptions and reflections on the edTPA assessment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39. 88-2004&res_dat=xri:pqdiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/ fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:37464 84 King, A. (2008). In Vivo Coding. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 473-474). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. McLee, L. (2015). “Mama Bear” teacher says edTPA gave student teacher realistic classroom experience. Ed Prep Matters (AACTE blog). Retrieved from http://edprepmatters.net/2015/06/mama-bearteacher-says-edtpa-gave-student-teacher-realisticclassroom-experience/ Petty, T., Heafner, T. L., Lachance, J., & Polly, D. (2016). Supporting teacher education candidates through the edTPA process. In D. Polly (Ed.), Evaluating teacher education programs through performance-based assessments (pp. 201-215). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Pecheone, R. L., & Chung, R. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36. Schieb, L. J., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Teacher motivation and professional development: A guide to resources, math and science partnership. Motivation Assessment Program. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2015a). edTPA Resource Library. Retrieved from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/resource.php?ref=ed tpa Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2015b). edTPA guidance to supervising teachers. Retrieved from https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/ resource.php?resid=497&ref=edtpa Suleiman, R., & Byrd, C. (2016). edTPA preparation: Building support structures for teacher candidates. In D. Polly (Ed.), Evaluating Teacher Education Programs through Performance-Based Assessments (pp. 138-145). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Whittaker, A. (2016). edTPA and equity. Presentation at edTPA Regional Technical Summit. Macon, GA. Wie, R. C., & Pecheone, R. L. (2010). Assessment for learning in preservice teacher education: Performance-based assessments. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69-132). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
PAGE 74
GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators
van den Hoonaard, D. K., & van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2008). Data analysis. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 186-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
About the Authors
Cindy S. York, PhD Dr. York is an Associate Professor of Instructional Technology within the department of Educational Technology, Research, and Assessment at Northern Illinois University. Her research interests include the examination of practitioners in order to better prepare students in the areas of instructional design and the integration of technology into teacher education. Her past includes K-12 teaching and corporate experiences. She was a 2014-2017 AECT Board of Directors Member and the 2011-2012 President of the Division of Distance Learning for AECT. Angie Hodge, PhD Dr. Hodge is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education in the department of Mathematics and Statistics at Northern Arizona University. She is Special Projects Coordinator for the Academy of Inquiry Based Learning. She has taught a variety of courses using IBL over the last 10 years. She travels all over the world to run ultramarathons, including the Leadville 100-mile run.
Kathleen Fabrikant, EdD Dr. Fabrikant is an Associate Professor of Education within the department of Secondary, Adult, & Physical Education at Armstrong State University in Savannah, GA. She has served as a Professor in Residence at Armstrong’s Professional Development School and is now the edTPA Coordinator for the university’s education preparation programs. She has also served as a middle grades special education teacher and as the executive director of a literacy nonprofit. Her research interests include edTPA supports and their effect on teacher candidates and their K-12 students. Cynthia Bolton, PhD Dr. Bolton. is the Interim Dean of the College of Education and Professor of Educational Psychology at Armstrong State University in Savannah, GA. Dr. Bolton holds a PhD in Educational Psychology and a BS in Public Health from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and an MEd in Special Education from University of North Carolina Charlotte. She has taught PK-12 grade mathematics, science, health education, and special education. Dr. Bolton’s areas of expertise include developing and maintaining quality assurance and assessment systems, accreditation, innovative pedagogical instructional strategies, and developing partnerships. Dr. Bolton works as a consultant with local school systems regarding assessment of induction programs, teacher leadership and partnership opportunities, and at the national level serves as a Counselor and Site Visitor for the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).
VOLUME 29, ISSUE 2
PAGE 75
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 may find an application online at www.gaate1.org.
GATEways to Teacher Education is a refereed online journal with national representation on its editorial review board and published by the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators. The journal, published in October and April, is soliciting manuscripts concerned with teacher education, including teaching and learning, induction, in-service education, and pre-service education.
Refer to the Journal tab at www.gaate1.org for more details.
Manuscripts for the October issue of GATEways are due July 1st. Editor: Dr. Janet Strickland, University of West Georgia, jstrickl@westga.edu, Copy Editor: Dr. Robyn Huss, University of West Georgia, rhuss@westga.edu
Join us at the GATE 2019 Fall Conference October 10-11 at the Lake Blackshear Resort & Golf Club in Cordele, GA Additional conference information is available online: www.gaate1.org