GATEways 2022 (volume 32, issue 1)

Georgia Association of Teacher Educators Volume 32, Issue 1 April 2022

GATEways to Teacher Education

Cover artwork: Vika Sycheva, USSR

GATEways to Teacher Education April 2022: Volume 32, Issue 1

Contents Implementation and Implications of the Social Emotional Engagement – Knowledge and Skills (SEE-KS) Framework for Pre-service Teacher Preparation Page 1

By Katherine B. Green, Chelsea T. Morris, Emily Rubin, Jen Townsend, and Laura Smith This paper supports a framework to guide research and practice which examines the relationship between engagement and the social communication of young children, highlighting the use of the framework with preservice educators.

Patterns of Communication in Pre-Service Teacher Education Supervisory Triads Page 15

By Anna Hart The purpose of this article, the second derived from a larger qualitative meta-synthesis, is to identify communication practices that occur within triads and how those identified practices impact pre-service teachers’ clinical experiences. Four primary factors of influence emerged from this analysis: the parties involved in communication, conditions for communication, interaction frequency, and difficulties in communication practices. Findings show that various communication structures occur, within triads across time, that optimal conditions for constructive communication must be intentionally created. Also, interaction frequency impacts the educative outcome of triadic work. In addition, difficulties in communication exist in many capacities and with varying outcomes in relation to the educative value of the field experience for the pre-service teacher.

Situated Writing: An Effective Strategy for Teaching Behaviorism in Educational Psychology Page 28

By Meagan C. Arrastía-Chisholm, Samantha Tackett, and Kelly M. Torres In this quasi-experimental study, students learned about behaviorism in the context of an introductory educational psychology course intended for PTs. The control group participated in lecture and discussion only and the intervention group additionally discussed applications of behaviorist theoretical concepts outside of class in a situated writing assignment. A total of 123 undergraduate students completed pre- and post-test items during the behaviorism unit. Those who completed situated writing assignments experienced significantly more gains in content knowledge compared to the control group of lecture and discussion only. Implications and other areas of EPP curricula are discussed.

The State of Dyslexia: New Legislation, Teachers’ Perceptions of Major Challenges, and Professional Development Needs Page 40

By Karin M. Fisher, Nai-Cheng Kuo, Jennifer Jones, Zach Fagan, and Zayeira Declet We conducted qualitative questionnaires to investigate the participants’ challenges of educating students with dyslexia and their professional development needs. The results indicated participants had a lack of knowledge and need more professional development in the areas of evidence-based practices. They also requested more government and non-profit resources to work with students with dyslexia. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and suggestions for practice and future research.

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

Implementation and Implications of the Social Emotional Engagement – Knowledge and Skills (SEE-KS) Framework for Pre-service Teacher Preparation Dr. Katherine B. Green and Dr. Chelsea T. Morris University of West Georgia Emily Rubin, Marcus Autism Center Jen Townsend, School District of Elmbrook Dr. Laura Smith University of West Georgia

There is increasing understanding about the importance of engagement in early childhood classrooms. However, the extent to which tools and resources provide a way to examine young children’s engagement in a way that is linked to their social communication skills is often neglected, yet critically related to behavior.

Therefore, this paper supports a framework to guide research and practice which examines the relationship between engagement and the social communication of young children, highlighting the use of the framework with pre-service educators. The Social Emotional Engagement – Knowledge and Skills (SEE-KS; Rubin et al., 2018) is a set of performance measures established to help educators implement instructional strategies and coaching techniques.

SEE-KS uses an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) process to expand educator’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions within a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework and works to prepare pre-service educators to increase engagement and address social-emotional and communication competencies in young children.

Research among many developmental scholars suggests that engagement is a primary mechanism of learning (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2012; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). More specifically, the extent to which young children are engaged is closely linked to their behavior

Volume 32, Issue 1

and social communication skills (Nelson et al., 2017). Challenging behavior may interfere with young children’s ability to engage in both social interactions and learning. Conversely, children who demonstrate positive engagement also demonstrate positive, or expected, behavior (Bultosky-Shearer et al., 2012; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). Engagement in the early childhood classroom has been found to be a mediating factor between behavior, early language, and literacy skills (Bohlmann & Downer, 2016).

Similarly, Vitiello and Williford (2016) found engagement to be the strongest mediator in the relationship between social skills and language among children with behavior concerns. They also noted that children with higher social skills were more likely to be observed engaging in classroom activities that lead to greater language gains.

The neurodevelopmental process of responding to the outside world results in the emergence of social and emotional knowledge and skills. Social connections fuel a child’s acquisition of language (Fitch et al., 2010).

Studying behavior from a developmental perspective underscores the importance of engaging with the social world in early childhood. It is particularly important for understanding the development of children with disabilities. Yew and O’Kearney (2013), for

1

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

example, share empirical evidence that children with specific language impairments were two times more likely to demonstrate challenging behavior than their peers with typically developing language.

For these reasons, it is necessary to advance understanding of the complex relationship between engagement, social skills, and children’s gains in language during the preschool years. All too often, social-emotional learning programs are developed as a separate curriculum to the academic content already required by our school systems. The SocialEmotional Engagement Knowledge and Skills (SEE-KS) framework is a unique approach in that these social-emotional competencies are addressed within the natural routines of the classroom (Rubin et al., 2018). Neuroimaging has shown that children with social-emotional differences tend to process social stimuli in regions typically used to process images and sounds that are non-social (Chevallier et al., 2012). These differences may compromise an intrinsic desire to engage in classroom activities and may make children less able to predict the actions, intentions, and emotions of others (Chevallier et al., 2012). As social and emotional engagement increases during academic subjects (math, science, and language arts), academic scores increase. Costly challenges are associated with disengagement decrease (Morgan et al., 2018). To address these challenges, SEE-KS tools and resources can be used to promote inquiry into current educational practices of its educators. SEE-KS also highlights the perceptions of each educator’s knowledge, skills, and disposition within the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. SEE-KS mirrors the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST’s) UDL implementation process, while building systemwide sustainability (Chevallier et al., 2012).

One primary contribution of the SEE-KS framework is the emphasis on the need to implement UDL strategies in a manner consistent with a students’ developmental level of language. Service providers face different challenges when working with young students who are considered “before words” (i.e., not yet talking, using sign language, or using assistive

Volume 32, Issue 1

technology), who are at “emerging language” stages (or those learning English), and who are at a “conversational” level but not yet social connecting using conventional means of engagement. In response, the SEE-KS resources help educators adjust instructional practices by the child’s language level. This is an especially important distinction when implementing UDL strategies for children with disabilities and/or related speech and language impairments.

Children’s emotions and behaviors may present differently depending on their language ability. In their longitudinal research, Yew and O’Kearney (2013) confirm that the relationship between behavioral outcomes and early language impairment persists over time. They assert that viewing this link from a developmental perspective is of utmost importance (Yew & O’Kearney, 2013).

Implementation of UDL strategies consistent with language stages, as it is with SEE-KS, is an essential aspect of educational programming that is often neglected, yet critically related to emotional regulation coping strategies (Laurent & Rubin, 2004).

Finally, the SEE-KS framework was developed to provide a professional learning approach to its trainees that is consistent with adult learning styles. Educators who participate in SEE-KS learn strategies to embed UDL and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) into their classroom instruction through an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) process. This process allows teachers to reflect on what is already working in their classroom lessons and then engage in a collaborative discussion with their teaching colleagues to develop a vision of “what’s next” for enhancing student engagement. AI can promote teacher self-efficacy from the outset of the professional learning (Bushe, 1995). AI is a non-hierarchical collaboration and shared decision-making process that, when used in a professional development setting, can empower educators to take charge of their own professional learning (Carr-Stewart & Walker, 2003). In the collaborative AI peer groups, the aim is to reduce teacher stress and turnover and increase self-efficacy (Otero-López, et al., 2010).

2

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

The implementation of the SEE-KS framework is one way to systematically examine the extent to which young children are engaged while accounting for their developmental level of social communication. SEE-KS implementation includes taking steps to gather baseline data for student engagement and developing instructional strategies rooted in current social neuroscience related to the social and emotional development in children. When examining baseline data, professional development is focused on determining appropriate supports based on students’ language level: before words, emerging, or conversational. Ahead, we present the SEE-KS framework and discuss two major guiding components of the framework: the performance standards and the AI coaching model. We provide critical lessons learned from the first implementation of SEE-KS with trainees from a university pre-service teaching program. We emphasize the importance of SEE-KS to the early childhood community, in higher education pre-service teacher education programs, and its value in understanding the relationship between engagement, behavior, and social communication skills.

The SEE-KS Framework SEE-KS was created with the idea that educators are brain “architects" who, with the ongoing support of teacher-to-teacher mentorship, can enhance their self-efficacy by creating high-quality educational opportunities for all learners. Rubin and Townsend (2018) developed the SEE-KS framework to provide early childhood resources in UDL and SEL competencies for educators, including: 1) a tool to measure student engagement within standards-based classroom instruction, 2) a framework for identifying “look-fors” of instructional practices consistent with UDL and SEL that are sensitive to our learners’ developmental levels of language competencies, and 3) a process for learning these methods that are consistent with the research of adult learning and teacher self-efficacy.

UDL can improve the learning process of students from diverse populations (Capp, 2017; Hartmann, 2015). Utilizing the principles of UDL, SEE-KS provides a professional

Volume 32, Issue 1

development model that equips educators to design instruction that meets the needs of all students. For young children, UDL is specifically important. Through UDL, teachers can foster early academic skills alongside emotional-social concepts, such as friendship, social communication, and problem-solving skills (Chai & Chen, 2019). Importantly, the SEE-KS framework enhances the traditional UDL framework by tailoring it to students’ developmental levels of social communication (i.e., before words stage, emerging language stage, and conversational stage) and improving understanding of the neuropsychological differences of students. While UDL and SEL have both been correlated with gains in academic achievement, measurement of active engagement within classroom lessons has been found to be a gauge of whether classroom instruction produces better academic achievement (Coyne et al., 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004; Hall et al., 2015; Kennedy et al., 2014).

In the SEE-KS framework, educators learn how to measure the “three I’s” of engagement, namely investment, independence, and initiation, using a freely accessible observational tool to rate whole-class engagement levels. This tool is called the Social Engagement Ladder and is a criterion-referenced rubric that allows educators to determine whether learners are “fully engaged,” “mostly engaged,” “partially engaged,” “emerging or fleeting” or “not focused” (Figure 1; Rubin et al., 2018). This quantitative measure allows educators to engage in positive reflections on when lessons have captured higher engagement levels and what strategies might enhance instruction where there are opportunities to increase engagement based upon this data.

Performance Standards of SEE-KS The SEE-KS framework utilizes three performance standards for measuring active engagement. Consistent with UDL, these include fostering engagement, providing information in multiple means and providing options for student expression.

Fostering engagement entails instruction elements using visuals to ensure a students’ prediction of the sequence of activities and steps

3

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

Figure 1. Social Engagement Ladder. Note: Copyright © SEE-KS – Rubin, E., Townsend, J., & Vittori, L. (2015). Permission granted for use of materials for educational purposes.

Volume 32, Issue 1

4

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

within activity. It also involves using strategies embedded in activities to sustain student engagement. In addition, it involves recruiting engagement with hands-on material, movement, real-life application, and student preferences.

Providing information in multiple means entails pairing verbal language, academic concepts, and social cues with visuals, gestures, role play, and real-life material.

Providing options for student expression involves students' independent access and use of materials, along with frequent access to visuals that encourage social-emotional priorities for student expression. Strategies are consistent with students’ developmental stage, ensuring multiple opportunities for participation in back and forth engagement in the classroom).

Each performance standard includes an inventory of practices that are expected for each developmental level of social communication.

For example, within fostering engagement, one indicator of fidelity includes embedded supports that foster the ability to predict the sequence of activities and the steps within each activity to support self-regulation. The implementation quick reference, with embedded UDL strategies across each communication stage, can be found on the SEE-KS resource website (https://www.see-ks.com/our-what-resources); however, an example utilizing the first performance standard (fostering engagement) is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Essential Universal Design for Learning Support – Quick Reference. Note: Copyright © SEEKS – Rubin, E., Townsend, J., & Vittori, L. (2015). Permission granted for use of materials for educational purposes.

Appreciative Inquiry An important component of SEE-KS is the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) coaching approach.

AI is a collaborative, strength-based, participatory approach to professional and organizational development and change. Rather than a deficit-based problem-solving approach, AI is based on the assumption that all organizations have strengths and components Volume 32, Issue 1

that work well (Lewis, 2016). The AI approach encourages the identification of those strengths and for participants to use the strengths as a place to begin to generate change (Bushe, 1995, 2007; Bushe & Kassam, 2005). With an AI approach, individuals look at the current state and strengths of an organization and inquire about “what could be” in their ideal future (Doggett & Lewis, 2013).

5

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

In schools, it is used to help provide a positive approach to solve problems, dream, and plan in a way that all individuals have a voice at the table. An example of an investigation of AI in schools included collaboration among key stakeholders regarding improving the inclusion of students with disabilities (Kozik et al., 2009).

Another involved creating school-wide behavior plans with input from students (Hearn, 2018).

Another example involved improving speechlanguage services at schools (Gallagher et al., 2019). Increasing positive interactions and promoting student self-advocacy in Individualized Educational Programs in transition to post-secondary settings is also an example (Kozik, 2018). Many of the example studies included a wide range of stakeholders on the AI team and included students as stakeholders. The AI approach may also help education leaders be reflective educators and build capacity, collaboration, and a vision for a 21st-century schools (Fifield, 2014).

Developed by Cooperrider and Srivastava in the 1980s, the AI approach was designed as a method of generating ideas about a specific topic of inquiry (Cooperrider & Srivastava, 1987).

The 5-D cycle includes the following cycles of AI: 1) Define, 2) Discovery, 3) Dream, 4) Design, and 5) Destiny (Cooperrider et al., 2008). At the define stage, the team determines the topic of inquiry. During the discovery stage, individuals appreciate and value “what is;” what is positive about the current state in order to act as a resource for future strategies. Within the dream stage, the AI team will imagine and envision what might be in the future, or the ideals that the team aims to achieve. The dream stage invites the team to collaboratively construct “what will be” in the future, and what is realistic to achieve in the near future.

Throughout the design phase, the team will bring together ideas from the discover and dream phases and determine “what should be.”

The final stage of the 5-D cycle (destiny) encourages the team to determine “what will be” by determining how the dream phase will be delivered (Cooperrider et al., 2008).

The SEE-KS framework adopted the philosophy of the AI approach to guide the coaching and mentorship component. The

Volume 32, Issue 1

philosophy is based on the premise that a collective discussion of “what’s working” in a classroom lesson fosters an ability to imagine “what could be” and collective development of an action plan for the next steps. The process reduces the need for an expert model of consultation that is based upon more coercive or persuasive mechanisms for planned change and rather focuses on positive psychology to enhance learning. The peer teams work collaboratively using AI to help each other best engage students in the classroom. The SEE-KS framework uses the 5-D approach to AI. Peer coaching teams are provided with a prompting PowerPoint with a script and handouts of the steps of AI and example statements to guide the team members. The handouts also include check-off boxes so that the team does not skip a step or belabor a component. Table 1 provides an example of using the 5-D approach during a peer-coaching session.

Implementation The SEE-KS framework and associated resources are currently being used to train teacher candidates at a comprehensive university, with a focus on replicating the SEEKS implementation process used with in-service teachers. While some adaptations had to be made to accommodate SEE-KS to the teacher candidate population (e.g., video coaching instead of live in-classroom coaching; increased teaching of prerequisite knowledge), SEE-KS proved to be a valuable addition to the elementary/special education training program.

It was especially valuable in terms of increased teacher candidate knowledge of student engagement, UDL, and collaborative skills.

The university faculty who facilitated the SEE-KS training attended many in-service school district SEE-KS sessions. They also consulted with the developers of SEE-KS and the project manager regarding converting the implementation to the university setting. Prior to the first session, all teacher candidates submitted a ten- to fifteen-minute video of themselves teaching a small group of students to be used during training in addition. The videos are also to be referenced when completing two preimplementation surveys: the SEE-KS Self-

6

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

Table 1 5-D Appreciative Inquiry Approach with SEE-KS Examples 5-D Dimension

Definition

SEE-KS Example

Define

Team determines the topic of inquiry.

The target educator determines the question they would like to pursue.

Discovery

Individuals appreciate and value “what is” positive about the current situation.

The peer team reviews a lesson (video or live) and discusses what is working well in engaging learners.

Dream

The team imagines and envisions “what might be” in the future.

Specifically, the ideals that the team aims to achieve.

The team reviews the target educator’s question and discusses opportunities to improve engagement.

The team uses phrasing such as “I wonder what it would look like if…”

Design

The team determines “what should be” by reviewing the positives from the discovery phase and the imagination from the dream phase to create the ideal scenario.

After the dream phase, the target educator considers the thoughts and ideas of the team. The target educator will then choose one or more ideas to implement in the classroom.

Destiny

The team learns how to empower, improve, and sustain plans for the future.

The team reviews the notes. They determine resources needed for the target educator for sustainable use.

Assessment Survey and the Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Planning for Mainstreamed Students instrument.

These initial requirements (video of teaching, SEE-KS Self-Assessment Survey, and P-TBAP) are repeated at the end of the training sessions as post-assessments. Here, we explain the primary purpose of each of the six training sessions: ● Session One: Introduction to SEE-KS. During this first session, the university faculty introduced SEE-KS to the participating undergraduate students utilizing a SEE-KS introductory video from the developers and pertinent handouts.

Guiding topics included the neurodevelopment of young children, the relationship between interactions in the

Volume 32, Issue 1

social world and brain architecture, the development and expansion of language, and the relationship of UDL principles to SEE-KS performance standards. ● Session Two: Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. In session two, the students were introduced to the AI approach through a presentation and related handouts.

Then, the university faculty randomly selected one pre-implementation video for students to practice the use of AI through large group coaching, as guided by the related SEE-KS coaching resources. At the end of the video coaching, the class debriefed on the session. ● Session Three (Part A): Fostering Engagement. Session three focused on the

7

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

first SEE-KS performance standard, fostering engagement (Part A). The students were first prompted to consider what engagement looks like in the classroom.

Then, the elements of fostering engagement in the SEE-KS framework, particularly the three I’s of engagement (initiation, independence, and investment) are taught and reviewed. In small groups, the students then developed, recorded, and presented examples of fostering engagement. Next, the students were randomly assigned to groups, which remain static throughout the semester.

From each group, a randomly assigned target teacher candidate showed their preimplementation video and the small group participated in a video coaching session with the university faculty coaching assistance.

Each group also reviewed and utilized the SEE-KS peer coaching fidelity checklist to assure they were conducting the session with fidelity. The class then debriefed on the sessions as a large group. ● Session Four (Part B): Presenting Information in Multiple Ways. Session four focused on the SEE-KS performance standard, presenting information in multiple ways (Part B). The students were first prompted to consider the importance of presenting information in multiple ways and then related this concept to experiences in their field placement. After a presentation of material about Part B, the students worked in small groups to develop and record examples of how to present information in multiple ways. From each group, randomly assigned target teacher candidates showed their pre-implementation video and the small group participated in a video coaching session with the university faculty coaching assistance. Each group also reviewed and utilized the SEE-KS peer coaching fidelity checklist to assure they are conducting the session with fidelity. The class then debriefed on the sessions as a large group. ● Session Five (Part C): Allowing Multiple Options for Action and Expression. Session five focused on allowing multiple options for action and expression (Part C). The students were first

Volume 32, Issue 1

prompted to consider the importance of allowing multiple options for action and expression and then related this concept to experiences in their field placement. After a presentation of material about Part C, the students worked in small groups to develop and record examples of how to allow multiple options for action and expression.

From each group, randomly assigned target teacher candidates showed their preimplementation video and the small groups participated in a video coaching session with the university faculty coaching assistance.

Each group also reviewed and utilized the SEE-KS peer coaching fidelity checklist to assure they were conducting the session with fidelity. The class then debriefed on the sessions as a large group. ● Session Six: SEE-KS Celebration and Focus Groups. The final session was a celebration day. Clips from participantsubmitted teaching videos that exemplify each of the three parts of SEE-KS (i.e., fostering engagement, presenting information in multiple ways, and allowing multiple options for action and expression) were chosen for presentation. Student success in increasing opportunities for engaging learning through the implementation of the SEE-KS framework was celebrated and students were provided a certificate of completion.

Beyond Strategies: Transformative Response to Behavior One of the transformations that occurs after increasing the teacher’s ability to meet SEE-KS performance standards is seeing challenging behavior from a neurodevelopmental approach.

On average, it has been reported that more than 8,000 preschool-aged children are expelled from their state-funded classrooms (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2017). In early childhood settings, understanding normative misbehavior can be difficult (De Los Reyes et al., 2009). Since the SEE-KS framework begins with and consistently reinforces the neurodevelopment of young children, including the relationship between interactions in the social world and brain architecture, trainees develop a greater

8

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

understanding of behavior as communication and skill deficits rather than intentionally hostile or antagonistic. The necessity of understanding, preventing, and responding to challenging behavior from a neurodevelopmental approach is increasing and scholars suggest that early childhood is a critical time to take this transformative approach (Wakschlag et al., 2018). In this way, educators can take a more clinical approach to young children’s behavior and work toward eliminating the bias that has been cited as a cause of unfair negative perceptions of behavior (Gilliam et al., 2016).

This mindset shift is critical, given that when young students are suspended or expelled for behavior, they lose important opportunities for needed developmental engagement, language, and social skills (Losen & Gillespie, 2012).

Another transformative practice relates to the extent to which educators value collaboration. SEE-KS empowers multidisciplinary teams to support students by using effective instructional strategies with peerto-peer coaching. In early childhood, empirical evidence supports similar coaching models having a positive impact on student outcomes (Ansari & Pianta, 2018). In addition to impacts on child outcomes, utilizing group coaching similar to that used in SEE-KS has been found to support teacher’s implementation of new practices (Fettig & Artman-Meeker, 2016).

Further, in inclusive preschool classrooms, a coteaching team model was found to be a significant predictor of student engagement. The developers of SEE-KS posit that the coaching component reduces costs and shifts responsibility for system changes to district internal leadership, which results in “community viable models of professional development” that builds on-site capacity for sustainable outcomes for children (Townsend & Rubin, 2018).

Collaboration that specifically addresses UDL strategies has been shown to strengthen the ability of educators to develop inclusive lessons beneficial to all children, especially children with disabilities (Courey et al., 2013). The SEEKS peer-to-peer coaching model can help teachers perceive themselves as capable of selfregulating their practice. It can also help them engage in high levels of autonomy when

Volume 32, Issue 1

challenged by lesson planning for individual, small group, or whole class intervention in ways they may have otherwise been unprepared.

Finally, a release of authoritative power in the classroom is another shift made possible by the use of the SEE-KS framework. Teachers learn to allow multiple modes of instruction and encourage a spectrum of student expression. By using UDL strategies, educators provide learners with opportunities, choices, and variability. This transformative practice empowers students and builds on the strengths and interests of students.

Teacher-directed activities require more passive engagement of students and result in greater aggression (Rimm-Kauffman, 2005).

Implications There are a number of implications related to the implementation of SEE-KS. First, SEEKS offers a unique training opportunity for teacher candidates and inservice teachers to better understand the relationship of behavior to both risk and resilience. For children who experience stress and risk, particularly those from low-income households, engagement skills with others may play a critical role in explaining problem behavior (Bulotsky-Shearer et al., 2011). It has been found that students who have not had adverse childhood experiences (e.g. abuse, neglect, household dysfunction) have more than two times greater odds of usually or always being engaged in school, as compared with peers who had experienced adverse childhood experiences (Bethell et al., 2014).

Given that the link between resilience and greater school engagement is critically important to school outcomes for children, increasing engagement strategies in young children may play a particularly important role for populations that experience adverse childhood experiences at greater rates. This could include children living in poverty, children with special healthcare needs, and children from marginalized populations.

Second, developing knowledge and skills to increase engagement in the classroom creates a mechanism for novice educators to be responsive to young children who receive special education services and supports. SEE-KS offers a way to measure engagement and implementation strategies that are practical and

9

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

generalizable to populations of students with disabilities. For example, it is agreed that engagement is a core component of instruction for children with autism (National Research Council, 2001; Ruble & Robson, 2006). For these students and other students with developmental delays or disabilities, SEE-KS provides an adapted way of observing and measuring engagement. Specifically, when educators have children that present with varying language ability levels in the classroom, the SEE-KS allows educators to examine engagement according to three levels of communicative abilities (before words, emerging language, and conversational levels).

The rubrics also account for children who use sign language or assistive technology. Including this level of support within the SEE-KS framework provides support and allows for greater teacher understanding of child abilities and UDL in diverse classrooms.

Finally, SEE-KS offers a way to explicitly teach instructional design to teacher candidates and address teacher beliefs about how instructional design is critical to the behavior and language development of young children.

Systematic approaches for teaching instructional design at the pre-service level are sparse, however there is mounting evidence that such skills are paramount to supporting engagement in the classroom. By examining pre-service teacher success in learning and implementing strategies to improve social and emotional engagement, deficits and support needs can be identified before they enter the field. This may be very important to the field of early childhood and special education where reasons for leaving are exacerbated. Namely, SEE-KS may help to lessen the feeling of inadequate preparation, including lacking skills for addressing classroom behavior and special education needs, which is a primary reason for attrition of educators (Darling-Hammond, 2003; Sutcher et al., 2016).

Conclusion Personnel preparation programs can implement SEE-KS to foster high-quality professional development of both general and special education teacher candidates.

Additionally, although designed for young children in early childhood classrooms, SEE-KS

Volume 32, Issue 1

is now being implemented in school districts across all grade levels. Highly effective mechanisms for building system-wide capacity include fostering an appreciation of individual needs of students and increasing responsibility for sustaining a universal design for social and emotional engagement (Townsend & Rubin, 2018). SEE-KS provides a mechanism for implementing and sustaining universal design for learning practices to enhance the provision of educational programming for all learners. It also enhances interdisciplinary expertise on language and learning development to improve behavior.

References Ansari, A., & Pianta, R. C. (2018). Effects of an early childhood educator coaching intervention on preschoolers: The role of classroom age composition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.001 Bethell, C. D., Newacheck, P., Hawes, E., & Halfon, N. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences: Assessing the impact on health and school engagement and the mitigating role of resilience. Health Affairs, 33(12). http://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0914 Bohlmann, N. L., & Downer, J. T. (2016). Selfregulation and task engagement as predictors of emergent language and literacy skills. Early Education and Development, 27, 18-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1046 784 Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., Bell, E. R., Romero, S. L., & Carter, T. M. (2012). Preschool interactive peer play mediates problem behavior and learning for low-income children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 53-65. http://doi.10.1016/j.appdev.2011.09.003 Bushe, G. R. (1995). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organization development intervention. Organization Development Journal, 13(3), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886395311004 Bushe, G. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not about the positive. OD practitioner, 39(4), 33-38.

Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. (2005) When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A 10

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

meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 161-181.

Cameron, D. L., & Cook, B. G. (2007).

Attitudes of pre-service teachers enrolled in an infusion preparation program regarding planning and accommodations for included students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42. 353-363.

Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: a metaanalysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791-807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325 074 Carr-Stewart, S., & Walker, K. (2003). Learning leadership through appreciative inquiry.

Management in Education, 17(2), 9-14.

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST).

(2004). Planning for all learners (PAL) toolkit. Wakefield, MA: Author.

Chai, Z., & Chen, C. (2019). UDL and early childhood. In W. W. Murawski & K. L. Scott (Eds.), What really works in universal design for learning (207-221). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S. & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16(4), 231–239. https://doi.org/10/1016/j.tics.2012.02.007 Cooperrider, D., & Srivastava S. (1987).

Appreciative inquiry into organizational life.

In R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp.129-169).

Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D. D., Stavros, J. M., & Stavros, J. (2008). The appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of change.

Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & LePage, P. (2013). Improved lesson planning with universal design for learning (UDL).

Teacher Education and Special Education, 36(1), 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406412446178 Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2012). Literacy by design: A

Volume 32, Issue 1

universal design for learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381651 Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: What leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.

De Los Reyes, A., Henry D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Wakschlag, L. S. (2009). Linking informant discrepancies to observed variations in young children’s disruptive behavior.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 637-652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802009-9307-3 Doggett, C., & Lewis, A. (2013). Using appreciative inquiry to facilitate organizational change and develop professional practice within an educational psychology service. Educational & Child Psychology, 30(4), 124-143.

Fettig, A., & Artman-Meeker, K. (2016). Group coaching on pre-school teachers’ implementation of Pyramid Model strategies: A program description. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36, 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416650049 Fifield, J. (2014). An appreciative inquiry into the value of appreciative school leadership: Generative research for addressing 21stcentury education challenges. AI Practitioner, 16(3), 47-52. https://doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-205-7 Fitch, W. T., Huber, L., & Bugnyar, T. (2010).

Social cognition and the evolution of language: Constructing cognitive phylogenies. Neuron, 65(6), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.011 Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 Gallagher, A. L., Murphy, C. A., Conway, P. F., & Perry, A. (2019). Engaging multiple stakeholders to improve speech and language therapy services in schools: an appreciative inquiry-based study. BMC

11

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

Health Services Research, 19(1), 226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4051-z Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, E. (2016). Do early educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and recommendations of preschool expulsion and suspension? A research brief. Yale University Child Study Center, September 28, 2016. https://medicine.yale.edu/childstudy/zigler/p ublications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias %20Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5 379_v1.pdf Hall, T. E., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and technology: Strategic reader.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 72-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714544375 Hartmann, E. (2015). Universal design for learning (UDL) and learners with severe support needs. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 11(1), 54-67.

Hearn, E. (2018). Applying appreciative inquiry for school discipline. AI Practitioner, 20(2), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.12781/978-1907549-35-9-5 Kennedy, M. J., Thomas, C. N., Meyer, J. P., Alves, K. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713507262 Kozik, P. L. (2018). Can appreciative inquiry increase positive interactions, student selfadvocacy and turn-taking during IEP meetings? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(2), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12398 Kozik, P. L., Cooney, B., Vinciguerra, S., Gradel, K., & Black, J. (2009). Promoting inclusion in secondary schools through appreciative inquiry. American Secondary Education, 38, 77-91.

Laurent, A. C., & Rubin, E. (2004). Challenges in emotional regulation in Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism.

Topics in Language Disorders, 24(4), 286-

Volume 32, Issue 1

297. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363200410000-00006 Lewis, S. (2016). Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management: Using AI to Facilitate Organizational Development (Vol. 2).

Kogan Page.

Losen, D. J., & Gillespie, J. (2012).

Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of disciplinary exclusion from school. Civil Rights Project, UCLA. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/ projects/center-for-civil-rightsremedies/school-to-prison-folder/federalreports/upcoming-ccrr-research/ Morgan, L., Hooker, J.L., Sparapani, N., Reinhardt, V.P., Schatschneider, C., & Wetherby, A.M. (2018). Cluster randomized trial of Classroom SCERTS® Intervention for elementary students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 631-644. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000314 National Association for the Education of the Young Child. (2017). Standing together against suspension and expulsion. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. https://www.naeyc.org/standingtogether-against-suspension-expulsionearly-childhood-resources National Research Council. (2001).

Educating children with autism.

Washington: National Academy Press.

Nelson, T. D., Nelson, J. M., James, T. D., Clark, C. A., Kidwell, K. M., & Espy, K. A. (2017). Executive control goes to school: Implications of preschool executive performance for observed elementary classroom learning engagement. Developmental psychology, 53(5), 836. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000296 Otero-López, J. M., Santiago, M. J., Castro, C., & Villardefrancos, E. (2010).

Stressors rendering school coexistence difficult, personal variables and burnout: towards an explanatory model. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 3(2), 299-316. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v3i2.43

12

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

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., La Paro, K. M., Downer, J. T., & Pianta, R. C. (2005).

The contribution of classroom setting and quality of instruction to children’s behavior in kindergarten classrooms.

The Elementary School Journal, 105, 377-394.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S08852006(00)00049-1 Rubin, E., Townsend, J. & Vittori, L. (2018) The Social Emotional Engagement – Knowledge and Skills Framework. www.SEE-KS.com.

Ruble, L. A., & Robson, D. M. (2006).

Individual and environmental determinants of engagement in autism.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1457-1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-0060222-y Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/ default/files/productfiles/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_ REPORT.pdf Townsend, J. & Rubin, E. (2018, April 2627). Social Emotion Engagement Knowledge and Skills (SEE-KS) for 2018 UDL-IRN Summit Proceedings [Conference proceedings]. Universal Design for Learning Implementation and Research Network International Summit, Orlando, FL, United States. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s6fXR PEGyMzPXmLj7CQrvzW37QQ4w0S _/view Vitiello, V., & Williford, A. P. (2016).

Relations between social skills and language and literacy outcomes among disruptive preschoolers: Task engagement as a mediator. Early

Volume 32, Issue 1

Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.1 2.011 Wakschlag, L., Perlman, S. B., Blair, R. J., Leibenluft, E., Briggs-Gowan, M., & Pine, D. S. (2018). The neurodevelopmental basis of early childhood disruptive behavior: Irritable and callous phenotypes as exemplars.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(2), 114-130. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.1 7010045 Yew, S. G. K., & O’Kearney, R. (2013).

Emotional and behavioural outcomes later in childhood and adolescence for children with specific language disorders: Meta-analysis of controlled prospective studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 516524. https://doi.org/10.111/jcpp.12009

About the Authors Dr. Katherine (Katy) Green is an associate professor and program coordinator of Special Education at the University of West Georgia. She graduated from Georgia State University with a Ph.D. in the Education of Students with Exceptionalities with a focus on children with disabilities ages birth to five. With degrees in Speech-Language Pathology and Special Education, Katy taught young children with disabilities in public schools for eight years.

Katy’s passion and expertise include socialemotional, early communication, and academic supports for young children with disabilities and their families.

Dr. Chelsea T. Morris is an assistant professor in the department of Literacy and Special Education at the University of West Georgia. Dr. Morris’s current teaching and research focuses on bias in the perception of children’s behavior in early childhood, 13

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

practice-based coaching, classroom leadership and environment plans for positive behavior, and the engagement of communities and families for school improvement.

Emily Rubin is the Director of the Educational Outreach Program at the Marcus Autism Center in Atlanta, GA. She is a speech-language pathologist specializing in autism spectrum disorder and related social learning disabilities. Her focus is on building the capacity of school systems and early intervention providers to serve as informed consumers of evidence-based practices.

Jen Townsend has a Master’s in Education from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and received a postgraduate certification in Autism Spectrum Disorder from Johns Hopkins University.

Jen has expertise in Social Emotional Learning Differences including Autism Spectrum Disorders.

She works in collaboration with school districts to build capacity for educating all learners through professional development, coaching, systems change and personal reflections to support this success.

Dr. Laura Smith has a Doctor of Philosophy in Elementary Education from the University of South Carolina. She currently serves as the Interim Dean for the College of Education at the University of West Georgia.

Volume 32, Issue 1

14

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

Patterns of Communication in Pre-Service Teacher Education Supervisory Triads Dr. Anna Hart Columbus State University

A critical element of the pre-service teacher education clinical field experience is the communication that occurs between members of the supervisory triad, including the pre-service teacher candidate, the mentor teacher, and the university supervisor. The purpose of this article, the second derived from a larger qualitative meta-synthesis, is to identify communication practices that occur within triads and how those identified practices impact preservice teachers’ clinical experiences. Four primary factors of influence emerged from this analysis: the parties involved in communication, conditions for communication, interaction frequency, and difficulties in communication practices. Findings show that various communication structures occur, within triads across time, that optimal conditions for constructive communication must be intentionally created. Also, interaction frequency impacts the educative outcome of triadic work.

In addition, difficulties in communication exist in many capacities and with varying outcomes in relation to the educative value of the field experience for the pre-service teacher.

Introduction In the field of education, few experiences compare to that of the clinical experience. In preparing to become a licensed educator, preservice teacher candidates engage in clinical experiences primarily carried out by a triad of individuals: the teacher candidate, the mentor teacher, and the university supervisor.

Communication is a foundational component of all interpersonal relationships but is of particular

Volume 32, Issue 1

importance in the context of the relationships formed between members of the supervisory triad. One might assume that, given its importance to the educative outcome of a preservice teacher’s experience, communication among triad members would be researched broadly and frequently. However, only a relatively small body of research on these interactions exists. While some have taken up somewhat narrow lanes of investigation on issues influencing structured communication on pre-service teacher efficacy, very little empirical research has been published regarding nonstructured, organic patterns of communication that occur within supervisory settings (Edgar, Roberts, & Murphy, 2011; James, Hall, & Fraiha, 2015). This article is offered in response to that gap in the literature.

Relevant Literature Theoretical Framework Positioning theory is described as a conceptual apparatus that allows for social constructionist theorizing based on dynamic analysis of conversations and discourses (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999). Study of the interpersonal dynamics of the supervisory triad of teacher education is a complicated undertaking. It involves examination of unique individuals, settings, and contexts, and the contributions of each to the preparation of preservice teachers to professional practice.

Considering these factors, positioning theory was chosen to frame this study. A qualitative meta-synthesis with a central aim of exploring how the interpersonal dynamics of the

15

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

supervisory triad influence pre-service teachers’ clinical experiences was of particular interest because of the theory’s contextualization of triadic relationships within dialogue and culture.

Positioning happens through discourse and assignment of positions to individuals that takes place in numerous ways (van Langenhove & Harré, 1999). As noted in Figure 1, these include first, second, and third order positioning; performative and accountive positioning; moral and personal positioning; self and other positioning; and tacit and intentional positioning. Each of the modes of positioning defined by van Langenhove & Harré (1999) could potentially take place within the triad, depending on a number of situation-specific variables. It is plausible that the positioning of self and others by each of the three members of the supervisory triad is at least one factor that influences the educative outcomes of the preservice teacher’s clinical experience.

Additionally, the discursive patterns of communication through which these positions are developed have an influence on the preservice teacher’s clinical experience as well.

Patterns of Communication Two prevalent patterns of communication in the literature regarding supervisory contexts are dyadic communication (communication between two individuals) and triadic communication (communication among three individuals), both of which have been examined across many contexts over the course of several decades. In 1979, Taylor, de Soto, and Lieb conducted two experiments using dissimilar methods in an effort to better understand disclosure patterns among acquaintances. The authors found that individuals were more likely to divulge “secrets” in a dyadic setting with closed boundaries than in either a dyadic setting with open boundaries or a triadic setting. Later, in 1995, Palmer and Thompson took their own look at the differences between dyadic communication and triadic communication. They conducted a study with 114 undergraduate psychology students in which the students were randomly assigned to groups of three and asked to complete a complex task.

The task was to design a home that met the needs and budget constraints of a hypothetical client. As an added component of the task, each

Volume 32, Issue 1

member of the triad was assigned a “specialty” (e.g. structure, finishes, and/or land) and given confidential information regarding possible options available within that specialty, some of which would earn the corresponding “specialist” a bonus. Because of the availability of the bonuses, each member of the triad had a vested interest in negotiating the inclusion of his or her available options into the design of the home.

The authors found that through these negotiations, dyadic communication occurring within the established triad led to an increased sense of competition as compared to those participating in full-group discussion. They also found that the formation of a dyad within the triad led to the temporary isolation of the triad’s third member—a circumstance that rotated to include all members in all capacities across the duration of the task—resulting in an overarching sense of diminished group morale and trust.

Tschan (2002) conducted a review of three studies on cycles of communication adhering to the action steps of 1) orientation and preparation for the task, 2) execution of the task, and 3) monitoring and evaluation of the task’s success.

She found a commonality among triads, dyads, and individuals using a think-aloud process in that there was a significant positive correlation between cycle quality and successful task performance, meaning that as communication improved, so too did task performance in each of the groupings of individuals included in the study. Looking specifically at triads of communication in young-adult stepchildren in established stepfamilies, Baxter, Braithwaite, and Bryant (2006) identified four triadic communication structures inclusive of the child, the stepparent, and the residential parent: the linked triad, in which the child/residential parent and the stepparent/residential parent dyads were positively valenced while the child/stepparent dyad was not; the outsider triad, in which the child/residential parent dyad was positively valenced while the remaining two dyads were not; the adult-coalition triad, in which the stepparent/residential parent dyad was positively valenced while the other two were not; and the complete triad, in which all three dyads were positively valenced. The authors promote the complete triad as the most ideal of the four, but

16

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

Mode of Positioning First Order Second Order

Definition The way persons locate themselves and others within an essentially moral space by using several categories and storylines Occurs when first order positioning is not taken for granted and is questioned or must be negotiated

Third Order

Accountive positioning that occurs outside the original discussion; May involve other persons outside those who took place in the original conversation

Performative

First order positioning taken at face value and is not subject to challenge or revision; Determinate acts have an immediate perlocutionary effect

Accountive

“Talk about talk”; First order positioning is questioned either within the original conversation where positions were assigned, or within another conversation between the original parties about the original conversation

Moral

Personal

Self Other Tacit Intentional

Positioning based on the role an individual occupies within a given moral order or institutional aspect of social life Positioning based on individual attributes and particularities; Negative correlation to moral positioning, in that the more a person’s actions cannot be made intelligible by reference to roles, the more prominent personal positioning will be Positioning of oneself within discursive practice Positioning of others by an individual through discursive practice Individuals involved in discourse will position themselves or others in an unintentional or unconscious way Intentional positioning of self or others through discourse

Figure 1. Modes of positioning (van Langenhove & Harré, 1999, pp. 20-23) “urge stepfamily members and researcher alike to explore the possibility that multiple communication structures can be functional” (p.

395). These studies serve to highlight the complexities of communication that occurs in both dyadic and triadic settings. With this in mind, the next section will discuss communication as it occurs in the specific context of pre-service teacher education.

Volume 32, Issue 1

Communication in Pre-Service Teacher Education Communication in pre-service teacher education has been studied from many perspectives over the years. In 2007, a team of researchers (Tang & Chow, 2007) examined how feedback was communicated in supervisor/pre-service teacher dyads using the learning-oriented field experience assessment (LOFEA) framework, which assesses three primary domains of pre-service teacher

17

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

performance: professional attributes, teaching and learning, and involvement in the education community. As a result of implementation of the LOFEA framework, teacher candidates became more active in constructing professional knowledge and reflecting on their professional practice and goals, while supervisors became more adept at “making possible the sponsoring of teacher construction of professional knowledge and enhancement of self-regulated learning and a growth orientation” (p. 1080).

A second study by Tsui, Lopez-Real, Law, Tang, & Shum (2001) involving three supervisors, five mentor teachers, and six preservice teachers examined the discourse that occurred in supervisory conferences with all three triad members present. The authors of the study identified an imbalance of power within the triad that was skewed in favor of the supervisor in most contexts. Despite this imbalance, it was found that complementary contributions were made to the learning of the pre-service teacher by both the supervisor and the mentor teacher. The authors asserted that instead of attempting to balance the power within the triad, it would be much more effective, realistic, and productive to enhance their complementary roles by developing a longterm relationship that fosters mutual trust, understanding of, and respect for each other’s work (Tsui et al., 2001).

Multiple studies address the implementation of structured communication in the supervisory process. Edgar et al. (2011) investigated the use of a structured communication form and its impact on the pre-service teacher supervisees’ sense of professional efficacy. Supervisors of 82 pre-service agricultural science teachers used the form to rate their supervisees in twelve areas of “accomplished practices.” These practices included: assessment, communication, continuous improvement, critical thinking, diversity, ethics, human development and learning, subject matter knowledge, learning environment, planning, role of the teacher, and technology (Edgar et al., 2011). The ratings were then shared with the pre-service teachers and the university. The data collected revealed there was no significant relationship between the use of the structured communication form and

Volume 32, Issue 1

pre-service teachers’ sense of professional efficacy, however the authors defended their position that the effect of using structured communication during field experiences should be further examined and that both pre-service teachers and mentor teachers should be provided instruction on improving their communication skills.

Similarly, James et al. (2015) studied the implementation of a structured communication format that included a pre-determined set of guiding questions and goal setting tasks developed in an effort to address challenges pertaining to the timing and method of communication between teacher candidates and their mentor teachers. Results clearly indicated that the use of guiding questions was critical in maintaining the pre-service teacher and cooperating teachers’ focus on growth and repetition of effective communication. As with the previously discussed study, James et al. assert that their findings supported the need for providing communication-strategy specific training to cooperating teachers so that they could more effectively give useful feedback to their pre-service teacher mentees and then comonitor the implementation process with their mentee (James et al., 2015). Strieker, Adams, Lim, and Wright (2017) focused not on a structure of communication, but rather on yearlong, co-taught clinical experiences, found that implementing co-teaching provided members of the triad with a layer of intentionality and guidance for their work. This included dialogue with one another that is normally not found in traditional supervisory contexts. In simply providing more structure to the roles and responsibilities assumed by each triad member, the communication within the triad was inherently more structured. This structure resulted in an increase in teacher candidates’ efficacy and expertise. A higher level of accountability for K-12 student learning due to having two adults (mentor teacher and teacher candidate) in the classroom on a regular basis and a more democratic distribution of power within the classroom were also evident.

18

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

Methodology Study Aims and Research Questions This article, the second derived from a larger study of the interpersonal dynamics of the supervisory triad, focuses specifically on communication patterns and practices within the triad. The purpose of this piece of the larger study was to identify communication practices that occur within supervisory triads and how those practices impact pre-service teachers’ clinical experiences. The research question guiding the work detailed in the current article is as follows: What patterns of communication that occur within the triad influence pre-service teachers’ clinical experiences?

Overview of Research Design Qualitative meta-synthesis methodology was employed for this study, a methodology originally developed as a derivative of metaethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988; Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007). Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) define meta-synthesis as “a form of systematic review or integration of qualitative research findings in a target domain that are themselves interpretive syntheses of data” (p.

227). Qualitative meta-synthesis methodology was chosen for this research because it best suited its overarching primary objective—to produce new knowledge of the interpersonal dynamics of the supervisory triad—through the collection and synthesis of empirical qualitative research. This methodology was also chosen because of its potential to articulate the collective voice of an emerging field of study toward improved practice. Britten et al. (2017) note that “well-conducted systematic reviews of qualitative research provide the opportunity to inform policy and practice” (p. 1371).

Data Collection and Analysis Data for this study included peer-reviewed and empirical literature. Sampling parameters were established before data collection. Those parameters, partially derived Sandelowski and Barroso (2007), include conceptual, population, temporal, and access bounds. Each of these criteria are defined in Figure 2.

Once the sampling parameters were established, data were collected via a systematic process that employed both electronic and

Volume 32, Issue 1

manual retrieval methods (Booth, Sutton, & Papaioannou, 2016; Onwuegbuzie & Frels, 2016). Specific techniques utilized include keyword and concept searches in electronic databases; citation tracking, including forward and backward chaining; journal browsing; snowballing; and pearl growing. This process led to the initial identification of a total of 877 references for potential inclusion in this synthesis. A systematic review process led to an ultimate yield of eleven studies deemed worthy of inclusion, as determined by the previously established sampling criteria.

Directed content analysis was employed for the analysis of collected data. Guidelines from the work of Hsieh and Shannon (2005), modified slightly to fit the needs of this study, provided the overarching framework for the analysis. Initially, only one primary coding theme relevant to the current article was established, “Communication,” a direct reflection of the research question guiding the study. As shown in Figure 3, additional subcodes and sub-subcodes were added and the data were reorganized as needed.

Findings Patterns of Communication Full Triad Communication Roles and positions taken on by triad members greatly influence both the quality and the quantity of the triad’s communicative interactions (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Goh & Hannon, 2012; Johnson & Napper-Owen, 2011; Nguyen, 2009; Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman, 2009). An example of this comes from Valencia et al. (2009): Student teachers entered the field with ideas and approaches they were eager to try out, few of the cooperating teachers provided opportunities to implement them. When they did provide such opportunities, most teachers were unavailable or unable to provide feedback. Similarly, supervisors sometimes had valuable perspectives that they felt unwilling to share due to the feedback they had received from the university, the affiliation they felt with the cooperating teachers, and their commitment to preserving harmony. And

19

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

Parameter

Definition

Conceptual

Examines the interpersonal dynamics of the supervisory triad of teacher education

Population

Examines supervisory triads that exist in the context of American schools

Temporal Access

Published within 15 years of the commencement of data collection (i.e. between 2002 and 2017) Primary research published in the English language

Figure 2. Study sampling parameters and parameter definitions (modified from [Author], 2020) cooperating teachers juggled classroom and school responsibilities with mentoring yet were given little support or training in how to serve these dual roles. As a result of these cross-setting tensions, opportunities to learn were missed and minimized. Moreover, student teachers became complicit actors in what was, for them, a deeply important and high-stakes setting. (p. 318) The roles and positions taken on by triad members also greatly influence who dominates the triad’s communicative interactions. Goh and Hannon (2012) related that the mentor teacher dominated triadic interactions in the triad at the center of their study because she held the greatest amount of teaching experience among the three of them, leading the university supervisor to “[experience] a transactional Initial Code

Subcodes

hierarchy of power with the cooperating teacher, demonstrated by a domination of voices during meetings” (p. 76). A second example of this can be found in Bullough and Draper’s 2004 study that examined what they deemed to be a “failed triad.” In this study, the mentor teacher and university supervisor had positioned one another as oppositional to the other’s interests and sensibilities regarding the teaching of mathematics. This eventually led to their outright avoidance of one another and essential abandonment of their shared responsibility of fostering the teacher candidate’s learning and professional development. This resulted in the teacher candidate reporting feelings of being “stuck in the middle” between the mentor teacher and university supervisor (Bullough & Draper, 2004).

Sub-subcodes1 Full Triad

Included Parties

MT/TC US/TC MT/US

Conditions for Communication Interaction Frequency

Communication

Difficulties in Communication Practice

Miscommunication and Confusion of Message Conflict or Incongruence Among Triad Members "Stuck in the Middle"

1

MT = Mentor Teacher; US = University Supervisor; TC = Teacher Candidate Figure 3. Codebook for data analysis

Volume 32, Issue 1

20

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

Mentor Teacher/Teacher Candidate Communication No consistent trends were identified through this synthesis regarding communication frequency between the mentor teachers and teacher candidates. Some pairs conversed frequently while others rarely spoke with one another (Johnson & Napper-Owen, 2011).

Mentor teachers focused their discussions with teacher candidates on generalities of teaching instead of topics such as subject matter content and pedagogy. A particular focus was placed on classroom management, even in instances when pedagogy or content were discussed as well (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Valencia et al., 2009). To exemplify this finding, Valencia et al.

(2009) state the following: It is not that cooperating teachers and student teachers failed to discuss classroom matters—they did. They talked frequently, often at the end of the day or in brief exchanges throughout the day, and four of nine teams spent considerable time together planning upcoming lessons. However, these conversations were focused on more general issues instead of specifics of language arts lessons. although all the student teachers in this study except one were highly rated by their cooperating teachers and viewed as colleagues, these novice teachers yearned for, and could have benefited from, the perspectives and guidance of their classroom mentors. (p. 314) Fernandez and Erbilgin further note that conferences led by the university supervisor consisted of a substantially smaller percentage of classroom management content than those led by cooperating teachers.” (Fernandez and Erbilgin, 2009). This finding may again be rooted in the notion that the environment in which a member of the triad is primarily entrenched largely determines his or her view on the practicum. Because classroom management is so critical to an in–service teacher’s overall success, he or she may revert to using it as a primary point of discussion with the teacher candidate. In taking on the role of mentor to an inexperienced pre-service teacher, the mentor teacher may be positioning him/herself as expert

Volume 32, Issue 1

by engaging in speech acts that assert his or her authority as such.

In practice, mentor teachers were positioned by their respective teacher candidates as being a source for information and feedback that would help them grow professionally (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Johnson & Napper-Owen, 2011; Murphy, 2010). Three of the studies included in the current synthesis discussed how the TCs, too, were able to “grow and develop quickly” as a result of the shared dialogue between the teacher candidate and cooperating teacher (Johnson & Napper-Owen, 2011). This rapid growth was attributed to the relatively increased amount of time mentor teachers spent in communication with their respective teacher candidates as compared to university supervisors.

University Supervisor/Teacher Candidate Communication The current study’s findings indicate that university supervisors tend to focus their discussions with teacher candidates on subject matter content, pedagogy, and theory (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Goh & Hannon, 2012; Valencia et al., 2009). The approaches to supervision they utilized were often educative in nature and utilized questioning as a frequent mode of communicating with the teacher candidates (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Silva, 2003). In general, teacher candidates have a desire to receive feedback on their growth and performances in the classroom; when the mentor teacher is unwilling or unable to provide that feedback, teacher candidates turn to the university supervisor as one who may provide them with comments. In triads studied by both Johnson & Napper-Owen (2011) and Valencia et al. (2009), mentor teachers gave little or no feedback to their teacher candidates regarding their instructional performance, leading the teacher candidates in these triads to intentionally seek that feedback from their university supervisors.

Mentor Teacher/University Supervisor Communication Communication between the mentor teacher and university supervisor is the least documented pattern of communication among all dyads within the supervisory triads

21

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

represented in the current synthesis. Overall, the current study identified a general lack of effective communication between the mentor teacher and university supervisor about the teacher candidate’s progress and skill development (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Goh & Hannon, 2012; Johnson & Napper-Owen, 2011; Katz & Isik-Ercan, 2015; Murphy, 2010). In triads where the university supervisor and mentor teacher do communicate with one another, there is no consistent pattern regarding the content or the polarity, either positive or negative, of their interactions (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Campbell & Lott, 2010; Goh & Hannon, 2012; Katz & Isik-Ercan, 2015; Murphy, 2010; Valencia et al., 2009). For example, on one end of the spectrum lies the relationship between the mentor teacher and university supervisor in a “failed triad” explored

by Bullough and Draper (2004). For this pair, each positioned the other as a threat and discredited any skills, abilities, and knowledge they brought to the supervisory relationship. By the end of the supervisory period, communication was avoided completely between the two (Bullough & Draper, 2004). On the other end of the spectrum, Johnson and Napper-Owen (2011) discuss a triad in which the mentor teacher and university supervisor enjoyed a positively functioning dyadic relationship in which each had positioned the other as having good intentions toward the teacher candidate’s professional growth and overall practicum experience.

Conditions for Communication Space and conditions for constructive communication must be intentionally created (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Goh & Hannon, 2012; Koerner, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002; Silva, 2003). Bullough and Draper (2004) assert a need to attend to the conditions required for communication to take place, but attending to those conditions requires attending to how triad members positioned themselves and how they responded to being positioned. The authors contend that positions that invite communication can be mindfully created and systematically supported. They do not often just happen.

Intentionally creating conditions and space for effective communication is a key factor in the

Volume 32, Issue 1

overall effectiveness of the supervisory triad.

Goh and Hannon (2012) concur, stating that building rapport between the university supervisors and the cooperating teachers will enhance the likelihood of developing a “noble triad.” A noble triad is defined as three individuals bonded together for the singular benefit of the student teacher (Goh and Hannon, 2012). If triads are to become “noble,” members of the triad must be intentional about creating the space and conditions necessary for freeflowing communication.

One study included in the current synthesis created intentional space and conditions for communication among triad members via a triad journal (Silva, 2003). This study included ten supervisory triads implemented over the course of two years. This study found that the journals provided evidence of role re-conceptualization by, both, the mentor teacher and university supervisor. This included heightened communication among all triad members. It also included potential use of journals as a vehicle for nurturing a problem-posing culture, which is a critical feature of an inquiry-oriented professional development school. Creating the energy, space, and time for the type of reflection that leads to shared professional growth is also imperative. Although triad journaling appears to be an effective method for creating appropriate space and conditions for communication among triad members, it has not been widely implemented, making it difficult to ascertain its potential impact across the full field of supervision.

Interaction Frequency The current study’s findings indicate that interactions between the mentor teacher and teacher candidate happen more frequently than interactions between the university supervisor and the teacher candidate (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Goh & Hannon, 2012; Johnson & NapperOwen, 2011; Murphy, 2010). As a result, the relationships between the mentor teacher and teacher candidate were often reported to be closer and more developed than those between the university supervisor and the teacher candidate, though this was not true in all cases (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Murphy, 2010).

Also, because of the supervisor’s infrequent

22

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

visits, it was suggested that the mentor teacher may be a more accurate evaluator of the teacher candidate’s improvement and overall performance (Goh & Hannon, 2012; Murphy, 2010).

Many researchers suggest that triad members simply talking more will not change the ineffectiveness of the triad unless the talk that happens is productive and in pursuit of the same shared goal for the student teaching experience (Bullough & Draper, 2004).

Increasing positive communication may be dependent on the aforementioned factors of existing conditions for communication, such as the intentional creation of a time and space that promotes such action, and the determined roles and positions of triad members.

Difficulties in Communication Practices Clearly, not all pre-service teacher supervisory triads are dysfunctional. However, the data synthesized in the current study did give rise to three difficulties that occur frequently in practice: miscommunication and confusion of message; conflict or incongruence among triad members; and teacher candidates being “stuck in the middle” between university and field. This section discusses each of these identified issues.

Miscommunication and Confusion of Message The current study’s findings indicate that the messages given to teacher candidates by mentor teachers and university supervisors in separate dyadic settings often tend to lack cohesiveness.

Mentor teachers and university supervisors often gave conflicting and/or confusing feedback to teacher candidates (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Johnson & NapperOwen, 2011; Katz & Isik-Ercan, 2015). For example, in one of the triads examined by Fernandez and Erbilgin (2009), the teacher candidate positioned herself as a strong teacher based on the high level of positivity of the feedback she was given by the university supervisor, when in fact the supervisor felt the teacher candidate had considerable room for professional growth. Miscommunication and confusion among triad members was fed by a lack of open and honest communication regarding norms, expectations, and roles assumed. Johnson and Napper-Owen (2011) asserted that confusion could be alleviated

Volume 32, Issue 1

through role- and expectation-establishing discussion prior to the start of the practicum.

Conflict or Incongruence among Triad Members There is often a “clash” between representatives of the university community (i.e. university supervisors) and representatives of the P-12 teaching community (i.e. mentor teachers).

Findings from this study assert that both mentor teachers and university supervisors frequently position themselves as agents of their respective contexts (university or field), which leads to misalignment of their assessment and expectations of the teacher candidates’ performance (Bullough & Draper, 2004; Goh & Hannon, 2012; Katz & Isik-Ercan, 2015; Nguyen, 2009). In only one case noted in the current synthesis did a study document any manner of resolution to this issue. Nguyen (2009) noted that the [mentor teacher/university supervisor/teacher candidate] triad did not always share the same perspective on matters[,] for they each brought their own viewpoints, strengths, and limitations. So rather than insisting on reaching consensus, they worked hard at honouring each other’s voice and broadening their cultural, social, and political repertoire. (p. 662) In this case, the members of the triad made an intentional effort to learn from and with one another. This example affirms Johnson and Napper-Owen’s (2011) previously discussed assertion that open communication within the triad may mitigate potentially negative outcomes.

“Stuck in the Middle” Two of the studies included in the current synthesis discussed teacher candidates being “stuck” between the university and field. In the first, when the relationship between the mentor teacher and university teacher devolved into conflict, the teacher candidate “felt pressure to take sides” and pledge her allegiance to one of them (Bullough & Draper, 2004). The teacher candidate reported feeling frustrated and confused about what to do (Bullough & Draper, 2004). Ultimately, she chose to align with the mentor teacher in an effort to secure a positive evaluation. She positioned herself to assure a positive outcome for herself.

23

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

In the other, a pair of teacher candidates found themselves caught between the expectations of their shared mentor teacher and the languaculture established by the field setting, and the expectations of their university supervisor and the languaculture and requirements of the university’s teacher preparation program (Katz & Isik-Ercan, 2015).

Both of these examples resulted in teacher candidates positioning their mentor teachers as having more power than their university supervisors, which established the mentor’s position as “one who knows and understands teaching from the inside, where claims to expertise grounded in many years of experience trump authority claims based on years of academic study.” (Katz & Isik-Ercan, 2015).

Discussion The importance of open, frequent communication within triads cannot be understated. The factors of influence discussed previously in this article are an outgrowth of the influence communication, or lack thereof, has on the functioning of the triad. This study reveals that communication within the triad happens in both triadic and dyadic patterns, though not all occur at the same rate of frequency. In terms of dyadic communication, mentor teacher/university supervisor communication is the least documented pattern within the triad. It is unclear from the literature why communication within this dyad does not occur more frequently. While not specifically stated in all cases, perhaps this deficit could be attributed to a lack of time or space to converse, ignorance of its importance in the process of clinical education, or that neither the mentor teacher nor the university supervisor tends to view supervision of pre-service teachers as their primary duty. Conversely, mentor teacher/teacher candidate communication was found to happen most frequently as compared to other communication structures within the triad.

Mentor teachers and teacher candidates are in contact daily. As such, communication of some kind between the two becomes almost inevitable simply due to proximity. In many cases, communication within this dyad leads to stronger relationships and a greater sense of trust between the two. Lu (2007) asserts that the

Volume 32, Issue 1

mentor teacher is the most vital member of the triad to teacher candidates’ learning to teach.

This vitality is most likely attributable to the daily interactions the mentor teacher has with the teacher candidate.

In addition to the frequency of communication among various groupings within the triad, the content of communication varied among groupings as well. In mentor teacher/teacher candidate dialogue, generalities of teaching—particularly classroom management—were the dominant topics of conversation, while in university supervisor/teacher candidate dialogue, subject matter content, pedagogy, and theory were the dominant topics discussed (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Valencia et al., 2009). This again supports the notion that both the mentor teacher and university supervisor position themselves first as agents of their respective primary settings. Because mentor teachers largely position themselves first as teachers of K-12 students, it makes sense that their conversations would center on issues that most directly influence the day-to-day operation of the classroom. Similarly, because university supervisors often position themselves first as professors and scholars, it makes sense that their conversations center on more abstract facets of teaching. Both Elrod (2017) and Paparone (2015) found that open, reflective dialogue regarding professional practice, expectations, and positioning of self and others among triad members aids in the personal and professional growth of teacher candidates. Findings of the current study recommend that all members of the triad engage in open dialogue about the perspectives of one another because doing so would increase the effectiveness of the clinical experience for the teacher candidate.

As is common in interpersonal relationships, conflicts were documented in some of the triads central to the studies included in the current synthesis. Rhoads, Samkoff, and Weber (2013) identified seven causes of tension between a mentor teacher/teacher candidate dyad. They studied, and included a) the amount of freedom afforded the teacher candidate in choosing teaching methods; b) the topics within the content area to be emphasized in instruction; c)

24

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

time management; d) the teacher candidate’s ability to understand students’ content knowledge and difficulties; e) the mentor teacher’s tendency to interrupt the teacher candidate while teaching; f) the mentor teacher and teacher candidate’s difference in opinion regarding the role of feedback; and g) the difficult personal relationship forged between the two. On a broader scale inclusive of all three triad members, the current synthesis found evidence to support the existence of each of these sources of tension. Two additional sources of tension were also identified as a result of the current synthesis. The first was teacher candidates’ confusion due to mixed messages regarding their performance from the mentor teacher and the university supervisor in separate dyadic settings. The second was teacher candidates’ feeling of being “stuck in the middle” between the mentor teacher and university supervisor in terms of expectations and responsibilities. Even in triads that did not devolve into dysfunction, a large number appeared to exhibit missed opportunities for teacher candidates’ professional and personal growth due to a lack of effective communication.

Implications and Future Research Because of the importance and emphasis placed on the clinical component of pre-service teacher education, this line of study needs the continued attention of researchers and practitioners alike. The following two suggestions are offered as potential directions for this research. First, because the defining of roles and expectations within the triad continues to be a cause for a diminished educative outcome for pre-service teachers, finding viable solutions to these issues and then making progress toward implementing those solutions is long overdue. Second, this study confirms that communication between the mentor teacher and university supervisor happens less frequently than in any other grouping among triad members. Exploration of the potential causes for this lack of communication and how communication within that dyad might be improved is greatly needed.

This article strengthens the empirical underpinning of a conceptual conversation that

Volume 32, Issue 1

has been in progress for many years. In 2010, Linda Darling-Hammond asserted that the clinical side of teacher education has been fairly haphazard, with little guidance about what happens in clinical experiences (DarlingHammond, 2010). Over a decade later, the same observation still holds true in many settings. At the center of the clinical experience are the relationships formed and subsequent work completed by the members of the supervisory triad. Without addressing the interpersonal dynamics of field-based supervisory triads, specifically the communication practices that take place, the success of any implemented reform will be limited at best.

References [Author]. (2020).

Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Bryant, L. E. (2006). Types of communication triads perceived by young-adult stepchildren in established stepfamilies. Communication Studies, 57(4), 381-400. doi: 10.1080/10510970600945923 Booth, A., Sutton, A. & Papaioannou, D. (2016).

Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Britten, N., Garside, R., Pope, C., Frost, J., & Cooper, C. (2017). Asking more of qualitative synthesis: A response to Sally Thorne. Qualitative Health Research, 27(9), 1370-1376. doi: 10.1177/1049732317709010 Bullough, R. V. & Draper, R. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: mentors, university supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5). doi: 10.1177/0022487104269804 Campbell, T. & Lott, K. (2010). Triad dynamics: Investigating social forces, roles, and storylines. Teaching Education, 21(4), 349366.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 35-47.

Retrieved from http://chalkboardproject.org/sites/default/file s/Teacher-Education-the-American-FutureJTE.pdf

25

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

Edgar, D. W., Roberts, T. G., & Murphy, T. H. (2011). Exploring relationships between teaching efficacy and student teachercooperating teacher relationships. Journal of Agricultural Education, 52(1), 9-18. doi: 10.5032/jae.2011.01009 Elrod, M.J. (2017). Exploring mathematics teacher education fieldwork experiences through storytelling. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

Fernandez, M.L. & Erbilgin, E. (2009).

Examining the supervision of mathematics student teachers through analysis of conference communications. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 93-110. doi: 10.1007/s10649-009-9185-1 Goh, T.L. & Hannon, J.C. (2012). Noble triad or devil’s triangle? An autoethnography of a neophyte university supervisor. Graduate Journal of Sport, Exercise & Physical Education Research, 2012(1), 65-80.

Harré, R. & van Langenhove, L. (1999). The dynamics of social episodes. In R. Harré and L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Qualitative Health Research, 15(9). doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687 James, R., Hall, A., & Fraiha, B. (2015).

Towards improving the informal feedback loop: Cooperating teacher, pre-service teacher structured discussions. International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 21(34), 1-12.

Johnson, I.L. & Napper-Owen, G. (2011). The importance of role perceptions in the student teaching triad. Physical Educator, 68(1), 4456.

Katz, L. & Isik-Ercan, Z. (2015). Challenging points of contact among supervisor, mentor teacher and teacher candidates: Conflicting institutional expectations. Pedagogies, 10(1), 54-69. doi: 10.1080/1554480X.2014.999772 Koerner, M., Rust, F.O., & Baumgartner, F. (2002). Exploring roles in student teaching placements. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 35-58.

Volume 32, Issue 1

Lu, H.L. (2007). Mentor teachers, program supervisors, and peer coaching in the student teaching experience: A phenomenological study of the experiences of mentor teachers, program supervisors, and interns. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

Murphy, K.L. (2010). Perceptions of the student teaching triad: An inquiry into relationships and supervision. Asian Journal of Physical Education & Recreation, 16(1), 53-66.

Nguyen, H.T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2009), 655–662. doi: 0.1016/j.tate.2008.10.001 Noblit, G. & Hare, R.D. (1988). Metaethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Frels, R. (2016). 7 steps to a comprehensive literature review: A multimodal & cultural approach. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Palmer, L. G. & Thompson, L. (1995).

Negotiation in triads: Communication constraints and tradeoff structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1(2), 83-94. doi: 10.1037/1076898X.1.2.83 Paparone, S.A. (2015). A collective case study of the perceptions of intentional reflective dialogue by music student teachers, cooperating teachers, and a supervisor during the student teaching experience.

Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations.

Rhoads, K., Samkoff, A., & Weber, K. (2013).

Student teacher and cooperating teacher tensions in a high school mathematics teacher internship: The case of Luis and Sheri. Mathematics Teacher Education & Development, 15(1), 108-128.

Sandelowski, M. & Barroso, J. (2003). Creating metasummaries of qualitative findings.

Nursing Research, 52(4), 226-233.

26

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

Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007).

Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer.

Silva, D.Y. (2003). Triad journaling: A tool for creating professional learning communities.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(4), 69-82.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478400 Strieker, T., Adams, M., Lim, W., & Wright, M. (2017). Using discourse analysis to understand the relationships and practices of pre-service co-teachers. Georgia Educational Researcher, 14(1), 40-68. doi: 10.20429/ger.2017.140102 Tang, S. Y. F. & Chow, A. W. K. (2007).

Communicating feedback in teaching practice supervision in a learning-oriented field experience assessment framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1066-1085. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.013 Taylor, R. B., de Soto, C. B., & Lieb, R. (1979).

Sharing secrets: Disclosure and discretion in dyads and triads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 196-1203. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1196 Tschan, F. (2002). Ideal cycles of communication (or cognitions) in triads, dyads, and individuals. Small Group Research, 33(6), 615-643. doi: 10.1177/1046496402238618 Tsui, A. B. M.. Lopez-Real, F., Law, Y. K., Tang, R. & Shum, M. S. K. (2001). Roles and relationships in tripartite supervisory conferencing processes. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 16(4), 322-344.

Valencia, S.W., Martin, S.D., Place, N.A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304-322. doi: 10.1177/0022487109336543 van Langenhove, L. & Harré, R. (1999).

Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré and L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Volume 32, Issue 1

About the Author Dr. Anna Hart currently serves as Director of EPP Assessment and Teacher Leadership Program Coordinator for the College of Education and Health Professions at Columbus State University in Columbus, Georgia. Before moving into higher education, she taught at the elementary level for nine years. Her research interests include pre-service teacher education, communication practices in education, early literacy, and teacher leadership.

27

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

Situated Writing: An Effective Strategy for Teaching Behaviorism in Educational Psychology Meagan C. Arrastía-Chisholm and Samantha Tackett Valdosta State University Kelly M. Torres The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Most educator preparation programs (EPPs), including those in Georgia, require educational psychology coursework in their curriculum.

Across many contexts, educators frequently use the behaviorist perspective of learning, which is also a foundational component of educational psychology. However, pre-service teachers (PTs) frequently hold misconceptions about behaviorism, making it difficult to apply this theory. In this quasi-experimental study, students learned about behaviorism in the context of an introductory educational psychology course intended for PTs. The control group participated in lecture and discussion only and the intervention group additionally discussed applications of behaviorist theoretical concepts outside of class in a situated writing assignment. A total of 123 undergraduate students completed pre- and post-test items during the behaviorism unit. Those who completed situated writing assignments experienced significantly more gains in content knowledge compared to the control group of lecture and discussion only. Implications and other areas of EPP curricula are discussed.

Educator preparation programs (EPPs) in Georgia approved by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission (GaPSC, 2019) require educational psychology coursework in their curriculum. Educational psychology covers different standards required by GaPSC, as well as content on the pedagogical assessment required for certification. In this study, educational psychology is the main focus of the Volume 32, Issue 1

course examined, called Exploring Learning and Teaching. Pre-service teachers (PTs) take this course within the first two years of their undergraduate curriculum as an EPP admission requirement. In this course, students are exposed to learning theory for the first time. Across many contexts, educators frequently use the behaviorist perspective of learning which is a foundational component of educational psychology. However, PTs frequently hold misconceptions about educational psychology (Ohst et al., 2015; Menz et al., 2020). For example, many PTs identify negative reinforcement as a punishment and cite punishment to be more effective than reinforcement in shaping behavior.

Can writing engage students in learning about behaviorism without direct observation or practice? To enhance student learning of this foundational theory, the instructor of the course adopted a situated learning approach (Brown et al., 1989; Bredo, 1994; Korthagen, 2017).

Situated learning approaches provide PTs opportunities to engage in authentic learning tasks that are connected to real-world settings (Luo, et al., 2017; Savitz, 2019). In this quasiexperimental study, PTs learned about behaviorism with the control group participating in lecture and discussion only and the intervention group additionally considering applications of behaviorist theoretical concepts outside of class in a situated writing assignment.

A total of 123 undergraduate students completed pre and post-test items during the behaviorism 28

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

unit. Assessment data were analyzed using an independent samples t-test. Those who completed situated writing assignments experienced significantly more gains in content knowledge compared to the control group of lecture and discussion only.

Why Behaviorism?

Behaviorism is the oldest conception of human learning provided by the field of psychology (Mueller, 2017). Despite its age, behaviorism has stood the test of time as a foundational understanding of the shaping of habits. Even though it is so ingrained in our culture and readily used today across education (e.g., parenting, counseling, self-help programs) pre-service teachers, like other college students, still struggle with the concepts of this theory. As instructors of higher education, we constantly strive to better serve our students by examining ways to increase relevance of content, particularly the application of theory.

Educational psychology is the study of learning and teaching across contexts and a required part of most EPPs (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2018). However, most instructional materials, including textbooks, feature examples from K-12 education that often do not go deeper than superficially applying theories (Nezhad & Vahedi, 2011; Shuell, 1988). Because of the importance of behaviorism in understanding learning, the authors of this study explored ways to make the content more meaningful and situate the information within a relevant context for students.

Although the study of psychology involves both practical and theoretical application of content, the scholarship of teaching and learning seems to focus on hands-on practical uses of content. When training future teachers, teacher education researchers have argued that teachers need a good understanding of theory and practical experience to adapt to new situations that arise, as opposed to reenacting prescribed routines (Entwistle, 1969; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Korthagen, 2017). One way to support a student’s understanding and assessment of theoretical applications is through the act of writing. Although writing has been a recommended part of the psychology curriculum for decades, the specific purposes for and

Volume 32, Issue 1

techniques of writing have had limited exploration (Dunn, 1994). Therefore, the use of writing assignments for the purpose of learning about behaviorism is examined in this study.

Moreover, researchers have found that preservice teachers vary in their abilities to identify behavior scenarios and that the inclusion of behaviorism is vital in helping PTs develop their repertoire of skills needed to shape student learning and development (Youngblom & Filter, 2013; Kaplan, 2018). Because behaviorism is uniformly taught in EPPs, we hope that this study will interest teacher educators across various content areas and disciplines.

Applications of Behaviorism Behaviorism is most notably applied to education in the realm of classroom management. Classroom management is the systematic way of managing student behavior in a classroom and it includes both the physical and psychological environment of the classroom. A substantial portion of classroom management includes early communication of rules and expectations, and the knowledge that those rules include consequences. This classroom management approach not only includes punishments doled out for undesirable behavior but also rewards for desirable behavior. Reward systems and token economies can be implemented at any scale from an individual student plan to a school-wide behavior program (Duchesne & McMaugh, 2018; Ormrod & Jones, 2012). With the advent of technology in the classroom, behaviorism is now applied to the use of virtual consequences. For example, Classroom Dojo is a positive behavior intervention and support (PBIS) system that tracks student behaviors over time (Manolev et al., 2019). Likewise, in online learning modalities, badges and awards are used to motivate and increase desirable student behaviors, assignment completions, and overall achievement. The following professionals also use behavioral principles in their practice: administrators, applied behavioral analysts, athletics coaches, reading coaches, and speech/language pathologists.

Writing in Higher Education and EPPs Writing is a major component of EPP admission assessments like the GACE, and

29

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

historically some teaching certification assessments have also required written responses (ETS, 2021; Lachuk & Koellner, 2015).

Therefore, writing should be a regular assessment technique in EPPs. However, most written assignments in education courses involve reflection on learning and are often journal-type assignments (Fry et al., 2018). In educational psychology, applying theory is a difficult task for PTs to master, thus implementing writing assignments may support students’ conceptual understanding of learning theories by allowing them to relate the principles to examples of their choosing.

The use of written assignments to increase students’ learning outcomes in the college curriculum was a strategy promoted by the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) movement more than 40 years ago (Bacabac, 2018; Holford, et al., 2001; McLeod & Soven, 1992). Incorporating writing has been successful in promoting student learning, improving written communication and vocabulary use (Kemp & Seagraves, 1995), as well as supporting the metacognitive practice of self-reflection (Hettich, 1990; Holford et al., 2001; Snodgrass, 1985; Bailey et al., 2017; Bolin, et al., 2005; McLeod, 1991; Kemp & Seagraves, 1995).

Often writing assignments are used to facilitate and improve in-class discussions, as well (Alexander, 2019; Varela et al., 2020).

Despite the use of written assignments in psychology, instructors of educational psychology in the context of EPPs have had limited use of written assignments to promote the application of learning theory. In Bailey et al.’s (2017) review of psychology programs and internships, they found that written activities were a consistent component of most psychology curriculum due to the experiential and self-reflective nature of long-term assignments and the integration of former and new knowledge of short-term assignments (Blanton, 2001). In psychology, instructors have reported positive effects of using various written activities from short responses to essay length research papers (Bolin et al., 2005; Holford et al., 2001). In particular, writing helps students make meaningful connections with the content, especially when they can relate it to their own

Volume 32, Issue 1

lives (Bolin et al., 2005; McManus, 1986; Snodgrass, 1985). Although the use of portfolios and summary writing have been documented as effective tools in teaching educational psychology, using writing for relevance through the application of theory has not been examined in this context (Beers, 1985; Radmacher & Latosi-Sawin, 1995; Snodgrass, 1985). Faculty, using written assignments, stated that students had more self-expression and personal ownership of learning in addition to greater engagement, “students find value in the achievement of cognitive objectives by linking the information with their real-world attitudes and opinions” (Bolin et al., 2005, p.155).

Writing-to-Learn Totten (2005) suggested that too few educators are devoting class time for writing-tolearn strategies. By incorporating writing-tolearn approaches into teacher education curriculum, pre-service teachers are able to more thoroughly understand the significance of writing activities that are structured to increase students’ learning and comprehension. Engaging in writing activities also prompts pre-service teachers to view themselves as writers, which can guide them in using this writing model in their future classrooms (Saidy, 2015). Hodges et al. (2019) postulated that writing needs to be emphasized in teacher preparation programs in order for pre-service teachers to value it.

Further, Kohnen (2019) proposed that gathering information on pre-service teachers’ beliefs at the outset of their academic program can be valuable in faculty designing students experiences that result in their positive notions of writing. Basically, pre-service teachers need to receive academic experiences that integrate skills that educators need in order to promote meaningful learning for their students.

Theoretical Framework The concept of situated writing is characterized as being similar to strategy lessons in that they are structured to support learners’ conceptual understanding of a convention embedded within a particular context (Livholts, 2019; Patton, 2004). Likewise, situated writing can be used as a student technique for framing situations or context (Feldman, 2009).

Additionally, learning about abstract theory and

30

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

its application has been documented as especially uninteresting and challenging for students across subject areas (Kember, Ho, & Hong, 2008). Therefore, specific writing prompts asking students to relate learning theories to the teaching profession were administered to students in an introductory educational psychology course. Initially, this specific pedagogical intervention was inspired by the concept of active learning. Active learning can be described as acquiring knowledge through participation or effortful engagement rather than by passively listening (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Although appropriate applications of learning theory are included in each lecture in this course, the authors found that students did poorly on exams with higher-level multiple-choice items which required them to correctly apply theoretical concepts, like operant conditioning, reinforcement schedules, and shaping.

To engage students with active learning, writing was introduced as the modality for this intervention. However, to increase student motivation, the premise of the writing assignment was to make behavioral learning theory as relevant as possible. To this end, the intervention was informed by situated cognition and learning (Korthagen, 2017; Lave & Wenger, 1990). Instead of asking students to simply write about how behaviorism could be applied to everyday life, they were asked specific application questions situated in the context of K-12 teaching. Situated learning argues that new conceptual learning occurs more effectively if it is learned within a context and culture in which the concepts normally occur (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1990; McLellan, 1996).

Relevance is, therefore, a necessary condition for situated learning (Brown et al., 1989; Korthagen, 2017).

Situated cognition theory posits that knowledge is inextricably influenced and shaped by activity, context, and culture. (Brown et al., 1989; Robbins & Aydede, 2009). Another aspect of situated cognition is the social nature of learning where shared activities and language are part of the whole learning experience for students (Brown et al., 1989). Furthermore, previous research suggests that relevance is

Volume 32, Issue 1

especially important when teaching theoretical concepts as well as when encouraging students to initiate some control over what they learn (Kember, et al., 2008; Keller, 2010). Therefore, the instructors' attempted to provide explicit context in the form of written assignments to support students’ situated cognition throughout the behavioral learning theory curriculum.

In the following study, our goal was to increase learning gains by promoting conceptual relevance with writing strategies, not to teach writing skills (Boice, 1982; Ishak & Salter, 2017). A quasi-experimental methodology was used to answer the following research question: Does student engagement with the writing for relevance activities (treatment) improve learning outcomes (quiz scores) with the behaviorism curriculum more than the lecture and discussion activities (control)?

Methods Participants The study consisted of 123 participants, which included treatment group (n = 50) and control group (n = 73). Participants in the treatment group completed writing assignments in addition to pre and post-tests. Control group participants completed just the pre and posttests. Although 175 students were enrolled across the two groups, only data from students who participated at both the pre and post-test were included in the study. The majority of participants were White (n = 101), female (n = 147), second-year students (n = 110), and students in good academic standing (n = 97).

Context The study had IRB approval and was conducted at a medium-sized public university in the southeastern United States with students enrolled in an introductory-level educational psychology course. According to the course catalogue, the course consists of: The study of educational psychology concepts through examination of learning and teaching processes, with the goal of applying this knowledge to enhance the learning of all students in a variety of educational settings and contexts. Successful completion of 10 hours of field experience is required.

31

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

The course is required for all education majors whether or not they pursue teacher certification, including American Sign Language interpreting, art education, communication disorders, deaf education, early childhood education, foreign language education, health and physical education, middle grades education, music education, and special education. It is important to note that although introductory psychology is required for all education majors, it is not a prerequisite for educational psychology at this institution. Consequently, it was scheduled as a “super section” with an enrollment capacity of 160 students.

Materials Participants completed the same pre and post-test items during the behaviorism unit of the educational psychology course last two weeks. The multiple-choice items for pre and post-tests were matched on concepts. A take-

home writing assignment was given to students with prompts asking students to apply the concepts to the teaching context (see Table 1).

The instructor chose the concepts used in the prompts based on the most difficult items on the pre-test. The most difficult items included those that more than 50% of the sample missed on the pre-test. Both groups participated in lecture and discussion. Discussion was conducted in the same manner across groups using the following guiding questions: How could you see yourself using this theory in the future?

1. What are your take aways from the theory?

2. Which questions do you still have about the theory?

These questions were projected on the board during class to facilitate discussion, which took place before the post-test for both groups.

Table 1 Example Writing Prompt Behaviorism Writing Prompts 1. How would you go about creating positive behavior support for a group of disruptive students?

In your response, start with a discussion of functional behavioral assessment and then progress to a description of the types of reinforcers you would use.

2. Punishment must be administered in a thoughtful way. Describe the conditions in which punishment is the most effective. Provide an example.

3. Explain the idea of catching students being good and how it relates to operant conditioning.

Provide an example.

4. How might a teacher use shaping to help students learn how to line up for recess in a safe and controlled way?

5. What would be the best schedule of reinforcement if you are introducing class rules for the first time?

Note. These were posted for students on an online learning management system and students submitted their writing assignments digitally.

Procedures Before taking the post-test, participants in the treatment condition attended a lecture on behaviorism, completed a take-home writing assignment to apply the concepts to their future teaching professions, and submitted the posttest. The writing prompts for the treatment condition were posted for students on an online learning management system and students submitted writing assignments digitally before completing the post-test. Participants in the Volume 32, Issue 1

control group attended a lecture by the same instructor before completing the post-test, but did not participate in the take-home writing assignment. The dependent variable, change in conceptual understanding, was calculated by subtracting the post-test average from the pretest average (Hake, 2015; Maki & Schneider, 2015). The change scores were compared across treatment and control groups by conducting an independent samples t-test (Field, 2017).

32

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

Results The results of the independent samples t-test indicated a significant difference between the change scores of the two groups, t(71.857 ) = 2.162, p < .05. It may be important to note that Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was significant; hence, equal variances were not assumed. Although the participants in each

group improved on average, the treatment group increased their post-test scores approximately 12% more than the control group (see Figure 1).

Specifically, the control group averaged 31% on the pretest and 72% on the posttest, an increase of 41% overall. The treatment group averaged 38% on the pretest and 91% on the post-test, an increase of 53% overall.

Figure 1. Change in performance across groups. The control group received lecture only and the treatment group received the lecture and responded to the Table 1 prompts in written form.

After implementing a take-home writing assignment, the treatment group’s change mean score of 53% was 12% higher than the control; moreover, the range of post-test scores were substantially smaller too (from 80% to 40%).

See Table 2 for the descriptive statistics of each group.

Discussion The results indicated that using writing prompts increased the students’ content knowledge in behaviorism. On average, students Volume 32, Issue 1

who completed the writing assignment had descriptively higher post-test scores (M=91%) than students not engaged in written, situated responses (M=72%). Engaging students with activities to apply behavioral learning theory in personally meaningful ways seems to have resulted in higher learning outcomes (on average). From an instructional perspective, having students write about the theory helped students relate it to their future practice during in-class discussions. However, further research 33

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

Table 2 Pre-test, Post-test, and Change Score Descriptive Statistics across Groups Pre-test Post-test Group n Range Mean(SD) Range Mean(SD)

Change Score Mean (SD)

Control

73

9-64%

31% (.12)

20-100%

72% (.18)

41% (.21)

Treatment

50

0-100%

38% (.42)

60-100%

91% (.16)

53% (.36)

Note. Pre- and Post-test were two forms of the same test and the items were equated. Range is the spread of lowest to highest of the raw scores. The Mean % is the average score for the quiz within that group of students.

is needed to investigate the effects of writing in isolation of discussion.

Written assignments can require students to engage more personally with the subject/content and clarify their knowledge and opinions. This has been noted as a benefit for underclassmen within college curriculum by improving students’ confidence and reducing anxiety with studying (Taylor & Drury, 1996; English et al., 1999). Specifically, Taylor and Drury (1996) found that the use of writing tasks throughout their curriculum was related to first-year students’ development of more advanced learning strategies (beyond memorization) and comprehension of content. In this study, the students who engaged with the theory through prompted writing responses to the prompts learned more effectively.

Because of these known benefits for written activities, we included short “write to learn” assignments as a type of formative assessment (Fisher & Frey, 2015). This strategy has been effective in uncovering and addressing the misconceptions, misinformation, and gaps in students’ thinking about concepts and theories.

In this study, we chose to design a situated writing assignment that targeted the misconceptions identified by the pre-test results (Livholts, 2019). Thus, the objective of the study was to apply the situated writing technique and test the knowledge gains as compared to not implementing a writing assignment for the same unit.

One of the limitations for this study was the authors’ access to additional academic characteristics (e.g., GPA, SAT scores) of the study participants that could have served as Volume 32, Issue 1

matched attributes for the analysis. Also, a quasi-experimental design has limited generalizability for findings than compared with an experimental design with randomized group assignments and an equal number of study participants within each group. Additional limitations for the interpretation of our results are the race and gender characteristics (i.e., White, female) of the majority of study participants. Future studies with more race and gender-identity diversity among the participants would improve the knowledge of situated writing treatments with diverse student populations.

Scholarly Significance Many of the students in educational psychology classes like this one will go on to serve students in public schools. Others may be civil servants or practitioners in the private sector. Overall, we aim to improve the instruction provided for our future practitioners and teachers. In the past, teaching the relevance of behaviorism has been identified as a content area worth innovating. For example, using behavior modification projects to teach this section of educational psychology has been suggested as an effective learning activity (Sperling et al., 2016). However, in this study we sought to find appropriate applications of behaviorism in the context of working with more than one individual learner, which is true of traditional K-12 settings. As a result, we found that the writing prompts effectively increased content knowledge. This is similar to findings in other disciplines like engineering, for example (Goldberg et al., 2014).

34

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

Future Directions For future research, we hope to combine the approaches that we tested in this study.

Specifically, we will reinstitute pre-tests to gauge the relationship of prior knowledge to performance. Further revisions are needed to ensure the writing prompts are appropriate, and writing instruction should be embedded into the content instruction with formative and corrective feedback included (Cramp, 2011; Hamilton & Mallett, 2018; Wingat et al., 2011). Lastly, the use of random assignment to treatment vs. control groups would provide a counterfactual that could help the interpretation of our future results. It is possible that the development of faculty writing skills could lead to the creation of better, more engaging assignments (Murray, 2001). Other future directions may include concept maps and other concrete encoding strategies, which have been found to be effective in teaching and assessing concepts in educational psychology (Buehl & Fives, 2011; Schellenberg et al., 2011). Other commonly held misconceptions in educational psychology, such as support for learning styles, could also be addressed through writing (Menz et al., 2020).

References Alexander, M. (2019). Pedagogy, practice, and mentorship: Core elements of connecting theory to practice in teacher educator preparation programs. Journal of Educational Supervision, 2(2), 83-103. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1250281.p df Bacabac, F. E. (2018). Critical source analysis: Revitalizing research within the framework of writing across the curriculum. Journal of Teaching Writing, 33(1), 43-71. https://jtw.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriti ng/article/view/22591 Bailey, S. F., Barber, L. K., & Nelson, V. L. (2017). Undergraduate internship supervision in psychology departments: Use of experiential learning best practices.

Psychology Learning & Teaching, 16(1), 74-83.

Beers, S. E. (1985). Use of a portfolio writing assignment in a course on developmental psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 12(2), 94-96.

Volume 32, Issue 1

Blanton, P. G. (2001). A model for supervising undergraduate internships. Teaching of Psychology, 28(3), 217–219. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2803 _08 Boice, R. (1982). Teaching of writing in psychology: A review of sources. Teaching of Psychology, 9(3), 143-147.

Bolin, A. U., Khramtsova, I., & Saarnio, D. (2005). Using student journals to stimulate authentic learning: Balancing Bloom's cognitive and affective domains. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 154-159.

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ERIC Digest. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED340272 Brown, J. L. (2017). Brown's useful guide: Where theory becomes applicable to classroom practice. https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/cgi/view content.cgi?article=1002&context=textbook s Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989).

Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.

Buehl, M. M., & Fives, H. (2011). Best practices in educational psychology: using evolving concept maps as instructional and assessment tools. Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(1), 62-87.

Catania, A. C. (2013). Thorndike's legacy: Learning, selection, and the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72(3), 425-428. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1999.72-425 Cramp, A. (2011). Developing first-year engagement with written feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 113124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787411402484 Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A. (2018).

Educational psychology for learning and teaching. Cengage AU. Dunn, D. S. (1994). Lessons learned from an interdisciplinary-writing course: Implications for student writing in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 21(4), 223-227.

35

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

English, L., Bonanno, H., Ihnatko, T., Webb, C., & Jones, J. (1999). Learning through writing in a first-year accounting course. Journal of Accounting Education, 17(2-3), 221-254.

Entwistle, H. (1969). Practical and theoretical learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 17(2), 117-128.

ETS. (2021). About GACE assessments. https://www.gace.ets.org/about Feldman, A. M. (2009). Situated university, situated writing. Metropolitan Universities, 20(1), 34-45.

Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 5th ed. Sage.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Fry, J., Klages, C., & Venneman, S. (2018).

Using a written journal technique to enhance inquiry-based reflection about teaching. Reading Improvement, 55(1), 3948.

Georgia Professional Standards Commission.

(2019). Georgia standards for the approval of educator preparation providers and educator preparation programs. https://www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation /Downloads/Georgia_Standards_2016rev2019.pdf Goldberg, S., Rich, J. A., & Masnick, A. (2014).

The use of metacognitive writing-to-learn prompts in an engineering statics class to improve student understanding and performance. Paper presented at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://www.asee.org/file_server/papers/atta chment/file/0004/5033/ASEE_2014_paper_ Submitted.pdf Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184– 205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312 906 Hake, R. R. (2015). What might psychologists learn from Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in physics? Scholarship of

Volume 32, Issue 1

Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000022 Hamilton, H. R., & Mallett, R. K. (2018). The impact of brief reflective responses on student performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, Advance Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418779158 Hettich, P. (1990). Journal writing: Old fare or nouvelle cuisine? Teaching of Psychology, 17(1), 3639.DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top1701_8 Hodges, T. S., Wright, K. L., McTigue, E. (2019). What do middle grades pre-service teachers believe about writing and writing instruction? RMLE Online, 42(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2019.1565 508 Holford, P., Haigh, A., & Ellis, R. (2001). The writing portfolio as a tool for the development of communication and learning skills. HortTechnology, 11(4), 668-673.

Huitt, W. & Hummel, J. (2006). An overview of the behavioral perspective. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/beh avior/behsys.html Ishak, S., & Salter, N. P. (2017). Undergraduate psychological writing: A best practices guide and national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 5-17.

Kaplan, D. E. (2018). Behaviorism in online teacher training. Psychology, 9(4), 1-8.

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2008). The importance of establishing relevance in motivating student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787408095849 Kemp, I. J., & Seagraves, L. (1995).

Transferable skills—can higher education deliver? Studies in Higher Education, 20(3), 315-328.

Kohnen, A. M., Caprino, K., Crane, S., & Townsend, J. S. (2019). Where is the writing teacher? Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on the teaching of writing. Writing and

36

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

Pedagogy, 11(2), 285-310. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.37278 Korthagen, F. (2017). A foundation for effective teacher education: teacher education pedagogy based on situated learning. In The SAGE handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 528-544). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://www.doi.org/10.4135/978152971662 7 Lachuk, A. J., & Koellner, K. (2015).

Performance-based assessment for certification: Insights from edTPA implementation. Language Arts, 93(2), 8495.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Livholts, M. (2019). Situated writing as theory and method: The untimely academic novella.

Routledge.

Luo, T., Murray, A., & Crompton, H. (2017).

Designing authentic learning activities to train pre-service teachers about teaching online. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.3037 Maki, P., & Schneider, C. G. (2015). Assessment that works: A national call, a twenty-firstcentury response. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Manolev, J., Sullivan, A., & Slee, R. (2019).

The datafication of discipline: ClassDojo, surveillance and a performative classroom culture. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 36-51.

McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

McLeod, S. H. (1991). The affective domain and the writing process: Working definitions.

Journal of Advanced Composition, 95-105.

McLeod, S. H., & Soven, M. (1992). Writing across the curriculum. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McManus, J. L. (1986). "Live" case study/journal record in adolescent psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 13(2), 70-74.

Volume 32, Issue 1

Menz, C., Spinath, B., & Seifried, E. (2020).

Misconceptions die hard: Prevalence and reduction of wrong beliefs in topics from educational psychology among pre-service teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1-18.

Moreno, R. (2010). Educational Psychology.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mueller, R. J. (2017). Principles of classroom learning and perception. Routledge.

Murray, R. E. G. (2001). Integrating teaching and research through writing development for students and staff. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2(1), 31-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874010020010 03 Nezhad, A. S., & Vahedi, M. (2011). The role of educational psychology in teacher education programs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 327-330.

Ohst, A., Glogger, I., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2015). Helping pre-service teachers with inaccurate and fragmentary prior knowledge to acquire conceptual understanding of psychological principles. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 14(1), 5-25.

Ormrod, J. E., & Jones, B. D. (2012). Essentials of educational psychology: Big ideas to guide effective teaching. Pearson.

Patton, M. (2004). Situated writing lessons: Putting writing advice in disciplinary context. Writing Instructor, 1-11.

Pound, L. (2019). How children learn: Educational theories and approaches. MA Education Ltd. Radmacher, S. A., & Latosi-Sawin, E. (1995).

Summary writing: A tool to improve student comprehension and writing in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 113-115.

Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (2009). A short primer on situated cognition. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 3-10).

Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051181682 6 Saidy, C. (2015). We learned what? Pre-service teachers as developmental writers in the writing methods class. Teaching/Writing:

37

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

The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 4(1), 108-124. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcon tent.cgi?article=1119&context=wte Savitz, R. S. (2019). Situated learning, the secondary-education pre-service/in-service teacher, and the taming of the literacy education shrew. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 92(6), 224-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2019.1675 573 Schellenberg, S., Negishi, M., & Eggen, P. (2011). The effects of metacognition and concrete encoding strategies on depth of understanding in educational psychology.

Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(2), 1724.

Shuell, T. J. (1988). The role of the student in learning from instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 276-295.

Snodgrass, S. E. (1985). Writing as a tool for teaching social psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 12(2), 91-94.

Sperling, R. A., Reeves, P. M., Follmer, D. J., Towle, A. L., & Chung, K. S. (2016).

Teaching behaviorism to support selfregulation, integration, and transfer. In M. C. Smith & N. DeFrates-Densch (Eds.), Challenges and innovations in educational psychology teaching and learning (pp. 1528). Information Age Publishing.

Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/ Taylor, C.E. & Drury, H. (1996). Teaching writing skills in the science curriculum, in S. Leong and D. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings of the 19th Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Conference, (pp. 864– 869). Australia: HERDSA. Totten, S. (2005). Writing to learn for preservice teachers. National Writing Project. https://archive.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resou rce/2231 Tuckman, B., & Monetti, D. (2010).

Educational psychology. Cengage Learning.

Volume 32, Issue 1

Varela, D., Villarreal, L., & Bain, S. F. (2020).

The quest for meaningful program improvement: Lessons learned and practical guidance for educator preparation programs. International Journal of Education, 8(1). http://www.nationalforum.com/ Wingate, U., Andon, N., & Cogo, A. (2011).

Embedding academic writing instruction into subject teaching: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12 (1), 6981. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387814 Woolfolk, A. (2020). Educational psychology: Active learning. 14th Edition. Pearson Youngblom, R. & Filter, K. (2013). Pre-service teacher knowledge of behavior function: Implications within the classroom.

Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(31), 631-648. http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.31.13063

About the Authors Dr. Meagan C. Arrastía-Chisholm has taught educational psychology at Valdosta State University since August 2015. In terms of research, Dr. ArrastíaChisholm is currently focusing on prolonged parental separation, diverse learners, and instructional effectiveness. Currently, Dr. Arrastía-Chisholm is studying Clinical Mental Health Counseling.

Dr. Samantha Tackett is faculty for the Center for Gifted Studies at Valdosta State University. Her professional and research interests include the engagement, persistence, and retention of firstgeneration student populations; gifted education for minority student populations; sociocultural influences on students’ academic engagement, learning outcomes, and college retention.

38

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

Dr. Kelly M. Torres is the Department Chair of the Educational Psychology and Technology program at TCSPP. Her research interests are focused on heritage language learners, English language learners, teacher certification programs, and online learning. She has also worked as a consultant for state and national curriculum accreditation committees and has helped to develop a national K12 ESOL language proficiency high-stakes assessment.

Volume 32, Issue 1

39

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

The State of Dyslexia: New Legislation, Teachers’ Perceptions of Major Challenges, and Professional Development Needs Karin M. Fisher Georgia Southern University Nai-Cheng Kuo, Jennifer Jones, Zach Fagan, and Zayeira Declet Augusta University

Some students with dyslexia may not be eligible for special education services, go unrecognized, and continue to struggle in the general education setting. Consequently, 46 states enacted laws requiring state educational agencies (SEA) to address dyslexia. To equip Georgia teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to serve students with dyslexia, we collaborated with Georgia's Department of Education to host a free workshop for 88 teachers across 30 counties.

Before and after the workshop, we conducted qualitative questionnaires to investigate the participants’ challenges of educating students with dyslexia and their professional development needs. The results indicated participants had a lack of knowledge and need more professional development in the areas of evidence-based practices. They also requested more government and non-profit resources to work with students with dyslexia. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results and suggestions for practice and future research.

Dyslexia is a neurological condition in the brain that causes an individual to experience unexpected reading difficulties, regardless of their intellectual, sensory, or environmental conditions. The term dyslexia comes from the Greek word “dys,” which means poor or inadequate, and the word “lexis,” which means words or language (Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 2019). The common characteristics identified in students with dyslexia are phonological deficits, which prohibit them from

Volume 32, Issue 1

learning new words (Thomson & Goswami, 2010). Research suggests dyslexia may also include procedural and visuospatial deficits (Vidyasagar & Pammer, 2010; Nicholson & Fawcett, 2011). Difficulties with these components cause problems with linking new words to an object or symbols representative of letters.

The signs of dyslexia can appear as early as preschool age and include trouble learning familiar nursery rhymes, mispronouncing words persistently, difficulty learning and remembering names of letters, and even failure in knowing the letters in the child’s name (Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2020). As they grow older, students with dyslexia may continue experiencing difficulties with rhyming, recognizing everyday words, sounding out words, spelling and writing, fluency, and solving word problems (Adlof & Hogan, 2018). In the United States (U.S.), dyslexia affects 20% of the population and it represents over 85% of individuals with learning disabilities. Of all people with reading difficulties, over 75% have dyslexia (Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity, 2020). As a result, dyslexia specialists need to prepare general and special education teachers for this group.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) core purpose is to ensure all children with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related

40

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

services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for the future. To be eligible for special education services, students must have a disability categorized by IDEA and have a demonstrated educational need. Because IDEA does not explicitly name dyslexia as a disability category, there is variability between districts across the U.S. in how they approach and educate students with dyslexia.

Parent advocacy groups began lobbying state governments because of the lack of identification and services for students with dyslexia. District personnel in some districts were even forbidden to use the term dyslexia or write it in Individual Education Programs (IEP; Youman & Mather, 2018). To address the variability of services for students with dyslexia from school to school, lawmakers began passing state laws on dyslexia. These laws focused on ways to evaluate, identify, teach, and support students with dyslexia. To respond to the needs of students with dyslexia, all states in the U.S. either have established dyslexia legislation or have state-identified measurable literacy results in place. Among the states with dyslexia laws, most have updated their codes to clearly define dyslexia and provide guidelines to districts on identifying and delivering evidence-based interventions (Youman & Mather, 2018).

Additionally, laws focus on dyslexia awareness, teacher training, pilot programs for screening and interventions, accommodations, and the rights of students with dyslexia.

Challenges Faced by Teachers Teachers play an essential role in the assessment and behaviors related to dyslexia (Stampoltizis et al., 2018). Students with dyslexia are usually taught in general education settings by teachers responsible for helping them achieve socially and academically. Knight (2017) found most teachers do not understand the students with dyslexia’s difficulties or how to respond. Teachers felt unprepared to diagnose and support students with dyslexia (Papalouka, 2011). Aladwani and Al-Shaye (2012) reported teachers are challenged by the lack of knowledge, professional development, and skills to diagnose students with dyslexia. GwernanJones and Burden (2009) found teachers had Table 1.

Volume 32, Issue 1

difficulty applying dyslexia interventions.

Indeed, teachers found it challenging to address students with dyslexia needs at all ages (Riga, 2012).

Professional Development on Dyslexia In 2017, Knight wrote districts need to provide professional development to understand how to recognize a student with dyslexia and intervene to improve reading. All teachers must have a good understanding of the causes of and interventions for dyslexia. Teachers need the knowledge to be able to help their students effectively (Knight, 2017). Students need a teacher who understands dyslexia and its associated challenges (Stampoltzis et al., 2018).

Teachers who understand dyslexia are more effectiveness and are better prepared to address students’ needs (Gwernan-Jones & Burden, 2009; Williams & Lynch, 2010).

Georgia is one of the states that passed a law addressing dyslexia. As a result of the new law, the known challenges and the need for professional development for teachers of students with dyslexia, the current study sought to explore Georgia teachers’ perceptions. The study was guided by the following research questions: 1) What significant challenges do teachers face when working with students who have dyslexia, and 2) What professional learning opportunities do teachers need to teach students with dyslexia?

State Laws of Dyslexia Table 1 shows an overview of the state's dyslexia legislation requirements. Among the 50 states, 46 have established laws related to dyslexia, 29 require public schools to develop or adopt research-validated dyslexia screening tests, 12 require pre-service teachers to receive training on dyslexia, 23 require in-service teachers to receive training on dyslexia, and 22 require public schools to provide interventions for students with dyslexia. Additionally, 30 states must report their state-identified literacy results regularly (National Center on Improving Literacy, 2020).

Georgia’s Dyslexia Law In response to state legislation and district policy, teachers across nation need to continue enhancing their skillset related to dyslexia.

41

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

An overview of the state dyslexia legislation requirements Legislation

Screening Requirement

Pre-service Requirement

In-service Requirement

Intervention Requirement

x

x

x

x

x

x x x x x x x x

x x

x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x x

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Volume 32, Issue 1

x x

Stateidentified Measurement x x x x x x

x x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x

x x x x x

x x x x

x

x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x

x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x x x x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x

x

x

x x

x x

x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x

x

x

x x 42

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

Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

x x x x x x

x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

Georgia is a good testing ground because it is still beginning to implement its state law regarding dyslexia. Most teachers are still not sure how they can support students with dyslexia and how the new state law will impact their existing practices. Learning from teachers’ voices in Georgia may also inform other states to support their teachers who encounter similar challenges.

According to the Georgia General Assembly (2020), legislators passed Senate Bill 48 to ensure the education systems identified and supported students in kindergarten through third grade who display characteristics of dyslexia.

Specifically, the bill states the government will develop policies that will require teachers to refer early education students for screening once identified by the response-to-intervention (RTI) process, also known as the Multitiered System of Supports (MTSS). The bill clarifies that beginning with the fiscal year of 2024-2025, local school systems will screen all kindergarten students for characteristics of dyslexia and other disorders. As for grades one through three, local school systems will screen for dyslexia characteristics and other disorders identified through RTI/MTSS. This law requires the State Board of Education to provide definitions and characteristics of dyslexia and related disorders.

The law further requires the State Board of Education to develop policies to identify and assist students with dyslexia. Not only does the policy include screening for all kindergarten students, but the state must also establish a progress monitoring and data collection systems (Georgia General Assembly, 2020).

Furthermore, parents must be informed and provide consent for the use of any formal dyslexia diagnostic tool. The law extends to the teachers in Georgia to receive ongoing

Volume 32, Issue 1

professional development opportunities and endorsements relating to dyslexia, such as professional development on appropriately identifying and responding to the students’ needs who display characteristics of language disorders, dyslexia, and students who struggle with expressive or receptive language.

Method To ensure universities and districts equip inservice and pre-service teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to serve students with dyslexia, the researchers collaborated with Georgia's Department of Education to host a free workshop for 88 teachers across 30 counties.

While there were many rewarding moments when working with students who have dyslexia, we were particularly interested in knowing what else we can do to service this group of students better. Therefore, by taking the opportunity to survey the teachers who participated in the statewide training workshop on the dyslexia law, we sought to determine the teachers’ challenges when working with students who have dyslexia and their professional development needs.

Participants The researchers hosted a 90-minute workshop on dyslexia with 88 teachers across 30 counties in Georgia. The workshop was free and open to the public, aiming to provide a general overview of the state dyslexia law, pilot study plans, screening and diagnostic assessments, and dyslexia instruction delivery. Among the participants, 88% had worked with students who have dyslexia for more than three years, 8% had worked with this group of students between 1 and 3 years, and 4% had never worked with students with dyslexia.

Data Collection Procedures The instruments used were a pre-workshop questionnaire and a post-workshop questionnaire for the participants. In the pre-workshop

43

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

questionnaire, we asked: 1) years of working with students who have dyslexia, 2) challenges working with this group of students, and 3) professional development needs for teaching students with dyslexia. In the post-workshop questionnaire, we asked: 1) “what this workshop helped me to know;” 2) “what I want to know but the workshop could not or did not answer,” and 3) “what will help me learn more.”

Data Analysis Procedures The researchers adopted content analysis in the present study to identify keywords, understand how participants discussed the keywords in contexts, and determine and group themes concerning teachers’ challenges in relation to working with students with dyslexia and their professional development needs. Our data analysis steps were: a. reviewing the questionnaire responses b. coding themes derived from the questionnaires c. synthesizing and refining the themes d. comparing the inter-rater coding results e. discussing disagreement and revisiting the questionnaire responses until the inter-raters (the research team members) have reached 100% agreement Results Pre-workshop Questionnaire In the pre-workshop questionnaire, most participants (n = 88) worked with students who have dyslexia for more than three years.

However, they expressed that they were underinformed and lacked the training to support this group of students. When asked: What significant challenges do teachers face when working with students who have dyslexia, the first theme to emerge was teachers’ ability. Sixty-one percent of the participants indicated that they had challenges in the areas of their knowledge about dyslexia and subsequent strategies and resources to teach students with dyslexia. The second theme to emerge was the impacts of the students with dyslexia’s characteristics, with 32% of participants indicating students’ poor reading abilities, behavioral issues, low motivation and self-esteem, and lack of coping strategies. The third theme to emerge was institutional problems, where 15% of the participants indicated challenges with meeting state

Volume 32, Issue 1

standards, lack of curriculum, and time to accommodate the learners with dyslexia’s needs.

Additionally, participants mentioned large class sizes and a lack of additional support as further obstacles. The fourth theme to emerge centered around the challenge of assessing students with dyslexia as 10% of the participants indicated an absence of accurate and useful screening, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring of students with dyslexia. The last theme to emerge was parent engagement and home life, where 8% of the participants were challenged with educating parents about dyslexia, the lack of family assistance for helping students with homework, and the lack of exposure to an environment conducive to reading. Table 2 shows a summary of the preworkshop questionnaire results.

When asked: What professional learning opportunities for teaching students with dyslexia are needed, the top four themes to emerge from the data included the need for professional development on instructional strategies for students with dyslexia, government and nonprofit resources for students with dyslexia, laws and regulations that protect students with dyslexia, and inspiring examples of those who overcame challenges due to dyslexia. Most participants (95%) indicated they wanted more instructional strategies and 78% selected more state and non-profit resources for students with dyslexia. The next theme to emerge was the request for more professional development on the laws and regulations that protect students with dyslexia (74%). The last central theme to emerge about professional development was inspiring examples of overcoming dyslexia (41%). Table 3 shows the themes that appeared to answer research question two.

Post-workshop Questionnaire The workshop focused on dyslexia legislation, definition/characteristics, MTSS, effective reading instruction, and assessment/screening. Within the tiered system of support, the presenter provided a brief overview of characteristics and strategies by tier (e.g., tier 1, 2, and 3). After the workshop, we asked participants to complete a questionnaire.

Like the pre-workshop questionnaire, the data was collected, transcribed, and coded by a

44

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

Table 2.

Teachers’ major challenges of working with students who have dyslexia Major Challenges

Percentage

1. Teachers’ ability of working with students who have dyslexia (e.g., knowledge about dyslexia, instructional strategies/materials/resources)

61%

2. Characteristics of students with dyslexia (e.g., including various and severe needs, behavioral issues, motivation, and self-esteem)

32%

3. Institutional problems (e.g., including state standards, curriculum, time, class size, additional support)

15%

4. Assessment of students with dyslexia (e.g., screening, diagnostic assessment, and progress monitoring)

10%

5. Parent engagement and home life (e.g., parents’ understanding of dyslexia, homework assistance, exposure to the reading environment)

8%

Note. Participants could describe more than one challenge.

Table 3.

Teachers’ professional development needs Professional Development Needs

Percentage

1. Instructional strategies for students with dyslexia

95%

2. Government or non-profit resources for students with dyslexia

78%

3. Laws and regulations that protect students with dyslexia

74%

4. Inspiring examples of those who overcome their dyslexia

41%

5. Parent and community engagement

2%

6. Lesson planning for RTI and/or IEP

1%

Note. Participants could describe more than one professional learning opportunity needed. researcher and research assistant. All discrepancies were discussed and resolved until the two researchers had 100% consistency. In the post-workshop questionnaire (n = 88), the results indicated 54% of the respondents wrote they had a better overview of the foundations and characteristics of dyslexia after attending the workshop. Respondents (46%) also reported they knew more about diagnostic screening and assessment. When asked what they wanted to Volume 32, Issue 1

know, but the workshop did not address, most respondents (61%) wrote they would like to see the modeling of specific instructional strategies and discussions of their application in real-life classroom situations. Participants also would like to learn about specific tools for screening and testing students with dyslexia. Lastly, we asked respondents what would help them learn more. A majority (74%) wrote they needed more professional development on dyslexia. Less than 45

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

a quarter (23%) reported they could learn more by looking up the information themselves. Table 4 is an overview of the themes that emerged and the percentage of participants who wrote the response.

Discussion The intent of the IDEA is to serve students whose disabilities negatively affect their academic performance. However, with many students who have dyslexia going unnoticed and

Table 4.

Post-workshop Survey (In-person attendants) What does this workshop help you know (K)?

An overview of foundations and characteristics of dyslexia

54%

Elements of screening and diagnostic assessment

46%

The state dyslexia law

26%

A general understanding of instructional support

17%

What do you want to know but the workshop “cannot” or “does not” answer (W)?

Modeling specific instructional strategies and discussing their application in the real-life classroom

63%

Discussing specific tools for screening and testing

37%

Focusing beyond K-3, especially middle and high school students with dyslexia

10%

Describing dyslexia endorsement requirements and future government training plans

10%

Addressing funding opportunities in K-12 to support students with dyslexia

7%

Discussing the role of speech and language pathologists in dyslexia diagnosis

3%

What will help you learn more (L)?

Attending in-person or online training opportunities

72%

Searching more information via books and reliable websites

22%

Raising awareness and watching demonstrations in the real-life classroom

19%

Reviewing the state dyslexia handbook

9%

Communicating about the importance, myths, and misconceptions about dyslexia

6%

Learning from the reports of the pilot programs in K-12 schools

6%

Note. Participants could describe more than one thing that they have learned, what they considered missing in the workshop, and what will help them learn more. continuing to struggle in the general education setting, states’ laws on dyslexia may compensate for this gap. In this way, students with dyslexia will receive adequate support regardless of their Volume 32, Issue 1

eligibility for special education services under IDEA. While Georgia has dyslexia law in place, many of its associated policies will not start until the 2024-2025 fiscal year. During the years of 46

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

piloting and preparation, knowing teachers’ challenges of working with this group of students and their needed professional development is instrumental to its success.

Major Challenges Table 2 gives an overview of teachers’ significant challenges of working with students who have dyslexia. Over half (61%) of the participants considered equipping themselves with the ability to teach students with dyslexia was a significant challenge and 32% of the participants indicated the characteristics of students with dyslexia impede their learning. In other words, while many participants believed they could improve their teaching ability to help students with dyslexia, they also recognized the challenges that come from students’ internal factors.

A particular concern in the participants’ questionnaire responses, regarding their ability to teach students with dyslexia, is that none of them mentioned phonemic awareness or multisensory instruction. This is concerning because, having a dyslexia diagnosis, students must have poor decoding abilities. One evidence-based practice to address dyslexia is using multi-sensory instruction. The lack of responses about phonemic awareness and multisensory lesson supports the teachers’ understanding that they need more professional development in the diagnosis and evidencebased practices to teach students with dyslexia.

Regarding students’ reading limitations, participants mentioned that their students with dyslexia simply could not comprehend what they were reading. Still, none of them expressed if their students had difficulty manipulating sounds in spoken and written words. This is concerning because reading comprehension difficulties are often a result of low decoding ability. Students with dyslexia struggle with reading comprehension because they spend so much of their energy decoding words they have difficulty comprehending. In the present study, participants did not express some critical concepts of dyslexia like the ones identified in their questionnaire responses. This left researchers wondering if the participants were aware of the main characteristics of students

Volume 32, Issue 1

with dyslexia and how to respond to their unique learning needs.

Professional Learning Opportunities Table 3 shows the results of professional learning opportunities that the participants wanted to teach students with dyslexia. Most participants desired instructional strategies to work with students with dyslexia (94%), government or non-profit resources (74%), and laws and regulations on dyslexia (69%). While the participants recognized the limitations of ability in children with dyslexia, they wanted to learn more strategies to help their students succeed.

The need for professional learning opportunities regarding dyslexia was evident in participants’ responses and what was missing from their responses, such as phonological awareness, multisensory instruction, and integrative reading activities. Indeed, the state law advocates for more professional development for teachers and the results of this study show teachers also want and need professional development. Based on this study’s results, professional development should focus on the diagnosis, characteristics, and interventions for students with dyslexia.

The Next Step When asked what they want to learn more about after the 90-minute workshop, over 60% of the participants requested “modeling” or concrete examples of teachers using specific instructional strategies with their students who have dyslexia. As a result of this study, districts, states, and universities should focus on providing professional development in the area of specific instructional strategies to use with students with dyslexia in real-life classroom situations.

Professional development should include instruction on research-based interventions to address students with dyslexia. For example, some popular reading programs have taken a multisensory approach to structured literacy programs, which build connections across visual, auditory, and kinesthetic/tactile domains (Otaiba, Rouse, & Baker, 2018). These programs include Orton-Gillingham, Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing, and the Wilson Reading System. However, few methodologically sound

47

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

studies have determined the effectiveness of these approaches despite the widespread adoption of these programs (Otaiba et al., 2018).

Our findings suggest the need for more researchvalidated interventions for students with dyslexia, including screening and diagnostic assessments embedded in these intervention programs.

Furthermore, it is interesting to find that most participants (72%) preferred to attend professional development workshops to extend their knowledge and pedagogical skills on dyslexia than searching for information on their own or reading materials like handbooks or journal articles. Attending the professional development workshop might provide valuable opportunities for participants to build a network with peers in the same field, gain inspiration from each other’s stories, while having peers to talk to about their struggles and realities. This indicates that merely having a state law or a handbook that details the foundations of dyslexia is simply not sufficient for teachers.

Our study highlights how vital professional collaborations among state government, universities, and K-12 schools are to ensure teachers have observed many good examples of teaching students with dyslexia and established confidence to work with this group of students.

Limitations The present study has several limitations, and thus the findings might not be all-inclusive.

First, the sample size was small. Because this was the first state-wide workshop on the dyslexia law for teachers and attending the seminar was voluntary, we expected a small sample size. We recommend increasing the sample size of future studies and including follow-up interviews with workshop participants to better understand teachers’ thoughts. Second, because many students with dyslexia often go undiagnosed, data gathered on the number of years teachers working with students with dyslexia or the number of students with whom teachers have worked might be subjective or not entirely accurate. Future researchers should ask teachers if their students have been formally diagnosed by a school specialist to gain more accurate data. Finally, the present study could have collected and analyzed the differences

Volume 32, Issue 1

among teachers regarding gender, ethnicities, grade levels, and other factors. In future studies, we will recommend adding these factors to see if and how teachers’ differences impact the experiences of working with students who have dyslexia.

Conclusion Not all students with dyslexia are eligible for special education services under IDEA. Therefore, the assessment and remediation of students with dyslexia vary across districts and the U.S. As a result, parents persuaded lawmakers in most states to pass state laws to address the identification and remediation of students with dyslexia. This study aimed to determine teachers’ challenges and needs regarding educating students with dyslexia. The results showed teachers are challenged, especially in the area of knowledge of evidencebased practices and assessments. Teachers also desired professional development on dyslexia and emphasized modeling the use of evidencebased strategies in real classrooms situations. In short, it requires continuous efforts from both state and district levels to ensure that students with dyslexia receive instruction and intervention from school personnel who are knowledgeable and skilled at addressing dyslexia. Voices from the teachers on the frontlines and rigorous research studies will take schools in the right direction to adequately address the learning needs of this population.

References Adlof, S. M., & Hogan, T. P. (2018).

Understanding dyslexia in the context of developmental language disorders.

Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 762-773.

Aladwani, A. M., & Al Shaye, S. S. (2012).

Primary school teachers’ knowledge and awareness of dyslexia in Kuwaiti students.

Education, 132(3), 499.

Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine (2019).

Dyslexia. Retrieved from https://medicaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dyslexia Georgia General Assembly (2020). 2019-2020 Regular Session - SB 48. Retrieved from http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/enUS/Display/20192020/SB/48

48

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

Gwernan-Jones, R., & Burden, R. L. (2009). Are they just lazy? Student teachers’ attitudes about dyslexia. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice 16, 66-86. https://doi.org/10/1002/dys.393 Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 12771288.

Knight, C. (2017). What is dyslexia? An exploration of the relationship between teachers’ understandings of dyslexia and their training experiences. Dyslexia, 24, 207219.

National Center on Improving Literacy (2019).

State of dyslexia: Explore dyslexia legislation and related initiatives in the United States of America. Retrieved from https://improvingliteracy.org/state-ofdyslexia Nicholson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (2011).

Dyslexia, dysgraphia, procedural learning of novel words: The effect of phonological similarity and item length. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 4767.

Otaiba, S. A., Rouse, A. G., & Baker, K. (2018).

Elementary grade intervention approaches to treat specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49, 829-842.

Papalouka, A. (2011). Secondary teachers’ understanding of dyslexia in England and Greece. University of Nottingham: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

Riga, M. (2012). Teacher beliefs about teaching children with dyslexia/learning difficulties in mainstream primary schools in Greece.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Manchester, School of Education.

Shaywitz, S. & Shaywitz, J. (2020). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level.

Alfred A. Knopf.

Stampoltzis, A., Tsitsou, E., & Papachristopoulos, G. (2018). Attitudes and intentions of Greek teachers towards teaching pupils with dyslexia: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Dyslexia, 24, 128-139.

Volume 32, Issue 1

Thomson J. M., & Goswami, U. (2010).

Learning novel phonological representations in developmental dyslexia: Associations with basic auditory processing of rise time and phonological awareness. Reading and Writing, 23, 453-473.

Vidyasagar, T. R., & Pammer, K. (2010).

Dyslexia: A deficit in visual-spatial attention, not in psychological processing.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 57-63.

Williams, J. A., & Lynch, S. A. (2010).

Dyslexia: What teachers need to know.

Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(2), 66-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2010.1051 6696 Youman, M., & Mather, N. (2018). Dyslexia laws in the USA: A 2018 update.

Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 3741.

Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity (2020).

What is dyslexia? Retrieved from http://dyslexia.yale.edu/dyslexia/what-isdyslexia

About the Authors Dr. Karin Fisher is an assistant professor of special education at Georgia Southern University. Dr. Fisher regularly teaches special education law to graduate students and has become an expert in analyzing and describing legislation. She created a webinar on Senate Bill 48 (dyslexia legislation) and distributed it to parents and educators to help explain the impacts of the Bill. The webinar can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/ctAMRxMqROg Dr. Nai-Cheng Kuo, BACA, is an associate professor of special and teacher education at Augusta University. She completed dual-major doctoral programs in Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education (CITE) as well as in Special Education at Michigan State University. Her specific areas of expertise include RTI/MTSS, applied behavior

49

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

analysis, language and literacy, families and community engagement, and humanistic education.

Dr. Kuo can be reached at nkuo@augusta.edu.

Jennifer Jones, Zach Fagan, and Zayeira Declet are special education teacher candidates at Augusta University.

Volume 32, Issue 1

50

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 can find an application online at 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 gaate1.org for more details.

Manuscripts for the October issue of GATEways are due July 1st.

Editors Dr. Nicole Maxwell, University of North Georgia, nicole.maxwell@ung.edu Dr. Jennie Jones, University of North Georgia, jennifer.jones@ung.edu Copy Editor Dr. Jessica Wallace McBride, Bryan County Schools, jmcbride@bryan.k12.ga.us

Join us at the GATE 2022 Fall Conference October 13-14 at the Unicoi State Park and Lodge in Helen, GA Additional conference information is available online: gaate1.org

Join the GATE Facebook Group www.facebook.com/groups/gaate.org