Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education, Volume 4, Spring 2015

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Behavioral Sciences

Volume 1, Page 1

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry:

Education

Education Edition, Volume 4, Issue 1 Spring 2015

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 2 ISSN: 2330-6564 (online)

ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Spring 2015

Volume 4, Issue 1

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 3Â

Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education The Center for Scholastic Inquiry (CSI) publishes the Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education (JOSI: E) to recognize, celebrate, and highlight scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practice in the field of education.

Academic research emphasizing leading edge inquiry, distinguishing and fostering best practice, and validating promising methods will be considered for publication. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method study designs representing diverse philosophical frameworks and perspectives are welcome. The JOSI: E publishes papers that perpetuate thought leadership and represent critical enrichment in the field of education.

The JOSI: E is a rigorously juried journal. Relevant research may include topics in administration, early childhood education, primary education, elementary education, secondary education, vocational-technical education, alternative education, special education, higher education, international education, change agency, educational leadership, and related fields.

If you are interested in publishing in the JOSI: E, feel free to contact our office or visit our website.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan Executive Director & Managing Editor Center for Scholastic Inquiry 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241

Web: www.csiresearch.com

Phone: 855-855-8764

Email: editor@csiresearch.com

Volume 4 Page 4

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

JOURNAL OF SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY: EDUCATION Spring 2015, Volume 4, Issue 1

Managing Editor Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jamal Cooks

General Editor & APA Editor Jay Meiners

Volume 4 Page 5

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Editorial Advisory Board Shirley Barnes, Alabama State University Joan Berry, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Brooke Burks, Auburn University at Montgomery Timothy Harrington, Chicago State University Michelle Beach, Southwest Minnesota State University Kenneth Goldberg, National University Linda Rae Markert, State University of New York at Oswego Lucinda Woodward, Indiana University Southeast

Peer Reviewers Jaime Grinberg York Williams Brooke Burks Tim Lewis

Joan Berry Randall Soffer Linda Rae Markert Bruce Murray

Katia Goldfarb Brian Hoekstra Jesse Beeler Myrna Olson

Not all reviewers are utilized for each publication cycle.

Shalio Rao Doug Warring Joan Berry Sonja Harrington

Volume 4 Page 6

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

CALL FOR PAPERS

    



JOIN US Center for Scholastic Inquiry’s International Academic Research Conference October 28‐30, 2015

Charleston, South Carolina

Would you like to elevate your status as a scholar‐practitioner and develop your professional reputation and

credentials through presentation and publication?

Would you enjoy stimulating professional rejuvenation and tranquil personal relaxation at the same time by

combining meaningful professional development with a luxury getaway?

Would you enjoy tailored continuing education experiences by choosing the conference sessions that best suit

your professional interests and vocational pursuits?

Would you appreciate collaborative collegiality with luminaries and pioneers conducting the most academically

and scientifically meritorious research?

Are you interested in developing your thought leadership and contributing to the body of validated knowledge

in your academic or professional field?

Are you interested in diverse scholarship by learning with and from education, business and behavioral science

practitioners and professionals from around the world on a wide range of contemporary topics?

No matter your role in business, education, or behavioral science, there is something for everyone.

Professionals from the public and private sectors will learn about emerging trends, best practice and innovative strategies.

For more information about attending, presenting and/or publishing, check out CSI’s website:

www.csiresearch.com

Volume 4 Page 7

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7

Publication Agreement and Assurance of Integrity Ethical Standards in Publishing Disclaimer of Liability

9-120

Research Manuscripts

Native American Youth Entrepreneurship Summer Camp: An Intensive Instructional Approach Jesse D. Beeler, Millsaps College David H. Culpepper, Millsaps College Penelope J. Prenshaw, Millsaps College

9

Classroom Camera: Friend, Foe, or Tool for Reflection?

Timothy Lewis, Auburn University at Montgomery Margaret L. Rice, The University of Alabama Brooke A. Burks, Auburn University at Montgomery

26

Bringing Lesson Study to Teacher Education: Simultaneously Impacting Preservice and Classroom Teachers Rosemarie Michaels, Dominican University of California

46

How Do Teachers Support Reading Comprehension?

Bruce A. Murray, Auburn University Brian Parr, Auburn University Cristen Pratt Herring, Auburn (Alabama) City Schools Le’Nessa L. Clark, Auburn University

74

A Cross Cultural, Comparative Analysis of Teamwork to Embrace Diversity in Schools Shaila M. Rao, Western Michigan University Cristina Cardona, University of Alicante, Spain Randall Soffer, University of St. Thomas

97

Manuscript Submission Guide

121

Why Read Our Journals

123

Volume 4 Page 8

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INTEGRITY By submitting a manuscript for publication, authors confirm that the research and writing is their exclusive, original, and unpublished work. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication, authors grant the Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC (CSI) the sole and permanent right to publish the manuscript, at its option, in one of its academic research journals, on the CSI's website, in other germane, academic publications; and/or on an alternate hosting site or database.

Authors retain copyright ownership of their research and writing for all other purposes.

ETHICAL STANDARDS IN PUBLISHING The CSI insists on and meets the most distinguished benchmarks for publication of academic journals to foster the advancement of accurate scientific knowledge and to defend intellectual property rights.

The CSI stipulates and expects that all practitioners and professionals submit original, unpublished manuscripts in accordance with its code of ethics and ethical principles of academic research and writing.

DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY The CSI does not endorse any of the ideas, concepts, and theories published within the JOSI: E. Furthermore, we accept no responsibility or liability for outcomes based upon implementation of the individual author’s ideas, concepts, or theories. Each manuscript is the copyrighted property of the author.

Volume 4 Page 9Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Native American Youth Entrepreneurship Summer Camp: An Intensive Instructional Approach Jesse D. Beeler Millsaps College David H. Culpepper Millsaps College Penelope J. Prenshaw Millsaps College

Abstract This paper documents an intensive experiential entrepreneurship summer camp targeting Native American youth and evaluates the effectiveness of the camp on student interest in business and overall business knowledge. Overall, interest in business and business knowledge increased significantly after participation in the entrepreneurship summer camp. Additionally, the authors provide recommendations for a family-oriented approach to the development and implementation of educational opportunities aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship among tribal youth.

Keywords: Native American youth, indigenous entrepreneurship education, economic development

Introduction

Entrepreneurs create jobs that in turn, contribute to economic development. Issues of unemployment and poverty have long challenged the Native American Indian Population. The 2010 U.S. Census cites, on average, 51.6% of Native Americans over 16 are employed in civilian jobs, compared to 59.4% for the U.S. population as a whole. While 10.1% of U. S. families lived below the poverty level, over one-fifth, or 22.1% of Native Americans lived below the poverty line (U. S. Census, 2010). This suggests the need to encourage entrepreneurial activity to support economic development in tribal communities, which according to Peredo, Anderson,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 10

Galbraith, Honig, and Dana (2004) will in turn aid in the “rebuilding of their communities and nation” (p. 6).

A complicating factor in the effort to encourage entrepreneurship in tribal communities is the collectivist orientation of indigenous communities (Peredo et al., 2004). Additionally, the institution of the reservation system has resulted in attitudes and behaviors that limit entrepreneurial activity (Franklin, Morris, & Webb, 2013). While there is evidence of recent economic success in tribal communities, primarily in the gaming industry, poverty is still an issue, and greater internal economic development requires activities that can offer support (Bly, 2005).

This article describes an indigenous entrepreneurial education program targeting tribal teenagers. The unique design of this program addressed the cultural context of the Native American Indian community. The program engaged 12 youths who are members of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians during a four-week summer camp. The manuscript begins by providing background on the tribal community and the initial groundwork conducted before the program was designed. Next, the entrepreneurship program, described in detail, includes an outcome assessment. Finally, recommendations are offered to support other training efforts aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship and small business growth in tribal communities.

Background and Groundwork

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI) is a community of approximately 10,000 members living on tribal land located primarily in rural Neshoba County, MS. Over the past 20 years, the tribe has successfully operated tribal-owned businesses, including casinos and resorts. Contrary to opinion however, tribal involvement in the gaming industry has not led to significantly increased employment and wealth among tribal members. A persistent challenge for the MBCI continues to be high unemployment. In the fall of 2011, the MBCI elected a new chief. Reported in the Choctaw Community News, Chief Anderson stated her administration would focus on “job growth on the reservation, improving health care facilities, offering more educational opportunities, and strengthening economic development” (Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 2011, p. 2). Soon after the chief’s election, The Director of Economic

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 11Â

Â

Development for the MBCI engaged members of the faculty of the Else School of Management at Millsaps College in conversation about how they could help foster a positive business environment among tribal members. Millsaps College is a private Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accredited college located 90 miles southwest of tribal headquarters. As a result of these conversations, tribal leaders asked the business faculty at Millsaps College to develop a plan designed to help create a strong business environment and thriving business community among members of the tribe (Beeler & Donovan, 2011).

The project began with an analysis of the overall business environment at the MBCI to identify both problems and opportunities faced by the MBCI business community. The analysis included on-site visits to tribal headquarters, the economic development office, businesses, and schools. Faculty conducted interviews with tribal leaders, tribal business managers, local high school teachers, and community leaders. In addition, faculty interviewed tribal members and non-tribal members who at the time operated privately owned businesses or were planning to start a business soon (J. Beeler, personal communication, October 2011).

The interviews revealed that tribal members had a poor track record in small business development due to a lack of basic business skills, and that they had very few role models or mentors to draw upon. Specific reasons noted for the limited success among existing private businesses in the community include: (a) poor financial controls, (b) lack of accounting skills and understanding of financial reporting, (c) poor cash flow management, (d) depressed economic climate, (e) little knowledge of competitive nature of business environment, (f) lack of training on how to start a business, and (g) failure to diversify customer base beyond the immediate community (Beeler & Donovan, 2011).

A review of existing entrepreneurial educational programs at the MBCI revealed two distinct programs. The first program was the High School Entrepreneurial Program. This program was reportedly not well subscribed or supported. Students interviewed commented that they only took classes in the entrepreneurial program if nothing else fit their schedule, and there seemed to be a general lack of excitement associated with the program. The second program reviewed was the Adult Entrepreneurial Development Course. This program was taught as a college style course and appeared to have limited success as evidenced by statistics from the class taught in the year prior to our review. In that class 15 individuals started the course, four

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 12

completed, and none of those four had started a business. This program adopted a lecture-style presentation, using academic course content that focused on business basics without necessarily relating the material to the practical processes required for starting a business. Students who participated in this program gave it poor marks in terms of providing information they could use to start a business, or in increasing their interest in owning their own business (J. Beeler, personal communication, October 2011).

The result of the assessment was the creation of a comprehensive plan designed to help foster a strong business environment and thriving business community among members of the MBCI. One element of the plan, and the focus of this paper, was a proposal for a four-week youth entrepreneurship summer camp. There is wide recognition that education is the key to an individual’s future earnings and the health of the general community. Based on evidence provided by Heckman, Grunewald, and Reynolds (2006), it is obvious that early investment in human capital is critical to efforts to moderate the effects of poverty on entire communities.

Andrews (2009) proposed that human development can best be accomplished when focused on three strategies: child care, housing, and education. They provide evidence of the importance of investing early in a child’s future through expanded educational opportunities and the significance of developing human capital to the overall well-being of a community. Based on this research, and our conversation with tribal members, a clear consensus emerged among tribal leaders that there was a need for increasing the availability of educational opportunities for members of the MBCI. The educational proposal presented to tribal leaders focused specifically on entrepreneurship education designed to target the children of the tribe. These studies informed tribal leaders that participation in youth entrepreneurship programs positively influences the desire for business ownership (Athayde, 2009). While studies are scant, those that have examined entrepreneurial activities within American Indian nations report that the goal of encouraging ‘indigenous entrepreneurship’ should be a central element of community-based economic development (Peredo et al., 2004). Thus, a major focus of the educational proposal presented to tribal leadership was for a youth entrepreneurship camp centered on tribal businesses and community-based economic development. Previous research has shown that Native American culture is more strongly community-based than the culture found in the general

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 13Â

Â

society of the United States (Franklin et al., 2013). In recognition of this cultural feature, the entrepreneurship camp was designed giving consideration to the collectivist-orientation of student participants. Thus, the program created provided for a supportive, family-like atmosphere for students, their families, and community in general.

The first step in creating the summer camp program was to establish trust between the community and the educational team. To facilitate the creation of community trust, and before the educational team could plan day-to-day camp activities, the team had to determine how to identify, select, and recruit students for program participation. The program director met with the principal and guidance counselor of the high school in Choctaw, MS and asked them for their assistance. During this initial meeting, the camp program and the goals were explained. After the meeting, the school administrators agreed to identify a group of their best students who they thought would be interested in participating in the summer camp. They identified approximately 20 students. These students then attended an informational meeting at which the program director explained the educational opportunity to the students. During this meeting, the program director explained how the camp would operate, as well as some of the potential benefits that this educational experience could provide the students. Out of this group of 20 prospective students, 12 were identified as being interested in participating. Because the camp was to be operated off high school grounds, with a week off the reservation, as well as during the summer months, the program director arranged an evening meeting with the parents of all of the students who wanted to participate. During this meeting the program director explained the program in detail and assured parents that he and his team would make certain that the students would be supervised and cared for at all times while in the program. It was important to parents that they meet the director to gain a sense of confidence that their children would be well cared for and watched over. Once the education team had gained the confidence of the tribal leaders, school administrators, parents and students, day-to-day program planning began.

The outcome detailed below was a carefully-designed curriculum focused on entrepreneurship and providing fundamental understanding of economics, accounting, marketing, management, law, and strategy. In addition, attention was given to life development topics such as communication skills and college preparation. A program of fieldtrips coordinated with topical areas included visits to tribal headquarters and tribal businesses.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 14

Finally, the implementation of a mentoring component concluded the last week of the camp.

Throughout the camp, opportunities for fun and engagement in a family-like atmosphere were scheduled. The MBCI accepted and funded the proposal.

Entrepreneurship Camp: Details and Assessment

The following section provides details of the youth entrepreneurship summer camp.

Twelve high school students from the MBCI participated in the camp. The camp was a six-hour a day, five-day a week, four-week, highly structured entrepreneurship education training program. Key in the development and execution of the camp was a focus on providing a supportive, experiential, and fun learning experience. We made major efforts to structure each day such that content and activities were varied throughout. The entrepreneurship camp consisted of a combination of hands-on experiences, discussions and lectures, guest speakers, and fieldtrips. Tenure-track or tenured faculty from an AACSB accredited college, including professors of economics, accounting, marketing, management, law, strategy, and the director of entrepreneurial development, provided the classroom training. In addition, graduate assistants from the MBA program participated throughout the camp. Nightly activities for fun and a mentoring component exposing students to elder tribe members with business skills and success stories ended the camp. Table 1 provides an overview of the youth entrepreneurship summer camp.

Week 1

During Week 1, sessions were held at the MBCI Economic Development Center in Choctaw, MS. The choice of this location for the first week of the program was purposeful to help ensure a level of comfort and familiarity for students as they became acquainted with the faculty and course materials. The program began with introductions of all faculty and students followed by the pre-training assessment. An introduction to the concept of what it takes to be an entrepreneur followed, including a case study titled “Anyone Can Be an Entrepreneur.” The rest of the first morning concentrated on appropriate business behavior and the importance of first

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 15

impressions – the handshake, the walk, the talk, and business dress. In the afternoon, an economics professor talked about opportunity recognition, supply and demand, and the necessity of choice, followed by a networking activity featuring sodas and snacks.

The mornings of the rest of the first week were spent in discussion of readings and case studies related to identifying business opportunities, overcoming obstacles, and learning what it takes to be an entrepreneur. Afternoons involved learning about competition and monopoly, capitalism and markets. For example, one exercise involved distributing to half the students in the group equal pieces of candy and equal numbers of nickels to each student in the other half of the group. Then students were allowed to buy and sell pieces of candy at whatever price was agreed. Transaction prices were recorded. In the second round of the game, one student was given all the candy and each of the others was given a number of nickels. Then students bought and sold pieces of candy at whatever price was agreed with the transaction prices recorded. The exercise was intended to illustrate how prices differ when there are many sellers competing for buyers as opposed to there being only one seller. Activities on Days 2 – 5 included a special treat for the students – a guest speaker from the tribe who is a professional accountant and works in Financial Services at MBCI tribal headquarters. In addition, that week included three field trips to a startup retail business, a heavy-machinery manufacturing company, and a tribal member-owned textile manufacturing plant and distribution center.

Week 2

During Week 2, the students arrived at Millsaps College campus where they met for classes in the Else School of Management and resided in the college dormitories. On the first day of the on-campus session, students heard a management professor describe managers and their role in organizations. The specific topics discussed included: (a) how to manage individuals (e.g., leading), (b) management tasks (e.g., planning, controlling, and organizing), and (c) management decision making (e.g., external environment analysis). To teach the concept of controlling, students developed a process of taking cash from a point of sale system (cash register) to an in-house storage system (safe) to an armored car, and finally to the bank. The process included supervisory controls to ensure accountability by at least two parties. Students

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 16

found that at least seven individuals need to be part of the process. After lunch, the class visited a boutique glass manufacturing company, where the owner talked to the students about recent expansion strategies. During the evening, the students enjoyed dinner, followed by bowling with faculty and graduate assistants.

The morning of Day 2, taught by the business law professor, focused on legal issues in business. The topics discussed included: (a) business structures, (b) great corporate downfalls, (c) how to protect yourself and your investment, and (d) intellectual property. The students’ attention increased markedly with discussion of whether songs on their iPods may or may not be legal and the pitfalls of pirating music and movies. During the afternoon, students visited the Jackson, MS office of a large national law firm where they learned about career opportunities in the legal field, and were introduced to attorneys who discussed their work protecting intellectual properties. During the evening the students accompanied faculty to dinner and a movie.

Day 3 focused on how to create a marketing plan and was taught by a professor of marketing. To begin, students were asked to think of a business they would like to start in their community. The topics presented included: (a) understanding customers, (b) building your brand, (c) determining your price, and (d) communicating with your customers. Students particularly enjoyed the section on creating a business name that described their start-up. They looked through a variety of magazines to help inspire ideas, followed by a logo development and presentation. That afternoon students toured a regional marketing agency where they were given a presentation describing the development of a branding strategy for one of the firm’s clients.

That evening, faculty accompanied the students to dinner and a Jackson Braves baseball game.

The focal point of Day 4 was on how to create a financial plan for a start-up business and was taught by two accounting professors who are also CPAs and CVAs (valuation professionals). Day 4 started with a fieldtrip to a local real estate development company that builds hotels. The CFO of the company led a wide-ranging discussion of start-up financing and getting a project off the ground. The afternoon agenda focused upon the basics of how to: (a) calculate start-up cost, (b) make sales projections, (c) develop cash flow forecast, (d) prepare an income statement and balance sheet, (e) calculate break-even, (f) fund start-ups, and (g) bootstrap your business. That evening students, faculty, and graduate assistants were treated to dinner at the Program Director’s house.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 17Â

Â

Day 5 concentrated on creating the overall business strategy and was taught by a professor of strategy. The topics taught included: (a) what is strategy, (b) formulating strategy, (c) implementing strategy, and (d) evaluating strategy. The professor used a fun and simple, yet effective, exercise to emphasize the importance of planning and communication for the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of a strategic plan. Students were to use the contents of tinker-toy boxes to first plan the tallest, freestanding structure within a time limit.

They were then to record their plan and subsequently build the plan in a two-minute time frame.

Students learned the importance of detailed planning and the importance of a well-written strategic plan to accomplish their objectives. The students enthusiastically participated in the activity and seemed to enjoy the competition. At the end of the day, students packed up and were driven home.

Week 3

Week 3 classes met at the MBCI Economic Development Center in Choctaw, MS. During this week, the director of entrepreneurial development and professors of economics and accounting provided training. In addition, two graduate assistants supported the week’s events.

Day 1 of Week 3 spotlighted economics with an explanation of: (a) demand characteristics, (b) inflation and unemployment, and (c) money and banking. In the afternoon, a representative of the tribal scholarship office met with students and informed them of scholarship opportunities available to members of the MBCI. Following this, students met their individual executive mentors who they would be shadowing in Week 4.

The morning of the second day of Week 3 began with a lecture on starting a small business and the importance of verbal and written communications in arranging start-up financing. Students divided into teams, received case readings, and were asked to present their ideas for starting a business and to include possible means of arranging start-up financing. That afternoon the class visited Geyser Falls Water Park, a tribal owned business, where they were introduced to both front- and back-of-house operations. During this fieldtrip students met with park management to learn about the inner working of the facility, with special emphasis on the business aspects. The students were able to learn across a broad spectrum, from real-world

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 18

examples of supply and demand, to the organization of finances, to park maintenance and event planning. After touring the facility, students enjoyed a late working lunch with park staff, and were given free passes to enjoy the rest of the day at the park.

Day 3 started with an exercise called Everybody Sells, which centered on sales and negotiation skills. After students read and discussed the material, they divided into pairs of buyers and sellers and were given a product and asked to reach a business agreement. In the afternoon, the class visited another tribal business, the Dancing Rabbit Golf Course and Resort for a tour of the operations. Students gained an insider’s view of the management of a golf facility including the staffing, maintenance, and operation of the pro shop. The students learned first-hand the importance of management skills, creative problem solving, and the ability to delegate, as well as how to apply learned concepts from leadership, strategy, and communication. After the tour and presentation, students had a working lunch at the resort with management staff. The day was rounded out with students playing a round of golf with their executive mentors.

On Day 4 of Week 3 the morning began with a presentation by the director of career development from the Else School of Management at Millsaps College. She discussed resume preparation and interviewing skills. She also provided students training on how to dress for success and the proper personal appearance for interviews in the business world. During the afternoon, the class visited the tribal-owned Silver Star Hotel to gain further insight into the hospitality industry. Students learned about staffing, maintenance, and operation of security and housekeeping. They considered the importance of tribal investment in the hospitality industry and the significance a deeper knowledge of that business may hold for the students’ future careers. Following the tour, students had a working lunch at the Silver Star with management.

The last day of Week 3 included a presentation by a representative from Millsaps College admissions office. The purpose of the session was to help the students learn about the college admission process. After lunch, we conducted the post-training assessment, and the students and teachers held a wide-ranging discussion of what had worked, and what needed to be tweaked for future programs. Some of the student suggestions for program improvement included increasing the number of hands-on learning experiences and the possible inclusion of a requirement that students be formed into teams to create a business plan for starting an actual student-owned

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 19

business.

Week Four

Monday through Friday of Week 4 the students participated in executive shadowing.

Students observed an executive from a tribal-owned business. They were to go to work each day to observe their executive mentor perform his or her functions, and assist the executive in any way requested. Students maintained a journal, recording what they learned at work each day.

The program director met with students during this week to review progress reports and discuss their experiences. The purpose of this element of the program was for students to see first-hand how businesses operate. Student participants reported that they enjoyed the opportunity to get to know their mentors and become familiar with what they do in the day-to-day operation of their business. The shadowing experience may create a mentoring relationship between executives and students that will extend far beyond the program. We believe that the connections developed through this experience can be a starting point for the students to cultivate a network of contacts in the business field that they will need to succeed in the future.

Outcomes Assessment Results

A pre- and post-test design tested whether student’s perceptions changed after participation in the youth entrepreneurship summer camp. As noted above, during the first day of the camp the students completed a questionnaire (pre-test) measuring their attitudes toward business and their basic business knowledge. The questionnaire employed 30 questions using a 5-point Likert-type scale. On the last day of Week 3, a post-test assessment measured changes in their attitudes toward business and their basic business knowledge.

As stated above, the education literature suggests that early investment in the education of youth will produce measurable positive outcomes. The expectation of this program was that the experience of the attendance at the youth entrepreneurship summer camp would have a positive impact on students’ attitude toward business. In addition, it was expected that the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 20

student’s business knowledge would increase. Thus, the following hypotheses were tested and expected to be rejected: H1: Participation in the youth entrepreneurship summer camp would not have a positive impact on a student’s attitude toward business; and, H2: Participation in the youth entrepreneurship summer camp would not increase the student’s business knowledge.

Table 2 contains the pre- and post-participation mean responses to the 30 questions for students in the youth entrepreneurship summer camp. The director gathered the attitudinal measurement using a 5-point Likert-type scale for the five statements designed to measure attitude toward business. For the 25 questions measuring basic business knowledge, each question was graded as correct or incorrect with a total correct score being used as a measure of business knowledge.

Hypothesis 1 was designed to test whether students’ attitude toward business would improve as a function of participating in the entrepreneurship summer camp. In general, student attitudes toward business did improve after participating in the camp. Question 1 asked, “Someday I plan on owning a business;” the mean response increased from 2.75 to 3.91. This indicates that in general the students were positively influenced toward wanting to own a business. Question 2 asked, “I would like to learn more about business;” the mean response increased from 2.27 to 3.75. Question 3 asked, “After high school I plan to continue my education;” the mean response increased from 3.58 to 4.33. Pair-wise comparison tests on questions 1 - 3 demonstrate differences (p = .0001) between mean pre-test scores and post-test scores in the predicted direction indicating that after participation in the entrepreneurship camp, students were generally more inclined to be interested in studying and starting a business as well as continuing their education after high school.

Interestingly, the responses, which dealt with their level of knowledge, indicated that the students were not as sure of their knowledge after the camp as they were before the camp. For example, Question 4 asked, “I currently know enough about business to be successful and earn a profit;” the mean response decreased from 3.16 to 2.83 (p = .04). Similarly, Question 5 asked, “I have the skills and knowledge to get a good job;” the mean response decreased from a relatively assured measure of 3.50 to a less confident 2.91 (p = .01). These last two findings seems to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 21

indicate that after the camp, students have a better understanding of what it takes to get a good job, or to run a business, and realize that they need more knowledge than they currently possess to be successful. Overall these findings indicate that there is an entrepreneurship camp learning effect, thus H1 is rejected.

The second experimental hypothesis was designed to test whether student’s business knowledge improved after participation in the entrepreneurship summer camp. To test H2, student responses to 25 questions measuring basic business knowledge were graded as correct or incorrect. A business knowledge (BK) score was calculated from each student’s pre- and posttest results with a range from 0 to 25. Pair-wise comparison tests demonstrate expected differences (p = .0001) between mean pre-test BK scores (14) and post-test BK scores (19).

These results provide evidence that these high school students basic business knowledge improved significantly by participating in the entrepreneurship summer camp, thus rejecting H2.

Conclusions and Recommendations

One of the greatest struggles for those wishing to create a thriving business culture in stressed communities is that of developing the human capital needed to successfully take advantage of opportunities that do exist. However, the area of human development is also the area that may provide the greatest potential for the personal advancement of individuals and the community as a whole. The current research provides evidence that after participation in a highly structured intense youth entrepreneurship camp, students were generally more inclined to be interested in studying and starting a business. Additionally, students’ basic business knowledge improved significantly. However, the educational team that designed and implemented this program believe that these are not the most important contributions of this paper.

The researchers believe that the lessons they learned about how to create an environment that allows tribal leaders, school administrators, parents and students to feel comfortable with an educational team and educational program were invaluable. These lessons are particularly important when dealing with people from a community generally considered a collectivist society. We found that you must create an environment in which parents and students feel safe

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 22Â

Â

about venturing out into the broader society to study and experience how business works. Our experience shows that developing trust in the education team by the community you wish to reach is an essential starting point. To earn this feeling of trust, the educator must be willing to spend a great deal of time getting to know, and be known by, all parties involved. It is critically important for any educator who wishes to reach this segment of society to be seen as a sincere, honest, trustworthy person. One must gain the confidence of this community before asking people to entrust their most valued asset, their children, to you for training.

Success in creating a flourishing business community in Native American communities and other stressed community will only be achieved through a long-term commitment to a program of early intensive business education. Key elements to long-term success include continuity in program leadership, community trust and involvement, and one-on-one work with community leaders, educators, business leaders, entrepreneurs, and all interested members of society.

Author Biographies

Penelope J. Prenshaw is a Professor of Marketing at Millsaps College. Dr. Prenshaw has a Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Houston. She has a research stream focused on pedagogy.

Jesse D. Beeler is a Professor of Accounting at Millsaps College. Dr. Beeler has a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Texas at Arlington. His research interests span the areas of financial reporting, management and pedagogy.

David H. Culpepper is a Professor of Accounting at Millsaps College. Dr. Culpepper has a Ph.D. in accounting from the University of Alabama. His research interests include tax and accounting as well as pedagogy.

Volume 4 Page 23

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

References

Andrews, N. O., (with Kramer, C.). (2009). Coming out as a human capitalist: Community development as the nexus of people and place. Community Development Investment Review, 5(3), 47-65. San Francisco, CA: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Athayde, R. (2009). Measuring enterprise potential in young people. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, March, 481-500.

Beeler, J. D., & Donovan, J. (2011). Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Choctaw Entrepreneurial Business Development Center shaping the future today. Jackson, MS: Millsaps College.

Bly, B. (2005) Tribal colleges can be a key to Native entrepreneurship. Community Dividend, (1), 1, 3. Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

Franklin, R. J., Morris, M. H., & Webb, J. W. (2013). Entrepreneurial activity in American Indian nations: Extending the gem methodology. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 18(2), 1-26.

Heckman, J. J., Grunewald, R., & Reynolds, A. J. (2006). The dollars and cents of investing early: Cost-benefit analysis in early care and education. Zero to Three, 26(6), 10–17.

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. (2011, September). Anderson wins Sept. 6 tribal chief election. Choctaw Community News, 41(9), pp.1-3.

Peredo, A. M., Anderson, R. B., Galbraith, C. S., Honig, B., & Dana, B. (2004). Towards a theory of indigenous entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(1/2), 1-20.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Employment status and poverty level by population. Retrieved from http://www.factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=A CS_10_AIAN_DP03&prodType=table.html.

Volume 4 Page 24Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 1 Youth Entrepreneurship Summer Camp Overview Youth Entrepreneurship Summer Camp Overview

Week One Day 1

Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Topic

Activities

Introductions and pre-test Appropriate business behavior Basic economics concepts Basic business concepts Character traits of successful entrepreneurs Recognizing opportunities

Networking Session

Fieldtrip to new retail development Guest speaker Fieldtrip to heavy machinery production facility Fieldtrip to textile manufacturing plant and distribution center

Week Two Day 1 Management concepts

Day 2

Legal issues

Day 3

Marketing concepts

Day 4

Start-up financing

Day 5

Business strategy

Week Three Day 1 Economics concepts and scholarship opportunities Day 2 Starting the business and communication skills Day 3 Sales and negotiation skills

Day 4 Day 5

Career development College admission process and post-test

Week Four Executive shadowing

Fieldtrip to boutique glass manufacturing business and dinner and bowling Fieldtrip to law firm and dinner and a movie.

Fieldtrip to marketing firm and Jackson Braves baseball game.

Fieldtrip to real estate development firm and dinner with faculty and GAs. Students returned home after class

Meet your mentor Field trip to Geyser Falls Water Park followed by free passes to park Fieldtrip to Dancing Rabbit Golf Course and Resort followed by golf with mentor Fieldtrip to Silver Star Hotel

Volume 4 Page 25

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 2 Pre and Post-Participation Mean Responses

Attitudinal Questionsª

Pre-

Post-

P-Value

1. Someday I plan on owning a business

2.75

3.91

.0001

2. I would like to learn more about business

2.27

3.75

.0001

3. After high school I plan to continue my education

3.58

4.33

.0001

successful and earn a profit

3.16

2.83

.04

5. I have the skills and knowledge to get a good job

3.50

2.91

.01

Overall Business Knowledge (BK score)

14

19

.0001

4. I currently know enough about business to be

Note. aScale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.

Volume 4 Page 26

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Classroom Camera: Friend, Foe, or Tool for Reflection?

Timothy Lewis Auburn University at Montgomery Margaret L. Rice The University of Alabama Brooke A. Burks Auburn University at Montgomery

Abstract

This study explored pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding the impact of classroom cameras on instructional growth. The study reported pre-service teachers’ perceptions about access and control of classroom cameras and identified pros and cons of classroom cameras. Results showed 69% of respondents indicated they would not like having classroom cameras while teaching. In comparison to this, 59% reported they would be comfortable with a classroom camera while teaching, even though some of them may not like it. Pros of having classroom cameras included classroom safety and the ability to self-evaluate and reflect, have administrators conduct teacher evaluations, improve teaching, have administrators see teachers’ strengths, have administrators observe teacher behavior and hold teachers accountable, observe student behavior, and have evidence to settle disputes. Cons included a lack or invasion of student and teacher privacy, distraction for teachers and students, teachers and students being uncomfortable, trust between administrators and teachers, situations being taken out of context, feeling of being watched, and student behavior.

Keywords: Video analysis, classroom camera, Reflective Teaching, access, control

Technological advancements and legal interpretations related to privacy have created an expectation that Big Brother is watching many aspects of our lives. Surveillance has become commonplace in many areas of everyday life as a measure for ensuring security and safety, and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 27

the boundary that measures how far is too far continues to meander. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was adopted as a proactive measure for combating terrorism through large-scale electronic surveillance (Bagley, 2011). Current technologies allow for unobtrusive surveillance of personal interest information by the government (Dinev, Hart, & Mullen, 2008), and the adoption of surveillance technology is occurring faster than the public’s awareness of it and outpacing public debate (Gelbord & Roelofsen, 2002). Nelson (2002) contends that this legislation enables privacy invasion without proper judicial oversight while Gelbord and Roelofsen (2002) purport that the use of video surveillance and digital imaging in public places will continue to become widespread.

Recent tragedies in schools (Fantz, Knight, & Wang, 2014), including the well known Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, have prompted school leaders to invest millions of dollars for increased security, including the expansion of video surveillance (Molnar, 2013).

However, incorporating cameras into the classroom for evaluation purposes remains controversial. Because of the increasing use of video surveillance in classrooms, it is important to examine the impact of this on improving teaching practice.

The Potential of Video Analysis in Teacher Evaluation

Over the past two decades, interest in understanding how to develop reflective practitioners has grown (Black, 2001; Blomberg, Sherin, Renki, Glogger, & Seidel, 2014; Dawson, Dawson, & Forness, 1975; Rich & Hannafin, 2008, 2009; Robinson & Kelley, 2007; Welsch & Devlin, 2006). In more recent years, advancements in cameras and web-based communications have increased the utilization of video captured in the classroom as an effective tool to facilitate teacher reflection (Tripp & Rich, 2012). More specifically, innovations in video annotation tools (VATs) have made it possible to support both the reflection and analysis of one’s own teaching and associate captured video with other evidence of teaching effectiveness.

Rich and Hannifin (2009) maintain that “video annotation tools can augment and extend teacher reflection experiences by facilitating and structuring the analysis process” (p. 63). VATs allow individuals to capture and analyze video of teaching practices in authentic classroom settings. They allow captured teaching practices to be synthesized and collaboratively reviewed

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 28

and analyzed (Rich & Hannafin, 2009). VATs allow for video evidence to be independently analyzed and also shared as annotated video evidence with peers, mentors, supervisors, and teacher educators. Sharing the video annotations promotes collaborative reflection and objective evaluations that offer multiple perspectives and interpretations of instructional decisions (Rich & Hannafin, 2008).

Impact on Teacher Preparation Programs

Practitioners who are reflective about their practices are found to be more effective teachers (Black, 2001), and student performance is positively impacted by changes in teacher behavior through video feedback (Dawson et al., 1975). Studies have reported video analysis as an effective technique for changing teaching behaviors through reflection among both preservice and in-service teachers (Blomberg et al., 2014; Bueno de Mesquita, Dean, & Young, 2010; Rich & Hannafin, 2008, 2009; Robinson & Kelley, 2007; Scott, Kucan, Correnti, & Miller, 2013; Seidel, Stumer, Blomberg, Kobarg, & Schwindt, 2011; Welsch & Devlin, 2006).

Many teacher-training programs use video to prepare reflective teachers. As of 2015, 607 educator preparation programs in 33 states and the District of Columbia have adopted Stanford University’s edTPA performance assessment program into their state licensure and/or state program accreditation review processes (“edTPA Participation Map,” n.d.). Teacher programs strive to develop pre-service teachers’ abilities to observe, analyze, and respond to actions of students in the classroom (Welsch & Devlin, 2006). Welsch and Devlin (2006) found that a majority of pre-service teachers viewed reflection on videotaped teaching lessons as an effective method of evaluating their teaching skills. They also purport that videotaped lessons can be used as an effective means of providing candidates with opportunities to be both actor and critic and to repeatedly look at teaching and learning. Many states now require teacher candidates to submit videos demonstrating their ability to prepare and present effective lessons. The videos are analyzed by outside evaluators with no stake in the results (Williams, 2010). As of 2014, 12 states including California, Georgia, Tennessee, New York, and Wisconsin are either considering or have adopted Stanford University’s edTPA performance assessment program into their state licensure and/or state program accreditation review processes (“edTPA State Policy,” n.d.). The

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 29

adoption of edTPA acknowledges the wide scale consideration of video analysis and reflection in higher education and at the state level.

Benefits of Video Analysis and Reflection on Transforming Instructional Practices

According to Knight et al. (2012), innovations in video cameras have the potential to transform professional learning. They support that cameras can benefit instructional coaches, teachers, and individual learners in the classroom by providing “educators (teachers, coaches, administrators, and others) with an objective, accurate view of themselves at work” (p. 19) while compelling educators to change practice, establish coaching goals, and provide documented progress towards accomplishing these goals. Griffee (2005) purports that classroom video recordings provide a comprehensive and naturalistic view of the classroom that includes things or behaviors previously unnoticed. This naturalistic view of the classroom provides policy makers with a strong argument for adopting classroom cameras as an appropriate tool for reflective practice and motivating change.

Tripp and Rich (2012) found video analysis of instruction to be an effective tool for increasing teachers’ desires to change their teaching practices. Video analysis influenced the change process by providing teachers with a clear view of areas meriting change by helping teachers focus on key teaching aspects of teaching, gain new perspectives of problems in their teaching, increase their trust in feedback, increase motivation through increased accountability, and provide formative feedback that shows specific areas of growth and progress. Video recordings allow teachers to highlight classroom aspects and situations not noticeable while delivering instruction and improve students’ learning due to instructional modifications and professional development focused on modifying issues identified by the recordings (Zhang, Lundeberg, & Eberhardt, 2010).

Video recordings offer teachers an opportunity to collaborate, discuss, assess, and reflect on their own practices while gathering expertise from peers and supervisors. West, Rich, Shepherd, and Hannafin (2009) found that teachers, mentors, and instructional leaders can identify key teaching attributes in videos and that teachers’ ability to extract and interpret relevant components from the videos increase over time. Teaching practices were clearly

Volume 4 Page 30

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

defined through group reflection and discussion of videos due to the opportunity to verbalize and identify personal biases and learn from others’ perspectives. The varied expertise offered through group reflection helped modify teachers’ interpretations of teaching practices and assisted in changing pedagogy (West et al., 2009).

Emotional-motivational processes needed to change practice are not automatically activated through viewing one’s own video but may be affected by how the videos are presented (Kleinknecht & Schneider, 2013). Inappropriate sharing/uses, and possible practices such as using hidden cameras to monitor teacher behaviors, make it difficult for teachers and teachers’ unions to readily accept or trust the concept of cyber classroom observation and teacher evaluation. Control, access, and use of video evidence are important aspects to be considered.

Teacher Evaluation

Despite the widespread adoption of utilizing video reflections in teacher preparation programs and teacher professional development (“edTPA Participation Map,” n.d.), little is known in regards to the use of video cameras for teacher evaluation. The primary focus of this study was to examine perceptions concerning who should have access and control of classroom cameras and to identify pros and cons of having classroom cameras. Policy makers must carefully consider these fundamental perspectives as they redesign teacher evaluation policies and programs to incorporate video analysis and reflection into the formative assessment of teachers. A lack of attention could cause classroom cameras to become a foe instead of a tool for reflection.

Purpose

This is a mixed-method study examining pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding who should be allowed to view video from classroom cameras and identifying pros and cons for having classroom cameras. For this study, classroom surveillance cameras were defined as video surveillance cameras that simultaneously record both sound and video.

Five research questions were addressed:

Volume 4 Page 31

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

1. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding using classroom cameras for instructional growth/documentation?

2. What are the pre-service teachers’ perceptions related to access and control of classroom cameras?

3. How do pre-service teachers feel about having cameras in their classroom while they teach?

4. What are the pros and cons of administrators having access to video captured from the learning environment?

5. What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions toward utilizing classroom cameras for instructional evaluation in lieu of traditional classroom observations by school administrators?

Methods

Participants

Participants consisted of 185 education majors at a public state institution in the southeastern region of the United States. The participants included 123 first semester elementary education seniors and 64 graduating seniors (second semester) majoring in elementary education, secondary education, special education, physical education, or music. There were 174 seniors and 11 alternative masters candidates, of whom 166 (90%) were females and 18 (10%) were males. Ninety seven percent of the participants reported having viewed video recordings of their teaching, 77% of whom considered the experience useful, 21% did not like the experience, and 3% gave no response.

Instrument

The researcher-developed survey instrument for this study was comprised of items developed from a review of literature and input from a panel of university professors, school administrators, and elementary classroom teachers. The survey contained sections comprised of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 32

yes/no, open-ended, and Likert-type questions based on a 6-point rating scale (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-somewhat disagree, 4-somewhat agree, 5-agree, and 6-strongly agree).

Eight Likert-type questions were devoted to measuring perceptions toward utilizing classroom cameras for reflective teaching and instructional evaluation. Items were as follows: a) instruction can be improved through reflective teaching; b) classroom cameras can help teachers identify their professional growth needs; c) teachers, not administrators, should maintain the control of classroom cameras; d) classroom cameras can be used to assist teachers in mastering instruction through self-study; e) classroom cameras should be left on at all times; f) school administrators should notify teachers before observing their classes using classroom cameras; g) video from classroom cameras can be used during post-evaluation conferences between teachers and principals to discuss evaluation scores; and h) school administrators should use classroom cameras for mandatory evaluation instead of coming into the classroom. The subsequent section required participants to respond to yes/no questions, one asking if they would like to have a camera in their classrooms while teaching while another question asked if they would be comfortable having a camera recording their instruction. At the end of the survey, participants answered open-ended questions asking them to identify pros and cons for administrators having access to video from daily teaching as well as who should be allowed to view classroom videos and why. Content validity was established by a panel of university professors, school administrators, and elementary classroom teachers (Patten, 2000).

Procedure

Prior to contacting the possible participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was granted by the institution at which the researchers were employed. Once IRB permission was granted, the researchers contacted the director of teacher internships and the college’s supervisor of elementary education majors to request permission to distribute the survey during mandatory meetings. The elementary education supervisor preferred to distribute the survey to two sections of first semester seniors that would be interning the following semester, while the researchers distributed surveys at the beginning of the final mandatory meeting for graduating seniors who successfully completed their internships. Surveys were completed during these

Volume 4 Page 33

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

mandatory meetings and collected by the researchers. Quantitative data were entered into SPSS and data entry was substantiated by the researchers to remove any data entry errors. Qualitative data were analyzed utilizing content analysis.

Data Analysis

A mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis was used to record and analyze pre-service teachers’ perceptions toward integrating classroom cameras into the learning environment. Content analyses were applied to generate results from participants’ responses to open-ended items. Two members of the research team reviewed the texts, coded them, and placed them into categories of meaningful words, phrases, and sentences. Categories were compared to find links between units of analysis, and conclusions were drawn from the text (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). All quantitative data were reported through descriptive statistics.

Results

Question 1: What are the perceptions of pre-service teachers related to using classroom cameras for instructional growth/documentation?

Respondents agree (M = 4.82) that classroom cameras may be used to self-evaluate classroom management techniques, with 36% (N = 67) of the pre-service teachers agreeing, 30% (N = 56) somewhat agreeing, and 28% (N = 52) strongly agreeing. Respondents also agree (M = 5.09) that instruction can be improved through reflective teaching, with 42% (N = 79) of the respondents strongly agreeing, 32% (N = 59) agreeing, and 21% (N = 45) somewhat agreeing.

Respondents agree (M = 4.91) that classroom cameras can help teachers identify their professional growth needs, with 37% (N = 69) agreeing, 32% (N = 59) strongly agreeing, and 24% (N = 45) somewhat agreeing. Similarly, respondents agree (M = 4.59) that classroom cameras can be used to assist teachers in mastering instruction through self-study, with 37% (N = 69) of the respondents agreeing, 31% (N = 58) somewhat agreeing, and 20% (N = 37) strongly agreeing.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 34Â

Â

Question 2: What are the perceptions of pre-service teachers related to access and control of classroom cameras?

Results reveal that respondents somewhat agree (M = 4.26) that teachers, not administrators, should maintain the control of the classroom camera, with 30% (N = 56) somewhat agreeing, 25% (N = 46) agreeing, and 20% (N = 37) strongly agreeing. Respondents somewhat disagree (M = 3.51) that classroom cameras should be left on at all times, with 26% (N = 48) agreeing, 19% (N = 36) somewhat disagreeing, 18% (N = 33) disagreeing, and 11% (N = 20), strongly disagreeing. The majority of respondents agree (M = 4.77) that school administrators should notify teachers before observing their classes using classroom cameras, with 38% (N = 71) strongly agreeing, 24% (N = 24) agreeing, and 23% (N = 43) somewhat agreeing. When asked who should control and have access to the cameras, responses varied.

The majority of respondents indicated that teachers and administrators should have control and be the only individuals allowed to view the video. The second largest number of responses was that teachers, administrators, and parents should be able to view the video. Respondents indicated that allowing parents to view the videos would help the teachers in any disputes concerning students’ behavior and allow parents to actually see what their children are doing, especially if they are misbehaving. A few respondents also believe that students should be able to view the videos.

Question 3: How do pre-service teachers feel about having classroom cameras in their classroom while they teach?

Question 3 was answered using two survey questions. One question asked how respondents would feel about having cameras in their classrooms while teaching. Sixty-nine percent of respondents indicated that they would not like having cameras in their classrooms while teaching. The second survey item asked whether teachers would be comfortable having cameras in their classrooms while teaching. Even though 69% reported they would not like cameras, 59% reported that they would be comfortable with a camera in their classroom while teaching.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 35

Question 4: What are the pros and cons for administrators having access to video captured from the learning environment?

Several themes resulted from asking respondents about the pros and cons of administrators having access to classroom videos. Themes for pros included the ability to selfevaluate and reflect, ability for administrators to conduct teacher evaluations, improvement of teaching, administrators’ ability to see teachers’ strengths, ability for administrators to observe teacher behavior and hold teachers accountable, ability to observe student behavior, evidence to settle disputes, and classroom safety. Themes for cons included a lack or invasion of student and teacher privacy, distraction for teachers and students, teachers and students being uncomfortable, trust between administrators and teachers, situations being taken out of context, and the feeling of being watched.

Respondents saw the ability to self-evaluate and reflect as a pro. Comments included that cameras would “allow teachers to reflect on their teaching” and that “teachers can review/reflect on lessons.” Respondents commented that administrators’ use of cameras for evaluation would allow “evaluations without interruptions” and that administrators would “get a more comprehensive sample of teacher progress.” Respondents commented that teachers could see the areas in which they need to improve and that administrators could provide feedback for improving teaching.

The themes receiving the most responses and comments for pros were Student Behavior and Teacher Accountability and Documentation. Interestingly, only three respondents mentioned classroom safety. Comments for Student Behavior included the following: 

I believe having a camera may reduce behavior problems. Also, parents can see how their students act.



Can spot behavioral issues normally not noticed.



To show parents behavioral issues.



If there are any behavior issues, they will be documented.



Cut down on behavior problems.

Regarding accountability, respondents commented: 

Teachers are always accountable; they can’t slack off.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 36



I think teachers would more than likely be on their toes. They would try harder to reach their students.



Administrators can actually see if a teacher is doing his/her job.



Ensure teachers are providing students with quality teaching – using time effectively.

Comments for Documentation included documentation regarding both teachers and students: 

Know which teachers put in extra work and are effective. If proof is on camera, then administrators must take action and fire a teacher if necessary.



They don’t have to do walkthrough. They know what’s going on in the classroom.



Issues could be settled by others seeing what goes on in the classroom.



Concrete proof of any incidents.



If there are any behavior issues, they will be documented.

When asked for cons of having classroom cameras, a majority of respondents cited the lack or invasion of student and teacher privacy. This appeared to be one of the major concerns for the respondents. One respondent commented that “A con would be immense lack of privacy. Also, it sends the message to teachers that administrators do not trust them.” The other concern cited as a con was that of teachers and students being uncomfortable. Comments included the following: 

The teacher would be nervous and on edge all the time.



It could make teachers more nervous when teaching, and to be themselves.



Teachers may be self-conscious and not teach as effectively with the camera in the classroom.



Cons would be it is nerve wracking to know you’re being “watched.”



Teacher may walk on “egg shells” to keep from doing anything wrong. More focus on cameras instead of teaching.



It would make me uncomfortable.



I would just be nervous all the time just like I was getting observed every day.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 37

Question 5: What are the perceptions of pre-service teachers toward utilizing classroom cameras for instructional evaluation in lieu of traditional classroom observations by school administrators?

Results reveal that pre-service teachers tended to agree (M = 4.42) that video from classroom cameras can be used during post-evaluation conferences between teachers and principals to discuss evaluation scores with 42% (N = 78) somewhat agreeing, 27% (N = 51) agreeing, and 17% (N = 32) strongly agreeing. However, we found that respondents somewhat disagree (M = 3.29) that school administrators should use classroom cameras for mandatory evaluations instead of coming into the classroom, with 23% (N = 43) somewhat disagreeing, 18% (N = 33) disagreeing, and 13% (N = 25) strongly disagreeing. However, perceptions towards the negative impact on principal/teacher relationships included the following: 

The teachers are always being watched and may feel like they can’t be trusted.



Teachers should be trusted and not have to be filmed constantly.



It sends the message to teachers that administrators do not trust them.



Should be trusted at all times and should not feel like you are being watched.



Every teacher may be uncomfortable and feel untrustworthy if videoed or monitored daily.



They may watch you when maybe you were being productive but it may not seem like it and it could get you in hot water.



Administrators may rely too much on video rather an actually being in the classroom.

Students also may behave differently if they know they are being recorded.



They may only pick one random day to watch and that certain day could have been a bad day and may not adequately represent your teaching from day to day.



They may not agree with your ways of thinking and teaching, causing more tension.



Administrators may use the film without teacher consent for evaluations.



Catching a teacher at the wrong time. Teachers get frustrated at times but that may not be a normal occurrence.



Everyone makes mistakes, should someone always be punished for human error?

Volume 4 Page 38

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Discussion

The next generation of teachers has legitimate concerns about how others may perceive them when looking at them through a camera’s lens. While many schools are considering the use of cameras, many others have increased their use for surveillance purposes (Molnar, 2013).

An expanding number of school officials and policy makers seem to agree, however, that classroom cameras are a necessity, not only for surveillance, but also for improving the learning environment. Szente, Massey, and Hoot (2005) support utilizing cameras for focused classroom observations as a tool for impacting teacher and student behaviors.

Having cameras in the classroom brings up both pros and cons for pre-service educators.

The installation of classroom cameras has the potential to transform teaching and instructional supervision. Conversely, improper integration of classroom cameras may devastate a school’s climate through distrust. Integration must be a thought-out process that examines the camera’s usage for security, instructional growth/documentation, and potential impact on privacy. The potential benefits of utilizing classroom cameras will be determined by the purpose and function of the technology. This study sheds light on pre-service teachers’ perceptions toward integrating classroom cameras, and findings may be used as possible considerations for those interested in mainstreaming classroom cameras.

Marzano (2003) holds that the individual classroom teacher could have a greater impact on student achievement than school-related factors through effective instructional strategies, classroom management, and classroom curriculum design. Therefore, state and district level officials should collaborate with school administrators, instructional coaches, and teachers to reasonably implement classroom cameras as a tool to improve instructional strategies and classroom management. This approach should be considered, as evidenced by the following findings of this study revealing respondents’ high degree of support: 1) Respondents agree that instruction can be improved through reflective teaching (98% either somewhat agreeing, agreeing, or strongly agreeing).

2) Respondents agree that classroom cameras can help teachers identify their professional growth needs (93% either somewhat agreeing, agreeing, or strongly agreeing).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 39

3) Respondents agree that classroom cameras can be used to assist teachers in mastering instruction through self-study (88% either somewhat agreeing, agreeing, or strongly agreeing).

4) Pre-service teachers agree that classroom cameras can be used to self-evaluate classroom management techniques (94% either somewhat agreeing, agreeing, or strongly agreeing).

Impact on Administrator/Teacher Relationships

Fifty-nine percent of pre-service teachers in our study indicated that they would feel comfortable having a camera in their classroom. Heinen et al. (2006) found that many teachers were concerned about cameras being used to monitor teacher behaviors even though their school cameras were limited to function as safety surveillance. One teacher from the study commented, I trust the administration, and I think they are doing a good job, but I do wish there was a bit more visibility about the whole thing. Who will be using the cameras?

When? Are there policies that state this? If there is, we have a right to know. If not, we need to work together to create policies that work in the best interests of the school. (p. 214) Likewise, pre-service teachers raised concerns about the impact of classroom cameras on trust between principals and teachers, student and teacher privacy, control and access, negative unintended consequences related to teacher discipline, and summative evaluation.

A majority of respondents (69%) reported having a dislike for having a camera in their classroom while teaching. Some respondents stated that classroom cameras could be a distraction for both teachers and students and would create a classroom environment filled with nervousness/discomfort. A few respondents raised concerns that the camera may encourage students to view the camera as a theatrical stage for inappropriate behavior. We also found that some participants are apprehensive about how others will interpret video data captured from their classroom camera and concerned if classroom cameras will produce unintended negative teacher consequences for committing “honest” mistakes.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 40

Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (2003) refer to trust as an individual’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the confidence that they will be open, reliable, competent, honest, and benevolent. Kochanek (2005) adds that, “Teacher-principal trust allows the principal to introduce instructional and organizational changes to a more receptive faculty” (p. 6).

Teachers who feel valued as professionals are open to input from a principal. Pre-service teachers raised concerns that classroom cameras could negatively impact teacher-principal trust.

Respondents somewhat disagree with the concept of teachers utilizing classroom cameras for mandatory evaluations instead of coming in the classroom (54% either strongly disagreeing, disagreeing or somewhat disagreeing). Pre-service teachers prefer that principals continue to visit their classrooms so that they can see the entire dynamics of the classroom environment, not just a particular lesson from a limited perspective. It is important that district officials note that constant supervision makes pre-service teachers uncomfortable and distrusted. Some respondents feared that discrepancies might exist between teachers’ and administrators’ perspectives/philosophies associated with what is considered effective instruction. There is a fear that the classroom cameras will provide a limited lens/scope of actual teacher performance.

Benne (2008) provides the following example: If a camera views the teacher at her desk while students are scattered around the room working together, it may look as if the teacher is not doing her job, or what may visually look chaotic may be a perfectly executed learning exercise. (p. 26) Respondents’ comments indicated that the idea of constant supervision creates an environment of uneasiness and causes teachers to be hesitant about trying new things because of fear of being harshly critiqued, constantly scrutinized, or punished. In this type of environment, some respondents commented that cameras would make them focus more on trying not to make a mistake rather than teaching. It is also important to consider that pre-service teachers fear that video can be misinterpreted and used as documentation for making mistakes or being monitored on a bad teaching day. There is a concern that one bad lesson or day could open a floodgate of continuous scrutiny. In addition, a poor instructional leader could have a negative impact on teacher-administrator trust when it is obvious that the principal is inadequate at objectively measuring effective instruction or has perceived bias against a teacher.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 41

Even if we did have full access to all teacher-student interaction, it would be difficult to assess whether or not a teacher meets our criteria for a good teacher.

Because we lack information and experience ambiguity in our expectations, people often use a process of discerning the intentions that motivate others when deciding whether or not an individual conforms to their expectations. (Kochanek, 2005, p. 7) Are current principals prepared for this form of critiquing and feedback? It is clear that classroom camera policies must specifically define how video data will be used in summative and formative job evaluations and be sure teachers are aware of and understand the policies. If teachers are uncertain about the policies, this may cause the teachers to be uncomfortable with, or fearful of, the cameras and cause tension in the classroom.

School district administrators and school boards that are considering installing classroom cameras must carefully consider teacher viewpoints towards access/control when constructing plans and policies. Decision makers should note that pre-service teachers feel that they should have some control over the access to their classroom cameras. More specifically, some preservice teachers support limiting access to teachers and principals and view teachers/principals as the responsible parties for handling situations and reflecting on classroom instruction. On the other hand, some respondents suggested that parental and student access be limited to reviewing “after the fact” evidence during disciplinary hearings. Few respondents feel comfortable having open-access between all stakeholders (teachers, administrators, parents, and students). Some even stated that parents do not need to have any input on instruction, and allowing access would only create additional problems. The tone established towards parent access to the classroom raises a concern as related to pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the impact of teacher-parent trust on student achievement. The study seems to indicate that teacher preparation programs should design systematic training focused on developing/building teacher-parent relationships.

Warnick (2007) purports that the use of surveillance video should be kept at a minimum, and where there is evidence of a serious problem, the negative effects of surveillance on the educational environment should be reduced as much as possible. He also suggests that video and digital recordings should be erased as soon as possible to limit the possible abuse of recordings.

Therefore, access should be kept to a minimum and limited to improving classroom management

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 42

and improving instruction through reflective teaching and self-study. These are two of the most important factors for effective classroom environments, and cameras should function to improve student achievement by improving both factors. This may not be a bad compromise in an effort to successfully implement classroom cameras with the support of teachers. Video data should be used carefully to provide constructive critique for change and growth as a process and not be used for summative evaluation or punishment. Teachers should be notified when being monitored/evaluated to maintain trust relationships necessary for cooperative learning environments. Current instructional supervision practices do not require a principal to notify a teacher before every evaluation; however, the presence is noted and the teacher knows that the evaluator is watching.

Author Biographies

Timothy D. Lewis is an assistant professor of Instructional Technology at Auburn University at Montgomery and draws upon his academic preparation and experiences in management, leadership, instruction, and technology to provide learning opportunities for future teachers and instructional leaders. He teaches courses in Instructional Technology and Leadership and serves as the instructional technology program coordinator. Dr. Lewis’ research interests include exploring the integration of technology into clinical supervision and teacher development, the impact of social networking on learning environments, and distance learning pedagogy.

Margaret L. Rice is an Associate Professor of Instructional and Educational Technology at The University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Her research interests include technology integration in k-12 schools, gender differences, school safety and distance learning.

She is the program coordinator for the Computers and Applied Technology program and teaches graduate courses in instructional technology.

Brooke A. Burks is an Assistant Professor in the department of Foundations, Technology, and Secondary Education at Auburn University Montgomery. She is the secondary intern coordinator and an instructor for AUM’s Writing-Intensive Faculty Development Institute. She works to build and maintain partnerships with several local K-12 institutions and provides

Volume 4 Page 43

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

training on Writing Across the Curriculum to area school teachers. Dr. Burks has published a work of fiction titled Tawanda’s Quest and publishes and presents scholarly research on writing, teachers, and technology.

References

Bagley, A. W. (2011). Don't be evil: The Fourth Amendment in the age of Google, national security, and digital papers and effects. Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, 21, 153.

Benne, P. (2008). Eye on you. American School & University, 81(2), 25-28.

Black, S. (2001). Thinking about teaching. American School Board Journal, 188(11), 42-44.

Blomberg, G., Sherin, M. G., Renkl, A., Glogger, I., & Seidel, T. (2014). Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: Investigating instructional strategies to promote reflection. Instructional Science, 42(3), 443.

Bueno de Mesquita, P., Dean, R., & Young, B. (2010). Making sure what you see is what you get: Digital video technology and the pre-service preparation of teachers of elementary science. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 275-293.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education, London, England: Routledge.

Dawson, P., Dawson, K. E., & Forness, S. R. (1975). Effect of video feedback on teacher behavior. Journal of Educational Research, 68(5), 197-201.

Dinev, T., Hart, P., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Internet privacy concerns and beliefs about government surveillance–An empirical investigation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(3), 214-233. edTPA “Participation Map,” n.d.. Retrieved on March 30, 2015 from http://edtpa.aacte.org/statepolicy. edTPA “State Policy,” n.d.. Retrieved on March 30, 2015 from http://edtpa.aacte.org/faq#58 Fantz, A., Knight, L., & Wang, K. (2014, June 19). A closer look: How many Newtown-like school shootings since Sandy Hook? Retrieved on March 31, 2015 from http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/school-shootings-cnn-number/.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 44Â

Â

Gelbord, B., & Roelofsen, G. (2002). New surveillance techniques raise privacy concerns. Communications of the ACM, 45(11), 23-24.

Griffee, D. T. (2005). Research tips: Classroom observation data collection, Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 29(2), 36-39.

Heinen, E., Webb-Dempsey, J., Moore, L. C., McClellan, C. S., & Friebel, C. H. (2006).

Implementing district safety standards at the site level. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 207-220.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hoy, W. K., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools: The omnibus t-scale. In W. K. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Theory and research in educational administration (pp. 181-208). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Kleinknecht, M., & Schneider, J. (2013). What do teachers think and feel when analyzing videos of themselves and other teachers teaching? Teaching & Teacher Education, 33,13-23. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.002.

Knight, J., Bradley, B. A., Hock, M., Skrtic, T. M., Knight, D., Brasseur-Hock, I., ... & Hatton, C. (2012). Record, replay, reflect: Videotaped lessons accelerate learning for teachers and coaches. Journal of Staff Development, 33(2), 18-23.

Kochanek, J. R. (2005). Building trust for better schools: Research-based practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Molnar, M. (2013). Districts invest in new measures to boost security. Education Week, 33(5), 119.

Nelson, L. (2002). Protecting the common good: Technology, objectivity, and privacy. Public Administration Review, 62(s1), 69-73.

Patten, M. L. (2000). Understanding research methods. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak.

Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Capturing and assessing evidence of student teacher inquiry: A case study. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(6), 1426-1440. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.016.

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 45

Robinson, L., & Kelley, B. (2007). Developing reflective thought in preservice educators: Utilizing role-plays and digital video. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(2), 31.

Scott, S. E., Kucan, L., Correnti, R., & Miller, L. A. (2013). Using video records to mediate teaching interns’ critical reflection. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(1), 119-145.

Seidel, T., Stürmer, K., Blomberg, G., Kobarg, M., & Schwindt, K. (2011). Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 259-267.

Szente, J., Massey, C., & Hoot, J. L. (2005). Eyes in the back of your head: Cameras for classroom observation. Learning & Leading With Technology, 32(5), 18-21.

Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching & Teacher Education, 28(5), 728-739. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011.

Warnick, B. R. (2007). Surveillance cameras in schools: An ethical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 77(3), 317-343.

Welsch, R. G., & Devlin, P. A. (2006). Developing preservice teachers’ reflection. Examining the use of video. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 53-61.

West, R. E., Rich, P. J., Shepherd, C. E., Recesso, A., & Hannafin, M. J. (2009). Supporting induction teachers' development using performance-based video Evidence. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 369-391.

Williams, C. (2010, November 2). Want a teaching license? Does the camera love you? USA Today. Retrieved on 5/15/11 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-1102-teachers-license_N.htm.

Zhang, M., Lundeberg, M., & Eberhardt, J. (2010). Seeing what you normally don't see. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 60-65.

Volume 4 Page 46

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Bringing Lesson Study to Teacher Education: Simultaneously Impacting Preservice and Classroom Teachers Rosemarie Michaels Dominican University of California Abstract

Preservice teachers in the undergraduate program at a liberal arts university in Northern California observe and participate in elementary school classrooms, although they are often unclear about the rationale for teachers’ instructional and management decisions. There is little or no time for classroom teachers to explain their “teacher thinking,” as they are engaged with their own students and curricular activities. A lesson study program was created to address these issues. Through university-school partnerships, preservice teachers observed and analyzed model lessons in collaboration with classroom teachers and university instructors. Post-lesson study surveys were administered to preservice and classroom teachers to answer the following research question: What are the effects of a lesson study program on preservice and classroom teachers’ professional growth? Results indicate that the lesson study program simultaneously impacts both preservice and classroom teachers’ professional knowledge and teaching practice, bridging the gap between theory and practice while providing professional development opportunities for all participants.

Keywords: teacher education, lesson study, university-school partnerships, collaboration

Introduction

This study describes a lesson study program and its impact on the professional growth of both preservice and elementary classroom teachers. This paper provides a review of literature on university-school partnerships and lesson study with preservice teachers, the protocol for implementation, and the impact of lesson study on participants. In addition, this study discusses

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 47

the implications for sustainable collaborative university-school partnerships through the guided field experience of lesson study.

Context and Background

Undergraduate preservice teachers at a liberal arts university in California complete at least 20 hours of observation and preparation fieldwork in elementary classrooms each semester, beginning in January of their freshman year. Typically, they observe classroom teachers and work with small groups or individual students, although they admit that often they are unsure of how to participate during their fieldwork and unclear about teachers’ rationale for instructional decisions and classroom management procedures. There is little or no time for classroom teachers to explain their strategies and “teacher thinking,” as they are engaged with their own students and curricular activities. In addition, classroom teachers report they are uncertain of how to best work with preservice teachers as they lack understanding of our preservice teachers’ prior knowledge and abilities. University instructors find even with fieldwork experiences, curriculum methods coursework, and reflection opportunities, there are gaps in preservice teachers’ knowledge of the realities of teaching in elementary schools and in their ability to participate successfully in classrooms. Nonetheless, before earning a teaching credential, preservice teachers need to demonstrate expertise in the Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs), a set of 13 knowledge, skills, and abilities prescribed by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2013). The TPEs are organized into six broad domains: Making subject matter comprehensible to students, assessing student learning, engaging and supporting students in learning, planning instruction, designing learning experiences for students, and developing as a professional educator. Essentially, the TPEs are the elements that define professional growth for preservice teachers in California.

It became apparent that a closer connection with elementary schools was needed to prepare preservice teachers for the realities of the classroom more effectively. A growing body of research indicates that preservice teachers benefit from university-school partnerships, specifically, strong relationships between teacher education programs and the elementary schools in which they observe and participate (e.g., Castle, Fox, & O’Hanlan Souder, 2006; Darling-

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 48Â

Â

Hammond, 2006).

In order to address the needs of preservice teachers and build a stronger connection to partner elementary schools, a lesson study program was created. The Japanese professional development model of lesson study has been integrated into many K-12 schools in the United States over the past 15 years (Lewis & Hurd, 2011; Rock & Wilson, 2005). Traditionally, participants in lesson study are small teams of classroom teachers who collaboratively plan, observe, and analyze lessons as a way to improve instruction (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004; Lewis & Hurd, 2011). The lesson study model was modified for this study; preservice teachers observe, participate, analyze, and reflect on model lessons in collaboration with classroom teachers and university instructors. Lesson study sessions take place at elementary school sites during the regular school day, facilitated by university instructors. The focus of each lesson study session is on instructional practice through the lens of the TPEs, teacher thinking, and student learning in real-world elementary classrooms. In this way, the lesson study program provides authentic, collaborative learning opportunities for preservice teachers to obtain and practice the knowledge, skills, and abilities they will need to be successful classroom teachers of the 21st century.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is four-fold: 1) connect the literature on university-school partnerships and preservice lesson study, 2) describe the protocol of a semester-long lesson study program in a teacher education program, 3) discuss the impact of the program on both preservice and classroom teachers, and 4) discuss implications for future practice in teacher education. The following question guided this research: What are the effects of a lesson study program on preservice and classroom teachers’ professional growth?

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 49

Review of the Literature

University-School Partnerships

With the promise of simultaneous renewal of universities and K-12 schools, the development of university-school partnerships has been on the forefront of education reform since Goodlad’s call for change in 1984. In the ensuing years, it has become apparent that successful university-school partnerships encompass several key elements including mutually beneficial relationships with a shared purpose and emphasis on the professional growth of all participants (Amrein-Beardsley & Barnett, 2013; Butcher, Bezzina, & Moran, 2011; Teitel, 2003). Although universities and schools partner in numerous ways (e.g., service-learning projects, tutoring programs, internships, professional development schools), a majority of partnerships connect preservice teacher education programs and schools (Amrein-Beardsley & Barnett, 2013). The primary goal of university-school partnerships is to bridge the gap between theory in teacher education coursework and the reality of practice in K-12 classrooms (Robinson & Darling-Hammond, 1994). To this end, university instructors and classroom teachers work together to provide structured opportunities for preservice teachers to learn directly from classroom teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1994). In the process, classroom teachers are provided opportunities to renew their professional knowledge and skills (Bier et al., 2012; DarlingHammond, 1994; Goodlad, 1999).

Research indicates that teacher education programs are improved by connecting university coursework to the real world of classrooms. Castle et al. (2006) found that preservice teachers who were involved in partnerships were better prepared for a variety of teacher tasks than those who were not. Darling-Hammond (2006) confirms that preservice teachers who concurrently participate in fieldwork and coursework are better able to understand and apply the theories learned in methods courses to support student learning. In exemplary teacher education programs, strong relationships exist between university instructors and classroom teachers; and guided fieldwork is “carefully chosen to support the ideas presented in simultaneous, closely interwoven course work” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 6).

The professional growth of teachers can be enhanced through the collaboration that occurs

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 50

in successful university-school partnerships. A key to the professional growth of both preservice and classroom teachers is a collaborative study and analysis of teaching and learning (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 2006). Specifically, collaborative discussions provide opportunities for preservice and classroom teachers to clarify understandings about teaching practice and student learning, particularly when conversations are grounded in shared, authentic experiences (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Bier et al., 2012).

Lesson Study

A promising practice for university-school partnerships that integrates the characteristics that promote professional growth, is Japan’s most common form of professional development: lesson study. Lesson study is a collaborative, structured method of planning, observing, and reflecting on teaching and learning (Lewis, Perry, & Hurd, 2009). During lesson study, teams of classroom teachers collaborate to plan, observe and then discuss, analyze, and reflect on their observations with the intent of improving instructional practice and student learning (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004; Lewis, Akita, & Sato, 2010; Lewis & Hurd, 2011). Lesson study can be a powerful form of professional development. Fernandez and Yoshida (2004) explain, “If you want to improve education, get teachers together to study the process of teaching and learning in classrooms” (p.ix). During the past 15 years, many schools in the United States have adopted the Japanese lesson study model to foster collaborative reflection and improve instructional practice (Lewis & Hurd, 2011; Perry & Lewis, 2008; Rock & Wilson, 2005).

In Japan, it is common for preservice teachers to participate in the lesson study process (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004). Lesson study with preservice teachers is a relatively new form of professional development in teacher education programs and university-school partnerships in the United States. Therefore the literature base is small and qualitative and the researchers are commonly the university instructors for methods courses involved in the study. Three forms of preservice lesson study are described in the literature: microteaching, practice lessons in K-12 classrooms, and lesson study with classroom teachers. Each incorporates elements of the Japanese lesson study model as discussed below.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 51

Microteaching in university coursework. Microteaching is a common instructional strategy used for over 30 years in teacher education (Grossman, 2005). Two recent studies connect this traditional technique with the protocol for lesson study. Microteaching engages preservice teachers in planning, teaching, and reflecting on instruction in the relatively safe environment of the university classroom. During methods coursework, small groups of preservice teachers collaboratively plan and teach lessons to their peers, who provide constructive and reflective feedback (Sims & Walsh, 2009). Although microteaching is not directly connected to real world classrooms, university instructors find this form of lesson study enhances preservice teachers’ professional growth. Sims and Walsh (2009) report that microteaching gave their elementary preservice teachers an understanding of what “teacher-led instructional improvement feels like” (p. 732). Fernandez and Robinson (2006) found that their preservice teachers recognized the benefits of collaboration and reflection while connecting theory and practice by participating in microteaching with their peers.

Practice lessons in K-12 classrooms. Preservice teachers involved in practice lessons also engage in cooperative planning, observing, and reflection. However unlike microteaching, the lessons take place in actual K-12 classrooms through university-school partnerships. In two studies, preservice teachers were enrolled in mathematics methods courses while concurrently participating in fieldwork at partner school sites. While both studies connected preservice methods course content to the real world of classrooms, Parks’ (2008) work was with elementary preservice teachers while McMahon and Hines’ (2008) preservice teachers were preparing to teach at the high school level.

During Parks’ (2008) math methods course, four teams of preservice teachers collaboratively planned math lessons for presentation at their partner schools. Preservice teachers taught practice lessons at the elementary schools, observed by their teams and the university instructor, when possible. Teams met immediately after the lesson to talk briefly. Indepth analysis and reflection sessions were held during the next methods class meeting on the university campus. Parks (2008) found that this form of lesson study provided some preservice teachers with opportunities to enhance their professional growth by developing ways of thinking about teaching and learning; however, it may have served to reinforce others’ assumptions about

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 52

pedagogy that are out of sync with current best practice.

In McMahon and Hines’ (2008) study, a team of eight high school preservice teachers collaboratively planned a mathematics lesson during their methods course on campus. One team member was chosen to teach the lesson to high school students, observed by the team and university instructor. Immediately following the lesson, preservice teachers and the university instructor met to discuss and analyze the lesson. Based on comments made during the debriefing session, McMahon and Hines (2008) concluded that the power of lesson study is “to engage preservice teachers in collaborative reflection” (p. 190) and improve instructional practice. In both practice lessons, classroom teachers were not actively involved in the lesson study experiences, other than to schedule and attend the sessions in their classrooms.

Lesson study with preservice and classroom teachers. The third form of lesson study connects preservice teachers, university instructors, and classroom teachers through universityschool partnerships. Bier et al. (2012) reported on two “case examples” with elementary and secondary preservice teachers enrolled in mathematics methods coursework. In the first example, elementary preservice teachers assessed first grade students’ mathematics learning through individual student interviews for an assignment in their methods course. Following the assessments, preservice and classroom teachers met to score, interpret, and discuss the results.

Bier et al. (2012) found that these conversations were “crucial” as they created a direct and purposeful link between the theory students were learning in their concurrent methods course to the instructional practice in elementary classrooms. Bier et al. (2012) report that the collaborative discussions also provided opportunities for classroom teachers to examine numerous ways to interpret students’ thinking, thereby enhancing their professional growth.

Bier et al.’s (2012) second example took a different approach to lesson study. Preservice teachers, along with their university instructor observed a lesson planned and taught by a high school classroom teacher. Following the observation, preservice teachers, the university instructor, and the classroom teacher met to debrief the lesson. Through this lesson study experience, preservice teachers were able to connect the theories presented during the methods coursework to the practice of teaching in an actual classroom. In addition, while preservice teachers, university instructors, and classroom teachers debriefed the lesson and analyzed student

Volume 4 Page 53

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

learning, they jointly “constructed ideas about teaching and learning” (Bier et al., 2012, p. 138).

The literature on university-partnerships that connect preservice and classroom teachers through lesson study is in its infancy but is a promising model for the professional growth of both preservice and classroom teachers. Key features of lesson study with preservice teachers are a combination of collaborative lesson planning, a shared common experience of teaching and observation, followed by collaborative reflective discussions.

Methods

This study took place in a in a small, private liberal arts university in California and in elementary schools in the surrounding suburban community. The researcher used surveyresearch methodology to measure the impact of a lesson study program on preservice and classroom teachers’ professional growth.

Participants

Participants were 31 preservice teachers enrolled in a 4-year undergraduate teacher education program at the university. The preservice teachers included: six freshmen, seven sophomores, ten juniors, and eight seniors. The participant group also included all six elementary classroom teachers who led lesson study sessions during one semester. Freshmen, sophomores, and juniors were enrolled in integrative teacher preparation seminars. The purpose of the seminars is to integrate content area knowledge, theory of teaching and learning, and classroom fieldwork. A requirement for sophomores and juniors is a minimum of 20 hours of concurrent fieldwork in one K-5 classroom. During this study, freshmen were not participating in fieldwork, but were preparing to do so in the next semester. Seniors were enrolled in two content methods courses, “Teaching Mathematics” and “Teaching Reading,” and were required to participate in an elementary school for three mornings a week in preparation for their full time student teaching experiences the following semester. Six classroom teachers were chosen by the university instructor of each seminar and methods course to lead a lesson study. These six teachers were then asked to participate in the survey-research before the lesson study session.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 54

The six classroom teachers taught in three public elementary schools serving predominantly English learners (ELs) and one independent school. All schools served students with special needs and were part of a university-school partnership or in the early stages of its development.

Instruments

Two surveys were used to measure the lesson study program’s impact on preservice and classroom teachers’ professional growth after each lesson study session. Surveys were created by the researcher in collaboration with university instructors not involved in this research and piloted with preservice and classroom teachers. Participants’ suggestions were incorporated in revised surveys. A post-lesson study survey measured preservice teachers’ learnings about the TPEs and perceptions of its impact on their own fieldwork practice. TPEs were chosen as a focus because they encompass a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities preservice teachers need to demonstrate during their senior-year student teaching experiences (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). As such, they are the elements that define professional growth for preservice teachers in California. Classroom teachers also completed a post-lesson study survey that measured the impact of the lesson study session on their teaching practices, their elementary students, and knowledge of how to work with preservice teachers. In addition, classroom

teachers’ perceptions of the importance of elements comprising the lesson study program were measured.

Procedures

As part of the seminar and methods coursework, six lesson study sessions were held during one semester on elementary school sites. Sophomores and seniors participated in two lesson study sessions while juniors and freshmen participated in one. A second session was planned for juniors; however, due to circumstances at the elementary school it was not held. After each lesson study session, university instructors administrated the post-lesson study survey to preservice teachers and gave classroom teachers the post-lesson study survey along with a

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 55

university-stamped envelope in which to return the survey.

Data Analysis

Due to the small sample size, descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data collected from the two surveys. Means and percentages of preservice and classroom teachers’ survey responses were calculated for each lesson study session. Data are represented on Tables 1-8.

Protocol of Lesson Study Program with Preservice Teachers

As described in the review of the literature, the protocol of lesson study with preservice teachers varies with each teacher education program. To provide a clear picture of this study’s procedures and add to the literature on lesson study with preservice teachers, a description of the protocol for the lesson study program in the teacher education program is described below.

Setting the stage. Freshmen, sophomores, and juniors are enrolled in seminar courses each semester of the teacher education program. Each seminar course is connected to a curricular area of focus based on preservice teachers’ concurrent content coursework that semester. Seniors are enrolled in two methods courses, “Teaching Reading” and “Teaching Mathematics.” University instructors ask classroom teachers to lead a lesson study on the curricular area of focus for their class of preservice teachers.

For each lesson study session, a classroom teacher plans a model lesson based on elementary students’ needs that showcases best practices for the curricular area of focus. The university instructor and classroom teacher discuss the model lesson and select two or three focus TPEs based on the curricular content and preservice teachers’ needs. The university instructor previews the model lesson with the preservice teachers prior to the lesson study session. They discuss teaching strategies and student activities that characterize the focus TPEs.

Lesson preview. Lesson study sessions are held during the school day on elementary school sites. A substitute teacher is hired for the classroom teacher so that he/she is able to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 56

participate in all aspects of the lesson study experience. Prior to observing the model lesson, the university instructor and preservice teachers meet with the classroom teacher to preview the upcoming lesson. The classroom teacher makes his/her “teacher thinking” transparent. That is, the classroom teacher describes how he/she thinks about planning for instruction, which may include curricular and classroom management objectives, explanation of how the focus TPEs are addressed, and rationale for each. Preservice teachers ask questions in order to fully understand the classroom teacher’s thinking and lesson planning process. The classroom teacher may suggest ways in which the preservice teachers can participate in the lesson and why they are participating in this way.

Lesson observation and participation. The classroom teacher teaches the model lesson, while the university instructor and preservice teachers observe and/or participate. Preservice teachers are provided with a note-taking guide to record their observations and questions. The university instructor guides the experience by highlighting important aspects of the lesson for the preservice teachers while guiding their participation. In addition to the TPEs, the focus of each lesson study session is on instructional practice, guided practice, and student learning.

Lesson analysis and reflection. Immediately following the lesson, the classroom teacher, university instructor, and preservice teachers meet to collaboratively debrief and analyze the learning; and to reflect on the lesson. The university instructor facilitates this collaborative reflection session with a focus on connecting the theories presented during coursework to the actual teaching practice just observed. To this end, the conversation centers on questions from preservice teachers, instructional practice, teacher thinking, focus TPEs, and student learning.

As in traditional lesson study sessions, the classroom teacher begins the debriefing session with reflections and comments about the lesson. Following the classroom teacher’s reflections, the preservice teachers ask clarifying questions. Although each lesson analysis session is unique, preservice teachers typically ask about teaching strategies, instructional decisions, curriculum, and classroom management. In addition, the university instructor guides an analysis of elementary students’ learning by asking two questions: “What did the students learn?” and “How do you know?” Throughout the session, the university instructor, classroom teacher, and

Volume 4 Page 57

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

preservice teachers collaboratively construct ideas about teaching practice and student learning, grounded in the shared, authentic experience of the lesson.

Results

Data were analyzed to answer the following research question: What are the effects of a lesson study program on preservice and classroom teachers’ professional growth? Descriptive statistics were generated and organized into tables that include percentages and means for survey responses. Open-ended survey responses were analyzed quantitatively. Each response was given a score of 4, 3, 2, or 1. The weight of 4 was given to the response that had the most positive result. Specifically, responses were coded: a great deal = 4, a lot = 3, a little = 2, not so much = 1.

Tables 1-6 summarize preservice teachers’ learning after each lesson study session, organized by university level (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). Overall, preservice teachers report that they are learning “a great deal” or “a lot” about the Teacher Performance Expectations, that is the knowledge and skills they will need to demonstrate during their student teaching experiences. Not surprisingly, freshmen reported learning the most about the TPEs (Table 1, M’s = 2.5 - 3.66), because they have the least prior knowledge and experience with them. Sophomores and juniors learned “a lot” from their lesson studies (Tables 2, 3, 4), while the seniors learned “a little” from the mathematics lesson study, but “a great deal” from the reading lesson study (Tables 5 & 6).

Preservice teachers’ participation during their own fieldwork is impacted by what they learned during the lesson study sessions. All preservice teachers report that due to a lesson study session, they are “a great deal” (M = 3.5, seniors) or “a lot” more confident in knowing what to do during their own fieldwork (M = 3.0 = freshmen, sophomores, and juniors). Preservice teachers also report that they will be able to work with students “a lot” more successfully in their own fieldwork placements (M = 2.71 – 3.62), due to participation in lesson study sessions.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 58

Impact of Lesson Study on Preservice Teachers by University Level

Preservice freshmen learned a great deal (M = 3.5) about the two focus TPEs making content accessible to students and using developmentally appropriate practice during their lesson study in Science (Table 1). In addition, freshmen learned “a great deal” (M = 3.66) about ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson, assessing student learning; and developing and maintaining a social environment. They learned the least about teaching English learners (M = 2.5) and planning instruction for student success (M = 2.66). However, the results indicate that some freshman (33%) did learn “a great deal” about planning instruction.

Sophomore preservice teachers participated in two lesson study sessions (Tables 2 & 3).

Due to the lesson study in kindergarten Art, they learned “a lot” about the focus TPEs: making content accessible to students and using developmentally appropriate teaching practices (M = 3.42). In fact, 57% of sophomores said that they learned “a great deal” about making content accessible to students. They also learned “a great deal” about developing and maintaining a social environment (M = 3.71). Although the lesson study session took place at a school with predominantly ELs, 71% of sophomores said that they learned “not so much” about teaching English learners. Developing as a professional educator was another area in which sophomores learned “a little” (57%).

During their second lesson study, integrating Reading and History, preservice sophomores learned “a lot” about the two focus TPEs monitoring student learning during instruction (M = 3.33) and developing and maintaining a social environment (M = 3.00). They also learned a lot about teaching English learners (M = 3.16). This is the only lesson study that preservice teachers reported doing so. It makes sense then, that they also learned “a lot” about making content accessible to students (M = 3.33).

As can be seen on Table 4, junior preservice teachers report that they learned “a lot” about nearly every TPE during their mathematics lesson study session, including the three focus TPEs: using subject-specific pedagogical skills in mathematics (M = 3.0), assessing student learning (M = 3.0), and using developmentally appropriate practice (M = 3.2). They learned the most about making content accessible to students (M = 3.4). Since the lesson study took place at a school with very few ELs, it is no surprise that 100% of preservice juniors reported learning “not

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 59

so much” about teaching English learners.

Results for the two lesson study sessions with seniors are presented on Tables 5 and 6.

Seniors reported learning “a great deal” (M = 3.87) about using subject-specific pedagogy in reading and “a lot” (M = 3.12) about mathematics pedagogy, a focus TPE for both sessions. The reading session was the most successful lesson study overall while the mathematics lesson appears to be the least successful. Specifically, the reading session obtained the highest four means of any preservice teachers’ responses in four TPE categories: 88% learned “a great deal” about using subject-specific pedagogical skills in reading and using developmentally appropriate practices (M = 3.87); and 75% learned “a great deal” about ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson and using instructional time to optimize learning opportunities (M = 3.75).

In contrast, during the mathematics lesson study, responses tended to be in the “a lot” and “a little” categories, with a majority of the means in the 2.12-2.87 range. This indicates that seniors still learned from the math lesson study, but not as much as from the reading session. An interesting result is that preservice teachers reported learning “not so much” (M = 1.12) and “a little” (M = 2.12) about teaching English learners, even though the mathematics lesson was taught to a class of ELs.

Impact of Lesson Study on Classroom Teachers

Classroom teachers reported that leading a lesson study session positively impacted their professional growth (Table 7). Specifically, classroom teachers strongly agreed that leading a lesson study session allowed them to reflect on and learn a lot about their own teaching practice (M = 4.0 and 3.67, respectively) and that the experience will improve their own practice (M = 4.0). Classroom teaches reported that their own students benefitted from the lesson study session (M = 3.67). Lesson study also impacted the way that classroom teachers will work with preservice teachers in the future, that is, their knowledge of how to work with preservice teachers has increased (M = 3.5) and they understand more about the importance of explaining their “teacher thinking” to preservice teachers (M = 3.83). Only one classroom teacher indicated disagreement or failed to respond to two of the prompts, writing instead, “I understand this,” because that teacher already understands how to work with preservice teachers.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 60

Classroom teachers also indicated that specific elements of lesson study are essential to its success (Table 8). The collaborative sessions (i.e., meeting with the university instructor and previewing the lesson with preservice teachers) are “extremely essential” to the success of the program (M = 3.67 and 3.67, respectively). Classroom teachers also considered preservice teachers’ role during the lesson study experience. They report that preservice teachers’ participation during the lesson and asking questions during the debriefing session are “extremely essential” (M’s = 3.83), thereby acknowledging the importance of guided fieldwork and collaborative reflective conversations.

Qualitative Data for Classroom Teachers

Classroom teachers were asked to comment at the end of their survey. All six classroom teachers were very positive in their responses (e.g., “A great experience! Let’s do it again!”

“This is such a wonderful experience! I always learn and grow!”). One classroom teacher’s comments explain how the collaborative debriefing conversations affected her professional growth: Many of the questions from the (preservice teachers) during the post-observation meeting gave me the opportunity to reflect on my teaching and the choices I make for my students. It was validating to ‘explain my thinking’ to others. Some of their questions sparked new ideas for my teaching and the approaches I use. This is an exciting collaboration between our schools! (personal communication, November 13, 2014) Another classroom teacher added that preservice teachers “should be aware that the lesson may go longer.” (personal communication, October 21, 2014). Indeed, the lesson study session went overtime and some preservice teachers needed to get back to the university for their next class.

This feedback is a reminder to plan accordingly for time constraints and communicate to classroom teachers regarding preservice teachers’ commitments outside the lesson study experience.

Volume 4 Page 61

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Summary

Based on these results, both preservice and classroom teachers’ professional growth were positively impacted by the lesson study program. Preservice teachers have deeper knowledge about the TPEs, greater confidence in knowing what to do during their fieldwork, and enhanced capability to work successfully with students during their own fieldwork placements. Although results vary for each lesson study session, a consistent finding was that preservice teachers learned the most about the focus TPEs, something to consider when planning future lesson study sessions. Classroom teachers were provided opportunities to reflect on and improve their own practice and learned more about how to work with preservice teachers. As such, the lesson study program contributed to the professional growth of all participants.

Discussion

Lesson Study was designed as a way for classroom teachers to collaboratively improve instructional practice (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004). In this research, lesson study was modified in an original and important way: classroom teachers, undergraduate preservice teachers, and university instructors collaborated throughout the entire lesson study process, thereby impacting the professional development of both preservice and classroom teachers. In such situations, preservice teachers benefit considerably from the collaborative nature of lesson study.

Analyzing lessons, listening to classroom teachers’ thinking, working with students, and asking questions, while their university instructor coaches them to recognize and implement best practice is making a significant difference in the way our preservice teachers are learning to be classroom teachers of the 21st century. Specifically, preservice teachers have a greater understanding of the TPEs; and are more confident in working successfully with students during their fieldwork due to the lesson study program. Simultaneously, classroom teachers’ professional practice is enhanced by leading lesson study sessions. By providing time for classroom teachers to explain their “teacher thinking,” their knowledge of how to work with preservice teachers increased along with opportunities to reflect and improve on their own practice. As a classroom teacher explained, “Lesson study is a good learning experience for me.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 62

I like thinking about what I’m doing and why I’m doing it. I know there are going to be (preservice teachers) watching me so I think through my strategies” (personal communication, October 27, 2014).

The power of lesson study may lie in the collaborative in-depth analysis of teaching and learning about a shared experience in K-12 classrooms (Bier et al., 2012; Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004). By involving preservice teachers in these important conversations and real classroom experiences, the link between theory and practice is illuminated in ways that discussions, lesson planning, and practice lessons during methods coursework in universities can never accomplish.

Darling-Hammond (2006) calls for the improvement of teacher education programs by linking “theory and practice in ways that theorize practice and make formal learning practical” (p. 8).

Perhaps this model for lesson study is a way to make that happen.

There are limitations to this research, however. Why did preservice teachers learn so little about teaching ELs, even though most lesson studies took place in schools serving predominantly English learners? Classroom teachers’ strategies seemed invisible to many preservice teachers. It could be that the instructional strategies were so seamless that preservice teachers did not recognize them or our preservice teachers believe they already know a lot about teaching ELs so they did not learn anything new. In any case, it appears that we are missing the “theory into practice” piece of this TPE. Since teaching ELs is an essential skill for California classroom teachers, it will need to be a major focus in future lesson study sessions.

As Parks (2008) suggests, all methods of experimenting with lesson study in preservice education adds to the literature base. However, there are ways in which this research can be improved. First, due to the small sample size, the results of preservice lesson study research, including the current study, may not be generalizable to other teacher education programs.

Second, missing from this research are university instructors: How does participation in lesson study impact university instructors? Anecdotal evidence suggests that university instructors’ practice is renewed by experiencing the real world of classrooms. However, a more formal research plan is needed to clarify this neglected area. Lastly, it is time for more in-depth research on the effects of lesson study on preservice and classroom teachers’ practice. How is knowledge gained through lesson study transferred into teaching practice? How can we focus more on student thinking and learning?

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 63

Implications

The primary goal of university-school partnerships is to bridge the gap between theory and practice for preservice teachers while simultaneously providing professional growth opportunities for classroom teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Goodlad, 1999). Lesson study provides a formal, systematic way for preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and university instructors to work together to this end. Many schools in the United States are incorporating lesson study into their professional development plans (Rock & Wilson, 2005). A logical next step would be to include preservice teachers in these experiences, as is done in Japan (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004). In schools where there is no formal lesson study program, university instructors can introduce the program as a way to collaborate and partner with K-12 schools. In this way, preservice teachers are provided opportunities to work collaboratively to plan, teach, and analyze lessons with teams of classroom teachers and university instructors, something that is missing in most teacher education programs and preservice teacher lesson study sessions. This will also provide preservice and classroom teachers a shared experience in which to discuss students’ thinking and learning, which is at the heart of lesson study practice (Lewis & Hurd, 2011).

This power of lesson study is illustrated by a story from a lesson study session. While observing preservice teachers and students working together, a university instructor turned to the classroom teacher and said, “Isn’t it great to see my students interact with your students?” The classroom teacher replied, “They are all our students.” When we move to this level of collaboration and shared purpose, we can truly say we have a created something special: a sustainable, successful university-school partnership.

Author Biography

Dr. Rosemarie Michaels is an Assistant Professor of Education at Dominican University of California in San Rafael. She is the Chair of the Multiple Subject and Liberal Studies Teacher Preparation Programs. Rosemarie earned her doctorate from the University of San Francisco, obtaining the Outstanding Graduate Student Award in 2002. An experienced, certified

Volume 4 Page 64

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

classroom teacher, Rosemarie has taught in higher education for over 15 years and is dedicated to developing university-school partnerships. Her professional interests include effective practices in teacher preparation with a focus on lesson study, teaching mathematics, and the 21st century skills of collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and the integrative use of instructional technology.

References

Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Barnett, J.H. (2013). It might just take a partnership. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(2), 103-124.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. C. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bier, M.L., Horn, I., Campbell, S.S., Kazemi, E., Hintz, A., Kelley-Petersen, M., ...Peck, C. (2012). Designs for simultaneous renewal in university-public school partnerships: Hitting the “sweet spot.” Teacher Education Quarterly 39(3), 127-141.

Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational partnerships: A new agenda for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 29-40.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2013). California teacher performance expectations. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-files/TPEs-FullVersion.pdf Castle, S., Fox, R.K., & O’Hanlan Souder, K. (2006). Do professional development schools (PDSS) make a difference? A comparative study of PDS and non-PDS teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 65-80.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons, challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.) Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 65

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 1-15.

Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fernandez, M.L., & Robinson, M. (2006). Prospective teachers’ perspectives on microteaching lesson study. Education, 127(2), 203-215.

Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGrawHill.

Goodlad, J.I. (1999). Simultaneously reviewing schools and teacher education: Perils and promises. In R.W. Clark (Ed.), Effective professional development schools (pp. 1- 89).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. CochranSmith and K.M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 425-476). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Lewis, C.C., & Hurd, J. (2011). Lesson study step by step: How teacher learning communities improve instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Lewis, C.C., Akita, K., & Sato, M. (2010). Lesson study as a human science. National Society for the Study of Education, 109(1), 222-237.

Lewis, C.C., Perry, R.R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 285-304. doi: 10.1007/s10857-009-9102-7 McMahon, M.T., & Hines, E. (2008). Lesson study with preservice teachers. The Mathematics Teacher, 102(3), 186-191.

Parks, A.N. (2008). Messy learning: Preservice teachers’ lesson-study conversations about mathematics and students. Teacher and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1200-1216.

Perry, R.P., & Lewis, C.C. (2008). What is successful adaptation of lesson study in the US? Journal for Educational Change, 10(4). 365-391. doi: 10.1007/s10833-008-9069-7 Robinson, S.P., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Change for collaboration and collaboration for change: Transforming teaching through school-university partnerships. In L.Darling-

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 66Â

Â

Hamond (Ed.) Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp.203-219). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Rock, T.C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Improving teaching through lesson study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1), 77-92. Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2005/32_1/rock_wilson.pdf Sims, L., & Walsh, D. (2009). Lesson study with preservice teachers: Lessons from lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 724-733.

Teitel, L. (2003). The professional development schools handbook: Staring, sustaining, and assessing partnerships that improve student learning, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Volume 4 Page 67Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 1 Impact of Science Lesson Study on Freshman Preservice Teachers, in percentages Teacher Performance Expectations

A great deal A lot A little M

Using subject-specific pedagogical skills 50 Making content accessible to students 50 Using developmentally appropriate teaching pract50 Ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson 67 Assessing student learning 67 Developing and maintaining a social environment 67 Using instructional time to optimize student learning 50 Monitoring student learning during instruction 67 Planning instruction for student success 33 Teaching English learners 17 Developing as a professional educator 17

33 50 50 33 33 33 50 17 17 33 67

Fieldwork I am more confident in knowing what to do during fieldwork 33 3.00 I will be able to work more successfully with students 50 3.33 Note. Focus TPEs are in boldface. (n = 6)

Not so much

17 17 33 17 17

17 33 -

3.33 3.50 3.50 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.50 3.50 2.66 2.50 2.83

50

17

-

33

17

-

Volume 4 Page 68Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 2 Impact of Art Lesson Study on Sophomore Preservice Teachers, in percentages Teacher Performance Expectations

A great deal A lot A little M

Using subject-specific pedagogical skills in Reading 29 Making content accessible to students 57 Using developmentally appropriate teaching prac43 Ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson 43 Assessing student learning 29 Developing and maintaining a social environment 29 Using instructional time to optimize student learning 29 Monitoring student learning during instruction 14 Planning instruction for student success Teaching English learners Developing as a professional educator 14

43 29 57 57 14 29 43 57 57 29

Fieldwork I am more confident in knowing what to do during fieldwork 100 4.00 I will be able to work more successfully with students 71 2.71 Note. Focus TPEs are in boldface. (n = 7)

Not so much

29 14 57 43 29 29 29 29 57

14 71 -

3.00 3.42 3.42 3.42 2.71 3.71 3.00 2.85 2.42 1.28 2.57

-

-

-

29

-

-

Volume 4 Page 69Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 3 Impact of Integrated Reading and History Lesson Study on Sophomore Preservice Teachers, in percentages Teacher Performance Expectations

A great deal A lot A little M

Using subject-specific pedagogical skills Making content accessible to students 50 Using developmentally appropriate teaching practice 33 Ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson 33 Assessing student learning Developing and maintaining a social environment 50 Using instructional time to optimize student learning 17 Monitoring student learning during instruction 50 Planning instruction for student success Teaching English learners 50 Developing as a professional educator 33

17 33 50 33 83 50 33 33 67 17 67

Fieldwork I am more confident in knowing what to do during fieldwork 50 3.00 I will be able to work more successfully with students 67 3.50 Note. Focus TPEs are in boldface. (n = 6)

67 17 17 33 17

Not so much

50 17 17 33 17

17 17 -

2.00 3.33 3.16 3.00 2.83 3.00 2.67 3.33 2.50 3.16 3.00

17

17

17

17

17

-

-

Volume 4 Page 70Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 4 Impact of Mathematics Lesson Study on Junior Preservice Teachers, in percentages Teacher Performance Expectations

A great deal A lot A little M

Using subject-specific pedagogical skills 20 Making content accessible to students 50 Using developmentally appropriate teaching pract20 Ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson 30 Assessing student learning 30 Developing and maintaining a social environment 40 Using instructional time to optimize student learning 30 Monitoring student learning during instruction 20 Planning instruction for student success 20 Teaching English learners Developing as a professional educator 30

60 40 80 60 40 50 50 60 40 30

Fieldwork I am more confident in knowing what to do during fieldwork 20 3.00 I will be able to work more successfully with students 40 3.30 Note. Focus TPEs are in boldface. (n = 10)

Not so much

20 10 10 30 10 20 20 20 40

20 100 -

3.00 3.40 3.20 3.20 3.00 3.30 3.10 3.00 2.60 1.00 2.90

60

20

-

50

10

-

Volume 4 Page 71Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 5 Impact of Reading Lesson Study on Senior Preservice Teachers, in percentages Teacher Performance Expectations

A great deal A lot A little M

Using subject-specific pedagogical skills in Readin88 Making content accessible to students 63 Using developmentally appropriate teaching practice88 Ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson 3.75 Assessing student learning 37 Developing and maintaining a social environment 75 Using instructional time to optimize student learning 50 Monitoring student learning during instruction 38 Planning instruction for student success 63 Teaching English learners 12 Developing as a professional educator 63

Not so much

12 25 12 75

12 25

-

3.87 3.50 3.87 -

25 25 50 38 25 25

37 25 12 12 -

75 12

3.00 3.75 3.50 3.12 3.50 1.12 3.37

25

12

-

12

12

-

Fieldwork I am more confident in knowing what to do during fieldwork 63 3.50 I will be able to work more successfully with students 75 3.62

Table 6 Impact of Mathematics Lesson Study on Senior Preservice Teachers, in percentages Teacher Performance Expectations

A great deal A lot A little M

Using subject-specific pedagogical skills in Mathe 38 Making content accessible to students 12 Using developmentally appropriate teaching practice 12 Ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson Assessing student learning 50 Developing and maintaining a social environment 25 Using instructional time to optimize student learning -

38 75 50 25 38 25 25

25 12 38 63 12 38 63

Not so much

12 12 12

3.12 3.00 2.75 2.12 3.12 2.60 2.12

Volume 4 Page 72

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Monitoring student learning during instruction Planning instruction for student success Teaching English learners Developing as a professional educator

12 12 12 25

50 50 12 38

12 25 50 38

12 25 -

2.12 2.62 2.12 2.87

Fieldwork I am more confident in knowing what to do during…38 I will be able to work more successfully with students 3.0

50 25

63

12 -

3.12 12

Note. Focus TPEs are in boldface. (n = 8)

Table 7 Impact of Lesson Study on Classroom Teachers, in percentages Strongly Agree I learned a lot about my own teaching 67 I would like to lead a lesson study again 83 My own students benefitted from the lesson study …67 I reflected on my own practice during the experience*83 Leading a lesson study will improve my own practice*83 My knowledge of how to work with preservice teachers has increased 66 I understand more about the importance of explaining my “teacher thinking” to preservice teachers.

83

Note. * = 1 NA for prompt, ** “I understand this.” (n = 6)

Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

M

33 17 33 -

-

-

3.67 3.83 3.67 4.00 4.00

17

17**

-

3.50

17

-

-

3.83

Volume 4 Page 73

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 8 Classroom Teachers’ Perceptions of the Essential Elements of Lesson Study, in percentages Extremely Very Somewhat

Not Very

M

Meeting with the university instructor to discuss the up-coming lesson study session 67

33

-

-

3.67

Previewing the lesson with the preservice teachers and the university instructor just before the lesson 67

33

-

-

3.67

Lesson connected to the TPEs*

83

17

-

-

3.83

Preservice teachers participating during the lesson

83

17

-

-

3.83

17

-

-

3.83

Preservice teachers asking questions during the debriefing session after the lesson 83

Note. * = 1 NA for prompt: “I really don’t feel I know enough to accurately assess” (n = 6)

Volume 4 Page 74

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

How Do Teachers Support Reading Comprehension?

Bruce A. Murray Auburn University Brian Parr Auburn University Cristen Pratt Herring Auburn (Alabama) City Schools Le’Nessa L. Clark Auburn University Abstract

A sample of 230 teachers in a small city school district responded to a survey on their use of 17 popular reading comprehension scaffolds. Results were analyzed by grade level and content area to determine which scaffolds were most and least popular. Overall, teachers showed a preference for such limited-reading techniques as instructional conversation, audio-visual presentations, and reciprocal teaching. These preferences are consistent with the view that teachers tend to minimize reading requirements in content-area instruction to compensate for students’ reading difficulties with expository texts. Among the neglected scaffolds was the use of content literacy guides to support close reading, a crucial ability for reading to learn in the content areas.

Key words: Teacher scaffolds, survey research, content-area reading, reading to learn

Introduction

Students reading in the content areas encounter many texts they find daunting for lack of background knowledge. For example, a high school biology text may cover the topics of cellular biology, genetics, biotechnology, taxonomy, origins, microbiology, botany, zoology, and human

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 75

anatomy. The unfamiliarity of these topics defies easy understanding. Moreover, a typical textbook is often written at a readability level two or three years above grade level (Allington, 2002). To comprehend such a text, students need teacher guidance and support to gain a foothold in reading comprehension.

Understandably, teachers may try to circumvent the challenge of reading unfamiliar text at advanced levels by substituting videos, hands-on activities, and discussions for reading.

However, students who learn by reading have enormous advantages over those trying to learn by watching and listening. Teachers usually give oral explanations only briefly; explanations tend to be incomplete, and the sights and sounds of the presentation immediately disappear. In contrast, students can read and reread an explanation in a book without limit, and the words of the text remain fixed and accessible before the reader. This relative permanence allows the reader to draw inferences, consult other sources, process concepts with greater depth, study key ideas for later recall, and critically examine the claims in the text.

Requirements of Common Core

Shifts mandated by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) require close reading of texts, with a greater emphasis on expository texts (Engageny, 2014). Close reading involves a deep processing of text content, including a critical examination of the ideas in a text. The new literacy expectations in CCSS include: 

Students build knowledge about the world (domains, content areas) through text rather than through the teacher or activities.



Teachers create more time, space, and support in the curriculum for close reading.



Students engage in rich and rigorous evidence-based conversations about text.



Students constantly build the transferable vocabulary they need to access grade-level complex texts.

These reading standards are designed to develop the ability to learn in a discipline independently by reading (Fisher & Frey, 2012). If teachers are to raise students’ reading ability to meet higher standards, they cannot simply require higher level comprehension. Instead, effective teachers must provide workable scaffolds to enable their students to master text ideas and build

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 76

knowledge and strategies for independent reading.

Reading scaffolds. The term scaffold means support by teachers for students working in their zones of proximal development, i.e., at the upper limits of their ability where they could not reasonably be expected to succeed without instructional support (Sawyer, 2006; Vygotsky, 1987). Scaffolding may be distinguished from the use of strategies and skills (Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008). A strategy is an independent problem-solving tactic a learner can use for reading comprehension. Scaffolds are provided by teachers, rather than used independently by students. Scaffolds are also different from skills, which are automatic performances carried out with little or no conscious direction. Scaffolded procedures can be internalized by students as strategies, and with sufficient practice, they can become skills. Thus, scaffolding in reading is teacher support for students in acquiring knowledge and using strategies for reading comprehension. Most teaching efforts with reading comprehension tend to involve scaffolds supporting comprehension rather than explicit strategy instruction (Durkin, 1978-1979).

This article asks how today’s teachers in the content areas scaffold reading comprehension. The question of current practice is important because research has established that not all scaffolds are equal for helping students learn (Alvermann & Swafford, 1989).

Educational experiments show that some scaffolds consistently cause significant improvements in learning, where others do not lead to significant improvements. If educational researchers and teacher educators can identify scaffolds known to be effective and economical that teachers rarely use, they can target these strategies for preparing teacher candidates and for in-service education. On the other hand, if scaffolds without demonstrable research support are popular among teachers, their use can be discouraged. In addition, if a scaffold is effective but already in wide use, efforts and resources might better be spent elsewhere. For example, an in-service workshop designed to show teachers how to carry out reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984) would be wasted if most or all teachers were already scaffolding reciprocal teaching skillfully.

A further complication concerns disciplines and levels of instruction. It is reasonable to expect particular reading comprehension scaffolds to be effective in certain content areas and at various instructional levels, but not in others. For instance, a story map might be useful with

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 77

young children reading narrative text but of dubious value to secondary students reading literature, and of no use at all with a chemistry text. Thus, decisions on which strategies to emphasize in preservice and in-service teacher education depend on the targeted grade level and content area.

Review of Literature

Instruction that Supports Reading Comprehension

In summarizing comprehension research since 1975, Duke and Pearson (2002) provide a useful list of research-tested classroom scaffolds for building reading comprehension. Effective teachers provide classroom time for reading, which is often in conflict with other classroom activities. They use text written to impart information, such as content-area texts, as opposed to texts designed for reading instruction. Effective teachers lead discussions that probe the messages of texts, and they stress vocabulary and concept development. They require students to write to consolidate what they are learning. These exemplary activities of providing reading time, choosing informational texts, probing ideas and vocabulary from these texts, and having students write in response to text, pose useful standards for evaluating reading scaffolding found in typical classrooms.

Research on Teachers’ Preferred Scaffolds

To find out which scaffolds are in wide use, the ERIC database was searched for survey research using the following Boolean descriptors: (reading comprehension) AND (teaching OR instruction) AND (strategies OR methods OR activities OR techniques) AND (popular or survey). The database revealed only a single study that surveyed teachers about their preferred methods for helping students learn by reading.

Gee and Rakow (1991) sent 4000 surveys to a national random sample of secondary teachers and received responses from 1676 teachers (42%). The survey asked teachers to rate

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 78

their use of 36 practices recommended by published researchers in content reading. The three most used practices were as follows: 1. Teacher conducts a discussion at the beginning of the year on how to use an assigned textbook (e.g., table of contents, glossary, chapter heading, etc.).

2. Teacher asks questions over the readings which call for students to respond at various levels of comprehension (e.g., knowledge recall, analysis/synthesis, evaluation).

3. Teacher sets purpose for reading. (p. 107) Teachers reported that they made the least use of the following strategies: 34. Teacher reads aloud or tape-records material for students to listen to as they follow the text.

35. Teacher asks students to list, discuss, and organize everything they already know about the topic before asking them to read the assignment.

36. Teacher develops cloze procedures and exercises to help students use meaning clues and to read for meaning. (p. 108) An examination of the Gee and Rakow (1991) survey suggests several problems. First, 36 practices is a very large number to compare. Second, the items did not use familiar labels for strategies. For example, “teacher conducts a discussion at the beginning of the year on how to use an assigned textbook” might have been termed “preview the book.” Third, there were redundant items. For example, three different items involved teachers leading instructional conversation by asking questions. Variations of roughly the same practice, described with language differing more in connotation than denotation, were ranked 2nd, 11th, and 30th in usage. In addition to these methodological problems, Gee and Rakow carried out their survey more than two decades ago. Accordingly, a contemporary and more easily managed survey of scaffolds for reading comprehension, showing which strategies today’s teachers rely on, would fill a gap in the instructional literature and give an updated look at teaching practices today.

Volume 4 Page 79

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Methods

School officials in a small city school district in the Southeast participated in this research project by administering a survey of all teachers in Grades 1 to 12. The district serves approximately 7400 students, with 29% receiving free or reduced-price lunches. In the spring of 2013, the district consisted of a high school (Grades 10-12), a junior high (Grades 8-9), a middle school (Grades 6-7), six elementary schools, and a district-wide kindergarten (which was not surveyed). Principals distributed the survey at faculty meetings, resulting in a high return rate.

The 290 teachers in Grades 1-12 returned 230 valid surveys for a 79% return rate.

The survey asked teachers to indicate their frequency of use of 17 reading scaffolds commonly recommended in content-area reading textbooks. It was written with common terminology and plain-language descriptors of these scaffolds. Teachers marked a box to indicate whether they used each scaffold at least once a week, at least once a month, at least once a semester, or “I do not use this strategy.” The 17 scaffolds and their descriptions are displayed in Figure 1. The reliability of the survey, using Cronbach’s alpha, was .85. To analyze results, teachers were divided by grade level and content area. Table 1 shows the number of completed surveys from teachers by grade level, and Table 2 shows the number of surveys by content area.

Results and Discussion

The Most Popular Scaffolds

Table 3 shows the overall most popular reading comprehension scaffolds across the entire sample, combining all grade levels and disciplines. The table provides the percentages for teachers who used the scaffold at least once a week and a cumulative percentage for teachers using the scaffold at least once a month, indicating that these are the most frequently used scaffolds. Instructional conversations, think-alouds, reciprocal teaching, audio-visual presentations, and previewing led the list of favorites.

Among the most popular scaffolds across grade levels and content areas is reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984, 1986), where students work in cooperative groups to ask one

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 80

another questions, clarify problems, provide summaries, and solicit predictions. While reciprocal teaching has proven highly effective in educational experiments (Hacker & Tenent, 2002), its popularity with teachers is surprising in view of the complexities of teaching its component strategies and the difficulty of managing cooperative groups effectively. Students undertaking reciprocal teaching must be able to summarize texts and generate high level questions about them (Pressley, Johnson, Symons, Mcgoldrick, & Kurity, 1989). Summarization and question-generation are the two most powerful strategies for reading comprehension, but they are complex strategies built of several components, and they require at least 10 hours of instruction for most students to learn (National Reading Panel, 2000). The literature on teaching reading comprehension indicates that teachers cannot simply assign students to carry out complex strategies without extensive instruction. In addition, cooperative learning is widely misunderstood as loosely organized group work, but it requires group rewards and individual accountability (Slavin, 1980). Thus, there are reasonable grounds for skepticism regarding the fidelity with which teachers are using reciprocal teaching (Allen, 2003; Hacker & Tenent, 2002).

The Least Popular Scaffolds

Table 4 shows the overall least used reading comprehension scaffolds across the entire sample, collapsing grade levels and disciplines. The table gives percentages for use less than once a month (“at least once a semester”) and for those reporting, “I do not use this strategy,” with the cumulative sum of these two responses indicating a scaffold is rarely used. Learning logs, reading guides, anticipation guides, outlining, and jigsaw were the scaffolds least preferred by teachers.

Among the scaffolds out of favor with teachers is the use of reading guides. The research base supported reading guides for achieving efficient, focused reading is very strong (Alvermann & Swafford, 1989; Armstrong, Patberg, & Dewitz, 1988; McKenna, Davis, & Franks, 2003; McKenna & Robinson, 2014). Alvermann and Swafford’s (1989) review of comprehension instruction compared 13 popular scaffolds recommended in content-area reading textbooks, including DRA (directed reading activity), DR-TA (directed reading-thinking activity), structured overviews, graphic organizers, and semantic mapping. Reading guides were the only

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 81

type of scaffold found to be consistently effective across grade levels, ability levels, and content areas, including science, geography, biology, technical, and literary texts. Reading guides have been shown to be successful with readers of high, average, and low ability, and with readers with learning disabilities.

At least two studies suggest that the use of reading guides improves not only knowledge of the content of the immediate text, but also transfers reading comprehension ability to unguided reading with new texts (Armstrong et al., 1988; McKenna et al., 2003). Armstrong et al. (1988) pretested juniors in high school on their understanding of a short story read without guides. Experimental students then read Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath using reading guides while a control group read Steinbeck without guides. On a subsequent short story read without guides, experimental students showed greater reading comprehension. McKenna et al. (2003) found similar transfer effects with reading guides to comprehension of science texts with elementary students.

These findings suggest that experience with well-designed reading guides improves reading comprehension beyond the immediate text, extending students’ ability to learn independently of the teacher. Two mechanisms are likely responsible. First, scaffolded reading of the immediate text builds background knowledge for subsequent learning. In addition, welldesigned guides may provide valuable practice with strategies students can use for independent reading comprehension. For example, students working with reading guides that help them create graphic organizers probably learn to summarize text information more effectively for easier recall. Thus, reading guides appear to be good candidates for scaffolding the kind of independent reading to learn called for in Common Core State Standards.

Scaffolds in Use at Different Grade Levels

Table 5 shows the most popular scaffolds by grade level. For each grade level, the table provides the three most used strategies of those surveyed. Teachers in the primary grades preferred the explicit teaching scaffold of thinking aloud, in which the teacher models how to carry out strategic reading by verbalizing procedures during the course of reading. Modeling is central to explicit teaching because it gives a live example of how to solve a reading problem

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 82

(Duffy et al., 1987). The use of think-alouds has strong support as an effective scaffold in the research literature (Kucan & Beck, 1997). Interestingly, think-alouds proved very popular among teachers in the intermediate grades, junior high, and high school, suggesting that teachers across a wide grade range view modeling by thinking aloud as valuable in instruction.

Teachers in Grades 3-12 preferred instructional conversations as their top scaffold for helping students learn. In instructional conversation, the teacher explains and asks students questions, taking every other conversational turn. Instructional conversation is probably the most venerable instructional scaffold in educational history. For example, Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) used instructional conversations in the Dialogues of Plato (Rouse, 2008), leading his students step by step to a preordained and logical conclusion. Its popularity today suggests that instructional conversation may be the most enduring educational scaffold practiced today.

However venerable instructional conversation may be, critics have derided it as IRE: teacher initiative, student response, teacher evaluation (Mehan, 1979). Cazden (1988) described IRE as the “default position—what happens unless deliberate action is taken to achieve an alternative” (p. 53). The critics of IRE view it as too directive and teacher centered, and thus insufficiently receptive to students’ construction of knowledge for themselves. Those who dislike IRE promote the alternative of true discussion, in which discussants present multiple points of view and are ready to change their minds, where students interact with each other, and where interactions are longer than the brief responses of instructional conversation (Alvermann, Dillon, & O'Brien, 1987). Our data suggests that use of true discussion was more frequent in the elementary grades, peaking in Grades 3-5 and declining thereafter. It may be that teachers in secondary content areas can more profitably direct instructional conversation with high-level questions, particularly in areas where students lack background knowledge, which is a common obstacle in advanced content areas.

Scaffolds Not in Wide Use by Grade Levels

Table 6 shows the least popular scaffolds by grade level. For each grade level, the table provides the three least used strategies of those surveyed. Jigsaw (Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978) was the least used reading comprehension scaffold across our sample.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 83Â

Â

In jigsaw, a classic cooperative learning technique, students in expert groups bring ideas to their home groups. As interesting and motivating as jigsaw would seem to be, there are practical problems in its implementation (Tierney & Readence, 2005). Student absences, weak links in mixed ability groups, and personality conflicts among group members can hamper cooperation in jigsaw. In addition, jigsaw emphasizes learning by talk and listening, which loses the critical advantages of reading to learn.

Outlining has become increasingly unpopular across grade levels. A likely reason is that keeping track of Roman numerals, Arabic numbers, and the other minutiae of outlining can be tedious for students. Informal outlining by semantic mapping presents a more practical way of signaling the hierarchy of ideas. The relative popularity of graphic organizers suggests that formal outlining has been supplanted by more flexible organizational scaffolds.

Scaffolds in Use in Different Content Areas

Table 7 shows the most popular scaffolds by content area. For each content area, the table provides the three most used scaffolds of those surveyed. In Language Arts, the popularity of graphic organizers and quick writes is consistent with an emphasis on the writing process.

Organizing information with a graphic organizer is especially valuable as a prewriting scaffold.

Quick writes are useful for providing frequent writing practice opportunities that do not require grading, and they help students develop ideas to contribute to discussions. These findings suggest that Language Arts teachers are using the reading-writing connection to good effect, with graphic organizers to help students collect and organize ideas and quick writes to encourage students to draft compositions without undue concern with mechanics.

Mathematics teachers prefer think-aloud among all scaffolds surveyed. In think-aloud, teachers model a strategy by reporting their problem-solving procedures as they are working.

This kind of modeling is highly appropriate for showing students how to solve problems, enabling them to follow and replicate the reasoning procedures of their teachers (Kucan & Beck, 1997). Math teachers are well known for leading students through a gamut of strategies as simple as carrying in addition or as complicated as solving quadratic equations. The think-aloud

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 84

scaffold is also valued by resource teachers in special education, media, and enrichment classes, where students often require help to navigate through unfamiliar procedures.

Teachers in the sciences and social studies rely heavily on audio-visual presentation and instructional conversation as scaffolds. This suggests that staple routines in Science and Social Studies classes involve showing a video and having a class discussion about its content, neither of which requires reading. Circumventing reading is problematic in view of the immense value of reading vis-à-vis listening for locking into new information. Students who read to learn enjoy the luxury of a fixed and accessible text, which facilitates the abilities to draw inferences, learn independently, process concepts with greater depth, study key ideas for later recall, and critically examine an author’s claims.

Reciprocal teaching is also very popular in Science and Social Studies classes, as it is in all other content areas surveyed except Language Arts. In reciprocal teaching, reading is in the service of cooperative learning, where most of the learning depends on conversation within cooperative groups. Students are responsible for reading a small section of text and explaining its content orally to other group members. The relative popularity of reciprocal teaching is consistent with the claim that teachers tend to prefer methods that sidestep reading in favor of oral transmissions and interactions for helping students learn. Reliance on reciprocal teaching may owe to a philosophical commitment to social learning or to a preference for experiences in which students construct knowledge for themselves. Alternatively, it may be a reaction to students’ frustration with textbooks with readability levels well above students’ instructional levels (Allington, 2002). In any case, circumventing reading likely limits students’ learning in the content areas.

Popular but Weak Scaffolds

Instructional conversation continues to be the scaffold of choice among teachers across grade levels and content areas. This finding is consistent with Gee and Rakow’s (1991) findings, suggesting that instructional conversation remains on the top shelf of teachers’ preferred scaffolds for helping students learn. Reliance on teacher-directed talk remains popular despite

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 85

criticism by Mehan (1979) and Cazden (1988) of the default status of instructional conversation as IRE, where teachers initiate topics, students respond, and teachers evaluate student responses.

In its defense, instructional conversation may be necessary for introducing students to unfamiliar topics bewildering to students, such as prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. In the uncharted territories of content area knowledge, students usually lack the background knowledge for true discussion. Accordingly, students first encountering these topics may require strong teacher guidance to navigate through the new ideas. Nevertheless, instructional conversation is inherently limited in relying on oral language, where explanations are brief and incomplete, and where an auditory presentation immediately dissipates, leaving students at a disadvantage for drawing inferences, learning without the teacher, exploring concepts in depth, studying to remember key ideas, and critically testing claims against evidence. The popular scaffold of showing videos is similarly vulnerable in relying on transitory images rather than stable texts available for critical rereading. The popularity of audio-visual presentations and instructional conversations suggests teachers are looking for an alternative to reading for learning in the content areas, in recognition that students are struggling with textbooks dense with information written at challenging readability levels.

The Promise of Content Literacy Guides

Among the relatively neglected scaffolds, the use of reading guides has had a strong record of accomplishment for supporting reading comprehension with texts. Alvermann and Swafford’s (1989) review found that among 13 popular scaffolds, the use of reading guides was the only scaffold consistently effective across grade levels, ability levels, and content areas.

Well-designed reading guides make texts accessible to readers, thus drawing on the power of reading over oral language presentation. Ironically, our survey found that today’s teachers make little use of guides.

Although Common Core standards call for close readings of expository texts, it is unclear how teachers can scaffold close readings. Initial efforts to transform practice with close readings have focused on multiple readings of a text rather than a single, efficient reading (Fisher & Frey, 2012). Texts assigned for close reading tend to be brief excerpts ranging from three paragraphs

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 86

to two pages, well short of a typical textbook section or chapter. In Fisher and Frey’s (2012) recommendations for close reading, teachers are advised to omit such effective pre-reading scaffolds as pre-teaching vocabulary and building background knowledge, and students are encouraged to annotate texts with marginal notes and underlining, which is not practicable with textbooks owned by schools. Given these limitations, the exploration of other avenues to close reading is warranted.

Reading guides have the potential to provide the teacher’s on-line assistance by pointing out important information at the critical time—when students are reading to learn. Guides can be written for the more typical length chapters or sections teachers normally assign as content area readings instead of brief excerpts. Rather than eliminating pre-reading help with vocabulary and background knowledge, teachings can provide introductory activities in the guide. Rather than annotating texts, students using guides can write to learn without damaging their textbooks. A re-emphasis on reading to learn scaffolded by reading guides holds great potential for improving learning in the content areas. Teachers can compose reading guides to emphasize important concepts in their disciplines, and they can revise and reuse them with future classes in future years.

Effective guides require thoughtful design. Simple instructional cloze exercises (texts where students are asked to replace missing words) or partial outlines, mainstays of traditional reading guides, do little to help students engage with and learn from texts. Better-developed reading guides called content literacy guides (McKenna & Robinson, 2014) could be expected to not only improve students' content learning with the immediate text, but also help them acquire literacy strategies for independent learning. Content literacy guides include activities to deliberately motivate reading, scaffold practice with new vocabulary, activate background knowledge, help readers summarize in their own words, and encourage readers to think critically.

For example, a content literacy guide might begin with an interest building “hook,” lead students to try out new vocabulary from the text, and require summarization, drawing connections to background knowledge, and translating the author’s ideas into students’ own words. In addition, guides can require critical thinking and application of text ideas. Future research might profitably examine whether adding such effective elements to reading guides can lead to better

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 87

reading comprehension with expository texts and better acquisition of strategies for independent learning by reading.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Reading to learn in unfamiliar content areas is a challenge for students, and students often shirk the demanding mental work of reading. To compensate for students’ reading difficulties, teachers may rely on videos, hands-on activities, and discussions to impart the concepts and strategies important in their disciplines. However, Common Core State Standards call for close reading of expository texts as an essential skill for lifelong learning.

This research examined teachers’ preferred and neglected scaffolds for supporting student learning in the content areas, a question that has not been studied for more than two decades.

Teachers reported on whether they used 17 popular scaffolds weekly, monthly, occasionally, or never. Their preferences were analyzed by grade level and content area in light of the research literature on the effectiveness of scaffolds.

Overall, teachers preferred instructional conversations, think-alouds, reciprocal teaching, audio-visual presentations, and previewing. The commonality among teachers’ preferred scaffolds is that they minimize reading. Their least preferred scaffolds were learning logs, reading guides, anticipation guides, outlining, and jigsaw. Ironically, the scaffold with the best record of accomplishment for supporting close reading, reading guides, is among those largely neglected by teachers.

Adopting an upgraded version of reading guides, called content literacy guides, would likely enhance learning in the content areas by scaffolding close readings of texts. Content literacy guides assist students at a critical time—during reading—by leading them to exercise such useful strategies as taking an interest, using new vocabulary, summarizing text ideas in their own words, and reflecting critically on claims made in the text. Thus, they offer a literacyintensive alternative to popular scaffolds that minimize reading to learn.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 88

Author Biographies

Bruce Murray is an associate professor and Coordinator of Reading Education in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching in the College of Education at Auburn University. A former elementary teacher, Murray earned his Ph.D. at the University of Georgia under the direction of Steven A. Stahl. Murray teaches survey courses in reading methods and reading research and clinical courses in reading acquisition and in remediation of reading difficulties.

His website, The Reading Genie, has been a popular resource for reading teachers.

Brian Parr is an associate professor and Assistant Department Head of Curriculum and Teaching in the College of Education at Auburn University. A former secondary Agricultural Education teacher, Parr earned his Ph.D. from Oklahoma State University. Parr’s research has focused on the use of agriculture as a context through which core academic instruction may be delivered. Parr teaches research methods as well as teaching methods courses. Parr has been involved with the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education as a research consultant since 2002.

Cristen Pratt Herring is the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the Auburn City Schools. As an elementary teacher, she was recognized as the district Teacher of the Year. She has worked as a Title One Reading Specialist, as the inaugural Principal of Ogletree Elementary School, as Director of Elementary Curriculum and Professional Development for Auburn City Schools, and as interim Principal of the Auburn Early Education Center, then a district-wide kindergarten. Herring is currently a PhD candidate in Educational Leadership at Auburn University.

Le'Nessa Clark is a doctoral student in the reading education program at Auburn University and a graduate teaching/research assistant for Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology. She became interested in secondary reading comprehension while teaching high school English Language Arts. Clark received her Masters of Science in Educational Administration from Eastern Illinois University. Her goal is to marry reading and leadership in efforts to become a multi-faceted leader in public education.

Volume 4 Page 89Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

References

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.

Allen, S. (2003). An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction.

International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 319-339.

Allington, R. L. (2002). You can't learn much from books you can't read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16-19.

Alvermann, D. E., Dillon, D. R., & O'Brien, D. G. (1987). Using discussion to promote reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Alvermann, D. E., & Swafford, J. (1989). Do content area strategies have a research base?

Journal of Reading, 32, 388-394.

Armstrong, D. P., Patberg, J. P., & Dewitz, P. (1988). Reading guides: Helping students understand. Journal of Reading, 31, 532-541.

Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., . . . Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies.

Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). What research has to say about reading instruction. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.

Engageny. (2014). Common Core shifts. Retrieved 3-20-14, 2014, from http://www.engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/common-core-shifts.pdf Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Close reading in elementary schools. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 179-188.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 90

Gee, T. C., & Rakow, S. J. (1991). Content reading education: What methods do teachers prefer?

NASSP Bulletin, 75(538), 104-110.

Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the clasroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 699-718.

Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67, 271-299.

McKenna, M. C., Davis, L. W., & Franks, S. (2003). Using reading guides with struggling readers in grades 3 and above. In R. L. McCormack & J. R. Paratore (Eds.), After early intervention, then what? Teaching struggling readers in grades 3 and beyond (pp. 208216). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

McKenna, M. C., & Robinson, R. D. (2014). Teaching through text: Reading and writing in the content areas. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mehan, H. (1979). "What time is it, Denise?" Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285-294.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 771-777.

Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., Mcgoldrick, J. A., & Kurity, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 3-32.

Rouse, W. H. D. (2008). Great Dialogues of Plato. New York, NY: Signet Classics.

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 71-82.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 91Â

Â

Tierney, R. J., & Readence, J. E. (2005). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. R. A. Carton (Ed.), L.S. Vygotsky, collected works (Vol. 1, pp. 39-285). New York, NY: Plenum.

Volume 4 Page 92

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Scaffold

Description

Anticipation guides

Ask students to agree or disagree with statements before reading

Pretesting

Assess student’s knowledge before they begin a unit

KWL

Ask students what they know and want to know, and later, what they’ve learned

Graphic organizers

Organize key vocabulary into diagrams

Instructional cloze

Ask students to fill key words into blanks in a summary

Quick write

Ask students to write freely for a few minutes about a topic

Preview

Survey features of a text before reading

DR-TA

Divide readings and ask for predictions after students read each section

Learning logs

Have students record content and personal connections as they read

Reading guides

Give students questions with page numbers to answer as they read

Outlining

Have students organize ideas by indentation or with letters and numerals

Jigsaw

Have students in expert groups bring ideas to their home groups

Think aloud

Model a strategy by reporting your procedures as you are working

Reciprocal teaching

Students ask questions, clarify problems, summarize, and invite predictions

Instructional conversation

Teacher explains and asks questions, taking every other conversational turn

True discussion

Students converse on a topic without the teacher taking every other turn

Audiovisual presentation

Play a film, video, or audio recording for students

Figure 1. Reading comprehension scaffolds surveyed with brief descriptions.

Volume 4 Page 93Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 1 Completed Surveys by Grade Level Grade level

Grades included

Number of teachers

Percent of sample

Primary

1-2

45

19.6

Intermediate

3-5

73

31.7

Middle school

6-7

52

22.6

Junior high

8-9

39

17.0

High school

10-12

21

9.1

Table 2

Completed Surveys by Content Area

Content area Self-contained Language Arts

Content areas included Multiple, e.g., reading and math English, reading, foreign language, ESL, journalism

Number of

Percent of

teachers

sample

94

40.9

41

17.8

Sciences

Biology, chemistry

19

8.3

Social studies

History, geography

20

8.7

Mathematics

Mathematics

29

12.6

15

6.5

12

5.2

Resource

Miscellaneous

Special education, media, enrichment Business, agriculture, PE, health, music, art

Volume 4 Page 94Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 3 Most Popular Comprehension Scaffolds across Sample with Frequency of Use Scaffold

Used at least once a week

Used at least once a month (cumulative)

1. Instructional conversation

76%

88%

2. Think aloud

67%

86%

3. Reciprocal teaching

68%

85%

4. Audio-visual presentation

48%

83%

5. Preview

57%

77%

Table 4

Least Popular Comprehension Scaffolds across Sample with Frequency of Use

Used less than Scaffold

once a month

Never used

Rarely used (cumulative)

13. Learning logs

11%

27%

39%

14. Reading guides

13%

26%

39%

15. Anticipation guides

14%

26%

40%

16. Outlining

14%

39%

53%

17. Jigsaw

24%

35%

59%

Volume 4 Page 95

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 5 Most Popular Reading Comprehension Scaffolds by Grade Level Grade Scaffold Rank 1 1-2

3-5

6-7

8-9

10-12

Think aloud Instructional conversation Instructional conversation Instructional conversation

Scaffold Rank 2 Preview

Scaffold Rank 3 Quick write and Reciprocal teaching

Reciprocal teaching

Think Aloud

Reciprocal teaching

Graphic organizers

Think aloud

Reciprocal teaching

Instructional

Audio-visual

conversation

presentation

Think aloud

Table 6

Least Popular Reading Comprehension Scaffolds by Grade Level

Grade

Scaffold Rank 17

Scaffold Rank 16

Scaffold Rank 15

1-2

Outlining

Jigsaw

Reading Guides

3-5

Jigsaw

Outline

DR-TA and Pretesting

6-7

Outline/Jigsaw

Anticipation

DR-TA

8-9

Jigsaw

Learning Logs

Anticipation Guides

10-12

Jigsaw

Outline

Reading Guides

Volume 4 Page 96Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Table 7 Most Popular Reading Comprehension Scaffolds by Content Area Content Area

Scaffold Rank 1

Scaffold Rank 2

Scaffold Rank 3

Self-contained

Preview

Think aloud and instructional conversation

Reciprocal teaching

Language Arts

Instructional conversation

Graphic organizer

Quick write

Sciences

Audio-visual presentation

Instructional conversation

Reciprocal teaching and graphic organizer

Social Studies

Reciprocal teaching

Instructional conversation and Audio-visual presentation

Think aloud

Mathematics

Think aloud

Instructional conversation

Reciprocal teaching

Resource

Instructional conversation

Reciprocal teaching

Think aloud

Miscellaneous

Reciprocal teaching

Instructional conversation

KWL

Volume 4 Page 97Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

A Cross Cultural, Comparative Analysis of Teamwork to Embrace Diversity in Schools Shaila M. Rao Western Michigan University Cristina Cardona,

University of Alicante, Spain Randall Soffer University of St. Thomas

Abstract

Increasing diversity in schools today is prompting schools around the world to find effective means of addressing this diversity. Effective collaboration among educational professionals (teachers and other service providers) as a team is one key variable in effectively meeting the demands posed by diversity in classrooms. Responses (n =210) from special education and general education professionals in Spain and the United States to a survey, were analyzed to study how teachers and service providers in different schools from the two countries perceived team functioning. The study also compared team make-up and team functioning in schools in the two countries. The respondents expressed a need for continuous within-teams review of the goals ensuring parental input and parental satisfaction enabling the team to evaluate their success in achieving the goals set initially. Respondents from both countries did not perceive family input and involvement as being valued relative to their teaming. This paper discusses results, implications, and directions for schools, educators, and future research.

Key words: Teaming, teamwork, teacher education, diversity

Introduction

Schools around the world today are in the process of education reforms. School reforms driven by a demand to serve a diverse population of students is prompting schools to find

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 98

effective means of embracing student diversity and providing quality education. Literature examining school reforms and sustainability of school reforms has identified team approach to planning service delivery as one of the most effective means of meeting diverse learning needs.

As such, teamwork is increasingly becoming a vital part of the school environment. Nellis (2012) contended that teams are critically important for the operation of schools today.

According to Sparks (2013), schools rise and fall based on their teamwork. Teamwork is especially prevalent in planning and implementation of special education services to meet diverse needs because of culture, language, race, religion, gender, socio economic status, gifts and talents, and disability. Since the services needed to meet these diverse needs involve general educators, related service providers, agencies outside of the school arena, and parents, there is little doubt that effective collaboration is required for these services to be successful.

Various studies (Kew, 2009; Knackendoffel, 2007; Schnorr & Davern, 2005; Spencer, 2009) have explored significance and power of collaboration and teaming that resulted in strong student achievement. Schnorr and Davern (2005) described how successful collaboration between special and general educators resulted in creating exemplary literacy classrooms. Kew (2009) studied the strength of teaming, especially in middle schools, which resulted in better student achievement; the author also cited research that indicates that middle level teachers have been successful working together to serve adolescents' unique educational needs. Critical importance of teaming at middle school level has also been emphasized by Hansen (2009) and Rottier (1996, 2000) who offered several suggestions towards ensuring continued availability of teaming in middle schools, given their importance and impact on success of students at middle school level. Knackendoffel posited that “team approaches have long been a valued part of special service professions and have become increasingly popular structures for addressing highly diverse issues in schools” (2007, p. 1).

The growth in teamwork is not surprising in special education and elsewhere given that collaboration has become more and more of a norm worldwide (Villa, 2007). Teamwork is acknowledged to be one of the most important facilitators for achieving positive and cost effective outcomes in organizations and businesses (Carver & Stickley, 2012). It also has been cited as leading to greater adaptability, productivity, and creativity than any single person can achieve (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005; West, Brodbeck, & Richter, 2004).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 99

Interdisciplinary teaming is a solution to instructing heterogeneous groups of students in schools (Gable & Manning, 1999; Hansen, 2009). An interdisciplinary team, according to the authors, usually consists of three to five teachers representing various content areas. In addition, one or more building-level specialists may serve on the team as well (e.g., the learning disabilities teacher or speech therapist). Commenting in particular on the importance of teaming at middle school level, the authors cited teacher assistance teams and peer collaboration as critical for teachers when faced with difficult classroom situations of educating a diverse student body. According to Hansen (2009), developing interdisciplinary teams that function properly should be the goal of every school leader promoting school reform. Echoing similar thoughts in another study, Ogletree, Bull, Drew, and Lunnen (2001) described the importance of team-based service delivery as a common method for families and related professionals to make decisions about children with diverse needs and discussed different models. Team-based service delivery in schools also results in teachers experiencing greater parental involvement, improved work climate, and increased job satisfaction (Flowers, Mertens, & Mulhall as cited in Hansen, 2009).

Knackendoffel, Robinson, Deshler, and Schumaker (as cited in Knackendoffel, 2007) described the “goal of collaborative teaming that embodies the concept of working together, is to improve services to students whose needs ae not met when professionals work alone” (p. 1). Dodda (as cited in Rottier, 2000) however, expressed concern that although teaching teams are enhancing school and classroom life, too many have remained paralyzed by limited vision of what teaming can and should be, due to a lack of empirical studies that report how teams in schools serving diverse populations function or the decision-making procedure teams follow. Senior and Swailes (2007) focused on understanding how and why teams perform at their best. With this information, teams can identify ways to improve their functioning. Given the number of teams involved in the planning and delivery of education, an understanding of how to improve team functioning is of critical importance.

Review of Literature

In spite of a considerable amount of research on the need for collaboration and collaboration models, there is no single unifying theory that integrates the diverse literature on

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 100Â

Â

the subject or establishes an agreed on set of effective team process variables (Salas & Fiore, 2004). Consistent with these beliefs, Senior and Swailes (2007) contended that inputs (i.e., size and diversity of teams, training, etc.) and output variables (i.e., achievement of team goals) are much more straightforward than the identification of process variables.

Fortunately, in spite of the challenges and lack of unanimity, the literature does provide some insight into which team process variables are most important for team effectiveness in special education. An effort to study team process variables was undertaken by Nijhuis et al., (2007). The focus of their study was on organizations in the Netherlands providing health care and rehabilitation for children with disabilities. Nijhuis et al. identified five key team process variables. They were communication, decision-making, goal setting, organization, and team process. The authors proposed parent involvement as a sixth feature of team collaboration.

Obviously, with the key role that parents play on special education teams in the United States and elsewhere, this addition is not unexpected.

Another earlier study by Fleming and Monda-Amaya (2001) also focused on the process variables critical for team effectiveness. Their focus was similar to the more recent study by Nijhuis et al. (2007). Fleming and Monda-Amaya also utilized a study methodology similar to the more recent Nijhuis et al. study. Both studies used a combination of research reviews and an expert panel.

Fleming and Monda-Amaya (2001) identified six team process variables linked to team effectiveness. The first was team communication. This included effective communication and conflict resolution skills. The second factor involved team member roles and team membership and included defining and understanding roles, team leadership, and team member responsibilities. The third area identified was team outcomes. This did not relate to the effectiveness of interventions or change in service recipient attitudes or behaviors. Instead, team outcomes for Fleming and Monda-Amaya involved the extent to which service plans were developed and revised as needed and what level of support team members had toward implementing developed plans. A fourth factor identified was team logistics. This variable related to team schedules, paperwork activities, progress evaluations, and procedures. A fifth factor identified was team cohesion. That is, the support, trust, and closeness that team members experienced. The final factor identified related to team goals. Specifically, the focus here is on

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 101

the establishment of team goals and teams monitoring and reviewing their performance relative to the achievement of goals. When asked to prioritize these six team process variables, the expert panel clearly favored three of them. They were team outcomes, team goals, and team cohesion. Interestingly, these three variables are similar to the later study’s findings by Nijhuis et al. (2007).

Conceptual Framework

Unlike the use of an expert panel in the two previously mentioned studies, this study focused on the perceptions of practitioners (i.e. school professionals). That is, to determine their views on which of the six factors are of most critical importance to their school teams’ functioning and success. The other unique feature of this study was its cross-cultural comparative focus. The responses of school professionals in the United States and Spain were compared to see what cross-cultural differences exist in team functioning and how these relate to team effectiveness. The reasons for the differences that are identified were explored, as well as implications for improving current teamwork practices in both countries.

This study also attempted to assess the relationship between teachers’ ranking of the various meeting process variables and demographic factors, such as the level of the school program (e.g. elementary school), teacher age, and number of years of experience as a teacher.

Team outcomes were also assessed to the extent that they varied based on the ratings of the other team process variables. Finally, the school professionals’ view of parents’ contribution toward selected team process variables was assessed as well as cross-cultural differences between Spanish and US school professionals in this area.

The questionnaire used in this study was based on the work of Fleming and MondaAmaya (2001). This approach was taken for a number of reasons. First, there is good research support for the six team-process variables identified by Fleming and Monda-Amaya. A second reason for the use of the questionnaire developed by Fleming and Monda-Amaya related to its nature and scope. It is comprehensive and, as a result, more possible factors and indicators of effective teamwork could be delineated. Finally, the clear goal of the Fleming and Monda-

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 102

Amaya study was to provide help to schools in establishing, monitoring, and evaluating their teams, and this is consistent with the focus of the current study. A brief summary of research related to each variable follows:

Team member roles and team responsibilities. Various studies (Nijhuis et al., 2007; Rottier, 2000; Xyrichis & Ream, 2007) found that clear team member roles lead to increased team effectiveness. Rottier contended that too often, team member roles are not identified and as such, much of a team’s work falls to the team leader. Effective leadership was identified by other studies as important for team effectiveness (Campany, Dubinsky, Druskat, Mangino, & Flynn, 2007; Hansen, 2009; Kew, 2009; Knackendoffel, 2007; Nijhuis et al., 2007; Rottier 2000; Schnorr & Davern, 2005).

Team outcomes. The research conducted by Nijhuis et al. (2007) supported the inclusion of team outcomes on the list of key team process variables. They suggested the importance of team member commitment to client service plans and the importance of modifying plans as needed. Citing influence of individual team member’s behavior on team outcomes as an important variable affecting team outcomes, Rottier (2000) suggested that principals should also look for consistency in how members manage classroom problems and instruction. This is due to a possibility that school principal’s presence at team meetings may unduly influence members’ behavior.

Team logistics. Nijhuis et al. (2007) stressed the importance of teams evaluating their performance for team success. Similarly, Campany et al. (2007) stressed the importance of measuring and recognizing team focused behavior. Finally, Xyrichis and Ream (2007) indicated, that shared decision-making is also an important team procedure to follow. Kew (2009) also emphasized the importance of dividing duties among team members so that more cooperation and collaboration can be achieved to meet students' needs, and stated that in the middle school, interdisciplinary teams usually meet daily for at least one period.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 103

Team cohesion. There is considerable research support for this factor and its relationship to team effectiveness. Nijhuis et al. (2007) reported the need for mutual respect among team members. Mutual support and mutual trust are also touted in the literature with regard to team functioning (Campany et al., 2007; Knackendoffel, 2007; Schnorr & Davern, 2005; Xyrichis & Ream, 2007). Schnorr and Davern (2005) described successful teams as the “teams that operate from a shared knowledge of effective practices, shared principles and beliefs, and a shared understanding of the fundamentals of teaming” (p. 495).

Team goals. There are a number of studies indicating the importance for teams setting clear common goals, agreeing on goals, and prioritizing them as needed (Campany et al., 2007; Gabel & Manning, 1999; Knackendoffel, 2007; Nijhuis et al., 2007; Rottier, 2000; Senior & Swailes, 2007; Xyrichis & Ream, 2007). Rottier (2000) noted that without exception team goals/clear objectives were the most important features of successful teams. In an earlier study in 1996, Rottier suggested that teams should adopt one or two challenging, measurable goals that become their focal point for a semester or a school year.

Team communication. Research has identified a number of aspects of communication critical for team effectiveness. These include conflict resolution, information sharing, using language and terms that are familiar to all team members, problem-solving, good listening skills, and open communication (Campany et al., 2007; Gable & Manning, 1999; Kew, 2009; Knackendoffel, 2007; Nijhuis et al., 2007; Schnorr & Davern, 2005; Rottier, 2000; Seibold & Kang, 2008; Senior & Swailes, 2007; Xyrichis & Ream, 2007). According to Rottier the nature of communication that occurs while handling difference of opinion has a significant effect on the team’s performance.

Sparks (2013) included all six of the above variables in his framework for effective school teamwork. For roles and responsibilities, the author contended that the roles and responsibilities need to be clearly defined, although they can be shared responsibilities. The author’s emphasis on observable meeting processes clearly relates to logistics. Team cohesion is reflected in team members’ appreciation of each other’s skills and experiences. Lastly, Sparks (2013) identified team communication as a key characteristic of effective teams. The author

Volume 4 Page 104

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

advocated for respectful dialogue and encouragement of differing viewpoints among team members.

Methods

Research Questions

This study attempted to answer the following research questions: 1. Did participating school teachers in Spain and the United States differ in their indication of which process variables: team goals, team roles and responsibilities, team communication, team cohesion, team logistics, and team outcome, are the most critical determinants of effective team process?

2. How did the importance participating school teachers placed on the process variables, as indicated by their ranking, differ as a function of (a) school setting (kindergarten, elementary, middle school, or high school) in which they work, (b) their age, (c) teaching experience, and (d) country?

3. To what extent were parents’/family input viewed as important and sought in three key process variables (team goals, team cohesion, and team outcomes) according to the participating schoolteachers?

Participants

Two hundred and ten (N = 210) teachers and other service providers (music therapists, physical therapists, social workers, psychologists) completed a face-to-face survey. Researchers visited participating schools on the days their scheduled monthly faculty meetings were held.

Visits were pre-arranged and the last 20-25 minutes of the meeting were set aside for administration of the survey. The researchers explained purpose, consent forms, and the survey and left the room when the participants indicated they did not have any questions. The voluntary nature of the survey was explained and participants were instructed not to mention their names anywhere on the survey. A box was left for them to drop their responses. Responses were collected after participants left the room. Procedure followed in the university classroom was

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 105

similar. The surveys were given out during the last half hour of participants’ scheduled class time.

Participants from Spain included teachers from kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, high school, and students from one university. Participants from the United States did not include kindergarten teachers, but only teachers from elementary school, middle school, high school, and students from one university. The university students who participated included practicing general education and special education teachers returning to the university or graduate credits and additional certification in general and special education.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument used in this study had two main sections. The first section of the survey collected participants’ demographic data that included age, gender, setting they worked in, years of work experience, job position, names of teams they had worked on, and number of people on the teams in which they worked. The survey responses were anonymous as no names of participants and/or schools were requested anywhere in the survey.

The second section of the survey instrument used in this study was based on Fleming and Monda-Amaya (2001) who identified and validated a list of critical process variables (statements) for effective teaming in schools. Fleming and Monda-Amaya (2001) ranked the variables under six categories: team goals, team roles and team membership, team communication, team cohesion, team logistics, and team outcomes. The survey used in this study had a total of 35 statements (see Table 1) in a 6-point Likert scale. Participants had to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed (1= strongly disagree, 2=moderately disagree, 3= slightly disagree, 4=agree slightly, 5= agree moderately, and 6=agree strongly) with the statements as it related to their experience working on team(s). The category of team goals had eight statements, team roles and team communication each had five statements, team cohesion had eight statements, team logistics two, and team outcomes had seven statements.

Space was provided at the end of each category for the participants to write their comments or suggestions. Maximum score under each category (6 x the number of statements under each category) indicated a stronger (score of 48) commitment of teams towards team goals, stronger team membership (score of 30) among the team members, better communication (score of 30)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 106Â

Â

between the team members, better team cohesion (score of 48), better team logistics (score of 12), and better team outcome (score of 42) with respect to the team(s) on which the teachers worked. The last question asked participants to rank the six critical process variable categories in order of importance to them as being critical for effective teaming and teamwork.

Procedure

The first step involved completing protocol of obtaining permission from the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (HSIRB) to carry out the research with the potential participants. The first author conducted a pilot study with 20 graduate students returning for their Master of Arts degree in special education or general education and who were also practicing teachers in public schools. A reliability analysis of the scale yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of .96 (n=20) demonstrating a strong internal consistency of the questionnaire statements.

The final instrument did not require any revisions based on the results of the pilot study.

Participants from the pilot study were not included in the final sample. The survey was translated in Spanish by the second author, who then administered it in Spain after completing the necessary protocol. The pilot study with the translated instrument involving 31 practicing elementary and secondary teachers in Spain, also yielded a strong inter-item reliability Alpha of .92 (n= 31).

Principals of various schools in the United States and Spain were contacted to seek their permission to conduct the survey with their faculty. In the United States, schools that participated included one high school, one middle school, and one elementary school, and 25 other practicing teachers in a university course who returned for their graduate studies (n =114).

This number did not include 20 teachers enrolled in another graduate course who participated in the pilot study. Schools that participated in Spain included kindergarten, secondary/ high schools, one middle school, and one elementary school (n =96), excluding the teachers who participated in the pilot study. The surveys were administered in a face-to-face format during the first 15-20 minutes of the monthly staff meetings in participating schools. Surveys were also administered in university classrooms. The university students who participated included practicing general education and special education teachers returning for graduate credits and

Volume 4 Page 107

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

additional certification in general and special education. Information letters given to all participants indicated that participation in the survey was voluntary, and returning the surveys indicated their willingness to participate in this study. Descriptive statistics summarized the demographic data. Statistical procedures used to analyze the responses to answer research questions included chi-square tests, t-tests, and F-tests.

Results

The survey procedure in both countries yielded a total of 210 (N=210) valid responses.

Reliability analysis repeated with the final study samples in Spain and the United States resulted in a reliability of .97 (n=71) for the Spanish sample, .98 (n=110) for the United States sample and .98 (N = 210) for the merged file demonstrating a strong reliability for the study’s questionnaire.

Descriptive statistics summarized the demographics of the participants. There were a total of 210 teachers; 96 from Spain and 114 from the United States. These participants included 38 special education teachers, 118 general education teachers and 60 others working in different areas and included music therapists, physical education teachers, physical therapists, bilingual specialists, speech therapists, and psychologists. There were more female respondents (156) than male (54) and two respondents left this field blank. The reported age of participants ranged between 23 years and 60 years, with their reported years of experience in schools ranging from 1 year to 39 years. Participants had worked on various teams, and although not a stipulated requirement for participation, had worked with at least two other professionals; some having worked with 10 to 16 different professionals having worked on a variety of teams. Some specific teams mentioned included: child study teams, pre-referral teams, grade level teams, curriculum teams (math, science, geography, English, Spanish, etc), diversity support teams, teacher assistance teams, teacher staff teams, pastoral teams, behavior teams, internal rules committees, tutorial teacher teams, library teams, school pedagogic coordination committees, and individual education program (IEP) teams.

We wanted to assess how responding teachers and other service providers in schools from the two countries ranked the six categories of variables in terms of their importance for

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 108

team effectiveness, based on their experience working on various teams. Table 2 shows results of a frequency count to see how teachers in the two countries ranked the process variable categories. Study respondents from Spain and the United States ranked team communication as number 1 and team goals as number 2 in terms of their importance for teaming. Team cohesion ranked third for respondents from Spain whereas team outcome ranked third for the responding teachers from the United States as most important in overall success of teaming.

Results of analysis of merged data also supported the individual ranking of the variable categories by respondents from the two countries. Overall, as seen in Table 3, the ranking of variables when the data were combined indicated team communication and team goals as the first and the second choices for critical process variable categories that were perceived as most important for team effectiveness, based on the respondents’ experience working on various teams. These two choices were followed by team outcome, team cohesion, team logistics, and team members’ roles and responsibilities as their third, fourth, fifth, and sixth choices as important to team effectiveness.

With respect to the category team communication-the category ranked as the most important for team effectiveness- more respondents seemed to either agree strongly that decisions made had to be for the good of the student (49.5 %) and there should be equal opportunities to speak (41.4%). There was strong and moderate agreement on six statements within this category: Decisions are made for the good of the student, decisions are alterable, team members have adequate listening time, team members have equal opportunities to speak, and decisions are reached by consensus. Demographics studied did not significantly impact any of these items individually or collectively. Most respondents felt that ‘team communication’ ranked as their first choice was an integral part based on their teaming experience.

For category of team goals, which ranked second in terms of importance, more respondents (55.5%, N = 210) agreed strongly on the first statement that the team purpose was clear with reference to the teams on which they were working. However, responses on all other process variables under this category ranged from a moderate agreement to complete disagreement. This is an important finding with implications for overall team effectiveness.

Moderate agreement on other process variables and analysis of comments made indicates, although the purpose of the team to start with is clear, a sustained effort needs to be made in

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 109

terms of a continuous review of the goals that need to be prioritized, so that they are supported by family as well leading to better outcomes and success.

Team outcome was ranked third by responding teachers (N = 210). All seven statements under this category saw more moderate agreement (ranging from 26.6% to 45.7%) indicating the responding teachers were not very positive when asked if they thought the teams they worked on had positive outcomes. A very moderate satisfaction on this corroborates analysis of the two variables under ‘team cohesion’, as well as supports the nature of their responses on items under ‘team goals’. Respondents expressed dissatisfaction in terms of lack of review and evaluation of outcomes by team members and considering parent satisfaction in evaluating the outcomes.

The fourth category, team cohesion, had the most respondents (N = 208) either agree strongly or agree moderately indicating good cohesive teams in both countries, except for the item seeking input regarding parents where more respondents disagreed or agreed only slightly that parents felt empowered (see Figure 3). More respondents felt the teams had a unified goal (36.1 % agreed strongly) and teams had respect for one another (48.1% had strong agreement) as it related to their teaming experience. Based on the individual responses and analysis of the comments, respondents in both countries generally felt there was respect, trust, and sharing among team members.

With respect to team logistics, a mere (34.3% and 33.8%, N = 208) agreed moderately that ‘team progress was evaluated internally’ and ‘team procedures were clearly understood’, the two items included under this category. Although this ranked fifth and sixth in terms of overall ranking, the quantitative analysis, and analysis of the comments made by respondents, supports findings in previous studies of the importance of team members evaluating their success. In this study, the respondents’ comments also suggested that the team leaders should explain the procedures clearly.

With respect to team members’ roles and membership’ a good majority (76% and 77%, N = 208) of respondents felt strongly that the members were committed to the team process. This indicates that the team members were committed to the roles assigned to them at the beginning and understood what they needed to do individually.

The second question attempted to assess possible effects of country of origin of the respondents, type of settings the respondents worked in, their gender, age and teaching

Volume 4 Page 110

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

experience on reported total team outcome, reported team communication, team cohesion, team goals, and team membership as it related to the participating school teachers’ team involvement.

There were more female respondents (156) than male (54). However, gender and the country of origin (Spain and the United States) had no significant effect on reported responses under team goals, team roles and responsibilities, team communication, team cohesion, team logistics, and team outcomes as determined by t-tests. Other variables such as age, years of teaching experience, experience as teachers or other service providers, as also the types of settings—kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and high school—had no significant effect on overall reported team goals, team roles and responsibilities, team communication, team cohesion, team logistics, and team outcomes as it related to their teaming experience.

Family/parent involvement was assessed in three of the six variable categories: team goals (Team goals are supported by the family), team outcomes (Parent satisfaction is part of the evaluation), and team cohesion (Members, especially parents, feel equally empowered). This was the focus of the third research question. It was interesting to note that teachers in both countries responded in a very similar manner, and almost 50% of the respondents did not perceive family input and involvement as being valued relative to their teaming. Very few agreed strongly that family was considered important in the teaming process.

Discussion

Implications

On a positive note, ‘team communication’, which was ranked as the top variable by respondents in both countries, seemed to be related to the participating school professionals’ involvement in stated teams. Since communication is critical for success in any discipline that involves teamwork, this is indeed a very encouraging finding. With strong perceived communication among the team members, leaders could use this strength to improve teamwork in the other three variables that were ranked the second and the third places. These variables, team goals, team outcome, and team logistics showed more disagreement (moderate to strong) on the items.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 111

Based on an analysis of responses, it was clear that respondents perceived teams to be comprised of committed members. Also, it appeared the teams started with a good and clear purpose in mind with open channels of communication, trust, and respect for one another.

Leadership was described to be generally supportive of team members. What emerged as an implication for school and team leaders is a need for continued and sustained effort to improve the on-going functioning of school teams. The respondents expressed a need for continuous within- teams review of the goals ensuring parental input and parental satisfaction, enabling the team to evaluate their success in achieving the goals set initially. Sparks (2013) identified team communication as a key characteristic of effective teams. He advocated for respectful dialogue and encouragement of differing viewpoints among team members.

Although only three items were included pertaining to family and parent input and involvement, all three items did not generate very positive responses. Studies by Catsambis (2001), Knopf and Swick (2008), Lasky and Karge (2011), and Nancy (2000) have described various ways and steps that can be taken to promote parent/family involvement in schools. Some strategies suggested by Lasky and Karge (2011) include having parent liaisons/advisors and getting them to visit homes. Some other suggested ways to enhance parent involvement were to have parent coordinators, have some parents as translators and interpreters for others on teams, and offering ESL (English as Second Language) classes for parents. Young, Austin, and Growe (2013) specifically researched this underdeveloped area of research, i.e. intersection of parental involvement and leadership. The authors studied various possible roles parents can play and suggested that administrators/leaders devise a definition, with the help of all stakeholders including teachers, parents and community leaders, and then convey the definition to the parents.

For addressing student diversity in classrooms, our recommendations also are based on Gable and Manning’s study in 1999. To effectively meet diverse needs of students through stronger, more efficient teams, the study suggested a problem-solving approach involving a 10step process. The 10 steps suggested included introductions of all attending members by team leader, assigning specific roles, delineating specific procedures to follow, discussion of the issue/needs of students at hand, reaching consensus, discussion of possible solutions, discussion of possible instructional accommodations, discussion of procedures for implementing the plan, discussion of follow-up plan to ensure fidelity implementation, and finally, leader’s evaluation of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 112Â

Â

participants’ success in problem solving. Since time is a scarce and expensive commodity, the authors suggested a maximum time of 20-25 minutes for this part of the meeting.

Our findings have implications for team leaders/leadership and administrators to help teachers meet diverse needs of their students with an open communication. Respondents from both countries chose team goals as their second choice. The majority of respondents only moderately agreed to various statements under this process variable. This indicated that when goals were being decided, for example to meet diverse needs, the team members lacked enough information and direction to pursue goals and sustained effort needed to be made in terms of a continuous review of the goals; goals need to be prioritized so that they are supported by family as well, leading to better outcomes and success. This is noteworthy as there was a strong agreement with only one statement under this variable category, which suggested the purpose was clear but the team was not actually working towards purpose due to lack information and a direction.

Irrespective of the nature and varied foci of different teams in schools today, we suggest the following steps for effective team functioning: (1) team membership is decided with clearly articulated goals; (2) goals are prioritised with input from all members including parents/family; (3) leaders draw out a detailed plan (as suggested by respondents) for implementation; (4) ongoing input from all team members including family/parents if they are part of the team is sought; and (5) effectiveness of the implemented plan, and team functioning and success in attaining the goals is monitored and evaluated.

Given the number of teams involved in the planning and delivery of educational services, it is critically important to take necessary steps to improve team functioning. Some recommendations offered in research reviewed (Catsambis, 2001; Hansen, 2009; Knopf & Swick, 2008; Lasky & Karge 2011; Nancy, 2000; Rottier, 2000) could be incorporated in schools. For example, administrators could ensure a continuous within- team review of the goals ensuring parental input and parental satisfaction, enabling the team to evaluate their success in achieving the goals set initially. Schools could have designated parent liaisons/advisors who could make home visits. To facilitate better communication between schools and parents, schools could seek help from some parents as translators and interpreters.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 113

Administrators can monitor teams’ progress towards planned outcomes and have each team turn in written summary of the week’s activity, and provide regular and immediate feedback (Rottier, 2000). Timely and continuous guidance by school leaders was also the highlight in Hansen (2009) who stated that “individual team members should not be left on their own to sink or swim with the teaming concept” (p. 33).

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

For the present study, the respondents and responses belonged to several different teams in schools. A narrower focus listing few teams, and giving a choice to respondents to limit their answers with respect to these specific teams that they chose to address, would have perhaps generated more useful and specific information. This information could then be used more effectively. Another possibility would be to conduct a qualitative study with direct and focused observations, and some focus group interviews with teachers from individual schools to study just one or two teams, such as Teacher Assistance Teams, Intervention Teams, or IEP teams.

This may inform practice in schools to support current educational practices moving towards more diversity.

A qualitative study and focus groups may also lead to better study of educational settings.

One of the questions to pose during the focus groups could specifically relate to the nature of support provided by the schools/school leaders to enhance interdisciplinary team effectiveness.

There were differences in ranking of the variables by teachers between the two countries. Future studies could also study possible reasons for this difference in rankings by teachers in different settings through a qualitative study and focus groups. Given the importance of family/parent involvement for academic achievement, it may be worth developing a separate category for ‘parent involvement’ with related process variables.

Author Biographies

Dr. Shaila Rao, Professor, Department of Special Education & Literacy Studies, Western Michigan University, #4813, 1903, Michigan Avenue, Sangren Hall, Kalamzoo, MI 49008,

Volume 4 Page 114Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

United States. Her research interests include teacher education for diversity and inclusive education, assessment, curriculum and instruction, and literacy. She has published several articles and book chapters related to these areas Dr.Cristina Cardona, Professor, University of Alicante, Faculty of Education, Campus S. Vicente del Raspeig, Ap. 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain. Her research interests include teacher education for diversity and inclusive education, differentiation and instructional adaptations for individuals with specific educational needs.

Dr. Randall Soffer, Lecturer & Director of Field Experiences, School of Education, University of St. Thomas, Houston TX 77304, United States. His current responsibilities include directing a federally funded project to prepare special education leaders. He holds a Ph.D.in Special Education Administration.

References

Carver, T., & Stickley, A. (2012). Teamwork in first year law units: Can it work? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9, 2-32.

Catsambis, S. (2001). Expanding knowledge of parental involvement in children's secondary education: Connections with high school seniors' academic success. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 5(2), 149-177.

Campany, N., Dubinsky, M., Druskat, V., Mangino, M., & Flynn, E. (2007). What makes good team work better: Research-based strategies that distinguish top performing crossfunctional development teams. Organization Development Journal, 25, 179-186.

Fleming, J. L., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (2001). Process variables critical for team effectiveness: A Delphi study of wrap around team members. Remediation Special Education, 22, 158171.

Gable, R., & Manning, M. (1999). Interdisciplinary teaming: Solution to instructing heterogeneous groups of students. The Clearinghouse, 72(3), 182-185.

Groothoff, J. W., Nakken, H., & Prostema, K. (2007). A review of silent elements defining team collaborative in pediatric rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21, 95-211.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 115

Hansen, S. D. (2009). The academic evolution of TEAMING. Principal Leadership, 9(7), 33-36.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/234998732?accountid=15099 Kew, D. W. (2000). Middle level teaming--strength in collaboration. Schools in the Middle, 9(9), 39. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/221730094?accountid=15099

Knopf, H. T., & Swick, K. J. (2008). Using our understanding of families to strengthen family involvement. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(5), 419-427.

Knackendoffel, E. A. (2007). Collaborative teaming in the secondary school. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(4), 1-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224043809?accountid=15099 Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (2011). Involvement of language minority parents of children with disabilities in their child's school achievement. Multicultural Education, 18(3), 29-34.

Lee-Traver, A. (2006). A survey of teachers’ perceptions of the function and purpose of support teams. Education, 126(3), 525-533.

Nancy, F. C. (2000). Family and community involvement policies: Teachers can lead the way.

The Clearing House, 73(5), 287-290.

Nellis, L. M. (2012). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in response to intervention implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 245-256.

Nijhuis, B. J. G., Reinders-Messelink, N. A., de Blecourt, A. C. E., Oligca, W. G., Groothoff, J. W., Nakken, H., & Prostema, K. (2007). A review of silent elements defining team collaborative in pediatric rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21, 195-211.

Ogletree, B., Bull, J., Drew, R., & Lunnen, K. (2001). Team-based service delivery for students with disabilities: Practice options and guidelines for success. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(3), 138-145.

Rottier, J. (1996). Teaming with success. The Education Digest, 62(2), 19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218196519?accountid=15099 Rottier, J. (2000). Teaming in the middle school: Improve it or lose it. The Clearing House, 73(4), 214-216.

Salas, E., & Fiore, S. M. (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 116

Association.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555-599.

Schnorr, R. F., & Davern, L. (2005). Creating exemplary literacy classrooms through the power of teaming. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 494-506. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/203280672?accountid=15099 Seibold, D., & Kang, P. (2008). Using critical praxis to understand and teach teamwork.

Business Communications Quarterly, 7, 421-438.

Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (2007). Inside management teams: Developing a teamwork survey instrument. British Journal of Management, 18, 138-153.

Sparks, D. (2013). Strong teams, strong schools. Journal of Staff Development, 34, 28-30.

Spencer, H. (2009). The academic evolution of TEAMING. Principal Leadership, 9, 33-36.

Villa, R. (2007). Collaborative planning for differentiated instruction. In J. S. Thousand, J. R. Villa, & A. Nevi (Eds.), Differentiating instruction: Collaborative planning & teaching for universally designed instruction (pp. 109-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

West, M. A., Brodbeck, F. C., & Richter, A. W. (2004). Does the “romance of teams” exist in experimental and field settings? Journal of Occupational and Organization Psychology, 77, 467-473.

Xyrichis, A., & Ream, E. (2007). Teamwork: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 232-241.

Young, C. Y., Austin, S. M., & Growe, R. (2013). Defining parental involvement: Perception of school administrators. Education, 133(3), 291-297.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 117Â

Â

Table 1 Variable categories and individual items 1. Team Goals 1.1. Purpose of the team is clear 1.2. Team goals are regularly reviewed 1.3. Team goals are understood by all members

3. Team Communication 2. Team Roles and Membership 2.1. Team members are committed to the team process 2.2 The team has a leader 2.3 Members are accountable to the team

1.4. Team goals are established by team members

2.4 Team roles are clearly understood

1.5. Team goals are clearly stated

2.5 Team roles are perceived by members as being important

1.6. Team goals are supported by the family 1.7. Team goals are attainable 1.8. Team goals are prioritized Note. N = 210.

3.1. Decisions are made for the good of the student 3.2. Decisions are alterable 3.3. Team members have adequate listening time 3.4. Team members have equal opportunities to speak 3.5. Decisions are reached by consensus.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 118Â

Â

Table 1 (Continued) Variable categories and individual items

4. Team Cohesion

5. Team Logistics

6. Team Outcomes

4.1. Members feel safe sharing ideas

5.1. Progress is evaluated internally, by members

6.1. Team makes modifications to the plan as needed

4.2. The team has trust among members

5.2. Team procedures are clearly understood

4.3. Members (especially parents) feel equally empowered 4.4. The team has a unified goal 4.5. Members have respect for one another 4.6. The team has support from superiors 4.7. The team has autonomy for decision making 4.8. The team has a healthy regard for disagreement Note. N= 210.

6.2. Members are clear about their responsibilities for the plan 6.3. Members are committed to implementing the plan.

6.4. Team reviews the impact of the plan

Volume 4 Page 119

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 2 Critical variable categories for team effectiveness ranked by respondents from Spain and the United States Spain (n= 96) Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6

Category

Team Communication Team Goals Team Cohesion Team Outcomes Team Logistics Roles & Membership

United States (n= 114) % of Respondents

Rank

Category

% of Respondents

56.6%

1

43%

42.7% 40.6% 36.5% 24.0%

2 3 4 5

17. 7%

6

Team Communication Team Goals Team Outcomes Team Cohesion Roles & Membership Team Logistics

36.6% 15.6% 3.5% 1.8% 1.9%

Note. N = 210.

Table 3 Ranking of critical variable categories for team effectiveness using combined data Rank

1 2 3 4

Category

Team Communication Team Goals Team Outcome Team Cohesion

% Respondents Choosing

Number of Maximum Items in Possible category Score

Mean For Total in Category

SD

49.0%

24.55

4.98

5

30

40.3% 25.2% 20.5%

36.11 31.42 37.46

8.14 6.98 8.04

8 7 8

48 42 48

Volume 4 Page 120

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

5 6

Team Logistics Member Roles & Responsibilities

Note. N = 210.

11.4% 9.0%

8.8 22.8

2.38 5.54

2 5

12 30

Volume 4 Page 121

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDE These revised guidelines become effective with the fall 2015 publications.

If you are submitting to a spring 2015 publication, please use the previous guide.

GENERAL FORMATTING           

American Psychological Association (APA) Sixth Edition Publication Guidelines Microsoft-Word or compatible format (Do not send your manuscript as a PDF or it will be declined) Letter-size (8.5 x 11 inches) format 1.50 spaced text Times New Roman, 12-point font One-inch margins Two spaces following end punctuation Left justification Single column Portrait orientation First-person

MANUSCRIPT ORDER (Please Note: Do not add a running head or page numbers.)

Cover Page: (This page will be removed prior to peer review.)  Manuscript Title o The first letter of each major word should be capitalized. o The title should be in font size 20 and bold.  Author(s) Name o First Name, Middle initial(s), and Last name (omit titles and degrees) o The names should be font size 12. No bold  Institutional Affiliation o Education affiliation – if no institutional affiliation, list city and state of author’s residence o This educational affiliation should be on the line directly under the author’s name. o If there are multiple authors, please place a space between them each set of information (name and affiliation).  Author Biography o If there are multiple authors, please label this section Author Biographies

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 4 Page 122

o Please be sure to indent the paragraph before the biography begins. If there are multiple authors, please begin a new paragraph for each author.

Manuscript: (From this point forward, please be sure your manuscript is FREE of any identifying information.) 











Abstract o The abstract (150-word maximum) should effectively summarize your completed research and findings. o The word “abstract” should be bold.

Keywords o This line should be indented. The word “Keywords” should be italicized and followed by a colon and two spaces. o Following the two spaces, list 3 or 4 keywords or key phrases that you would use if you were searching for your article online. o Only the first key word should be capitalized. The actual keywords are not italicized.

Body of Paper (sections) ALL of the following sections MUST be present or your manuscript WILL be rejected. o Introduction o Literature Review o Methodology o Results/Findings o Discussion References –this heading is NOT bolded within the manuscript o Manuscripts should be thoroughly cited and referenced using valid sources. o References should be arranged alphabetically and strictly follow American Psychological Association (APA) sixth edition formatting rules. o Only references cited in the manuscript are to be included.

Tables and Figures o If tables and figures are deemed necessary for inclusion, they should be properly placed at the end of the text following the reference section. o All tables and figures should be numbered sequentially using Arabic numerals, titled, acknowledged, and cited according to APA guidelines. o If graphs or tables are too wide for portrait orientation, they must be resized or reoriented to be included.

Appendices (if applicable) o Must be labeled alphabetically as they appear in the manuscript. o Title centered at the top.

Volume 4 Page 123

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

WHY READ OUR JOURNALS? Continuing Education: Each of the CSI's peer-reviewed journals focuses on contemporary issues, scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practices that will elevate readers' professional development.

Germane Reference: The CSI's journals are a vital resource for students, practitioners, and professionals in the fields of education, business, and behavioral sciences interested in relevant, leading-edge, academic research.

Diversity: The CSI’s peer-reviewed journals highlight a variety of study designs, scientific approaches, experimental strategies, methodologies, and analytical processes representing diverse philosophical frameworks and global perspectives Broad Applicability: The CSI's journals provide research in the fields of education, business and behavioral sciences specialties and dozens of related sub-specialties.

Academic Advantage: The CSI's academically and scientifically meritorious journal content significantly benefits faculty and students.

Scholarship: Subscribing to the CSI's journals provides a forum for and promotes faculty research, writing, and manuscript submission.

Choice of Format: Institutions can choose to subscribe to our journals in digital or print format.

Volume 4 Page 124

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Native American Youth Entrepreneurship Summer Camp: An Intensive Instructional Approach Jesse D. Beeler, Millsaps College David H. Culpepper, Millsaps College Penelope J. Prenshaw, Millsaps College

Classroom Camera: Friend, Foe, or Tool for Reflection?

Timothy Lewis, Auburn University at Montgomery Margaret L. Rice, The University of Alabama Brooke A. Burks, Auburn University at Montgomery

Bringing Lesson Study to Teacher Education: Simultaneously Impacting Preservice and Classroom Teachers Rosemarie Michaels, Dominican University of California

How Do Teachers Support Reading Comprehension?

Bruce A. Murray, Auburn University Brian Parr, Auburn University Cristen Pratt Herring, Auburn (Alabama) City Schools Le’Nessa L. Clark, Auburn University

A Cross Cultural, Comparative Analysis of Teamwork to Embrace Diversity in Schools Shaila M. Rao, Western Michigan University Cristina Cardona, University of Alicante, Spain Randall Soffer, University of St. Thomas

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241 855‐855‐8764 ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)