GATEways 1999 (Volume 11 Issue 2)

GA TEways to Teacher Education The Journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators published by

GATE and Kennesaw State University Volume XI (2) Spring 1999

Editor Diane L. Willey, Kennesaw State University

Officers ofthe Association President: Sam Hausfather, Berry College President Elect: Charles Love, Georgia College and State University Past President Price Michael, State University of West Georgia Secretary: Jeana French, Thomas College Treasurer: Jackie Castleman, Tattnall County (GA) Schools Executive Secretary: Eugene Bales, Atlanta (GA) Public Schools (retired)

Editorial Board Jacqueline Anglin, Berry College (GA) Fanchon Funk, Florida State University Edith Guyton, Georgia State University Price Michael, State University of West Georgia Linda Shearon, Marietta City Schools (GA) Kirsten Skarstad, Emporia State University (KS) Edwina Void, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Deborah S. Wallace, Kennesaw State University (GA) Cover Design Chris Jansen, Kennesaw State University

GATEways to Teacher Education

1

From the Editor This Spring 1999 issue of GATEways is the second of Volume Xl, which resulted from having more than double the usual number of submissions, and having the reviewers recommend accepting eight of them for publication. The issue is non-thematic. The articles address a variety of topics about education. I hope you will find them valuable for dialog about improving teacher education at your institutions.

This issue is the last of my editorship. Jackie Anglin of Berry College is the new editor beginning with tlle Fall 1999 issue. Best wishes to her and thanks to all of you who have helped make the Journal a success for the past three years!

The Journal is a resource and representation of our organization. I invite you to continue to contribute to its health and well-being by submitting articles, by sharing the publication with colleagues and encouraging them to submit material, and by offering feedback and suggestions for improvement. With our efforts, GATEways will continue to grow. Thank you for your support.

Diane Willey Editor

2

GATEways Volwne XJ(2) Spring 1999

GATEways to Teacher Education Volume XI (2) Spring 1999 Table of Contents PIRATE: Partnerships in Reform and Teacher Education A Rural Professional Development School Model ............ 4

TerriL. Wenzlaff & Nancy Gaylen Western State College

Practicing What We Preach: Team Teaching at the College Level .....••.........•.•.......•.. 22

Vicki A. Wilson & Kaye M. Martin Muskingum College

In Praise of American Education: Four Questions Regarding American Schools That Need Re-Examining .............................................. 34

Dara V. Wakefield LaGrange College Empowering Teachers: Acting Upon Action Research ....................................... 44

Robert A. Schwartz, John R. Slate, & Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie Valdosta State University

GATEft'BfS to Teacher Education

3

Wenzlaff & Gaylen

PIRATE: Partnerships in Reform and Teacher Education A Rural Professional Development School Model TerriL. WenzlafT & Nancy Gaylen Western State College

Abstract: The authors describe a professional development school model at a sn1all, four-year liberal arts college located in a rural area on the Western Slope of Colorado. The professional development school is identified by the name PIRATE (Partnerships In Reform And Teacher Education). The concept of PIRATE was initiated in a university setting with an urban population and "transplanted" to Colorado. The authors share with readers the pros and cons of implementing a professional development school in a small community as compared to an urban area. Program development jron1 the earliest step to where the program has evolved is described as well as the current program framework, goals, and responsibilities of all progrant participants (college professors, public school teachers, and education students). The program evaluation by public school teachers and education students is described for the reader.

Why Professional Development Schools?

Although not an entirely new idea, professional development schools are springing up and being discussed all over the country.

In fact, at the 1998 Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) annual meeting, of a total of 455 events, including thematic sessions, workshops, professional clinics, general session panels, special events, research report presentations, and special interest 4

GATEways Volwne Xl(l) Spring 1999

PIRATE

group sessions, 27 had the words "professional development school" in the title and another 50 referred to "collaborations" and/or "partnerships" between higher education and K-12 schools.

Several of the remaining sessions alluded to the concept of professional development schools and partnering. However, the basic concept underlying the Professional Development School (PDS) where elementary and/or secondary school teachers learn and research with preservice teachers is not a new idea.

The idea of professional development schools is grounded within the work of John Dewey (1904/1974). The professional development school models of today differ significantly from the time of John Dewey's Laboratory School at the University of Chicago (Dewey, 1896). Today's professional development school models differ from Dewey's time in that today' s schools have a different set of concerns and issues within a different context of schooling. The purposes of Dewey's Laboratory School were to exhibit, test, and criticize ideas about how children learn and to watch children and discover how they learn. While encompassing Dewey's purposes, the professional development school of today focuses on the te~ching experience and professional development of preservice, veteran, and higher education teacher educators.

Although the professional development school concept is not a new idea in the realm of education, it is a popular topic of discussion in the teaching and learning arena.

Many school and higher education partnerships are based on the premise of equal partners working together in a mutually beneficial relationship (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988). Professional developments schools create a new institutional coalition of schools of education and public schools, a coalition based on the notion of troe reciprocity (Holmes Group, 1990). PDSs have three main goals: to support student learning, to support the professional education of novice and veteran teachers, and to encourage inquiry and research related to educational practice (Levine, 1988, 1992, 1998). Extending beyond other school GATEways to Teacher Education

5

Wenzlaff & Gaylen

reform efforts, PDSs offer promising possibilities in creating new frames for teacher learning, building new ways of knowing, and providing new opportunities for mutual restructuring of schools and universities (Darling-Hammond, 1994).

The PDS and "ER" Today's professional development school has been likened to the teaching hospital concept. Like the teaching hospital, the PDS places an emphasis on teaching and learning in clinical settings and links research and practice; it combines services to clients with the education of professionals. And like a teaching hospital, it is meant to provide exemplars of good practice and model an institution which supports good practice (Levine, 1997). For the purposes of comparison, take a moment to visualize the popular, prime time series "ER," and then we will draw some relationships between "ER" and the PDS. The PDS weaves together the strands of teacher education and school refonn and because of this may well play a pivotal role in ensuring that the teachers we are preparing today can meet the challenges of tomorrow. The professional development school is designed to support the preparation of teachers as professionalspractitioners who can think, analyze, and make knowledge-based decisions and implement them effectively. In a teaching hospital there are experienced attending doctors; residents observing and learning from the doctors periodically have the opportunity to practice medicine. The resident doctor is on occasion asked to make a diagnosis or to fill in for a doctor in minor situations..

Sometimes by simply being in the "right place at the right time" the resident may be in a position to make some important decisions.

Although the dynamics in schools are not exactly like those in hospitals, there is a dynamic which many individuals do not 6

GATEways Volwne XI(2) Sprlng 1999

PIRATE

understand unless they are involved in the day-to-day school community. There are sometimes large and/or small crises that arise, and due to the interaction and dynamic of being human, those crises must be addressed immediately or a sense of effectiveness is lost. The dynamic of practicing medicine can be paralleled to the dynamic of teaching children in that "rounds" or "class schedules" may be set, but, due to the essence of human nature, crises or incidents may occur without warning or planned preparation.

The dynamic of working in a professional development school has been realized by the PIRATE students. As with most PDS preservice teachers, there are small crises which arise that can never really be planned for within the realm of public school classrooms. For example, a PIRATE student working in a second grade classroom this past year found himself stepping into the role of teacher-in-charge while the teacher attended to Georgie who was wreaking havoc in the boys' room. As the PIRATE student stepped in, he found an immediate need to recall methods coursework as well as practicum experiences in order to teach a lesson that provided the remaining children in the classroom with a learning atmosphere. In another situation, PIRATE student Emily received a new non-English speaking student in the first grade.

The first grader, Freddie, bad been beaten up on the playground and sent to the counselor's office to have explained to him why someone would beat him up on the playground. The PIRATE student observed first hand issues of diversity and gained an understanding of racial differences - a "real connection" to discussions of those topics in Educational Psychology!

While testing a first grader, a PIRATE student discovered that one child was reading at a third grade level and immediately went to the third grade classroom to acquire third-grade reading-level materials in order to gain a clearer understanding of the student's reading ability. This was an immediate decision the PIR.ATE student needed to make for reasons of motivation and purposes of GATEways to Teacher Education

7

Wenzlaff & Guylen

accurate reading assessment, both topics in elementary methods courses. As a seventh grade student verbally abused a PIRATE student, the PIRATE student imn1ediately recalled classroom management and discipline issues and reacted in a proactive manner, thus recalling Glasser's Reality Theory. An eighth grade, gifted math student, who was constantly misbehaving and "acting out" was a success for a PIRATE student who was able to motivate and connect the student's abilities and skills with the current math work. The preceding accounts are examples of preservice teachers working within situations where they were being directly supervised by a veteran teacher, yet in a place where they needed to act immediately frotn a knowledge base.

As is the case with medical residents, acting on a "hunch" is not wise, but connecting what has been learned to a given situation is the essence of learning as a professional. As with a teaching hospital where doctors work with interns and discuss the day's medical cases, veteran and preservice teachers are asked to join college professors for a discussion ofthe day's events and address how theory connects to the practice of teaching and learning, as well as student learning styles, conferencing skills, the research regarding assessment, and available technology.

PIRATE (Partnerships in Reform and Teacher Education) We will share in this article an "emerging" professional development school in a small rural area. We work in a four-year, liberal arts college on the Western Slope of Colorado with a school district that has 129 teachers in the K-12 schools. This past year a professional development school was piloted in the local school with support of many teachers and the administration team.

Because we are a small institution in a small community we have some luxuries not available to larger colleges and universities.

8 路 GATEways Volume Xl(2) Spring 1999

PIRATE

These luxuries afforded us opportunities to begin our pilot quickly and make our PDS somewhat unique. We have a positive one-onone relationship with almost all of the district's teachers; we are occasionally able to teach public school teacher's classes. There is no need to 'check in' at the office because everyone knows who we are and why we are there. It is a very comfortable environment for teaching and learning.

On the other hand, the work we do has another level of importance. Since we are small, we have an unique situation that sets us apart from many of our colleagues in larger institutions.

Our uniqueness stems from the fact that we are the "only game in town" and, if we do not perform, the game is over, at least until the next season. If we do not maintain our professionalism, if we "make mistakes" in some realm, we could very well show up on the front page of the local newspaper or be the unfavorable topic of conversation in the teachers' lounge. It is always showtime; we must be "on" with our colleagues at the public schools or we will be on the bench. So, while we appreciate our small, unique, and special relationship with our K-12 partners, we also know that we cannot let them down because we are the "only" team from campus and they are counting on us as professionals.

In this article we will describe for the reader yet another "budding" account of a PDS program. After we explain the framework of our program, we will share what we have learned from our experience and the growing pains of the program currently in place. The following is our account of the PIRATE (Partnerships in Reform and Teacher Education) Program, a professional development school model for a rural college and school district on the \Vestem Slope of Colorado.

\Vhat is the PIRATE Program?

The PIRATE Program was actually created by two assistant professors in the School of Education at North Dakota State University (NDSU) in Fargo, North Dakota. After the first year GATEways to Tencher F..dut'atlon

9

Wenz[aff & Gaylen

of the PIRATE Program at NDSU, one of the faculty 1nembers left NDSU for a sma11, four -year liberal arts college on the \\'estern Slope of Colorado. The faculty men1ber transferred the idea to the new location and attempted to replicate its existence in the new setting. The new setting included a much smaller school district, with a drastically smaller number of teachers, and a smaller campus faculty to implement the program above the typical teaching and student teacher supervision load. The following is our account of the beginning stages of implementing the PIRATE Program.

PIRATE Approval The first step of program development was receiving department of teacher education approval from a retiring faculty~ the faculty was unsure of this professional development school model and discussion ensued as to how it was different from the Lab Schools of a generation ago supported by Dewey followers of the past. The conversation with faculty was crucial, and approval was necessary in order to begin discussions with school district personnel about the possibilities of beginning the PIRATE Program in the local school district. After much department discussion, it was decided that we could begin discussions with the school district. Since there wa& great delay in getting department approval, it was spring semester before the first discussions with the school superintendent were scheduled. The first meeting with the superintendent was positive and the green light was given to gather interested teachers and discuss the possibilities of implementing a professional development school the following fall.

We scheduled a meeting of all interested district teachers for the next week.

We first educated the faculty in the education department and then the K-12 teachers at the local schools. At that first public school meeting we had a good showing of teachers. There were approximately 15 teachers present with many others calling to say 10

GATEways Volume Xl(2) Spring 1999

PIRATE

they already had other commitments during the meeting time, but to place them on the interest list. Subsequent meetings were held to discuss such things as: What is a professional development school? How should a PDS be organized? Who were the players in a PDS? What do PDS teachers, college education professors, and education students do within a PDS? What would it look like? And, what were the benefits for the teachers?

Those Htough" questions as well as many others were responded to through many group discussions, one-on-one interactions, school board presentations, as well as department of education discussions on campus. The following discussion shows how we further developed the original NDSU PIRATE Program and made changes as a result of discussions with teachers and administrators in our own school district.

Framework for the PIRA'fE Program The PIRATE Program provided a year-long internship for promising teacher education candidates. During the first semester, the PIRATE students assisted K-12 teachers as aides, shadowed administrators, counselors, and other school personnel, tutored students, worked with small student groups, monitored portfolio development, assisted with assessment of district standards, as well as began the process of teaching students. At the fall school district inservice, PIRATE students worked with groups of teachers in departments or grade levels representing their area of study. PIRATE students attended seminars led by both district and college teacher educators to supplement their practical experience.

Practical experience and seminars enabled students to meet performance standards for several professional education courses to be delineated within individual PIRATE teacher contracts.

The determination of how PIRATE students n1et contract standards was developed cooperatively by all teacher educators. In order to assure that the PIRATE students 路were eligible for teacher licensure, they enrolled in and ~eceived credit upon completion of GATEways to Teacher Education

11

Wenzlaff & Gaylen

course standards for those professional development courses listed in individual student contracts. The second semester of the program involved a full semester of student teaching, thus teacher education. students were participants for a complete school year from fall inservice to nearly the onset of summer break.

PIRATE Program Goals The PIRATE Program has been designed to accomplish the following goals: • improve the quality of the training components of preservice teacher education, o build stronger ties between the K-12 schools and the college teacher education program, • provide professional development opportunities for veteran teachers at low cost, • improve the quality of teacher education candidates, • bridge the "theory-to-practice" gap between college preparation and actual teaching practice, • improve the quality of education for K-12 students through preparing teachers with extensive classroom experience prior to licensure and increasing the availability of one-to-one and small group instruction by PIRATE students acting as aides and tutors in host schools, • increase the opportunity for college faculty to be active in K12 settings, and • increase the communication between practitioners and those charged with preparing teachers for practice.

Anticipated Results/Benefits/1m pact Potential results, benefits, and/or impacts of the PIRATE Program include: 1. enhanced learning at all levels of schooling.

2. strengthened relationships across K-16 education.

3. inservice and professional development opportunities for 12

GATEways Volume XI(2) Spring 1999

PIRATE

school district teacher educators.

4. PIRATE students assisting and learning from teachers in public school classrooms.

5. PIRATE students moving more quickly into full-time teaching as student teachers.

6. improved, expanded, and more authentic preparation for new teachers.

7. public school teacher educators having the opportunity for a more active role in teacher education and reflection.

8. an avenue for public school teacher educators to obtain National Board Certification.

9. graduate/recertification credit for public school teacher educators in areas such curriculum development, teambuilding, reading, etc. (to be determined by public school teacher educators).

10. another "set ofhands" for monitoring, assisting, and supervising students at all levels.

11 . establishment of common planning time for public school teacher educators.

12. an opportunity to involve college teacher educators in public school classrooms, which can assist in developing better understanding of the K-16 program.

13 . a more assured quality of student teacher because PIRA.TE students are selected by all teacher educators (public school and college teachers).

14. an avenue to establish another type of foundation for teacher preparation.

The professional development school model represented by the PIRATE路Project has the potential to become the standard for teacher preparation across the country and to become institutionalized, thus changing traditional teacher education as we currently know it. As criteria fbr teacher licensure becomes more performance-based, the need for students to gain experience in the GATEways to Teacher Education

13

Wenz/.aff & Gaylen

real-world setting of the public school will grow.

What will the academic year look like?

After forming the premise for the PIRATE Program, the next question to be answered was "How will this really look when school starts next fall?" An orientation luncheon meeting was held to provide an overview of the program and give teachers and PIRATE students an opportunity to discuss PIRATE Program goals, set their respective schedules and in general determine how the first days of the program would unfold. PIRATE students attended district inservice activities with teacher and college professors. Seminars were scheduled twice a week, a Tuesday lunch seminar and a Thursday after-school seminar. PIRATE students were at the school sites two full days a week, Tuesday and Thursday.

Once school began and everyone assumed their routines, PIRATE students worked within departments and/or grade levels or a block of grade levels. PIRATE students acted as "apprentices" for the teachers-more than as aides, but not quite as student teachers. PIRATE students were to complete PIRATE activities and contractual requirements in addition to working with teachers. Exact times for what would occur when and accomplishment of activities and contractual requirements were dependent upon the dynamics of the public school teachers' routine, schedule, etc.

PIRATE Participant Responsibilities PIRATE participants all had responsibilities to meet for the program, which are presented in the following lists.

PIRATE Students 1. Be on time at the school site during PIRATE days 2. Notify the school site and college PIRATE teachers in case of an emergency which could make you late to the school site 14

GATEways VolwneXI(2) Spring 1999

PIRATE

3. Adhere to the policies and procedures of the RElJ district 4. As a PIRATE participant you must act as a professional at the school site 5. Complete all contractual course requirements 6. Develop a professional teaching portfolio 7. Maintain an interactive journal

PIRATE School Teachers 1. Model for preservice teachers 2. Practice team planning/teaching 3. Observe 4. Conference 5. Perform three-fold evaluation (PIRATE Students/Process/Program) 6. Assist in planning and participating in seminars 7. Share your expertise with PIRATE students and college teachers 8. Voice concerns to the PIRATE students and college teachers 9. Guide PIRATE students in their development as professionals 10. Assist PIRATE students to be reflective and realize the bridge from theory to practice PIRATE College Teachers 1. Motivate the process/program 2. Coordinate the expertise of public school teachers and college faculty 3. Assist PIRATE students with the transition from campus to school 4. Balance campus load and responsibilities 5. Model for preservice teachers and public school teachers 6. Practice team planning/teaching 7. Observe 8. Conference 9. Perform three-fold evaluation (PIRATE GATEway!! to Teacher Education

15

Wenzlaff & Gaylen

Students/Process/Program) 10. Assist in planning and participating in seminars 11. Coordinate PIRATE activities and schedules 12. Guide PIRATE students in their development as professionals 13. Assist PIRATE students to be reflective and realize the bridge from theory to practice 14. 路Investigate and correct concerns as they occur 15. Facilitate collaboration and interaction among all participants 16. Refine and revise the PIRATE program as needed

How did it Work?

At the end of the first semester there was a gathering of PIRATE teachers and students as well as education professors and school district adrninistra~ors. The purpose of the gathering was to determine the success of the program. The evaluation of the PIRATE Program focused on program goals. An accounting of the results of that gathering is presented below. Each program goal is stated and followed by a generalization of responses from program participants.

PIRATE Program Goal l. The PIRATE Program has improved the quality of the training components ofpreservice teacher yes no education.

Yes, because the student is better prepared because of on-site experience in curriculum and standards. The PIRATE program seems to produce a more serious student. It has been positive, but there is room for modification to make sure that theory is connected to practice.

Program Goal 2. The PIRATE Progran1 has helped to build stronger ties between the K-12 schools and the college teacher education progran1. yes no

16

GATEways Voluntt' Xl(2) Spring 1999

PIRATE

Yes, to be very honest, it has changed my perception of the "typical" education professor. There is increased opportunity for communication, but we need to continue developing the connection through more cooperative seminars.

Program Goal 3. The PIRATE Program has provided professional development opportunities for veteran teachers at low cost. yes no Yes and no. I think I did not take full advantage of the opportunities, seminar sessions would have been crucial to this.

The seminars that I was able to attend were good, other seminars were at the wrong time.

Program Goal4. The PIRATE Program has improved the quality of teacher education candidates. yes no Yes, but I really cannot tell. From listening to the discussion tonight, I would say yes. I think too much course work was replaced by practical experience. I don't think the experience should fill all requirements the traditional courses could. There should be a limit on the number of courses the experience is replacing.

Program GoalS. The PIRATE Program has bridged the ''theoryto-practice" gap between college preparation and actual yes no teaching practice.

Yes, ideally yes, I think it's partly my fault that I didn't get the theory across. In some ways I think we have compromised both theory and practice. This is an area that needs to be strengthened for next year.

Program Goal6. T71e PIRATE Program has improved the quality GATEways to Tca,路her Education

17

Wenzlaff & Gaylen

of education for K-12 students through preparing teachers with extensive classroom experience prior to licensure and increasing the availability of one-to-one and small group instruction by PIRATE students acting as aides and tutors in host schools. yes no Yes, the transition from traditional student teaching in which the classroom teacher "turns over" the responsibilities of instruction to the student teacher has had a major benefit for the children. They now have the experienced teacher and the student teacher sharing instruction. Students received a lot of tutoring, especially slower students. The theory is great; I think time will tell and all the revamping which will occur for next year.

Program Goal 7. The PIRATE Program has increased the opportunity for college faculty to be active in K-12 settings. yes no Yes, have seen more of the college professors than ever before~ it's great!

Program Goal 8. The PIRATE Program has increased the communication between practitioners and those charged with no preparing teachersfor practice. yes Yes.

Did the PmATE Program Make a Difference?

Overall, along with the teachers we would say yes, the program has been successful because as college education professors we have made great gains in "connecting" with our colleagues in the public schools. There is a sense of realness and 18

GATEways Volumt Xl(2) Spring 1999

PIRATE

trust in our relationships. Since we are a small PDS in a small community we cannot hide behind statistics. We are accountable and responsible, as is the case in all PDS programs; we just happen to be in the showcase of a small community. Each and every education professor in our department is critical to our success; each one ofus directly affects college and K-12 student learning through our interactions with classroom teachers.

More than ever, we have realized the need to build time into our teaching and supervision loads in order to be the type of active participants we believe necessary in a PDS. Time built into the program for classroom teachers and college professors is critical to the success of the program. We realize that the connection of theory to practice was not as strong as it could have been, and we also realize that time will help us to make those connections for preservice teachers. There needs to be time for discussion and reflection about all aspects of teaching and learning. Without time set-aside, many key connections cannot be made by teachers and students.

It is our belief that one of the most important aspects of the program, trust, is in place, and therefore we can move forward in working out the "bugs" such as schedules, requirements=- and helping to make connections in learning for both the veteran and preservice teachers. K-12 teachers know we share their goal of student learning as a top priority.

References Dar1ingH.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. New York: Teachers College Press.

GATEways to Teacher l:ducation

19

Wenzlaff & Gaylen

Dewey, J. (1896). The university school. University Record, 5, 417-442.

Dewey, J. {1974). The relation of theory to practice in education.

In R. D . Arachambault (ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(Original work published in 1904).

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Levine, M. (1998). Professional practice schools: Building a model. Washington, DC: Center for Restructuring, American Federation of Teachers.

Levine, M. (1992). A conceptual framework for professional practice schools. In M. Levine (Ed.), Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school reform (pp.8-24). New York: Teachers College Press.

Levine, M., & Trachtman, R. (Eds.). (1998). Making professional development schools work: Politics, practices, and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sirotnik, K. A., & Goodlad, J I. (Eds.). (1988). Schooluniversity partnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns. New York: Teachers College Press.

20

GATE\\路ays Volwne Xl (l ) Spring 1999

PIRATE

TerriL.. Wenzlaff is an assistant professor in teacher education at Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado. Dr. Wenzlafrs interests are in professional development schools, portfolio development, and constructivism.

Her background includes 15 years in the public schools as a classroom teacher, building principal, and K-12 curriculum director.

Nancy Gaylen is an associate professor in teacher education at Western State College in Gunnison, Colorado. Dr. Gaylen's interests are in professional development schools, portfolio development, and curriculum development as well as assessment. Her background experiences in teaching are at the elementary level.

Contact Dr. Terri L. Wenzlaff at: 1120 Kelley Hall Teacher Education Western State College Gunnison, CO 81231 voice: 970.943.2135 fax: 970.943.7069 twenzlaff@westem.edu

GATEways to Teacher Education

21

Wilson & Martin

Practicing What We Preach: Team Teaching at the College Level Vicki A. Wilson & Kaye M. Martin Muskingum College

Abstract The authors describe their experiences with tean1 teaching an undergraduate course in science, social studies, and mathematics nzethods for the elementary school. In working together, they discovered that team teachers must have similar philosophies of teaching and learning, strong psyches, and commitment to team teaching and continuous improvement. They learned that they nlust maintain flexibility, quickly moving between the roles of coplanner, muse, cheerleader, critic, and teacher 's aide. As they gained experience in co-presenting, they learned to move from a tag team approach in which first one presents and then the other presents to a ~~duet" in which both maintain an instructional conversation. Benefits of team teaching include mentoring for the junior member of the team, sharing of ideas and materials, gaining support for risk-taking, having a sounding board for decisions about grades, and promoting a more reflective style of teaching. Benefits for students include experiencing two perspectives on complex issues, better student-faculty relationships, and a higher degree of interest in the course.

Overview of the Course For the past four semesters, we have team taught Teaching Science and Social Studies in Elementary Schools and Teaching Mathematics in Elementary Schools, the eight-semester-hour 22

GATEways Volume Xl(2) Spring 1999

College-Level Team Teaching

"inquiry block" for preservice teachers at Muskingum College.

The students, numbering from 18 to 24, are mostly juniors who have completed one course in principles of curriculum and instruction and have been admitted to the Department of Education. Following the inquiry block, students enroll in a "literacy block" of reading, language arts, and children's literature.

Both blocks include field experiences in local elementary schools in preparation for student teaching.

To accommodate differences in recommendations by learned societies for teaching mathematics, science, and social studies, time is blocked to include single-subject instruction as well as integrated topics. Methods specific to teaching social studies and science are addressed on Mondays, mathematics pedagogy is covered on Fridays, and Wednesdays are reserved for exploring strategies useful for all three disciplines.

We plan the course to include the following areas of integration: 1) coordination of course content among the three disciplines, 2) team teaching of strategies common to all disciplines, and 3) coordination of integrated course assigrunents.

In coordinating course content, for example, we plan lessons addressing curriculum standards in mathematics, science, and social studies for the same week. Such coordination allows the students to draw inferences about standards in general, as well as gain specific infonnation about each set. Working with standards intensely for a short period--and seeing them used in a variety of situations--makes a much greater impact than would a lesscoordinated approach. Other areas of coordination include emphasis on concepts and generalizations, planning, and assessment. In modeling strategies for planning and implementing instruction, we choose topics that lend themselves to integration across all three disciplines plus art and children's literature (e. g., Native Americans: Many Peoples, Many Moons).

Instructional strategies common to all three disciplines are taught once, with examples drawn from various fields. These

U'ilson & Martin

strategies include cooperative learning, authentic assessment, and questioning techniques.

The major assignment for the block, a two-week unit for presentation and display at a Curriculum Unit Fair, requires integration of mathematics, science, and social studies, and can also include literature, music, and art. Journal assignments and field experiences are designed to include all three "inquiry" disciplines. Finally, course requirements are coordinated so that assignments and quizzes are spread throughout the term, thus avoiding the students' lament that projects for all classes are always due at the same time.

Our Team Teaching Roles As we become more experienced in team teaching, we find ourselves taking on and developing many different roles. Among the personae we have adopted are co-planner, muse, cheerleader, critic, and teacher's aide.

Although our co-planning role is most evident at the beginning of each term as we organize the topics and sequence for the course syllabi, we confer nearly daily throughout the term to coordinate the details of each presentation, assuring a variety of educational experiences for our students. A more teacher-directed lesson in science, for example, might be balanced by a more hands路 on lesson in social studies. As we become more accustomed to working together, we find that we are spending less time in planning. We know each other's material, strategies, and even punch lines, so blending our material to support and reinforce common objectives has become relatively easy. We have also developed a common vocabulary; it is no longer necessary to explain each lesson to each other. We know what is meant by "the bread lesson," "the PRAXIS introduction," and "the Curriculum Fair."

24

GATEways Volwne Xl(2) Spring 1999

College-Level Team Teaching

The role of muse is often played--and always appreciated. Our many and varied experiences in all kinds of educational settings mean a collective wealth of creative ideas. Lack of inspiration by one of us is nearly always countered by a useful--and sometimes brilliant--suggestion by the other. This role, too, has changed as we gain experience working together. In our early weeks of team teaching, we looked for help primarily during planning. Now we feel free to inteiject ideas as the lesson is progressing, often prompting stories or insights that we know the other one has in her repertoire.

As cheerleaders for each other, we counter the oftendeadening isolation of the classroom. Who among us has not asked a perfectly-worded and fascinating question, only to be greeted by the blank stares of undergraduates? Who has not planned the "perfect" lesson, only to have the thing fall apart as the audience was less enthusiastic and inspired than the presenter?

It is comforting to have an understanding colleague to say, "Some days are dia_n:onds, some days are stone." And as critics, we hold the mirror of serious reflection for each other, assuring that our failures are examined and improved. Perhaps more importantly, we are assured that our triumphs will be celebrated.

We also occasionally serve as "divemaster," the person who watches the students for signs of distress while the instructor teaches. As observers not immediately on the stage, we are able to clear up students' misunderstandings or misinterpretations in instruction.

Another important role is that of teacher's aide. When we're short a copy, or when the masking tape that is usually in the classroom has walked away, we are available to handle the logistics without unduly disrupting the flow of the class. One of us is always available to give extra attention to individual students or groups.

GATEways to Teacher Education

25

Wilson & Martin

The Educating of Team Teachers: Team Teaching 201 When we began this experiment, we were both fairly adept at working with other people, but had little experience in team teaching. In retrospect, most of our early teaching was in fact merely co-teaching, a "you do this, and I'll do that" strategy which Bocchino and Bocchino ( 1997) call a "tag team." We have retained this strategy, but have added to our repertoire: 1) "Speak and Chart" in which one of us writes while the other talks, 2) "Perform and Comment" in which one of us models a teaching strategy or technique while the other comments on the performance, and 3) "Speak and Add" in which one member presents information while the other adds "color" with stories, examples, and humor. Occasionally, we hit the epitome of teaming, the "Duet," in which both present the lesson in a seamless whole. We agree with Bocchino and Bocchino that this strategy requires trust, briefing and debriefing, and lots of practice.

Because of the differences in our learning styles, we have become much more aware of the differences in those of our students. At the beginning of each term, we administer a learning styles inventory, then perform a cluster analysis of the results to develop a clearer picture of the learning style preferences of that term's students. We plan each day's lesson so that each cluster will have at least some preferred activities: visual and auditory, kinesthetic and less active, group and individual. We also build a great deal of choice into each lesson: students can often choose whether to 路work alone or in groups and to complete an objective by reading, discussing, or making a picture or model.

We have become much more adept at recognizing areas of integration. Although students get credit for mathematics methods, social studies methods, and science methods, we now integrate our teaching of assessment, curriculum integration, multiple intelligences, national and state standards, classroom management techniques, and lesson planning. These topics cut 26

GATEways Volwne X1(2) Spring 1999

College-Level Team Teaching

across discipline lines and are taught much more efficiently once rather than in each of several methods courses. We find that we are able to reinforce important concepts, using examples from many areas, rather than boring students with multiple cursory overviews of the elements common to all disciplines. This year we have introduced the Educational Testing Service's PRAXIS III, a teaching performance assessment tool being piloted in the state of Ohio. Students have learned the vocabulary and procedures of the assessment instrument and are able to apply them in any of the disciplines that they teach.

We have also become more aware of opportunities for discipline integration. We are quite adept at incorporating into nearly any lesson the process skills usually taught in science, the graphs and charts sometimes reserved for mathematics, and the reading strategies typically found in social studies and the language arts.

Our team teaching efforts have breathed the contagious spirit of teaming throughout our department. The art education teacher works closely with us to help students enhance their curriculum units; the introductory methods teacher requires student attendance at our students' Curriculum Unit Fair; and several colleagues in our department, seeing how much fun we have had with our team, have begun to cautiously experiment with collaboration.

Prerequisites for Team Teaching A study guide for the National Teachers Exam (Educational Testing Service, 1992, p. 118) reads as follows:

If team teaching is to be successful, the teachers involved must possess which of the following characteristics?

GATEways to Teacher Education

27

Wilson & Martin

(A) Equal popularity with the students they teach (B) Equivalent amounts of experiences (C) Similar backgrounds or training (D) Similar philosophies in terms of learning objectives (E) Similar approaches to the subject matter taught The answer is, of course, (D) . It is essential that both teachers have similar philosophies concerning students and the teaching/learning process. If the philosophy is shared, differences in the other elements--experience, backgrounds, and approaches-only enrich the team-teaching experience for both teachers and students.

Another prerequisite is a strong psyche. Team teachers share the stage in the classroom. One's teaching is constantly observed-and evaluated--by the other. The center of authority is constantly moving, with teachers being equal one moment and in a more or less dominant position the next. In addition, students are privy to the team-teaching relationship and as such are witnesses to apparent or implied differences of opinion.

A team teacher must be flexible. Both time and intended coverage of subject matter must be adjusted to accommodate the other team member. It takes a considerable amount of discipline not to infringe on the other's time--and an equal amount to be gracious when your time is infringed upon! Likewise, material covered by one teacher cannot be rehashed by the other. Only if there are new insights to be developed should the team teachers re-address an already covered topic.

It is imperative that both teachers be committed to the process of team teaching. Both must be willing to spend additional time in planning future lessons, in reflecting on and improving completed ones, and in jointly grading integrated projects. Both must be willing to solve problems as they arise rather than terminating the team teaching experience.

We have also discovered that it is important that both 28

GATEways Volume Xl(l) Spring 1999

College-Level Team Teaching

teachers be committed to the process of continuous improvement.

Only with this spirit can we move beyond merely co-teaching to truly working as a team.

Finally, we have learned that it takes time to develop the trust that is so essential to the development of the team teaching experience. After two years we are able to quite easily give--and take--constructive criticism.

Benefits for Team Teachers For us, the benefits of team teaching have been substantial.

First and foremost, the junior faculty member, in her first year at Muskingum College, had an ideal mentor in the senior faculty member. Administrative details, as well as scholastic expectations, were communicated; answers to questions about process and procedures were easily obtained.

We both highly value the creative ideas that develop as we discuss each lesson. The "give and take" of our discussions nearly always results in plans that are more complex and more complete than we could have developed on our own. Materials, as well as thoughts, are freely shared.

We push each other to higher standards of teaching. With a colleague in the classroom, we strive constantly to do our best.

We know, too, that our efforts, our insights, and our occasional moments of brilliance will be recognized and affinned.

We each serve as the other's sounding board, particularly in matters of student testing and grading. With two of us examining a situation, students are held to high academic standards while being guaranteed that their work is evaluated fairly .

An unexpected benefit is the support for risk-taking that tea1n teaching affords. We each feel that with the other's encouragement and professional insight we can try new strategies, knowing that the debriefing_ will be supportive and encouraging GATEways to Teacher Education

29

Wilson & Martin

and will result in improved future lessons.

Good team teaching necessarily results in a more reflective approach to teaching. We spend a great amount of time--often over lunch--discussing the course activities and reflecting on those strategies that seem to work and on those than do not work as well. Insights from the observing (as opposed to the actively teaching) partner often result in better adaptations of strategies to meet student needs and preferences. Immediate feedback from a peer is gratifying, especially when the class is less than demonstrative!

Finally, for us, team teaching has been just plain fun. We both missed the company of other adults when we taught in the public schools and enjoy the camaraderie evident in our joint classroom.

Benefits for Students As team teachers, we provide our students with an effective model of collaborative teaching. They directly experience the increases in creativity, discussion, and social interaction that inevitably come with tasks shared by companionable peers. In our student evaluations, students often comment on the effectiveness of team teaching and some wonder why anyone would ever want to teach alone. We, of course, reinforce this opinion by including a great deal of cooperative learning and team building in our teaching methods.

The students also benefit from experiencing two perspectives on complex issues. Often we agree; sometimes we disagree. It becomes apparent to students that there is often no one "right" answer, only the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of each alternative, to question reasons for a specific position~ and to decide for oneself how the issue should be addressed or the problem solved.

Because we allow students to 路witness our differences of 30

GATEways Volwne Xl(l) Spring 1999

College-Level Team Teaching

opinion, they feel that they know us as people as well as professors. Student evaluations reflect improved student-teacher relationships.

Students overwhelmingly agreed that having two teachers-especially for a three-hour block oftime!--is simply more interesting than having one. We agree.

Problems The primary problem with our team teaching experiment is the great amount of time it takes. One team teacher receives six hours of course credit for teaching the block; the other receives two. We each spend an additional two to three hours per week in class beyond what our course load assumes, as well as an additional one to two hours of planning. Luckily, our offices are close, and our schedules allow us to do much of our planning over lunch.

An additional and unanticipated problem is the increase in vocal and written comparisons of the teachers by the students.

Areas of comparison include teaching style, difficulty of testing, and perceived dominance in the classroom. This problem continues to perp1ex us because it invariably shows up on student evaluations. We feel that our teaching styles are very compatible, that our expectations are quite similar, and that our relationship is collegial, not hierarchical. One student's comment about a tendency to "one-upmanship" has led us to be more cautious about sharing perspectives and experiences. We realize that comparisons of faculty members are common among students; perhaps we invite more overt comparison by teaching together and by asking for feedback about team teaching on our course evaluations.

Another problem w~ struggle with is the lack of team teaching role models for our students. In few of the field-experience classrooms, do students get to see "rear' teachers working GATEways to Teacher Education

31

Wilson & Martin

collaboratively with others.

Possibilities For us, the benefits of team teaching far outweigh the problems. Our plans are to continue to team teach the inquiry block and to carry our integration of curriculum to the next step.

In the future, we intend to pursue the following: 1. Further integration of units on curriculum standards, assessment, and planning. Each of these units will revolve around Hessential questions" jointly developed by teachers and students to fully explore the topics. Class instruction and assignments will be directed toward searching for answers to the essential questions.

2. Development of the literacy block to integrate instruction in reading, language arts, and children's literature.

3 . Promotion of collaborative learning/teaching experiences for our pre-service teachers, including those registered in the inquiry and literacy blocks and in student teaching.

4. Promotion of collaborative teaching in our educational community.

We both feel strongly that our team teaching experiment is a work in progress: we still have more ideas than we have time to implement. As we seek to improve our courses through a collaborative effort, we hope to provide ever better experiences for our students and ourselves as teachers and learners.

32

GATE11t-ays VoJwne Xl(2) Spring 1999

College-Level Team Teaching

References Bocchino, R., & Bocchino, K. (1997, June). The art of presenting: Advanced techniques and strategies for facilitating transformational learning. Conference presented by the Ohio Department of Education, Division of Federal Assistance, Deer Creek State Park, Ohio.

Educational Testing Service. (1992). A Guide to the NTE Core Battery Tests. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Vicki A. Wilson is assistant professor of education at Muskingum College.

She holds an M.B.A. from the American University and a Ph.D. in Education from the University of Southern Mississippi. In addition to teaching mathematics and science methods for elementary education students, she teaches qualitative and quantitative research methods and sociology of education.

Kaye M. Martin, assistant professor of education and director of field experiences and student teaching at Muskingum College, holds a Ph.D. in Early and Middle Childhood Education from the Ohio State University. She teachers social studies methods for elementary education students and a wide range of reading and general methods courses. She recently coordinated development ofMuskingum College's program for teacher education in middle childhood education.

Contact Dr. Vicki A. Wilso_IJ.Jl.!: Dept. of Education Muskingum College New Concord, OH 43762 voice: 740.826.7070 fax: 740.826.8404 vwilson@muskingum.edu

GATEways to Teacher Education

33

Wakefield

In Praise of American Education: Four Questions Regarding American Schools That Need Re-Examining Dara V. Wakefield LaGrange College

Abstract Conten1porary educators encounter several false notions about education that have becon1e so pervasive the public accepts them as factual. The author cites contrary findings and makes suggestions regarding the following questions: • Can American students compete globally?

• Are American students weak in math and science?

• Are standardized tests the best measure of An1erica's educational success?

• Are public school teachers the epitome of mediocrity?

American public schools are doing well andjew nations can claim to be our equals in education. This level of exce lienee is directly attributable to our nation's innovative teacher education programs, state prqfessional standard.~ commissions, and the quality college and university students who choose to make personal sacrifices in order to become teachers.

Contemporary educators encounter several false notions about education that refuse to be dispelled. These notions have become so pervasive the public accepts them as factual. Clark Kerr, President Emeritus ofthe University of California wrote, "Seldom in the course ofpolicymaking in the U.S. have so many firm convictions held by so many been based on so little convincing proof." (Kerr, 1991, p. 30). Our nation should take a second look at what is happening in American schools and set the 34

GATEWB)''S Volumt Xl(l) Spring 1999

In Praise of American Education

record straight.

Can American Students Compete Globally?

A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) introduced America to the notion that its student~ were academically inferior to students of the same age in other countries. It referenced data gathered by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). However, IEA's data are suspect in terms of reliability and validity. As an American expatriate in Asia for ten years, the author observed much in Asian schools that the IEA researchers failed to consider. Stevenson (March, 1998) does a commendable job of highlighting some of these differences.

The IEA continues to ignore the effects culture and curriculum issues have upon their research. Such issues include cultural attitudes to\vard education, aggregate and specialty groupings, compulsory education, curriculun1 scope and sequence, differing instructional calendars, school and 'Social organization, language, sampling problems and many other issues that could single-handedly realign research findings. Berliner and Biddle {1995) note a study that indicates U.S. students study the materials being tested at later ages than their foreign counterparts.

Age-level comparisons may be doing nothing more than indicating 路what curriculum elements have or have not been taught at a given point in time.

The United States has been making key judgments about public education based upon apples and oranges comparisons. A Nation at Risk failed to reveal that U.S. schools are conscientiously educating the total student population, from disabled to gifted, in a milieu of "savage inequalities" (Kozel, 1991). The lEA research findings are almost certainly invalid and unreliable. Those who wish to glimpse a positive perspective of GATEways to Teacher Education

35

Wakefield

American education are encouraged to read Ian Westbury•s (1992) article Comparing American and Japanese Achievement: Is the United States Really a Lo·w Achiever ?

U.S. citizens have assumed foreign test-takers are a true random sample of the total population and study an identical curriculum with the same scope and sequence as ours. These assumptions are false. Reliable and valid measures for comparing age-level achievement among different cultures do not exist.

Therefore, research findings making definitive statements regarding how U.S. students compare with students from other nations should be taken with a grain of salt.

If the United States really wishes to see massive advances in learning and academic progress, perhaps the single most effective measure would be to lower the average public school class size to 15 or fewer students. When classes grow beyond 15 students, managerial, clerical, and discipline tasks take an inordinate amount of teaching time. This principle is easily understood in an assembly-line metaphor. If one increases the number of products to be completed in a set period of time, one shortens the time allotted each product. In the case of schools the product is the student. Having more students per class usually translates to less learning and less of a "family-like" environment. Smaller class sizes will revolutionize our public school systems.

Are American Students Weak in M ath and Science?

After World War II our nation was persuaded into believing· · that local and global success depended upon science and technology. Sputnik's orbit ofthe earth in 1957launched U.S . education into a scrambling race for global scientific superiority.

We came, we saw, we conquered.

The United States has led the world in the development of science and technology ever since. We have placed men on the 36

GATEways Volume XI(l) Spring 1999

In Praise of American Education

moon not once, but several times. We have found cures for diseases, made building-sized computers fit in the palm of one's hand, and countless other phenomenal breakthroughs. The United States has become synonymous with science and technology!

Now, in 1998, figures in government and education are crying about shortages of scientists and n1athematicians. The prediction is future gloom and doom if sornething is not done immediately. In spite of this outcry, the U.S. has led the world in percentage of college graduates in science for more than two decades (Sandia Nationaj Laboratories, 1993 ). Similar trends are evident in mathematics. American educators have forged ahead and completed tasks other nations could only dream about. All of this while suffering under the brutal whip of misguided public opinion.

Our nation's colleges and universities continue turning out ever-· increasing numbers of gr~duates in these fields; yet, few notice or recognize the l~vel of success \ve are having (Berliner & Biddle, 1995) . . tlo·:t pre-serv·ice math and science students are self-selected.

University math and science studr~nts who might consider the teaching profession are largely unrecrui~ed. Few teacher education departments actively recruit students from their school's math and ~;cience depaitnwnts. Educators rni3ht consider actively recruiting students into 11 pre-ed" programs that model succe3sful "pre-rr1ed" pro grant;. The key eler tent of such a program would be truthful, high···\'isibiiity information about teacher education that vvould :~dlow math and science stud~.::nts to make \vise, f.~duc :tted choices about the use of their talents. Effective recn.1iting practices on ca1npus could signifi ;antly increase the m.unb.::r of teacher candidates in these fields.

GATE:wa)S to Te;u·her Education

37

Wakefield

Are Standardized Tests the Best Measure of America's Educational Success?

American parents and politicians are not satisfied with only fifty percent of America's students being above average. The existence of such a notion is indicative of the unrealistic expectations placed upon our nation's teachers. Educators are being pressed by the public to move an increasing percentage of "below average" students to "above average" status. Yet, for every student that teachers move past ''average," the standardized scale re-centers, inches upward, and makes the task more difficult.

Of course, only 50 percent of our students taking standardized, norm-referenced tests can be above average. The rest are condemned as "below average."

In our culture it is untenable to be classified as "below average." Such labels are considered insensitive, prejudiced, politically incorrect, and denigrate one's "self路worth... The net result of achievement test fixation is grade inflation and expectations of the impossible. As long as standardized tests are used in this manner, teachers will come up looking like incompetents who fail to adequately teach half of their students.

All stakeholders in education need to face statistical reality.

No matter what we do, according to standardized tests, only half of our nation's students will be above average. Therefore we need to formulate appropriate practices for dealing with the reality of a bell-shaped curve. First, educational outsiders need to quit fixating on test scores as the ultimate evaluation of a student's learning or potential for success. A nation that attempts to "beat" standardized, norm-referenced achievement tests faces certain defeat in spiraling contests of increasing difficulty. This is the nature of the beast. It gathers strength when scores are higher and continuously re-centers its curve to the right of the last attack.

Fighting standardized tests is a futile, no-win proposition.

Furthermore, using achievement test scores to measure a teacher's 38

GATEways Volwne Xl(l) Spring 1999

In Praise ofAmerican Education

skills or a school's success is neither valid nor reliable. Constance and Mieko Kamii (1990) state, "These tests are not valid measures of children's learning or of teachers' accountability, and the pressure for higher test scores is resulting in classroom practices that are harmful to young children's development." (p.l5) With the growing body of knowledge we are acquiring about cognition, hemispheric preferences, multiple intelligences, and brain research, we should realize that there is more to education than high scores on standardized tests. Learning is difficult to assess and even more difficult to explain in cognitive terms.

Measures of intelligence and achievement are suspect even when dressed in their Sunday best.

The truth of the matter is that we all tend to remember whatever is necessary for survival in our world or is just plain fun.

How much of your schooling do you actually remember? i Como esta? What did Balboa discover? What happened in 1066? What is the atomic number of zinc? What happens in osmosis? How do you tie a shoe? What number should you dial in an emergency?

Learning used to seem to be about discovery, fun, and relevance; now, it is about outscoring children around the Pacific Rim on achievement tests. Is this right?

Are Public School Teachers the Epitome of Mediocrity?

The notion that teachers are an intellectually-challenged group continues to persist in the face of contrary evidence. Many have come to believe that pre-service teachers are acadenucally challenged and are the bottom-feeders in the student pool. This is an absurd allegation when one considers that to become a certified teacher one must academically surpass 70 to 80 percent of his or her high school classmates. In fact, teacher education programs are among the few academic majors that have minimum GPA requirements for admission and graduation. As college graduates, GATEways to Teacher Education

39

Wakefield

teachers make up a significant part of our nation's intelligencia.

Our nation's cadre of academically-trained teacher-professionals have shaped the nation through educating the nation's doctors, lawyers, engineers, and statesmen and women in their formative years. Only in the United States is it not unusual to have teachers with advanced professional degrees teaching "common 11 children in public schools.

Those who focus upon advancement, prestige, and high salaries usually do not give teaching a second glance. Though our culture demands competence and accountability from public school teachers, they are treated with thinly-cloaked disaffection.

While generally praising teachers for their commitment to youth and difficult working conditions, few wish to see teachers as bona fide professionals with professional-level salaries and benefits.

Kerr (1983) suggests many college students fail to become interested in teaching because of our cultural biases. Perhaps the following anonymous piece of prose best demonstrates this bias: I expect quality, professional health care from my doctor, and for that I pay dearly.

I expect quality, professional legal advice from my lawyer, and for that I pay dearly.

I expect quality, professional mechanical work from my mechanic, plumber, and electrician, and for that I pay dearly.

I expect quality, professional education for my children from their teachers, and for that I say, "Thank you."

Our nation can be thankful that teachers are drawn into teaching for intrinsic rather than extrinsic reasons. Teachers tend to be semi-romantic visionaries who believe they can change the world through educating young minds. The allure is not the reward, but the mission. Most teachers would agree that teaching is a calling or vocation, not just a job.

Berliner and Biddle (1995) state that more than 10 percent of the top fifth of the SAT scorers choose teacher education as their 40

GATE"'-ays Volume XI(l) Spring 1999

In Praise of American Education

major. On the one hand this information demonstrates that students of quality are going into teaching; on the other hand it also demonstrates that only about one student in ten will pass up "the good life" in favor of a profession that guarantees little prestige and few tangible rewards.

Question: What do you get when you combine the following? ~ one room o one professional ~ 20-30 clients with various problems that demand immediate attention @ constant interruptions limited time and resources ~ abundant criticism Answer: A day in the life of a public school teacher. <!)

What w路otlld happen if dentists, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals were placed in similar situations to ply their trade?

The outcry on the part of the professionals and those they serve would be instantaneous and immediate changes would be the order of the day. Public school teachers are amazing in that they accomplish so much under conditions other professionals would consider unacceptable.

Conclusion Lawrence Derthick, past U.S. Cornmissioner of Education, said, 11 0ur best schools are unsurpassed. We are confronted with the problem of how to spread the good practices of these best schools to all schools u (Baughman, 1963, p. 10 I). American public schools are doing a phenomenally great job. Few nations can claim to be our equals in education. Students, parents, educators, and statesmen and women should rise to defend the GATEwa~s

to Teucher Edu(~ation

~1

Wakefield

excellence and equality found in our public school systems. This level of excellence is directly attributable to our nation's innovative teacher education programs, state professional standards commissions, and the quality college and university students who choose to make personal sacrifices in order to become teachers.

It is doubtful that teachers will ever be given what they deserve in terms of financial rewards and advancement. Those actions would take acts of legislatures and increased taxes.

However, praise for teachers is within our grasp if we choose to give it. A word of praise or an expression of gratitude may not line one's pockets, but it might make all the difference at the end of a rough day in the classroom.

The road that teachers travel is lined not with gold, but rather with the faces of those who have learned under their hands. At the end of the journey there may be little in the cupboard; yet, the teacher has more than a Icing's ransom in memories. The coin of this realm is changed lives through teaching and learning. Teachers do not work for themselves; like soldiers, they serve to preserve the nation.

References Baughman, M. D. (1963). Educator's handbook of stories, quotes, and humor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berliner, D ., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis. New York: Longman.

Kamii, C., & Kamii, M. (1990). Achievement testing in the early grades: The games grown-ups play. In C. Kamii (Ed.), \\'by achievement testing should stop. Washington, D .C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Kerr, C. (1991, February 27). Is education really all that guilty?

Education Week, p. 30.

Kerr, D. (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in 42

GATEways Volume XI(l) Spring 1999

In Praise ofA merican Education

the United States. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds. ), Handbook of teaching and policy. (pp. 126-149). New York.

Kozel, J. {1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. 路N ew York: Crown.

National Commission on Excellence in Education ( 1984). A nation at risk: The imperatives for educational reform.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

Sandia National Laboratories (1993). Perspectives on education in America: An annotated briefing Journal of Educational Research, 86(5), 259-310.

Stevenson, H. (1998, March). A study of three cultures: Germany, Japan, and the United States- An overview ofTIMSS case study project. Kappan, 94(7).

Westbury, I. (1992). Comparing American and Japanese achievement: Is the United States really a low achiever?

Educational Researcher, 21(5), 18-24.

Dara W akefie1d is currently an assistant professor at LaGrange College where he teachers graduate and undergraduate classes in education and educational technology. He is a liberal arts generahst and has previous experience as an elementary teacher, school administrator, educational consultant in South Korea, and Korean language lecturer at Baylor University.

Current projects include character education in teacher education, math as language, mental triangulation theory, and the use of Microsoft software in the classroom. .Contact Dr. Dara Wakefield at: LaGrange College 60 I Broad Street LaGrange, GA 30240 vmce: 706.812.7203 fax: 706.812.7319 dwakefie@mentor .lgc. peachnet.edu

GATEways to Teacher Education

.&3

Schwartz et aL

Empowering Teachers: Acting Upon Action Research Robert A. Schwartz, John R. Slate, & Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie Valdosta State University

Abstract In many educational settings today, there is a strong emphasis on intproving schools and the educational process. To achieve substantial and nteaningful improvements requires an awareness of areas in which schools provide exemplary service and areas in which services could be improved. In addition, a knowledge base of how to initiate and implement a school improvement process must be established In this article, we examine ways in which action research can be used to facilitate school improvement efforts. A framework to create researchable questions and measurable variables will be provided to readers. Throughout this article, we will provide readers with school-based examples to demonstrate the applicability of the action research process to school improvement efforts.

In many educational settings today, there is a strong emphasis on improving schools and the educational process. To achieve substantial and meaningful improvements requires an awareness of areas in which schools provide exemplary service and areas in which services could be improved. In addition, a knowledge base of how to initiate and implement a school improvement process must be established. This knowledge base is best derived from research-based endeavors conducted by teachers themselves.

A version of this paper was presented at the Georgia Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (GACTE) /Georgia Association of Teacher Educators (GATE) Spring Conference, Jekyll Island, March 11-13, 1998.

44

GATEways Volmne Xl(l) Spring 1999

Empowering Teachers

These endeavors typically are undertaken using the actionresearch model, which allows educators to utilize scientific methods with the aim of solving problems within their environment.

What is Action Research?

The definition that we use to describe research is taken from Gay ( 1996), who defines education research as "the formal, systematic application of the scientific method to the study of educational problems" (p. 6). According to Gay, the purposes of educational research can be classified into one of two categories: basic research and applied research. Basic research involves the development of theory, whereas applied research is undertaken in order to test or to apply theory and to evaluate its utility in solving educational problems. However, these two purposes do not represent dichotomous processes, but rather lie on a continuum.

The majority of educational research studies, including action research, could be classified at the applied end of the continuum (Gay, 1996).

Action research is "the systematic study of attempts to change and improve educational practice by groups of participants by means oftheir own practical actions" (Ebbutt, 1985, p. 156).

Thus, to tum educational research into action researc~ the emphasis is placed on research that is directed towards classroomor school-based issues, questions, or probletns. In effect, action research changes the role of teachers from being the objects of the research to playing a major role in the research process (Miller & Pine, 1990).

Ross ( 1984) contends that action research helps teachers view educational research as being integrated with practice instead of being a process that is undertaken independently and then implemented by teachers. An action research project can be GATEways to Teacher Education

45

Schwartz et al.

undertaken by one teacher or, as is most often the case, by a team of teachers and/or administrators. Through action research, teachers have the opportunity to address research questions which are most meaningful to them and which will provide information that can be used to effect positive change (Lafleur, 1992; Nihlen, 1992). We believe that teachers who conduct research not only increase their levels of professionalism, but ultimately help schools to maximize the learning opportunities of their students.

Working with teachers for many years has led us to view action research as an eight-step cyclical process involving: {l)identifying an issue or problem to investigate; (2) gathering and reviewing relevant literature; (3) formulating research questions and/or hypotheses; (4)developing a research plan of action; ( 5)implementing the research plan; (6) analyzing the data and interpreting the findings; (7) communicating the findings; and (8)repeating the cycle with a modified problem or strategy derived from what was learned in the previous cycle (i.e., problem redefinition), until the research question is addressed in its entirety.

1. Identifying an Issue or Problem to Investigate All schools and school districts have one or more pressing issues that they would like to address. The first step in the process of addressing these issues is to identify the general problem area(s). If more than one general problem area exists, all parties involved in the action research project need to prioritize and agree upon the most pressing problem. Where agreement is difficult, methods such as the Delphi technique (Couper, 1984) can be utilized. The Delphi technique is used to measure the opinions of a, group of experts and to determine priorities. The advantage of this technique is that the opinions of individuals cannot be unduly influenced by the persuasive behavior of dominant members of the group.

In order to implement the technique, a questionnaire is 46

GATEways Volwne XI(l) Spring 1999

Empowering Teachers

developed~

asking teachers and/or administrators to provide a list of pressing issues that they feel affect their practice. The investigators ¡would then collate this information and construct a questionnaire, comprising closed-ended questions, which ask respondents to rate how they perceive the importance of each problem listed. The questionnaires are then returned to the researchers, and the results are summarized. Issues on the questionnaire which do not secure high overall ratings are then removed, and a revised third questionnaire sent out and then returned for analysis--at which point~ again, the items with low overall ratings are removed. This procedure is repeated until a consensus is reached as to which issue to address using the actionresearch model. The Delphi technique can be used to determine a research problem to investigate involving classes within a school, schools within a school system, or school districts within a state or several states. The reader is referred to Lindeman (1975) who conducted a Delphi survey to determine research priorities in clinical nursing research.

2. Gathering and Reviewing Relevant .Literature The literature review involves a systematic identification, location, analysis, and synthesis of documents (e.g., periodicals, abstracts, books, and other research reports) containing information related to the research problem (Gay, 1996). The purpose of the literature review is multifold, including the following: â&#x20AC;˘ e $

o

o

clarify the research problem and sub-problems; verify the significance of the research problem; help teachers to fonnulate research questions which logically flow from previous studies; infonn the readers of the results of previous studies that are closely related to the proposed study; provide the knowledge necessary for the development of a conceptuaVtheoretical framework into \vhich the research problem fits; GATRways to Teacher Education

47

Schwartz et al.

o o

o e

o

•

• • o

•

relate the proposed study to a larger, ongoing dialogue in the literature about a topic, helping to bridge further the gaps; avoid the unintentional replication of previous studies (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1996); provide a framework for establishing the importance of the study; help to develop definitions of major variables; assist in identifying limitations and assumptions of the proposed study; highlight research strategies and designs, specific procedures, and measuring instruments which have and have not been used in addressing the research problem (Gay, 1996); facilitate the research plan; assist in detecting inconsistencies, contradictions, and methodological flaws (Ary et al., 1996); facilitate interpretation of the results that will arise from the proposed study; and provide a benchmark for comparing future results with previous findings.

The depth and breadth of literature review depends on the complexity of the research problem, the teachers' background, the availability of sources, and the time frame for conducting the study. However, the literature review should be broad enough for teachers to be knowledgeable about the research problem and narrow enough to avoid the inclusion of irrelevant sources. In other words, in conducting a review of the literature, teachers should strive for a balance between generality and specificity. The two types of information that are utilized in the review of literature are theoretical and empirical. Which type is used the most depends on the problem, purpose, and research paradigm/design selected. A research problem that is topical will need a more extensive base of empirical information than will a new or unique problem.

The research design to be used also will influence the information available for review. For example, research of an 48

GATEways Volume XI(2) Spring 1999

Empowering Teachers

exploratory nature would have fewer studies available on the problem. Thus, the literature review would mostly be of a theoretical nature. In correlational studies, quasi-experimental, and (true) experimental research, the information reviewed often is both theoretical and empirical, with a bigger "pool" of studies from which to collect information. In qualitative research, the information reviewed is primarily theoretical, with some empirical information that usually is generated from related studies.

Teachers have at their disposal several tools with which to gather literature. These include libraries (i.e., academic, public, and special) and Internet search engines. Thankfully, there are now several Internet systems that examine many search engines simultaneously for the keywords entered by the user. An example of these systems is <http://www. dogpile. com>. In the state of Georgia, an extremely effective and popular online information access system is <http://www.galileo.peachnetedu>. This system also accesses a limited number of full-text articles. Computer literature searches also can be conducted via CD-ROMs. In addition, there are several indexes that provide assistance in identifying journals and other publications that contain information about a topic. These include Education Index, Educational

Resources Information Center (ERIC), Resources in Education (RIE), Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE), Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, Dissertation Abstracts International, and Masters Abstracts.

Four stages of reading are necessary tor reviewing relevant literature: skimming, comprehending, analyzing, and synthesizing (Burns & Grove, 1987). The first stage, skinnning, involves a quick revie"\:Y of sources to gain a broad overvievv of their content.

Comprehending involves reading the entire source, focusing on understanding the tnajor concepts and the logical tlow of ideas within each of the sources. At this stage, the major objective is to identify the relevant categories for sorting and organizing sources.

CATEw-.1y~

to T~acher Education

49

Schwartz et al.

Analyzing sources involves examining the contents of the sources and sorting them into a sophisticated system of categories. The final stage, synthesis, pertains to clustering and inter-relating ideas from several sources. Here, the meaning of these sources is connected to the proposed study. This last stage is the basis for writing the literature review section. All sources should be organized for inclusion in the research report according to where they will be presented in the research process.

3. Formulating Research Questions and/or Hypotheses Once the research problem has been defined and a review of the literature undertaken, the teachers are now ready to formulate their research question(s). It is imperative that the research question posed is related to the action research team's area of expertise and of particular interest to them. A good research question has specific qualities and elements. It is absolutely essential to construct a research question that attempts to focus on a stated purpose and gives direction to the research process. In addition, the research question should be stated clearly, be feasible, and be ethical. The population of interest also should be able to be identified clearly from the research question, as should the primary independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is the variable upon which the prediction is made. (It is also known as the predictor or regressor variable.) The independent variable sometimes is manipulated or changed by the teacher and/or is assumed to be related to or to affect the dependent variable. In any case, the independent variable is antecedent to a dependent variable. The dependent variable (also termed the. criterion or outcome variable) represents the phenomenon which is the object of study. This variable is a consequence of, or dependent on, one or more antecedent (independent) variables. 路 The research question should indicate clearly the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Examples of SO

GATEways Volume Xl(l) Spring 1999

Empowering Teachers

researchable questions include the following: e~ Is there a significant relationship between block scheduling and traditional scheduling in academic achievement among high school students? o What is the effect of Ritalin on success rate in math of elementary school children?

Teachers should avoid atten1pting to answer non-researchable questions. An example of this is the following: o Are children who attend Sunday school more likely to go to Heaven than children who do not?

As important as this question may be to many individuals, it is not researchable because, although we can measure the independent variable (attending Sunday school), we are unable to measure reliably and validly the dependent variable (going to Heaven).

Questions should be avoided which assume that there is an absolute answer, such as the following: o Is the Failure Free Reading program the best method for teachers to use with at-risk children with deficits in reading skills? â&#x20AC;˘ Can our teachers teach mathematics?

When attempting to \Vrite good research questions, we think that it is helpful if the following stems are considered: l. What is the effect of [independent variable] on [dependent variable] among [population]?

2. Is there a significant difference betvv¡een [one level of independent variable] and [another level of independent variable] in [dependent variable] among fpopulation]?

3. Is there a significant relationship between [independent variable] and [independent variable/dependent variable] among [population]?

Examples of research questions that utilize these three stems are the following: 1. What is the effect of study skills on reading achievement among sixth-grade students?

2. Is there a significant difference between boys and girls in science achievement among at-risk children?

GATEways to Tt>~tcher Education

51

Schwartz et aL

3. Is there a relationship between mathematics anxiety and mathematics achievement among middle school students?

As these common sense examples demonstrate, the process of creating a good research question and then a procedure is relatively simple but critical to good action research. As the terms independent and dependent variable become a natural part of the conversation, and the formulation of good research questions clear, teachers will become more confident and self-assured of their research skills.

Most quantitative research studies involve the testing of one or more hypotheses. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for certain behaviors, phenomena, or events which have occurred or will occur (Gay, 1996). That is, a hypothesis is a specific statement that predicts the outcome of the proposed study. It should be consistent with the existent body of literature and flow logically from a conceptual/theoretical framework. As such, hypotheses indicate the teachers' expectations concerning relationships among the independent and dependent variables.

Hypotheses must be testable within a realistic time frame.

Inductive hypotheses are generalizations based on observations which often do not relate to any larger body of research, whereas deductive hypotheses are derived from theory such that the testing of these hypotheses provides empirical evidence which supports, expands, or contradicts a given theory (Gay, 1996). Hypotheses can be stated in either directional or non-directional forms.

Directional hypotheses specify the nature of the expected relationship or difference, whereas non-directional hypotheses state that a relationship or difference exists, but without specifying the nature of the expected finding {Ary et al., 1996). Examples of directional hypotheses are: 1. It is hypothesized that second-grade girls have higher levels of mathematics achievement than do second-grade boys .

2. It is hypothesized that there is a negative relationship between the absenteeism rate of elementary school students and their overall level of academic achievement.

52

GATEways Volwne Xl(l) Spring 1999

Empowering Teachers

In the above examples, the words higher and negative make the hypotheses directionaL Parallel examples of non-directional hypotheses are: 1.

2.

It is hypothesized that there is a difforence in mathematics achievement between girls and boys in the second grade.

It is hypothesized that there is a relationship between the absenteeism rate of elementary school students and their overall level of academic achievement.

In the second set of examples, it is not stated whether the difference represents higher or lower scores or whether the relationship is positive or negative. Thus the hypotheses are nondirectional.

4. Developing a Research Plan of Action Once the research question is formulated and finalized, the next step is to develop a plan for collecting the data. The purpose of the research plan is to ensure that the action research project is thoroughly planned, in order to a) facilitate evaluation of the proposed study, b) help highlight methodological flaws, c) provide a guide for conducting the study, d) assess the impact of unexpected outcomes on rest of the investigation, e) minimize the probability of making costly mistakes, and f) help maximize the quality of research (Gay, 1996). When planning a research study, all necessary ethical and legal considerations must be made; including the development of informed consent forms for members of the target sample.

The research plan must include delineation of the population and sample to be studied, as well as how the sample is to be selected. Where possible, teachers should select random samples, which are samples in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Rand01n sampling teclmiques tend to n1aximize the extent to which the sample is representative of the population, and thus maximize the extent to 路which the subsequent findings can be generalized. However, we realize that, in most cases, random sampling 路will not be an option due to logistical GATEw~ay:.t

to Teacher Education

5J

Schwartz et aL

problems. With respect to quantitative studies, where possible, teachers should consider using more than one class, in an attempt to obtain the minimum recommended size of30 subjects per subgroup (Gay, 1996) and 10 subjects per independent variable studied (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).

The research plan also should include a decision about which instruments to use. Instruments involve measures from either the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor domains. Measurement strategies include standardized instruments (e.g., tests, questionnaires, and scales), self-developed instruments, naturally available data (e.g., grade point averages and tardiness rates), interviews, physiological measurements, and observational measurements. It is imperative that all instruments used in the study are both reliable (i.e., yield consistent scores) and valid (i.e., measure what they purport to measure). Fortunately, most of the standardized tests currently used have these properties. Teachers should consult university researchers for help in selecting nonstandardized instruments and, most importantly, for assistance in developing teacher-made instruments.

All procedures should be planned in a step-by-step manner and in sufficient detail to permit replication of the study. Developing a timetable of events should facilitate this process. In addition, research question( s) should drive the selection of research paradigm. The quantitative research paradigm should be utilized when the data collected are in numerical form, whereas qualitative research studies should be conducted in order to increase insights and to generate meaning for whole situations and abstract concepts. The outcome of qualitative research should be the development or expansion of theory. Quantitative research should comprise either historical (studying, understanding, and explaining past events), descriptive (portraying or accounting for characteristics of a particular individual, situation, or group), correlational (systematically investigating relationships among two or more quantifiable variables}, causal-comparative 54

GATEways Volwne Xl(2) Spring 1999

-Empowering Teachers

(comparing two or more intact groups), or experimental (comparing two or more randomly formed groups). Conversely, qualitative research should consist of either phenomenological (describing an experience as it is lived by each individual), grounded theory (formulating, testing, and re-developing propositions until a theory evolves), ethnographic (investigating cultures through in-depth studies of its members), historical (describing or analyzing events which occurred in the remote past), or case studies (exploring single entities or phenomena).

Again, teachers should consult university researchers to help them determine which research design is most appropriate to answer their research question(s).

We believe that teachers should consider using mixedmethodology research designs when appropriate. These designs combine qualitative and quantitative techniques within the same study. By pooling the data from as many sources as possible (i.e., triangulating data), the validity of the findings is increased.

In many cases, the review of the literature will help teachers to determine how previous researchers have studied similar research questions. In other cases, with appropriate guidance and mentoring, teachers are able to design an effective means of collecting data. Virtually all schools routinely collect several types of data on a regular basis. These data include standardized test scores (e.g., Iowa Test ofBasic Skills [ITBS], Standardized Achievement Test [SAT-9]), information about free and reduced lunch eligibility, attendance records, and discipline records. These and other types of information can be used conveniently to examine teacher-constructed independent variables such as new teaching methods or alternative classroom experiences. Groups of teachers in a particular school or district 路who share a common interest or grade level can use their classroon1s for comparison purposes. For example, teachers may w路ish to compare standardized test scores in reading between phonics and whole language instruction using their classroorns as the sample.

GATEways to T~a<'.htr Edn<'ntion

55

Schwartz et aL

Collaboration between teachers and university researchers often plays an important role in promoting action research in schools. For example, the authors have collaborated with many schools in southern Georgia on Pay-for-Performance (PFP) grant initiatives. These PFP grants provide schools with monetary rewards if they are able to meet at least 80% of their stated objectives within an academic year. Our major role here has been to help teachers to develop the evaluation component of the PFP grant, thereby allowing them to use action research methodologies to assess the extent to which their stated objectives have been realized.

We recognize that, apart from a lack of knowledge of action research methodologies, time, energy, money, and resources are the biggest obstacles to undertaking action research. However, these obstacles can be reduced by 1) working with university researchers who often will not require monetary payment for their services, provided that their assistance will be acknowledged formally; and 2) applying for funding from agencies for their action research projects. Indeed, a myriad of federal and local grant opportunities are made available every year.

5. Implementing the Research Plan Teachers should monitor all data collection activities carefully, systematically, and continuously to ensure use of correct procedures--that is, to ensure that the protocols are followed as closely as possible, and to record any deviations which may arise.

6. Analyzing the Data and Interpreting the Findings This is typically the most difficult stage for teachers. In particular, most teachers do not have adequate knowledge to undertake most of the statistical analyses associated with quantitative research designs. On the other hand, many of the data analysis techniques utilized in qualitative studies may appear to be simple, but can be more complicated and certainly more time路 56

GATEwaY!! Volwne Xl(l) Spring 1999

Empowering Teachers

consutning than statistics. Teachers are encouraged to work closely vvith university researchers at this stage. In fact, teachers should consult them during planning in order to design the best way to record collected data into databases. This preplanning would facilitate subsequent computer-based quantitative and/or qualitative analyses.

7. Communicating the Findings Communication of findings is the penultin1ate step of the action research model. The form of the communication can range from informal discussion among teachers involved in the action research project, to inservice workshops held by the teacherresearchers, to formal research presentations at professional conferences, to publications of research findings in periodicals, books, monographs, newspapers, and the like. Whichever 1nedium is used, the research findings should be communicated as effectively and efficiently as possible to the intended audience.

8. Problem Redefinition Communication of findings also should include suggestions for future research. Moreover, at this stage, teachers involved in the action research projects should attempt to redefine their original research problem and then repeat the above cycle, as many times as needed, until the research question is answered.

Summary and Conclusion Our experience has shown us that teachers and school administrators find action research opportunities empowering and exciting. Too often, teachers and school staff may have developed attitudes that education research is not within their reach nor is it their responsibility. Clearly, this is not the case . .It is true that many teachers and staff may initially feel GATEwa}"s to Teacher Edu<路ation

57

Schwartz et aL

intimidated by research and the demands of time, energy, money, and resources. These issues are readily the subjects of many workshops and classes. Many of the initial concepts and constructs necessary to conduct action research can be taught effectively through good examples, accurate demonstrations, and hands-on activities. Indeed, the authors have developed and made available power point presentation slides that contain, in note form, the information provided in this article and much more. As such, we strongly encourage that as many teachers as possible enroll in graduate-level research methodology courses, such as the ones taught by the authors. We believe that these courses will instill the best research practices and thus provide a solid foundation for teacher-researchers.

One of the best ways to promote the teacher-as-researcher movement is to involve teachers in as many of the eight stages of the research process as possible. Indeed, where possible, teachers should be involved from the first stage (identifying the research problem). If the focus ofthe research is of interest and/or benefit to teachers and school personnel, they quickly become immersed in acquiring new skills and expertise. As empowered action researchers, teachers can become important participants in improving schools for children.

References Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Burns, N., & Grove, S.K. (1987). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique and utilization. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.

Couper, M.R. (1984). The Delphi technique: Characteristics and sequence model. Advances in Nursing Science, 7, 72-77.

58

GATEways Volume Xl(l) Spring 1999

p;;z;:

Empowering Teachers

Ebbutt, D. (1985). Educational action research: Some general concerns and specific quibblers. In R.G. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 152174). London: The Palmer Press.

Gay, L.R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Lafleur, C. (1992, April). The evolution and value of teacher research in the change process: From learning styles to conferencing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Lindeman, C.A. (1975). Delphi survey of priorities in clinical nursing research. Nursing Research, 24, 434-441.

IV1iller, D.M., & Pine, G.J. ( 1990). Advancing professional inquiry for educational improvement through action research.

Journal of Staff Development, 11(3), 56-61.

Nihlen, A.S. (1992, April). Schools as centers for reflection and inquiry: Research for teacher empo路werment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the A.!nerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Ross, D.D. (1984). A practical model for conducting action research in public school settings. Contemporary Education, 55, 113-117.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.

G \TEw;ays t<> Teacher Education

59

Schwartz et aL

Robert A. Schwartz is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Valdosta State University. He received his Ph.D. in Higher Education with minors in women's studies and American studies at Indiana University. His research interests include school improvement and access to higher education.

John R. Slate is Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Valdosta State University. He received his Ph.D. in Psychology, with a specialty in school psychology, from the University ofTeiUlessee, Knoxville.

His current research interests involve program evaluation of school improvement efforts.

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie is Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at Valdosta State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Educational Research at the University of South Carolina. He also has postgraduate diplomas in statistics from Univeresity College London, and in education (P.G.C.E.) from the University of London Institute of Education.

His research interests include anxiety as it affects elementary, secondary, and post-secondary students.

Contact Dr. Robert Schwartz at: Dept. of Educational Leadership College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698~0090 voice: 912.333.5924 fax: 912.333 .7167

60

GATEways Volwne XI(2) Spring 1999

GATEways to Teacher Education GATEways to Teacher Education is a refereed journal with national representation on its editorial review board published by the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators. Each issue is nonthematic. The journal, published annually in October, is devoted to the discussion of theory, practice, research, and issues related to teacher education, including teaching and learning, induction, in-service education, and pre-service education. Articles may deal with local, state, or national activities or issues. Views expressed in the articles are not necessarily those of the editor or GATE. The cost of a copy of the journal is $6.00.

Criteria for submitting a manuscript: Manuscripts must be postmarked by the Aprillst preceding the October of publication APA style (fourth edition) not more than 15 pages, double-spaced four copies of the manuscript clipped, not stapled author's name and affiliation on the title page only autobiographical sketches of the authors (three to five sentences each) on one separate page complete title and abstract (150 word maximum) on the first page of text running head and page number on subsequent pages of the manuscript 3 x 5 index card with complete name, postal address, email address, and telephone and fax numbers of the contact person and the title of the manuscript [an electronic file copy of the manuscript in MS Word or compatible software for Windows 95 (or 3.1) will be needed after acceptance for publication] Submit manuscripts to: Jackie Anglin, Editor GATEways to Teacher Education Berry College P.O. Box206 Mount Berry, GA 30 149-0206 706.236. 1717 (voice) 706.238.7827 (fax) janglin@berry. edu

GATEways to Teacher Education

61