GATEways 2020 (volume 31, issue 1)

Georgia Association of Teacher Educators Volume 31, Issue 1 October 2020

GATEways to Teacher Education

Cover artwork: Cory Burton

GATEways to Teacher Education October 2020: Volume 31, Issue 1

Contents Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Matters: Preparing White Teacher Candidates for Diverse Classrooms

By Winston Vaughan This article examines the positive impact of an exercise in which a group of pre-service teachers deconstructed the contents of a video to better understand how race, class, prejudice, discrimination, and privilege can impact the teaching/learning process. Results highlighted the need for culturally responsive teachers to utilize culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom.

Page 1

Performance Feedback in Teacher Preparation: Improving Preservice Teachers’ Use of High Leverage Practices Through Mixed-Reality Simulation Page 8

By Kate E. Zimmer, Melissa K. Driver, and Patricia Alvarez McHatton This study examines the effects of performance feedback and deliberate practice using a mixed-reality simulation on preservice teachers’ use of high leverage practices. Findings are presented from research on the use of performance feedback and deliberate practice within a controlled environment in a teacher preparation course for undergraduate general education preservice teachers. There were significant shifts in preservice teachers use and efficacy of three targeted high leverage practices. Findings hold implications for the preparation of special and general education teachers.

Proportional Reasoning in Preservice Teachers Page 19

By Sandra Davis Trowell The purpose of this study was to examine elementary and middle grade preservice teachers' proportional reasoning skills in various mathematics courses throughout their professional program curriculum. Given suggested mathematics education reform, the expectation is for current preservice teachers to have developed more sophisticated proportional reasoning. However, when a small group of preservice teachers were asked to solve non-routine problems that involve proportional reasoning, many struggled to find a reasonable solution.

Results indicate these teachers need more development with proportional reasoning and the related philosophical foundations on which this approach is based.

What’s My Job? Co-Coordinator Roles Within a Special Education Teacher Preparation Program Page 24

By Harriet J. Bessette and Kathleen Bennett This paper examines the relationship of two co-coordinators within a special education initial certification program for master’s level students. Preparation, organization, and administration were the three major elements utilized to engage in a collaborative partnership. Individual roles and responsibilities were developed and facilitated by previous mentor/mentee relationships. The advantages of building a culture of collaboration and sustainability that supports students, faculty, and program capacity is discussed.

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

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Matters: Preparing White Teacher Candidates for Diverse Classrooms Dr. Winston Vaughan Xavier University

This article examines the positive impact of an exercise in which a group of pre-service teachers enrolled in a cultural diversity course at a Midwestern University deconstructed the contents of a video to better understand how race, class, prejudice, discrimination and privilege can impact the teaching/learning process. Students were required to watch a video and engage in a “free write” based on the contents of the video. After that, students were asked to respond to two prompts based on content of the video. Data analysis from their “free write” prompt responses and oral responses indicated that the experience helped them to become more aware of the changing demographics within the school system as is related to race. Also emphasized was the importance of understanding and reflecting on their own biases and prejudices they might have about individuals who may be different from themselves. Responses also indicated that race, class, prejudices, and privilege can negatively impact the teaching/learning process. Results also highlighted the need for culturally responsive teachers to utilize culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom.

Introduction While the population of school children of color and English Language Learners (ELL) is growing larger, the proportion of ethnically and linguistically diverse teachers is growing smaller. As we examine current teacher education programs, many pre-service educators mirror the demographic of the current teaching

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

force. The demographics of our public school population continue to change, yet the majority of teachers remain predominately white, female, middle class, and monolingual, (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). In addition, our society has been socialized to see "whiteness" as the standard and norm (Weiler, 2008). As this trend continues, teacher education programs must prepare teachers to teach a population of students who might be different from themselves.

Most colleges and universities have adopted “stand alone” diversity classes in their preparation programs in order to help preservice teachers become more culturally responsive in the classroom (Brown, 2004; Vavrus, 2002).

This is also supported by a plethora of education theorists who assert that knowledge of multicultural education can be very helpful to teachers in diverse classrooms (Banks, 2006; Farley, 2000; Ukpokodu, 2003). Terrill and Mark (2000) found that future educators (white, female, and suburban) had significantly different expectations for students from different racial minority and linguistic backgrounds. Research also suggests that teachers’ knowledge, awareness, and attitudes toward students of ethnically and culturally diverse backgrounds may influence student learning (Jackson, 1995; Ladson Billings, 1994; Sleeter, 2001). Many pre-service teachers bring very little crosscultural background, knowledge, and experience to the classroom. Many also lack a general understanding of discrimination, especially

PAGE 1

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

racism (Avery & Walker, 1993; Barry & Lechner, 1995; Gilbert, 1995; Larke, 1990; McIntyre, 1997). Consequently, many preservice and in-service teachers are uncertain about their ability to teach minority students.

According to Bell (2002), many pre-service teacher education students lack consciousness, regarding their racial “positioning” in a society that is stratified by race. Likewise, many educational theorists believe that many white teachers, with no exposure to or opportunity to reflect upon the social constructs of whiteness, are socially unaware of its implications (HillJackson, 2007; Ponterotto, Utsey, & Pedersen, 2006). Further research highlights the premise that many pre-service teachers have negative views and low expectations for students of color, even after taking courses in multicultural education (Scott, 1995). Taylor and Sobel (2001) found that pre-service teachers indicated that all students are entitled to an equitable education and that teachers have the responsibility to address their educational needs.

Cochran-Smith (2004) suggests that teachers should critically examine “whiteness” and its relationship to teaching, particularly since the demographics in schools have changed tremendously over the years. White teachers must recognize the need for culturally responsive teaching in the classroom. In order for white teachers to be able to teach culturally responsive pedagogy in diverse classrooms, they need to develop cultural awareness and critical consciousness regarding issues of race, privilege, power, and oppression (CochranSmith, 2004; Jordan-Irvine, 2003; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995). However, if teachers do not come to grips with their biases, then their ability to become culturally responsive educators will not be successful (Parsons, 2015).

Culturally Responsive Teaching/Learning Gay (2000) defines culturally responsive teaching as using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively. It is based on the assumption that academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of reference of students. When this is taken into consideration, lessons are more personally

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly. Culturally responsive teaching engages students in instruction that utilizes the cultural backgrounds and histories, that they bring to school, as tools for teaching/learning. This perspective also embraces the idea of teaching to and through personal and cultural strengths, while validating and affirming what students bring to the classroom (Gay, 2010). The current curriculum and teaching style are Eurocentric in nature, with minority students being asked to base their learning on this model. Therefore, Gayle (2010) emphasizes that teachers who engage in culturally responsive teaching and learning first understand the education system and try to create learning environments where students’ cultures are valued, respected, and incorporated into their work.

Ladson-Billings (1995) defined the term culturally relevant pedagogy as one that empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural referents to impart knowledge, skills, and attitudes. According to Ladson-Billings (1995), culturally relevant pedagogy rests on three premises, which include academic success for students, the development and maintenance of cultural competence for students, and the development of a critical consciousness through which the status quo is challenged. She articulates that culturally responsive teaching is a pedagogical strategy that recognizes the importance of including students' cultural references in all aspects of learning. Some of the characteristics of culturally responsive teaching suggested are: • Positive perspectives on parents and families • Communication of high expectations • Learning within the context of culture • Student-centered instruction • Culturally mediated instruction • Reshaping the curriculum • Teacher as facilitator To help pre-service teachers gain a critical understanding of how race, class, prejudice, discrimination, and privilege can impact the process of schooling because of changing school demographics, they deconstructed and analyzed PAGE 2

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

the contents portrayed in a video. The results emphasize how these pre-service teachers were able to come to grips with what it means to be a culturally responsive teacher and its significance to the teaching/learning process in today’s schools.

Course Description This course, “Cultural Diversity in Educational Settings,” is designed to meet the diversity requirements set by the state as well as the university's diversity core requirement. All students majoring in Early Childhood Education, Special Education, Middle Childhood Education, or Montessori Education are required to take this course to meet the graduation requirements. In this course, students explore race, class, ethnicity, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, religion, stereotyping, racism, and discrimination and their impact on the learning process. They also engage in activities that encourage them to critically examine the injustices and equalities that are prevalent in society and schools, and engage in continuous dialogue to find ways to address related situations.

Video The video entitled “White Teaches/Diverse Classrooms,” produced and published by Stylus Publishing, was used. This video highlights voices of teachers and students of color regarding how they perceived white teachers and their connections to students of color as they engaged in the process of teaching and learning.

Methodology Participants Pre-service teachers for this task consisted of white female undergraduate and graduate students majoring in Early Childhood Education, Special Education, Middle Childhood Education, Montessori Education, or other disciplines outside of education. Students are required to take this course as part of their state certification, as well as the diversity core requirements of university.

Procedure In this course, students discussed the topics of racism/discrimination and student achievement as they examined the works of James Banks, Sonia Nieto, and others.

Throughout our discussions, it became evident VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

that race, class, privilege, and discrimination seemed to be occurring in our school system in some form or another.

Therefore, as part of the course requirements, students watched the video “White Teachers in Diverse Classrooms” and did a “free write” without using any prompts.

After completing the “free writes,” they were asked to respond to the following prompts: 1) What ideas from the video do you think would be helpful in improving your own teaching? 2) How do you perceive the term culturally responsive teaching/learning? Small group as well as large group discussions followed.

Data collected from students’ “free writes” and prompt reactions were analysed separately to look for reoccurring themes. As themes emerged, common themes were grouped into categories that would be specific to students’ responses. Oral comments from class discussions were also included in the analysis.

Results Students’ comments, conversations, and responses suggested that they learned a great deal from the content of the video. They highlighted the fact that race, class, privilege, prejudice, and discrimination can be part of the daily process of schooling with reference to white teachers working with minority students.

The importance of culturally responsive teaching/culturally relevant pedagogy as essential in today’s changing demographics of schools in the teaching and learning process came to light. The following categories reflect the various themes that emerged from the “free write” data.

Prejudice and Racism in Classrooms The consensus from pre-service teachers’ responses was that prejudice and racism are evident in the classroom. This was based on minority students’ conversations in the video about the way teachers related to and treated them during their school experiences. Students in the video spoke about how teachers treated black students more harshly than white students for the same offense. An example was a black student being sent to the principal’s office for the same behavior that a white student exhibited, but got away with. Pre-service teachers also mentioned issues of "dumbing down" the

PAGE 3

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

curriculum because of negative feelings about students, teachers feeling uncomfortable with students of color, and students questioning themselves. One teacher mentioned that there could be subtle forms of racism by withholding information from certain students so that they would be lacking in ability and knowledge.

One pre-service teacher mentioned that many white pre-service teachers do not believe that racism still exists in today’s schools because they have never been exposed to it or because they are oblivious to the situation. Another preservice teacher mentioned that students were already conscious of racism, but still needed to be taught more about it. She was also shocked that students can sense prejudice and racism coming from their teachers. Finally, a third preservice educator suggested that gender and race do not predict academic success, and that educators should withhold the true historical past from students. She also advanced the idea that teachers need to honestly teach about the current racial climate of today.

Whiteness/Privilege Another interesting theme that emerged was the notion of white privilege in the classroom.

White teachers who lack experience with minority students and are not well versed in culturally responsive teaching and learning tend to make assumptions about students based on color. Minority students tend to see the advantages of being white and whiteness may be viewed from a negative perspective, especially if they've experience white oppression. In the video, one teacher mentioned how students brought her whiteness to her attention. In this situation, her students told her that they would listen to another teacher who was Black differently than they would listen to her because the black teacher was more like them. Several other interesting comments came out of the “free writes” by pre-service teachers. One of them mentioned that white students are not smarter than black or minority students; however, white students’ achievement was recognized more in the classroom. Another pre-service teacher commented that some white students and teachers think they have more rights because of white privilege, and this tendency should be considered during the teaching/learning process.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

Finally, a third pre-service teacher communicated that white teachers should know and understand that whites are privileged in our society, and should know not to let it impact how they interact in the classroom.

Expectations for Students of Color Most pre-service teachers in their “free writes” and conversations during discussions strongly suggested that some white teachers had different expectations for students of color.

Some teachers seemed to genuinely care for students more than others. The teachers who seemed more caring stressed the importance of setting high expectations along with accountability and responsibility. They suggested that teachers needed to set high expectations for students of color, and connect pedagogical strategies to their culture, build relationships with the school community (students, families, neighborhoods, etc.), and provide equal opportunities and access to materials and resources.

Student Awareness of Teacher Attitudes From “free writes” and class discussions, pre-service teachers pinpointed from students’ input that students were quite aware of the attitudes of white teachers toward minority students. They suggested practices that teachers could use to foster better relationships with their students. Some suggestions were: • Build better student/teacher relationships.

• Foster an environment of caring and safety.

• Get to know and foster relationships with parents and the community.

• Create mutual respect and understanding of racial minority students.

• Never make assumptions about a student's ability based on race.

• Never bring stereotypes, biases, prejudices, nor misconceptions to the classroom.

• Value all students and believe that all of your students can learn.

• Try to use pedagogical strategies that would embrace culturally responsive teaching/learning.

Prompt Responses

PAGE 4

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

For the second part of the exercise, preservice teachers were required to respond to two prompts to the best of their ability: 1) What ideas from the video do you think would be helpful in improving your own teaching? and 2) What does the term culturally responsive teaching/learning mean to you? These important ideas emerged from their responses and conversations for the first prompt.

• Understanding your students’ histories and racial and cultural backgrounds before you begin to teach them.

• Building relationships, having high expectations, and accountability and responsibility.

• The need to educate all students using the student-centered approach.

• Challenge students intellectually.

• Pedagogical strategies should be related to common life experiences.

• Do not bring prejudices and biases into the classroom.

• Set high expectations for all students but especially for minority and poor students.

• No watered-down curriculum for minority and poor students.

• Be a culturally responsive and competent educator.

Pre-service teachers submitted very interesting and important responses to the second prompt (What does the term culturally responsive teaching/learning mean to you?).

However, the majority of them felt that it is important to understand yourself first from a cultural perspective before you can begin to understand students from other cultures in your classroom. This was not surprising because we had discussed this in the class as being a prerequisite for culturally responsive teaching.

The other important ideas suggested were: • Seeing and understanding what students bring to the classroom (backgrounds, histories).

• Listening to students’ stories about their lives.

• Understanding that students bring different cultures to the classroom.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

•

Being supportive of students, responding to issues concerns and behaviors.

• Respecting the various cultures in your classroom.

• Having pedagogical approaches that are culturally specific.

• Not making assumptions about students.

• Setting high expectations, believing that all students can learn.

• Studying students, seeing them as individuals they can learn from.

• Building relationships and caring about all students.

• Holding all students to the same standards and expectations.

• Being aware of cultural differences and using the awareness to incorporate aspects of culture into the teaching learning process.

Discussion As mentioned at the beginning, the demographics of our society and schools are changing while most teachers in our schools are still white females (Gollnick & Chinn, 2013; Wardle & Cruz-Janzen, 2004). Research suggests that most teachers who are middle class and white are not being culturally responsive; therefore, they model teaching practices that fail to take into account the various backgrounds (cultural, racial, social) students bring to school (Darder, 1991; Nieto & Bodie, 2012; Yeo, 1997). Consequently, many white teachers in public schools are lacking the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be culturally responsive in their classrooms (Jenks, Lee, & Kanpol, 2001).

Teacher preparation programs need to be mindful of this as we prepare teachers in the 21st century. White teachers need to self-reflect on their prejudices, biases, and misconceptions about minority students, and develop a new perspective on culturally responsive teaching and learning. This can be achieved through exploring one’s own culture, learning about other cultures, and learning about students’ cultures. Educators must set high expectations for their students, and never make assumptions about minority students. Research indicates that low expectations in urban schools is the norm for minority students because of perceived social PAGE 5

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

confounds. Teachers can better serve students by believing in them, building meaning relationships with them, and giving them the skills to be successful in the classroom and become productive citizens.

References Avery, P. G., & Walker, C. (1993). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of ethnic and gender differences in academic achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 27-37.

Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5-16.

Banks, J. A. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th edition). Boston: Pearson.

Barry, N. H., & Lechner, J. V. (1995). Preservice teachers’ attitudes about and awareness of multicultural teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 149-161.

Bell, L. A. (2002). Sincere fictions: The pedagogical challenges of preparing white teachers for multicultural classrooms. Equity and Excellence, 35(3), 236-244.

Brown, E. L. (2004). Overcoming the challenges of stand-alone multicultural courses: The possibility of technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 535-559.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bi-cultural education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Farley, J. E. (2000). Majority-minority relations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gilbert, S. L. (1995). Perspectives of rural prospective teachers toward teaching in urban schools. Urban Education, 30(3), 290-305.

Gollnick, D. M. & Chinn, P. C. (2013). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Columbus, OH: Pearson Education.

Gollnick, D. & Chinn, P. (2002). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (6th ed). New York: Macmillan.

Hill-Jackson, V. (2007). Wrestling Whiteness: Three schemas of shifting multicultural perspectives among white pre-service teachers. Multicultural Perspectives, 9(2), 29–35.

Jenks, C., Lee, J. O., and Kanpol, B. (2001).

Approaches to multicultural education in preservice teacher education. Urban Review, 33(2), 87-105.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

Jordan-Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.

Larke, P. J. (1990). Cultural diversity awareness inventory: Assessing the sensitivity of preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 12(3), 23-30.

McIntyre, A. (1997). Making meaning of whiteness.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Nieto, S. & Bodie, P. (2012). Affirming diversity: A sociopolitical context of multicultural education.

Boston: Pearson Education.

Parsons, E. (2005). From caring as a relation to culturally relevant caring: A white teacher’s bridge to black students. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38, 25-34.

Ponterotto, J. G., Utsey, S. O., & Pedersen, P. (2006).

Preventing prejudice: A guide for counselors, educators, and parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools. Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94-106.

Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Sobel, D., & Taylor, S. (2005). Diversity preparedness in teacher education. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 83-87.

Terrill, M., & Mark, D. (2000). Preservice teachers' expectations for schools with children of color and second language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 51,149-155.

Ukpokodu, O. N. (2003). Teaching multicultural education from a critical perspective: Challenges and dilemmas. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(4), 17-23.

Vavrus, M. (2002). Transforming the multicultural education of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wardle, F., & Cruz-Janzen, M. I. (2004). Meeting the needs of multiethnic and multiracial children in schools. Boston: Pearson Education.

Weiler, K. (1988). Women teaching for change: Gender, class and power. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Yeo, F. (1997). Inner city schools, multiculturalism, and teacher education: a professional journey.

New York: Garland.

PAGE 6

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

About the Author Winston Vaughan, PhD is an Associate Professor at Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH. His research interests are culturally responsive teaching and learning, multicultural education, middle childhood social studies education, assets-based service learning, and the nature and needs of adolescents.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

PAGE 7

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

Performance Feedback in Teacher Preparation: Improving Preservice Teachers’ Use of High Leverage Practices Through Mixed-Reality Simulation Dr. Kate E. Zimmer and Dr. Melissa K. Driver Kennesaw State University Dr. Patricia Alvarez McHatton University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

Challenging classroom behaviors are a leading cause of beginning teachers’ stress and attrition.

It has been a longstanding criticism that teacher preparation programs are not adequately providing preservice teachers with the proper strategies to help them deal with behavior problems effectively. This study examines the effects of performance feedback and deliberate practice using a mixed-reality simulation on preservice teachers’ use of high leverage practices. Simulators are well suited for training preservice teachers in high leverage practices because it allows for repeated practice and opportunities for performance feedback.

Findings are presented from research on the use of performance feedback and deliberate practice within a controlled environment in a teacher preparation course for undergraduate general education preservice teachers. There were significant shifts in preservice teachers use and efficacy of three targeted high leverage practices. Findings hold implications for the preparation of special and general education teachers.

Introduction High Leverage Practices (HLPs) are a set of research-based instructional practices identified as essential for preservice and novice teachers to use in their teaching (McLeskey et al., 2017).

These fundamental skills are critical in helping

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

students learn new content and support social and emotional development. There are nineteen HLPs for general education and twenty-two HLPs for special education that span subject areas, grade level, and content (McLeskey et al., 2017). Although, teacher preparation programs may introduce general and special education HLPs, preservice teachers face limited time to master these practices and get related performance feedback. Research shows that it is critical for preservice teachers to have opportunities to practice teaching through structured, scaffolded, and supervised experiences (Leko et al., 2015). The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center as well as a countless distinguished researchers in the field of teacher preparation have urged teacher educators to provide practice-based experiences for preservice teachers to develop mastery of HLPs (Ball & Forzani, 2011; Grossman et al., 2009; Lampert, 2010; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanaugh, 2013; Windschitl et al., 2012).

Unfortunately, practice opportunities prior to field experience involving real students are scarce and often limited to peer role-plays and basic scenarios that do not reflect the complexities and challenges of classroom teaching.

PAGE 8

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

Preparing Preservice Teachers to Actively Engage Students in the Classroom Challenging classroom behaviors are a leading cause of beginning teacher stress and attrition (Allday et al., 2012; Conroy et al., 2009). Beginning teachers express difficulty in addressing inappropriate classroom behaviors which impact student engagement and may limit effective teacher-student relationships, both of which have been found to be predictors of student success. Students who feel supported and valued by their teachers tend to engage more and have fewer inappropriate behaviors (Berliner, 1990; Hattie, 2009). HLPs focus on developing positive learning environments that maximize student engagement, leading to improved student outcomes.

There are three HLPs that support teachers’ ability to engage students in the classroom (see Figure 1). HLPs should be taught in conjunction with evidence-based practices (EBPs). EBPs are teaching strategies that are effective for certain populations of learners and have been validated through research (Cook & Cook, 2013). Not only are preservice teachers legally mandated to use EBPs (i.e., Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, IDEIA, 2004), but literature supports the effectiveness of these strategies. When they are used effectively, they increase outcomes for students with and without disabilities (Scheeler, Budin, & Markelz, 2016; Maheady, Smith, & Jabot, 2013).

High Leverage Practice

Evidence Based Strategy

Explaining and modeling content, practices, and strategies

Explicit Modeling of Instructional Skills

Specifying and reinforcing productive student behavior

Behavioral Specific praise

Providing oral and written feedback to students

Academic Specific praise

Figure 1. High Leverage Practices that Increase Student Engagement

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

Figure 1 shows the alignment between three HLPs and the EBPs which teachers could be used to achieve each HLP. Specifically, these three HLPs focus on teacher modeling of content and skills and on reinforcing student academics and behavior through feedback using specific praise.

Modeling Content, Practices, and Strategies. The HLP Explaining and Modeling Content, Practices, and Strategies pairs with the EBP of explicit modeling, which is a strategy that is highly regarded in the field of special education (Teaching Works, n.d.). Explicit modeling occurs when a teacher explains knowledge and demonstrates a particular skill.

Modeling allows all students to observe the cognitive processes involved in a specific learning strategy (Baumann, Jones, & SeifertKessell, 1993). Teachers can use modeling for both behavioral skills (i.e., raising your hand to answer a question) and academic skills (i.e., solving a word problem). It can also be used to demonstrate how to use cognitive processes effectively and teach students how they can selfmonitor their progress (Baumann et al.,1993).

Modeling is an engaging and effective teacher practice that facilitates students’ acquisition of new knowledge and skills (Higgs & McMillian, 2006). Explicit modeling is beneficial for all students, but particularly students with disabilities (Archer & Hughes, 2011).

Using Specific Praise to Reinforce and Provide Feedback Another well-validated approach to promote a positive classroom is the use of specific behavioral praise (Allday et al., 2012; Conroy et al., 2009). Specific behavioral praise is when a teacher conveys an explicit reference to a desired behavior (e.g., “Jonathan, I like the way you are quietly sitting at your desk with your journal out. This shows me you are ready to learn.”). Setting clear expectations for students in the classroom enhances engagement and decreases off-task behaviors, as students understand what exactly is expected. Similarly, when teachers use specific academic praise, they provide feedback to all students on why an answer is correct (e.g., “That’s right, Maria. This shape is a triangle. We know it’s a triangle because there are three sides and three

PAGE 9

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

vertices.”).

In an intervention study of three preservice teachers’ use of specific praise, the largest gains were observed after participants had received performance feedback on their practice sessions (Simonsen et al., 2010). Findings highlight the importance of including aspects of feedback when preparing teachers to use specific praise.

The present study extends this work by looking at behavior and academic praise both jointly and individually, investigating the effectiveness of performance feedback delivery models, and allowing participants to acquire new skills through deliberate practice within a mixed reality environment (e.g., avatars).

Providing Performance Feedback to Preservice Teachers There is an emerging body of literature that urges teacher educators to examine the way we prepare preservice teachers (Leko et al., 2015; Schles & Robertson, 2019; Sutherland et. al., 2003). High quality teacher preparation programs provide numerous opportunities for purposeful practice, meaningful performance feedback, and targeted coursework (Scheeler, Budin, & Markelz, 2016). Furthermore, it is important that teacher preparation programs introduced EBPs and provide preservice teachers the time and space to practice and receive performance feedback on how they are implementing these strategies (Schles & Robertson, 2019).

Performance feedback is a systematic way to provide feedback to novice teachers as they learn and acquire new instructional skills (Noell et al., 2000, 2002; Rathel, Drasgow, & Christle, 2008). Performance feedback should include four components: review of data, corrective feedback, praise for correct implementation, and addressing any preservice teachers’ questions or concerns (Codding et al., 2005). Studies have indicated that preservice teachers who receive performance feedback have shown an increase in the use of the targeted skill or strategy (Codding et al., 2005; Noell et al., 2002; Rathel, Drasgow, & Christle, 2008).

Simulators are beneficial to use in teacher preparation programs as they allow preservice teachers to couple pedagogical content from their coursework with deliberate practice in a

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

safe and controlled environment. This setting allows for explicit classroom instruction that exposes preservice teachers to a range of classroom conditions and behaviors (Simonsen et al., 2008). Further, simulators provide an opportunity for preservice teachers to experience challenging behaviors while delivering instruction and receive timely performance feedback.

An important aspect noted in the abovementioned studies is the use of performance feedback to increase preservice teacher use of specific praise. Scheelar (2008) stated that providing performance feedback promotes learning a new skill and the ability to transfer that newly acquired skills into the actual classroom. Cavanaugh’s (2013) review of performance feedback indicated that it is an effective coaching technique to improve teachers' use of specific praise in the classroom.

The literature also suggests the use of performance feedback is an effective approach to improve both preservice and inservice teachers’ use of specific praise (Akalin & Sucuoglu, 2015; Duchaine, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2011).

Using Mixed-Reality Simulations for Deliberate Practice Deliberate practice is a phrase used to describe activities that are designed to improve preservice and inservice teachers’ practice.

Deliberate practice activities are based on five principles: 1) push beyond one’s comfort zone; 2) work toward well-defined, specific goals; 3) focus intently on practice activities; 4) receive and respond to high quality feedback; and 5) develop a mental model of expertise (Deans for Impact, 2016). These principles are based on research from across a wide range of fields and have been shown to improve teacher performance.

Teacher preparation programs often struggle to find appropriate placements which provide preservice teachers the opportunity for deliberate practice. A growing response to this challenge is the use of simulated environments (i.e., virtual and mixed-reality) to provide more realistic practice opportunities. The use of simulations is a well-validated approach for candidates in fields outside of education such as military and

PAGE 10

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

medical training (McGaghie et al., 2010).

Simulations allow individuals to learn and master new skills in an environment that does not put others at risk (Dieker et al., 2014).

Simulated environments enable teachers to practice decision-making and receive feedback through virtual responses and peer observers (Brown, 2000).

There are a few mixed-reality operating systems on the market that have been used with preservice teachers. TLE TeachLive™ is one such simulator system which uses avatars puppeteered by a simulation specialist. Mixedreality simulation provides preservice teachers an opportunity to develop their pedagogical content knowledge via a controlled instructional environment (e.g., controlling for learning or behavioral challenges).

TLE TeachLive™ is a simulated environment that transcends disciplines to allow many different fields to play with the simulations developed using the underpinning code. The system currently uses either student or parent/teacher avatars that were created using 3-D modeling and computer animation techniques. The resulting avatars are controlled by artificial intelligence and a human operator who embodies the avatars. The avatars look, talk, and interact like typical humans and provide a safe and effective playground for teachers, administrators and parents to experience the environment (Dieker, Hynes, Hughes, Hardin, & Becht, 2015, p. 12).

Although simulation research is limited, preliminary research shows that teachers who participated in four 10-minute simulation sessions demonstrated positive changes in their teacher behaviors and were able to translate the targeted skill to the classroom (Hynes, Hughes, & Straub, 2014). Furthermore, an increase in student achievement outcomes was observed for participants. Given that preservice teachers need deliberate practice along with expert feedback to develop effective classroom practice, mixedreality classroom simulation is a promising approach for teacher preparation programs (Leko et al., 2015).

Judge et al. (2013) investigated the effects of a mixed-reality simulator on six preservice

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

teachers’ use of differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior in a simulated classroom.

Differential reinforcement includes decreasing undesirable classroom behaviors while reinforcing desirable behaviors through verbal prompting, precise praise, and planned ignoring.

Participants were assigned to one of three conditions: a) video-training only; b) videotraining followed by email feedback from instructor, followed by peer group feedback; and c) video-training followed by peer group feedback then email feedback. Findings indicated an increase in the use of specific praise to increase student engagement. Participants found the peer group feedback more helpful than the email feedback.

Purpose of Present Study The purpose of this pilot study is to explore if and how performance feedback affected preservice teacher understanding and use of the targeted HLPs within a simulated environment.

We were interested in measuring the effects of instruction that included both online instructional HLP modules, mixed-reality simulation sessions, and if and how performance feedback (i.e., peer vs. instructor feedback) affected preservice teachers' understanding and use of the target HLPs in the simulated sessions.

Specifically, our research questions were: 1. Are there differences in preservice teachers’ understanding of and belief in their ability to implement HLPs based on the type of performance feedback they received: instructor, peer, or control?

2. Are there differences in HLP implementation between the groups based on the type of performance feedback they received: instructor, peer, or control?

Methods Participants and Setting This study took place in a large southeastern university. Participants originally consisted of fifteen undergraduate general education majors who were recruited through a college-wide listserv email. The email invite was sent to preservice teachers who were enrolled in a threecredit hour course focused on students with disabilities, as required for all general education

PAGE 11

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

majors in this state. Of the 15 participants who consented to the study, two elected not to participate once the intervention began, bringing the total number of participants to 13. Although the participants were not in the same section of the course, they all had the same instructor and covered the same content. The content of the course focused on the legislative mandates for serving exceptional students, characteristics of exceptionality, and best practices in facilitating teaching and learning. At the time of the study, the preservice participants had only observed professionals in a classroom setting; they did not have any teaching experience.

Table 1 Participants Information Instructor (N=5)

Peer (N=3)

Control (N=3)

Gender

Degree

Male (N=3)

Elementary Ed (N=1)

Female (N=2)

Secondary (N=4)

Male (N=1)

Elementary Ed (N=2)

Female (N=2)

Secondary (N=1)

Male (N=1)

Elementary Ed (N=2)

Female (N=2)

Secondary (N=1)

Measures In order to measure preservice teachers’ understanding of and belief in their ability to implement HLPs and their perceptions of their classroom management skills, behavior strategies, instructional strategies, and use of specific praise, a pre/post survey was given.

Each participant was given an ID number so the surveys contained no identifiable information.

The survey was designed using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3= neither agree or disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The pre-survey was administered during the second week of courses, before any instructional modules or simulator sessions occurred. The post-survey was administered at the end of the study. The survey contained 28 statements focusing on the

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

following five domains: 1) preservice teachers’ perceptions of their classroom management, 2) preservice teachers’ perceptions of their use of behavioral strategies, 3) preservice teachers’ perceptions of their use of instructional strategies, 4) preservice teachers’ perceptions of their use of praise, and 5) preservice teachers’ perceptions of their use of modeling.

To measure preservice teacher implementation of HLPs, each simulator sessions was recorded and coded for the presence or absence of behavior specific praise, academic specific praise, and teacher modeling.

Research Design An experimental design was used to investigate the effects of performance feedback on preservice teacher behaviors while engaging in mixed-reality simulator (e.g., TLE TeachLive™) sessions. Use of the mixed-reality simulator provided the opportunity for participants to deliberately practice the HLPs and EBPs in a controlled instructional environment.

Procedure During the first week of classes, participants were provided an overview of the study. Upon receipt of consent to take part in the study, participants were asked to complete a survey of their perceptions of the HLPs and EBPs. The areas covered in the survey included classroom management skills, behavior strategies, instructional strategies, use of praise (academic and behavior), and use of modeling.

The thirteen participants were randomly assigned to three conditions to determine if and how performance feedback influenced their use of HLPs and EBPs in the simulator. The three groups were identified as follows: a) Instructor Feedback Group (N=5), b) Comparison Peer Feedback Group (N=3), and c) Control Group (i.e., no feedback; N=3).

All participants met twice a week for their three-credit hour course on students with disabilities. At the beginning of the week, the instructor of record was asked to present the online instructional modules and pass out the guided notes during class time. Once the online modules and guided notes were completed, the preservice teacher participants were given a specific time to come to the simulation and teach

PAGE 12

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

their scripted lesson to the student avatars. Once the designated feedback was given (i.e., instructor, peer, or none) the participant selfreflected on the experience. This cycle of instructional modules and five simulated practices continued for seven weeks. After each group completed its last simulated session, they completed the posttest on their perceptions of the HLPs focusing on the EBPs. Responses pertained to classroom management skills, behavior strategies, instructional strategies, and use of praise.

Online instructional modules. All participants were asked to watch and complete seven online instructional modules which presented information on the targeted HLPs. These modules consisted of recorded lectures with guided notes. The guided notes were modified versions of the online modules with blank spaces for key concepts, facts, and activities (Austin, Lee, & Carr, 2004). The purpose of the guided notes for this study was to promote deliberate practice and active engagement, and to connect the module content to their simulated sessions and scripted lesson plans.

All modules followed the same format, were 8-10 minutes in length, and were embedded throughout the seven-week study for deliberate practice. Each module began with operationally defining a targeted EBPs (i.e., academic specific praise, behavior specific praise, or modeling).

The guided notes activities would prompt the students to think about their scripted lesson and encourage them to embed the targeted HLPs and EBPs within that lesson. The first two online instructional modules focused on the HLPs Providing Oral and Written Feedback to Students and Specifying and Reinforcing Productive Student Behavior. These modules emphasized the importance of using the EBPs of specific academic and behavioral praise. The last three modules centered around the HLP Explaining and Modeling Content, Practices, and Strategies.

Literature on behavior specific praise defines it as positive verbal feedback of a desirable social and/or academic behavior, placing the constructs of behavior and academics within the same definition (Villeda et

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

al., 2014). The instructional modules explicitly taught behavioral praise and academic praise as two separate terms. Preservice teachers were taught that, in order for a behavior and academic-specific praise statement to be most effective, it needed three components. It needed to be individualized, occur immediately after the desired behavior, and focus on student’s improvement and/or effort (Allday et al., 2012; Conroy et al., 2009).

Modules focusing on teacher modeling operationally defined the construct of modeling, provided teachers with tips for how to model effectively (i.e., make it highly detailed), and provided the videos of teachers modeling in the classroom.

Each module would introduce or review a specific EBP. Each EBP definition was based on the literature and was explicitly defined in the online modules. The EBPs were defined as follows: • Behavior specific praise statements were defined as positively phrased audible statements that conveyed an explicit reference to a desired behavior.

For example, when students prepare to line up for lunch a teacher might say, “I like the way Sean is walking quietly to the door.”

• Academic specific praise statements were defined as positively phrased audible statements that conveyed an explicit reference to a desired academic behavior. For example, after a student completes a writing essay during language arts class, a teacher could say, “You wrote great supporting sentences in your essay, Maria. The level of detail and descriptive language you used really help the reader visualize your words.”

• Teacher modeling was defined as an evidence-based instructional strategy in which skills were explicitly explained and demonstrated (Archer & Hughes, 2011). For example, a teacher doing a “think aloud,” explicating demonstrating step-by-step how good readers monitor their understanding by looking for context clues.

First the participants watched an online

PAGE 13

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

module and complete the accompanying guided notes. Then they entered the simulation, where they taught a scripted lesson after which they received feedback immediately.

TeachLive™ was used for simulator sessions. TeachLive™ is a virtual reality simulation platform that allows preservice and inservice teachers to practice novel teaching strategies or content with five student avatars.

Because participants had never taught in a classroom before, each was provided the same scripted lesson plan to use during their simulator sessions. This allowed the preservice teachers to focus on deliberate practice of the three targeted EBPs rather than focus on content.

Performance Feedback was then given.

After each deliberate practice within the simulation, the participants in the Instructor and Peer Feedback groups would receive immediate feedback on their time in the simulation.

Instructor feedback was also provided.

Participants in the instructor feedback group taught six simulator sessions with only the principle investigator and a graduate assistant recording the session in the room. Each preservice teacher received one-on-one performance feedback from the instructor immediately following his or her lesson.

Examples of instructor feedback statements included, “You did a nice job of modeling the rules at the beginning of your lesson” and/or “You said ‘great job’ often. Another way to add an academic praise would be to repeat a student’s answer and expand on it.”

Preservice teachers that were assigned to the peer feedback group had the opportunity to watch their peers’ simulator sessions and provided them with feedback immediately following their lessons. Examples of peer feedback statements included, “You did move around a lot,” “You were very engaging,” and/or “You tried to use specific praise a lot.” The control group (preservice teacher participants) taught the scripted lesson in front of their peers within the simulation, but no feedback was given.

Data Collection Data consisted of instructional videos of the participants delivering their lessons, pre-/postsurveys, and reflection surveys consisting of

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

Likert responses and two open ended questions: 1) What do you feel went well during the session? and 2) What do you think you could improve on?

Data Analysis A 2x3 analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the time point (i.e., pre- and post-test) and the effects of type of feedback (i.e., instructor, peer, or none) on preservice teachers’ understanding of and belief in their ability to implement HLPs. Normality was supported by the Shapiro-Wilk test for each of the three treatment combinations (all p’s > 0.05/3). Although the sample size does not lend itself to inferential statistics, a number of results merit consideration.

Videotapes of each participants’ simulator sessions were viewed and analyzed by two graduate research assistants (GRA). The GRAs recorded if the participants displayed the three dependent variables (i.e., academic specific praise, behavioral specific praise, or modeling) onto a coding sheet. Before coding could begin, the GRAs had to meet a training criterion (i.e., 80% interobserver agreement on four consecutive pilot study videos). Once training criterion was met, the videos were divided between the GRAs and 33% of the videos were coded by both GRAs to confirm rate of agreement. The average inter-rater reliability across 33% of sessions was 89%. Inter-rater reliability was determined by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. Once the data were collected, it was then converted to rate. This conversion allowed the behavior counts to be a constant scale due to the variance in observation time that was encountered.

Results Results for Pre/Post Survey To investigate our first research question, we conducted a 2 x 3 analysis of variance (ANOVA) to investigate the effects of type of feedback on participants’ pre- and post-test scores. Results of this analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect between feedback type and time point (i.e., pre- and posttest); F(1,4) = 624.913, p < 0.001, = 0.98. A follow up one-way ANOVA revealed a

PAGE 14

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

significant difference for the instructor feedback group; F(1,8) = 21.259, p = 0.002. Significant effects were not present for the peer feedback (p = 0.589) nor the control group (i.e., no feedback; p = 0.285).

Results for Preservice Teachers Use of EBPs in the Simulator To investigate our second research question, we analyzed the recorded videos of preservice teacher behaviors from the simulations.

Specifically, we coded behaviors per minute of specific academic praise, specific behavior praise, and teacher modeling to understand if and how feedback influenced preservice teacher implementation of the HLPs. We present the means of the first and last simulator session for each feedback group in Table 2.

Table 2 Observed HLP Mean Rate per Minute by Feedback Group Academic Praise

Behavior Praise

Modeling

Instructor Pre

0.30

0.18

0.00

Instructor Post

0.35

0.25

0.00

Peer Pre

0.13

0.03

0.00

Peer Post

0.49

0.14

0.00

Control Pre

0.20

0.30

0.00

Control Post

0.29

0.25

0.00

Descriptive statistics indicate that preservice teacher use of specific academic praise increased across all three feedback groups. The mean rate per minute of specific behavioral praise increased for the instructor and peer feedback group and decreased for the control group.

Interestingly, teacher modeling was not observed during the first or last simulation for participants in any of the three groups.

Discussion In this pilot study, it is suggested that

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

the use of deliberate practice within a simulation and performance feedback played a role in the increased use and efficacy of high leverage practices in preservice teachers. All preservice teachers that were in the instructor feedback group and peer feedback group showed an increase in the rate in which they used HLPs in the simulation. This is unlike the control group, as only two out of the four preservice teachers showed slight increases in their use of HLPs during simulation time. In addition, the instructor feedback group’s efficacy of HLPs showed a significant shift between pre- and posttest, while the control group and peer feedback group did not. This demonstrated the possible impact that simulation plus instructor performance feedback can have on preservice educators’ teaching behaviors. The results of this study align with the emerging literature on how performance feedback can influence preservice teachers’ use of effective behaviors and the importance of embedding purposeful practice of HLPs in teacher preparation programs (Leko et al., 2015; Noell et al. 2000, 2002; Rathel, Drasgow, & Christle, 2008; Sutherland et al., 2003).

Control Group Preservice teachers in the control group were in the simulator five times and did not receive any feedback from their peers or instructor. The lack of feedback could be the reason this group did not have significant gains in either their efficacy of HLPs or their use of HLPs within the simulation sessions. Between the first and last sessions, participants did show a slight increase in the mean rate per minute of the academic praise behavior (.09). A decreased in their use of behavioral specific praise was seen (-.05) and modeling was not seen at all during the simulation sessions. It is believed that when preservice teachers receive timely feedback, they are more likely to implement the feedback they received (Rathel et. al., 2008).

Another interesting fact to consider is that this group taught their lesson in front of their peers with no explicit feedback from anyone. Nerves and lack of affirmation could have contributed to their subpar performance within the simulation.

Peer Feedback Group Preservice teachers within the peer feedback

PAGE 15

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

group were also in the simulation five times and received feedback from their peers only. Mean rate per minute gains were seen in the behaviors of specific academic (.36) and specific behavioral praise (.11). Modeling was not seen in any of the sessions. Although all preservice teachers in this group showed an increase in their use of HLPs within the simulation, gains were not seen in their efficacy of those HLPs. One factor could be that peers were not explicitly instructed on how to provide performance feedback. Overall, feedback that peers gave and received was general and nonspecific. Some examples of feedback participants received were: “Good job during your lesson,” “Nice job,” and “I liked your lesson.” Performance feedback should have components of corrective feedback, praise for correct implementation of strategy, and should address any comments or questions the preservice teacher may have (Codding et al., 2005). For future study, it is suggested that preservice teachers be explicitly taught how to give performance feedback. This could include the use of sentence stems to prompt students to focus on specific attributes of HLPs. Like the control group, participants taught their lessons in front of their peers and instructor. Performing in front of their peers and/or lack of explicit performance feedback could be contributing factors as to why efficacy of HLPs were not as impactful as the instructor feedback group.

Instructor Feedback Group Preservice teachers in the instructor feedback group showed the highest increase in their efficacy and use of HLPs. Preservice teachers received immediate feedback on their performance in the simulation from the researcher on their use of HLPs. Performance feedback included corrective feedback, praise for correct implementation of the HLPs, and additional feedback, and addressed any comments/concerns that the preservice teachers may have had. Some examples of the feedback participants received were: “You used a lot of general praise when you were going over the list of vocabulary words. Tell me two ways you could have used academic praise during that time?” “Great use of modeling when thinking about the science word,” and “Great use of

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

behavioral specific praise when talking to CJ." Preservice teachers in this group taught their scripted lessons in front of the PI. This group showed the most gains in their efficacy (p = 0.002) of HLPs. The gains in mean rate per minute of academic specific praise and behavioral specific praise between the first and last session were .05 and .07 respectfully.

Although participants in this study were randomly assigned to groups, the instructor feedback group started the initial simulation session exhibiting higher rates per minute then the peer group. Thus, the gains were not as great as they were for the peer feedback group.

Preservice teachers in this group could have felt more comfortable teaching in front of just the PI rather than their peers. Future research warrants examining how performance in simulation differs when participants teach in front of peers, instructor only, or without any observers.

Limitations and Future Direction It should be noted that there are several limitations to this study that should be considered when interpreting the results. First is the small sample size. Further research should examine the effects of performance feedback and mixed-reality simulation on a larger sample size and across content areas. Second, although preservice teachers were asked to keep discussions and experiences they had in the simulation private, it is not guaranteed that participants followed instructions. Talking to each other outside the simulation time could have influenced their behaviors within the simulation. Another limitation of this study is that not all preservice teachers engaged in the same amount of simulation practice due to a variety of reasons (i.e., sick, job). Future studies should examine if the amount of simulation time a preservice teacher participates in impacts their efficacy and use of HLPs. The last limitation to consider would be that the three groups did not receive the modeling online module until week three of the study. Therefore, students may not have had enough time to process and practice this EBP within the simulator, thus the lower rate of use for this teacher behavior.

Conclusion This pilot study contributes to the literature

PAGE 16

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

by examining the use of performance feedback in the deliberate practice of HLPs in teacher preparation. The results of this study suggest that pairing the use of mixed-reality simulation with instructor performance feedback in the deliberate practice of HLPs is a promising way for preservice teachers to hone their craft before entering a classroom. It is important that teacher preparation programs take the time to explain the importance of, provide the opportunity to practice, and give meaningful performance feedback of these strategies. When a teacher enters a classroom prepared with the knowledge and skills of HLPs, students are more likely to engage with the content and succeed.

References Allday, R. A., Hinkson-Lee, K., Hudson, T., NelisenGatti, S., Kleinke, A., & Russel, C. S. (2012).

Training general educators to increase behaviorspecific praise: Effects on students with EBD. Behavioral Disorder, 37(2), 87-98.

Akalin, S., & Sucuoglu, B. (2015). Effects of classroom management intervention based on teacher training and performance feedback on outcomes of teacher-student dyads in inclusive classrooms. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(3), 739-758.

Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. NY: Guilford Publications.

Austin, J. L., Lee, M., & Carr, J. P. (2004). The effects of guided notes on undergraduate students’ recording of lecture content. The Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 314320.

Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach: And connecting professional learning to practice.

American Educator, 35(2), 17.

Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458-474.

Baumann, J. F., Jones, L. A., & Seifert-Kessell, N. (1993). Using think alouds to enhance children’s comprehension monitoring abilities. The Reading Teacher, 47(3), 184-193.

Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time. The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions, 3-35.

Codding, R. S., Feinberg, A. B., Dunn, E. K., & Pace,

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

G. M. (2005). Effects of immediate performance feedback on implementation of behavior support plans. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(2), 205-219.

Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Snyder, A., AlHendawi, M., & Vo, A. (2009). Creating a positive classroom atmosphere: Teacher’s use of effective praise and feedback. Beyond Behavior, 18, 18-26.

Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013), Unraveling evidenced-based practices in special education.

Journal of Special Education, 46, 71-82.

Dieker, L. A., Hynes, M. E., Hughes, C., & Straub, C. (2014). Using virtual rehearsal in TLE TeachLivETM mixed reality classroom simulator to determine the effects on the performance of mathematics teachers (Technical Report), Orlando: University of Central Florida.

Dieker, L. A., Kennedy, M. J., Smith, S., Vasquez III, E., Rock, M., & Thomas, C. N. (2014). Use of technology in the preparation of pre-service teachers (Document No. IC-11). Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovationconfigurations/ Duchaine, E. L., Jolivette, K., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). The effect of teacher coaching with performance feedback on behavior-specific praise in inclusion classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(2), 209-227.

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 15(2), 273-289.

Hattie, J. (2009). The contributions from teaching approaches-part 1. J. Hattie.(Eds.), Visible learning: A synthesis of over, 800, 161-199.

Higgs, A. L., & McMillan, V. M. (2006). Teaching through modeling: Four schools' experiences in sustainability education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(1), 39-53.

Judge, S., Bobzien, J., Maydosz, A., Gear, S., & Katsioloudis, P. (2013). The use of visual-based simulated environments in teacher preparation.

Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(1).

Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21-34.

Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82, 25-43.

Maheady, L., Smith, C., & Jabot, M. (2013). Chapter 6 Utilizing Evidence-Based Practice in Teacher Preparation. In Evidence-based practices (pp.

PAGE 17

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

121-147). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378-386.

McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Petrusa, E. R., & Scalese, R. J. (2010). A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Medical Education, 44(1), 50-63.

McLeskey, J., Barringer, M-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.

Noell, G. H., Witt, G. J., Gatti, S. L., & Connell, J. E. (2002). Consultation, follow-up, and behavior management intervention implementation in general education. School Psychology Review, 3, 217-234.

Noell, G. H., Witt, G. J., LaFleur, L. H., Mortenson, B. P., Ranier, D. D., & LeVelle, J. (2000).

Increasing intervention implementation in general education following consultation: A comparison of two follow-up strategies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 271-284.

Rathel, J. M., Drasgow, E., & Christle, C. C. (2008).

Effects of supervisor performance feedback on increasing preservice teachers' positive communication behaviors with students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16(2), 6777.

Scheeler, M. C., Budin, S., & Markelz, A. (2016).

The role of teacher preparation in promoting evidence-based practice in schools. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14(2), 171-187.

Scheeler, M. K., McAfee, J.K., & Ruhl, K.L. (2006).

Effects of corrective feedback delivered via wireless technology on preservice teacher performance and student behaviors. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(1), 12-25.

Scheeler, M. K., Ruhl, K.L., & McAfee, J.K. (2004).

Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(3).

Schles, R. A., & Robertson, R. E. (2019). The role of performance feedback and implementation of evidence-based practices for preservice special education teachers and student outcomes: A review of the literature. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 36-48.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351-380.

Sutherland, K.S., Alder, N., & Gunter, P.L. (2003).

The effects of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorder, 11, 239248.

Teaching Works. (n.d.). High leverage practices.

Retrieved February 24, 2018, from http://www.teachingworks.org/work-ofteaching/high-leverage-practices Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878-903.

About the Authors Dr. Kate E. Zimmer is an Associate Professor of Special Education at Kennesaw State University.

Her teaching, research, and community engagement efforts focus on teacher preparation, early intervention, literacy, and autism.

Dr. Melissa K. Driver is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at Kennesaw State University. Her teaching, research, and community engagement efforts focus on teacher preparation, culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy, and mathematics interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities.

Dr. Patricia Alvarez McHatton is the Vice President for Academic Affairs at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Her research interests focus on teacher preparation, diverse learners and families, and collaboration, especially between general education and special education.

We extend thanks to the preservice teachers, instructors, and graduate research assistants who participated in this research, and specially recognize Jill Williams for her contributions to the study.

PAGE 18

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

Proportional Reasoning in Preservice Teachers Dr. Sandra Davis Trowell Valdosta State University

Preservice teachers’ experience with proportions has typically followed that of executing the traditional cross multiplication rule. Given suggested mathematics education reform, the expectation is for current preservice teachers to have developed more sophisticated proportional reasoning. However, when a small group of preservice teachers were asked to solve nonroutine problems that involve proportional reasoning, many struggled to find a reasonable solution. Results indicate these teachers need more development with proportional reasoning and the related philosophical foundations on which this approach is based.

Introduction It is recommended that teachers know the mathematics that they are responsible for teaching as well as the mathematics beyond what they are assigned to teach (Bauserfeld, 1988). Their mathematical knowledge impacts what mathematics their students have opportunities to learn (National Mathematics Panel, 2008). For preservice elementary and middle grades teachers, an important topic is that of proportional reasoning, which has been described as the "capstone of elementary school mathematics" (National Mathematics Panel, 2008). In addition, proportional reasoning is sophisticated and complex and should be developed over many years with students developing an understanding before being introduced to formal procedures (National Mathematics Panel, 2001).

Literature Review In working with preservice elementary and middle grades, proportional reasoning is often addressed. Research has shown that acquisition

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

of typical mathematic concepts is not indicative of student's comprehension of proportionality (Miller, 2000; Post, 1988). Proportional reasoning is a sophisticated mathematical idea that involves the coordination of several units.

Many students struggle distinguishing between proportional relationships and non-proportional relationships. Presenting the cross-products rule for proportional reasoning oversimplifies the idea and robs students of ways to develop these ideas. Instead, students need opportunities to solve mathematical tasks that help them develop this reasoning.

The Principles and Standards for School Mathematics was designed around the idea of integrating content and process skills in teaching and learning mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,1989). The desired curriculum is taught through problem solving, communicating, and making connections. Since this curriculum design has been proven to be affective, it is important for preservice teachers to become strong in proportional reasoning and more sophisticated ideas in solving related tasks.

Methods and Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine elementary and middle grade preservice teachers' proportional reasoning skills in various mathematics courses throughout their professional program curriculum. Prospective elementary teachers at a southern regional university must take four mathematics courses before they can begin their student teaching.

Middle school mathematics teachers typically take three upper level mathematics courses before their student teaching.

PAGE 19

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

The explanations that were constructed to explain the students’ mathematical explanations were from an interaction perspective (Blumer, 1969; Bauersfeld, 1988). Each student was responsible for using her/his mathematic logic as they attempted to solve problems. Participants interacted with others in their classroom to solve math problems. The tasks were presented in a manner consistent with a problem-centered learning approach (Wheatley, 1991). Students were given a question to consider and discuss.

The class then came together to discuss their findings. During the whole class discussion, the students were to decide upon the feasibility and viability of the solutions, rather than the teacher being the final authority. In this study, problemcentered learning was used to encourage students to make sense of mathematics for themselves as well as with their peers. Students problem-solving, communicating, and making connections was essential in this study.

Results Prospective teachers were required to first take Foundations of Numbers and Operations, during their sophomore year before being admitted to the elementary education program.

During their junior and senior years, they were required to take three more upper level mathematics courses before their student teaching experiences. These courses focus on various topics in numbers, geometry, probability, and statistics. The final course for these prospective elementary teachers was Mathematic Reasoning. The expectation was that students’ knowledge would become more sophisticated in mathematics as they progressed through these courses. Prospective middle grades teachers were required to take three upper level mathematics courses before they began their student teaching (Foundations of Numbers and Operations, Mathematics for Middle Grades, and Mathematic Reasoning). These courses also focused on various topics in numbers, geometry, probability, and statistics. Proportional reasoning and recognizing proportional relationships become the focus during the last class.

Foundations of Numbers and Operation A During the first course, Foundations of Numbers and Operations, students were given

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

various non-routine problems with their goal being to come to a consensus on an appropriate solution. Approximately twelve weeks into the semester the students were given the following problem: Suzy is mixing white and black paint. In her first mixture she mixes 2 gallons of white paint with 3 gallons of black paint. Her second mixture includes 3 gallons of white paint with 4 gallons of black paint. While they appear very close, which one is darker than the other or are both the same? Explain and defend your answer.

During the whole class discussion of this problem, five different solutions were presented.

The students willingly shared and discussed their ideas about this problem while trying to make sense of the various solutions. Of the five solutions, there were three feasible possibilities: Both mixtures are the same, the two parts white to three parts black mixture is darker, or the three parts white to four parts black mixture is darker.

The students who said that the mixtures were both the same defended their answer by stating that the same amount of color was added to the mixture, so it did not change. For these students, the answer was obvious. It was viewed as a simple additive problem with no changes made.

The next group were those that stated that three parts white to four parts black mixture was the darkest mixture. These students viewed the 2 ratio 2 to 3 as the fraction 3 and the ratio 3 to 4 3

as the fraction 4. They defended their position that three parts white to four parts black was the darker of the mixtures by taking these two 2 3 fractions, and , and finding a common 3

4

2

8

3

denominator. They asserted that 3 = 12 and 4 = 9 , 12

8

9

3

9

and since 12 < 12, then 4 or 12 represented the darker mixture. These students interpreted the ratio as fractions to compare. Most used the “two-thirds” and “three-fourths” when discussing this relationship.

The third group presented their solutions in three different ways. This group stated that the darker mixture was the 2 parts white to 3 parts black. Two of the solutions presented involved

PAGE 20

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

comparing fractions that were different than that of the previous group. The fractions that these students discussed involved the part-to-whole rather than the part-to-part ratios. One solution is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 2 parts white to 3 parts 3 parts white to 4 black parts black 2 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 3 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 43% Darker 40% 5 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 7 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 60%

3 5

𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

57%

4 7

𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

Another solution presented was that two parts white to three parts black was the darker of the two choices. This approach used fractions similar to the ones above, but did not use percentages. Instead, they found common denominators and the difference between the “white part” and the “black part” as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 2 parts white to 3 parts 3 parts white to 4 black parts black 3 15 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 More 2 14 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 5 35 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 7 35 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 3 21 4 20 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑘 Black 5 35 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 7 35 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 The third solution involved comparing the parts in a different way. The students chose the two parts white to three parts black mixture.

1 Each white part would get 1 2 black parts, while in the three parts white to four parts black 1 mixture, each white part would get 1 black 3 parts. This solution can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3 2 parts white to 3 3 parts white to 4 parts black parts black Darker 2 parts 3 parts Lighter 𝟏 white white 𝟏 𝟏𝟐 𝟏 𝟑 3 parts 4 parts black black black black During the course of discussion, most of the class came to agree that the two parts white to three parts black mixture was indeed the darker of the two mixtures. Some of the students were

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

confident in their mathematics and proportional reasoning and made several attempts to explain their thinking in a variety of ways. While it was encouraging to see the sophisticated mathematics of some of these students, it was also disheartening to see that some prospective teachers had little or no sense of proportional reasoning.

Foundations of Numbers and Operation B During another course of Foundations of Numbers and Operations for sophomores planning to enter the elementary education program, the same paint problem was posed.

The class had also been engaged in non-routine problem solving while negotiating a problemcentered mathematics classroom. The students were comfortable sharing and discussing their solutions.

In this Foundations of Numbers and Operation class, the solutions from 21 students were noted. Ten of the 21 students believed that the mixtures were the same. An example of their rationale was, “The two values went up by the same amount; therefore, nothing is changed.”

Like some in the previous class, these students exhibited an additive idea instead of recognizing the need to coordinate all the parts involved.

Three of the 21 students believed that the three parts white to four parts black would be the darker mixture. Their reasoning was similar to the previous class because they simply compared the ratios as if they were fractions.

Eight of the 21 students believed that the two parts white to three parts black would be the darkest mixture.

Mathematics for Middle School In addition to examining the proportional reasoning of the sophomore students in these two different Foundations of Numbers and Operations classes, the professor of a Mathematics for Middle School course was also given the same problem to present to students.

These students were juniors planning to teach mathematics in middle grades. The expectation was that they would be more skilled mathematically and would have a stronger sense of proportional reasoning. Of the 20 students in this course, only three stated that the two mixtures would be the same. Again it was using an additive approach in examining the situation.

PAGE 21

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

Six of these students believed that the three parts white to four parts black was the darkest mixture. Their reasons fell into two broad categories. One was similar to the other classes 2 3 in that they compared the two fractions and 3 4 rather than seeing the proportional relationship among the four numbers. Another reason advanced by this group was that there was more black paint, therefore it must be a darker mixture. Eleven students in this class believed the two parts white to three parts black was the darkest mixture. The solutions were similar to those in the previous class. While more of the preservice middle grades teachers displayed a stronger sense of proportional reasoning, all classes had students who appeared not to have develop a strong understanding of proportional tasks and reasoning.

Mathematics Reasoning The last mathematics course that preservice elementary teachers must take before they can student teach is Mathematics Reasoning. This course completes the four mathematics courses for prospective elementary teachers. Two of these classes, which included a total of fortyfour students, were given problems similar to the paint mixture with no numbers or scale present (Billings, 2002). One of the problems is shown below: Thermos A and Thermos B contain cocoa that tastes the same. If one scoop of cocoa mix is added to both Thermos A and Thermos B, which thermos contains the cocoa with the stronger chocolate taste? Explain your answer (Billings, 2002, p. 39).

Thermos A Thermos B Twenty-four of these students said that Thermos B would have the stronger chocolate flavor. Their argument was that Thermos A had more water than Thermos B, thus making the cocoa added more diluted in Thermos A. However, 15 of these 44 students believed that these two mixtures would remain the same, i.e.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

that neither thermos would have a stronger taste than the other. In addition, 3 of the students stated that Thermos A would have the stronger chocolate taste because it would have the most chocolate. These forty-four students were in their final mathematics course, after which they would begin their student teaching experience, yet 18 of the forty-four students were not able to correctly analyze this proportional relationship.

Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusions The ability to reason proportionally develops in students throughout grades 5 through 8 (National Mathematics Panel, 2008).

It is of such great importance that it merits whatever time and effort that must be expended to assure its careful development (National Mathematics Panel, 2008). This recommendation was made before most of the students in the aforementioned classes were born; however, it holds true when evaluating the preserves teachers in this article. Research on the relationship between teachers’ mathematical knowledge and students’ achievement confirms the importance of teachers’ content knowledge (National Mathematics Panel, 2008). Quite frankly, teachers cannot teach what they do not know. As with this population of preservice teachers, it is of extreme importance that future math educators develop proportional reasoning.

This small study indicates that many students were not entering math courses with strong proportional reasoning. While the population of these courses was similar to other students in the same courses, it did not include all students in all of the courses. It also did not follow students throughout the four mathematics courses. Given these limits, it is still essential that preservice teachers are given more opportunities to explore nontraditional problems involving proportional thinking. In addition, the development of the mathematical ideas that lead to proportional reasoning should also be examined (Lo & Watanabe, 1997; Norton, 2005).

Proportional reasoning is an idea that is an essential part of many professions (Hilton, Hilton, Dole, & Goos, 2016). Health professionals must be able to determine correct amounts of medicine for various patients based upon weight. Builders and architects must be

PAGE 22

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

able to construct and interpret plans for various projects and ideas. Consumers fare better when they are able to choose the best buy among various options for purchase. Proportional reasoning is also a critical idea that is used in more sophisticated mathematics. Therefore, teachers must be given ample opportunities to learn mathematics for teaching. If teachers are weak in their understanding, they may limit their students’ development of proportional reasoning. The mathematics preparation of elementary and middle school teachers must be strengthened to improve their effectiveness in the classroom (National Mathematics Panel, 2008). This includes preservice teacher education, early career support, and professional development programs (National Mathematics Panel, 2008).

National Research Council. (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Norton, S. J. (2005). The construction of proportional reasoning. In H. L. Chick (Ed.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 4, pp. 17-24. Melbourne: PME. Post, T. M. (1988). Proportionality and the development of pre-algebra understandings. In (NCTM), Ideas of Algebra, K-12, 1988 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 78-90). Reston, VA: NCTM. Wheatley, G. H. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on mathematics and science learning. Science Education, 15, 9-21.

References Bauserfeld, H. (1988). Interaction, construction, and knowledge: Alternative perspectives for mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws, Perspectives on Research on Effective Mathematics Teaching (pp. 27-46). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Billings, E. M. (2002). Cocoa. In G. W. Bright, Classroom Activities for Making Sense of Fractions, Ratios, and Proportions, 2002 Yearbook (pp.38-40). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hilton, A., Hilton, G., Dole, S., and Goos, M. (2016).

Promoting middle school students’ proportional reasoning skills through an ongoing professional development program for teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 92(2), 193-219.

Lo, J. J. & Watanabe, T. (1997). Developing ratio and proportion schemes: A story of a fifth grader. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 216-236. doi:10.2307/74976 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

(1989). Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Mathematics Panel. (2008). Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

About the Author Dr. Sandra Davis Trowell is an associate professor in the department of mathematics at Valdosta State University. She is interested in mathematics learning and how social norms become negotiated in mathematics classrooms.

PAGE 23

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

What’s My Job? Co-Coordinator Roles Within a Special Education Teacher Preparation Program Dr. Harriet J. Bessette and Dr. Kathleen Bennett Kennesaw State University

Preparing teacher candidates to become effective special education teachers requires a clinical experience in conjunction with relevant rigorous coursework, both of which are made possible by the coordinated efforts of one or more faculty members responsible for their administration and oversight. This paper examines the relationship of two co-coordinators within a special education initial certification program for master’s level students. Preparation, organization, and administration were the three major elements utilized to engage in a collaborative partnership. Individual roles and responsibilities were developed and facilitated by previous mentor/mentee relationships. The advantages of building a culture of collaboration and sustainability that supports students, faculty, and program capacity is discussed.

Introduction Collaboration and synchronous working relationships between faculty members are more than academic frills in higher education. They are the necessary ways in which faculty must do their work in teacher preparation programs with clinical practice. An institution that builds excellence among its members is essentially building the capacity and sustainability of its constituents and its programs. According to Hargreaves and Fink (2006), capacity and sustainability are products of the principles of shared responsibility and organizational diversity that “promote cross-fertilization of good ideas and successful practices in communities of shared learning and development” (p. 3).

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

Supporting the success of special education candidates in a teacher preparation program requires a commitment to the development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help them become effective transformational educators who can effectively teach all children. These children are often linguistically, culturally, and intellectually diverse in their abilities. Teacher educators responsible for developing educators that can successfully support and advocate for diverse students and their families must model the skills and dispositions that they are hoping to foster within their preservice candidates. The process of developing effective special education teachers is a collaborative one, requiring the talents of teacher educators who are occasionally called to simultaneously coordinate and provide oversight for the program itself. This oversight may be needed within and outside the college classroom. In this paper, we will examine three pillars that have supported our successful program cocoordination, including the impact that our previous mentor/mentee relationship has had on our current roles and responsibilities. The resulting effect on the expansion of a culture of sustainability for supporting preservice teachers and program capacity will also be explored.

Background In the Spring semester of 2017, the chairperson of an education department within a large university in the southeastern United States proposed establishing a mentoring program to provide targeted support and guidance to new faculty entering academia. The department had

PAGE 24

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

recently experienced a number of new hires who regularly relied on the generosity of the department chair, seasoned faculty, and even other new faculty for advice, support, ideas, and resources. They also sought knowledge about the specifics of the department (teaching, scholarship, and service expectations), department rules and procedures, evaluation procedures, promotion and tenure guidelines, and practical advice about professional service and leadership activities. This informal process was not unlike the process that many institutions of higher education follow for enculturating new faculty in a department. As Fountain and Newcomer (2016) point out, More-senior members of organizations in all sectors are frequently asked informally, or are even required, to socialize and support new and/or more-junior members of their organizations to strengthen the latter’s relevant skills, to develop potential leaders, and to build organizational capacity more generally (p. 483).

The coordination of the preparation program was a complex endeavor, involving administration and coordination of course curriculum as well as field experiences. Nearly a year into our mentor-mentee relationship, my colleague and I were able to establish who we were, what we could expect from each other, and what our strengths and relative weaknesses were. This relationship would become the preamble to our co-coordination partnership.

Supporting One Another To the credit of our department chair, my mentee and I were assigned co-coordinator roles for an initial certification special education preparation program. This was practical because we had established an effective mentor/mentee relationship. I had previous program coordination experience and bringing newer faculty into the fold seemed reasonable, considering our desire to expand the role of the mentee and establish a succession process. Our relationship was characterized by trust because we were able to depend on each other. We liked each other and had similar backgrounds in preparing pre-service candidates for the field of special education. I was entering my 12th year of program coordinating, and my mentee was

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

entering her first. Although we were a generation apart, we shared similar philosophies and ideologies regarding pedagogy. A high level of professionalism was expected of us in terms of our co-coordination relationship. Even though we were friends, I was a senior colleague in the department and the mentor/mentee relationship needed to have an appropriate degree of respect and professionalism.

Carnethon et. al. (2012) harnessed a list of characteristics common among successful mentor/mentee relationships that could enhance our current roles. They included showing appreciation for the mentor’s time and efforts on his or her behalf, meeting regularly, showing trustworthiness toward one another and maintaining confidentiality as appropriate, following up on project and commitments in a timely way, showing initiative by actively seeking research projects, seeking or providing specific advice or feedback, proactively sharing interests and skills, learning from successes and errors, displaying an inquiry stance toward scholarship, suggesting mutual projects, actively providing and utilizing advice, displaying optimism and staying on course in order to meet personal goals, holding realistic expectations of the mentoring relationship, accepting constructive criticism and acting to improve upon areas, developing realistic and thoughtful goals for furthering one’s career, and approaching tasks pensively and introspectively (p. 11). We exhibited many of these characteristics, most of which we happened upon and made happen during our mentor/mentee relationship. Among the most important of these characteristics were those that were interpersonal like attributes and dispositions that made us respect, trust, and believe in one another. The mentoring relationship had now expanded to a relationship where we both were coordinating the same program. We were co-coordinators, co-leaders, and we supported one another. We were able to easily compensate for each other’s shortcomings. As a result, we learned how to be interdependent, which entailed being strong in our own right, yet better together and accountable to each other. When one of us succeeded, the other did as well. I supplied

PAGE 25

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

institutional knowledge while my partner surpassed my skills in technology. Information that needed to be shared quickly was my partner’s forte, while writing technical /accreditation reports was mine. We came to realize that we were operating much as coteachers and/or collaborators with a common goal (Friend, 2016).

Mentoring as Modeling There is ample evidence that mentoring that provides necessary scaffolding, support, and growth potential for beginning practitioners is advantageous. It helps faculty mentees acquire and develop the competencies they need to thrive and build their careers (Bean, Lucas, & Hyers, 2014; Benson, Morahan, Sachdeva, & Richman, 2002; Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel, & Files, 2014; Tareef, 2013; Thorndyke, Gusic, & Millner, 2008). It can best be described as a relationship that is deliberate, tailored to the unique work context of the new faculty member, and intentional. As Johnson (2007) posits, “To mentor is to model. Research from a wide range of professional fields confirms that in addition to providing career guidance and psychological support, outstanding mentors are also deliberate models” (p. 59).

Taking a new member of the academy on as one’s protégé is both a formidable and noble task. Mentors and their mentees each have needs. These needs may include but are not limited to adequate preparation, introduction to and dissemination of soft and hard skills, a plan for assessing the relationship, and a plan for sustainability. For the mentor, there are responsibilities related to deeply understanding and being able to relay structural and organizational information, developing a mentoring plan for the mentee, negotiating the amount of oversight by the mentor, assessing the attainment of mentees’ goals, and providing the right amount of guidance to create a confident, informed, self-sustaining professional who will take ownership of his/her career paths and seek and achieve success in academia. A formal mentoring program was implemented in which mentors and mentees were expected to interact pursuant to the mission, values, and work culture of the department (Lumpkin, 2011). A year following the successful launch of our

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

mentor/mentee program, the participants’ roles expanded to co-coordination of an initial special education preparation program, which was a familiar role for the mentor and a new role for the mentee. After finding the right formula that made our mentor/mentee relationship work, we expanded our mentoring relationship and began a collaborative partnership as program coordinators and leaders.

Conceptual Framework Vygotsky’s notion of interpersonal and intrapersonal planes of knowledge acquisition (1978) provides the conceptual underpinning for our work. At the juncture of understanding is the idea that new knowledge is first received on an interpersonal plane of learning, or the interchange between two or more individuals.

This knowledge is then mediated and constructed within an intrapersonal plane where an individual is able to make sense of and apply a new construct (Vygotsky, 1978). This theory provides a conceptual framework for the nature of adult learning and leadership, resulting from the collaboration of a mentoring relationship.

The literature is replete with studies that suggest that true collaboration is the mark of partners who are called upon to perform duties where all parties are accountable to one another and provide benefits to one another (Friend, 2016; Murawski & Bernhardt, 2016; Tomlinson, 2016). In the current study, the collaborative partnership that developed as a result of the original mentoring relationship made this an ideal context for developing a co-coordinator relationship.

Pillars Supporting Program Coordination Program coordinators within our department requires that each coordinator knows and demonstrates best teaching practices in the discipline, current and anticipated trends, and discipline-specific standards (national, state, and SPA/professional). Additionally, program coordinators are expected to advise current and prospective students, contribute to the professional development of others, and maintain an exemplary record of attendance at related meetings and functions (APC, UG/MAT, UPCC, GPCC). They are also expected to complete assignments, communicate/respond in a timely manner, demonstrate a positive and

PAGE 26

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

professional attitude and strong work ethic, complete all assessment reports, and design and oversee the program assessment tools with the team. Lastly, they are expected to also market the program and recruit graduate candidates, when possible. We found three major pillars supporting our partnership and helping us engage as the co-coordinators of an initial special education preparation program. They are preparation, organization, and administration.

Preparation As co-coordinators, we found that our joint work needed to initially be built on preparation.

This included committing to meet on a regular basis, discussing our purpose and setting common goals, acknowledging that goals needed to be implemented incrementally, seeking leadership support, monitoring roles and responsibilities, maintaining progress by adjusting roles and responsibilities as needed, recognizing and acknowledging our commonalities and differences, and discussing benchmarks (expectations and outcomes) for cocoordination of the program.

Preparation for co-coordination can mirror the principles for successful mentoring. Several factors appear to be connected with successful mentoring relationships. these factors include but are not limited to clearly stated purpose and goals, support from faculty and leadership evaluation for continuous improvement, inclusive design that instills collaboration as a cultural value and core institutional responsibility, and intentional strategies for matching pairs based on professional compatibility (Bean, Lucas, & Hyers, 2014; Lumpkin, 2011; Luna & Cullen, 1995; Peters & Boylston, 2006). We saw how our collaborative relationship could benefit from these principles, so we referenced them as we established our roles as co-coordinators.

An Organic Process Considering our recent experience as mentor and mentee, it is not surprising that this relationship transferred naturally as we assumed co-coordination responsibilities. The negotiation process was organic, meaning that it developed in a natural, unassuming way. Negotiating our roles happened with ease when deciding on meeting dates, agreeing on time commitments,

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

and planning for scheduled future/special meetings. We believe that that our prior relationship as mentor and mentee, and the experiences we had in preparing to work collaboratively, influenced our smooth transition to co-coordination.

Organization Organization, the second pillar, is key to any program. It provides momentum for a project, provides orderliness for the journey ahead, helps us move forward, and assists in measuring the effectiveness and efficacy of our efforts. After preparing our roadmap for coordinating collaboratively, we focused our efforts around organization. Our efforts were geared toward configuring the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program, the demands of the standards governing the program, our role in designing communication methods, structuring the assessment process, establishing our expertise in the classroom/practicum settings, and the clarity that needed to be brought to the clinical portion of the program. At this juncture, strategies included setting the context for collaboration, organizing and developing a collaborative context, and organizing as a collective responsibility (Kezar & Lester, 2009). We employed these strategies to our own context, in terms of our collective responsibility.

Partnership capital, which is the benefit that comes from creating a collaborative relationship where individual partners cannot accomplish their goals on their own, was also factored into our approach (Eddy, 2010). Our aim was to create the ultimate win-win situation. Effectively managing expectations, understanding effective and efficient management of resources, utilization of strategic planning, managing academic program resources, becoming knowledgeable of accreditation, and developing crisis management and emergency plans were key components as well (Powers & Schloss, 2017). These principles guided our work in effectively organizing and managing faculty who taught in the program we jointly coordinated.

Administration The MAT in Special Education is an initial certification program which leads to a master’s degree and initial P-12 certification in special

PAGE 27

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

education. The coursework, along with the field and clinical experiences, are aligned to the Council for Exceptional Children’s Initial Special Education General Curriculum Standards and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission’s standards for special education. The program content focuses on supporting candidates to teach P-12 students with high incidence disabilities in inclusive settings. Candidates are eligible for the reading endorsement upon completion of the program and receipt of an induction certificate once hired. Applicants to the program do not possess an undergraduate degree in teaching; they are generally career-changers beginning a rigorous learning process ranging from learning the basics of teaching and lesson-planning, to acquiring specific skills related to evidencebased instruction. Assessment, positive behavior intervention systems, and collaborative practices are also skills to be acquired. The third pillar common to our work involved the following administrative tasks: student advising, resolving registration issues, conducting orientations, oversight of curriculum & instruction, keeping and monitoring assessment data, monitoring enrollment numbers, and supporting faculty.

Common Responsibilities When comparing our list with the more formal list of program coordination activities delineated by our department, we found that we were fairly on the mark. They included communication and program delivery; report writing and data collection; program effectiveness; review and revision; placements; supervision and advisement; recruitment, admissions, and partnerships; and development of new programs. Taken together, our responsibilities to the program have been comprehensive and demanding. Not surprisingly, this level of administration required support from our department chair, particularly in the area of preparing teaching faculty who find themselves accountable to us, the cocoordinators. As a critical member of the administrative triad, the department chair shares key information as appropriate and addresses issues concerning the program, courses and coursework, clinical preparation, and students

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

and faculty that exist beyond the auspices of program coordinators. Department chairs are also responsible for preparing the department for faculty assignments as well as answering questions related to collaborative roles and partnerships within the department.

Culture of Sustainability for Supporting Student and Program Capacity As Cunningham and Tedesco (2002) assert, there are principles common to successful partnerships that also serve institutions well for future development and sustainability. They are (a) a clearly defined and shared purpose, where faculty must agree on the overall direction and purpose of the partnership; (b) strong commitment and visible support from leaders, which is critical to building program and partnership capacity; (c) shared decision-making power among partners; (d) reciprocity, in which an effective and enduring educational partnership entails the pursuit of mutually beneficial self-interests across all collaborating partners; (e) trust; and (f) sustainability (pp. 8186). We have ascribed to these principles as evidenced in our previous narrative.

According to Hargreaves and Fink (2006), preserving sustainability in an institution involves renewing the resource pool from which outstanding educators can be drawn (p. 267). It is characterized by contributing resources in training, trust building, and teamwork whose effects remain long after resources have vanished (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). It takes succession seriously, incorporating a succession plan and educating those responsible for implementing a department’s or program’s succession needs. It encourages senior faculty to stay until their efforts are “embedded within the wider culture” so that faculty are prepared to assume these leadership roles in the future (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Co-coordination is one example of how our department plans to sustain and pass on critical knowledge and skills of our program. Employing a focus on preparation, organization, and administration has taught us that we are able to balance multiple priorities, multi-task while supporting each other, and engage in collaborative program cocoordination with confidence.

Conclusion

PAGE 28

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

We realize that this is just the beginning of our journey into investigating the effect of our co-coordination on the special education preparation program we currently oversee in our department. Additionally, we need to gauge how effectively we have provided the stepping stones for those who will follow in our footsteps to become successful, productive, and confident program coordinators (and possibly, cocoordinators) in the future. At the time of this writing, new faculty members in our department are beginning to embark upon leadership roles within the department and college. Looking back on our journey as mentor and mentee, we would have to agree that the impact of that program provided a strong foundation for our current coordination partnership. We have learned that program, department, and faculty growth and sustainability lie in our ability to share our experiences with faculty who will be our successors.

References Bean, N. M., Lucas, L., & Hyers, L. L. (2014).

Mentoring in higher education should be the norm to assure success: Lessons learned from the faculty mentoring program, West Chester University, 2008–2011. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 22(1), 56–73.

Benson, C. A., Morahan, P. S., Sachdeva, A. K., & Richman, R. C. (2002). Effective faculty preceptoring and mentoring during reorganization of an academic medical center. Medical Teacher, 24(5), 550–557.

Carnethon, M., Kim, K. Y., & Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2012). Mentoring and faculty handbook for the Department of Preventive Medicine.

Mentoring and Faculty Development Task Force.

Cunningham, L.C., & Tedesco, L. A. (2002).

Mission possible: Developing effective educational partnerships Linda C. Cunningham and Lisa A. Tedesco. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,7(1& 2), p. 79, (2001-02).

Eddy, P. L. (2010). Partnerships and collaboration in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report,36(2), Wiley

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

Periodicals, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Fountain, J., & Newcomer, K. E. (2016).

Developing and sustaining effective faculty mentoring programs, Journal of Public Affairs Education, 22(4), 483-506.

Friend, M. (2016). Welcome to co-teaching 2.0.

Educational Leadership,74(4), 16-22.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). The seven principles of sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, W. B. (2007). On being a mentor. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Organizing higher education for collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.

Lumpkin, A. (2011). A model for mentoring university faculty. Educational Forum, 75(4), 357–368.

Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and renewed. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, 24(3), 1–87.

Mayer, A. P., Blair, J. E., Ko, M. G., Patel, S. I., & Files, J. A. (2014). Long-term follow-up of a facilitated peer mentoring program.

Medical Teacher, 36(3), 260–266.

Murawski, W., & Bernhardt, P. (2016). An administrator’s guide to co-teaching.

Educational Leadership, 74(4), 30-34.

Peters, M. A., & Boylston, M. (2006).

Mentoring adjunct faculty: Innovative solutions. Nurse Educator, 31(2), 61–64.

Powers, K., & Schloss, P. J. (2017).

Organization and administration in higher education. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Tareef, A. B. (2013). The relationship between mentoring and career development of higher education faculty members. College Student Journal, 47(4), 703–710.

Thorndyke, L. E., Gusic, M. E., & Milner, R. J. (2008). Functional mentoring: A practical approach with multilevel outcomes. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28(3), 157–164.

Tomlinson, C. (2016). One to grow on/teaching in tandem: A reflection. Educational Leadership, 74(4), 90-91.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

PAGE 29

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

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

About the Authors Dr. Harriett J. Bessette is a professor of special education and teach masters, specialist and doctoral courses and has over 30 years of teaching and administrative experience in public schools and higher education. She currently co-coordinates the Master of Arts in Teaching, Special Education and Gifted Endorsement Programs. Her research interests include visual representation in qualitative research, Vygotskian theory, and intersubjectivity.

Dr. Kathleen Bennett’s teaching, research, and community engagement efforts focus on teacher preparation, literacy, and high incidence disabilities.

She teaches at both the graduate and undergraduate levels and currently co-coordinates the Master of Arts in Teaching, Special Education and Gifted Endorsement Programs.

VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1

PAGE 30

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

Those wishing to become members or renew membership can find an application online at gaate1.org.

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

The journal, published in October and April, is soliciting manuscripts concerned with teacher education, including teaching and learning, induction, in-service education, and pre-service education.

Refer to the Journal tab at gaate1.org for more details.

Manuscripts for the April issue of GATEways are due January 2nd.

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

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