GATEways 2019 (volume 30, issue 1)

Georgia Association of Teacher Educators Volume 30, Issue 1 October 2019

GATEways to Teacher Education

Cover artwork: Stock photo from creativecommons.org

GATEways to Teacher Education October 2019: Volume 30, Issue 1

Contents Education Outside the Classroom: Engaging Teachers in Their Own Environment through Professional Development

By Brent Gilles, Rebecca Gault, and Stacey Britton The purpose was to present the first year of a multi-year PD design that engaged K-12 teachers in watershed education. The first year focused on engaging teachers in a stream and the areas immediately adjacent, providing activity ideas that met state standards, and facilitating teamwork in designing lessons. Our anecdotal evidence suggests that some teachers have begun making this change.

Engaging Pre-Service Teachers in Critical Conversations about Social and Cultural Diversity

By Nedra L. Cossa This paper explores how technology was incorporated to develop a classroom environment that encouraged open and honest dialogue to help pre-service teachers (PSTs) further their understanding of social and cultural diversity through critical social dialogue (CSD). A web-based, real time online response program allowed PSTs to share their perspectives and understandings about controversial and potentially divisive topics. Results indicate that the anonymous, online response system created a safe environment for PSTs to engage in CSD. Learning from the Experiences of Novice Urban Teachers: Teacher Education and Induction Program Factors That Influence Effectiveness

By Joyce E. Many, Ruchi Bhatnagar, and Carla Tanguay A Critical Incident methodology was used to build a composite picture of the factors teachers felt helped or hindered their success during their first years. Emergent themes indicated the importance of seeing effective instruction modeled, the impact of support or lack of support, the importance of school context including cultures which are restrictive or collaborative, emphasis on testing, and attitudes toward special education inclusion teachers.

On Improving Academic Outcomes for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

By Natasha Ramsay-Jordan This article highlights ways in which educators could spark the intellectual engines of diverse learners. The author argues that critical examinations into the effectiveness of education policies, school practices, and teacher preparation are both significant and central to improving academics for CLDS, and expounds upon ways educators could shift the paradigm.

The Parent/Teacher Connection: A Plan for Success from Two Veteran Teachers

By Linda Ann McCall and Glenda Ogletree The purpose of this paper is to (1) to offer a research-based framework and point of reference for preservice teachers regarding working with parents, (2) to describe a research-based plan for conducting successful parent conferences. It includes a summary with implications for practice.

Transforming Teacher Preparation: Comparing Yearlong and One-Semester Clinical Practice Models

By Gwen McAlpine, Sohyun An, Charlease Kelly-Jackson, Cherry Steffen, and Alyssa St. Cyr-Williams This study compares the experiences of PTs who participated in yearlong and one-semester field experiences and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of both models. The findings reveal that the two models provided unique opportunities for professional growth; however, the yearlong experience provided a more realistic and holistic learning experience.

What the Tech? 2.0: Continuing to Prepare Pre-Service teachers for 21st Century Learners

By Rebeca Cooper, Samantha Mrstik, and Vernita Glenn-White The goal of this project was to expand the technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) of pre-service teachers to allow them to develop their TPACK in year one of a teacher education program.

Qualitative data through class discussions and written feedback determined that the pre-service teachers not only built TPK by learning how to use appropriate technology tools for different types of instruction, but also developed TPACK.

Page 1

Page 10

Page 16

Page 31

Page 40

Page 45

Page 53

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

Education Outside the Classroom: Engaging Teachers in Their Own Environment through Professional Development Brent Gilles, Rebecca Gault, and Stacey Britton University of West Georgia

Providing high-level professional development is an important activity for teacher educators. Within the state of Georgia, Professional Growth accounts for 20% of the annual Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES). Specific to this professional project and in alignment with the Georgia Professional Standards Commission goals for growth, the administrative leaders of this school district identified key components that helped structure this project. This is an independent school district in a suburban area of Georgia, with diverse ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic demographics. This school district identified curriculum development needs in relation to their local habitats and thereby created a need to increase teacher content knowledge. At this point, our team helped to structure what is becoming an increasingly meaningful learning experience for the K-12 teachers and university faculty involved with the project. Teachers needed a minimum of 100 contact hours over two years before they begin to make conceptual changes (Roth, Garnier, Chen, Lemmens, Schwille, & Wickler, 2011). However, the design of the professional development (PD) must also support conceptual change (Svendsen, 2017). We are reporting on the first year of a multi-year PD, which seeks to support teachers in a local school district in developing K-12 curricular materials that engage students with the stream running on and adjacent to their campus. We define this area as their watershed

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

and the subsequent curriculum developed as watershed curriculum.

We designed the PD to be a collaboration between university faculty, community experts, and the teachers in order to foster conceptual change within our participants (Pokhrel & Behera, 2016). One of the ways we accomplished this was by providing notebooks for the teachers to record their thoughts and ideas as they participated in the PD and implemented lessons in their classrooms; additional commentary was available and maintained in an online “platform� to which all participants were given access/ownership. Six days were allotted for the PD, three days during the fall semester, and three days during the spring semester, which provided us with ample time to begin with field work that would provide context and promote the goals of conceptual change and content understanding. The extended time frame allowed us to be reflexive to the needs of the teachers. For instance, day four was designed as a planning day because the teachers indicated that they needed the space and dedicated time to collaborate with their colleagues to most effectively integrate watershed curriculum into their classrooms.

Additionally, we were able to use this day to identify how the activities we used in days one and two could be incorporated to more effectively meet the unique needs of each teacher. A connection to the activity and prior experience provided the best way to support implementation in the classroom (Schneider &

PAGE 1

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

Plasman, 2011). Furthermore, we grouped the teachers by school building to foster a collaborative environment that could potentially support their growth and conceptual change while instilling a sense of community and connectedness to the project (Prestridge, 2014).

The goal is for the teachers to take ownership and share the curriculum with their grade-level and school peers because it is impractical for us to be solely responsible for providing PD to all teachers in the school district. We felt that this sense of ownership would also encourage the teachers engaged in the day-to-day work with the stream to become watershed leaders in their respective schools.

Through an existing connection between the local school district and a local stream restoration expert, we were able to join forces and further a common interest in supporting the development of watershed-based curriculum and getting children into their streams. Specifically, we sought to provide content knowledge and curriculum support to teachers throughout the district’s K-12 school system. The stream expert brought additional STEM-based community members on board to assist in developing an interdisciplinary watershed curriculum. This innovative curriculum included standard-based lessons that provided paths to meet the teachers’ varying responsibilities by creating an interdisciplinary focus that incorporated language arts and mathematics into science and environmental education and provided an inquiry-based environment that centered on the local stream. Consequently, our local partner will use the data that is collected by the students in these classrooms to design, build, and restore the stream on school property. There are current discussions on how the restored stream can serve as a learning space with the integration of an outdoor classroom for the school district.

Our team has experiences and interests that uniquely situate us to be able to facilitate this process of professional development for the teachers involved in this ongoing project. All of us serve as assistant professors in a college of education at a regional campus in the southeast, which is located in the same community as the local school district pursuing this initiative. The first author is a science educator with a

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

background in meteorology and a focus on environmental education who works primarily with secondary-level teachers. The second author has a background in mathematics education, civil engineering, and an interest in how teachers create and enact contextualized complex learning tasks for students at both elementary and secondary levels. The third author is a science and biology educator who has investigated issues of environmental and social justice extensively and currently works with elementary-level teachers. Both of the science educators have experiences conducting professional development for teachers relating to water quality and issues impacting the aquatic environment. The combination works well to model integrated instruction that helps teachers apply the content in ways that are relevant and used by STEM professionals such as the local partner who served as our stream expert in this training.

Professional Development Framework Prior to the beginning of the PD, a group of four teachers were recruited to serve as team leaders based on grade stream and interest. The local partner provided these team leaders with the opportunity to participate in an intensive, weeklong, content-based watershed course attended by other experts in stream restoration and other fields of environmental restoration.

These team leaders made up the core group.

When the official PD began in the early fall, a total of 22 participating teachers were organized into teams by building (K-3, 4-6, 7-8, 9-12) including one teacher/team leader in each group.

Of the elementary and middle school teachers (grades K-6), most taught multiple content areas.

Two were STEM teachers, and a few were science and/or mathematics teachers. The teachers for grades 7-12 consisted of six science teachers, one special education teacher, one STEM teacher, one computer aided design (CAD) teacher, and two mathematics teachers.

Beginning in the fall, the team leaders met with each other, a district-level administrator, and two of the university faculty members periodically to discuss needs and determine responsibilities. These meetings were used to update the school system’s administration on activities, make system-wide plans, and get

PAGE 2

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

feedback related to teacher and administrative needs so the PD design could be adapted to fit those needs. These meetings are anticipated to continue into the second year of the PD. Team leaders play several strategically important roles within their groups. During workshops, they help to facilitate the activities conducted by community partners and university faculty. They provide ideas on how watershed activities can be built into existing activities and/or state standards. They are a source of continuing support for all participants, and they contribute to the creation of an environment of teacher ownership of the watershed curriculum being developed. In addition, they play a key role in encouraging a sense of teacher ownership that may extend beyond our current PD participants by leading through example. This will be especially important for our local partner, because they envision building the outdoor classroom, contingent upon more teachers engaging their students in the watershed curriculum. The local partner has a group of individuals who are willing to donate their time and money, but the teachers and students must be interacting with the space to justify the cost that these partners will incur to make the outdoor classroom a reality.

The remaining teachers participating in the PD were recruited due to interest in place-based activities that centered specifically on the resources available in their school yard. An additional factor influencing their selection was a significant diversity in knowledge and needs to integrate a community-focused, place-based curriculum. For instance, the teachers at the elementary school have been focusing on literacy and subsequently directed to dedicate a significant amount of instructional time to meeting specific literacy goals. Given the drive and need to increase literacy skills, while also increasing the students’ understanding of science and the watershed, we helped teachers at the elementary level to identify relevant reading materials that promote a growth-mindset while providing an integrated approach to instruction.

Once students enter the fourth grade, which is part of middle school in this district, the teachers are specialized in content areas and have more time to engage their students in science. Our

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

approach to helping these content-specific teachers changed from a focus on watersheds through a literacy lens in the elementary grades for multi-content teachers, to a focus on more effectively (and frequently) integrating math with science in the middle and secondary grades.

At the secondary level (grades 7-12), mathematics teachers have also been recruited because of the interdisciplinary nature of stream restoration. In an effort to better support the mathematics teachers at the high school, we work in smaller groups with the local partner to answer more detailed questions that would enable a greater understanding of the context of stream restoration. Furthermore, this allows us to better address the practice of using mathematical and computational thinking (NRC, 2012).

Typically, PD is best conducted in grade bands (McNeill & Knight, 2013). We are also balancing the goal of the school district to develop the watershed curriculum to follow a coherent trajectory that will begin in kindergarten and progress through high school.

Keeping this goal in mind, we have designed our training to meet the varying needs of each grade band while also providing opportunities for our teachers to learn how science and mathematics content connects across grade levels through a focus on the local watershed. Fortunately, the content support we provide is beneficial to everyone because applying the hard sciences (i.e., physics, chemistry, biology) and mathematics to assessment of the stream is outside of the teachers’ scope of expertise, regardless of grade level. The knowledge and skills provided by the local partner were instrumental in helping the teachers make connections between real-world issues and the local watershed.

Workshop Design and Activities One of the most important aspects of designing a professional development like this is to consider the knowledge-base and comfort level of the participants. In our case, science content was heavy and content knowledge varied greatly across all participants. Thus, we believed our participants needed opportunities for field-investigations and interactions with experts on hand. In the planning for our

PAGE 3

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

professional development, which we called WATER for Water (What Are The Eco/Educational Resources for Water), we organized the first day of PD as an outdoor experiential day of education with guided activities and the presence of several content experts from the university and community. The purpose of this field day served a dual purpose.

First, it provided opportunities for teachers to engage in activities, under the guidance of experts, that would later become components of their watershed curriculum. Second, it established a connection to place as it would serve as a context for the outdoor learning that is essential for the application and success of this type of curriculum. It was our belief that an integrated curriculum designed to combine several content areas within the context of place should not be simplified. Eliminating the outdoor experiential portions of the curriculum would have removed the place-based context and prevented a connection between the teachers and the local watershed (James & Williams, 2017). It was our fear that this disconnect might happen without an initial field-based experience to provide an established focus. Another key factor in helping teachers gain content knowledge and expand their understanding of how the stream could be integrated as part of their classroom instruction was in the structure of this field-based PD day. Prior to onsite explorations, the university team intentionally paired teachers from the elementary grades with content-specific teachers at the high school level to aid in conceptualizing the content and how it could be modified to address state standards across grade levels.

While the first day of training was focused on field investigations, the second day was spent in the classroom, where teachers engaged in activities designed to extend and relate to their recent field experiences. During day two, teachers were challenged to involve their students in investigating the watershed by implementing one activity/lesson they experienced. On the third day of PD, teachers shared accounts of how they integrated watershed concepts and activities within their classroom, grade-level, school, and community through emphasis on the stream on their school

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

ground. At this point, a visible shift occurred as teachers took ownership of the curriculum. The remainder of day three was spent planning school-focused events and developing watershed curriculum, with the support of our experts and faculty. Teachers worked within their gradeband groups, but also moved between groups to discuss content trajectories and collaborations between grade levels. In one case, a field day collaboration between a high school class and an elementary class was planned.

As the project moved into spring, three additional days of PD were held, with a similar progression as was established in the fall. We began in January with a series of classroom activities that could be used to guide instruction, all centering on concepts related to watershed issues. Due to feedback from the group, we spent the remainder of this day helping teachers develop lessons and determine how to best utilize the items that were purchased through the grant received from the local partner. A second field day (day five), managed by our stream restoration expert and members of his team, led to a turning point for many of our teachers.

During the very first day of PD, our first day in the field (day one), many of the teachers were intrigued but somewhat overwhelmed. By the second field day (day five), the teachers seemed to have gained confidence and had a major change in viewpoint relating to the watershed.

Teachers came prepared to physically wade the stream, simulating activities done by working professionals. This was done under the guidance of the stream restoration expert, members of his team, and university faculty. They asked application-based content questions and they anticipated how field activities could be made meaningful for their students. Our final day of PD involved continued planning that focused on units and lesson sets rather than activities and tasks. Additionally, teachers brainstormed strategies to obtain grants that would provide continued support and expand environmental learning opportunities in their schools. Groups also divided up to brainstorm different platforms on which to share their new ideas and determine meaningful ways to recruit colleagues that would help to implement the watershed curriculum. A continued source of funding for

PAGE 4

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

Table 1 Overview of Year 1 Activities Fall Activities

Leaders of Activities

Day 1

Field Day: Teachers met at the stream and engaged in various activities that could be modified for their classrooms. The majority of activities was taught by the stream expert.

University Faculty and Local Partner

Day 2

Classroom: Teachers engaged in activities that could be completed in the classroom prior to outdoor activities. Teachers were given ample time to plan. Specific content was related to STEM for all grade levels.

University Faculty

Day 3

Presentations: The stream expert presented the watershed assessment, using terminology and images from his work in the field. Teachers presented lessons they completed in their classrooms during the fall semester, learned about technology available to them on loan from the university, and began planning for the spring semester. They also completed a multi-level activity using real-time water data and related resources independently.

University Faculty and Local Partner

Spring Day 4

Planning Day: Teachers were provided time and space to plan more in-depth lessons to be completed in the spring.

University Faculty

Day 5

Field Day: The stream expert lead activities at different sections of stream that were appropriate for elementary and middle school teachers' lessons. Equipment was provided allowing teachers to get into the stream and take measures as if they worked in the field.

Local Partner

Day 6

School District Planning: Teachers planned activities to be conducted district-wide during the spring or upcoming fall semesters. Teachers identified conferences at which they could present lessons and write articles related to their work. Appropriate grants were identified for additional funding.

University Faculty

our teachers will be our local partner who plans to offer grants to the teachers for equipment that will better enable them to facilitate their lessons.

The teachers drew on their experiences gained during field days, to make determinations about what equipment would be most useful during the coming school year.

Developing Partnerships Given that the goal of the project is to build a sustainable program for watershed education, we have focused on building diverse partnerships that can provide sustained support.

This has been an area of strength for this project due to diverse partnerships mostly developed

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

through networking. Due to training programs and involvement within the local community, we have been able to introduce the teachers to resource conservationists, water quality specialists, city engineers, and interested partners who have been consistently willing to attend events and provide support to all of the teachers. In addition to the community partners, members of our university have been exceedingly willing to partner with the schools, and our project specifically, to share knowledge, expertise, and resources that promote a more cohesive approach to watershed education. A goal of our project was to develop sustainable watershed education opportunities for the

PAGE 5

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

teachers, students, and interested community members. It is through these collaborations that we could learn from each other about the needs, resources, and opportunities for engagement.

The original partner/ stream restoration expert has connected the teachers with content specialists by involving his employees in facilitating field experiences and recruiting professionals who work in environmental restoration to visit the school district. He has also helped to increase attention on the project by speaking at local events and bringing partners on board that are from other parts of the state and country.

Classroom Implementation The teachers’ lessons were structured to meet state standards, designated school goals, and the needs of the PD. We approached this lesson development by asking teachers not to design lessons from scratch, but to alter previous lessons. The school district values collaborations across grades and/or content areas, so participating teachers formed natural groups that would facilitate lessons that could be successfully implemented in the classroom.

Once the lessons were developed, teachers returned to their schools and shared with teachers who were not participants in the PD. As mentioned previously, one of the goals of the WATER for Water Professional Development is to build an archive of lessons that can be implemented by other teachers within this district. A larger objective is to develop a website repository for sharing these lessons with teachers working within watersheds around the globe.

The lessons were developed with science and engineering practices as the central focus (NRC, 2012). Through our work with teachers in classrooms, we noticed that students across grades often lack the necessary skills needed to make “good” observations, which is one of the most essential skills in the scientific process (Padilla, 1990). Observation is a key skill needed to engage in the other seven practices.

Observation skills and the degree of specificity in detail changes as students get older. Initially, students should focus on experiences and recognizing changes. By the time they reach middle school, students should be able to make

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

detailed observations regarding measurements.

They should also be able to organize data from multiple sources (NRC, 2012).

We did not intend to provide scripted lesson plans in this PD. The intention was to expose teachers to content, concepts, experts, a variety of activities and resources, and field work. It also was to facilitate teachers working together to create the watershed lessons. Part of our plan for building ownership amongst the teachers was to intentionally avoid providing lessons that were “ready-to-teach.” We felt that the autonomy fostered in creating meaningful lessons, would increase the confidence and likelihood of the teachers actually using the curriculum in their classrooms. During the PD days and segments that were devoted to lesson planning, we spent time with each teacher to help develop lessons. We also helped locate resources such as books and/or equipment.

Existing curriculum would often be referenced as lessons were being developed, but it did not serve as the activities teachers eventually used in their classrooms. We worked with them on their lesson planning and provided additional equipment or other resources needed for successful implementation of their ideas. Once the lessons were developed, we offered to be present in their classrooms to help enact their plans and provide additional support where needed. These collaborations were helpful for us, because it allowed us to troubleshoot where teachers were struggling and better support them in redesigning aspects of their lessons. We also used these experiences to design upcoming PD workshops. For instance, during the first three workshops the teachers identified, through their discourse, that they wanted to spend more time with our local partner. Our local partner was present during the first day of the PD, but because he restores streams across the United States, he is not always available. Upon hearing the feedback from the teachers, he rearranged his schedule to support them by being present for part or all of the remaining PD days. While this may not always be feasible for community partners, we find that they are excited to be engaged and can make accommodations with enough forewarning.

PAGE 6

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

Lessons Learned The complexity of the PD taught us several lessons that will be of interest to others that plan and implement similar workshops. We expected the process to be an ongoing learning experience, especially at the beginning, until everyone learned to work together in an efficient manner. The first lesson we learned had to do with scheduling each of the workshop dates. We anticipated that finding dates to hold the workshops would be complicated, but the amount of time it took to get approval for those dates from district and school administrators was unexpected. The WATER for Water PD took place during the academic year, with a total of 21 different classroom teachers across four different school buildings (and schedules), university faculty, and a working stream expert.

Once a series of dates was obtained from the community partner who would be present to facilitate the field trainings, the principal of each school had to approve the absences of their respective teachers. At times, the task of determining dates for the PD seemed almost insurmountable due to parent conferences, testing, breaks, and other events previously scheduled. As a result, we were unable to inform teachers of the dates until about two weeks prior to the first workshop. Normally, we would prefer at least a one month notice to allow teachers time to prepare by reading and reviewing their curriculum to identify appropriate lessons to be modified for watershed education. The advanced notice would have also allowed teachers to make appropriate plans for instruction and other responsibilities, and would have alleviated much of the stress that comes with not being in their own classroom to teach.

While we experienced discomfort in what seemed like a lack of planning, the frustration on the part of the teachers was something we wanted to avoid. Subsequently, we were able to work with the school system to set dates much sooner for the spring trainings.

The second lesson we learned was about the design of the PD itself. The first workshop did not occur until early October, which was the halfway point of the semester. After the first day of gaining experience collecting water data, we pushed teachers to create and teach their first

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

watershed-based lesson soon after. As a result of feedback and conversations with participating teachers, we realized that we had not provided enough time and space for the teachers to appropriately plan and confidently execute a meaningful lesson related to the watershed.

Therefore, at the second workshop in November, we focused on classroom-based activities that teachers could use to introduce watershed education. We attempted to address this issue by providing activities linked to standards during the first two workshops, but this was not as successful as we anticipated. Our perception of this lack of engagement was that we designed the activities rather than the teachers, which eliminated the sense of ownership on their part.

While we felt strongly that they needed to be provided with examples that could be readily altered for their classrooms, we also understood that it was equally important that they have time to develop concepts on their own. We realized the time to plan, collaborate, and develop confidence had not been built in successfully, so our first PD of the spring involved a day of planning. The activities we provided for them were helpful, but teachers need appropriate time to analyze and find relevant connections between the content and place upon which to integrate the activities.

The third challenge that remains ongoing is the integration of watershed education within the curriculum that is currently used by our teachers.

We recognize that this will be an issue we continue to face because we are asking teachers to rethink their curriculum in ways that have not been done. We have found no model for this process, but have attempted to build our own with components from the conceptual change model and place-based education serving as our guides (Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Gruenewald, 2014). Environmental education provides another area for interdisciplinary curriculum to be designed but is not considered a hard science, and requires content knowledge aside from knowing chemistry, physics, mathematics, or other areas.

It will take time for teachers to fully develop a new conceptual understanding of both the process and the content, but our anecdotal evidence suggests that we are slowly starting to

PAGE 7

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

make some gains. For instance, after our second field day, one of our elementary teachers that had been quiet in prior meetings became more engaged by explaining what she experienced and noticed about the stream after being in it.

Making connections between PD and their classrooms is a goal for this year-long training, but we are trying to overcome decades of traditional teaching. We feel that success is happening in small steps and that is helping the teachers develop autonomy and greater confidence in their abilities to implement a watershed curriculum. One example that we see is the planning of a “Creek Week” to more fully engage the elementary students and teachers with the natural resource on their school yard.

This event is a product of the teachers engaged in this PD and is intended to help build on their work to date. They are also hoping to generate buy-in from their fellow teachers who might someday be involved in the PD and/or engage their current students in the activities they have planned. We have made some strides because, while “Creek Week” is focused on educating the children and teachers in grades K-12 throughout the district, it is being taught primarily by teachers engaged in the PD and their students, who are the future watershed stewards.

Conclusion Year one of our PD has been a learning experience for our teachers, and for us as well.

We developed a plan to deliver rigorous and sustained PD that we believe will result in a conceptual change of our participants (Roth et al., 2011). For instance, a few of our elementary teachers had been passively engaging in our activities during the first four days of PD. However, during the final workshop of the school year, these same teachers began to make plans for writing articles and conference proposals based on lessons they designed. These activities are not requirements, but this excitement demonstrates to us that conceptual change is beginning to happen for some of our participating teachers. Furthermore, our local partner wishes to build an outdoor classroom by restoring the stream on campus, and we continue to assist the teachers in designing curriculum to get the most out of the space. This experience has further solidified our belief that place-based

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

education provides the opportunity to meet the goals of the school district, our teachers, and the needs of the students to become scientifically literate citizens. The WATER for Water professional development training will continue to increase the number of teachers involved through a variety of approaches, which will include new member participation in future workshops, engaging with/in stream-based community days, and/or engaging with the curriculum designed by the participants of the first year professional development.

References Gruenewald, D. A. (2014). Place-based education: Grounding culturally responsive teaching in geographical diversity. In Place-based education in the global age (pp. 161-178). New York: Routledge.

James, J. K. & Williams, T. (2017). School-based experiential outdoor education: A neglected necessity. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(1), 58-71.

McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on k–12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972.

National Research Council (2012). A framework for k12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Padilla, M. J. (1990). The science process skills. Research Matters – to the Science Teacher, 9004. Reston, VA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Pokhrel, T., & Bchera, S. K. (2016). Expectations of teachers from teachers’ professional development program in Nepal. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 190-194.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change.

Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Prestridge, S. J. (2014). Reflective blogging as part of ICT professional development to support pedagogical change. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 70-86.

Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. (2011). Video-based lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117-148.

Schneider, R., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers'

PAGE 8

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

pedagogical content knowledge development.

Review of Educational Research, 81, 530-565.

Svendsen, B. (2017). Teacher's experience from collaborative design: Reported impact on professional development. Education, 138(2), 115134.

About the Authors Dr. Brent Gilles is an Assistant Professor in the College of Education at University of West Georgia.

He primarily teaches science methods and content pedagogy courses to pre-service teachers and has designed professional development opportunities for K-12 teachers. His primary research focus is understanding how students and teachers engage in scientific and engineering practices, with a focus on argumentation. He is also interested in environmental education and engaging teachers and students in outdoor experiences.

Dr. Rebecca Gault is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of West Georgia. She teaches undergraduate and graduate K12 mathematics methods courses, as well as courses in STEM methods and pedagogy for pre-service secondary mathematics and science teachers. Dr. Gault’s interests include teachers’ development and implementation of cognitively challenging tasks in K-12 classrooms and students’ ways of reasoning about mathematics.

Dr. Stacey Britton is an Assistant Professor of Science Education at the University of West Georgia and hosts a monthly science café in the local community. Her research seeks to connect ecojustice within the framework of STEM education in ways that increase access and understanding of the larger community.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 9

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

Engaging Pre-Service Teachers in Critical Conversations about Social and Cultural Diversity Nedra L. Cossa, Georgia Southern University

Contemporary educators believe the construction of the classroom is much like the construction of society: a dynamic system of relationships and structures (Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larson, 1995). When students’ different cultural environments and societal norms are recognized, there is an opportunity for changes in classroom practices (Cousik, 2015). DurhamBarnes (2015) states that teacher educators must promote “open and honest dialogue within the university classroom to better prepare their students to later do the same within their own classroom” (p. 3).

The United States is continuing to diversify at an increasing rate. Fourteen percent of the current U.S. population consists of foreign-born citizens (Cohn & Caumont, 2016). In the next fifty years, it is projected that the majority of population growth will be from people with Asian and Hispanic origins. There are over five million English language learners in U.S. public schools (Center for Public Education, 2017). By 2055, it is predicted that there will no longer be a single racial or ethnic majority in the United States (Center for Public Education, 2017).

While there are indicators that the teaching force is diversifying, the majority of classroom teachers are still middle class, white females (Loewus, 2017). Today’s teachers are not representative of the diverse population of students in classrooms. The disconnect between classroom teachers and their students emphasizes the importance and necessity of exploring and examining the diversity in the United States in our teacher prep courses.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

While it is critical to explore socially and culturally diverse ideas and perspectives, students are less inclined to engage in these types of discussions as they may elicit strong feelings or emotions (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2015). In hopes of creating a classroom environment that encouraged open and honest dialogue about cultural and social differences, the course professor utilized an anonymous, real time, online polling tool to generate discussions. This study explores students’ perceptions of this instructional tool.

Growing Social and Cultural Diversity in Schools Currently, 84% of K-12 classroom teachers are monolingual, middle class white, European women who often expect to teach students like themselves (Cushner, McClelland & Safford, 2015). This perspective contrasts with demographics of today’s classrooms, resulting in a clash of cultures. In the United States, the birth rate and immigration rate have been trending towards a diverse society that is not comprised of a single racial or ethnic group greater than 50% of the total population (Center for Public Education, 2017). By 2040, it is estimated that minorities will comprise the majority of students in classrooms. In fact, the current population in almost one out of ten counties in the U.S. has a population that is more than 50% minority” (Center for Public Education, 2017). As the U.S. student population continues to diversify, it is essential that educators are prepared to recognize and acknowledge social and cultural

PAGE 10

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

norms that differ from our own (Cousik, 2015; Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2015).

A classroom that has children from diverse backgrounds and functional levels, abilities, and interests holds so much promise for new information and diverse learning. (Cousik, 2015; Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2015).

Teachers and students can learn unique perspectives from each other, develop empathy, and promote understanding across cultural lines (Cousik, 2015). Teacher educators must purposefully and strategically provide opportunities to bring attention to the diversifying their student population, their teaching perspectives, and related ideologies.

By openly acknowledging diverse cultures within the classroom, teachers can positively influence children’s attitudes toward one another as well as further enrich their own cultural competency (Cousik, 2015). Results from interactions and various studies illustrate that pre-service teachers are aware of challenges that culturally diverse children face. Most are willing to discuss such topics to develop multicultural awareness for them to operate and teach with less difficulty in the teaching learning process (Taylor, Kumi-Yeboah & Ringlaben, 2016).

Some faculty members find initiating these types of discussions difficult. Some even refer to the undertaking as an emotional roller coaster best avoided (Martin, 2010). A teacher must be aware of their own biases and address them before trying to introduce diversity in the classroom. By gaining insight into their own feelings and efforts to acknowledge and become grateful for diversity, they can help lead students to increase their acceptance of others. The way the classroom structure facilitates these topics and what kinds of activities are helpful in enhancing a student’s comprehension are two principles important for learning and analysis (Martin; 2010). One such way to bring attention to diversity is through critical social dialogue.

Critical Social Dialogue Critical Social Dialogue (CSD) is the purposeful engagement about “social difference to develop intercultural awareness, social understanding, and ethical reasoning” (ChávezReyes, 2012). CSD recognizes that the goal of discussions around critical issues is to (1) help

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

students become more self-aware of their own personal beliefs and attitudes, and (2) to allow students to gain insight and understanding about their peers’ beliefs and attitudes. When students openly participate in classroom discussions about sensitive topics and critical issues, they are placing themselves in an extremely vulnerable position, making themselves susceptible to judgments and resentment from their peers and professor. Classroom discussions on race or ethnicity can evoke feelings of guilt, shame, anger, and overall student resistance (Cousik, 2015; Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2015). When exploring reasons why such topics elicit these feelings, “Politeness Protocol,” an unspoken understanding that controversial topics should be avoided or that discussions around such topics should be addressed casually so as not to provoke such strong emotions (Wing Sue, 2013). This evasiveness or silence often times warns of the subject matters' potential to create microaggressions or unintended discriminations of social identities such as class, race, ethnicity, and gender. For example, a microaggression regarding class might be “women have more children so that they can stay on welfare.” As insulting as statements of this nature can be, the tendency to avoid potentially offensive dialogue of this nature cuts off lines of communication and cross-cultural understanding (Cousik, 2015; Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2015; Wing Sue, 2013).

Technology in the Classroom Most people born after 2000 (Generation Z) were using computers prior to beginning preschool, thus have always been well adapted to technology (Courts & Tucker, 2012). In addition, Generation Y or Millennials (born between the early 1980’s and the turn of the 21st century) have also grown up with the constant advancement of technology. Technology is very much a part of Millennials’ and Generation Z’s childhood (Courts & Tucker, 2012). To satisfy the student population of today, educational institutions should include technology to help engage students in thoughtful learning.

The traditional education model has made some strides in adapting to the learning styles of these students by developing curriculum which

PAGE 11

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

utilizes various forms of technology; however, these students often require technologically advanced curriculum (Courts & Tucker, 2012).

In comparison to Generations Y and Z, those born prior to the 1980’s are not as well acclimated to the use of technology in their everyday lives (Courts & Tucker, 2012). This poses a dilemma for university professors, as they are typically from pre-technology generations, because they have a difficult time incorporating these electronics into their teaching. Fortunately, the use of technology and technology-based curriculum will become more commonplace within the classroom as more nocost and simplified technology become available at universities (Courts & Tucker, 2012).

Consequently, the use of technology will help pre-service teachers gain insight into social and cultural attitudes across multiple generations.

Regarding sensitive discussions, anonymous feedback forms or journals can also be an important way to get feedback regarding the discussions and addressing feelings of safety and inclusion (Schultz & Coleman-King, 2012; Kurshan, 2016). Educational professionals recommend providing students with multimodal ways to examine sensitive, controversial topics, or to circumvent silence (Schultz & ColemanKing, 2012). Employing multimodal methods provides a voice to students who would not otherwise participate. Students who rarely participated during a stereotypical class discussion found other ways to express themselves during the multimodal approach.

Through multimodal pedagogy, students become engaged with their peers and the content of school learning so that their ideas enter the public domain, giving them a presence in the classroom community (Schultz & ColemanKing, 2012; Kurshan, 2016). Using in-class multimodal methods also provided feedback in real-time to teachers which can be used to adjust their approach of the lesson to facilitate student learning (Kurshan, 2016). Integrating Web 2.0, classroom discussions, and group presentations affords students the opportunity to utilize various modalities to enter into course dialogues.

Overview of the Study The study took place across three semesters of a social and cultural diversity course at a

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

small liberal arts public university located in the southeastern United States. The undergraduate education course examines fundamental knowledge for understanding the culture and teaching of children from diverse backgrounds in a variety of educational settings and contexts.

The professor sought to engage students in the exploration of critical and contemporary issues in education through multiple and diverse vantage points.

The professor utilized a constructivist approach when encouraging student discussion around socially and culturally diverse topics.

Each pre-service teacher understood topics in relation to his or her own cultural ethnocentrism, or personal experience. Sharing and reflecting on their unique experiences enriched classroom conversations as they provided insight into various perspectives about social and cultural diversity. The professor emphasized that there were no “right” or “wrong” understandings, instead emphasizing the importance of examining how one came to their particular viewpoint. The course professor served as a facilitator who guided classroom discussions and gave students ownership of their own learning.

The student-centered environment sought to explore the various cultural beliefs and perspectives of student enrolled in the course.

To promote classroom discussion of socially and culturally sensitive topics, the course professor utilized PollEverwhere, a web-based, real time audience response program as a forum for pre-service teachers to share their perspectives and understandings about social and cultural diversity in education. Pre-service teachers used electronic devices with internet access (i.e., cell phones, tablets, and computers) at the beginning of each class to respond.

Responses were anonymous, allowing students to share without fear of judgment by their peers or professor.

Data Collection and Analysis The main data sources for analysis were professor-created mid- and end-of-semester evaluations. In these evaluations, students were asked about the use of the anonymous, online polling system (see Appendix B) during classroom discussions. The evaluations contained questions on a Likert scale and short

PAGE 12

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

answer questions. All Likert scale questions used the four-point scale ‘Strongly Agree, ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’, or ‘Strongly Disagree.’

Data collection took place over three semesters and participation rates were 76%, 80%, and 86% respectively. Additionally, any statements related to the online anonymous polling included in the university-wide evaluations were also included.

Data Analysis The course professor and a research assistant worked on examining the Likert scale questionnaire and short answer questions. Data from the Likert scale questions was analyzed for frequency of responses. The short answer questions were analyzed by the course professor and the research assistant separately. Both analyzed the responses, identified tentative codes, and then grouped them accordingly. The two then met, discussed the codes and responses to reach consensus, achieving interrater reliability.

Next, the course professor and research assistant analyzed the Likert-scale questions and short answer responses in comparison to the university’s required end-of-course evaluations.

Analyzing and comparing the different sources allowed the researcher to triangulate the data, providing a more comprehension account of students’ responses.

Results Averaging across all three semesters, 84% of participating students strongly agreed that PollEverywhere was a useful classroom tool and 100% agreed or strongly agreed that the online classroom response system added to class discussions, gave a voice to others who might not participate, and helped create a safe classroom environment that promoted open and honest dialogue. Eighty-eight percent strongly agreed and 12% agreed that PollEverywhere should be used in future courses. This is further supported in the open-ended responses that students were asked to complete. One of the PST explained, “PollEverywhere is very effective when class discussion is minimized due to the topic being uncomfortable.”

Results indicated pre-service teachers were more open and candid in classroom discussions when PollEverywhere was used at the beginning

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

of class to introduce social and cultural topics.

Participants’ anonymous responses helped cultivate a classroom environment which encouraged personal reflection and provided a springboard into classroom discussions about highly sensitive topics.

PSTs indicated that online polling also provided them with a voice. Various students indicated that under normal circumstances, they rarely participate in classroom discussions.

PollEverywhere gave them a chance to express opinions about topics some probably would have otherwise not. Online polling was an effective platform to share their thoughts and ideas with the class. Students also expressed that they enjoyed the process. One participant exclaimed “I think it’s great especially for those who are too shy to speak out; I wish other classes would use it.”

Limitations This study explored multiple semesters of a course taught by one professor. This course had at least three different sections, all taught by different professors, each semester data was collected. Therefore, it is important to note that this small-scale study is not generalizable.

Additionally, all collected data was completely anonymous and no identifying information was collected. While this did allow for insight into trends in student responses and data, there is no way to identify individual participants’ responses.

Implications for Future Research Continued research exploring PSTs’ socialmutedness about social and cultural diversity may help illuminate potential ways to minimize or eliminate the fear of judgement by others and encourage critical social dialogue.

Replicating the study across multiple sections of the same course as well as similar courses in other universities may provide additional data.

Moving forward, collecting demographic information about participants may provide additional information about whether or not their perspectives, thoughts, and understandings are connected to their social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. The majority of students indicated that they found the online polling to be beneficial during the course. Further exploration

PAGE 13

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

of the online, anonymous polling allows an opportunity for additional insight into the effectiveness and relevance of its use in other classroom contexts.

Conclusion This study explored topics pertinent to current trends and issues in education. Society is increasingly dependent on technology as are both k-12 schools and higher education institutions. The continually diversifying student population is important for PSTs to explore and understand as they prepare to interact with many different groups of students in their own classrooms. Incorporating online polling into classroom instruction provides a relevant application which students can use to share their thoughts and ideas in a real time setting. Making PSTs’ online responses anonymous provides an opportunity for individuals to share their thoughts and opinions which may not normally be shared for fear of judgement by others. This paper encourages readers to (1) consider technology usage as a way to discourage socialmutedness and encourage students’ participation in CSD; and (2) reflect on their teaching practices about sensitive topics in education by examining one professor’s use of multimodal pedagogy to engage pre-service teachers in CSD. References Center for Public Education. (2017). The United States of education: The changing demographics of the United States and their schools.

Centerforpubliceducation.org. Retrieved 27 September 2017, from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/YouMay-Also-Be-Interested-In-landing-pagelevel/Organizing-a-School-YMABI/The-UnitedStates-of-education-The-changing-demographicsof-the-United-States-and-their-schools.html Chavez-Reyes, C. (2012). Engaging in critical social dialogue with socially diverse undergraduate teacher candidates at a California state university. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 43–62. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23479671?seq=1 Cohn, D., & Caumont, A. (2016). 10 demographic trends that are shaping the U.S and the world.

Pewresearch.org. Retrieve November 1, 2018, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-areshaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/ Courts, B., & Tucker, J. (2012). Using technology to create a dynamic classroom experience. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 9(2), 121-127.

Cousik, R. (2015). Cultural and functional diversity in the elementary classroom: Strategies for teachers.

Journal for Multicultural Education, 9(2), 54-67. doi:10.1108/jme-03-2015-0010 Cushner, K., McClelland, A., Safford, P., (2015).

Human diversity in education: An interactive approach (8th Edition). New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Education.

Durham-Barnes, J. E. (2015) Engaging preservice teachers in critical dialogues on race. SAGE Open, 5(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015572505 Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445-472.

Kurshan, B. (2016, July 26). Technology and classroom data. Retrieved September 22, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/barbarakurshan/2016 /07/26/technology-and-classroomdata/#341c80152039 Loewus, L (2017). The nation’s teaching force is still mostly white and female. Edweek.org. Retrieved November 1, 2018, from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/08/15/the -nations-teaching-force-is-still-mostly.html Martin, K. J. (2010). Student attitudes and the learning of race, culture and politics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 530-539.

Schultz, K., & Coleman-King, C. (2012). Becoming visible: Shifting teacher practice to actively engage new immigrant students in urban classrooms. The Urban Review, 44(4), 487-509. doi:10.1007/s11256-012-0204-7 Taylor, R., Kumi-Yeboah, A., & Ringlaben, R. (2016).

Pre-service teachers' perceptions towards multicultural education & teaching of culturally & linguistically diverse learners. Multicultural Education, 23(3/4), 42-48. Retrieved from http://library.armstrong.edu:2048/login?url=https:/ /library.armstrong.edu:2565/docview/1836887540 ?accountid=8366 Wing Sue, D. (2016). Race talk and facilitating difficult racial dialogues. Counseling Today, 58(7), 42–47.

Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24320648

PAGE 14

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

About the Author Dr. Nedra Cossa is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Georgia Southern University.

Her research interests include preservice teacher education, literacy, and professional development schools.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 15

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

Learning from the Experiences of Novice Urban Teachers: Teacher Education and Induction Program Factors That Influence Effectiveness Joyce E. Many, Ruchi Bhatnagar, and Carla Tanguay, Georgia State University

In recent years, the accountability of teacher preparation has been called into question and the focus of how to determine effectiveness has shifted to the need for evidence of program impact on P-12 student learning and achievement (Cochran-Smith, et al., 2010-2011; Diaz, 2010; Sleeter, 2014; Worrell, et al., 2014).

Not only should programs demonstrate candidates’ ability to impact students’ learning during clinical experiences as they are matriculating in the program, programs must also follow graduates and investigate their success during their induction into the profession (CAEP, 2013). Some scholars have advocated for assessing teacher education’s impact through the use of value-added assessments of student achievement, standardized observation protocols of graduates, and use of student surveys related to teacher performance (Worrell, et al., 2014). Others have questioned the logic behind holding teachers accountable for achievements belonging to students and have expressed concerns over whether the field has access to meaningful data regarding teacher impact on student learning (McAninch, 2012; Contopidis, DaBoll-Lavoie, Dunn, Darling, & Wieczorek, 2017). Regardless of the complexity of obtaining data linking teacher performance, teacher preparation, and school context to student achievement, U.S. reforms as reflected both in state and national policies and in accreditation standards have called for teacher education programs to provide data indicating their programs impact student

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

achievement, learning, and/or development (CAEP, 2013; Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2012; Georgia Professional Standard Commission, 2016).

In Georgia, through Race to the Top funds, state agencies worked together to establish a longitudinal data system which can be used to link initial teacher preparation programs to P-12 student achievement and to teacher evaluations based on administrator observations (TEM scores). Due to recent legislative mandates, however, only scores in tested areas can be used for this purpose. Thus, test results will only be available for a subset of graduates. In addition, program approval and accreditation standards mandate data linking the impact of teacher preparation programs to student learning and development and indicate evidence must be drawn from multiple measures (GAPSC, 2016; CAEP, 2013). As a result, there is need for teacher preparation programs to engage in case study, action research, or other inquiries to supplement state-supported impact measures (GAPSC, 2016; CAEP, 2013).

This research explores novice teachers’ personal experiences in trying to impact student learning and development. Participants have been prepared by our institution in a variety of program areas and will have been hired by an urban partner school district to teach in diverse schools in their system. The purpose of the study is to use Critical Incident Technique methodology to build a composite picture of the factors in educator preparation programs and in

PAGE 16

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

school system induction programs identified by these teachers that they feel helped or hindered their success at impacting student learning and development (Bedi, Davis, & Williams, 2005; Butterfield, Borgen, Maglio, & Amundson, 2009; Flanagan, 1954). The intent is to annually collect data involving the critical incidents described by graduates who have completed their first year of teaching, focusing each year on teachers hired by a different school district. Over time this research will allow for a feedback loop where critical examination informs and provides evidence of the effectiveness of changes in programs, the training of cooperating teachers, the process of candidate selection and match with cooperating teachers, and the viability of support structures during induction. The specific research question addressed in this initial pilot was: What helps or hinders first year teachers’ ability to impact student learning and development in an urban school district when they have completed programs designed to prepare them for this context?

Methodology This inquiry was designed as multiple case studies bounded by the year in which candidates taught for their first year and the district in which they were hired to teach. The methodology will be repeated on a reoccurring basis to potentially create sequential case studies of teachers in different school districts on an annual basis. This process will enable our institution and school system partners to be engaged in a process of continual collaborative improvement informed by ongoing data collection and analysis.

To choose potential districts for the initial case study, employment data for our institution’s graduates were analyzed, and the top five public school systems hiring our graduates were identified. We began data collection in District A, the top employer of our newly produced teachers. After we began contacting potential participants, we noted a need to expand the boundaries of our cases in order to have enough participants to build a rich set of critical incidents. Therefore, we focused on (a) novice teachers who had completed either 1 or 2 years of teaching since graduation, and (b) had been

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

hired in one of the top two employing school districts.

Participants A list of potential participants from the graduating classes of 2016 and 2017 who were working in Georgia public schools was obtained from the Georgia Professional Standards Commission. The pool from the school district (District A) employing the largest number of our graduates consisted of 111 individuals from 21 certification areas. Educators were emailed an invitation to participate, and the invitation was re-issued three weeks after the initial contact if the recipient had not responded. Because the target sample size of 25 participants had not been obtained after a third invitation, a second urban district (District B) was then added to the case study. Participant recruitment from the second district followed the same procedure focusing on 72 new teachers from 16 certification areas who had graduated from our programs in either 2016 or 2017.

A total of 22 participants accepted our invitation to participate and were interviewed.

The number of teachers in each district and their areas of certification can be found in Table 1.

Data Collection and Analysis Data collection involved (a) an in-person or SKYPE interview of approximately 45 minutes to one hour in length and (b) follow up emails for the purpose of member checking. The interviews followed a protocol based on the Critical Incident Technique (see Appendix A for the Interview Protocol) (Butterfield, Borgen, Maglio, & Amundson, 2009; Flanagan,1954).

The first step of data analysis focused on organizing the transcribed data into units related to contextual information, definitions of participants’ perceptions of what it meant to “impact student learning and development”, critical incidents (CI), helping factors (HE) or hindering factors (HI). Thought units related to the candidates’ definitions of learning and development, critical incidents, helping factors and hindering factors were entered into an Excel spread sheet. The intent in the coding was to include only critical incidents and related factors which included narration of specific events. interviewees provided detailed perceptions of

PAGE 17

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

Table 1 Participants by School District and Areas of Certification District A – 13 Participants District B –Participants 9 2 Art

6 Early Childhood

3 Early Childhood Education

1 ESOL (P-12)

2 Foreign Language

1 Middle Level

2 Middle Level

1 Sp. Ed. General Curriculum (P-12)

1 Sp. Ed./Early Childhood 1 Sp. Ed. General Curriculum (P-12) 1 Trade and Industrial Education 1 Secondary Biology However, data analysis revealed many helpful and hindering factors without detailed narratives of specific occasions where these factors impacted their teaching or their students learning. After critical incidents, helping and hindering factors were identified, copies relative to each individual were sent to each participant for clarification, elaboration, or other feedback.

This outreach did not yield any additional new data. As a result, all thought units related to helping and hindering factors were included in this analysis, even if the references for those factors were general descriptions rather than a specific event. At the second stage of coding, helping and hindering factors were analyzed using a constant-comparative approach to develop descriptive categories within each area.

At least two researchers reviewed the data and important elements were highlighted in color. In a second column, each reviewer entered temporary constructs as descriptions of highlighted areas and discussed them with the team. Next, a listing of the temporary constructs found in data across participants were analyzed and condensed to establish initial categories.

The entire data set was coded using the initial categories and subsequently some categories were combined, and others eliminated. The first author then recoded all data using the final coding system.

Results Participant interviews yielded a total of 94 critical incidents, with descriptions of 92 helpful

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

factors contributing to success and 76 factors which hindered their effectiveness at impacting students’ learning and development. The predominant themes in the data are described in the sections below.

The Importance of Seeing Models of Quality Instruction Seeing effective instruction modeled by others was identified by graduates as being helpful to their own success; however, when such modeling was not available, novice teachers underscored the absence as negatively impacting their work. Modeling could be provided by university faculty or cooperating teachers during the teacher education program, or by peers or co-teachers during the graduates’ first years of teaching. For example, one middleschool teacher explained her ability to break things down, give clear directions, and come up with assignments that kids want to do by drawing on the pedagogy modeled by her professors. She explained, There were a few classes where we would almost take a class like we were middle schoolers… Like we would do an assignment, but like I think to see how to [teach to middle school students] ... like I was a literature major in college, so I got used to analyzing texts the way that adults do. So, for me to kind of learn I guess how to break it down to a middle schooler rather than explain myself, [my] thoughts to an adult, which was important for me.

PAGE 18

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

(Participant 102) Another participant who discussed his impact on his students as “not just in teaching but in life in general” drew on what he had seen modeled by faculty in his elementary education program as influencing his ability to be effective. He explained, I would have to say the operations of the classes at Georgia State. Because all of the classes that I took there were almost like an open forum concept, where we were able to discuss freely about our opinions and our thoughts so it got me comfortable so I am able to implement better in my classrooms.

The more you talk the more you understand the mindset and the cognitive development of the students. … even how they set up their classes and how the classes flow, which led to proper classroom development.

That actually helped a whole bunch, because if you don’t have classroom management, you're not going to get far in life. Especially not in the classroom, where you have 30 something kids and half of the kids are probably special needs or have some type of mental issue. It brings patience and it shows a different way, like I said, to teach and to just stay open-minded. (Participant 204) Overall, former graduates noted the value of faculty who modeled specific approaches such as literature circles, culturally responsive pedagogy, community building, open discussions, and building rapport.

In addition to faculty modeling, novice urban teachers from our programs also noted their successful teaching was shaped by observing high quality teachers (both in student teaching and during their first years), and learning from co-teachers (inclusion teachers and general education teachers). In discussing her ability to be positive in spite of discipline issues and being able to establish trust with her students, one participant explained, I think really having the full-on experience from student teaching and watching how other teachers handle discipline issues and things because I know that, well in my student teaching, there were administrators and different principals [who]were really hands on with helping in discipline and

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

stuff, but at my current school they’re really not. So, I had to kind of remember how I saw other people handle discipline issues and I think I was able to… you know my biggest was to try to like get calm and realize that I’m the adult in the room and I have to handle it. (Participant 102) Another novice teacher explained how crucial it was for her to be able to observe peers during her first years in order to see models of how she might approach instruction. She exclaimed, Watching quality teachers teach. That’s it.

For my learning style and me, I need to go on my teacher break during my planning period. I will go watch other quality teachers. There’s one coming on board next year. I’m going to be in her class – oooh I’m going to go watch her! She is known to be incredible and I want to see how it’s done and that’s how you do it. (Participant 105) Support or Lack of Support Makes a Difference Graduates from our urban education programs also attributed their successful initial teaching experiences to the support they received from faculty/supervisors during the program and from the program cohort/peers.

Support in the form of feedback on teaching, assistance with planning were cited as helpful during the first two years in the field. Faculty and peers from the cohort continued to work with new teachers and provide this support. One of GSU’s graduate cohort programs was specifically designed to provide initial teacher preparation in early childhood education and then to support candidates during their first year of teaching while they completed their M.Ed. degree. One participant (109) noted this design impacted her effectiveness saying, For me, the factor was the support that I had working on my master’s and my certifications through Georgia State programs. I built relationships with other student teachers and I was able to talk about my experiences, good and bad, and get some other insight from those particular instances.

This individual went on to explain the value of continuing to be in the program while teaching her first year saying,

PAGE 19

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

I think that one of the things that was difficult, but also made me a better teacher, was [that] I went to school and taught at the same time, and was able to use my classroom [for] experiments and be able to figure out what worked... And when I was in class, we would always collaborate and talk about our experiences in relationship to the different courses that we were taking.

And it made you feel like you had somebody to talk to, somebody to work some of those things out, somebody to bounce ideas off of.

And we shared our lesson plans, we shared our ideas, and it was just a lot of fun. It made what you loved to do even better.

(Participant 109) Similarly, another graduate from this same program underscored the value of program design, with induction year support saying, Well, in the first year that I taught full-time the UACM program I actually still had the… I was still in the in the program the first year. So, I still had the help of my supervisor and she would come in every so often and help me. I really enjoyed that because beyond being certified and just being in my master’s part of the program. It was really good to get feedback from her because in areas where I felt like I was struggling she was telling me everything I needed to know or how am I doing and giving me feedback in those areas and telling me if I wasn’t doing anything wrong that I was right where I was supposed to be and that was really helpful because then I could pick myself up again when it got hard and continued to move forward. (Participant 114) Even when an individual’s preparation program did not incorporate coursework extending over the first year of classroom instruction, induction level teachers continued to rely on relationships with program peers and faculty to support their entrée into the field. For instance, one participant underscored the importance of being able to reach out to professors saying, Keep the instructors close because that helped me out a lot. I was able to email my instructors with any questions that I had, so I

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

feel like that would be the best thing, having instructors doing what they are doing and answering their emails and being open to talk to us. (Participant 204) Another participant described how the ongoing support of peers had helped her teach a particular child explaining: I think another thing that was helpful was the support of my cohort. We still keep in touch. We have a big Group-Me and just being able to go into our group message every now and then and share our experiences and kind of vent about what is either going wrong or share what’s going well. Share some success stories, which have been really great. It’s good to see somebody going through the same thing as you and with my cohort especially knowing that we all have the same… but we have similar beliefs and values and that’s what brought us in the program in the first place was really helpful and impactful.

(Participant 114) In addition to support from faculty and peers from their teacher preparation program, some new teachers also attributed their effectiveness to support from professionals in their school context. The source of this support varied widely, including school administrators, mentors, co-teachers in inclusion settings, other teachers in the school, coaches, and behavior interventionists. One new teacher reflected on his ability to build a foundation for his students in math and science that was memorable and that made an impact later on as being contingent on his ability to co-teach with other professionals. He said, In my inclusive class, right now it is myself, a special ed teacher and two paraprofessionals. And in that class I feel like we are able to be more impactful because there are more adults we are able to scaffold more, differentiate more and we allow for flexible learning. We really try to see if they have prior knowledge. And if they do, then we do review activities to increase their knowledge. (Participant 103) Others described specific feedback given to them by mentors, including resources for specific content areas or units, detailed feedback

PAGE 20

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

on lessons observed, or wise counsel for how to handle situations or to differentiate instruction were all underscored as influencing effectiveness. School system A’s induction program included assigning a mentor to groups of new teachers. The approach was described as helpful by one participant in identifying ways to effectively assist students. This participant noted, We also met weekly with our [mentor] and she would either discuss with us things that she saw throughout our lesson plans that could be tweaked a little bit, or she let us review material that we would use and we would sit there and map out what we are doing for the next unit in the subject area.

Then, there’s also a two-year program that they do for new teachers whether you’re new to [System A] or new to the school or just an overall new teacher. …They kind of observe you. It’s not scoring or anything.

They just kind of help you as a group. …

My mentor came to observe me during my reading block and I had a presentation set up. She was asking me about differentiation within my literacy block and how it was needed for all of my students because I had a classroom that was ESOL and there were students that were not ESOL. I felt like it was kind of geared towards my ESOL students because I knew that they need it. I guess my work was geared towards them and so for someone who doesn’t have any issues with the language and it’s their home language – [the station] was I guess easier for them. And I was able to work through how to differentiate and use the same station. So like a phonics station. We would have them there and grade it. She and I worked together to color code the words. So, instead of everyone building the same words, there were words that my students in ESOL could do and there were different words for [the other] students, [words] that ESOL students couldn’t do. (Participant 209) Just as participants underscored the benefits of detailed support and feedback from faculty, peers, and coworkers, when novice teachers failed to receive such support they felt it had an

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

adverse impact on their effectiveness. In fact, the most frequently mentioned factor described as hindering graduates’ ability to impact learning and development was a lack of support from the district or school personnel during their first year(s).

Our graduates repeatedly spoke of the value of constructive, specific feedback and the debilitating effects of not receiving such support.

Participant 106 spoke passionately to this need saying, The assistant principal came in and observed me one day and I’m doing a small group for compounding words into syllables. He was like, “Oh, wow”. The questions he was asking, I mean first of all it was like [inaudible] but then he was like, “Oh, syllables. Can you show me again like how you do it?” I wonder if he even knows what a syllable is. It was kind of like annoying. I was like, “Okay you’re just wasting my space right now, go away”. He sat down with me mid-year and was like, “You’re doing a great job and you’re here on time.

So good job and goodbye.” I was just like, “Oh, gosh.” I actually would like someone to really sit with me and say, “Hey, we noticed you’re really effective in this way and you could grow in this way.” I mean I want feedback but I don’t get that and so I have to ask other people and say, “How do you think I’m doing?” On the day that I just started crying at my desk, and someone says, “What’s wrong?” [I replied] “I’m doing a terrible job!” and they have to say “No. You’re not. You’re actually doing good.” I just wish that I had someone who actually notices what I’m doing and then give me constructive feedback…It just doesn’t feel like that happens so I feel often quite alone.

Another new teacher from our art education program also expressed concerns about how a lack of administrative support impacted her teaching and her feelings of isolation. She said, I had to find my own art supplies, and the [other] art teacher would not share so I ended up have to spend $800 of my own money just to support my art program. There was a lack of support from the principal.

PAGE 21

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

They don’t really care about art. That’s why they just dump students in there for an elective. It was just not supportive, noncaring environment. I felt extremely alone all day long. (Participant 109) In another example, a novice elementary teacher in a high-needs urban school discussed his difficulties meeting the literacy needs of his students. In talking about his challenges in trying to work with groups of children with ranging abilities, he underscored the problems associated with the lack of EIP teacher ‘push-in” support saying, Another thing that I’m thinking about is, as a factor, because there was a level class and most of them qualified for EIP, I’m thinking about the EIP support that I had. It was just not really like existent and this was not on the part of the EIP teacher, just the structures that we have at the school. The EIP teacher, I found that when we had, what was supposed to be happening, which was still problematic like the teacher pushing in, supporting students in a station while I had my own station. They were [supposed to be] being seen by two teachers. That was helpful when we were able to make gains but I realize with other teachers out in the building like, “Okay, the EIP teacher needs to go sub for that class because we don’t have coverage” it was just affecting my students’ learning and then ultimately affecting myself as well. (Participant 205) Overall, when mentors or administrators failed to provide valuable feedback, when EIP teachers were pulled for other duties and were not available to provide services to students, when mentors, administrators, or counselors failed to provide information or resources, these new teachers felt their ability to be effective was negatively affected.

Another area where support could be apparent or where it seemed to be ineffective was in professional development provided during the induction period. Professional development seemed most effective when focused on a particular area over a span of time or when it was tailored to the individual’s specific needs. Candidates found regular sessions on behavior/classroom management or

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

crisis intervention, endorsements leading to new credentials, and in-depth training on phonics/reading to be beneficial. For example, discussing her effectiveness at working with a struggling first grader, one participant shared how professional development had helped: We had opportunities for professional development … every single week. I would say those are factors that helped me. In January I was sent to [inaudible] Georgia training to learn how to teach phonics and reading skills to students in K-2. That impacted my ability to teach reading significantly. I feel like [my effectiveness at working with my student] came from me improving my own skills and me being patient with her and me being sensitive to her background and not judging her or her parents for her lack of knowledge.

Developmentally, I feel like she just wasn’t ready. She was one of my younger students in the class and I knew she would get it when it was her time to get it and she did.

(Participant 208) Another novice teacher also cited System B’s induction and professional development approach as beneficial, saying, [System B] offered me training. They actually offered me, before I even got into the school, I wasn’t gifted certified and they actually had seen something in me and they were like we would really like you to teach gifted students. So, they actually put me through a course, an endorsement course so now I am gifted certified. … and every summer they fly us out to Tampa or Orlando and train us in like different strategies to help improve our classroom. So, I have had a lot of support. (Participant 204) Program Content that Was Crucial or Missing Content from programs that graduates found to be helpful in their first year included culturally relevant pedagogy, classroom management and community building, and content on building relationships with students and how to advocate for students. As one candidate explained, I will say that Georgia State prepared me as best it could in terms of teaching in the

PAGE 22

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

urban environment. In one particular course, I can remember, ([I] think it was [Dr. X’s middle-school learners] class), she’d focus on improving [relationships] and how we’d have like so many different types of students. We’d have students who are homeless, members of the LBGT community, so many different types of students. And now, I’ve come in contact with each of those demographics that she mentioned and I know ho w to support them and how to say things that aren’t insensitive to them and that I’m a person they can come and talk to if they wanted to. (Participant 106) Another special education/early childhood teacher also discussed the importance of building relationships, saying, One of the classes I took, I can’t remember the name of it, but we really focused on the importance of the morning meeting in the classroom and then the period of the schedule where you set the tone for the day and I think that was very helpful for me. I did that consistently every morning from the first day of school to the last day of school. I still actually have the textbook that we used. …It was helpful for the students to build those relationships with me and build relationships with each other. That was the time of day where we built our classroom family basically and also the time of day where we talked about what we were going to do for the day so they know what to expect and was consistent. That was one big thing that I took away from the program.

(Participant 208) Participant 207, a middle-level teacher, also discussed the significance that seminars on culturally responsive classroom management had on her teaching effectiveness. She explained, One thing that I did want to say is that over my last semester we were like working on edTPA and we had two Saturday classes once a month. I think [XXX] was his name.

He did some seminars about culturally responsive classroom management. I think that has been like hugely impactful in a positive way. At first, I was like you know

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

we were talking about being culturally responsive and management and I was like okay but we need solutions for what we’re going to do with problems and kids acting crazy. I realized eventually that it’s kind of just an approach to management. I actually did teach before years ago. I did Teach for America and I taught first grade and my management was terrible. I was not a good teacher and so I stopped, and I did something else. Now I’m teaching again, and I went through this program. I think that specifically has helped me a lot because my management is pretty good now. Just those few seminars [have] really, really helped me so I definitely wanted to mention that. The culturally responsive management, I would say was the single most impactful thing that has influenced my teaching in a positive way.

Specific math and literacy content (anticipatory frameworks, direct instruction, literature circles), assessment, and how to organize small group instruction were also underscored in critical incidents where graduates impacted students positively. Other helpful factors were learning how to critically reflect, edTPA (for planning/context of learning and how to link assessment/instruction), and how to diversify instruction.

Conversely, in other cases some candidates felt they needed additional depth in some content areas in their teacher preparation program, and they felt that a lack of enough information hindered their ability to influence their students’ learning and development.

Specifically, novice teachers wanted more focus on legal issues and logistics of paperwork in special education, more classroom management ideas, intervention strategies for struggling students, and more effective reading coursework.

Discussion This research focused on interview data of 22 novice educators in urban schools after completion of their first or second year of teaching. The intent of this inquiry was to draw on our graduates’ descriptions of critical incidents occurring in their induction period where they were working to impact students’

PAGE 23

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

learning and development to learn factors which helped or hindered their effectiveness. Analysis revealed limitations in the study due to the wording of the interview protocol, with data emerging from the study focusing more on participants’ perceptions rather than narratives of critical incidents. These limitations and the themes which did emerge are discussed below.

A key element of importance to us when designing this study was to collect data documenting the impact of our candidates’ ability to affect learning and development.

Flanagan (1954) notes the use of the critical incident technique allows researchers to focus on participants’ lived experiences to draw insights into real world phenomena. The narratives of critical incidents are to serve as “direct observations of human behavior in such a way as to facilitate their potential usefulness in solving practical problems and developing broad psychological principles” (1954, p. 327). We used an interview protocol based on Butterfield et al. (2009) (See Table 2 for an excerpt of the original Critical Incident component).

Unfortunately, the design of the protocol encouraged participants to begin their discussion by focusing on the Helping or Hindering factor and then moving to a specific example (the Critical Incident). This sequence often yielded detailed descriptions of participants’ perceptions of aspects of their program or their induction context which was beneficial or inadequate, but not specific stories of occasions where they impacted students’ learning and development.

Ideally the retelling of the critical incident must be sufficiently complete to permit inferences regarding the performance of the individual.

Consequently, while our data was valuable in informing our program in relation to our candidates’ beliefs and opinions, we are refocusing our interview protocol to ensure future case studies begin with examples of incidents that are critical in the sense that the consequences of the teaching act are “sufficiently definite to leave little doubt concerning its effects” (See excerpt of Revised Version in Table 2). Only then will we go on to identify factors enabling or limiting the novice teachers’ actions and interactions in those

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

events. A complete revised protocol for future data collection can be found in the Appendix.

At the same time, the data we collected in this study on our graduates’ perceptions of helpful and hindering factors were valuable in highlighting several important themes. Seeing models of quality teaching was important for our novice teachers, both during their preparation and during their induction year. Previous research with pre-service teachers has underscored student teachers’ beliefs in the importance of having cooperating teachers who were talented and intentionally modeled good instruction (Franklin Torrez & Krebs, 2012).

Our research clarifies that seeing educators demonstrate effective approaches during teacher preparation programs can impact new teachers’ performance in the induction years. In addition, our participants were also influenced by program faculty who modeled instructional approaches in their college courses. Beginning teachers should experience teaching approaches as learners to fully understand the nuances that are a part of pedagogy (Synder, 2012). Many participants in our study drew on teacher preparation courses where pedagogy was modeled in lessons as a touchstone for designing and implementing their successful approaches in their first years. In addition to drawing on their cohort members and faculty, the novice teachers also noted that co-teachers in inclusion settings and grade level peers served to provide them with a road map of how creative, organized, and/or culturally responsive teaching might be orchestrated. For these new educators, seeing was believing.

Our graduates also endorsed their need for and appreciation of personal networks and supportive structures. Faculty and cohort peers who stayed in touch during the first years of teaching (either because of program design, availability of social media, or through individual acts of care and willingness to support), made a difference in effectiveness during the induction period for these novice teachers in urban schools. Previous research has underscored the value novice teachers place on being able to make connections to familiar people and practices during the induction period (Lisenbee & Tan, 2019). Participants indicated

PAGE 24

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

Table 2: Original and Revised Interview Protocol Critical Incident Component (Original Version) You described your ability to impact student learning and development as XXXX. What has helped you in being able to impact student learning/development?

Helpful Factor and What it Means to Participant (What do you mean by …?)

Importance (How did it help?

Tell me what it was about >>> that you found so helpful?

Example (What was the incident/experience where this was helpful? What was the outcome?)

Can you think of another factor that helped you in your effort to impact learning and development during your first year of teaching? * (repeat until no additional supports are identified) Critical Incident Component (Revised Version) You described your ability to impact student learning and development as XXXX. Think of a specific occasion when you felt you made an impact on student learning and development.

Example of CI

Helpful Factor

Importance

•

What was the • What was a factor • How did XXX incident/experience which helped you to help? where you impacted be effective in this • Tell me what it was learning and situation? about >>> that you development? found so helpful?

• Were there any other • What was the factors that helped? outcome?

Can you think of another occasion where you were able to impact learning and development during your first year of teaching? * (repeat until no additional CI’s are identified) being able to reach out to peers and faculty contributed to their success. At times, these relationships helped them feel as if someone else simply understood what they were going through while on other occasions the connections became brainstorming or problemsolving sessions related to particular lessons or student needs (Dakwa, 2016). As might be expected, support from administrators and mentors also played a major role. Candidates benefited from and desired constructive, specific, and timely feedback which could help them improve their instruction.

Discussion of specific content which was crucial or needed was confounded by the fact that our participants came from nine different certification areas with different designs and coursework and even different delivery models (undergraduate/graduate/online) for the same certification areas. As a result, areas such as

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

culturally responsive pedagogy, reading strategies, and classroom management were noted by some as helping factors and by others as areas where coverage was inadequate or could be increased. A limitation of our study is that we were unable to drill down to the program level to determine program specific themes due to the fact that there was not a substantial pool of critical incidents per program upon which to draw inferences.

Finally, another helping factor cited by some participants was related to professional learning during induction. Professional development after graduation was discussed as effective when it was in-depth on a specific area and conducted over time in seminars, courses, or professional learning communities. These qualities are consistent with the movement toward professional learning communities which allow participants to develop a sense of ownership

PAGE 25

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

over their development and to be engaged in reflective dialogues on topics aligned with their personal classroom practice (Schaap & de Brujin, 2018).

In conclusion, consistent with previous research, the importance of role models (university and school-based), collaborative networking, and in-depth professional learning were identified in our study as factors guiding effectiveness (Erickson, 2017; Myers, et al, 2017; Olsen & Rao, 2016; Reinhardt, 2017).

Community building using a culturally responsive approach was also frequently referred to as a helpful factor associated with our urban teacher preparation programs. The fact that this element was cited by participants from across varying programs underscores the salience of our unit’s conceptual framework’s focus on social justice and equity across departments, programs, and courses (Bhatnagar et al., 2016).

The critical incidents technique, which has been used effectively in other disciplines and which has been found beneficial in identifying positive and negative behaviors of teachers at the college level, was found in this multi-case study to potentially be an effective tool for program evaluation in teacher education (Andreou, McIntosh, Ross, & Kahn, 2015; Butterfield, et al, 2009; Flanagan, 1954; Kain, 2004; Khandelwal, 2009 ). A limitation to the use of such an approach as guided by the interview protocol we utilized was found. As a result, we posed recommendations to the protocol for future research to ensure data collected captures lived-through experiences and the factors impacting those experiences rather than participants’ general perceptions of program effectiveness. In such a way, teacher educators and researchers could find this approach to be a valuable tool in understanding the impact of teacher preparation programs and induction programs on novice teachers’ ability to impact their students’ learning and development.

References Andreou, T. E., McIntosh, K., Ross, S. W., & Kahn, J. D. (2015). Critical incidents in sustain school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. The Journal of Special Education, 49(3), 157-167.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

Bedi, R. P., Davis, M., & Williams, M. (2005). Critical incidents in the formation of the therapeutic alliance from the client’s perspective.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Training, 42, 311-323.

Bhatnagar, R., Kim, J., Many, J. E., Barker, K., Ball, M., & Tanguay, C. (2016). Are we making our social justice framework salient?: Students’ perceptions of urban teacher preparation program effectiveness. National Journal of Teacher Education, 9, 27-39.

Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Maglio, A.T., & Amundson, N. E. (2009). Using the enhanced Critical Incident Technique in counselling psychology research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 43(4), 265-282.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.

(2013). CAEP accreditation standards and evidence: Aspirations for educator preparation.

Washington, D. C.: Author.

Cochran-Smith, M., Cannady, M., Pesola Mceachern, K., Piazza, P., Power, C., & Ryan, A. (2010-2011). Teachers’ education, teaching practice, and retention: A cross-genre review of recent research. Journal of Education, 191, 1-31.

Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2012). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6-27.

Contopidis, E., DaBoll-Lavoie, K., Dunn, K., Darling, D., & Wieczorek, K. (2017). Shifting challenges in teacher-education research and accreditation: Lessons learned from limitations on studying program impact. The New Educator, 13(3), 310 – 327, DOI: 10.1080/1547688X.2016.1237691 Dakwa, L. (2016). Beginning teachers’ experiential learning in the era of common core: A case study.

Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1(2), 41-48.

Diaz, M. E. (2010). It is complicated: Unpacking the flow of teacher education’s impact on student learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 441-450.

Eriksson, A. (2017). Preservice teachers’ questions about the profession during mentoring group discussions. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 76-90.

Flanagan, J. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique.

Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.

Franklin Torrez, C. F., & Krebs, M. M. (2012). Expert voices: What cooperating teachers and teacher candidates say about quality student teaching placements and experiences. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 485-499.

Georgia Professional Standard Commission, (2016).

Georgia standards for the approval of educator preparation providers and educator preparation

PAGE 26

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

programs. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Professional Standards Commission. Retrieved from GAPSC website: https://www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/Down loads/Georgia%20Standards_2016Revised_2018.pdf Kain, D. L. (2004). Owning significance: The Critical Incident Technique in research. In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 69-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Khandelwal, K. A. (2008). Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom: A Critical Incident Technique from students’ perspective.

International Journal of Higher Education, 21, 299-309.

Lisenbee, P. S., & Tan, P. (2019). Mentoring novice teachers to advance inclusive mathematics education. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 15(1), 1-27.

McAninch, A. C. (2012). The logic of performancebased assessment; or does value-added assessment make sense? Teacher Education and Practice, 25(2), 184-195.

Myers, K. D., Bridges-Rhoads, S., & Cannon, S. O. (2017). Reflection in constellation: Post theories, subjectivity, and teacher preparation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 38(4), 322337.

Olson, J. D., & Rao, A. B. (2016). Becoming a culturally responsive teacher: The impact of clinical experiences in urban schools. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching and Research, 12, 133-141.

Reinhardt, K. S. (2017). Mentoring in clinical placements: Conceptualization of role and its

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

impacts on practices. Action in Teacher Education, 39, 381-396.

Schaap, H., & de Brujin, E. (2018). Elements affecting the development of professional learning communities in schools. Learning Environment Research, 21, 109-134.

Sleeter, C. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 146-153. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X14528752 Snyder, C. (2012). Finding the “Royal Road” to learning to teach: Listening to novice teacher voices in order to improve the effectiveness of teacher education.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 4, 33-53.

Worrell, F., Brabeck, M., Dwyer, C., Geisinger, K., Marx, R., Noell, G., & Pianta, R. (2014). Assessing and evaluating teacher preparation programs.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

PAGE 27

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

Appendix Revised Interview Protocol Participant:

Date:

Interview Start Time: 1.Contextual Component As you know, we are interested in understanding the experiences of our graduates in their first year of teaching as they work to impact students’ learning and development. In this interview, I will collect data on times you when you remember focusing on impacting students and your perceptions of what helped or hindered you during those events. a) As a way of getting started, perhaps you could tell me a little about your work situation. b) Which teacher preparation program did you graduate from? What was it like? c) Where did you do your student teaching? What was that like? d) This study is about first-year teachers’ efforts to impact student learning and development.

What does ‘impacting learning and development’ mean to you? How would you describe your ability to impact student learning and development?

2. Critical Incident Component a) You described your ability to impact student learning and development as XXXX. Think of a specific occasion when you felt you made an impact on student learning and development.

Example of CI

•

•

What was the incident/experience where you impacted learning and development?

What was the outcome?

Helpful Factor

•

•

What was a factor which helped you to be effective in this situation?

Were there any other factors that helped?

Importance

• •

How did XXX help?

Tell me what it was about >>> that you found so helpful?

Can you think of another occasion where you were able to impact learning and development during your first year of teaching? * (repeat until no additional CI’s are identified)

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 28

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

b) Were there times when you found it difficult to impact student learning and development during your first year? Think of specific occasions when this happened.

Example of CI •

•

What was the incident/experience where you struggled to impact learning and development?

What was the outcome?

Hindering Factor •

•

What was a factor which hindered your ability to be effective in this situation?

Were there any other factors that may have added to the difficulty?

Importance • •

How did XXX hinder your ability?

Tell me what it was about >>> that you found challenging?

c) Have you changed over time in your views of your ability to impact student learning and development? If so, when did you change in your view? What happened that caused you to begin to feel more positive or less positive about your ability?

3. d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l)

Demographics Component School Grade level/subjects taught in first year Mentor Teacher Prep program When student taught? Where? Cooperating Teacher?

(May we access your edTPA score? TEM?) Age Sex Ethnicity/Race

Interview End Time: Length of Interview: Interviewer’s Name:

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 29

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

About the Authors Dr. Joyce Many is a Professor and Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Educator Preparation in the College of Education and Human Development at Georgia State University. Her research explores teacher education program effectiveness including factors impacting faculty and candidate perceptions and concerns, and candidates’ performance and retention in the classroom. Dr. Many is the Series Editor of Contemporary Issues in Accreditation, Assessment and Program Evaluation with Information Age Publishing.

Dr. Ruchi Bhatnagar is a Clinical Assistant Professor and the assessment coordinator for the College of Education and Human Development at Georgia State University. Her research interests are teacher education assessment, accountability, and educational policy.

Dr. Carla Tanguay is a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Early Childhood and Elementary Education at Georgia State University and the Associate to the Dean for Clinical Practice, supporting initial teacher preparation programs in the areas of teacher performance assessment and clinical practice. She serves on the Georgia edTPA Policy & Implementation Advisory Committee and is the Chair of the Assessment and Accreditation Committee in the College of Education and Human Development.

Her scholarly interests include teacher development, teacher induction and retention, assessment, program evaluation, and educational policy.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 30

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

On Improving Academic Outcomes for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students Natasha Ramsay-Jordan, University of West Georgia

Demographic changes in the United States (U.S.) continue to show an increase in culturally and linguistically diverse students (CLDS).

CLDS are a diverse group of learners in terms of their education, native language literacy, socioeconomic status, and cultural traditions (Doran, 2014). For CLDS attending U.S. public schools, a necessary change of perspectives within education policy, school practices, and teacher preparation is needed. Currently, with high-stakes standardized accountability test scores, CLDS experience subtractive learning that continuously deprives them of high-tiered rich opportunities to learn. These measured achievement scores typically focus on subject areas that include students’ performance on core subjects such as mathematics, science, reading, and writing. However, what the accountability test scores hide are the inequitable educational policies, school practices, and inadequately prepared teachers that limit CLDS to low-quality culturally bias instruction, and unsupportive teacher expectations (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Garcia & Chun, 2016; Ford, Trotman, Moore, & Amos, 2013; Landsman, 2004; Rector-Aranda, 2016). What follows are brief discussions on some inadvertent consequences of current education policies, school practices, and teacher preparation that are both significant and central to improving school performances of CLDS. This is followed by an exploration of ways in which educators could shift the paradigm of how policies, practices, and preparation might be understood to improve the learning outcomes of CLDS. Lastly, sharing experiential knowledge

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

the author briefly summarizes ways to improve the scholastic accomplishments for CLDS. Inadvertent Consequences of Current Education Policies on CLDS Academic Experiences Perhaps the biggest contributor to the current academic experiences of CLDS is how schools interact with the nationwide standardization of education. According to McGuinn, (2016) at the national level schools interact with federal, state, and local policies through a series of national objectives and standards as determined through adapted initiatives stemming from No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Race to the Top (RT3), and most recently Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

NCLB, RT3, and ESSA are national educational policies rooted in the spirit and ideals of holding schools accountable and offering financial assistance through academic competition.

However, according to Brunn-Bevel and Byrd (2015) schools serving CLDS are not the primary beneficiaries of academic competitive learning. Brunn-Bevel and Byrd (2015) assert that schools’ locale and links to financial institutions allow opportunities for large funding that permits more access to test preparation.

Meaning, schools from more affluent communities have more resources to develop student learning, and other resources to boost student performance on standardized tests.

Consequently, academic competition through standardized testing, promotes inequitable school funding and results in little to no benefit for CLDS education (Adamson & Darling-

PAGE 31

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

Hammond 2012; Kettler, Russell, & Puryear 2015; Ostrander, 2015).

In addition to unfair school funding, education policies also affect college and career pathways for CLDS. Currently, standardized test scores remain the number one criteria colleges and universities use for admissions. Recent data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (2017) show that CLDS including African Americans, Latino, Native American, and English Language Learners continue to perform below basic levels in core subject areas such as mathematics and reading. The translation of this data and college admission practices means that CLDS continue to have limited access to careers requiring higher education. Subsequently, coupling the effects of standardized schooling and inadequate funding, CLDS educational experiences become saddled with narratives, dispositions, and practices that deem them as intellectually deficient.

From Standardization to the Polarization of CLDS within U.S. Public Schools In addition to education policies that promote bias funding for schools serving predominantly diverse students, disingenuous school practices also produce negative schooling involvements for CLDS. For many schools, interactions with education policies occur both as implemented goals and measurable standards, which are embedded into school curriculum.

These subject contents and adopted standards work as part of accountability measures, and influence the types of methods, materials, and learning guides teachers use in classrooms (Stotsky, 2016). Inadvertently, as schools concentrate on meeting implemented accountability goals, unintended consequences emerged in the learning experiences of CLDS. For example, many schools serving CLDS have excluded scaffolding, inquiry, and culturally responsive curriculum as viable options to teach CLDS in place of teach to the test’ instruction (Au, 2007). Instead, rigid unresponsive course pacing guides are used as instructional tools to teach (David & Greene, 2007; Kitchen, Ridder & Bolz, 2016). These types of unresponsive practices that schools embrace inhibit teachers from accessing cultural referents of diverse

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

students which leaves the educational capabilities of CLDS untapped.

Moreover, for schools serving largely CLDS, the fear of losing funding has led to dishonest and destructive practices (Chan, 2013; Sleeter & Stillman, 2013; Valenzuela, 2013).

These practices include labeling students as incorrigible, uneducable, and unsalvageable (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Noguera, 2003). In fact, a growing number of schools have resorted to practices that target and differentially punish diverse students with language barriers, low achievement, and low socioeconomic status.

These schools typically target students, for misbehavior during testing as a way of removing them from the testing pool (Figlio, 2006; Jacob, 2005). Even more, Figlio and Getzler (2006) point to evidence of schools differentially reclassifying students as academically disabled to meet accountability standards, placing disproportionate percentages of CLDS into slower tracked classes. Through academic tracking, CLDS are funneled into special education pipelines that restrict their learning and opportunities with more rigorous cognitively demanding learning (Ford & King, 2014). By labelling CLDS as academically disabled, schools can offer test modification as well as interpret test scores differently for financial gains (Burnette, 2016; Wong, Wing, Martin, & Krishnamachari, 2018).

To use Black children and mathematics as an example, the author notes that although Black children represent less than 17% of the public school population across the nation, they make up less than 10% of the overall talented and gifted mathematics education programs for advanced classes, yet account for more than 33% of students who are labeled mentally retarded or cognitively disabled (Ford & King, 2014). Additionally, within mathematics classrooms, Black children are three times more likely to receive disciplinary action than White students who commit similar infractions (Gregory et al., 2016). On average, less than 5% of White students are suspended, compared to more than 16% of Black students (Office for Civil Rights, 2014). Increased expulsion, suspension, and differential academic tracking into remedial courses and special education

PAGE 32

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

programs lead to limited access to rigor involving cognitively demanding instruction (Battey, 2013). Race-based discipline disparities and limited access to cognitively demanding courses interfere with opportunities for CLDS to find success ( Kitchen, Ridder & Bolz, 2016; George, 2015; Losen, 2013). Thus, current education policies supporting the standardization of education have become part of a process that negatively impact the academic trajectory of CLDS. Inadequate Teacher Preparation Influences the Academic Achievements of CLDS Like education policies and school practices, lack of culturally and linguistically diverse teacher candidates as well as unresponsive curricular designs within teacher educator programs create negative learning experiences for diverse students. Currently, the overall nationwide population of teacher candidates remains culturally, linguistically, and racially homogenous. As a result, cultural and social homogeneity in the teaching profession continues to challenge cultural hybridity and create barriers toward effective instruction for CLDS. Additionally, teacher education programs are not embracing, with fidelity, sustainable curriculum aimed at producing culturally responsive pedagogues. According to Jett (2012; 2013) current teacher preparation curricula are not committed to producing culturally responsive pedagogues to meet the needs of CLDS. Instead, programs designed to initiate teachers into education fall short of viable courses centered on ways to advance academic opportunities for CLDS. However, given the continuous change in the demographic makeup of U.S. public schoolchildren, teacher preparation programs must find ways to recruit and retain culturally and linguistically diverse teaching candidates.

Interestingly, while the percentage of White teachers remain relatively steady at 83% or higher, it becomes increasingly unlikely each year that a student will share the same cultural background of his or her teacher (May, 2011).

According to Maxwell (2014), for the first time in the history of U.S. public schools, the new collective majority of CLDS, particularly Black and Latino, is projected to be 50.3%. This shift

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

in demographics often lead to a mismatch between cultures and poses a plain imperative for teacher preparation programs, public schools, and society at large (May, 2011). Current cultural mismatch between teachers and CLDS can be characterized as “cultural interface zones” where the culture of the teachers conflicts with the culture of students (Norman, Ault, Bentz, & Meskimen, 2001).

Conspicuously, when the balance of power of such conflicts is not negotiated, CLDS academic achievement suffers.

Another pause for concern within teacher preparation programs is the limited and often nonexistent ways in which preparatory programs challenge teacher candidates’ perspectives of CLDS. Without question, teachers bring their own diverse perspectives into the classroom.

These perspectives are paramount to the learning outcomes for students. Therefore, the way teachers situate themselves racially and culturally should serve as an impetus to how teachers are prepared to challenge the intellectual engines of CLDS. Past and present experiences of teachers impact their views of students and are valuable to how they interact with CLDS particularly in relation to how differentness is interpreted (Buchanan, 2016).

How teachers perceive CLDS’ academic abilities influences the extent to which teachers are willing to embrace, understand, and identify success within diverse classrooms. Oppositional attitudes, a poor work ethic, lack of concern, and being from a culture of poverty are often the perspectives of many teachers who serve CLD students (Darling-Hammond, 2010). These perspectives often lead to damaged motivation, confidence, and underachievement in academic learning (Battey, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Martin , 2000). Thus, new models and approaches for advancing the academic achievement of CLDS are needed.

Shifting the Education Paradigm for CLDS Despite reform efforts in education, current education policies, school practices, and teacher preparation continue to support systems of inequitable funding, and biased practices (Darling-Hammond, 2010) that limit academic trajectories of CLDS and stagnate their quality of education (Reyes & Villarreal, 2016). To

PAGE 33

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

combat this trend, change is needed. In what follows, the author offers recommendations for education policy, school practices, and teacher preparation that could shift the current learning paradigm and experiences of CLDS by considering what is and what might be for the academic success of diverse students.

First, the author asserts that with regards to education policies, change in design and implementation is needed. New education policies should be guided by dual commitments of support toward meaningful learning and equitable access to educational opportunity for CLDS. Such commitments to the academic advancement of CLDS mean supportive education policies that permeate cultural relevance and empowers students with the necessities on how to survive in a more diverse society. To start anew, education policy should be design in ways that afford teachers of diverse students with opportunities and flexibility of how to tap into the academic engines of CLDS. That is, instead of teachers having to teach rote memorization skills to achieve accountability measures through testing, they can begin to use viable pedagogies that support the educational needs of CLDS. This means that collectively teachers, schools, and policy makers need to collaboratively implement policies that support equitable funding to help meet the needs of diverse learners.

Teachers and those with vested interest in the academic accomplishments of CLDS should collaborate on both the design and implementation of educational policies. This means that teachers should be invited and expected to attend policy meetings and briefings to engage in dialogue that leads to sustainable and useful ways in which schools could provide academic resources to CLDS. In other words, policy makers establishing meaningful and respectable partnerships with schools, teachers, local community officials, parents, and those with vested interest in the education of CLDS is a powerful start toward improving the academic needs of CLDS. Thus, teacher involvement in design and implementation of policies is needed.

Second, it makes perfect sense to establish healthy partnerships with schools and teachers to improve scholastic success for CLDS. The direct

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

and indirect ways education policies shape destructive school practices toward CLDS is encapsulated in schools’ interaction with accountability measures for financial assistance.

To a large extent, current ties between measurable student learning outcomes and school funding have led to schools’ race based disparities in discipline and academic tracking that continuously hinder CLDS scholastic achievements. According to Lysaker (2012), schools’ interaction with current standardized curriculum has disrupted the interrelational ecosystems of learning between teacher, student, and the curriculum. This disruption of learning systems has left CLDS within U.S. public schools in desperate positions and crippled much needed discussions surrounding their educational needs.

So, in considering what is and what might be to help shift the paradigm of harmful school practices toward CLDS, schools’ meaningful partnerships with policy makers coupled with culturally enriching practices could enhance the overall learning experiences of diverse students.

There is a strong correlation between CLDS experiencing academic success and school practices. Researchers have found, through years of scholarship in social and educational policies as well as educational consultant experiences within schools servicing CLDS, that policies and practices centered on culturally enriched education are important factors that lead to the scholastic achievement of CLDS (Gay, 2002; Garcia & Chun 2016; Hernandez, Morales, & Shroyer, 2013; Hubert, 2014; Irvine, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995). The link between teachers’ cultural unresponsiveness in classrooms and negative experiences for CLDS exist (Cheema & Kitsantas, 2014; Noltemeyer, Ward, & Mcloughlin, 2015). Cultural unresponsiveness in classrooms is arguably one of the major causes of race based disparities in schools (Jett, 2013). Culturally unresponsive teachers are more likely to have negative teacher-student relationships that lead to higher student infractions, discipline referrals, expulsion and limited opportunities for academic success (Simmons-Reed & Cartledge, 2014; Battey, 2013; Martin, 2013; Spencer, 2009). Thus, when schools take a stand for

PAGE 34

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

policies and pedagogies of inclusiveness, and cultural congruence, CLDS have better opportunities for academic success.

Third, unlike national reform agenda that tend to focus on test scores, without much attention given to how teachers are prepared to meet the academic needs of diverse students, this author posits that central to any discussion as to the academics of CLDS is teacher preparation. Scholars argue that teacher preparation is important to bridging the gap between CLDS and their opportunities to experience academic success (Gay, 2002; Irvine, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Moreover, as a logical response to a demographic imperative, teacher educator programs need to purposefully recruit diverse teachers and examine new ways of preparing them. To diversify their selection of prospective teachers and recruit diverse teacher candidates, teacher preparation programs should work in collaboration with schools serving CLDS. Through established partnerships with schools, teacher preparation programs could open new realities for CLDS and create new pathways into the field of education.

Additionally, teachers must be prepared in ways that acknowledge the historical experiences of CLDS. Hence, teacher preparation programs need to critically examine teachers’ perceptions about CLDS and its influence on their practice. Without serious considerations of teachers perspectives about diverse students, CLDS could continue to receive poor quality instruction and pedagogical and curricular methods incongruent with their culture and learning styles (Gay, 2013; LadsonBillings, 2006; Valenzuela, 2013; Vega, Moore, & Miranda, 2015). What we know from empirical and theoretical studies about CLDS’ schooling experiences in the U.S. is that historically, CLDS have received an overall poor-quality education (Adamson & DarlingHammond, 2012; Fernandes, Ha, McElroy, & Myers 2016; Ostrander, 2015). Consequently, teacher preparation programs need to be intentional and interruptive, to infuse teaching styles that embrace teaching through cultural relevance and provide prospective teachers with the necessities on how to teach to an increasingly diverse student body (Gay, 2013).

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

Many teachers have great difficulty accepting and being tolerant of diversity within their classrooms (Chan, 2013). Understandably, teachers bring with them their own teaching beliefs and values that were shaped by their own experiences of teaching and being taught.

However, teacher preparation programs need to critically examine these value systems during training because in many situations, differing value systems conflict what is needed to promote scholastic accomplishments for CLDS causing what Valenzuela (2013) referred to as “subtractive schooling.” Thus, teacher preparation programs must commit to prepare teachers in ways that reach all learners, and push teachers toward providing opportunities for students to inquire, think, and produce.

Curriculum designed to prepare teachers for increasingly diverse classrooms should bridge the gap between knowledge of content, pedagogy, background experiences, and view of racial and cultural dynamics. Such racial, cultural, and social understandings and experiences are inextricably linked and could influence CLDS opportunities for academic success (Gay, 2013). Teacher preparation programs must find ways to afford teachers opportunities to develop cultural competence to foster student success for CLDS. Arguably, teachers are critical to successful student learning, so teachers need to be well-grounded in how to teach CLDS. Thus, tapping into how teachers see, believe, and embrace the capabilities of diverse students will be impactful towards improving academic outcomes for CLDS. Final Thought As a native of Guyana, South America, the author had schooling experiences that left an indelible mark on the perspective of education – particularly as it relates to the ways CLDS are educated. Over 30 years ago, my family and I moved from Guyana, a small South American/Caribbean country, to Brooklyn, New York, where I attended schools in Bedford Stuyvesant alongside other students of African descent. During my years in Guyana, I felt confident in my abilities to comprehend and complete tasks in subject areas such as mathematics, reading, and writing, as well as my

PAGE 35

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

abilities to articulate myself verbally and in writing. Educators in Guyana taught in ways that honored students’ rich cultural backgrounds and experiences, and because of this, I experienced a great deal of success. Yet, my academic identity of excellence was quickly diminished in my transition to schools in the U.S. and I soon learned that it was challenging for my teachers to advance my learning.

Particularly, my language, writing, and selfexpression conflicted with my U.S. teachers’ pedagogical practices for teaching CLD students like myself. The cultural differences in the way I spoke or spelled words such as colour, favour, and programme, as well as my overall cultural experiences proved to be problematic for my teachers. The mathematics procedures I used to solve problems and the explanations I gave for my understanding of mathematical concepts were different and, therefore, dismissed. Rather than view my ways of knowing, which involved differences in grammar, word usage, and mathematical computations, as resources, my teachers viewed them as deficiencies that inhibited my success. The cultural disjointedness I experienced in American schools caused me to continuously doubt myself and my confidence in my abilities as a learner. I became embarrassed to speak publicly or write. My teachers’ lack of adequate preparation or demonstration of culturally relevant instructional practices toward me is part of a larger problem found in far too many U.S. public schools that involves ambiguity in what constitutes student success, preparing teachers to realize success in diverse classrooms, and leads to further marginalization of CLD students (Toldson & Johns, 2016). My experiences in middle school are not different from other youths who are not experiencing success in schools and help to explain why it is imperative that teachers reimagine ways in which students can become academically successful.

I end this article with my story and experience as a CLDS because it is reflective of how I have come to understand the promise and potential of education within a democratic nation. If the characterization of my experiences were limited to a handful of students within America’s public schools then the problem of

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

limiting students’ opportunities to experience academic success might not seem imperative, but this is not the case. Arguably, students’ academic success is a function of many attributes including, but not limited to, home, community, and school. With school, more specifically students’ interactions with teachers, being ostensibly more vital in determining, shaping, and influencing student success.

According to Darling-Hammond (2010), teachers serve as the most important factor in student learning, achievement, and success.

However, success is often a relative concept in conflict with students’ ways of knowing and currently determined by rigid rules of numbers, and percentages based on assessments. The question remains, what do these percentages suggest? Educational researchers contend that how and what students know and learn are culturally bound (Gay, 2013; Irvine, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers unresponsive to the importance of students’ cultural capital and its impact on student success could lead to students experiencing academic struggles and failures. Thus, affording CLDS opportunities to achieve academic success starts in the classroom with effective culturally responsive teachers.

References Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Funding disparities and the inequitable distribution of teachers: Evaluating sources and solutions.

Disparidades de Financiamento e a Desigual Distribuição de Professores: Avaliando fontes e soluções., 20(37), 1-42.

Ani, A. (2013). In spite of racism, inequality, and school failure: Defining hope with achieving black children. Journal of Negro Education, 82(4), 408421.

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.

Baird, K. (2012). Class in the classroom: The relationship between school resources and math performance among low socioeconomic status students in 19 rich countries. Education Economics, 20(5), 484-509. doi:10.1080/09645292.2010.511848 Battey, D. (2013). 'Good' mathematics teaching for students of color and those in poverty: The importance of relational interactions within instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 125. doi:10.1007/s10649-012-9412-z

PAGE 36

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

Brunn-Bevel, R. J., & Byrd, W. C. (2015). The foundation of racial disparities in the standardized testing era. Humanity & Society, 39(4), 419.

Buchanan, L. (2016). Elementary preservice teachers‫׳‬ navigation of racism and whiteness through inquiry with historical documentary film. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 40, 137-154. doi:10.1016/j.jssr.2015.06.006 Burnette, D. (2016). Senator Lamar Alexander tells governors to hold their ground on ESSA. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/201 6/02/lamar_alexander.html.

Chan, E. (2013). Teacher experiences of culture in the curriculum. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 301314). New York, NY: Routledge. (Reprinted from: Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(2006), 161-76).

Cheema, J., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Influences of disciplinary classroom climate on high school student self-efficacy and mathematics achievement: A look at gender and racial-ethnic differences.

International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1261-1279. doi:10.1007/s10763013-9454-4 Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

David, J. L., & Greene, D. (2007). Improving mathematics instruction in Los Angeles high schools: An evaluation of the PRISMA pilot program. Palo Alto, CA: Bay Area Research Group.

Doran, P. R. (2014). Professional development for teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse learners: Teachers' experiences and perceptions.

Global Education Journal, 2014(3), 62-80.

Dotson, L., & Foley, V. (2016). Middle grades student achievement and poverty levels: Implications for teacher preparation. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 33-44.

Fernandes, R., Ha, I., McElroy, S., & Myers, S. (2016).

Black-white disparities in test scores: Distributional characteristics. Review of Black Political Economy, 43(2), 209-232. doi:10.1007/s12114-015-9230-5 Figlio, D. N. (2006). Testing, crime and punishment.

Journal of Public Economics, 90, 837-851. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.01.003 Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. S. (2006). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system? In T.J. Gronberg & D.W. Jansen (Eds.), Improving school accountability: Advances in applied microeconomics ( Vol. 14, pp/ 35-49). Bingley, UK: Emerald. .

Ford, D. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of Blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

paradigms. Roeper Review, 36(3), 143-154. doi:10.1080/02783193.2014.919563 Ford, D. Y., & King, J. R. A. (2014). No Blacks allowed: Segregated gifted education in the context of Brown v. Board of Education. Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 300-310.

Ford, D. Y., Trotman, S., Moore, J., & Amos, S. (2013).

Gifted education and culturally different students: Examining prejudice and discrimination via microaggressions. Gifted Child Today, 36(3), 205– 208.

Garcia, C., & Chun, H. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching and teacher expectations for Latino middle school students. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4(3), 173-187. doi:10.1037/lat0000061 Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106 - 116.

Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48-70. doi:10.1111/curi.12002 Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., Bailey, D. H., & Krueger, F. (2013). Adolescents' functional numeracy is predicted by their school entry number system knowledge. PLoS ONE, 8(1), 1-8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054651 George, J. A. (2015). Stereotype and school pushout: Race, gender, and discipline disparities. Arkansas Law Review (1968-present), 68(1), 101-129.

Gregory, A., Hafen, C. A., Ruzek, E., Mikami, A. Y., Allen, J. P., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). Closing the racial discipline gap in classrooms by changing teacher practice. School Psychology Review, 45(2), 171-191.

Hernandez, C., Morales, A., & Shroyer, M. (2013). The development of a model of culturally responsive science and mathematics teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(4), 803-820. doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9544-1 Hubert, T. (2014). Learners of mathematics: High school students' perspectives of culturally relevant mathematics pedagogy. Journal of African American Studies, 18(3), 324-336. doi:10.1007/s12111-013-9273-2 Irvine, J. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy.

Education Digest, 75(8), 57-61.

Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004 Jett, C. (2012). Let's produce culturally responsive pedagogues on deck. Democracy & Education, 20(2).

Jett, C. (2013). Culturally responsive collegiate mathematics education: Implications for African American students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching & Learning, 3(2), 102-116.

PAGE 37

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

Kettler, T., Russell, J., & Puryear, J. S. (2015).

Inequitable access to gifted education: Variance in funding and staffing based on locale and contextual school variables. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 99-117. doi:10.1177/0162353215578277 Kitchen, R., Ridder, S., & Bolz, J. (2016). The legacy continues: "The test" and denying access to a challenging mathematics education for historically marginalized students. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 7(1), 17-26.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 312.

Landsman, J. (2004). Confronting the racism of low expectations. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 2832.

Losen, D. J. (2013). Discipline policies, successful schools, racial justice, and the law. Family Court Review, 51(3), 388-400. doi:10.1111/fcre.12035 Lysaker, J. T. (2012). Should teachers have a voice in state-wide curricula decisions? POINT. In A. J. Eakle (Ed.), Debating issues in American education: Curriculum and instruction (pp. 10-17), a volume in C. Russo and A. Osborne Jr. (Eds.), Debating issues in American education: A SAGE reference set. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martin, D. B. (2000). Mathematics success and failure among African-American youth: The roles of sociohistorical context, community forces, school influence, and individual agency. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Martin, D. B. (2013). Race, racial projects, and mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 316 - 333.

Maxwell, L. A. (2014). U.S. school enrollment hits majority-minority milestone. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/20/01d emographics.h34.html.

May, L. A. (2011). Animating talk and texts: Culturally relevant teacher read-alouds of informational texts.

Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 3-38.

McGuinn, P. (2016). From No Child Left Behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act: Federalism and the education legacy of the Obama Administration.

Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 46(3), 392.

McKown, C. (2013). Social equity theory and racialethnic achievement gaps. Child Development, 84(4), 1120-1136. doi:10.1111/cdev.12033 National Assessment of Educational Progress, U. S. D. o. E., The Nation‘s Report Card, Math. (2017).

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) at grade 12. Retrieved June 6 2018 from https://nationsreportcard.gov.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Noltemeyer, A., Ward, R. M., & McLoughlin, C. (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 44(2), 224-240.

Norman, O., Ault, C., Bentz, B., & Meskimen, L. (2001). The Black-White “achievement gap” as a perennial challenge of urban science education: A sociocultural and historical overview with implications for research and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1101-1114.

Office for Civil Rights, U. D. o. E. (2014). Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot (School Discipline) March 21, 2014 Retreived from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc -discipline-snapshot.pdf.

Ostrander, R. R. (2015). School funding: Inequality in district funding and the disparate impact on urban and migrant school children. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal(1), 271-295.

Rector-Aranda, A. (2016). School norms and reforms, critical race theory, and the fairytale of equitable education. Critical Questions in Education, 7(1), 116.

Reyes, R., & Villarreal, E. (2016). Wanting the unwanted again: Safeguarding against normalizing dehumanization and discardability of marginalized, 'unruly' English-learning Latinos in our schools.

The Urban Review, 48(4), 543-559. doi:10.1007/s11256-016-0367-8 Simmons-Reed, E., & Cartledge, G. (2014). School discipline disproportionality: Culturally competent interventions for African American males.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 95-109.

Sleeter, C., & Stillman, J. (2013). Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 253-268). New York, NY: Routledge. (Reprinted from: Curriculum Inquiry, 35, (2005), 27-46).

Spencer, J. (2009). Identity at the crossroads: Understanding the practices and forces that shape African American success and struggle in mathematics. In D. B. Martin (Ed.), Mathematics teaching, learning, and liberation in the lives of black children (pp. 200–230). New York: Routledge.

Stotsky, S. (2016). Testing Limits. Academic Questions, 29(3), 285-298. doi:10.1007/s12129-016-9578-4 Toldson, I. A., & Johns, D. J. (2016). Erasing Deficits.

Teachers College Record, 118(6), 1-7.

Valenzuela, A. (2013). Subtractive schooling, caring relations, and social capital in the schooling of U.S.-Mexican youth. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (4th ed., pp. 289–300). New York, NY: Routledge

PAGE 38

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

(Reprinted from Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools, Revised edition, L. Weis and M. Fine (Eds.), State University of New York Press, 1999).

Vega, D., Moore III, J. L., & Miranda, A. H. (2015). In their own words: Perceived barriers to achievement

by African American and Latino high school students. American Secondary Education, 43(3), 36-59.

Wong, V. C., Wing, C., Martin, D., & Krishnamachari, A. (2018). Did states use implementation discretion to reduce the stringency of NCLB? Evidence from a database of state regulations. Educational Researcher, 47(1), 9.

About the Author Dr. Natasha Ramsay-Jordan is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of West Georgia. She is currently a faculty member within the College of Education. Her mission centers on preparing, supporting, and leading in the preparation of exemplary mathematics teachers who individually and collectively influence the betterment of society within a diverse, changing environment.

Dr. Ramsay-Jordan has several years of teaching experience in K-12 Mathematics. Her main research interests are the intersection of educational policies and urban education with respect to diverse student learners, especially as these relate to teacher quality and professional development; issues of equity in education; STEM equity, and development grades K12; and the role of culture in mathematics development.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 39

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

The Parent/Teacher Connection: A Plan for Success from Two Veteran Teachers Linda Ann McCall and Glenda Ogletree, Georgia Southern University (Armstrong Campus)

“Those parents are driving me nuts!”

According to Ferlazzo (2011), comments like this by teachers, especially new teachers, are quite common. Unfortunately, it seems that some of us in education consider parents “aliens” and/or “troublemakers.” We’ve observed this puzzling behavior since we began teaching (each of us over thirty years ago). This is puzzling because we couldn’t understand why the “complainers” didn’t seem to notice that the most successful teachers were also the best classroom managers, and one key reason for their success was their positive relationships with their students’ parents (Burden & Byrd, 2019).

Research-based Framework The following framework is focused on two important themes or common threads which have guided our interactions with parents. They are proactive behaviors on our part and close meaningful communication (Evans, 2004; Wong & Wong, 2009). First of all, teachers should always strive to be proactive when working with parents. For example, if a child is having a problem, the teacher should not wait for the parent to call him or her. That puts the teacher on the defensive. Instead, the teacher should call and discuss the problem over the phone or schedule a conference. Secondly, meaningful communication is critical. Teachers must let it be known that they expect parents to communicate closely with them and be their partners in their children's' education. Third, although teachers get to know their students pretty well, they should never forget that no one knows the children better than their parents.

According to a retired elementary school principal from an elementary school in Georgia,

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

it was important to strive for engaged parents.

She emphasized that engaged parents were key to building a culture of academic success during her 34-year career. The high test scores obtained during her tenure were attributed to the high rate of parent involvement.

Based on research and our decades of experience in the classroom, we have identified what teachers must do to build successful working relationships with parents to improve student achievement. The following is a list of action steps that will help foster successful parent/teacher relationships.

•

•

•

•

Before School Starts Make home visits. So much can be learned about children and their environments by visiting their homes. If you are uncomfortable going into a high-crime area, have a colleague, administrator, or the school resource officer accompany you.

Make phone calls and send notes welcoming the children and their families to your class. These initial contacts are powerful and send strong messages that you care.

Learn about each child’s culture and family dynamics, then plan to honor all equally in your classroom (Levin & Nolan, 2014).

Create form templates/checklists that may be used all year. It is important that these forms and reports go home at specific times so parents will know when to expect them.

PAGE 40

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

•

•

•

•

First Week of School Send home an informative letter describing your approaches to learning and your classroom expectations.

Include your email address and a phone number. In all our years of teaching, a parent has never contacted us unnecessarily. If you are hesitant about this, use an app like Remind or something similar that allows parents to contact you directly. Sometimes they may ask questions or make statements that may seem “silly” to you, but always remember that what they are asking is important to them.

Use weekly instructional focus forms and weekly reports. The focus forms are sent home on Mondays and outline the concepts and activities which will be covered that week. Weekly reports are sent home on Fridays and describe the child’s academic performance and behavior for that week. Parents know to review these materials with their children, then sign and return them to teachers. For English language learners, send written communiqués home in the students’ native language.

Begin scheduling regular meetings with students and their parents. Start at the beginning of your class roster. Schedule one or two parents and their children every day before or after school. When you get to the end of the roster, start over. Meet with parents and their children regularly for progress checks. If there is a problem, plan to meet more frequently. Unless the matter to discuss is a sensitive one, the child needs to be a part of the meeting.

In addition to the school’s open house, schedule your own. At this informal meeting, make it clear that you believe that families need to know as much as possible about what goes on in the classroom. Describe your approaches to learning and share some of the activities in which the children will be involved during the school year. If you have them, show videos and slides of former

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

•

• •

•

•

•

students (with written parental permission) and their parents involved in research and construction activities.

Also use this meeting to explain that if parents have concerns or disagree with a certain classroom practice, they should contact you immediately so that you can resolve the problem together.

Have a team of parent volunteers to help with plays, programs, and field trips.

Allow parents to sign-up and commit to a regular time each week to work in the classroom to help with construction activities, performances, fitness games, and academic and clerical duties. If they cannot do so because of work schedules or other obligations, ask for their help for things that can be done from home.

During the Year Continue calling parents/families frequently to discuss their child’s progress and behavior.

Maintain an “open door” policy. Parents should be welcome in your classroom any time (except during testing). When they pop in, tell them that you are so happy they are there, and that you need their help (e.g., reading with individual children, practicing spelling words and math facts). The list is endless.

Plan Parent Portfolio Workshops once or twice a month for family members to work with their children on their portfolios that may include writing, editing, and sharing stories and poems.

Schedule class meetings with all of your students’ parents regarding special assignments (e.g., science projects, book reports, home research activities). At these times, explain the assignment so the parents will understand it and what their role is in helping their children complete it successfully.

Send graded papers home several times a week. Attach poorly done papers to the weekly report for the parent to sign and return. Ask parents to review the attached papers with their children.

PAGE 41

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

•

•

Keep a log to record every communication with parents (phone calls, emails, etc.) and a brief description regarding the nature of the contact. Contact should not be made, or notes written, for the sole purpose of discussing problems. Return calls and answer notes promptly.

Save all relevant papers and communiqués. For example, keep each child’s academic papers in colored files in a filing cabinet, save digital reports on the computer, and save all Weekly Reports and notes from parents in individual files.

Parent-Teacher Conferences Parent-teacher conferences are ritualized school events in all types of schools (Lemmer, 2012). Parent-teacher conferences are characterized by a client orientation to parents, rather than a partnership orientation to homeschool relations. Parents’ and teachers’ expectations of conferences are limited.

Conferences are overwhelmingly directed at problem solutions and many times parents question a teacher’s judgment. Many teachers are not trained to conduct parent-teacher conferences (Lemmer, 2012).

New teachers are especially anxious about parent-teacher conferences. They are reluctant to contact parents for different reasons. Young teachers are uncomfortable establishing a relationship with parents because, depending on what level they teach, they may be significantly younger than their students’ parents. Some teachers have trouble with time management; finding time to call working parents is difficult.

There may even be a cultural barrier where teachers and parents are of different races or economic backgrounds (Levin & Levin, 2014).

How can parent-teacher relationships be strengthened? According to Santana, Rothstein, and Bain (2016), the Right Question SchoolFamily Partnership Strategy is a simple strategy that can be used with all teachers and parents.

Many times, parents and teachers do not know how to ask the right questions to help students.

The strategy is a step-by-step process that allows parents to create their own questions, improve their questions, and learn how to use their

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

questions. There are three components to the Right Question Strategy with a set of specific roles for parents to play and two skills that allow them to play the roles effectively (Santana et al., 2016).

The first step in using the Right Question Strategy is to determine a question focus. The following four rules should then be used to create questions: 1. Ask as many questions as you can.

2. Do not stop to discuss or answer the questions.

3. Write down every question exactly as stated.

4. Change any statements into questions (Santana et al., 2016).

Building parents’ skills in producing, improving, and asking questions is part of the process of partnering with the teachers to build a learning agenda to solve student problems. One of the components of the Right Question SchoolFamily Partnership Strategy is the Question Formulation Technique. The Question Formulation Technique (Santana et al., 2016) begins with the teacher setting a goal and a Question Focus statement for the parent. The Question Focus statement must be chosen carefully so that the parent does not panic or feel overwhelmed. Once the parent has been given the Question Focus statement, he/she is encouraged to state all questions they have. The teacher writes the questions down, and the parent prioritizes the questions. An agreed upon plan is created to help the student (Santana et al., 2016).

It is essential that parent-teacher connections are more than just parent-teacher conferences about problems. An alignment between the school and the community strengthens the teacher’s role by confirming and supporting the legitimacy of the teacher (Forster, 2016).

Conferences should be about planning for the future of the child (Stevens & Tollafield, 2003).

Research-based Conference Plan In order to have a meaningful parent/teacher conference, teachers should do the following: • Be proactive! Teachers should call and initiate meetings with families and children rather than waiting to be contacted. This places teachers in a

PAGE 42

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

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

proactive rather than a reactive position.

If a parent requests a conference, teachers should schedule it promptly.

When parents arrive, greet them positively. Offer a warm welcome and a handshake or a hug, depending on the relationship. Have small snacks and drinks available to offer parents and share a story or engage in light-hearted banter. Conduct the conference at a round table rather than at the teacher’s desk. We encourage teachers to take further steps to make the environment feel warm and inviting by having a lamp and a jar of peppermints on the table and soft music playing when parents enter the classroom.

It is critical that teachers maintain positive body language. Do not sit with your arms or legs crossed. Lean in and listen with your heart. Listen for understanding, not for rebuttal. Maintain eye-contact. Continuously looking at your watch, answering your cell phone, or jumping up to speak with a colleague in the hall sends the wrong message?

Begin with positive comments about the child. Share some work that is welldone. Tell a happy story involving the child.

If there is a problem, present it as your observation, your opinion. Have anecdotal records, the grade book, and the communication file at hand.

Avoid educational jargon.

Ask the parents and children for their opinions and suggestions for remedying the problem. Merge these with your own. Arrive at a mutual “plan” agreeable to all (e.g., a behavior contract, cueing, modification of an assignment, or change in seating arrangement).

Offer materials to be used at home for remediation/reinforcement purposes.

Be flexible. Let parents know that you are willing to work with them. If parents are insistent regarding a certain idea, compromise.

If you have made a mistake, apologize.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

• •

End on a happy note and ask parent(s) to contact you right away with any questions or concerns.

Follow this formula whenever you meet with parents.

Conclusions with Implications for Practice Increasing attention is being paid to the need for more meaningful communication in the schools. Teamwork and dialogue, not just between teachers but among everyone in the school reduces isolationism and “downshifting" (Caine, Caine, McClintic, and Klimek, 2016).

Which, according to Caine and Caine (1994), is defined as a “psychophysiological response to threat associated with fatigue or perceived helplessness or both” (pp. 69-70). When meaningful communication takes place, planning, teaching, evaluation, student needs and problems, and ideas are shared. Positive communication between teachers, their students, and their students’ families reduces anxiety and establishes trust (Kraft and Rogers,2014; McNulty, 2016). This is accomplished by persistence, teachers serving as role models, and by maintaining an open door policy.

Teachers and parents must develop a partnership in order to make effective decisions about student progress. Santana et al. (2016) have developed and researched the Question Formulation Technique as one of the components of the Right Question SchoolFamily Partnership Strategy the purpose of which is to build meaningful partnerships with teachers and parents. The suggestions outlined in this paper reflect these ideas.

References Burden, P., & Byrd, D. (2019). Methods for effective teaching: Meeting the needs of all students (8 th ed.).

New York: Pearson.

Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Caine, R., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. (2016). Twelve brain/mind learning principles in action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Evans, R. (2004). Talking with parents today.

Independent School, 63(3), 96-100.

Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or engagement?

Educational Leadership, 68(8). 10-14.

Forster, R. (2016). When boundaries become

PAGE 43

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

permeable: Conversations at parent–teacher conferences and their meaning for the constitution of an institution. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 10(1), 23-43.

Kraft, M. & Rogers, T. (2014). The underutilized potential of teacher-to-parent communication: Evidence from a field experiment. Boston, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Faculty Research Working Paper.

Lemmer, E. M. (2012). Who’s doing the talking?

Teacher and parent experiences of parentteacher conferences. South African Journal of Education, 32(1), 83-96.

Levin, J. & Nolan, J. (2014). Principles of classroom management: A professional decision-making model (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

McNulty, R. (2016). How teachers can guide and help motivate at-risk students. Downloaded from https://expertbeacon.com/how-teachers-can-guideand-help-motivate-risk-students/ Meyer, A. (2018, July 3). Retiring Marshpoint principal reflects on 34 years in the district.

Savannah Morning News, p. A3.

Santana, L., Rothstein, D., & Bain, A. (2016).

Partnering with parents to ask the right questions.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Stevens, B. A., & Tollafield, A. (2003). Make the most of parent/teacher conferences. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 521-524.

Wong, H. T., & Wong, R. T. (2009). The first days of school: How to be and effective teacher.

Singapore: CS Graphics Pte. Ltd.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

About the Authors Dr. Linda Ann McCall is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at Georgia Southern University (Armstrong Campus). Before entering the university setting, she taught for over 35 years in private and public education in Savannah, Georgia, where she was Teacher of the Year in 1995-1996.

Her students’ parents nominated her to receive the Georgia Ports Authority Top Teacher Award in 2003.

She has been a member of GATE since 2007.

Dr. Glenda L. Ogletree is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at Georgia Southern University, Armstrong Campus. She taught over 30 years in public schools in Alabama. She was Teacher of the Year at her school in 1997 and again in 2004.

She was the recipient of the Alabama Elementary Science Teacher of the Year in 1997. Dr. Ogletree is a member of GATE.

PAGE 44

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

Transforming Teacher Preparation: Comparing Yearlong and One-Semester Clinical Practice Models Gwen McAlpine, Emeritus; Sohyun An; and Charlease Kelly-Jackson, Kennesaw State University Cherry Steffen, Washburn University Alyssa St. Cyr-Williams, LaBelle Elementary School

For more than 150 years, teacher education reform has been a constant topic of discussion (Conaway & Saxon, 2000; Imig & Switzer, 1996; Mitchel, 2013). Studies show a greater emphasis on teacher quality and how to effectively reform schools and teacher preparation programs in an effort to improve the achievement of all students (Mitchel, 2013; Steffen, Kelly-Jackson, An, McAlpine, & St. Cyr-Williams, 2015). Within this transformation, teacher education programs have placed more attention on field-based classroom experiences that are crucial in preparing future teachers (Kyndt, Donche, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2014). Field experiences provide preservice teachers (PTs) the opportunity “to raise questions, to conduct inquiries into teaching and learning, and to experiment with various management and instructional strategies” (Prater & Sileo, 2002, p. 325). Although many programs have extended the amount of time PTs are in the field, there is still limited research on the impact of this experience on teachers’ practice, effectiveness, entry and retention (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996; Conaway & Saxon, 2000; Steffen et al., 2015). The purpose of this study was to compare the experiences of PTs who participated in a yearlong and onesemester long field experiences.

Review of Literature Several studies seemed to show a positive relationship between extended internships and favorable outcomes for full-time teaching (Colvin & Ridgewell, 2014; Fives, Hamman, & Olivarez, 2007; Spooner, Flowers, Lambert, & Algozzine, 2008). Darling-Hammond (2006)

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

notes that extended internship experiences have a positive influence on pre-service teachers’ development of professional skills with the PTs learning from mentor teachers in a P-12 classroom. Furthermore, Darling-Hammond (2006) advanced that “program designs that include more practicum experiences and student teaching, integrated with more coursework, appear to make a difference in teachers’ practices, confidence, and long-term commitment to teaching” (p. 411). Spooner et al.

(2008) arrived at a series of conclusions that seemed to demonstrate the positive influence of the extended internship model: PTs in the yearlong internship had a closer relationship with their collaborating teachers (CT); better knowledge of school policies and procedures; and a more favorable attitudes toward the longer internship experience.

While most research points to strong favorable findings for the extended internship, several studies noted more positive results from the semester-long internship, as contrasted with the yearlong internship (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Clark, Byrnes, & Sudweeks, 2015; Chambers & Hardy, 2005; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012). For example, a study by Clark et al. (2015) and her colleagues surveyed teachers who believed themselves to be more skilled in performing instructional tasks than those former students who had taken the one-year internship. The reason for this unexpected finding seemed to be that those PTs in the shorter internship experienced more verbal support and modeling from their school-based mentors (Clark et al.,

PAGE 45

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

2015). As Clark et al. (2015) concluded, “simply extending the culminating field-based experience without sufficient mentoring, support, and modeling may be less helpful and less meaningful in building teacher selfefficacy” (p. 66).

Several studies stated directly that the length of an internship did not appear to matter if the internship does not provide the PTs with a highquality experience (Chambers & Hardy, 2005; Colvin & Ridgewell, 2014; Grossman, 2010; Moore, 2010). According to another study by Ronfeldt and Reininger (2012), for the teacher education program to be successful, PTs need an internship that features strong CT mentors and a school instructional practice consistent with the practices learned in their university. Similarly, Colvin and Ridgewell (2014) learned from both their PTs and university supervisors (US) that having capable CTs who were well matched with PTs had a big impact on the quality of the internship. The same study called for coteaching training to be offered to both PTs and their CTs (Colvin & Ridgewell, 2014). In short, existing studies show that the effect of the experience, despite the model, is based on varying factors.

Methodology Context of Study This qualitative case study (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 1990; Yin, 2003) focused on the impact of the yearlong field experience compared to the impact of the traditional one-semester internship taken by PTs in the researchers’ teacher education program. The research location was a large state university in the southeastern United States. Qualitative research is defined here as interpretive, experience-based, situational, and personalistic qualities seen in the PTs’ responses in this case study (Stake, 2010).

With federal funds, the university in partnership with a school district, developed an innovative professional development school (PDS) model to address inconsistencies between the two entities and reform K-12 teacher preparation. The PDS model focused on critical issues, including culturally and linguistically relevant pedagogy, family engagement, and instructional technology in five urban elementary schools. The two-year program,

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

termed the Urban Education (UE) option, allowed PTs the opportunity to take courses and participate in field work (including a one-year internship) in the PDS (Steffen et al., 2015).

Traditionally, during the first semester of the senior year, PTs at the university would take the methods block, which included four methods courses (10 weeks) and four weeks of full-time field experience. The traditional student teaching field placement assigned PTs a one-semester practicum in which they completed approximately 100 field hours. During the second semester, PTs were placed in a different school and on a different grade level. The school districts randomly assigned the placements.

Under this traditional model, candidates were not expected to co-teach with their assigned collaborating teachers (CT). Candidates gradually accepted responsibility for the planning and implementation of all subject areas; the CT acted as a facilitator. PTs were assigned a different University Supervisor for each of the two semesters (Steffen et al., 2015).

In contrast, PTs in the yearlong model at the university completed approximately 200 hours of field experience spread over the school year.

Under this model (UE), the PTs stayed with the same CT and students the entire year. As in the traditional model, PTs completed the methods block during the first semester. However, these courses were offered in the PDS schools and cotaught by a university faculty and elementary school teacher. Unlike the traditional (onesemester) model, yearlong candidates began their experience during pre-planning and continued until the end of the school year. In addition, PTs and their CTs were paired using a compatibility instrument and interview. The expectation was that the CT and the PT would work closely together to plan, implement and assess instructional units throughout the year.

Consequently, PTs were assigned one University Supervisor for the entire year (Steffen et al., 2015).

Research Questions and Participants The guiding research question for this study was what are the advantages and disadvantages of the yearlong field experience when compared to the traditional semester-long internship model?

PAGE 46

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

The target participants were former PTs in the teacher education program who took either semester-long or yearlong internship from 2012 to 2015 and are currently teaching at elementary schools. We contacted target participants via emails and social media (Facebook groups) and asked for voluntary participation in the study.

Eighteen agreed to participate in the study and completed an online survey. Among those 18 participants, nine completed the semester-long internship while nine completed the yearlong internship. These participants’ average years of teaching experience was 2.5 years, ranging from one year to four years. The level of their teaching also varied, from grade prekindergarten to fifth grade.

Data Collection and Analysis The authors used an online survey for data collection because it was a time and cost efficient way to access the participants (Sue & Ritter, 2007). The survey was divided into two parts. The first part consisted of four questions designed to capture participants’ professional backgrounds, including years of teaching, grade levels and schools in which they have taught, and the types of internship they completed. The second part contained seven open-ended items regarding participants’ experiences and beliefs about the two internship models. In addition, the authors conducted phone or Skype interviews with four survey respondents to further clarify their responses to the initial online survey.

For data analysis, the authors used inductive analysis (Patton, 1990). This approach allowed researchers to explore the data without a prior hypothesis (Best & Kahn, 1998). By reading the data multiple times, the authors individually coded the data set and recorded a rationale for the classifications and prepared a research memo with broad coding categories based on emerging patterns from the data. Then the authors shared their analyses. From this process, the authors developed broad themes that led to the findings (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

The Results: Depth vs. Width Participants, regardless of their internship type, had a similar evaluation of the two internship types. Overall, they agreed on the advantages and disadvantages of each model.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

The overarching theme of their evaluation of the two programs was depth vs. width. Ideally both are important to have a successful teacher internship and teacher preparation. However, if they had to choose, they would prefer the yearlong internship.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Yearlong Program: “I could see the entire year of teaching and learning!”

Most participants in this study commented on the limited experience offered in the yearlong internship, featuring one class in the same school for the entire experience as the primary disadvantage of the model. The shorter internship featured field experiences in two schools with different CTs and students.

Participants noted this perceived shortcoming of the yearlong model regardless of the internship model in which they were enrolled.

In contrast, many teachers agreed that the biggest advantages of the yearlong model included forming trust, relationships, and deeper learning. More specifically, two of the most salient themes from participants’ answers about the advantages of the yearlong internship were building a strong rapport/relationship/trust with students as well as with CTs or the principal (see Table 1 in Appendix A). Also, the majority pointed out experiencing the entire school year from beginning to end was an important benefit of the model. A third of the participants mentioned the advantages of seeing student growth from beginning to end and having more time for teaching, learning, and experience in general as an advantage. In contrast, the overwhelming majority pointed out the limited experience as the disadvantage.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Semester-Long Program: “I could see a variety of different teaching styles and classroom set ups!”

As a teacher shared during her Skype interview, the width of the experience was noted as the advantage of the semester-long internship whereas the lack of depth of experience was pointed out as a disadvantage of this model.

Participants’ answers regarding advantages of semester-long internships fell into these categories (see Table 2 in Appendix B): having

PAGE 47

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

varied experiences of different instruction and having different school/classroom/student contexts. In contrast, disadvantages included a lack of depth of the experience (such as not seeing the entire year of schooling) and not being able to build a strong relationship with students and teachers.

Looking Back and Looking Forward: “I would prefer a yearlong program!”

While participants noted each internship model has both pros and cons, they viewed yearlong internships as more beneficial overall than the semester long internships. Now, commenting as classroom teachers, they generally preferred to have a yearlong PT assigned to them for their own learning as well as their work as CT. Looking back, 68.8% (11/16) of the survey respondents believed that PTs in the yearlong program had a greater experience regardless of their internship types.

Although not the majority, some participants appreciated having been scheduled for the semester-long internship. For example, one teacher stated that “I loved that I was able to experience a semester in the States and a semester abroad.”

Now looking forward at their role as potential CTs, participants overwhelmingly preferred to have a yearlong PT in their classrooms. Twelve out of 17 (70.6%) said they would like to work with a yearlong whereas 5 out of 17 (29.4%) preferred to work with a semester long PT. Some participants noted the advantages of the semester-long internship. One teacher shared in the survey, “I do think that there are times when a semester long program may be more appropriate for some interns." For example, interns who are considering teaching multi-age or wanting to teach inclusion may benefit from experiencing two different grade levels and/or schools.”

Discussion The goal of this qualitative study is to inform all stakeholders of the best approaches to field experiences planned together by urban schools and universities. The study provides teacher education research with new data that shares former PTs’ perspectives on field

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

experience models. The study reveals that most of the former PTs believed that the yearlong model was the better approach in that it offered greater depth and width. This model provides PTs the chance to work for one calendar school year with the same school personnel and students, assisting in students’ progress from the first lesson and test to the exit assessment.

Most of the PTs surveyed also believe that the yearlong program had lasting effects on their abilities. One of the implications of co-teaching in this PDS model was that the CT did not fully relinquish teaching tasks. Furthermore, most of these former PTs indicated that they would prefer the yearlong model when a PT is assigned to their classroom.

The research team recommends that school policymakers consider the strengths and weaknesses of each model, adopting the model most likely to succeed at their school. The yearlong model is the popular choice of school administrators in the region in which this research was conducted. Naturally, there are possible pitfalls, depending on the effectiveness of its implementation. According to current research, the yearlong internship may be no more effective than the traditional semester-long internship without strong “mentoring, support, and modeling” provided by the school (Clark et al., 2015). Moreover, the traditional onesemester model offers the advantage of two classroom placements in one academic year.

Thus, the PT has more opportunities to work with more students and more than one grade level. Having the full-time field experience occur in only one semester also allows universities to offer study abroad placements, which are often popular with PTs. In the service area of the large university featured here, the principals have requested the yearlong internship for its many advantages. The main advantage is the opportunity for the PT to work in the school for the entire academic year. Thus, most PTs develop a deeper engagement with all school stakeholders and, most importantly, see their students’ growth from the beginning of the year to the end.

This study provides new data and places this data into context. The PDS program has the lasting effect in the university’s service region of

PAGE 48

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

replacing the traditional field experience with 100 hours across one semester with a yearlong experience with 200 hours. This lasting legacy of the program is its strongest benefit.

References Best, J. W., Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in Education.

Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyd, D. J., Grossman, P. L, Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/01623 73709353129 Chambers, S. M. & Hardy, J. C. (2005). Length of time in student teaching: Effects on classroom control orientation and self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(3), 3-9. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/4f15fe9c729 a4d8f4eae404d3b2d41b2/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=48020 Clark, S. K., Byrnes, D., & Sudweeks, R. R. (2015). A comparative examination of student teacher and intern perceptions of teaching ability at the preservice and inservice stages. Journal of Teacher Education 66(2), 170-183. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00224 87114561659 Colvin, S. W. & Ridgewell, N. K. (2014). Implementing a full-year elementary internship: Challenges and successes. Florida Association of Teacher Educators Journal, 1(14), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.fate1.org/journals/2014/colvinandridge well.pdf Conaway, B. J. & Saxon, T. F. (2000). A yearlong student teaching experience: A qualitative study following three years of implementation. Texas Teacher Education Forum, 25 (Spring) 45-54.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing a 21stcentury teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00224 87105285962 Ducharme, E. R. & Ducharme, M. K. (1996). Needed research in teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 1030-1047). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Fives, H., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Does burnout begin with student teaching? Analyzing efficacy, burnout, support during the studentteaching semester. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 916-934. Retrieved from

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0 742051X06000394 Grossman, P. (2010). Learning to practice: The design of clinical experiences in teacher preparation.

Policy Brief of the Partnership for Teacher Quality.

Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0 742051X06000394 Imig, D. G, & Switzer, T. J. (1996). Changing teaching education programs: Restructuring collegiate-based teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education, 2 (pp. 213-226). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Kyndt, E., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Workplace learning within teacher education. Educational Studies, 40(5), 515-532.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new. methods.

Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Mitchel, L. (2013). Everyone teaches and everyone learns: The professional development school way.

New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Moore, R. (2010). Teacher leaders advise on clinical preparation. Washington, D.C.: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. Retrieved from NCATE web site: http://ncate.org/Public/ResearchReports/NCATEIni tiatives/BlueRibbonPanel/tabid/715/Default.aspx Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Prater, M. & Sileo, T. (2002). School-university partnerships in special education field experiences: A national descriptive study. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6), 325-334, 348.

Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1091-1106. Retrieved from https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/more-or-betterstudent-teaching Spooner, M, Flowers, C., Lambert, R., & Algozzine, B. (2008). Is more really better? Examining perceived benefits of an extended student teaching experience. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 81(6), 263-270. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/TCH S.81.6.263-270 Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Steffen, C., Kelly-Jackson, C., An, S., McAlpine, G., & St. Cyr-Williams, A. (2015). Comparing a PDS year-long field experience with a traditional field experience model: A pilot study. PDS Partners, 11 (1), 14-15.

Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L.A. (2007). Conducting on-line surveys. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

PAGE 49

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

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 50

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

Appendix A Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Yearlong Program Advantages ● ● ● ● ●

Disadvantages

Build student rapport/ relationships/ trust 10/18 (55.6%) See year from beginning to end (procedures, routines, classroom management) 10/18 (55.6%) Build strong relationship with CT or principal 8/18 (44.4%) See student growth from beginning to end 6/18 (33.3%) Have more time (teaching, learning, experience) 6/18 (33.3%)

●

Scheduled for a limited experience (1 class, 1 teacher, 1 admin) 12/16 (75%)

Appendix B Table 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Semester-long Program Advantages ● ● ●

Having multiple experiences (pedagogy, strategies) 7/17 (41.2%) Scheduled for a different setting/class/students 11/17 (64.7%) Given more flexibility 2/17 (11.8%)

Disadvantages ● ● ● ●

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

Not scheduled to work there a full year 6/17 (35.3%) Not able to build strong rapport/relationship (Students/CT) 8/17 (47.1%) Having a different setting (students, teacher, school) 6/17 (35.3) Given a short experience/time 4/17 (23.5%)

PAGE 51

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

About the Authors Dr. Gwen McAlpine’s, Emeritus, research interests include teacher education, Teaching English as a Foreign Language, and curriculum. She served as a liaison, coach, and co-teacher in one of the PDS partner elementary schools.

Dr. Sohyun An’s research interests include teacher education and social studies. She served as a liaison, coach, and co-teacher in one of the PDS partner elementary schools.

Dr. Charlease Kelly-Jackson’s (deceased), research interests included teacher education, school and university partnerships, and science teacher professional development. She served as a liaison, coach, and co-teacher in one of the PDS partner elementary schools.

Dr. Cherry Steffen’s research interests include teacher education, global education, and science and gardening to teach science. Now a chair at Washburn University, Dr. Steffen was an associate professor in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Kennesaw State University during the research. During the study, she served as the head liaison for the Urban Education PDS option.

Dr. Alyssa St. Cyr-Williams’ research interests include teacher education, professional development schools, and educational leadership. Dr. Alyssa St. Cyr-Williams is the assistant principal at LaBelle Elementary School, a PDS partner. Previously, she served as site coordinator at Milford Elementary School, also a PDS partner school.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

PAGE 52

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

What the Tech? 2.0: Continuing to Prepare Pre-Service Teachers for 21st Century Learners Rebeca Cooper and Samantha Mrstik, Georgia Gwinnett College Vernita Glenn-White, Stetson University

To prepare 21st century learners, teachers must create learning opportunities for their students to use technology as a form of assessment. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework was developed out of a need for teachers to understand the interplay between and among technology, pedagogy, and content. The goal of this project was to move away from modeling and implementing technology tools to expand the technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) of pre-service teachers to allow them to develop their TPACK in year one of a teacher education program. To develop the TPACK of pre-service teachers, education preparation professionals from a large public college in northeast Georgia worked together to design and implement an online project. Qualitative data through class discussions and written feedback determined that the pre-service teachers not only built TPK by learning how to use appropriate technology tools for different types of instruction, but also developed TPACK. Introduction As education professionals, it is important to prepare pre-service teachers to use technology tools because they will soon be on the front lines preparing 21st century learners. Some education professionals working to prepare pre-service educators believe they come to their programs technologically savvy, or believe that because they are digital natives, they will learn new technology quickly (Selwyn, 2009). However, this is not always the case. Teachers implement technology according to their preferred pedagogy, and must also choose technology that

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

fits the required content and grade level (Koh & Divaharan, 2011). These pre-service teachers must understand how to use technology tools and be able to choose the appropriate technology tools for the content and instructional strategy being used for their students. How do we prepare them for such a challenging, yet rewarding endeavor? Research suggests that teachers will implement technology when it matches their beliefs about teaching and learning. According to Kim, Kim, Lee, Spencer, and DeMeester (2013, pg. 83), “if a cultural environment of teacher collaboration encourages beliefs that not every lesson should be teachercentered, it is possible for teachers to let students create movie clips to present their understandings...� Similarly, if teachers support student collaboration or choice, they use technology to implement such learning tasks (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). To prepare 21st century learners, teachers must create learning opportunities for their students to use technology to create their own products as a form of assessment (Aronowitz, 2010). This paper reports on the continued work of teacher educators to move from developing the technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) of their pre-service teachers to developing their technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) (Cooper, Coleman, Farah, & Page, 2017).

Literature Review With more K-12 schools infusing technology into their lessons in all subject areas, it is imperative to include the use of educational

PAGE 53

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

technologies in pre-service teacher preparation programs. Luo, Murray, and Crompton (2017) conducted a study at a large Midwestern university that revealed teacher candidates felt more prepared to use technology in the classroom when they were provided with instruction on the use of common technological classroom applications. Moreover, after taking a course, the pre-service teacher participants stated they felt more comfortable working in an online environment and some said they would consider working online (Luo, Murray, & Crompton, 2017).

Theoretical Framework Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the framework used in this study. This framework was developed out of a need for teachers to understand the interplay between and among technology, pedagogy, and content (Young, Young, & Shaker, 2012). To establish the necessary TPACK with any content, pre-service teachers need consistent training, relevant professional development, and hands-on experiences with the technology they will be using in their classrooms (Baran, CanbazogluBilci, & Uygun, 2016). While enrolled in teacher education programs, pre-service teachers should be equipped with strategies for integrating student-centered technology to promote active learning (Maeng, Mulvey, Smetana, & Bell, 2013). To develop TPACK, pre-service teachers must participate in trainings that allows them to collaborate with other preservice teachers and experts, apply technology in actual classrooms with students, and be provided with feedback on their progress (Jimoyiannis, 2010).

Mishra and Koehler (2006) identified seven components of TPACK—Technological Knowledge (TK), Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPK), and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). The framework consists of components that interact with each other. Technological knowledge (TK) refers to being computer literate and understanding information technology enough to be able to apply it in everyday life (Koehler &

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

Mishra, 2009). Technological knowledge includes knowledge of both software and hardware and how these resources work.

Pedagogical knowledge (PK) is teachers’ knowledge of the practices of teaching and learning. PK is essential so that teachers know how to teach students; they need to understand the strategies and methods that make learning accessible. Content knowledge (CK) is teachers’ knowledge of the subject matter they teach and includes knowledge of concepts, theories, and ideas. Technological content knowledge (TCK) represents the interplay between technology and content and how they influence and constrain one another. When teachers possess TCK, they are able to integrate technology in a purposeful way that enhances learning of a particular discipline. Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is an understanding of how certain technologies can be used for teaching and learning purposes. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) then, is the interweaving of all of these components, and it is the understanding of how to integrate technology tools in a teaching and learning context in order to help others develop knowledge of a particular discipline (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Pre-service teachers’ TPACK can be defined as understanding how technology uncovers student misconceptions about a subject matter, transforms student thinking about the different methods and inquiries of the content, and plays a role in creating a positive classroom environment through effective classroom management (Baran, Canbazoglu-Bilci, & Uygun, 2016).

Teachers who possess the components of TPACK find it easier to use technology in their classrooms. Joo, Park, and Lim (2018) conducted a study that supported the idea that pre-service teachers who had a high level of TPACK also had self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief that they are able to perform a specific task (Bandura, 1977). A teacher with high self-efficacy in relation to technology would be more inclined to adopt technology.

Moreover, the researchers found that pre-service teachers with a high level of TPACK would probably have less difficulty using technology

PAGE 54

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

and would view technology as a helpful tool in the classroom (Joo, Park, & Lim, 2018).

Although research in the field of infusing technological applications in pre-service teacher education programs is relatively new, TPACK has been used as a theoretical basis in other studies in the area of training teachers to integrate technology into their teaching (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013). In this study, TPACK was used to clearly define the critical areas of teaching for pre-service teachers and how they are united to form a well-rounded teacher. The researchers used TPACK with pre-service teachers to clearly identify critical components of teaching and delineate how these components are not exclusive of each other, but rather interdependent.

Purpose The purpose of this research was to move from modeling and implementing technology tools to expand the technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) of pre-service teachers to developing their technical pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) during their first year of a teacher education program. Previous work by this research team focused on professors using technology tools in their teaching to teach preservice teachers how to match technology tools to pedagogy. This research demonstrates how teacher educators have developed an online project that allowed pre-service teachers to implement online learning, while imparting the principles of TPACK. This project is also focused on preparing pre-service teachers to engage and prepare their future 21st century learners using technology.

To guide this investigation, the following research questions were created: (1) To what extent do pre-service teachers change their level of comfort in using technology by creating an online course, as measured by oral and written feedback? (2) To what extent does the requirement of pre-service teachers’ application of educational technology tools in their online course change their level of comfort with these tools, as measured by oral and written feedback?

Methods In an effort to develop the TPACK of preservice teachers, education professionals from a

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

large public college in northeast Georgia worked together to design and implement an online project. The project allowed the pre-service teachers to create an online module with the following requirements: • Teach specific content related to a specific grade level • Include at least three technology tools to teach the content: one tool must be a video of the pre-service teacher teaching content • Relate the technology tools to the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students (ISTE Standards, 2016) and the Technology Integration Matrix Table of Student Descriptors (TIM; Florida Center for Instructional Technology, 2016) • Contain at least one quiz, one assignment with a rubric, and one discussion board The pre-service teachers were also required to teach the online class to two peers, be a student in two peer’s online classes and reflect on the pros and cons of teaching and being a student in an online class.

Before, during, and after the pre-service teachers completed the online project, professors demonstrated and discussed a variety of technology tools and how they could be used to teach a variety of grade levels and content areas.

(See Table 1for a list of several of the free technology tools that were incorporated into some of the classes during the first year of the program for these pre-service teachers).

Results Qualitative data through class discussions and written feedback showed that the pre-service teachers not only built technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) by learning how to us appropriate technology tools for different types of instruction, but also developed TPACK. Therefore, the online project was successful in preparing first year pre-service teachers to select and use appropriate technology tools to fit their pedagogy and the content and grade level they will be teaching. Below are some general and some specific comments from pre-service

PAGE 55

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

Table 1 Technology Tools QR Code

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

Technology Tool

Use of Technology Tool in the Classroom

A Web Whiteboard is an online interactive white board. Teachers can invite students to join, share a link, and save what he or she creates.

Web Whiteboard was used in a jigsaw activity. A group of pre-service teachers investigated Web Whiteboard and how it could be used with a variety of subjects and grade levels and then shared their ideas with the rest of the class.

ClassHook is a website that allows teachers to type in a concept that he/she wants to teach or choose a subject area to search for video clips to use in instruction. The videos are tagged by topic, subject, and grade level.

ClassHook was used in a jigsaw activity.

A group of pre-service teachers investigated ClassHook and how it could be used with a variety of subjects and grade levels and then shared their ideas with the rest of the class.

Edpuzzle can be used to create interactive videos. Audio and questions can be added to either a video from a variety of sources such as Youtube or you can upload your own video. Students are not able to continue with the video until they have responded to the embedded questions.

Edpuzzle was used to introduce differentiation. Questions were added at various points in the video to allow for class discussion.

FlipQuiz is a way for teachers to create fun and engaging review games for their students by creating their own game boards.

Flipquiz was used in a jigsaw activity. A group of pre-service teachers investigated Flipquiz and how it could be used with a variety of subjects and grade levels and then shared their ideas with the rest of the class.

Funbrain is an online site that allows teachers to search for games, videos, and books by grade level.

Funbrain was used in a jigsaw activity. A group of pre-service teachers investigated Funbrain and how it could be used with a variety of subjects and grade levels and then shared their ideas with the rest of the class.

PAGE 56

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

iRubric is a website where teachers iRubric was used in a jigsaw activity. A can search, create, and share group of pre-service teachers investigated rubrics. iRubric and how it could be used with a variety of subjects and grade levels and then shared their ideas with the rest of the class.

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

MakeBeliefsComix this site allows students to create their own comics.

MakeBeliefsComix was used in a jigsaw activity. A group of pre-service teachers investigated MakeBeliefsComix and how it could be used with a variety of subjects and grade levels and then shared their ideas with the rest of the class.

Moovly can be used to create animated videos. You can choose from prepopulated ideas or upload photos of your own. You can also add audio files.

Moovly was used to create an animated video to introduce pre-service teachers to Zoom, an online conferencing tools.

Nearpod creates a way for teachers to engage students in their presentations. Teacher can add different types of files, websites, photos, videos, and various types of questions. Students do not need an email account to join the presentation.

Remind is an online messaging tool. Techers can create a class and ask his or her students to join.

Teachers can send text announcements, voice messages, pictures, and documents to students. Students can also have individual conversations with teachers and peers.

Nearpod was used to present information on Google tools and Chrome extensions and how they can be used in the classroom. Pre-service teachers answered questions periodically throughout the presentation.

Pear Deck allows students to join an online interactive presentation.

Teachers can embed various types of questions, videos, and text within the presentation and students can join in through their Gmail account.

Pear Deck was used to present information on data analysis tools. The student answered questions related to how they can use Excel as a data analysis tool.

Remind was used to “remind� pre-service teachers of upcoming assignments, what they needed for class, and any schedule changes. Pre-service teachers we able to ask questions and get a quick response from his or her teacher.

PAGE 57

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

Storyjumper is an online tool that allows students to author their own stories. Students can use a variety of props as well as upload their own pictures.

teachers about their use of technology tools.

(See Table 2 for student comments related to specific technology tools they used in the project.)

I feel prepared to use technology in my classroom because, in Dr. Cooper’s class last semester, we used many different tools like NearPod, Storyjumper, Padlet, Quizlet, Google one drive, and many more.

Being introduced to these and working with them has allowed me to get practice using different technology tools that I can refer back to when I need an assessment tool.

Based on the technology project building my own online class and taking classes online, I feel prepared to use my skills at my field placement. I gained additional experience using computers and techniques that make operations easier. I have also added to my repertoire an abundance of technology tools that can be used to enhance and accommodate students' learning. I have no doubt that I will be able to succeed in utilizing technology tools in field after practicing and trying out various programs.

Conclusions Students in K-12 schools are digital natives and technology is a part of who they are and how they interact with the world. Therefore, teachers need to be able to embrace technology and the digital world of their students. In order for teachers to be prepared to education 21st century learners, education preparation programs must be equipped to prepare their pre-service teachers to meet the needs of their future students. The researchers believe a method of supporting pre-service teachers’ success in the

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

Storyjumper was used as a presentation tool. Pre-service teachers worked in groups to write a story to explain each of the following exceptionalities: Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Emotional Behavioral Disorder, Autism, Speech and Language Impairments, Hearing Impairments, Visual Impairments, and Physical Disabilities

use of classroom technology integration is to model the use of technology paired with appropriate pedagogy. It is also important to support pre-service teachers in the exploration of using vetted technology tools to build an online module that teaches content through appropriate pedagogy and technology tools. Further research will be conducted to address potential additions to the online project, the introduction of new technology tools, and online teaching.

References Aronowitz, S. (2010), 21st-century skills: Evidence, relevance, and effectiveness. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 44(1) 35-58.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Bulletin, 8(4), 191–215.

Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., & Uygun, E. (2016).

TPACK-based professional development programs in in-service science teacher education. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators, 271-283.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31-51.

Cooper, R., Coleman, T. Farah, A, & Page, K. (2017).

What the tech? Preparing teacher candidates for 21st century learners. GATEways of Teacher Education 28(1).

Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.

Florida Center for Instructional Technology. (2016).

Technology integration matrix. Retrieved from: https://fcit.usf.edu/matrix/matrix/ Joo Y., S., Park S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of

PAGE 58

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

Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59.

Retrieved from http://libproxy.ggc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsc ohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=1 30867673&site=eds-live&scope=site International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students (ISTE Standards, 2016) retrieved from www.iste.org.

Jimoyiannis, A. (2010). Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers’ professional development. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1259-1269.

Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spemcer, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Koh, J. H., & Divaharan, H. (2011). Developing preservice teachers' technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 35-58.

Luo, T., Murray, A., & Crompton, H. (2017). Designing authentic learning activities to train pre-service teachers about teaching online. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7), 141–157. Retrieved from http://libproxy.ggc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsc ohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=E J1163288&site=eds-live&scope=site Maeng, J. L., Mulvey, B. K., Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ TPACK: Using technology to support inquiry instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 838-857.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media & Technology, 34(2), 157. Retrieved from http://libproxy.ggc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebsc ohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=4 2208905&site=eds-live&scope=site Young, J. R., Young, J. L., & Shaker, Z. (2012).

Technological pedagogical content knowledge

VOLUME 30, ISSUE 1

(TPACK) literature using confidence intervals. TechTrends, 56(5), 25-33.

About the Authors Dr. Rebecca Cooper is a professor and Chair of Studies for Assessment in the School of Education at Georgia Gwinnett College. In her 16 years of higher education experience, she has taught general education, science methods, and science content courses online and on ground for graduate and undergraduate students. Dr. Cooper also works with other education faculty to incorporate technology into their teacher education courses. Her areas of interest include students’ attitude toward science, technology tools, online teaching, and culturally relevant teaching practices.

Dr. Samantha Mrstik is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Georgia Gwinnett College. She works as a clinical supervisor of preservice teachers in the special education program and teaches special education coursework. Prior to teaching at Georgia Gwinnett, Dr. Mrstik earned her Ph.D. at the University of Central Florida, and she taught students with disabilities for fifteen years in Orlando, Florida.

Dr. Vernita Glenn-White is an assistant professor of Mathematics Education at Stetson University in DeLand, Florida. Her research interests include mathematics methods, STEM education, and cultivating diversity awareness among K-12 educators through college and career readiness. She is a member of the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

PAGE 59

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.

Editor Dr. Janet Strickland, University of West Georgia, jstrickl@westga.edu, 678-839-6061 Copy Editor: Dr. Jessica McBride, Bryan County Schools, jmcbride@bryan.k12.ga.us

Join us at the GATE 2020 Fall Conference October 8-9 at the Unicoi State Park and Lodge in Helen, GA Additional conference information is available online: gaate1.org