Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Business, Volume 5, Issue 1, Fall 2015 by Center for Scholastic Inquiry

Volume 5, Page 1

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry:

Education

Education Edition, Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2015

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

Volume 5, Page 2 Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Fall 2015

Volume 5, Issue 1

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 3 Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education The Center for Scholastic Inquiry (CSI) publishes the Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education (JOSI: E) to recognize, celebrate, and highlight scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practice in the field of education. Academic research emphasizing leading edge inquiry, distinguishing and fostering best practice, and validating promising methods will be considered for publication. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method study designs representing diverse philosophical frameworks and perspectives are welcome. The JOSI: E publishes papers that perpetuate thought leadership and represent critical enrichment in the field of education. The JOSI: E is a rigorously juried journal. Relevant research may include topics in administration, early childhood education, primary education, elementary education, secondary education, vocational-technical education, alternative education, special education, higher education, international education, change agency, educational leadership, and related fields. If you are interested in publishing in the JOSI: E, feel free to contact our office or visit our website. Sincerely,

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

Web: www.csiresearch.com

Phone: 855-855-8764

Email: editor@csiresearch.com

Volume 5, Page 4 Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

JOURNAL OF SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY: EDUCATION Fall 2015, Volume 5, Issue 1

Managing Editor Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jamal Cooks

General Editor & APA Editor Jay Meiners

Volume 5, Page 5 Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Shirley Barnes, Alabama State University Joan Berry, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Brooke Burks, Auburn University at Montgomery Timothy Harrington, Chicago State University Michelle Beach, Southwest Minnesota State University Kenneth Goldberg, National University Linda Rae Markert, State University of New York at Oswego Lucinda Woodward, Indiana University Southeast Arina Gertseva, Washington State University Robin Davis, Claflin University

PEER REVIEWERS Tim Harrington York Williams Brooke Burks Tim Lewis

Joan Berry Randall Soffer Linda Rae Markert Margaret Zidon

Vincent Genareo Brian Hoekstra Jesse Beeler Myrna Olson

Not all reviewers are utilized for each publication cycle.

Shalio Rao Doug Warring Margaret Rice Rosemarie Michaels

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 6

    



Would you like to elevate your status as a scholar‐practitioner and develop your professional reputation and credentials through presentation and publication? Would you enjoy stimulating professional rejuvenation and tranquil personal relaxation at the same time by combining meaningful professional development with a luxury getaway? Would you enjoy tailored continuing education experiences by choosing the conference sessions that best suit your professional interests and vocational pursuits? Would you appreciate collaborative collegiality with luminaries and pioneers conducting the most academically and scientifically meritorious research? Are you interested in developing your thought leadership and contributing to the body of validated knowledge in your academic or professional field? Are you interested in diverse scholarship by learning with and from education, business and behavioral science practitioners and professionals from around the world on a wide range of contemporary topics?

No matter your role in business, education, or behavioral science, there is something for everyone. Professionals from the public and private sectors will learn about emerging trends, best practice and innovative strategies. For more information about attending, presenting and/or publishing, check out CSI’s website: TABLE OF CONTENTS

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Research Manuscripts

Student Achievement Impact: Analysis of Long-Term Effects of an Urban School-University Partnership on Student Learning

9-154

Christopher A. McCullough, Saint Xavier University Catherine Larsen, DePaul University Academic Misconduct Among Nursing Students Preparing to be Licensed Practical Nurses

Juanita Reese Kline, Ashland University Incorporating 21st Century Skills into Teacher Preparation Programs: A Collaborative Approach

Rosemarie Michaels, Dominican University of California Elizabeth Truesdell, Dominican University of California Billye Brown, Dominican University of California Implementing Student-Generated Problem-Based Learning in Teacher Education

Vincent R. Genareo, Iowa State University Adam J. Sansale, Illinois State University Margaret M. Zidon, University of North Dakota Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng, University of North Dakota Supporting Statewide Systems Utilizing External Coaches: A Concurrent Mixed-Methods Study in K-12 Schools

105

Adria M. David, Northwest Nazarene University Affiliation Loredana Werth, Northwest Nazarene University Fernanda Brendefur, Boise State University Affiliation Natasha Rush, University of Idaho Affiliation Impacting Mathematic Teachers’ Pedagogy through Project Based Learning

132

Lisa Douglass, Ohio University Marlissa Hughes Stauffer, Ohio Dominican University Ronald Zielke, Ohio Dominican University Molly Longstreth, University of Georgia Manuscript Submission Guide

155

Why Read Our Journals

157

Volume 5, Page 8

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INTEGRITY By submitting a manuscript for publication, authors confirm that the research and writing is their exclusive, original, and unpublished work. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication, authors grant the Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC (CSI) the sole and permanent right to publish the manuscript, at its option, in one of its academic research journals, on the CSI's website, in other germane, academic publications; and/or on an alternate hosting site or database. Authors retain copyright ownership of their research and writing for all other purposes. ETHICAL STANDARDS IN PUBLISHING The CSI insists on and meets the most distinguished benchmarks for publication of academic journals to foster the advancement of accurate scientific knowledge and to defend intellectual property rights.

The CSI stipulates and expects that all practitioners and professionals submit original, unpublished manuscripts in accordance with its code of ethics and ethical principles of academic research and writing. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY The CSI does not endorse any of the ideas, concepts, and theories published within the JOSI: E. Furthermore, we accept no responsibility or liability for outcomes based upon implementation of the individual author’s ideas, concepts, or theories. Each manuscript is the copyrighted property of the author.

Volume 5, Page 9

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Student Achievement Impact: Analysis of Long-Term Effects of an Urban SchoolUniversity Partnership on Student Learning Christopher A. McCullough Saint Xavier University Catherine Larsen DePaul University Abstract The professional development school (PDS) model represents one reform initiative implemented in PreK-12 school settings. This case study examined the residual impact a PDS network had on student achievement, teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the influence of the network on teaching and learning, and relationships between aspects of teaching and learning and student achievement in the final year of the network. Our analysis of achievement data revealed a positive residual effect five years after the conclusion of the network. We identified significant decreases in mean scores of teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the influence of the network related to positive contributions to the improvement of teaching and learning, achievement expectations, and support for work toward achieving school improvement goals. We discovered correlations between integration of arts practices to support teaching and learning, altering teaching practices based on understanding of multiple literacies, and the reading subarea scores of seventh grade students.

Keywords: Professional development schools, student achievement, school reform

Introduction

Twenty-first century school-university partnerships, often referred to as Professional Development School (PDS) networks, are designed to facilitate school improvement, provide enhanced learning opportunities for pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade (PreK-12) students,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 10 Â

and cultivate innovative teacher education practices. The PDS model represents a partnership of one or more PreK-12 schools with a university-based teacher preparation program. Its mission is to prepare new teachers and other educators to work in schools, provide professional development for PreK-12 schools and university-based educators, support inquiry directed at the improvement of professional practice, and improve PreK-12 student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2005; Teitel, 2003, 2008). The PDS model attempts to create professional learning communities that connect theory to practice in authentic applications based in elementary and secondary schools (Murrell, 1998). Over 1,000 PDS networks exist in the United States (Zeichner, 2007) with thousands of educators, teacher candidates, and PreK-12 students participating. Universities, school districts, and private and public funders provide significant financial resources to establish and maintain these relationships.

Literature Review

A critical purpose of the PDS, a reform effort intended to enhance student achievement, is to provide professional development opportunities for teachers in network schools. The value of professional development is evident in the Standards for Professional Development Schools articulated by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001). The standards address professional learning communities and inquiry-based practice, accountability and quality assurance, collaboration, diversity, equity as it relates to the needs of all learners, and structures and resources needed to create an organization that supports student learning. In order to meet these standards, effective professional development to support teachers is needed. Effective professional development must address teacher needs, school needs, involve teachers in the planning of activities, provide opportunities for active engagement, exist over the longterm, and be led by high-quality instructors (Bayar, 2014). A PDS network is uniquely positioned to address these needs. The increasing role of data-driven decision-making (DDDM) further emphasizes the importance of professional development for teachers. According to Marsh, Pane, and Hamilton (2006), DDDM has become a mantra of educators at all levels from the central office to the classroom. The researchers defined DDDM as â&#x20AC;&#x153;teachers, principals, and administrators systematically collecting and analyzing various types of data, including input, process, outcome,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 11

and satisfaction data, to guide a range of decisions to help improve the success of students and schools” (p. 1). The researchers further highlight the prominent role that achievement test data plays in federal and state accountability policies. This report emphasizes the value of empirical evidence related to student learning in the decision making process. Few studies address the effect of professional development on student achievement. Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, and Shapley (2007) examined more than 1,300 studies that potentially addressed this matter. Of the 1,300 studies examined, only nine met the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards. Yoon et al. purport that “the growing emphasis on effective professional development practices supported by scientifically based research makes it imperative to apply rigorous evidence standards – such as those of the What Works Clearinghouse – in new literature reviews and synthesis” (p. 5). According to Yoon et al., the limited number of research studies “attests to the paucity of rigorous studies that directly examine the effect of in-service teacher professional development on student achievement” (p. 6). These studies were conducted between 1986 and 2003 in elementary grade-levels. Seven of the nine studies utilized standardized measures of achievement with a total of “20 effect sizes and improvement indices computed across the nine studies” (Yoon et al., 2007, p. 6). The studies revealed gains in student learning across all but two effects; however, the majority of findings were not statistically significant. Quantitative research about the impact of PDS on student learning is limited. Researchers utilized data from the PDS network examined in this study to determine its effect on the quality of teacher education preparation (Damore, Kapustka, & McDevitt, 2011; Larsen, 2008), teacher and administrative leadership styles, (Rieckhoff & Larsen, 2012) and the impact of PDS involvement on pre-service teacher graduates’ ability to integrate music and art in the elementary classroom (Larsen & Whitaker, 2012). Other studies that emerged from similar networks examined teacher retention and student achievement during the existence of the PDS network. Johnston-Parsons (2012), in a mixed methods examination of a 10 year PDS network, revealed a 91.5% teacher retention rate as a residual impact of a PDS network. Castle, Arends, and Rockwell (2008) implemented an experimental research design to compare student achievement data from a PDS affiliated school, and a control school not affiliated with a PDS network. Castle et al. found greater movement of PDS students out of intervention-level or up to mastery-level than identified in the control school. Castle et al. suggested that components of a

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 12 Â

PDS partnership may have particular impact on the lowest achieving schools. Thus, emphasizing the need for greater examination of the direct connection between school-based professional development and student learning. The majority of research studies on PDS initiatives are qualitative, with quantitative and mixed methods studies now developing as a more significant category (Breault & Breault, 2012). This study adds to the existing research through its implementation of a quantitative design to examine the effect of a PDS partnership on PreK-8 students, teachers, and administrators.

Purpose of the Study

The federal government and corporate America have demonstrated increased interest and involvement in PreK-12 student learning and achievement. This has led to the development of reform initiatives intended to improve student learning via school restructuring, school choice, block scheduling, and high stakes standardized testing. One common aspect of most reform initiatives is that the impact of the reform is investigated during program implementation or at the conclusion of the program. Very few reform initiatives are investigated for lasting effects on students, as pressure on schools requires a move to the next mandated reform initiative. This study represents a departure from that practice, as the residual effects of a four year (2005-2009) urban PDS network on student achievement were examined in one PreK-8 partnering school. We also examined the change in teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and administratorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perceptions of the influence of the PDS network on teaching and learning from the first year of the partnership to the final year. We identified relationships between aspects of teaching and learning and student achievement in the final year of the network.

Significance of the Study

Our study challenges current research and clinical practice paradigms. A multiple school context is complex, and the PDS model offers the potential for an inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning that is site specific and characterized by shared leadership. Quantitative designs, particularly when used with such a cost-intensive school reform initiative, support the development of conclusions that are informative to administrators and funders.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 13

Increased understanding of effective methodologies to examine school improvement and student achievement can have a positive impact at all levels of teaching and learning, particularly given the need to be data-driven in the decision-making process. Specifically, our study examines the residual impact of the PDS network on student achievement as measured by the Terra-Nova Examination, the perceptions of the influence of aspects of teaching and learning held by teachers’ and administrators’ during the existence of the PDS network, and relationships between aspects of teaching and learning and student achievement in the final year of the PDS network. Results from our research will help inform teacher education program design, support change in on-going professional development for in-service teachers, and enable better use of resources and expertise through school-university partnerships and data-driven decision making.

Context

The PDS network investigated in this study was a partnership between a comprehensive urban university and seven local PreK-8 and 9-12 public and private schools. School faculty and administrators engaged in collaborative research as part of a professional learning community supported by professional development. University faculty utilized inquiry throughout the fouryear existence of the PDS Network to inform school improvement plans and targeted professional development workshops designed to improve student learning. The PDS network was unique in that site specific professional development was provided in each setting by a team of experienced teachers and former administrators who developed instructional supports for each school, collected planning and implementation data, and served as members of the community of inquiry and practice. University and school personnel worked together to create instructional goals for improving classroom instruction. The PDS network involved 25 university tenuretrack faculty members in teacher education, liberal arts, science, music, and theatre. School personnel included 15 PreK-12 administrators, 200 classroom teachers, and 3,500 PreK-12 students. The PDS network was funded by a combination of external grants, university support, and private and public school systems. Student achievement data, in the form of standardized test scores, increased over the final three years of the PDS network at the five PreK-8 schools that participated. Three public elementary schools that were designated by the State of Illinois as

Volume 5, Page 14

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

not meeting “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) in 2005, did meet AYP in 2007. The school investigated in this case study is an urban Catholic PreK-8 school with 48 teachers and administrators and approximately 300 students.

Research Questions

We investigated the following research questions: 1. Is there a statistically significant difference between the academic achievement of sixth and seventh grade students who completed the Terra-Nova examination in 2008, near the conclusion of the PDS network, and sixth and seventh grade students in 2013, five years after the conclusion of the PDS network? 2. Is there a statistically significant difference between school teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the influence of the PDS network on teaching and learning between 2006 and 2008? 3. Is there a relationship between student achievement and teacher and administrator perceptions of the influence of the PDS network on teaching and learning during the final year of the PDS network?

Methodology

Research Design

We utilized a quantitative case study design to examine academic achievement, changes in teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the influence of the PDS network on teaching and learning, and relationships between student achievement and the influence of the PDS network at one partnering PreK-8 school. We examined student achievement and survey data longitudinally. According to Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2012), longitudinal research is “extremely useful for studying the dynamics of a topic or issue over time (p. 185).” We also examined correlations between student achievement and teacher and administrator perceptions of the influence of the PDS network on teaching and learning during the final year of the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 15

partnership. Correlational data is useful to investigate “a number of variables believed to be related to a major, complex variable, such as achievement” (Gay et al., 2012, p. 205).

Population and Sample

The population for this study included teachers and students enrolled in a private PreK-8 school included in the PDS network. Within this school, we utilized cluster sampling to randomly select the grade-levels of students (Gay et al., 2012). We compared student achievement data from two cohorts of sixth and seventh grade students between 2006 and 2008. We collected survey data from administrators and teachers across all grades. We compared the mean differences between two cohorts of sixth and seventh grade students on student achievement as measured by the Terra-Nova examination. We also compared mean differences between school teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the influence of the PDS network on teaching and learning between its first and final year of existence. We utilized independent samples t-tests to compare Terra-Nova achievement test results in 2008, to test results in 2013. A parallel methodology was implemented to compare the perceptions held of teaching and learning as measured by a locally-developed survey. We compared survey data from 2006 and 2008 using independent samples t-tests. We also utilized a correlational investigation of relationships between student achievement and the perceptions of the PDS network held by school teachers and administrators in 2008, near the conclusion of the PDS network.

Data Collection

We utilized information gathered from the Terra-Nova achievement tests and a locally-developed survey. Achievement tests and surveys provided data to examine trends and relationships between variables (Creswell, 2011). The Terra-Nova Achievement Examination was administered in the partnering school included in this study. The examination assessed student learning in each grade level every year in reading, mathematics, English language arts, science, and social studies. The Terra-Nova Achievement Examination is a reliable and valid direct assessment of student learning. The

Volume 5, Page 16 Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

examination provides annual measures for the majority of subjects included in the official curriculum of the school. We included Terra-Nova achievement test data for the sixth and seventh grade classes of a network parochial school in 2008, the final year of the PDS network, and sixth and seventh grade classes in 2013, five years after the conclusion of the PDS relationship. We utilized a locally-developed survey to gather perceptions held by teachers and administrators of the influence the PDS network had on teaching and learning. The survey included Likert-type items on a five-point scale related to teaching practices, integration of the arts, understanding of multiple literacies, integration of technology, data-driven decision making, school improvement, vision, leadership opportunities, communication, and collaboration. We analyzed survey data from the first year, 2006, of the PDS network and the final year, 2008, of the PDS network.

Data Analysis

We utilized independent samples t-tests to identify statistically significant differences between Terra-Nova Achievement Examination results by academic subarea and composite scores at two different points in time. We analyzed normal curve equivalent data, as these even interval scores can be averaged. Additionally, we utilized independent samples t-tests to identify statistically significant differences between the perceptions held by teachers and administrators about the influence the PDS network had on teaching and learning. Independent samples t-tests were appropriate as different students completed the Terra-Nova Achievement Examination in 2008 and 2013. Many different teachers and administrators participated in the locally-developed survey as a result of teacher turnover. We examined correlations between the perceptions held by teachers and administrators about the influence of the PDS on teaching and learning and student achievement in the final year of the network.

Results

The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality revealed a normal distribution of data for both sixth and seventh grade test results with two exceptions. We found unequal variances in the seventh

Volume 5, Page 17 Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

grade language subarea and composite score test results. Thus, we employed the Satterthwaite approximation for degrees of freedom for statistical tests involving this data. Our analysis of Terra-Nova student achievement data revealed an increase in mean scores in reading, language, mathematics, science, social studies, and composite scores for sixth and seventh-grade students between 2008 and 2013. Results of the t-tests show a statistically significant mean difference in the math subarea and composite scores of the seventh grade class as measured by the Terra-Nova Achievement Examination between 2008 and 2013, as shown in Table 1. Our analysis of survey data revealed a decrease in mean scores on a five-point Likert-type scale for almost all items related to teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and administratorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions of the influence of the PDS network on teaching and learning. The only increase in mean involves positive changes in administrator capabilities. Results of the t-tests show statistically significant mean differences between 2006 and 2008 in three areas related to the influence of the PDS on teaching and learning between the first year and the final year of the PDS network, as shown in Table 2. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality revealed unequal variances for all items except those related to understanding of the connections between theory and practice and changes in administrator capabilities. We employed the Satterthwaite approximation for degrees of freedom for items with unequal variances. We found a positive correlation between integration of arts practices to support teaching and learning and achievement on the seventh grade reading subarea on the Terra-Nova Achievement Examination, r = .728, n = 28, p = .05. Additionally, we found a positive correlation between altering teaching practices based on understanding of multiple literacies and seventh grade reading achievement on the Terra-Nova Achievement Examination, r = .622, n = 28, p = .05. We found no significant correlations between sixth grade achievement data and any items related to teaching and learning.

Discussion

Our analysis of Terra-Nova Achievement Examination data revealed a positive residual effect on student achievement five years after the conclusion of the PDS network. This effect is evident in the increased Terra-Nova Achievement Examination scores across all subareas and composite scores in both sixth and seventh grades. We observed statistically significant

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 18

increases in mean differences of the mathematics subarea and composite scores of seventh grade students. In contrast to the increase in mean scores of student achievement data, we identified a decrease in mean scores across all but one item that measured the perceptions held by teachers and administrators on teaching and learning. We identified significant decreases in mean scores of teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the influence of the PDS network with regard to positive contributions of the PDS network to improvement of teaching and learning, higher expectations for all students’ achievement, and support for work toward achieving school improvement goals. It is possible that teachers and administrators developed an increased understanding of their own growth and development as professionals. Thus, they may have reflected more critically on their own teaching abilities. We identified correlations between the degree of integration of arts practices to support teaching and learning and reading subarea scores, and between altering teaching practices based on understanding of multiple literacies and reading subarea scores of seventh grade students.

Strengths of the PDS Network

The work was collaborative, generative, and inquiry-based with multiple school and university stakeholders involved. Teams of university faculty and content specialists created professional development events. Faculty of participating schools attended initial Summer Professional Development Institutes in teams. Professional development workshops and events were informed by school priorities, needs assessment surveys completed by teachers and administrators, and literature related to best practices. Professional development occurred in cross-school settings as common topics emerged in areas of interest, need, and desired growth. Professional development related to the use of the arts and technology to support student learning and was often provided. Every professional development workshops included at least one ‘takeaway’ that teachers could implement in their classrooms immediately. A cohort program for pre-service teacher candidates was developed to facilitate in-depth collaborative work with practicing teachers in the PDS network. School leaders also formed administrative study groups in which they analyzed research and shared ideas, strategies, and solutions to urban challenges. Significant numbers of early career teachers were encouraged and supported to complete advanced degrees. Skilled classroom teachers joined the university

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 19 Â

faculty and utilized their expertise as they contributed to the facilitation of methods courses. Strong connections were developed among pre-service teachers and in-service teachers. The decision to include both faith-based and public schools in the network stemmed from the universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Catholic tradition of mission and service to diverse populations in urban settings. The combination of public and parochial schools participating in the network together, provided a unique exchange of ideas across systems and structures.

Challenges

Many of the challenges faced by the PDS network stem from the urban settings of network schools. It is challenging to create long-term systemic change in the face of the evershifting landscape of urban schools. Participant turnover, especially among the teacher population in the Catholic schools, made it more difficult to sustain collaborative change. Shifting emphases from district administrators and policy makers on teaching methodologies, testing, curricular innovations, and data-driven decision making also impacted the long-term planning that is at the center of effective school change. In some settings it was difficult to combat the learned helplessness that can occur with mid-career teachers as they have seen dictates for change come and go and are wary of investing time and energy. Increasing emphasis on high stakes testing also impeded efforts at innovative teaching, as teachers felt the pressures of performance - their own and their students. All participants faced the limitations of available time to meet, plan, and collaborate.

Limitations

We did not intend to produce generalizable findings as a result of this investigation. Rather, we explored the effect of the PDS network on one participating school and a quantitative methodology to examine the influence of the network. While our study provides some insight into the effects of the PDS network on one school, it is important to be aware of numerous confounding variables. Teacher turnover, professional development opportunities after the conclusion of the PDS network, administrator capabilities, and school priorities influenced the results of the Terra-Nova Achievement Examination.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 20 Â

We encountered several challenges throughout this study. While survey data was relatively easy to collect, as the researchers controlled the instrument and the implementation of the instrument, it was very difficult to gather achievement test data that was controlled by school administrators. Teachers and administrators in PreK-12 schools are faced with many demands on a daily basis. Thus, it is challenging for teachers and administrators to prepare achievement data for analysis by external researchers. Furthermore, school administrators are becoming increasing protective of student achievement data given the sensitivity of this information. While the results of this study are useful, it is challenging for teachers and administrators to find the necessary time to organize data and share it with outside researchers. We maintain that the greatest value of this study is in the methodological approach of examining quantitative data to analyze student achievement. This methodology presents a means by which administrators and researchers can collect and analyze empirical evidence to inform data-driven decision making efforts related to student achievement and the support of pre-service teachers.

Recommendations for Future Studies and Practice

Future researchers should consider identifying and using resources to help support research efforts in an attempt to ascertain additional data. Such resources might be found in the form of grant funds that can be used to hire a data manager. Sampling of achievement data from all participating schools in a PDS network will lead to generalizable findings for the entire network. Including more grade levels of achievement data will help to determine if the statistically significant findings identified in this study can also be found across grade levels, rather than in just one grade level. It is evident that a residual result of the PDS network was an increase in student achievement on the Terra-Nova Achievement Examination. Thus, participating in a PDS network benefits PreK-12 schools. However, we only found statistically significant increases in mathematics and the composite score for seventh grade students. Future researchers might attempt to investigate aspects of teaching and learning that support achievement to an even greater extent. Revising the survey instrument to more explicitly incorporate new frameworks for effective teaching may be beneficial. For example, The Framework for Teaching Evaluation

Volume 5, Page 21

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Instrument developed by Danielson (2014) may be very beneficial as indicators of effective practice are presented.

Author Biographies

Dr. Christopher McCullough is a faculty member in the School of Education at Saint Xavier University. He is engaged in research about student outcomes assessment at the PreK-12 and post-secondary education levels. He teaches research methodology, foundations of education, and middle school methods courses. Dr. Catherine Larsen is a faculty member in the College of Education at DePaul University. She is engaged in research about Professional Development School Networks and has published and presented research studies on the topic. She teaches courses focused on the pedagogy of teaching art and music in the elementary school.

References

Bayar, A. (2014). The components of effective professional development activities in terms of teachers’ perspective. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(2), 319327. doi: 10.15345/iojes.2014.02.006 Breault, R., & Breault, D. (2012). Professional development schools: Researching lessons from the field. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Castle, S., Arends, R. I., & Rockwood, K. D. (2008). Student learning in a professional development school and a control school. The Professional Educator, 32(1), 1-15. Creswell, J. C. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Damore, S., Kapustka, K., & McDevitt, P. (2011). The Urban Professional Development School Network: Assessing the partnership’s impact on initial teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 46, 182-207. Danielson, C. (2014). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Retrieved from www.danielsongroup.org.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 22

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2005). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Johnston-Parsons, M. (2012). Dialogue and difference in a teacher education program: 16-year study of a professional development school. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Larsen, C. (2008, February). Teacher education across the lifespan: What does our networkwide research tell us about the network’s impact on pre-service candidate preparation and in-service educator capabilities? Paper presented at AACTE Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA. Larsen, C., & Whitaker, N. (2012, April). Urban classroom teachers and arts integration: The impact of a PDS network on pre-service preparation and induction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent Rand research (RAND Corporation Occasional Paper 170). Retrieved from RAND Corporation website: http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2006/RAND_OP170.pdf Murrell, P. (1998). Like stone soup: The role of the professional development school in the renewal of urban schools. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/documents/pdsstandards.pdf Rieckhoff, B., & Larsen, C. (2012). The impact of a professional development school network on leadership development and school improvement goals. School University Partnerships, 15(1), 57-73. Teitel, L. (2003). The professional development schools handbook: Starting, sustaining, and assessing partnerships that improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Teitel, L. (2008). School university collaboration: The power of transformative partnerships. Childhood Education, 85(2), 75-80. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues &

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5, Page 23

Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Zeichner, K. (2007) Professional development schools in a culture of evidence and accountability. School-University Partnership, 1(1), 9–17.

Volume 1, Page 24Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Behavioral Sciences Table 1

Results of t-tests and Descriptive Statistics for Sixth and Seventh Grade Terra-Nova Achievement Tests Between 2008 and 2013 95% CI for Mean Difference

Achievement Test Data 2008

2013

6th Grade Reading

56.23

11.96

63.56

15.98

-15.25, 0.59

-1.86

6th Grade Language

59.27

17.70

65.72

16.81

-16.17, 16.16

-1.33

6th Grade Math

57.92

14.42

58.72

18.48

-10.10, 8.51

-0.17

6th Grade Science

56.12

18.93

60.56

15.92

-14.31, 5.42

-0.91

6th Grade Social Studies

63.04

18.41

69.84

21.20

-17.96, 4.36

-1.22

6th Grade Composite Score

58.97

13.97

64.28

17.79

-14.30, 3.66

-1.19

7th Grade Reading

61.62

67.47

14.71

-12.52, .82

-1.76

48.22**

7th Grade Language

67.42

13.59

67.80

16.85

-9.29, 8.55

-0.84

7th Grade Math

60.48

12.84

73.13

15.62

-20.98, -4.34

-3.06*

7th Grade Science

64.05

13.73

65.07

15.46

-9.47, 7.43

-0.24

7th Grade Social Studies

62.76

14.43

66.67

16.40

-12.84, 5.03

-0.88

7th Grade Composite Score

64.24

7.75

71.93

18.00

-15.15, -0.24

-2.08*

42.12**

Note. * p<.05. **Satterthwaite approximation employed due to unequal group variances.

Volume 5 Page 25

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 2 Results of t-tests and Descriptive Statistics for the Influence of the PDS on Teaching and Learning Between 2006 and 2008 Survey Data

95% CI for Mean Difference

2006

2008

Contributed positively to improvement of teaching and learning

4.18

0.60

3.36

0.51

0.23, 1.41

3.11*

26.87**

Helped integrate arts practices to support teaching and learning

3.73

0.65

3.09

0.83

-0.23, 1.50

1.64

25.98**

3.73

0.65

3.55

0.69

-0.41, 0.77

0.69

22.77**

Technology is better integrated with classroom instruction

3.91

1.04

3.55

1.13

-0.33, 1.05

1.17

Increased focus on addressing the learning gaps between children

3.82

0.87

3.73

0.91

-0.61, 0.79

0.29

24.76**

4.20

0.63

3.50

0.71

0.22, 1.18

3.28

23.70**

4.18

0.75

3.73

0.79

-0.41, 1.32

1.17

Led to higher expectations for all students’ achievement

3.89

0.60

1.89

0.33

1.45, 2.54

8.49*

20.45**

Positive changes in administrator capabilities

3.36

1.12

3.82

0.98

-1.42, 0.51

-1.05

25.65**

Support work toward achieving school improvement goals

4.09

0.30

2.82

0.87

0.67, 1.88

4.67*

22.74**

Encouraged teachers to alter practices based on understanding of multiple literacies

Contributed positively to increased development of student-focused practices Greater understanding of the connections between theory and practice

Note. * p<.05. **Satterthwaite approximation employed due to unequal group variances.

Volume 5 Page 26Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Academic Misconduct Among Nursing Students Preparing to be Licensed Practical Nurses Juanita Reese Kline Ashland University

Abstract Academic misconduct occurs in higher education as reflected in the research literature indicating that 40-90% of college students cheat. The nursing literature indicates that student nurses also engage in academic misconduct. Limited research exists that indicates the magnitude of the problem, particularly among students preparing to become licensed practical nurses. The incidence of unethical classroom and clinical behavior among students in 19 practical nursing programs in the Midwest was studied and built on previous studies of students enrolled in associate and baccalaureate nursing programs. This study examined the relationship between unethical classroom and clinical behavior and investigated reasons students gave for engaging in unethical behavior. Nearly 45% of participants completing the Hilbert Unethical Behavior Survey (HUBS) reported engaging in unethical behavior. Participants were asked to identify how they used technology to engage in academic misconduct. A positive relationship was found between engaging in unethical classroom behavior and unethical clinical behavior. Keywords: Academic misconduct, academic dishonesty, nursing students, academic integrity, cheating Introduction Cheating in the classroom has been a concern for educators in higher education for the past several decades and recent research suggests that the incidence of cheating among college students is increasing. Cheating and various other forms of academic misconduct by nursing students have been documented in nursing research literature over the past several years, although predominately with nursing students preparing to become registered nurses. Academic misconduct is an umbrella term referring to fraudulent behavior that is considered unethical and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 27

involves some form of deception that can occur in the classroom and clinical setting. It includes intentional participation in deceptive practices related to one’s academic work (Gaberson, 1997). It can involve, but is not limited to, cheating, lying, dishonesty, plagiarism, and falsification of work, etc. (Prescott, 1989). It encompasses unethical behavior that can be defined as “a broad range of actions that may occur in the classroom and in the clinical setting and that are generally considered by educators as being dishonest or fraudulent” (Hilbert, 1985, p. 231). Nursing is a profession that values ethical practice. The American Nurses Association Code of Ethics identifies ethics as integral to nursing practice (American Nurses Association, 2001). Nurses are expected to be ethical practitioners and demonstrate integrity in all that they do. Nursing students are also expected to adhere to professional ethical standards and demonstrate integrity in the academic setting, both in the classroom and clinical area. According to the International Center for Academic Integrity (2015) website, “Academic integrity is defined as a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage” (para. 1). Because the public places a great deal of trust in the nursing profession and relies on nurses to always do the right thing, integrity is essential. This has been demonstrated by the Gallop Organization over the past several years as nursing has been identified as the most trusted of the 21 professions identified in their surveys regarding honesty and ethical standards. Because integrity is highly valued by the nursing profession, and by those that nursing serves, nurse educators are in a unique position to assist future nurses, not only with knowledge and skill acquisition, but also with value development. If academic misconduct in the classroom setting correlates with misconduct in the clinical setting, as some studies suggest, it is important for nurse educators to be aware of the common behaviors students may engage in to try to prevent its occurrence.

Literature Review

This literature review is intended to show that nursing research related to academic misconduct has focused on nursing students preparing to be registered nurses. Subjects were enrolled primarily in baccalaureate or associate degree nursing programs. Some subjects were enrolled in diploma programs. All graduates from each of the three types of nursing programs

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 28

were preparing to become registered nurses. Research also included surveying nursing faculty from programs preparing students to become registered nurses. A review of nursing research does not find any studies related to academic misconduct involving nursing students preparing to become licensed practical nurses. Much of the early nursing literature regarding academic integrity focused on nursing faculty experience with academic misconduct among students preparing to be registered nurses. Carmack’s (1984) research found that most faculty thought plagiarism was common among nursing students. In Carmack’s study, faculty represented all types of nursing programs including: one diploma program, three associate degree programs, four baccalaureate programs, and three graduate nursing programs. The most frequently reported examples of plagiarism in Carmack’s study were making up home visits, using other students’ papers, and copying published materials without giving credit to the author. Over half of the faculty believed a relationship existed between academic dishonesty and subsequent professional dishonesty (Carmack, 1984, p. 31). Baily (1990) and Roberts’ (1996, 1997) studies were also based on nursing faculty perceptions of their experiences with academic misconduct with baccalaureate nursing students. Roberts shared that faculty reported the three most frequently experienced types of academic dishonesty with baccalaureate nursing students in the classroom were cheating on examinations, plagiarism, and lying. In the clinical setting, the most frequently reported dishonest behaviors included lying, falsifying data, and plagiarism. Not only were nursing faculty surveyed, studies also reflected that nursing students were surveyed to determine how frequently they engaged in academic dishonesty. In addition, subjects were asked to identify reasons why they chose to engage in academic misconduct. In 1985 and 1987, Hilbert surveyed baccalaureate nursing students to investigate the incidence of academic misconduct. Hilbert developed a questionnaire, the Hilbert Unethical Behavior Survey (HUBS), and used it to survey students in both studies. The instrument contains 22 unethical behaviors. Eleven of the behaviors are related to unethical classroom behaviors and the other 11 refer to unethical clinical behaviors. In 1985, Hilbert reported that the most common unethical classroom behaviors among baccalaureate nursing students preparing to be registered nurses included copying a few sentences from a reference source without footnoting it in the paper, working with another student on an assignment when the instructor did not allow it, and adding a

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 29

few items to a bibliography that were not used in writing the paper. The three most common unethical clinical behaviors included taking hospital equipment home; discussing patients in public places or with nonmedical personnel; and recording medications, treatments, or observations that were not done. Hilbert’s 1985 study was the first to look at the relationship between unethical classroom behavior and clinical behavior in nursing students. A Pearson correlation coefficient was used for the total unethical classroom behaviors and the total unethical clinical behaviors for each student. The result was a coefficient of 0.571 (p < 0.001) indicating a significant relationship between unethical classroom behavior and unethical behavior in the clinical setting. Hilbert built upon her 1985 study, and in 1987, she again explored the incidence of unethical behavior, and also asked baccalaureate nursing students preparing to be registered nurses why they chose to engage in the unethical behavior. Hilbert reported that the most common reason students reported engaging in unethical behavior in the classroom was pressure to get good grades. In the clinical setting students reported that they did not believe their behavior was unethical. Hilbert compared the 1987 results to her 1985 results and found an increase in five of the unethical classroom behaviors. The five behaviors that were considerably higher were getting examination questions from someone who had taken the examination earlier (23.8% compared to 9% in 1985), copying from someone else’s examination (17.1% compared to 4% in 1985), copying from references without footnoting (51.9% compared to 27% in 1985), adding a few items to a bibliography that were not used in writing the paper (39% compared to 17% in 1985), and allowing someone else to copy from their exam (20.5% compared to 7% in 1985). Comparing the incidence of clinical behaviors to her 1985 study, Hilbert found that two areas of unethical clinical related behaviors were much higher in the 1987 study. These included students’ calling in sick for clinical when they were not ill and students who admitted to discussing patients in public places. The most common reason students gave for unethical classroom behavior in 1987 was pressure for good grades from parents, relatives and the university. The most common reason given for engaging in unethical behavior in the clinical setting was that students did not believe the behavior was unethical. In 1987, Hilbert again found a positive correlation between unethical behavior in the classroom and clinical settings. McCabe, often recognized as the leader in research related to cheating in higher education, has investigated academic misconduct for nearly two decades among college students.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 30

He has been involved in the study of academic ethics in specific disciplines including engineering, business, and sciences. In 2009, McCabe reported the results from his study concerning nursing students. He surveyed nursing students from 18 schools in 15 states. While he does not identify whether participants were enrolled in associate degree or baccalaureate undergraduate nursing programs, all nursing students were preparing to become registered nurses. There were 902 undergraduate nursing students who participated and over half (58%) of them reported engaging in one or more of 16 unethical classroom behaviors. McCabe compared these results with his longitudinal study which showed that 72% of undergraduate nursing students reported engaging in at least one of 16 unethical classroom behaviors. McCabe’s 16 unethical classroom behaviors were similar to the 11 unethical classroom behaviors identified in Hilbert’s (1985, 1987) studies. McCabe’s 16 behaviors included electronic technologies, which allowed the use of the Internet to plagiarize and cheat on online examinations. These technologies were not available when Hilbert reported her findings in 1985 and 1987. While Hilbert investigated the incidence of unethical behavior engaged in by nursing students in the clinical setting, McCabe did not investigate the incidence of unethical behavior in the clinical setting. In 2010, McCrink surveyed associate degree nursing students who were preparing to be registered nurses. She found that participants engaged in academic misconduct similar to previous research studies involving nursing students enrolled in programs preparing them to be registered nurses. McCrink reported that the most common behaviors of academic misconduct included plagiarizing (35.2%) and discussing clients in public places or with nonmedical personnel (35.3%). In addition, students reported working with other students on out-of-class assignments when not allowed (24.3%), obtaining test questions from other students (21.8%), and reporting or recording vital signs that were not taken or recalled accurately (13%). Nearly 9% of respondents indicated they had reported or recorded client treatments that were not performed nor observed, 6.7% reported they had recorded client responses to treatments or medications that were not assessed, and 2.1% reported they had recorded administration of medications to a client when the medications had not been given. Nursing research suggests that nursing students, like other students, rationalize or neutralize their actions when engaging in academic misconduct. Roberts (1996) reported that

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 31

nursing students used time constraints as an excuse for their behavior. She reported that some students believed requirements of a course were unfair and they were forced to cheat and blamed faculty or others for their unethical behavior. Roberts’ findings were consistent with McCabe’s (1992) earlier findings related to justification for cheating. McCabe’s studies on academic misconduct included college students from many majors. A common reason that students gave for justifying academic misconduct in McCabe’s (1992) study included pressure to get good grades. This pressure came from parents and from competition to gain admission to graduate school. McCabe’s study also found that excessive academic workloads and inability to keep up with assignments were also given as reasons to cheat. McCabe’s findings were consistent with Hilbert’s (1987) findings when she asked nursing students for the reasons they engaged in unethical behaviors. Hilbert (1987) found that the most common reason students gave for unethical classroom behavior was pressure for good grades from parents, relatives, and the university (44%). Nearly 25% of students responded that they engaged in unethical classroom behavior because it was important for them to succeed and be considered successful by those whose opinions they valued. Nearly 20% reported that they did not believe their classroom related behavior was unethical. Hilbert (1987) also reported on why students engaged in misconduct in the clinical setting and found that the most common reason student nurses gave was that they did not see the behavior as unethical (36.5%). In addition, she found that 17% felt unsure of their ability in the clinical setting. Fourteen percent of the students reported they felt their behavior would not result in their being caught. While McCabe’s (2009) study did not ask nursing students why they cheated, he did ask nursing students to share their perceptions of specific cheating behaviors. Their responses reflected that behaviors they were less likely to engage in themselves were classified as moderate or serious cheating behaviors. In contrast, behaviors that students reported engaging in with greater frequency were identified by the minority of students as serious cheating. McCabe used examples to explain his findings. Specifically, students reported they perceived copying all or most of a term paper from a paper mill as a serious offense. Less than 2% of the students reported engaging in this behavior suggesting that when students perceived the offense as serious, they did not engage in it as often. An additional example that he shared included student collaboration with peers was very high among undergraduates. Only a few students perceived

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 32

this behavior as moderate or serious cheating, thus suggesting why collaboration with peers was shown to be high. Arhin’s (2009) pilot study of baccalaureate nursing student’s perceptions of academic dishonesty indicated that participants were clear on the definition of academic dishonesty in examination situations. However, participants in Arhin’s study had difficulty identifying academic misconduct during classroom and laboratory assignments. McCrink (2010) looked at [associate degree] student nurse attitudes toward specific behaviors of academic misconduct. The majority of students in McCrink’s study had negative attitudes toward neutralization statements that justified behaviors for academic misconduct. In early studies concerning academic misconduct, technology that is taken for granted today was not available to students then. Today’s students are accustomed to using technology in the classroom, laboratory, and clinical settings and in their everyday life. Students have easy access to a variety of technological resources which are commonly used e.g. cell phones / Smart phones, texting, the Internet, email, social media, etc. These high-tech resources can easily be utilized to engage in academic dishonesty. Harper (2006) completed a review of the literature related to unintended outcomes of the use of technology in nursing education. She expressed concern that academic dishonesty, including plagiarism, has shown a positive correlation with an increase in the use of technology. Harper suggested that academic dishonesty may be a predictor of workplace dishonesty. In 2000 and 2007, the author received permission from Dr. Hilbert to use the HUBS instrument and conducted studies with students in diploma, associate degree, and baccalaureate programs preparing students to become registered nurses. The 2000 study included 339 subjects from 10 schools in the Midwest and the 2007 study included 230 students from 8 schools in the Midwest. Both studies found that nursing students engaged in academic misconduct in the classroom and clinical setting. Specifically, in 2000 and 2007, 75% and 70% of participants respectively reported engaging in academic misconduct. While neither study was published, the author reported the findings at several nursing education conferences (Reese Kline, J., 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2009). Nurse educators attending the conferences who taught in programs preparing students to become licensed practical nurses, expressed concerns about issues of integrity and academic misconduct among their student population. Their concern centered on the lack of information in the nursing literature regarding this student population i.e.

Volume 5 Page 33

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

students preparing to be licensed practical nurses. Arhin and Jones’ (2009) suggest, that although much has been reported in the literature on the incidence of college student cheating, there is inadequate research in published reports in the nursing literature regarding academic dishonesty. While the literature in nursing is limited regarding the incidence of unethical behavior among nursing students preparing to become registered nurses, research related to academic misconduct among students enrolled in practical nursing programs could not be found. Hilbert’s studies from the 1980s and the author’s studies from 2000 and 2007 found that students preparing to be registered nurses reported engaging in unethical behaviors in the classroom and clinical setting. These studies found a significant relationship between unethical classroom behaviors and unethical clinical behaviors. In addition, these studies investigated the reasons why students engaged in behaviors that are considered unethical or dishonest, and found that the common reason for engaging in unethical classroom behaviors was pressure to get good grades. The common reason for engaging in unethical behavior in the clinical setting was that the behavior did not seem to be unethical. While Hilbert did not explore how students utilized technology to engage in unethical behavior, the author did explore this in her 2000 and 2007 studies. If students who are preparing to be registered nurses are engaging in misconduct in the classroom and clinical settings, do students enrolled in programs preparing them to be licensed practical nurses also engage in misconduct in the classroom and clinical settings? Studies have not been conducted exploring the incidence of unethical behavior among nursing students preparing to be licensed practical nurses.

Method

Purpose

Therefore the purpose of this study was to: (1) investigate the incidence of academic misconduct by practical nursing students in the classroom and clinical settings, (2) examine the relationship between academic misconduct in the classroom and clinical settings, (3) determine the reasons practical student nurses give for engaging in unethical behaviors in the classroom and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 34Â

clinical settings, and (4) identify ways that practical nursing students are using technology to engage in unethical behavior.

Participants

This descriptive study was undertaken using a convenience sample to determine the incidence of unethical behavior among students enrolled in practical nursing education programs after obtaining university institutional review board approval. Subjects were recruited from licensed practical nursing schools located in a Midwest state. All schools having full approval status from their state board of nursing were asked to participate. A letter explaining the study was sent to program administrators asking permission to have students enrolled in their school to voluntarily participate in the study. Subjects had to be 18 years of age or older, and planning to graduate within six months. Subjects were asked to complete a consent form and anonymously complete the Hilbert Unethical Behavior Survey (HUBS) instrument.

Instrument

Having used the HUBS instrument previously, the investigator was familiar with the instrument and sought permission to use it again from the author of the survey. Permission was granted to use the HUBS with students enrolled in practical nursing education programs. The tool identifies 22 specific unethical behaviors. Eleven of the behaviors include academic misconduct in the classroom setting. The other eleven behaviors include unethical actions students could engage in in the clinical area. Students were asked to identify how many times they had engaged in the 22 unethical behaviors in the current academic year. In addition, students were asked to identify specific reasons for engaging in the unethical behavior(s), both in the classroom and clinical areas. An open ended question was provided for any additional reasons, other than those identified. Finally, because technology is convenient and easily accessible to students for misuse in the academic setting, students in this study were asked to identify how they had used technology to engage in unethical behavior. Once written consent was received from the program administrator, then participant consent forms and the HUBS

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 35

instrument were sent to the administrator or their designee to distribute to students who met the criteria to participate. Participants were asked to return both the consent form and HUBS in separate envelopes via the U.S. mail to the investigator.

Results and Discussion

Demographics

Nearly 48% of the students returned a completed consent form from the 19 schools that agreed to participate. Of the 395 students who completed the HUBS instrument, 82% of the subjects were female, 15% male, and 3% did not identify their gender. The average age of participants was 31 years old, with a range from 18 – 60 years old. Just over 75% of respondents were white or Caucasian; 16.7% black or African American; 1.77 % Native American or Alaska Native; 1.77% Hispanic, Chicano, or Spanish speaking American; 0.75% Asian, Pacific Islander, or Filipino; 0.25% Asian/black; 0.25% black/Hispanic; 0.25% brown American; and 2.27% did not describe themselves.

Incidence of Misconduct

Nearly 45% or 176 participants indicated they had engaged in unethical behavior either in the classroom and/or clinical setting. Table 1 summarizes the results of this study regarding academic misconduct in the classroom and clinical areas for each of the 22 unethical behaviors listed on the HUBS. In the classroom setting, the most commonly reported unethical behavior was related to plagiarism. Specifically, 28.6% of the respondents reported they had copied a few sentences from a reference source without citing it in their paper. The most frequently reported unethical behavior in the clinical setting was in relation to patient confidentiality. Nineteen percent (19.2%) of the participants reported discussing patients in public places or with nonmedical personnel. Plagiarism and breaching patient confidentially were the most frequently reported unethical behaviors by participants in the author’s 2000 and 2007 studies. Table 2 shows a comparison between the current study’s findings and previous findings of the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 36

investigator with students preparing to be registered nurses. In 2000, 43% of the students reported they had copied a few sentences without citing the reference in a paper. In 2007, 31.5% of participants reported the same behavior pertaining to plagiarism using the HUBS instrument. In 2000, 43% of the respondents indicated they had not maintained patient confidentiality and had discussed patients in public places or with inappropriate individuals. In 2007, 42% responded they had not maintained patient confidentiality. Hilbert’s 1985 and 1987 studies found these behaviors to be reported the most frequently among the students she surveyed. McCabe’s (2009) study reflected that plagiarism is one of the more frequently engaged in behaviors by student nurses.

Correlation between Classroom and Clinical Behaviors

This study examined the relationship between academic misconduct in the classroom and clinical settings. Using IBM Statistics SPSS 19.0, the data was analyzed and a positive correlation was found, suggesting there is a relationship between academic misconduct in the classroom and unethical behavior in the clinical setting. Specifically, a Pearson correlation coefficient was done for the total unethical classroom behaviors and the total unethical clinical behaviors for each student. The result was a coefficient of 0.458 (p < .01). The investigator found similar findings in 2000, with a coefficient of 0.434 (p < .01), and in 2007 the coefficient was 0.437 (p < .01). The positive relationship was not as strong as what Hilbert found in 1985 and 1987 with a coefficient of 0.571 (p < .001) and 0.570 respectively (p < .00000).

Reasons for Engaging in Unethical Behavior

Participants were asked to select items from a list reflecting reasons they chose to engage in unethical conduct. The list included the most common reasons nursing students gave for engaging in academic misconduct in previous studies by the author, and by Hilbert (1987). The most common reason participants gave for engaging in unethical behavior in the classroom was related to the importance of being successful (26.7%) and pressure to get good grades (24.4%). In the clinical setting, the most common reason that was given was the behavior did not seem

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 37

unethical (18.1%). The second most common reason for engaging in unethical clinical behavior was that the subject felt unsure of their ability (10.7%). These were also the most common reasons found in the investigator’s 2000 and 2007 studies, and were similar to Hilbert’s findings in 1987. Subjects were given an open ended question where they could provide additional reasons they chose to engage in unethical behavior. Students did not provide additional reasons, however, they did share comments such as “I did not use the patient’s name, age, or gender” when talking about the patient in public places or with non-medical personnel. Several respondents wrote a short statement that they had not engaged in any unethical behavior and often expressed negative feelings regarding students who did engage in misconduct. However, the same students, who denied misconduct in their narrative statements, identified on the HUBS instrument that they had engaged in one to four of the 22 identified behaviors. Some of these students had engaged in the identified behavior(s) several times (up to 13 times). These comments suggest that students do not recognize their own conduct as unethical.

Use of Technology

Twenty percent of all participants reported using technology to engage in unethical behavior in the classroom. Of the students who reported engaging in unethical behavior (n = 176) in the classroom and/or clinical setting, 44.8% (n = 79) reported using technology to do so. The most frequently reported behaviors reflected that 14.7% took information off the Internet to use for an assignment and represented it as their own work, 13% used email to work on an assignment with others when the work was to be done on their own, 5.6% reported using a concealable micro recorder (tape recorder) during an exam for the purpose of sharing answers with other students following an exam review, and 2.8% used their phone to take a picture during an exam for the purpose of sharing the test questions with other students. The use of technology to engage in academic misconduct significantly increased from the author’s findings in 2000 and 2007, when only a handful of students (less than 10) reported using technology to cheat. Hilbert’s studies (1985, 1987) did not investigate the use of technology as many of these technologies were not commonly used or available. McCabe (2009) suggested that Internet plagiarism is popular with college students, including nursing students.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 38

Conclusion and Summary

The findings from this study revealed that student nurses preparing to become licensed practical nurses do engage in unethical behavior both in the classroom and clinical setting. Plagiarism and not maintaining patient confidentiality are the most commonly reported unethical behaviors by students in the current study and the author’s previous studies. However, findings from this study suggest that students enrolled in practical nursing programs do not engage in plagiarism as frequently as nursing students enrolled in programs preparing them to be registered nurses. Similarly, the findings of this study suggest that students enrolled in practical nursing programs do not engage in discussing patients in public areas or with non-medical personnel as frequently as students enrolled in nursing programs preparing them to be registered nurses. A number of assumptions can be made regarding these findings. Perhaps expectations and potential consequences are communicated differently today compared to students in earlier studies. Policies of the school, as well as clinical agencies, may influence student behavior. This may be especially true in light of current standards regarding patient privacy and confidentiality. The educational environment and curriculum may differ, for example, length of program, nature of classroom assignments, clinical assignments and associated responsibilities. In addition, programs are available to detect plagiarism. These programs can not only detect if plagiarism has occurred, but can also discourage students from engaging in such behavior once it is known that a plagiarism detecting program is being utilized. One must also consider that participants could under report their engagement in unethical activities as well. This study revealed a positive correlation between unethical classroom and clinical behaviors. Previous studies have also shown a positive relationship, including Hilbert’s studies published in 1985 and 1987, and the author’s studies conducted in 2000 and 2007. Unethical behaviors that occur in the classroom and clinical settings cause concern for nursing faculty, because it is believed there is a link between academic and professional ethics. Nursing faculty teach student nurses to become professionals. As professionals, nurses are expected to behave in an ethical manner. Harper (2006) shared that the “correlation between academic misconduct and professional misconduct presents an area of grave concern for the nursing profession” (p. 676). She suggested that given the “correlation between unethical behavior in the classroom and the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 39

clinical setting, efforts to staunch academic dishonesty may help allay unethical clinical actions” (p. 676). As novice professionals, student nurses need to recognize and appreciate that the nursepatient relationship is based on trust. The patient trusts that the nurse has the knowledge, skills, and abilities to provide safe and competent care. If student nurses have engaged in unethical behaviors in the classroom setting while in nursing school, then their knowledge, skills, and abilities are called into question in the clinical setting. The responses given from students preparing to become licensed practical nurses were not unlike related studies with students preparing to be registered nurses related to reasons why they chose to engage in unethical classroom and clinical behaviors. The top two reasons practical student nurses reported engaging in academic misconduct in the classroom included pressure for good grades and that it was important to succeed. Previous studies with students preparing to be registered nurses have shown that some students did not believe the behavior they engaged in was unethical. This study revealed similar findings, showing that 8.5% of the students preparing to be licensed practical nurses believed their classroom related behavior was not unethical. Even more concerning, was 18% of the respondents reported they did not believe their clinical behavior(s) was unethical. In 1987, Hilbert asked if nursing students come to nursing school with these values, or do nurse educators influence them. In 2013, Eby et al. asked if moral integrity can be taught. Results from Eby et al. (2103) found that beliefs drive moral behaviors and must be the focus of strategies for change. Their study indicated that the “most urgent need was to discover strategies to thread concepts related to moral integrity into education programs” (p. 231). In 2009, Tippett et al. suggested several strategies for promoting academic integrity, including short-term and long-term strategies. Short-term strategies were identified and aimed at preventing misconduct. However, it was suggested that these short-term recommendations may demonstrate faculty mistrust of students. In their discussion, Tippett et al. (2009) included the importance of faculty role modeling professional behaviors and academic institutions demonstrating a culture of integrity. They also identified long-term solutions including “creating relationships between students and faculty that foster trust and respect where faculty are focused on helping students understand the importance of academic integrity” (p. 242). Studies related to effective strategies which facilitate student nurse development of professional values, including integrity, are needed.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 40

Harper (2006) reviewed the literature and found that academic dishonesty, including plagiarism, showed a positive correlation with the increase use of technology. The investigator’s studies from 2000 and 2007 found that very few students had used technology to engage in academic misconduct. In 2000, one student out of 230 shared that “they would not even know how to use the Internet to cheat.” In 2007, less than 10 students out of 339 reported using technology to cheat. The current study suggests that students are using technology significantly more than in the past to engage in academic misconduct. Of the 176 students who reported engaging in unethical behavior on the HUBS, nearly 45% used technology to do so. Time constraints have been identified in the literature as a reason students choose to engage in academic misconduct. This is reflected in the current study by written statements from participants regarding the use of technology. One student wrote on their survey tool that there is “too much work and very little time, cheating is a gateway to degrees.” Another student shared, “I looked up study guide answers online, not that I could not do it, I did it for time management.” Perhaps convenience and easy access to technology are reasons why nearly 15% of the participants in this study reported taking information off the Internet to use for assignments and represented the Internet information as their own work. In 2009, McCabe suggested that Internet plagiarism is significantly more popular among college students, including nursing students. It seems there is an urgent need to identify strategies that nurse educators can utilize to prevent students from engaging in unethical behaviors using technology. Students preparing to be licensed practical nurses shared similar reasons why they engaged in unethical behavior in the classroom and clinical settings as students preparing to be registered nurses in related studies. Academic workload, time constraints, and pressure to achieve good grades were the common reasons students gave for engaging in unethical behavior in the classroom setting. In the clinical setting, students reported that they did not think their behavior was unethical or they were unsure of their own abilities. Tippitt et al. (2009) stated that environments characterized by academic dishonesty are not the fault of students alone, suggesting that faculty, administrators, and academic institutions share in this responsibility. If students do not recognize behaviors as being unethical, then perhaps faculty and administrators begin with assisting students to understand the meaning of integrity in both the classroom and clinical setting, and why integrity is important in both settings. Orientation to the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 41

nursing program may be a good time to begin this discussion with continued faculty-student dialogue threaded throughout the program as an integral component of the curriculum. If students are unsure of their abilities in the clinical setting, how can faculty create an environment where students feel safe to ask questions or make errors? Can simulation labs be designed as safe environments where students feel supported even if they make an error? Can learning in the simulated environment help them increase their confidence in their own abilities? In addition, faculty may want to examine student assignments. Are they perceived as meaningful to the student or are they perceived as busy work? Do faculty share the purpose or goal of the assignment in order to help students understand the desired learning outcome? Do faculty communicate among themselves regarding when assignments are due, taking into account other courses the students are enrolled in? Are the objectives for assignments clear, including whether or not students can collaborate with peers? Could new approaches be considered in relation to some assignments? For instance, if millennial students like working in groups (McCurry & Martins, 2010; Pardue & Morgan, 2008), perhaps some assignments could be shared with peers where collaboration is encouraged. The role of the academic institution also needs to be considered. Have standards for student behavior been developed and are policies related to academic conduct clearly stated in student handbooks and also reflected in course syllabi? Are these policies followed by faculty and administration? Are students involved in the development of standards? Stonecypher and Willson (2014) stated that “creating a campus culture of honesty has been shown to deter cheating, especially when students help create this culture by being a part of the process of writing the policies that govern behavior” (p. 170). Finally, do faculty recognize their role in helping to prevent misconduct and dishonest behaviors in the classroom and clinical settings? Are faculty intentionally role modeling ethical behavior in the classroom and clinical settings? Are instructors aware of common unethical behaviors students are most likely to engage in, and do they know how to implement measures to prevent unethical behavior and promote integrity among students nurses? It is believed that nursing faculty are in a position to help guide future nurses with value development based on ethical standards for professional nursing practice. It is presumed the better nursing faculty understand student behavior, the better they can intervene to guide and

Volume 5 Page 42

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

assist students in developing professional values to guide their nursing practice. In order for nursing faculty to intervene effectively in situations regarding academic misconduct, there needs to be accurate information from which faculty can make decisions. While this study is limited and may not be representative of all students enrolled in practical nursing programs, it attempted to help faculty better understand nursing students who are preparing to become licensed practical nurses. Further studies related to preventing academic misconduct and promoting academic integrity with students preparing to be licensed practical nurses are needed. Studies are needed to investigate what strategies deter student nurses from engaging in misconduct and encourages them to be individuals of integrity in both the classroom and clinical settings.

Author Biography

Juanita Reese Kline is an associate professor of nursing, as well as the chairs for community & global health, and foundations of health. She received her BSN and MSN from the Ohio State University, and her Ph.D. from Kennedy-Western University.

References

American Nurses Association. (2001). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. Retrieved April 28, 2014 from www.ana.org/ethics/ecode.htm Arhin, A. O. (2009). A pilot study of nursing student’s perceptions of academic dishonesty: A generation Y perspective. The ABNF Journal, 20(1), 17-21. Arhin, A. O., & Jones, K. A. (2009). A multidiscipline exploration of college students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty: Are nursing students different from other college students? Nurse Education Today, 29(7), 710-714. Bailey, P. A. (1990). Cheating among nursing students. Nurse Educator, 15(3), 32-35. Carmack, B. J. (1984). Exploring nursing educators’ experience with student plagiarism. Nurse Educator, 9, 29-33.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 43Â

Eby, R. A., Hartley, P. L., Hodges, P. J., Hoffpauir, R., Newbanks, S., & Kelley, J. H. (2013). Moral Integrity and moral courage: Can you teach it? Journal of Nursing Education, 52(4), 229-233. Gaberson, K. B. (1997). Academic dishonesty among nursing students. Nursing Forum, 32(3), 14-20. Harper, M. G. (2006). High tech cheating. Nurse Education Today, 26, 672-679. Hilbert, G. A. (1985). Involvement of nursing students in unethical classroom and clinical behaviors. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1, 230-234. Hilbert, G. A. (1987). Academic fraud: Prevalence, practices, and reasons. Journal of Professional Nursing, 3, 39-45. International Center for Academic Integrity. (2015). Fundamental Values Project. Retrieved from www.academicintegrity.org McCabe, D. L. (1992). The incidence of situational ethics on cheating among college students. Sociological Inquiry, 62, 365-373. McCabe, D. L. (2009). Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: An empirical investigation. Journal of Nursing Education, 8(11), 614-623. McCrink, A. (2010). Academic misconduct in nursing students: Behaviors, attitudes, rationalizations, and cultural identity. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(11), 653-659. McCurry, M. K., & Martins, D. C. (2010). Teaching undergraduate nursing research: A comparison of traditional and innovative approaches for success with millennial learners. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(5), 276-279. Pardue, K. T., & Morgan, P. (2008). Millennials considered: A new generation, new approaches, and implications for nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(2), 74-79. Prescott, P. A. (1989). Academic misconduct: Considerations for educational administrators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 5(5), 283-287.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 44

Reese Kline, J. (2000, September). Academic misconduct among nursing students. Poster session presented at the Ohio League for Nursing Biennial Convention, Columbus, Ohio. Reese Kline, J. (2001, April). Do Cheating Students Become Cheating Nurses? Presentation for the Ohio League for Nursing’s Faculty Institute, Mansfield, Ohio. Reese Kline, J. (2002, August). Academic misconduct among nursing students. Poster session presented at the Mosby – Summer Faculty Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Reese Kline, J. (2006, October). Academic misconduct: Old and new methods of cheating among student nurses. Presentation for the Ohio Organization of Practical Nurse Educators, Perrysville, Ohio. Reese Kline, J. (2008, March). To cheat or not to cheat? An update. Presentation for the Ohio League for Nursing Summit, Columbus, Ohio. Reese Kline, J. (2009, May). Academic misconduct among nursing students: Suggestions for preventing it and fostering integrity. Presentation for Ohio Organization of Practical Nurse Educators in Dublin, Ohio. Roberts, E. F. (1996). Faculty perceptions of baccalaureate nursing students’ unethical behavior and the implications for the curriculum and profession. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. Roberts, E. F. (1997). Academic misconduct in schools of nursing. Nursing Connections, 10(3), 28-36. Stonecypher, K., & Willson, P. (2014). Academic policies and practices to deter cheating in nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(3), 167-179. Tippitt, M. P., Ard, N., Kline, J. R., Tilghman, J., Chamberlain, B., & Meagher, G. (2009). Creating environments that foster academic integrity. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(4), 239-244.

Volume 5 Page 45

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 1 Unethical Classroom and Clinical Behavior among Students Enrolled in Practical Nursing Programs

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Classroom Behavior Getting exam or quiz questions from someone who had taken the exam or quiz earlier in the day (or week). Copying from someone else’s exam or quiz paper or receiving answers from another student during an exam or quiz. Allowing someone to copy from an exam or quiz paper or giving answers to another student during an exam or quiz. Using notes, books, etc. during a closed-book exam or quiz. Taking an exam or quiz for another student. Copying a few sentences from a reference source without quoting it in a paper. Adding a few items to a bibliography that were not used in writing the paper. Turning in a paper purchased from a commercial research firm. Turning in an assignment that was done entirely or in part by someone else (but not by a research firm). Doing a homework assignment for another student. Working with another student on an assignment when the instructor did not allow it. Clinical Behaviors Calling in sick for clinical when you were not sick. Coming to the clinical area while under the influence of drugs, including alcohol. Breaking something that belonged to the patient and not reporting it. Not reporting an incident involving a patient. Taking hospital equipment (including scrubs) to use at home. Eating food intended for or belonging to a patient. Taking medication from the hospital for personal use. Recording that medications, treatments or observations were done when they weren’t. Discussing patients in public places or with non-medical personnel. Not questioning an order when in doubt. Failing to provide information to a patient about treatments, medications, or recommended health behaviors.

Note. n = 395.

Number

Percent

7.3

Range of times done 0-10

4.0

0-10

8.1

0-10

1.5

0-1

3 113

0.8 28.6

0-2 0-99

4.5

0-99

0.5

0-1

7.8

0-10

48 72

12.1 18.2

0-10 0-99

32 3

8.1 0.8

0-2 0-1

0.8

0-2

6 24

1.5 6.0

0-2 0-2

10 1 27

2.5 0.3 6.8

0-1 0-1 0-10

19.2

0-99

27 21

6.8 5.3

0-3 0-10

Volume 5 Page 46

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 2 Comparison of Student Responses by Year Classroom Behavior 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Getting exam or quiz questions from someone who had taken the exam or quiz earlier in the day (or week). Copying from someone else’s exam or quiz paper or receiving answers from another student during an exam or quiz. Allowing someone to copy from an exam or quiz paper or giving answers to another student during an exam or quiz. Using notes, books, etc. during a closed-book exam or quiz. Taking an exam or quiz for another student. Copying a few sentences from a reference source without quoting/citing it in a paper. Adding a few items to a bibliography that were not used in writing the paper. Turning in a paper purchased from a commercial research firm. Turning in an assignment that was done entirely or in part by someone else (but not by a research firm). Doing a homework assignment for another student. Working with another student on an assignment when the instructor did not allow it. Clinical Behaviors Calling in sick for clinical when you were not sick. Coming to the clinical area while under the influence of drugs, including alcohol. Breaking something that belonged to the patient and not reporting it. Not reporting an incident involving a patient. Taking hospital equipment (including scrubs) to use at home. Eating food intended for or belonging to a patient. Taking medication from the hospital for personal use. Recording that medications, treatments or observations were done when they weren’t. Discussing patients in public places or with non-medical personnel. Not questioning an order when in doubt. Failing to provide information to a patient about treatments, medications, or recommended health behaviors.

2014 n=395 Percent

2007 n = 339 Percent

2000 n=230 Percent

7.3

19.0

17.0

4.0

5.9

6.0

8.1

7.0

5.0

1.5

2.4

1.0

0.8 28.6

0.9 31.5

0.4 43.0

4.5

18.2

24.0

0.5

0.3

0.4

7.8

7.9

3.5

12.1 18.2

7.3 24.7

6.0 20.0

8.1 0.8

% 9.7 0.6

% 5.0 0

0.8

0.3

0.8

1.5 6.0

3.8 21.5

3.0 27.0

2.5 0.3 6.8

7.0 0 12.3

3.0 3.0 10.0

19.2

42.4

43.0

6.8 5.3

11.8 6.1

14.0 13.0

Note. The table indicates the percentage of students that reported engaging in the identified behavior.

Volume 5 Page 47

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Incorporating 21st Century Skills into Teacher Preparation Programs: A Collaborative Approach Rosemarie Michaels Dominican University of California Elizabeth Truesdell Dominican University of California Billye Brown Dominican University of California

Abstract

This paper describes a collaborative project between three chairs of teacher preparation programs (Multiple Subject, Single Subject, and Special Education) to review, revise, and align curriculum and instruction to deliberately address the 21st Century Skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and technology. This endeavor entails discussing three shared strategies for preservice teacher engagement in 21st Century Skills, including the integration of instructional technologies, development of a collaborative university-school partnership, and differentiating instruction for diverse learners in creative ways. Data collected through surveys and observations indicate an increase in preservice teachers’ competency in the 21st Century Skills through participation in a university-school partnership, explicit instruction and modeling of instructional technology, and differentiating instruction. Implications of this approach to teacher preparation include incorporating and modeling 21st Century Skills for preservice teachers and preparing more effective and marketable graduates who will embrace and model them when they are teachers in the field. Keywords: Teacher preparation, 21st Century Skills, differentiated instruction, universityschool partnerships, instructional technology

Volume 5 Page 48

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Introduction This study describes a collaborative project between three chairs of teacher preparation programs to revise and align curriculum and instruction, deliberately addressing the 21st Century Skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and technology (4 C’s & T). This paper provides a review of the literature on the 21st Century Skills, teacher preparation, and differentiated instruction. Data collected and analyzed from a mixed-methods approach uncover implications for modeling and incorporating the 21st Century Skills in teacher preparation programs.

Context and Background

The School of Education in a small, private liberal arts university in the western United States recently experienced major shifts in leadership, program delivery, and course content in its teacher preparation programs in Single Subject, Multiple Subject, and Special Education. For up to 40 years, the same veteran faculty members directed these programs with little to no collaboration. As a result of that isolation, the new chairs quickly realized that these programs were not aligned. Chairs also recognized the need for more deliberate attention towards 21st Century Skills, as well as the need to address an ever-increasing diverse student population. These realizations led the chairs, in collaboration with faculty, to redesign each program to be more cohesive and interconnected, thus modeling the 21st century student learning outcomes faculty wished to impart to preservice teachers.

Purpose The purpose of this study is three-fold: 1) connect the literature on 21st Century Skills and teacher preparation programs, 2) discuss three strategies for integrating the 4 C’s & T into the teacher preparation programs (i.e., explicit instructional technology integration, development of university-school partnerships, and a focus on differentiated instruction), and 3) discuss implications for future practice in teacher preparation programs. The following question guided

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 49

this research: What are the effects of incorporating and modeling the 21st Century Skills using specific strategies (instructional technology integration, university-school partnerships, and differentiated instruction) in three teacher preparation programs?

Review of the Literature 21st Century Skills

Originally, the goals of the American public school system were to create a skilled workforce and shape active citizens in a democratic society. The basics of the three R’s (reading, writing, and arithmetic) served as the tenets of curriculum and instruction. Modern accountability efforts, such as the standards movement and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), have further emphasized the importance of learning mastery of English Language Arts and Literacy (ELA/Literacy), mathematics, and other core subject areas. Students, teachers, and schools are held to strict guidelines of achievement on standardized tests, at times facing severe ramifications if deemed “underperforming” or “failing” (Ravitch, 2010). Despite this push toward standardized testing in public education, today’s business and political leaders express the need to address other core competencies necessary for our 21st century landscape (Truesdell & Birch, 2013). These interwoven skills include communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and technology. Indeed, those 21st century proficiencies have surfaced as equally important as ELA/Literacy and math skills (DarlingHammond, 2006). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) also consider the importance of 21st Century skill attainment. Both CCSS and NGSS not only prescribe specific curricular content for K-12 students, but consider the development of critical thinking practices, creative problem solving, communication and collaboration with peers and teachers, and the use of technology as imperative for student success in school, college, and the workplace (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2014; Next Generation Science Standards, 2013). A report by Pelligrino and Hilton (2012) highlights these new directions, identifying the need to focus on learning how to teach transferability of these broad skills in teacher preparation

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 50

and in-service professional development. Many school districts’ “reform efforts have begun to focus on a four-dimensional framework of college and career readiness that includes not only academic content, but also cognitive strategies, academic behaviors, and contextual skills and awareness” (Pelligrino & Hilton, 2012, p.16). Arguably, “this approach represents a shift away from standardized testing as the sole tool to measure student and teacher success” (Truesdell & Birch, 2013, p. 6) focusing more on 21st Century Skills and transferability. Research advocates the value of preservice teachers observing university faculty members modeling technology in their courses to learn how it can be effectively used to enhance instruction (O’Bannon & Judge, 2004; Schrum, Skeele, & Grant, 2003). This modeling may improve preservice teachers’ technology self-efficacy, technology proficiency, and the perceived usefulness of technology (Al-Ruz & Khasawneh, 2011), as well as provide an opportunity to conceptualize how to include transferable skills in their classrooms. A dispute regarding the best method of integrating technology into the classroom is not a new phenomenon. In 1987, Papert coined the term “technocentric” to describe advocates’ “overemphasis on the design and features of the technologies rather than the learning that they can support” (as cited in Harris & Hofer, 2011, p. 227). Increasingly, researchers have found that teachers need to center more on what the students can do with the information gained from technology, not on the quantity or ease of obtaining the information (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012). Students indicate more interest in the subject, more engagement, and better understanding of the learning outcome when teachers make this distinction (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Kvavik & Caruso, 2005). A new focus in public education on interconnecting the 4 C’s & T and the development of transferable competencies will require adaptations to current conceptions of what constitutes effective professional practice. This will result in reframing the purposes, structure, and organization of preservice and professional learning opportunities for teachers (DarlingHammond, 2006; Garrick & Rhodes, 2000; Lampert, 2010; Webster-Wright, 2009). To accomplish this revamping of preservice teacher preparation, current research on the subject of practice-based professional education was reviewed. Scholars have recommended replacing current disjointed teacher learning opportunities with more integrated continuums of teacher preparation (Wilson, 2011; Windschitl, 2009). Preservice teachers also learn most

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 51

effectively when their instructors model this collaboration and transferability. Pelligrino and Hilton (2012) suggest that “experiencing instruction designed to support transfer will help” preservice teachers “to design and implement such instruction in their own classrooms” (p. 188).

Teacher Preparation Programs

Teacher preparation programs in California are as varied and diverse as the population of students comprising the state’s schools. The California Department of Education Task Force on Educator Excellence (2012) summarizes the state of teacher preparation in California as “uneven in duration and quality. While some educators receive excellent preparation, others receive much less in terms of both quality and quantity of coursework and clinical training before they teach or step into leadership posts” (p.5). Certainly, as teachers are expected to know and integrate the 4 C’s & T to teach the CCSS, these skills must be taught and modeled in teacher preparation programs through multifarious learning opportunities. The National Council on Teacher Quality (2014) reports that overall, “far more needs to be done to expand the pool of teachers properly prepared to meet the challenges of the contemporary American classroom” (p.1). In preparing preservice teachers in content knowledge and delivery, the National Council on Teacher Quality (2014) findings reveals that secondary programs are more successfully preparing teachers than elementary programs. Among the reasons cited for lackluster performance at the elementary level is the disregard for research-based methods of ELA/Literacy instruction and the failure to ensure that preservice teachers are capable of teaching science, math, and technology. In light of these findings, it is evident that reform is vital to effectively prepare all teachers for success in 21st century classrooms and that the need for more collaboration between secondary and elementary programs, particularly in the same teacher preparation department, is imperative. In addition to collaboration between teacher preparation programs, connections with actual K-12 classrooms serves as an effective approach to prepare preservice teachers. In his seminal work, “A Place Called School,” Goodlad (1984) recommends that teacher preparation programs partner with K-12 schools to improve the quality of education in the United States.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 52

During the past 30 years, university-school partnerships have become a way to connect teacher preparation programs to the real world of classrooms (Amrein-Beardsley & Barnett, 2013). The goal of university-partnerships is to provide opportunities for collaborative exchange of best educational practices between teacher preparation programs and K-12 schools (Bier et al., 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2006). Indeed, a body of research indicates that preservice teachers are better prepared for the realities of teaching by participation in university-school partnerships (e.g., Bier et al., 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Michaels, 2015).

Differentiated instruction for diverse student populations. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2012) projected that in fall 2014, the number of Asian, Latino and African-American students in public K-12 schools would be the new majority, with an increase to over 50% of the student population. In addition, NCES (2014) reports, “In 2012, approximately 21% of school age children in the United States were in families living in poverty” (p. 20). Twenty-first century K-12 teachers are also experiencing more diverse exceptional learners in general education classrooms, as increased inclusive practices are implemented in most schools. NCES (2012) reports, “in Fall 2010, 95% of 6 to 21-year-old students with disabilities were served in regular schools” (p. 63). It is imperative that preservice teachers know and use 21st Century Skills to successfully address challenges of teaching a diverse student population. Arguably, adapting to the increase in student diversity through differentiating instruction is equally important as the adjustment to emerging technologies. It is vital to improve the quality and efficiency of teachers' instructional repertoires to meet the needs of changing student demographics (Fischer & Rose, 2001; Tomlinson, 2004). Tomlinson (2008) suggests that learning tasks for preservice teachers incorporate 21st Century Skills joined with differentiating instruction to ensure that students master the curriculum. Recognizing the need for a philosophical shift in the instructional paradigm to produce more effective teachers of highly diverse student populations, a California Statewide Task Force on Special Education (2015) has recommended a move to similarly prepare general and special education preservice teachers through an alignment of credential standards and California Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs), a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that

Volume 5 Page 53Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

preservice teachers must demonstrate (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). This recommendation mirrors the existing alignment in the project described in this study. Further, this study contributes to the body of literature by purposefully connecting 21st Century Skills to teacher preparation programs. The following section describes how chairs collaboratively incorporated 21st Century Skills in their pedagogy and data collection methods.

Methodology

This study took place over one academic year in a small, private university in the western United States. The researchers used survey-research methodology and qualitative data to assess the effectiveness of the collaborative effort to revise and align curriculum and instruction to deliberately address the 21st Century Skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and technology. Researchers applied a mixed-method approach, not only to gain insight into the preservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions through surveys, but also to observe their increased competency in the 21st Century Skills in coursework and in the field. The survey research and qualitative design is described for each of the three strategies in the study.

Instructional Technology Integration

Recognizing the benefits of modeling and transforming teacher preparation to include effective instructional technology use, two faculty members in the School of Education applied for and received an internal grant to purchase key technologies, professional development opportunities for the two faculty members, and the opportunity to attend the California Educational Technology Professionals Association (CETPA) conference, a K-20 educational technology association that provides leadership to the educational community. Prior to this grant, the teacher preparation program did not have the resources or capacity to deliberately incorporate hands-on experience with the latest in educational technology, or effectively collaborate regarding the integration of instructional technology and appropriate student learning outcomes.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 54

Initially, the technology project began in the Single Subject program. Faculty recognized the need for a structured approach, data collection, and dissemination of results. Therefore, grant recipients developed a three-tiered approach (Figure 1). This approach reflects the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, which requires a linked relationship between technology, pedagogy, and content (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The three tiers of literacy, integration, and transformation stretched from teacher preparation faculty, to preservice teachers’ required coursework, to their student teaching in the field. The literacy process (Tier One) began with professional training from eInstruction (an instructional technology company that provides support and resources to educators), webinars, attendance at CETPA, and two semesters practicing with the new technologies independently. The following semester grant recipients began to augment their own curriculum and instruction as a pilot for the entire school (Tier Two). This Tier is informed by the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition Model (SAMR), which emphasizes the importance of engaging students in learning experiences that could not be accomplished without technology (Puentedura, 2010). Tier Two began with preservice teachers taking the “Using Technology in the Classroom” core course and extended into Single Subject methodology and seminar courses. This integration led to Tier Three, the culminating and transformative use of technology as reflected in preservice teachers’ professional teaching websites, and observed, consistent, and effective use of instructional technology in their fieldwork. Throughout this transformative process, preservice teachers were expected to master the st

21 Century Skills. For example, they collaborated on class projects, creatively applied the new instructional technologies in their fieldwork, communicated their reflections both in class and in their professional teaching websites, and then participated in the cycle of critical thinking by revising their teaching as needed. In order to assess preservice teachers’ use of instructional technology during student teaching, an assessment measure was created and added to the student teacher observation form (Figure 2). All of these transferable skills and artifacts are documented in their professional teaching websites. Teacher preparation faculty deliberately attempted to move beyond discussion of the 4 C’s & T to the act of doing them. As Kolk (2011) suggests, “It is the process of learning, not the content of learning that addresses the four C’s” (Para. 1).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 55

At the conclusion of the academic year, the two grant recipients gathered and analyzed data collected in preservice teachers’ pre- and post-surveys, observations made in preservice teachers’ supervised teaching fieldwork, and qualitative reflections from participants. Sixteen single subject preservice teachers participated in the surveys and supervised fieldwork. Results of that data analysis are described in the Results section.

University-School Partnership

The second strategy was the creation of a university-school partnership. The chair of the Multiple Subject teacher preparation program applied for and received an internal grant to establish a university-school partnership with a neighboring elementary school. All participants (i.e., teacher preparation faculty, program chair, preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and the principal) collaborated in the design and implementation of the partnership to create an association that benefits all and is sustainable over time. With this in mind, the group focused on three components: 1) a lesson study program, 2) joint faculty meetings on the university campus, and 3) presentations regarding best educational practices by elementary teachers in teacher preparation coursework. All participants collaboratively designed and implemented the lesson study program. Teams of classroom teachers worked together to plan, observe, and analyze lessons to improve instruction and student learning. The principal, classroom teachers, and program chair partnered to redesign the school’s lesson study model to best accommodate preservice teachers’ emerging skills, knowledge, and abilities. Focus remained on the 21st Century Skills and the TPEs (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). This was a significant decision, as typically the focus on 21st Century Skills is the domain of K-12 classrooms, while the development of TPEs is the domain of teacher preparation programs. However, the teacher preparation faculty and classroom teachers decided to work together to model both the 4 C’s & T and TPEs, which represents a stronger alignment. During the first year of the partnership, all preservice teachers participated in at least two lesson study sessions on the school site. During a lesson study session, preservice teachers observe and participate in a model lesson by a teacher in his/her classroom, guided by their

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 56

university instructor. Preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and university instructors engage in reflective conversations before and after each lesson through the lens of the TPEs, thereby providing all participants with the opportunity to practice and model 21st Century Skills. For example, during a post lesson study debriefing session, the university instructor and classroom teacher may collaborate to explain the pedagogical strategies (TPE 1) employed to make the content accessible to special needs students (TPE 4), making suggestions for creative teaching strategies to meet the needs of all students. This provides preservice teachers with the opportunity to see the 4 C’s in practice. The second component of the partnership was the joint faculty meetings held on the university campus with all participants. During these meetings, teacher preparation faculty, classroom teachers, and preservice teachers shared ideas for improvement of the teacher preparation program, analyzed and reflected on the university-school partnership activities, and planned for the future success of the partnership. Classroom teachers’ presentations served as the third component of the university-school partnership. These presentations focused on topics discussed as needs during the collaborative joint faculty meetings. Topics included Working with Small Groups of Students to Differentiate Instruction and the Role of the General Education Teacher in the Special Education Process. After each presentation, preservice teachers completed post-presentation feedback forms. At the conclusion of the first year of the university-school partnership, the program chair gathered and analyzed data collected in 16 classroom teachers’ university-school partnership surveys, 11 classroom teachers’ post-presentation surveys, 32 preservice teachers’ pre- and postlesson study surveys, observations made during classroom teacher presentations and lesson study sessions, and qualitative reflections from participants. Results of that data analysis are described in the Results section.

Differentiated Instruction

The third strategy of this project focuses on today’s diverse classrooms. This includes differences in ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic status, and distinct learning styles and capacities. It is imperative that preservice teachers know and use 21st Century Skills to successfully address

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 57

challenges of teaching a diverse student population. The program chairs agreed that it was vital to improve the quality and efficiency of preservice teachers’ instructional repertoires to meet the needs of changing student demographics. Learning tasks were designed to address differentiated instruction while incorporating the 4 C’s & T. For example, in the Multiple Subject program, preservice teachers collaboratively analyze student work samples and plan creative ways to differentiate instruction to meet all students’ needs. In the Single Subject program, preservice teachers write unit plans based on backward design or Understanding by Design (UbD). The intent of UbD is to analyze individual student learning goals and adapt instruction based on assessment evidence (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). In a focused effort to develop the skills preservice teachers need to effectively differentiate instruction using evidence-based practices, the chairs created a Foundations of Special Education course required for all preservice teachers (that is, preservice teachers in all three preparation programs). In this course, preservice teachers engage in activities that foster 21st Century Skills. For example, in mock student study team meetings, preservice teachers collaboratively analyze real life case studies of students with disabilities in general education settings, communicating recommendations for K-12 classrooms. In addition, preservice teachers work cooperatively to select a low-incidence disability and use technology to conduct research about various aspects of the disability (e.g., characteristics, behavioral and social integration needs). Preservice teachers also collaborate to analyze and select appropriate assistive technology for students with special needs. In other education methods and seminar courses, preservice teachers were provided additional structured opportunities to learn to differentiate instruction and assessment in lesson and unit planning with specific emphasis on differentiation for English language learners, students with special needs, and students with diverse learning styles. At the end of the pilot year, all 42 preservice teachers completing the program, representing all three programs, completed post-surveys about their preparation to differentiate instruction for students.

Volume 5 Page 58

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Results

Data were analyzed to answer the following research question: What are the effects of incorporating and modeling the 21st Century Skills using specific strategies (instructional technology integration, university-school partnerships, and differentiated instruction) in three teacher preparation programs? Descriptive statistics were generated and organized into figures that include percentages from survey responses. Figures 3-8 summarize relevant data from pre and post-surveys for preservice and classroom teachers.

Instructional Technology Integration

Data indicate that integrating instructional technology into the single subject program was successful. Several key indicators informed the conclusion, including survey data results, observations, and qualitative feedback. Figures 3-5 display results of preservice teachers’ pre- and post-surveys. Preservice teachers report a significant increase in their perceived levels of proficiency in integrating technology into their daily lessons (Figure 3, post-level of proficiency = very strong = 32%, moderately strong = 58%). Preservice teachers report an increase in their expectations to use classroom performance systems and/or assessment software in their classrooms (Figure 4). For example, pre-survey data indicate that 77% of preservice teachers expected to never use these technologies, however, post-survey data indicate that only 5% of preservice teachers expect to never use them and 50% expect to use these technologies weekly. Preservice teachers also report an increase in their expectations to use presentation software and apps in their classrooms (Figure 5). For instance, pre-survey data indicate that 35% of preservice teachers expected to never use presentation technology, however post-survey results indicate that 58% expect to use these technologies weekly. An interesting finding is that preservice teachers expect to use presentation technologies at a lesser rate every day (post-survey = 18%) than they expected at the beginning of pilot (pre-survey = 25%). In addition to the pre-post surveys, data results revealed an increased level of technology use in the classroom from preservice teachers’ field supervisors, as indicated in the new

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 59

instructional technology section of the student teacher observation form (Figure 2). Focused observations of preservice teachers’ student teaching unearthed effective and consistent use of technology in the field, as well as an increase in student motivation to participate and a decrease in classroom management issues. Qualitative data from class discussions confirmed preservice teachers’ perceptions of competency in integrating technology at a higher level than they originally assumed at the beginning of their program. The success of integrating instructional technology into the single subject program led to an expansion to the other two teacher preparation programs in the School of Education.

University-School Partnership

Data indicate that the university-school partnership was successfully established. Preservice teachers participated in all aspects of the partnership, thereby observing and engaging in the 21st Century Skills with teacher preparation faculty and classroom teachers. Three surveys measured preservice and classroom teachers’ perceptions of the success of the partnership, classroom teacher presentations during coursework, and the lesson study program. Results of each survey are highlighted on Figures 6-8. Data indicate success of the university-school partnership (Figure 6). Findings indicate that classroom teachers strongly agree (95%) that the partnership was developed effectively and agree (strongly agree = 70%, agree = 30%) that the partnership meetings held on the university campus were productive. Due to the partnership, classroom teachers agree (strongly agree = 55%, agree = 34%) that they are more knowledgeable of how to work with preservice teachers and confident in the role as professional educators (strongly agree = 50%, agree = 50%). Presentations during teacher preparation coursework were also a success (Figure 7). Teachers agreed (strongly agree = 65%, agree = 35%) that they learned about their own teaching and would recommend the experience to their colleagues (strongly agree = 82%, agree = 18%). On post-presentation feedback forms, preservice teachers consistently reported that presentations were engaging and informative and they appreciated the opportunity to learn directly from classroom teachers. Preservice teachers’ knowledge of the TPEs increased significantly due to the lesson study sessions (Figure 8). Preservice teachers reported learning “a great deal” or “a

Volume 5 Page 60

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

lot” about monitoring students during instruction, making content accessible to students, and ensuring student engagement throughout the lesson. In addition, qualitative data from observations during classroom teacher presentations and lesson study sessions, and follow up in-class discussions, indicate that the university-school partnership positively affected preservice teachers’ competencies in the 4 C’s.

Differentiated Instruction

Data indicate that preservice teachers are prepared to differentiate instruction after completion of the teacher preparation programs. Post-surveys indicate that a majority of preservice teachers in each of the three teacher preparation programs report they were well prepared to use differentiated instruction strategies with students (Special Education = 100%, Single Subject = 60%, Multiple Subject = 56%). Conversely, a minority of preservice teachers report they were not well prepared to use differentiated instruction strategies (Special Education = 0%, Single Subject = 40%, Multiple Subject = 44%). It appears that faculty modeling and preservice teachers practicing the 21st Century Skills while learning to differentiate instruction was a success. Lastly, teacher preparation faculty report that incorporating and modeling the 21st Century Skills affected preservice teachers’ knowledge and competency of them, leading toward transferability in preparation for the realities of student teaching.

Discussion Three strategies were used to incorporate and model the 21st Century Skills in the teacher preparation programs: instructional technology integration, university-school partnerships, and differentiated instruction. In key categories, preservice teachers showed a significant increase in their perceived levels of competency and interest in learning and applying technology into their own practice. The university-school partnership was successfully established and classroom teachers reported they are more knowledgeable in working with preservice teachers and confident in their roles as professional educators. Presentations informed classroom teachers about their own teaching, recommending the experience to their colleagues. Preservice teachers’

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 61

knowledge of the TPEs increased significantly due to the lesson study program. Through the shared focus on 21st Century Skills and TPEs, faculty and classroom teachers impacted preservice teachers’ competencies, thus leading toward transferability to their future classrooms. In addition, a majority of preservice teachers report they are well prepared to use differentiated instruction strategies to address students’ needs. Teacher preparation faculty report that incorporating the 21st Century Skills into these strategies improved preservice teachers’ preparedness for student teaching. It appears that deliberately incorporating and modeling 21st Century Skills into the application of the three strategies can be an important factor in their success. In order to continue to improve the teacher preparation programs, the program chairs will continue to work collaboratively to share ideas and strategies for preservice teacher engagement in the 21st Century Skills. Chairs will focus on how well preservice teachers are learning and applying differentiated instruction, continue modeling 21st Century Skills, and maintain faculty involvement in the initiative. The teacher preparation programs will expand the three-tiered approach as emergent technologies develop. The intent is to construct a training model based upon the three-tiered approach that can be implemented at other universities and K-12 schools. Working toward this goal, teacher preparation faculty, chairs, and university administrators have begun the process of becoming an Apple Distinguished Program. This distinction will further enhance the department’s reputation as a 21st century program and lead to training teacher preparation faculty at other institutions. Part of this process is a 1 to 1 iPad pilot for incoming Single Subject preservice teachers. Faculty will model and train preservice teachers in using iPads, expecting those skills to be transferred to their fieldwork. This initiative reflects the research on the importance of transferability in teacher preparation programs (Al-Ruz & Khasawneh, 2011; Pelligrino & Hilton, 2012). It is expected that the pilot will quickly expand to the two other teacher preparation programs. Another step toward creating 21st Century teachers will be replicating the universityschool partnership model developed within the Multiple Subject program with other interested K-12 schools. Faculty have gained the knowledge and skills needed to build other universityschool partnerships, thereby ensuring rich classroom experiences for all preservice teachers. Due

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 62

to the success of the program, teacher preparation faculty will continue to host annual universityschool partnership meetings and invite teachers to present current best practices during teacher preparation coursework. Faculty members are actively exploring opportunities to expand the lesson study model to the Special Education and Single Subject programs. For example, the chairs recently attended an open house hosted by the Silicon Valley Lesson Study Project. These types of networking opportunities will inform and inspire the expansion of the lesson study program, thereby providing opportunities for collaborative exchange of best educational practices as researchers recommend (Bier et al., 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2006). Faculty will continue to demonstrate and model 21st Century Skills to help preservice teachers become more prepared while gaining knowledge and developing skills to teach a broad range of students’ diversity. The new Foundations of Special Education course will remain a requirement for all preservice teachers to ensure a robust introduction and awareness of the need for specialized instruction. Annual syllabi revision meetings will occur across programs to analyze and revise learning activities within courses that connect differentiated instruction to the 21st Century Skills as recommended by Tomlinson (2008). Program chairs will track data on the amount and quality of opportunities provided for preservice teachers to learn and apply these skills in all courses. This study contributes to field of teacher preparation research in new and exciting ways. There is a call for teacher preparation programs to prepare preservice teachers for 21st Century Skill instruction (AACTE, 2010); however, there is little to no research or recommendations on how to proceed. This study provides a model for teacher preparation programs to begin implementing the 21st Century Skills in their own programs. Although this study illuminates successful approaches for integrating 21st Century Skills in teacher preparation programs, there is a need for more in-depth research in the field. Researchers can explore how and to what extent each 21st Century Skill is modeled, learned, and assessed in teacher preparation programs. How are preservice teachers learning to use and teach 21st Century Skills, and how does it affect their students’ learning? In addition, a longitudinal study is needed to understand preservice teachers’ competency in learning and applying 21st Century Skills during preservice teaching and then as beginning teachers in their own classrooms.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 63

Implications

The primary goal of this project was to review, revise, and align curriculum and instruction to deliberately address the 21st Century Skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and technology. This endeavor entailed designing three shared strategies for preservice teacher engagement in the 21st Century Skills, that is, the integration of technologies, collaborative partnerships between the university and schools, and differentiating instruction for diverse learners in creative ways. Teacher preparation programs can replicate these strategies or design approaches to meet the needs of preservice teachers and students in their communities. Perhaps a way to begin is through connections with local K-12 schools. Due to the implementation of the CCSS and NGSS, many classroom teachers are proficient in modeling and teaching the 21st Century Skills. Professional partnerships with local schools will ensure that preservice teachers are prepared to address the needs of students in those classrooms. It is also recommended that faculty strategically plan an integration of instructional technologies throughout the program. Lastly, faculty can collaborate to analyze and revise course syllabi to increase opportunities for preservice teachers to learn the 21st Century Skills simultaneously with differentiating instruction. Through incorporating and modeling the 21st Century Skills using the specific strategies of instructional technology integration, university-school partnerships, and differentiated instruction, the teacher preparation programs have collaboratively changed the way that preservice teachers are learning to be classroom teachers. Upon completion of the program, they hold the knowledge and skills needed to become successful, reflective educators of today’s diverse and technologically savvy student populations.

Author Biographies

Dr. Rosemarie Michaels is an Assistant Professor of Education at Dominican University of California. She is Department Chair and Chair of the Multiple Subject and Liberal Studies Teacher Preparation Programs. Dr. Michaels has taught in higher education for over 15 years. Her professional interests include effective practices in teacher preparation with a focus on

Volume 5 Page 64

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

lesson study, teaching mathematics, and the 21st Century Skills of collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and the integrative use of instructional technology in elementary education. Dr. Elizabeth Truesdell is an Associate Professor of Education at Dominican University of California. She is Chair of the Single Subject Teacher Preparation Program and Masters of Science in Education Program. Dr. Truesdell has taught in higher education for over 10 years. Her professional interests include the 21st Century Skills of collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, teacher leadership, and the integrative use of instructional technology in secondary education. Dr. Billye Brown is a former faculty member in Education at Dominican University of California. She served as Chair of the Special Education Program. Dr. Brown has taught in higher education for over 30 years. Her professional interests include incorporating best practices and 21st Century Skills in special education.

References AACTE. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/aacte_p21_whitepaper2010.pdf Al-Ruz, J. A., & Khasawneh, S. (2011). Jordanian pre-service teachers' and technology integration: A human resource development approach. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 77–87. Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Barnett, J. H. (2013). It might just take a partnership. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(2), 103-124. Bier, M. L., Horn, I., Campbell, S. S., Kazemi, E., Hintz, A., Kelley-Petersen, M., Peck, C. (2012). Designs for simultaneous renewal in university-public school partnerships: Hitting the “sweet spot.” Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(3), 127-141. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2013). California teacher performance expectations. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/TPA-files/TPEs-FullVersion.pdf California Department of Education Task Force on Educator Excellence. (2012). Greatness by design. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/greatnessfinal.pdf

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 65

California Statewide Task Force on Special Education. (2015). One system: Reforming education to serve all students. Retrieved from http://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/aboutsmcoe/superintendents-office/statewide-special-education-taskforce/Special_Ed_Task_Force_Report%20W%20CONTACTS.pdf Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Preparing America’s students for success. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.orghttp://www.corestandards.org Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 1-15. Fischer, K. W., & Rose, L. T. (2001). Webs of skill: How students learn. Educational Leadership, 59, 6-12. Garrick, J., & Rhodes, C. (2000). Research and knowledge at work: Perspectives, case studies, and innovative strategies. London, UK: Routledge. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2011). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211229. Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional technology integration and student learning. Education and Information Technologies, 17(2), 137-146. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/general/article1.cfm. Kolk, M. (2011). The 21st century classroom-where the 3R’s meet the 4Cs! Retrieved from http://web.tech4learning.com/blog-0/bid/45149/The-21st-century-classroom-where-the-3R-s-meet-the-4-C-s Kvavik, R. B., & Caruso, J. B. (2005). ECAR study of students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection, control, and learning. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0506/rs/ers0506w.pdf.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 66

Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, form, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2). Michaels, R. (2015). Bringing lesson study to teacher education: Simultaneously impacting preservice and classroom teachers. Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education, 4(1), 4673. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014015.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014083 National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014). Teacher prep review: A review of the nation’s teacher preparation programs. Retrieved from: http://www.nctq.org/dmsStage/Teacher_Prep_Review_2014_Report Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. O’Bannon, B., & Judge, S. (2004). Impacting partnership across the curriculum with technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(2), 198–211. Pelligrino, J., & Hilton, M. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schrum, L., Skeele, R., & Grant, M. (2003). One college of education’s effort to infuse technology: A systematic approach to revisioning teaching and learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 226–271. Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Volume 5 Page 67Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). The goals of differentiation. Educational Leadership, 66(3), Retrieved from http://shop.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el200811_tomlinson.pdf Truesdell, E., & Birch, R. (2013). Integrating instructional technology into a teacher education program: A three-tiered approach. AILACTE Journal, 10(1), 55-77. Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Wilson, S. (2011). Effective STEM teacher preparation, induction, and professional development. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/ documents/webpage/dbasse_072640.pdf Windschitl, M. (2009). Cultivating 21st century skills in science learners: How systems of teacher preparation and professional development will have to evolve. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_0726 14.pdf

Figures

Figure 1. Three-tiered approach to instructional technology integration. This figure illustrates that this approach is a cyclical process. To accomplish the three tiers, preservice teachers must transfer and leverage the 21st Century Skills.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 68

Use of Instructional Tools (e.g., Powerpoint, YouTube, Interactive White Boards, Student Response Systems, Websites, Blogs, Prezi, etc.) Selects and adapts instructional tools to address students’ varying learning styles and abilities. Uses instructional tools to engage students. Reflects on the use of instructional tools. Figure 2. Use of instructional technology assessed on student teacher observation form.

Figure 3. What is your level of proficiency integrating technology into daily lessons? (n = 16).

Figure 4. What is the frequency that you EXPECT to use classroom performance systems and/or assessment software/apps in the classroom when you are student teaching and beyond? (n = 16).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 69

Figure 5. What is the frequency that you EXPECT to use presentation software/apps in the classroom when you are student teaching and beyond? (n = 15).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 70

Figure 6. Success of the university-school partnership. This figure illustrates classroom teachers’ responses to survey questions about the university-school partnership. *Question 3: N/A = 11%. (n = 16).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 71

Figure 7. Classroom teacher presentations during teacher preparation coursework. This figure illustrates classroom teachers’ responses to survey questions on their university coursework presentations. (N = 11).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 72

Figure 8. Preservice teachers’ knowledge of TPEs. This figure illustrates preservice teacher responses to a post-lesson study survey. (n = 32).

Volume 5 Page 73

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Implementing Student-Generated Problem-Based Learning in Teacher Education Vincent R. Genareo Iowa State University Adam J. Sansale Illinois State University Margaret M. Zidon University of North Dakota Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng University of North Dakota

Abstract

There is growing interest in problem-based learning (PBL) in teacher education. Research is still inadequate at delineating the PBL process when students generate the problems, and nearly no research has examined PBL in teacher education when practicum experiences serve the basis for preservice teachers’ problem generation. This qualitative study’s purpose was to explore the perspectives of instructors and preservice teachers undertaking student-generated PBL in Introduction to Education courses. This process involved 86 preservice teachers collaborating to generate problem cases from field placements; conduct research; create findings posters; and present their findings. Data included preservice teacher surveys, whole class feedback sessions, PBL poster analyses, and three instructors’ written implementation reflections. As an understudied element of the literature, this study identifies components of a student-generated PBL process and modifies an instructional model for implementing student-generated PBL in teacher education.

Keywords: problem-based learning, teacher education pedagogy

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 74Â

Teacher education programs are advocating for a shift from traditional to authentic assessments (Bohlin, Durwin, & Reese-Weber, 2012), with a particular call for effective performance-based assessments (Darling-Hammond, 2012). Instructors must find ways to make connections between preservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; field placements and the university classroom to provide pedagogically rich, reflective learning experiences (Darling-Hammond, 2006, 2014; Miller, 2008). This is a challenging task. Without careful structure and planning, conceptual links created in field placements may be lost (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Korthagen, 2008). Traditional teacher education programs have been historically ineffective at preparing preservice teachers for classroom realities (Liston, 2014). Constantly fluctuating K-12 educational landscapes require that education programs prepare preservice teachers to be responsive to changes when they enter the field (Darling-Hammond, 2010b). Loughran, Korthagen, and Russell (2013) advocated for new principles of teacher education practice and assessment, including focusing on preservice teacher problem-based research; preservice teachers working closely with peers; and, ensuring that good teaching practices are being modeled by teacher educators in their programs. There is even a greater demand for all higher education disciplines to emphasize problem-solving foci, performance assessments, information access, technology, and collaboration (Beetham & Sharpe, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2010a). One instructional method that can encourage problem solving, cultivate collaboration, and provide authentic experiences in teacher education programs is problem-based learning (PBL). PBL is a performance assessment that grounds teaching and learning within a central problem, on which students speculate, research, collaborate, and propose a solution. It can allow learners to be actively engaged in their learning processes (Scott, 2014), activate prior knowledge (Strobel & Barneveld, 2009), and become more intrinsically motivated to complete the given task (Martyn, Terwijn, Kek, & Huijser, 2014). However, there is a need, and a call, for research that provides a better understanding of the process of PBL in higher education (Ravitz, 2009) and a continued demand for evidence of performance-based assessment outcomes in postsecondary learning (Brown, Bull, & Pendlebury, 2013). Through offering preservice teachers experiences with performance-based instructional strategies, instructors can more authentically assess their knowledge and abilities. Additionally,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 75Â

the capacity for preservice teachers to research and solve problems they observe in their field placements could provide an effective option for teacher educators to connect field placements to the university classroom. The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of instructors and preservice teachers undertaking student-generated PBL in three sections of an Introduction to Education course. Exploring these perspectives will add to the understanding of 1) the PBL process when students generate their own problems, and 2) the process and outcomes of selfdirected performance assessments that are connected to field placements. The central research question was: How do instructors and preservice teachers perceive the process and outcomes of implementing PBL with student-generated problems in three sections of an Introduction to Education course?

Literature Review

Problem-Based Learning

PBL was initially developed and implemented in schools of medicine, where instruction was traditionally heavy in content and there were few opportunities for students to explore authentic problems (Barrows, 1996). PBL is a collaborative, student-centered instructional model in which students take responsibility for understanding, researching, and solving problems. Teachers typically develop the problems (Walker & Learly, 2009), which are often presented as authentic, ill-structured scenarios with multiple, complex features and potential solutions (Levin, 2001). Practical solutions may not even exist, depending upon the complexity of the problems (Walker & Leary, 2009). PBL is often considered a constructivist approach (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In constructivism, cognitive meaning is developed through cultural interactions with others and through engagement with the environment itself, which is then internalized by the learners as conceptual understanding (Savery, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). Many teacher education programs operate under constructivist principles as they prepare preservice teachers to develop content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (Levin, 2001). Using PBL, learners can also practice reasoning and problem solving skills (Galvao, Silva, Neiva, Ribeiro, & Pereira, 2014),

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 76

metacognitive skills (Gijbels, Dochy, Van den Bossche, & Segers, 2005), and engagement in the process of learning (Barron et al., 1998). Since a problem guides the process of PBL, great care must be taken to ensure the problem is designed to meet the learning objectives of the course and the level of cognitive domain to be assessed. Problems should allow students to reflect upon what they know, understand gaps in their knowledge, and collaborate to access information in order to better understand the problem (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980). Des Marchais (1999) used a Delphi technique and experts analyzed criteria of problems. They found good problems generally contained the following elements: 1) stimulating thinking, analysis, and reasoning; 2) assuring self-directed learning; 3) using previous basic knowledge; 4) proposing a realistic context; 5) leading to the discovery of learning objectives; 6) arousing curiosity; 7) enhancing interest; 8) choosing topics related to the professional area; 8) assuring a global perspective; and 9) choosing an appropriate professional vocabulary (p. 507). Sockalingam and Schmidt (2011) studied 239 undergraduate students in 11 classes who were engaged with PBL, and asked them to reflect on their perception of a well-designed problem. They discovered that students suggested all nine of the criteria Des Marchais identified, but recognized additional problem attributes that contributed to their learning, including “problem format, problem difficulty, and the extent to which the problem promotes discussion and stimulates teamwork” (p. 22).

Problem-Based Learning Implementation Model

The framework that often guides the PBL process was an implementation model developed by Barrows and Meyers (1993). While this model was initially designed for secondary teachers, it served as a framework in this study for implementing and assessing the PBL to make it speak more directly and pragmatically to student-generated PBL in teacher education. The original model included five stages: 1) starting a new class, 2) starting a new problem, 3) problem follow-up, 4) performance assessment, and 5) after conclusion of problem. First, instructors acclimate their students to the PBL process. In the first stage, starting a new class, instructors introduce PBL and set a climate conducive to learning, such as establishing feelings of safety in sharing ideas and expectations of working in groups. When starting a new

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 77

problem, instructors describe the product and performance, assign tasks, and help learners reflect upon gaps in their present understanding (Savery, 2006). With instructor guidance, the learners develop an initial hypothesis of the problem and solution, identify necessary resources, and schedule collaborative meetings (Barrows & Kelson, 1993). Learners then analyze the problem in small groups, working to bring to light and clarify the aspects that are most important and are worthy of time and resources to research. Hung (2009) further delineated components of this stage, including developing outcome objectives, evaluating students’ present content and learning contexts, identifying levels of cognitive domains (e.g., knowledge, understanding, and application) to be reached through the PBL process, and developing problems specific to the profession or course. In the final three PBL stages, the instructors facilitate student learning and assess their product and performance. During the problem follow-up stage, instructors guide learners to critique their resources and continuously reassess and revise the problem. Hung (2009) suggested that instructors first analyze “the cognitive processes of solving the problem – specifically researching and reasoning” (p. 125). As learners discover more about the concept being studied, they modify their initial ideas and apply new knowledge to their proposed solutions. The PBL instructional model then requires groups to present their findings in the performance assessment stage (Barrows & Kelson, 1993). Finally, after the conclusion of the problem, the observers ask questions that help the presenters to critically analyze their findings and solutions, identify further resources and knowledge, and reflect upon their learning. Duffy, Dueber, and Hawley (1998) challenged instructors to think of themselves not as content experts, but specialists in problem solving when approaching this PBL model. This can create a tension between many professors’ traditional view of being a transmitter of knowledge and their new role in PBL as being a facilitator of knowledge (Hung, Harpole Bailey, & Jonassen, 2003). To begin to transfer the role of learning to students, Savery and Duffy (2001) refined Barrows and Meyers’ original 1993 PBL model to ensure authenticity, or “owning the problem” (p. 12), was not simply a component of the model, but the essence of every stage. Two key components of all current models of PBL implementation are reflection and critical thinking (Hung, 2009). Teacher educators must be primary catalysts of reflection (Perrenet, Bouhuigs, & Smits, 2000). Reflection can be evaluated through formative

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 78

assessments and guided discussions of the groups’ original hypotheses, re-assessing how learners conceptualize the problem, and gauging how their research efforts have contributed to gains in reasoning, research, and knowledge acquisition. Hung et al. (2003) added to the PBL implementation model components of facilitating critical thinking, about which they provided insight into questioning as a basis for preservice teachers’ reflection during the inquiry process.

Implementing Problem-Based Learning

Research examining PBL in the context of instruction and academic disciplines has focused on blending PBL with lectures (Derby & Williams, 2010); technology (Hmelo-Silver, Derry, Bitterman, & Hatrak, 2009); and skill and disposition development for teacher education students (Hung & Holen, 2011). PBL has been used successfully in preparing students in other fields (Boud & Felletti, 1991; Hmelo, 1994), and recent research into its implementation efficacy is promising in many undergraduate education fields such as physical education (Hushman & Napper-Owen, 2013), math education (Selcuk, 2010), and science education (Pepper, 2013). Only Dean (1999) studied PBL implementation in large, foundational education courses, and reported that students found the process invigorating but challenging. Although a robust amount of literature supports the benefits of PBL (Onyon, 2012), “one of the major concerns for departments or schools contemplating a change to PBL is that of staff resources” (Newble & Cannon, 2013, p. 31). It can be time-consuming and may be difficult for instructors unfamiliar with PBL to understand how it works in action. Appropriate implementation is a major obstacle of PBL. In a meta-analysis of psychological and educational PBL literature across several fields, Onyon (2012) wrote, “Are the theoretical benefits lost in the implementation of a PBL curriculum by busy doctors in an imperfect world? Future research should concentrate on the reason behind this uncoupling of theory and outcomes” (pp. 25-26). Instructors may be unwilling or unable to implement PBL in their courses because of resource limitations (Zuberi, 2011), poor pedagogical preparation, or an incomplete understanding of PBL’s requirements (Azer, 2011). Although research outlines potential benefits of PBL for learners, the implementation process requires further investigation. In a meta-analysis of PBL research, Ravitz (2009) felt that

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 79

the new generation of PBL research should focus on PBL in new disciplines and contexts, and “specific mechanisms that contribute to PBL’s effectiveness should be identified” (p. 6). Without examining the types of instructional practices, she felt PBL outcome studies do not provide the full story. Thus, “examining the actual implementations may help illuminate how and why the end results were produced, and in turn, shed light on how to improve PBL practices” (Hung, 2011, p. 530). To answer these calls, this study investigates instructors’ and preservice teachers’ experiences, insights, and recommendations through the stages of implementing student-generated PBL in an Introduction to Education course. The PBL implementation model (Barrows & Meyers, 1993), which was used to implement the PBL process, was refined to reflect the findings.

Context of the Study

There are calls in the literature to examine contextual PBL implementation outcomes (Hung, 2011; Onyon, 2012; Ravitz, 2009) and additional demands that teacher education faculty be more deliberate and empirical in their practice (Kincheloe, 2004) so they model reflective practice to preservice teachers (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Research into the student-generated PBL process is nearly nonexistent. Since developing problems is such a vital component that guides the content, cognitive levels, and skills to be developed, a large subset of PBL research has focused on instructor-developed problems. However, the preservice teachers in this study were engaged in practicum experiences tied to the course. Since they saw problems in action directly related to their professional careers and aspirations, the opportunity for them to research issues they experienced and chose could potentially allow an even more intimate connection to the problems they researched. This study took place at a public, four-year university in the upper Midwest. The Introduction to Education course served the purposes of: 1) introducing preservice teachers to current issues in education; 2) introducing historical, philosophical, and pedagogical foundations of education; and 3) exploring the many aspects of the teaching profession. Preservice teachers in the course represented majors in early childhood, elementary, middle, secondary, or special education and were not yet accepted into the education program. The instruction took place on

Volume 5 Page 80Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

campus and a 30-hour field placement was a component of the course in which students observed and worked with teachers and students in local daycares and schools. Flight education students from the aerospace program were also required to take the course and did their field placements with aviation instructors. For the purpose of this study, all students, regardless of their future educational paths, are referred to as preservice teachers. Each of the three instructors had taught the Introduction to Education course several times. However, in discussion, they decided that a required summative assessment (a written paper) was inauthentic and many preservice teachers did not seem to draw clear connections between the course and field placements, or tie in the course content in meaningful ways. After meeting with a professor mentor at the beginning of the semester, the group decided to pursue a new, authentic PBL-based summative assessment. Its performance-based opportunities for collaboration, problem solving, authenticity, and metacognition would better serve the cognitive needs of adult learners (Barrows, 1996; Knowles, 1984; Levin, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978) and constructivist principles (Savery & Duffy, 2001) the education department valued. Two faculty members with expertise in PBL guided the three instructors and the professor mentor prior to beginning the PBL process. The two offered insight into its development and assessment strategies. After several more meetings between the instructors and the professor mentor, they established an implementation plan, assessment materials, and research strategies for the PBL process. Since the semester had already begun and the syllabi were created, each instructor discussed a proposed change to the summative assessment with their classes. The preservice teachers overwhelmingly supported a more authentic summative assessment.

Methods

Participants

Eighty-eight preservice teachers from three sections of an Introduction to Education course were recruited to participate in this qualitative study, and 86 agreed to participate. The

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 81Â

three instructors and a professor mentor served the role of researchers in their practice. To ensure confidentiality, no identifying data from any participants were included.

Data Gathering

Problem-based learning implementation. Data gathering began during the second half of the semester after the instructors, professor mentor, and two PBL expert faculty members worked to develop the project and research tools. Prior to the beginning of the PBL process, the instructors explained PBL, its rationale within the context of education and our courses, and the research study, giving preservice teachers the opportunity to consider their participation in the research study. They were informed that choosing not to participate in the study would not negatively affect their grades, but that they would still be required to participate in the PBL assignment. The preservice teachers received the information about the project through a series of handouts and discussions. The first handout indicated the sequence overview for the PBL project (see Figure 1), the requirements for the summative product (a poster), and grading rubrics for the poster and presentation. The preservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; field placements served as the means for generating problems. Each had been placed in a classroom in a daycare, public school, private school, or the university aviation department (for the flight education students) and noted in a journal the educational problems they had observed and were interested in studying. They posted their topics on an instructor-created, course-specific wiki page on the Blackboard course management system. The instructors worked with the preservice teachers during class to place them into groups of three based upon similarity of their topics and then guided the groups to develop a problem-based question regarding the issue that warranted further research and potential solutions. The preservice teachers then began to gather information related to the problem such as related literature, interviews, and locating national and state databases. They used class time to distribute research tasks among their group members. No specific requirements were set for how they did this; groups were permitted to negotiate this among themselves. Since research was a new process for most of them, they were instructed in accessing literature and performing

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 82

academic research. The instructors gave academic research demonstrations during class time and brought the students to a computer lab to practice searching available research databases. The Blackboard course management system was the primary communication mechanism, typically in the form of emails, announcements, and information sharing. The preservice teachers were also given two days off from class to work together, since scheduling meeting time outside class proved challenging. Near the end of the PBL process, the preservice teachers used two in-class workdays to focus on developing ideas, synthesizing research, and discussing elements of the poster. The posters included: preservice teachers’ individual field placement experiences related to the problem, PBL questions, research methodology, research findings, potential solutions, and references. Poster presentations took place during a 10-minute timeslot during two class periods.

Preservice teacher data. To enable triangulation of the findings, this study incorporated the following data: a) document analyses of the summative product (poster), b) open-ended preservice teacher surveys, and c) post-PBL process group feedback sessions. These data sources represented outcomes of the student-generated PBL process and preservice teachers’ perceptions. Sixty-three of the 86 possible preservice teachers completed a survey provided in class upon completion of the PBL. The survey included three, open-ended questions: 1) What were the benefits of the problem-based learning project?, 2) What were the drawbacks?, and 3) What recommendations do you have for improvements to the PBL project? The survey data were aggregated for analysis. During the final class of the semester, the instructors led whole-group feedback sessions with the preservice teachers about the process of experiencing PBL. The professor mentor was able to attend two sessions. The questions that guided this feedback session were: 1) What are your general thoughts on PBL?, 2) What were the benefits of the PBL project?, 3) What are some areas of improvement for the PBL project?, and 4) What connections did the PBL project allow you to make with the observations and class materials? The instructors and professor mentor took diligent notes of the responses and aggregated the data for analysis.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 83

Instructor data. The three instructors created a reflection journal of their perspectives about the PBL process. Their journals were typed into a word processing program. The narratives described the instructors’ thoughts during the steps of the PBL process, and also the successes, challenges, and recommendations for potential future modifications to implementation. Their reflection journal narratives were aggregated for analysis.

Data Analysis

The four researchers adopted a constant comparative analysis approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1965) to qualitatively analyze the results of the study. They first individually analyzed the preservice teachers’ posters for connections they were able to make between the course and their field placements by examining the posters for explicit and implicit examples. The researchers wrote notes about the portions of each of the posters they felt were indicators of connections. Their poster analysis notes were aggregated in an online collaboration document. Next, they independently open coded the poster data, applying meaningful codes to chunks of the text (Creswell, 2013). The researchers then categorized the codes by similarity into themes (Merriam, 2014). The aggregated data from the open-ended survey responses, whole-group feedback session responses, and the instructor narratives were first individually coded by the researchers, and then categorized into broad themes developed during an analysis meeting. They determined it would be best to treat the survey responses and poster analyses as part of the constant comparative analysis and poster responses were re-coded to inform the emerging findings, since “all is data” (Glaser, 2007, p. 1) in this type of analysis. Poster data were used as part of the findings to understand the key components of the student-generated PBL process. The researchers held a peer-debriefing meeting (Creswell, 2013) to discuss their analysis results and come to an agreement about final themes that elucidated the major findings from the codes (Merriam, 2014). The researchers met twice more to examine and refine their findings. They continued to collaborate digitally to clarify the findings to ensure preservice teacher and instructor voices were present in each of the components of research.

Volume 5 Page 84

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Results

Five central components were identified as benchmarks of the student-generated PBL experience: Learning About PBL, Generating Problems, Researching, Collaborating, and Presenting Findings.

Component One: Learning About PBL

The PBL process was not easy to learn for the instructors or preservice teachers. The instructors needed to understand PBL prior to its implementation. Having studied PBL theory and process, the three instructors decided how to explain and provide directions to the preservice teachers and proceeded to enact the change from the end-of-semester essay to the PBL assignment. On the first day of the PBL project, the instructors provided the preservice teachers a handout that included an overview of PBL, a grading rubric, self- and peer-evaluations, and explained the PBL process.

PBL learning successes. The instructors’ reflective journals indicated they believed the preservice teachers understood the concept of the project after the initial introduction conversation. One instructor wrote: It was quite easy for them to get the idea, since, prior to this, most of their observation discussions revolved around problems, instead of the positives or details they were observing. I feel as though they understood the problem concept without much trouble, especially since they were free writing in their journal what they observed. The preservice teachers appeared to appreciate the PBL as an alternative to a final written paper assessment. On the survey, one preservice teacher indicated that he/she enjoyed “looking into a problem and finding solutions to it. You got to look into what interested you.” They were motivated by “working with the group [to] identify what we already know what we have to research more about it. I learned how to define a problem, analyze, and research for some suggestion.” Many preservice teachers appreciated the freedom of choices and collaboration that came with the student-generated PBL process.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 85

PBL learning challenges. Even after reading extensively about implementing PBL and working with PBL experts, the instructors did not feel entirely confident about their knowledge and ability to facilitate it. One instructor wrote, “Since it was new, I still had some questions myself, and I feel like I was not nearly as confident as I could have been in my presentation of the assignment.” The instructors felt it took an almost excessive amount of work to generate expectations and rubrics, learn and understand PBL, and implement a new learning strategy in the latter part of the semester. Later, it was apparent that some of the preservice teachers in the class were confused about PBL and how the course would change from the syllabus calendar. One preservice teacher responded on the survey, “There was a lot of confusion on what was expected from the project.” It was a new process for everyone involved. Initially, the instructors may not have been clear in explaining in the purpose of the PBL. Although they provided Blackboard announcements and class emails, time in class for questions, and office hours, the preservice teachers needed additional avenues of instructor interaction when introducing and undertaking PBL.

Component Two: Generating Problems

In this student-generated PBL process, the preservice teachers used problems they observed in their field placements to research and solve. They worked together to articulate the problems they were solving and develop research questions to guide their investigation of the problems. First, they listed three problems on a class wiki (interactive posting board) on the Blackboard course management system. None of the preservice teachers mentioned trouble generating classroom problems they observed or using the digital interface. The instructors then grouped the preservice teachers based upon similarity of problems they witnessed and were interested in solving. Most of the groups’ problems contained obvious parallels. Others required the instructors to examine the meaning behind their problems and identify commonalities among group members. Although the preservice teachers observed different classrooms and noted distinct problems of interest, the instructors guided them to see the connections to other classmates’ areas of interest. For example, the instructors explained

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 86

how “Student Hitting” and “Distracted Student” could both fall under the umbrella of “Classroom Management” to conceptualize how their group shared common interests. There were instances of groups changing their problem topic because of the initial discussions among group members. One such group was formulated because they shared similar observations about seemingly inappropriate or ineffective disciplinary actions in their classrooms. However, after talking to one male group member, they felt it would be more interesting to study another problem he brought up, which was the scarcity of male teachers in elementary classrooms.

Problem generation successes. With the help of the instructors, each group was able to define their problems and craft research questions to solve them. They required instructor facilitation, but the preservice teachers were invested in the problems they were experiencing in their classroom placements. On the survey, the preservice teachers noted motivation, “We got a chance to answer questions that arose during observations and help to educate others, as well, for possible ideas and such for future classes.” Another wrote, “It allows students to connect observations to research questions this helps to understand what we see how to fix it.” The preservice teachers also appreciated the process of crafting their questions, identifying gaps in their knowledge, and filling the gaps through investigation. On the survey, one wrote, “It help[ed] me to learn about my topic and realistic problems, working with group members to identify what we already know what we have to research more about it. I learned how to define a problem, analyze, and research for some suggestions.” Many preservice teachers identified this as an important learning experience for their future careers.

Problem generation challenges. No preservice teachers indicated any particular challenges in generating their own problems and research questions; the challenge was for the instructors. For example, the group that wanted to research why there were so few male elementary teachers first attempted to write a problem question: “Are there more women elementary teachers than men?” One instructor guided them to understand this could be a yes or no response, and challenged them to hypothesize why there may be more women than men. Their next draft of the question asked, “Why are there more women than men in elementary

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 87

education?” They needed further guidance that would help them narrow their research scope. Their next draft allowed the group to develop a research plan and assign tasks to group members. It was phrased, “What historical and current issues have prohibited or influenced men from entering the elementary teaching profession?” The instructors felt that most of the groups had developed appropriate problems to research and questions to investigate. One instructor wrote, I feel that there needs to be more emphasis and time spent developing the PBL question. I found from the experience that if the question didn’t drive the students, or if it was not well formed and open ended enough, it didn’t lead to successful projects, and students didn’t take any meaning from the project. All instructors agreed that additional time and focus would have made the student-generated PBL process stronger for all groups.

Component Three: Researching

On the survey, one preservice teacher echoed the sentiment of many, “I like that we learned to research a topic we were actually interested in.” Even so, some struggled undertaking academic research, even by the end of the PBL process. The course requirement for prerequisite hours meant that most of the preservice teachers were sophomore-level or above. Some still required close facilitation in locating research appropriate to their studies.

PBL researching successes. The instructors believed that the preservice teachers were capable of performing academic research to investigate their authentic problems. One instructor reflected: Students grasped the idea of how to ‘synthesize’ information as the research component is more familiar to them. They can take an open-ended question, gather information, and then put it all together to answer the one question. So from an idea standpoint, the project is much more beneficial and user friendly to the Intro-level students. Though these undergraduates were relatively new to academic research, they were generally successful in learning the research process.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 88

Many preservice teachers appeared to not only grow in their ability to perform academic research, but were able to understand how researching can be applied to the teaching field. On a survey, a preservice teacher wrote, “It helps my research skills, and critical thinking of how I can help solve the problem I researched. Learning about all the problems and solutions the groups came up with will help me as a teacher.” Allowing the preservice teachers to research problems they were experiencing allowed them to see the immediate relevance of the work they were doing. One indicated, “The benefits of the PBL project work, first of all, [were] finding a real problem in education that's occurring now and doing the research to try finding answers. I learned an ample amount through doing research and creating the poster.” Since these preservice teachers were researching problems they witnessed first-hand, they felt empowered by the process. Another success of researching was the collaborative nature of investigative process. The preservice teachers were able to support one another as they gathered and analyzed research materials. One wrote: I think some of the benefits of the problem-based learning project were working in groups and researching the topic that was relevant to our future teaching careers. Researching the relevant topic could help us prepare for the possibility of facing the obstacle in our future careers. Most preservice teachers felt that researching was a vital component to their learning, growth, and confidence for their future careers.

PBL researching challenges. Locating research was a challenge for some of the preservice teachers. One wrote, “Finding research to support [their] specific question was difficult.” These challenges could be attributed to either developing poor research questions to their problems or not searching the correct databases with the correct search terms. More preservice teachers were challenged by the immensity of available research. On the survey, one responded, “There was a lot of information we found and we struggled narrowing it down.” Some preservice teachers were challenged by the information they found in the research and the ambiguity of ill-defined problems, writing on the survey, “Many times the answers you do find to the first problem lead to more questions and more problems that need researching,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 89

which can be overwhelming when you want to answer them all.” While some found these research issues challenging, the instructors viewed it as a success; those challenges are an essential part of learning to research. The aforementioned group that researched males in the elementary teaching profession found a wealth of information that helped answer their question, but became overwhelmed because a problem was not inherent in such an overarching question. During the research component, that group found cultural, historical, oppressive, social, and gender construct problems embedded within their findings. Their instructor helped them revise their question to focus on one area they could solve, and they re-developed their question to read, “What policies or practices can be put in place in teacher education to increase the number of males in the elementary teaching profession?” They could then research what solutions may exist, and what has and has not been effective. Even with some research challenges, the instructors were confident the preservice teachers became stronger researchers as a result of accessing education and psychology literature to attempt to solve pragmatic problems in teaching and learning. The feedback session supported this. One preservice teacher explained, “It taught us how to research. We hadn’t researched like this before, and it was a good introduction.”

Component Four: Collaborating

Collaboration is a key component of all PBL, but preservice teachers did not always agree that their collaboration was successful, motivating, or contributed positively to their learning. The instructors used class sessions to offer advice and ask questions to raise group discussion to more deeply understand the topics. However, there were cases of group members forgetting resources or not attending class. Some groups were not able to complete their work in class, and attempted to schedule meetings during the evenings or on weekends.

PBL collaborating successes. Preservice teachers in this project perceived group work differently. Some were highly motivated not only by the ability to work together, but also because instructors respected them enough to trust them to learn independently. Some preservice

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 90

teachers described collaboration as one of the most beneficial components of this project. One responded on the survey, “The benefits of the PBL project were working in a group, and getting to learn about other people's observations, as well as the answer to our own question.” Another wrote, “I think all of our group members knew that we would all do our work, we were assigned to do.” However, a large number of preservice teachers indicated on the survey that this was the most challenging aspect of PBL.

PBL collaborating challenges. Not all preservice teachers were satisfied with their collaboration experiences. The two issues they indicated most were the inability of groups to meet outside of class, or group members who did not contribute to the group’s success. Sometimes these two concepts were related, as one student wrote on the survey, “It's hard to find a time when meeting as a group will work for everyone. This resulted in me doing much of the work.” Although groups were not required by the instructors to meet outside of class, it was necessary for some to do so to complete the work on time. Outside of class, there was little that could be done about group members showing up to meetings they arranged. On the survey, a preservice teacher indicated, “Sometimes with work and class it's hard to find time to meet as a group.” The instructors occasionally met with groups outside of class, set up an online collaboration wiki, and fielded a barrage of emails with questions and clarifications. However, since the poster and presentation occurred at the end of the semester, preservice teachers may have felt rushed as they completed their other course projects and papers. One responded on the survey, “It is definitely difficult to finish group projects effectively at the end of the semester, since everyone is so busy.”

Component Five: Presenting Findings

The groups created posters that included an account of the problem observed in the field placements, problem questions, research, potential solutions, and resources. These were made outside of class, and most groups printed them from a digital poster template through the university’s printing services. Some groups created a traditional poster board with printed sections glued onto it. Although some preservice teachers mentioned on the survey that printing

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 91

was expensive (typically ranging from $5 to $40, depending on the size), few indicated that they had any problems with arranging posters or printing. During class time, the instructors helped preservice teachers understand how to narrow the information in a presentable way, such as taking large narratives and creating bullet points or graphics that could be easily followed by the reader. During the presentations, the preservice teachers displayed their posters on the wall and stood next to them as they presented to the class for 10 minutes.

PBL presenting successes. One unexpected outcome of the presentations was how interested the preservice teachers were in what other groups had discovered. Many preservice teachers appreciated learning from other groups. One wrote on the survey, “Each group gained a lot of knowledge in an area that interested them instead of a topic that was not interesting. We gained knowledge on other issues from the presentations from other groups.” The analysis of the preservice teachers’ presentations and posters showed definitively that most were explicitly able to make connections from theory (university coursework and readings) to practice (describing practical solutions) because of the opportunity to undertake a PBL project. In some cases, their posters and presentations contained a section with the course objectives and the connections to their research and findings. One such connection was on a poster in which the group wrote, “There is a theoretical issue with our question. A teacher must choose with [sic] theory of classroom management works best for their classroom. We discussed many of them in class, such as…” In other cases, it was not directly labeled, but threads of the course content were observable in sections of the poster (such as course readings cited in the background section) or throughout the poster. Other issues emerged from the analysis of the posters, including new preservice teachers’ naivety of drawing conclusions about students. For example, one group wrote, “Students[observed in the field experience]… would not answer for fear of being made fun of,” which is an assumption among a myriad of potential reasons a student may not be engaged in a classroom discussion. Another issue was the interest in social justice that seemed to emerge. One such poster examined their observation of the social exclusion of new American refugee students from Africa.

Volume 5 Page 92

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

PBL presenting challenges. There were some challenges noted with the content of the posters. Although each of the problems was generated from students’ field placements, some of the posters did not display a direct connection between the course content and the problem. Some of the posters also appeared rushed, with oversights in spelling or grammar, or incorrect citations, and many of the solutions they proposed seemed anything but innovative or researchbased. There were also challenges during the presentations of the posters. None of the preservice teachers signified that the presentations were uncomfortable or an undue burden. However, it was commonly noted in the group feedback sessions and surveys that that “presentations [should] be longer so more information can be included in the presentations.” Due to limited class time, the presentations were restricted to 10 minutes, and five more minutes for class questions. At the group feedback presentations, some preservice teachers also indicated that the limited space within the classroom was an issue; groups struggled to move around the class to view posters and maneuver through desks and tables to stand by their poster. While there were challenges within each component of the student-generated PBL process, and it was time-intensive and challenging to learn and facilitate, the instructors and preservice teachers generally agreed it was a positive learning experience. After reflecting on the student-generated PBL process, one instructor wrote: I haven’t been prouder teaching undergraduates…This assignment, if done correctly and given enough time and guidance, has the potential to pull the best out of these young students. They did the type of organization, research, and synthesis that some graduate students still struggle with it: become an ‘expert’ on a subject and articulate it to their peers. You can’t ask for more.

Discussion

This research explored an understudied component of PBL literature, student-generated PBL in teacher education courses, and helped answer the call for examining PBL implementation challenges (Onyon, 2012). It was encouraging to see that preservice teachers could demonstrate their learning through means beyond traditional assessments, such as a written paper. In a meta-

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 93

analysis of PBL, Dochy, Segers, Van den Bossche, and Gijbels (2003) found that every PBL study of the 43 they reviewed reported positive effects on students’ knowledge and problemsolving skills. These are the types of engaging instructional practices that preservice teachers learn about in foundational courses. When using authentic, performance-based assessments such as PBL, no longer must instructors teach about performance-based pedagogy and assessment; they can teach with performance-based pedagogy and assessment, and allow students to experience self-directed learning first-hand. As is true with all forms of student-centered learning, none of the components of this PBL process went perfectly for the instructors or preservice teachers. Most participants agreed that more time was needed to devote to the process, although practicality issues arise in a survey course (Introduction to Education) when its nature is to teach large amounts of diverse information. The preservice teachers indicated afterward that some group members did not contribute, which is a perpetual challenge of group work (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000). Yet, such comments were unexpected, since those issues were not brought to the instructors’ attention. It is evident that instructors in higher education should be aware of communication barriers that exist, whether they are time, technology, or interpersonal comfort. More individual time would be needed to help preservice teachers craft problem questions based on their experiences. The level and structure of their problems have a direct impact on the depth of learners’ research and their content acquisition (Jonassen & Hung, 2008). A project of significant length should allow the groups time to share their learning in an appropriately feasible amount of time. A final consideration is cost when asking students to print or develop posters to present. It is not unreasonable to ask them to do so in a university class, but it should be approached with caution and an understanding of student financial resources. Many preservice teachers in this study were empowered by the ability to work together and learn authentically for their summative assessment, which reinforces findings of other PBL studies (Castro-Sánchez et al., 2012). Instructors should be aware that not everyone enjoys the process of group work, and implement ways of monitoring individual accountability within groups, such as formative self-assessments and peer assessments. Most preservice teachers appreciated the opportunity to research topics from their practicum experiences, and demonstrated learning the course content, which is supported by previous PBL research (Hmelo-

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 94Â

Silver, 2004). However, new instructors learning to teach with PBL may struggle to understand the process of PBL, and in facilitating student learning effectively (Spronken-Smith & Harland, 2009). Based upon the findings from this study, a four-stage model of student-generated PBL was developed for teacher educators.

Model for Student-Generated Problem-Based Learning

After implementing PBL with the model proposed by Barrows and Meyers (1993) and refined by other scholars (e.g., Hung, 2011; Savery & Duffy, 2001), the findings indicated a need for modifications to address student-generated PBL in teacher education. Teacher educators can use clinical practicum experiences as a forum for allowing preservice teachers to generate problems, which may permeate the PBL process with even greater levels of authenticity and could motivate self-directed learning if preservice teachers are concretely attached to the problems they research. This modified model includes four distinct phases of the PBL process: Introduction, Problem Generation, Investigation, and Presentation (see Figure 2).

PBL introduction. Instructors who choose to implement student-generated PBL in their classes should begin the process early in the semester. Instructors should choose learning objectives that align with PBLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collaborative and process-oriented purposes. These could include objectives related to problem solving, research, analysis, and critical thinking. They can then develop formative and summative assessments. Formative assessments may be resource checks, resource findings reflections, learning reflections, end-of-class written products, selfassessments, or peer assessments. Summative assessments in this study were posters and presentations, but instructors have the freedom to choose products that fit their own course needs. Learners should present their findings, if time and class format allow. Next, instructors should prepare materials for the class. They can provide PBL information to their students, such as written expectations, goals, timelines, library sources, and available university writing support. They should also develop and provide a rubric for graded components of the PBL during this time. Finally, this study found that preservice teachers were confused early in the PBL process because they were unfamiliar with PBL. It may be helpful to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 95

allow students to experience a small-scale PBL before the formal process begins. This could incorporate a well-defined scenario, designed by the instructor, which can allow students to move through the process of brainstorming, collaborating, researching, and problem solving on a small scale.

Problem generation. In student-generated PBL, the learners are responsible for generating problems from their experiences. If students generate problems from practicum experiences, they should be given guidance as to what constitutes a problem (student misbehaviors, social isolation, etc.) before they take observation notes; it is best to provide examples and non-examples of problems so students can explore types of problems that will be best for PBL. For instance, an example of a problem may be an observation of students embarrassed that they had to show a red slip because of their eligibility for free or reduced lunch, while a non-example could be a student who spills her drink and is excused to go clean up in the restroom. The former has implications for research into educational policies, economics, sociology, and psychology. The latter is not a good problem that can be researched and solved. If preservice teachers do not have field placements in the course, it is recommended they interview a teacher to uncover problems in-service teachers experience in the field. Once learners have identified a small number of problems, they could post them to an online system (blog, wiki, etc.). Instructors have the option of grouping the learners by commonality of problem interest, or allowing learners to read through classmates’ online postings and choose those with commonalities. Instructors in this study chose the preservice teachers’ groups. This option can be used when the preservice teachers may be unable to see how their problems are similar to others at this stage. Next, when learners are placed into small groups, they should discuss their three problems and decide how to move forward. Once they have identified the ill-defined problem to pursue, they must develop a problem statement or question that can be investigated and solved. The authors of this article recommend framing the problem in the form of a research question, similar to empirical research questions. Instructors should provide ample examples of research questions to students, including strong and poor examples. It is recommended that instructors visit research texts to provide illustrations of research question templates (see Creswell, 2013).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 96

Next, learners should generate an initial solution hypothesis. Instructors should communicate that the groups’ research questions and hypotheses will likely change after they begin researching. Learners then brainstorm and generate lists of what they already know about their research topic, what they still need to know, and the roles of group members. Instructors should consider providing learners with handouts and graphic organizers, or online collaborative graphic organizers, to write their brainstorming notes. The learners can assign research and writing tasks, and bring the research they find to subsequent class sessions.

Investigation. Depending on their prior knowledge and experience, learners may need explicit instruction in academic writing, library resources, and databases. It would be best if preservice teachers could collaborate digitally in an open-source document that allows for synchronous editing. The participants in this study struggled to find times to work outside of class, and this may be an effective solution. Additionally, groups may discover information that changes their thoughts about the problem or hypothesis. Close monitoring and facilitation of group work are necessary so instructors can guide learners to reconceptualize the problem and modify their searches based on their findings. It is also imperative to have accountability measures in place. Instructors should have formative assessments that require the learners to show what they have researched and how it contributes to their group’s knowledge and achievement. This could be done with a checklist in class or an online blog. Instructors may also consider checkpoint assessments during the PBL process and give learners opportunities to share their learning, either as a short written product at the end of class, or a self- or peer-evaluation of their growth or contribution to the group.

Presentation. During and after the groups have researched their problems, they can construct a product to display their findings and solutions. The format of the products will be course-specific. The groups may demonstrate their learning in the form of digital (videos, websites), written (papers, blogs), or research-based (posters, slideshows) products. If critical thinking is a focus, instructors may consider having students generate and explain multiple solutions. They would then choose the best solution to describe in greater detail, focusing on its implementation, costs, benefits, and obstacles.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 97Â

Finally, the groups present their findings. Before the presentations, instructors should review the rubric and expectations with the learners. Groups require suitable time to present their problems and solutions; if instructors have devoted weeks to this process, the presentations should reflect the amount of information gathered and content learned. Based on the findings from this study, it may be best to allow groups 20 minutes to present, and 10 minutes to answer questions from the class and instructor. Learners could also complete a summative self- and/or peer-evaluation, and a reflection that asks them what they have learned about content, research, problem solving, and themselves through experiencing PBL.

Implications

This study examined the components of student-generated PBL in teacher education. Future research should examine student-generated PBL in an attempt to clarify what the studentgenerated PBL process means for learning in other formats, such as online and distance-based instruction. Additional research should clarify the gains preservice teachers make in their confidence, skills, and knowledge through student-generated PBL in teacher education. It appears that many preservice teachers who are engaged in the PBL process are confident in solving authentic teaching problems; research should be done that measures this. More diverse populations of students will help better understand differences in outcomes and processes in other cultures and contexts. There is still a demand for more robust PBL scholarship coming from PK-12 schools, as well as fields outside of education, psychology, and medicine. The results of this student-generated PBL process are encouraging. Although there were instances of challenges, all involved participants felt engaged in the process and confident in their learning. Teacher education instructors (and faculty in other fields) should consider reading literature and pursuing PBL in their own classes. Instructors will need to learn more about PBL to determine if it is appropriate for their courses. This study provided benefits and challenges of student-generated PBL in teacher education, but it was particularly promising that preservice teachers were able to make connections between their field placements and the course content, and were motivated to research and solve problems they observed.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 98

Conclusion

Teaching with PBL can be more effective for helping students retain information and develop problem-solving skills than teaching in traditional ways (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009), although it is more important to understand not how teaching models differ, but how instructors can utilize the resources at hand to become more effective teachers (Ravitz, 2009). Instructors should prepare for students who are unfamiliar with the ambiguity that comes with generating and solving ill-defined problems (Hung et al., 2003; Sasse, Davis, & McConnell, 2000), but most students will be willing to try. While all instructors could consider student-generated PBL’s efficacy for their own classrooms and content areas, a great deal of reading is required to familiarize oneself with how PBL works (to start, see Barrows, 1986, 1996; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Hung, 2011). With this and subsequent research from instructors’ and students’ perspectives, teacher educators might look into adopting PBL in their classrooms as a way to incorporate performance-based, collaborative assessment components, engage learners with content, develop preservice teachers’ problem solving and research skills, and help them experience a learner-centered instructional strategy.

Author Biographies

Dr. Vincent Genareo is a postdoctoral research associate for the School of Education and the Research Institute for Studies in Education (RISE) at Iowa State University. He teaches courses in educational psychology and research methods to undergraduate and graduate students. Vincent earned his Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning at the University of North Dakota. His research areas include problem-based learning, teacher education pedagogy and policy, STEM career conceptualization and pathways to college, and secondary algebra progress monitoring. Adam Sansale is currently an Instructional Assistant Professor at Illinois State University and a doctoral student at the University of North Dakota. He received both his Master's degree in Education and his Bachelor's degree in Social Studies Education at the University of North Dakota. He has taught several Education courses at both the University of North Dakota and Illinois State, including introductory courses, issues-based courses in

Volume 5 Page 99Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

secondary education, and methods courses for social studies majors. His research interests include mobile technology implementation and pedagogy in education, blended learning, and problem-based learning in teacher education. Dr. Margaret Zidon is an associate professor in the Department of Teaching & Learning at the University of North Dakota. Her teaching and research interests include qualitative studies related to pre-service teacher experience of curriculum and instruction, diversity education, literature as text, case study methods, and intercultural communication. She has taught courses of action research, teacher educator courses, assessment in higher education, and adolescent development. Dr. Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng earned his Ph.D. in Teaching and Learning at the University of North Dakota. Emmanuel received B.Ed. degree in Social Studies at the University of Education, Winneba. He holds an M.Ed. and M.A. in Human Rights from Minot State University and University of Education, Winneba, respectively. Emmanuel has teaching experience at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels, and taught at both elementary and high school levels in Ghana. He teaches introductory courses in education at University of North Dakota. He has research interests in developmental support for beginning teachers.

References

Azer, S. A. (2011). Problem-based learning: Where are we now? Guide supplement. Medical Teaching, 36(1), 121-122. Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 271-312. Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481-486. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson, & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning, No.68 (pp. 3-11). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 100

Barrows, H. S., & Kelson, A. M. (1993). Problem-based learning: A total approach to education. Monograph. Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois. Barrows, H. S., & Myers, A. C. (1993). Problem-based learning in secondary schools. Unpublished monograph. Springfield, IL: Problem-Based Learning Institute, Lanphier High School and Southern Illinois University Medical School. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York, NY: Springer. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Bohlin, L., Durwin., C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2012). EdPych Modules. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.). (1991). The challenge of problem-based learning. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Brown, G. A., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Assessing student learning in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Castro-Sánchez, A. M., Aguilar-Ferrández, M. E. M., Matarán-Peñarrocha, G. A. G., IglesiasAlonso, A. A., Fernández-Fernández, M. J. M., & Moreno-Lorenzo, C. C. (2012). Problem based learning approaches to the technology education of physical therapy students. Medical Teacher, 34(1), e29-e45. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 60-83. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1-2), 35-47. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 101

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547-561. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dean, C. D. (1999). Problem-based learning in teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association at Montreal, Canada. Derby, C. & Williams, F. (2010). The impact of problem based learning, blended-problem based learning, and traditional lecture on student’s academic achievement in education. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.). Paper presented at E-Learn: World Conference on ELearning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 18 October (pp. 50-55). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Des Marchais, J. E. (1999). A Delphi technique to identify and evaluate criteria for construction of PBL problems. Medical Education, 33(7), 504–508. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568. Duffy, T. M., Dueber, B., & Hawley, C. L. (1998). Critical thinking in a distributed environment: A pedagogical base for the design of conferencing. CRLT Technical Report, 5(98), 1-27. Galvao, T. F., Silva, M. T., Neiva, C. S., Ribeiro, L. M., & Pereira, M. G. (2014). Problem-based learning in pharmaceutical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Scientific World Journal, 2014. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27-61. Glaser, B. G. (2007). All is data. The Grounded Theory Review, 6(2), 1-22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 102

Hmelo, C. E. (1994). Development of independent learning and thinking: A study of medical problem solving and problem-based learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Derry, S. J., Bitterman, A., & Hatrak, N. (2009). Targeting transfer in a STELLAR PBL course for preservice teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of ProblemBased Learning, 3(2), 24-42. Hung, W. (2009). The 9-step problem design process for problem-based learning: Application of the 3C3R model. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 118-141. Hung, W. (2011). Theory to reality: A few issues in implementing problem-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 529-552. Hung, W., Harpole Bailey, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Exploring the tensions of problem‐based learning: Insights from research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(95), 13-23. Hung, W., & Holen, J. (2011). Problem-based learning: Preparing preservice teachers for realworld classroom challenges. ERS Spectrum, 29(3), 29-48. Hushman, G., & Napper-Owen, G. (2013). Incorporating problem-based learning in physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(8), 17-23. Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 4. Kincheloe, J. (2004). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex epistemology. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 49-66. Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2008). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Levin, B. B. (Ed.). (2001). Energizing teacher education and professional development with problem-based learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 103

Liston, D. P. (2014). Work in teacher education: A current assessment of US teacher education. Teacher Education in Industrialized Nations: Issues in Changing Social Contexts, 87. Loughran, J., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Russell, T. (2013). Teacher education that makes a difference: Developing foundational principles of practice. In C. J. Craig, P. C. Meijer, & J. Broeckmans (Eds.). From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 19), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 597-613. Martyn, J., Terwijn, R., Kek, M. Y., & Huijser, H. (2014). Exploring the relationships between teaching, approaches to learning and critical thinking in a problem-based learning foundation nursing course. Nurse Education Today, 34(5), 829-835. Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Miller, M. (2008). Problem-based conversations: Using pre-service teachers’ problems as a mechanism for their professional development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 108(7), 1241-1265. Newble, D., & Cannon, R. (2013). Handbook for teachers in universities and colleges. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge. Onyon, C. (2012). Problem based learning: A review of the educational and psychological theory. The Clinical Teacher, 9(1), 22-26. Pepper, C. (2013). Pre-service teacher perceptions of using problem based learning in science investigations. Teaching Science, 59(1), 23-27. Perrenet, J. C., Bouhuijs, P. A. J., & Smits, J. G. M. M. (2000). The suitability of problem-based learning for engineering education: Theory and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 345–358. Ravitz, J. (2009). Introduction: Summarizing findings and looking ahead to a new generation of PBL research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 2. Sasse, C., Davis, J., & McConnell, C. (2000, September). Using problem-based learning: A multidisciplinary investigation (A Rockhurst University Carnegie Seminar Project). Retrieved January 2015, from http://cte.rockhurst.edu/carnegie/PBL.htm

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 104

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 9-20. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Bloomington, IN: The Center for Research on Learning and Technology. Selcuk, G. S. (2010). The effects of problem-based learning on pre-service teachers’ achievement, approaches and attitudes toward learning physics. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5(6), 711-723. Scott, K. S. (2014). A multilevel analysis of problem-based learning design characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 8(2). Sockalingam, N., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Characteristics of problems for problem-based learning: The students’ perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(1), 3. Spronken-Smith, R., & Harland, T. (2009). Learning to teach with problem-based learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 138-153. Strobel, J., & A.V. Barneveld. 2009. When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of metaanalyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 6-28. Zuberi, R. W. (2011). Problem-based learning: Where are we now? Guide supplement. Medical Teaching, 36(2), 123-124.

Tables and Figures Tables and figures are available upon request of the author(s).

Volume 5 Page 105Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Supporting Statewide Systems Utilizing External Coaches: A Concurrent Mixed-Methods Study in K-12 Schools Adria M. David Northwest Nazarene University Affiliation Loredana Werth Northwest Nazarene University Fernanda Brendefur Boise State University Affiliation Natasha Rush University of Idaho Affiliation Abstract This concurrent mixed-methods research study examines one stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s seven-year coaching project which utilized its administrative coaches as a means to grow and develop leadership capacity for system improvement in K-12 schools. This study found three key findings: (a) school and district participants had positive levels of agreement regarding the coaches skill set and engaged actions aligned to effective professional development, thus being perceived to have impact on leadership; (b) administrators and administrative coaches had the highest levels of agreement on the 5-point Likert-scale survey items; (c) school staff who were further removed from formal leadership roles had positive levels of agreement although the levels of agreement were statistically lower than the administrators and coaches. Themes presented will allow state agencies to better assess their needs of implementing a statewide coaching project. Findings have implications for the state administrators of the coaching program, administrative coaches, and state legislatures. Specifically, state program administrators should continue to implement coaching as a strategy for capacity building. The consistent positive levels of agreement from school staff indicate the program is likely having the needed types of influence over local systems that will theoretically support student achievement gains. Keywords: Statewide system improvement, administrative coaching, education reform

Volume 5 Page 106

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Introduction

Education reform continues to be the focus of many political groups. Opposing political sides have continued to voice concerns about failing schools and “needs improvement” districts missing state proficiency goals (Hess, 2013; Hull, 2010; McClure, 2005). This political warfare has only amplified federal agencies to hold states accountable for meeting new initiatives in order to receive federal funding. One such initiative implemented is the requirement for states to provide a statewide system of intensive and sustainable support (McClure, 2005). In 2004, statewide division teams receiving federal funding began to take shape throughout the United States and teams were either housed at the state department or regional centers throughout their state. According to McClure (2005), many of these teams were comprised of external state department employees and district and school personnel. As the federal government has adjusted what that support must look like, more and more states have moved toward using technical assistance or coaching teams as a mechanism for supporting districts and schools in the “needs improvement” category (McClure, 2005). There is a lack of research which examines the leveraging of statewide administrative coaching as a means to develop school leadership skills and how it can create a change in teacher performance practices to benefit student outcomes (Elmore, 2008; Fullan, 2010). The purpose of this concurrent mixed-methods research study was to analyze the different perceptions of those who participated in a coaching project already being implemented in one northwest state which utilized administrative coaches as a way of supporting district and school leadership.

Research Questions

1. What are the perceived effects administrative coaches have on school leaders? 2. Do the perceptions of school leaders differ from that of the administrative coaches? 3. To what extent did awareness of the administrative coaching extend to the perceptions of other staff members who were not coached by the administrative coach?

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 107

Hypotheses

Question 1: ● The descriptive information will show respondents perceived levels of agreement with coaches’ skillset, actions, and perceived impact on leadership. Question 2: ● H0: There is a perceived difference in the effects between coaches and leaders. ● H1: There is no perceived difference in the effects between coaches and leaders. Question 3: ● H0: Other staff members do not indicate perception levels with the same extent of agreement about the work of the coach as what the leaders indicate. ● H1: Other staff members do indicate perception levels with the same extent of agreement about the work of the coach as what the leaders indicate.

Literature Review

Introduction

Thirty two years ago, the United States Secretary of Education prompted the publication of A Nation at Risk (The National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This publication called for a change in education and produced one initiative after another aiming to close achievement gaps. Additionally, in 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) was enacted to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Fowler, 2009; National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2013). This new law called for greater accountability for states to meet the needs of all K–12 students enrolled in public education. One component of the law addressed the need for states to provide technical assistance to schools whose students failed to make annual yearly progress as measured by the states’ testing systems (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2013; NCLB, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2013). As schools began to struggle to make annual yearly progress, a new approach to education emerged; schools began paying attention to

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 108Â

the research. Schools started to focus on researched-based teaching methods, giving rise to increased professional development and coaching methods as ways to support professional development in schools (Denton & Hasbrouck, 2009; Knight, 2007a; Woodside-Jiron & Gehsmann, 2009). Hopkins, Stringfield, Harris, Stoll, and Mackayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (2014) analysis of the last four decades of education reform has sculpted a theoretical view suggesting there are five phases that the school effectiveness, or school reform, movement has gone through from the 1960s to the present. Hopkins et al. (2014) identified five phases: (1) understanding the organizational culture of the school, (2) action research and research initiatives at the school level, (3) managing change and comprehensive approaches to school reform, (4) building capacity for student learning at the local level and the continuing emphasis on leadership, and (5) moving towards systemic improvement. The researchers emphasize the phases are not mutually exclusive, but overlapped at times historically. Being knowledgeable about the five phases will increase the ability of current educational systems to progress faster in phase five in relation to approaching reform and improvement systemically. Phase five is about whole-system reform. In phase five, the school is its own system, but it sits within the larger school district system which is then part of the larger state and federal political systems. Educational leaders in school effectiveness realize that improvement must be simultaneously occurring in each of these levels in order to effectively move the dial for all schools. Hence, some state coaching programs have placed administrative coaches at both the school and district level concurrently in order to encourage coherent change at the local level in ways that also attempt to reflect state-level efforts at coherence and whole-system reform (Kinnaman, 2009; NCLB, 2002). Hence, the researchers suggest the need for school reformers to be knowledgeable about the five phases in order to keep the system moving forward by learning from the strengths and weaknesses of the past (Hopkins et al., 2014).

Shift in Leadership

In thinking about the five phases, state government and local school districts continue to attempt to run effective systems. However, they have been faced with completing the task while

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 109

confined to smaller fiscal budgets, less support, and increased accountability. Smaller budgets and the emphasis on accountability compounded with new nation-wide common core standards, continue to bring to light the disparities in the delivery of curriculum and gaps in student learning (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2006; Sunderman, Kim, & Orfield, 2005) and the need for savvy leaders to be leading (Dufour & Marzano, 2011; Fullan, 2010, 2011b). The push to implement rigorous standards will take time, ongoing professional development, feedback, and substantial support in order to be effective in schools (Hall & Simeral, 2008; Pimentel & Coleman, 2012; Whitaker, 2012). This demonstrates the need to revisit and redefine the role of leadership in order to support and help leaders be effective in leading change but from a systems-thinking perspective (Dufour & Marzano, 2011; Fullan, 2010, 2011b; Hopkins et al., 2014; Whitaker, 2012).

Theoretical Framework

While leadership coaching has an established history in the business world where it has been viewed as a way to enhance leadership skills and organizational productivity, it is a relatively new phenomenon in school systems but is becoming more and more common (Wise & Hammack, 2011). As such, there is very limited research on the effects of coaching school administrators to improve school systems. Kinnaman (2009) studied participants’ perceptions of state administrative coaches and found that school leaders viewed the support as highly beneficial. However, the study did not analyze participant actions or changes in practice as a result of coaching. Similarly, Wise and Hammack (2011) created a survey tool that asked school leaders about the competencies of their coaches and linked those competencies to theoretical expectations of what should ultimately correlate to student achievement. This survey had similar limitations to Kinnaman (2009), in that it focused mostly on perceptions of the coaches’ competencies and did not study changes in leadership or staff behaviors, nor did it study the ultimate link to student achievement. Additionally, in a quasi-experimental study, Underwood (2013) evaluated the link between a state coaching program and student achievement outcomes in reading and mathematics. Underwood (2013) found promising trends, however the study results were statistically inconclusive seemingly due to other systemic challenges. Furthermore,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 110

his study did not control for the implementation data in the coaching program and so a variance in outcomes may have been due to unknown implementation challenges. This study drew on the gaps left by the above research by attempting to shed light on the bridge between the program implementation (i.e., the skillset and actions of the coaches) and self-reported data on what effects this may begin to have on leadership actions (i.e., the perceived impact on leadership). Because of the lack of literature, there was not a strong theory of administrative coaching, so the study drew from the literature on educational leadership and instructional coaching models that have typically focused on teachers, rather than on leaders. Common elements from two core bodies of research were used to inform the basis of this study. These elements came from Elmore’s (2000, 2008) work, the Five Principles of Distributed Leadership which focuses on large-scale improvement and Knight’s (2007b) Eight High-Leverage Leadership Tactics, which focuses on strategies used to effectively coach individuals. These common elements were pivotal to understanding the relationship between coaching and leadership and served as a means to identify the perceived effects coaching has had on leadership skills for large-scale improvement.

Coaching Methods and Models

Research findings indicate there are various coaching models that support the individual implemented in both the business and education field. This literature review focuses on six different coaching models found in the research today, five of which have shown to improve systems at the individual classroom level (Hall & Simeral, 2008). The five coaching models shown to improve individual classrooms are (a) peer coaching, a design to help teachers work collaboratively to solve problems and answer questions pertaining to the implementation of innovations from professional development trainings (Joyce & Showers, 1982); (b) Cognitive Coaching, a model which focuses on self-directedness and the development of cognitive complexity by using a predictable cycle that begins with a planning conversation in which the coach centers the work on mediating the teachers’ thinking, perceptions, beliefs, and assumptions toward a goals and self-directedness (Costa & Garmston, 2013); (c) executive coaching model follows a circular cycle comprised of raw data gathering through feedback,

Volume 5 Page 111Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

action planning, and results (Goldsmith, Lyons, & Freas, 2000); (d) blended coaching model focuses on assisting teachers in building capacity within their schools amongst themselves by setting goals, sharing best practices, and transferring new learning during building collaborations to grow the process school-wide (Elder & Padover, 2011); and (e) instructional coaching model focuses on creating and working in partnership with the staff (Cornett & Knight, 2008). The final model reviewed in this section was administrative coaching and was the premise for this study in collecting perception data from participants. The model pulls pieces from other models (i.e. Cognitive Coaching, Peer Coaching, and Instructional Coaching). However, the foundational core of the model was designed to focus leadership in its own right along with the system characteristics of effective schools. The Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools, used in Washington were identified in a meta-analysis conducted in 2003 and later replicated again in 2007 (Shannon & Bylsma, 2007). The primary focus of administrative coaches is to support the work of systems improvement by building leadership capacity to pursue effective practices around these characteristics. Administrative coaches work in partnership with districts and school leaders to promote alignment, provide support to leadership teams through the task of improvement, provide information on current research for improving academic outcomes for all students, and help create and implement a customized school improvement plan to help guide the leadership through the change process to improve student achievement (Idaho State Department of Education, 2013).

Methodology

A concurrent mixed method study was chosen because the data collection allowed the researcher to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, the qualitative data was used to enhance the quantitative results as noted by Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska, and Creswell (2005), making mixed methods more common in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research. The section provides the design and methodology used to collect and analyze the data while conducting research on the perceived effects administrative coaching had on school leadership skills for improving school systems.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 112

After reviewing the literature, it is evident there is an abundance of information surrounding teacher level coaching (Collet, 2012; Elder & Padover, 2011; Fink, Markholt, Copland, & Michelson, 2011; Garver, 2010). Nonetheless, a gap exists in the professional literature related to effective statewide administrative coaching models (Chval et al., 2010; Hall & Youens, 2007; Neufeld & Roper, 2002; Obara, 2010). There is an even wider gap in the literature for identifying components from coaching models that have any statistical effect on systems and leadership capacity. This study will contribute to the literature base about the perceived effects of statewide systems that attempt to improve leadership capacity and student outcomes by embedding professional development in the form of administrative coaching.

Site Selection

Sites selected for this study were purposefully sampled from 12 district sites that participated in this state’s coaching project in 2010 or later (i.e., Cohorts 3, 4, and 5). The 28 schools selected to participate in the state’s coaching project were Title I schools which failed to make adequate yearly progress for two or more years in a row. In addition, the school’s district had to be working towards system improvement by agreeing to participate in the coaching project (see Appendix A).

Coaching Project

The project was designed by the state to assist schools and districts in developing their own internal capacity to sustain school improvement efforts with the use of administrative coaches. The administrative coaches are primarily retired educators recognized as distinguished educators in their field of study. Each administrative coach is trained by the state through three partnering universities to facilitate the work of school improvement.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 113

Participants

The sample size for this study was approximately 925 educators (K–12) from 28 school sites in this northwest state. The participants consisted of administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, administrative coaches, and related others (counselors, secretaries, elective teachers).

Data Collection

The data collection occurred in the fall of the 2013 academic year and was used to study the coaching project in terms of perception of how the administrative coaching system succeeded as a means to support K–12 administrators and staff members. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in a descriptive statistical manner. The qualitative component of the survey consisted of two open-ended questions that were presented at the conclusion of the survey (see Appendices B-G). The open-ended questions served two purposes: (a) to address any areas the participants felt were excluded, and (b) to be able to elaborate on any survey question about which they felt the rating scale did not capture the picture of the work (Creswell, 2008).

Instrument

The investigator’s previous role at the state department provided access to additional outside resources from the U.S. Department of Special Education. One of those resources was access to a professional development rubric that rated the delivery of professional development used by grantees whose state had been awarded a state professional development grant. Formal permission was given from Dr. Jennifer Coffey, project officer from the U.S. Department Office of Special Education (see Appendix H), to modify the Evidence-based Professional Development Components Rubric (used to rate the delivery of professional development used by grantees) to create a 5-point Likert-scale survey instrument in 2013. Procedural steps were taken in creating and validating the survey instrument used in the study. The professional development

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 114Â

components and specifications from the rubric were constructed into 27 measurable coaching statements for the administration and building staff survey and 28 measurable coaching statements for the coach survey, followed by two open-ended questions in order to collect the qualitative component from participants (see Appendices E-G). Guidelines suggested by Creswell (2008) and Hanne, Ammentorp, Erlandsen, and Ording (2012) were considered in constructing potential statements during the survey development process. An online version of the survey was created and distributed in fall 2013.

Analytical Methods

This study incorporated an electronic survey divided into three sections. The first section contained eight demographic questions for the administration and building staff and nine demographic questions for administrative coaches (see Appendices C-D). The second section of the survey contained 27 Likert-type items (1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Neutral, 4=Disagree, 5=Strongly Disagree). When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents in this study specified their level of agreement to a statement. Measures of Central Tendency were used to analyze results, in addition to percentages based upon Likert-type items. Statistical analysis allowed researchers to identify significant differences between participants and their survey results. Last, survey data was simplified by combining Likert-type items into two nominal categories. The final section of the survey concluded with two open-ended questions. This qualitative component of the survey provided opportunities for all subgroups to use text to describe their ordinal responses. Content textual analysis was the procedure used in analyzing the qualitative data. Content textual analysis evolved from content analysis, which was originally developed as a quantitative method used in sociology and mass communication (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006; Marshall & Rossman, 2011) for counting how often text was used in written form (Berelson, 1952; Krippendorff, 1980; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The researcher used a three step coding process for conducting the content textual analysis as described by qualitative research experts (Creswell, 2005; Johnson & Christensen 2008; Marshall & Rossman, 2011).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 115

Results/Findings

The first research question asked: What are the perceived effects administrative coaches have on school leaders? A large majority of administrators agreed (ranging from 73% to 100%) on items that asked if the coaches had the right skill set needed for the work and if they engaged in the types of coaching activities identified by this study. Furthermore, the large majority of administrators (ranging from 73% to 100%) indicated the work of the coaches had a positive effect on leadership practices in their school (see Appendix I). Based on the analysis of the open-ended response data, eight themes about coaching support emerged. The participants’ open responses (Appendix J) could be more specifically grouped into three areas: (1) Support of need: providing support in areas of need; providing support in data analysis, and added knowledge and skills of best practices; (2) Support of process: helped with action planning and process; helped build a system of collaboration and helped administration create leadership teams; (3) Support of action: worked with leadership teams, helped set common goals, and smart goals. The qualitative results confirmed the overwhelmingly positive agreement on the Likertscale items. In general, participants from all subgroups identified the work of the coach as being a mechanism of support. Clearly, participants recognized the coaches' skillset led to actions perceived to have positive effects on school sites. Previous research suggests the role of leadership continues to evolve. Effective leadership has been found to be more complex and demanding. Therefore, the need to support leadership is vital in the 21st century (Dufour & Marzano, 2011; Fullan, 2010, 2011b; Whitaker, 2012). The results of this study demonstrate administrators and (to a lesser extent) teachers and others agree with and welcome being supported by the coach, and perceive the support as positively effecting change. This is summed up best by one administrator: The administrative coach played a vital role in assisting with the state reporting tool, as well as supporting the needs and direction of the school on visits and meetings with the principal, building leadership team, and district office. Our administrative coach was invaluable. The results of the perceptual data in this study confirm the researcher’s hypothesis that, if done well, coaching can potentially lead to larger scale systems improvement (Anderson, Leithwood,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 116

Louis, & Wahlstrom, 2010; Matsumura, Garnier, & Resnick, 2010; Showers, 1984; WoodsideJiron & Gehsmann, 2009). The second research question asked: Do the perceptions of school leaders differ from that of the administrative coaches? School leaders and administrative coaches shared similar perception levels. Both had high levels of agreement with survey items (agreement on all items ranged from 67% to 100%) about the skillsets, actions, and perceived effects of the coaches, and the Mann Whitney U test (Table 1) for all items concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between the perceptions of the two subgroups (p > .05). Many items shared quite high levels of agreement between administrators and coaches. Two items evidenced the strongest levels, with 100% of both administrators and coaches in agreement. These two survey items were (1) the administrative coach is familiar with typical district and classroom structures, operations, policies, etc.; (2) the administrative coach is knowledgeable about current educational practices and school reform. As a result of these high levels of agreement between the administrators and coaches, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. There was no difference in the levels of agreement about the coaches’ skillset, actions, and perceived effects on leadership. Both coaches and administrators seem to indicate that, with the right support and professional development, this state’s coaching project can be a mechanism for building capacity. This is especially true when both parties work in partnership with each other and with other groups in the school by being focused on continuous, purposeful work. The third research question asked: To what extent did awareness of the administrative coaching extend to the perceptions of other staff members who were not coached by the administrative coach? Overall, those who participated in the coaching project found the project to be positive for supporting leadership teams and administration. The median responses indicate (all items were greater than 3.0) most teachers either agreed or were neutral in their perceptions that the major components of coaching were present and positively affected leadership in the school, despite lower levels of absolute agreement from teachers (responses ranged from 34% to 74%). Similarly, the median response on Likert-scale items showed that most paraprofessionals and related others either agreed or were neutral in their perceptions that the major components of coaching were present and positively affected leadership in the school

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 117

(all items were greater than 3.0), despite lower absolute levels of agreement (responses ranged from 32% to 82%). The researcher performed a Mann–Whitney U test in order to further explore if there was a statistically significant difference of (p < .05) between the administrators and teacher perception levels of agreement about the work the coaches provided for each building leader. A significant difference was found (p < .000) between the perceptions of administrators and teachers on all 27 survey items, thus accepting the null hypothesis: teachers did not have the same view of administrative coaches’ skills, actions, and perceived impacts as were held by administrators. The Mann–Whitney U test results for the comparison between administrators and teachers for all questions 1-27 are shown in Table 2. Continuing to evaluate perceptual data, another analysis was conducted to learn if there was a statistically significant difference (p < .05) between administrators and paraprofessionals/related other perception levels of agreement about the coaches action of work. A significant difference was found for all survey items (p < .05), except for survey item seven. Survey item seven states: “The administrative coach stayed current with new media technology.” The result was p = .325, indicating no significant difference was found between administrators and paraprofessionals/related others (Table 3). The lack of negative responses confirmed those who were aware of the coaches typically viewed them as a positive asset since very few rated the coaches’ skillset, actions, or perceived impacts negatively. Differences in opinion were attributed to a lack of awareness in the work conducted by the coach. It was often difficult to identify the exact evidence of how the project supported leadership change, as some changes were too subtle to notice to outside members. An additional finding that stood out for teachers and the group of paraprofessionals and related others was, whereas most items showed differences between administrators and other staff, two survey items did not show a significant difference between the groups: (a) The administrative coach stayed current with new media technology; and (b) The administrative coach impacted the teacher which led to improved teacher effectiveness. An inference that could be drawn from these data about both survey items may be the following: Regarding the item about media technology, responses tended to be lower among administrators and coaches bringing their levels of agreement closer to the teachers and others. This may simply indicate a

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 118

lack of priority on this specific item which may not be a necessary element for coaching outcomes. Although educators are working hard to keep up with the advancement of technology, the administrative coach’s work focuses more on helping leadership create a strategic plan that focuses on needs and challenges of the leadership being served to help build internal capacity (Idaho State Department of Education, 2013). Based on this type of focus, media technology has not been at the forefront of being the largest need of support from schools and districts through this state’s coaching project. Regarding the item of the coach impacting the teacher which led to improved teacher effectiveness, time needed to implement change may be a plausible factor for why there was no significant difference for each of these items. While the absolute levels of agreement varied greatly (administrators, 86%; teachers, 43%; paraprofessionals/related others, 41%; coaches, 100%), the median responses were very similar (range of 3.1 to 4.0), meaning that the typical responses hovered in the “agree” range rather than the “strongly agree”. Since system coaching involves creating conditions to support, develop, and retain highly effective leaders and leadership practices, time must be factored in, as change takes time. BarYam, Rhoades, Sweeney, Kaput, and Bar-Yam (2002) note, “any strategy for change must contend with the diverse factors affecting the education system, the interactions of its parts, and the intricate interdependencies within it and with its environment” (p. 1). In other words, time needs to be factored for change to filter through a system. So, the lower common responses may reflect how, although responses are still generally positive, participants may all view the impacts of the coach as more obvious on the administrator, who is closer to the work. It takes more time for the work to trickle down to teachers who are further away from the work of the coaches. Equally interesting findings in the data are the three survey items that emerged as having the highest ratio of respondents from each subgroup who rated the item as “strongly agree.” Despite lower levels of absolute agreement between the different subgroups, these three survey items were perceived most positively by all four subgroups when viewed solely within the subgroups responses to all questions. The three items that stood out about the skillset and actions of the coach to support leadership were that the coach (a) built trusting relationships with the district and school staff; (b) was knowledgeable about evidence-based instructional practices, standards, and curriculum; and (c) had familiarity with typical district and classroom structures.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 119Â

This finding seems to potentially connect with previous research findings conducted by Marzano, Waters, and McNutty (2005) and Elmore (2000). This earlier research suggests that these three areas are particularly important to system improvement. Therefore, this finding confirms that participants all seemed to have similarly strong perceptions that the administrative coaches are likely contributing to these necessary conditions by taking the initiative to become familiar with the typical district and classroom structures, engage in methods to promote trusting relationships, and connect evidence to practice. Through the process of building trusting relationships, an administrative coach can begin effectively building the capacity of school leadership that Elmore (2000) argues is necessary for school improvement. After further analysis of the data, an unexpected find was discovered. The unexpected find emerged after all median Likert-scale scores were plotted and a line graph was added to the each comparison groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s graph. All median data points for every item and for every subgroup fell above the central line of 3.0 evidencing that the typical response for each item was positive amongst all subgroups (see Appendix K). The only exception to this was when the researcher broke the group of paraprofessionals and related others into two separate new groups to explore further. Related others tended to have much more positive medians than paraprofessionals. Further, once paraprofessionals were in their own group, there were three survey items where the median response fell into the more negative range of 2.7 to 2.9. The three items were: (1) the administrative coach had strong communication skills, (2) the administrative coach made a difference in the district, and (3) state funding should be used to continue supporting districts with administrative coaches. These more negative responses from the paraprofessionals may be due to a low sample size or from being even further removed from the work of the coach than the related others, who may be closer on a day to day basis with the administrator and may therefore know more about the work of the coach. The related others group was comprised of office staff, kitchen staff, counselors who worked full-time, but may have provided more opportunities to interaction with the administrator and coach due to office location and frequency of need by the administrator. The paraprofessionals group was comprised of full and part-time employees who may have less interaction with the administrators due to the position of moving in and out of classrooms, missing the administrator or coach by seconds, again adding to a plausible reason for the

Volume 5 Page 120

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

negative responses. As such, it is possible that a lack of communication or connection may have led to less awareness about the impact of the coach on the district and the worthiness of allocating state funding. The substantial findings in this section suggest that all four groups support the state’s coaching project. However, the process of shared leadership in terms of awareness of the skills, actions, and perceived impacts of the coach going beyond just those serving in some type of leadership role may take more time or different strategies in order to have future teachers, paraprofessionals, and related others reflect more closely aligned positive perceptions when compared with administrators. Several respondents suggested strong relationships had been built with their administrative coach and that the work seemed to impact leadership skills and various school practices. However, the degree to which this awareness was distributed among all staff members was limited due to distance from the functions of formal leadership. In the open-ended responses, some indicated that they noticed a change in leadership skills, but due to the respondent not serving in a leadership role they were unable to specify the change. For example, one respondent expanded by stating, “I know there was a change, I am sure it was positive.” This supports the findings that the skillset and actions used in the work of coaches were perceived as being effective in supporting and impacting leadership change amongst all subgroups.

Discussion

The underlying interest of this study centered on examining statewide practices that seem to have potential promise for professional development from the viewpoint of helping state leaders make good programmatic decisions, as well as be good stewards of state educational funding. Hull (2010) found that professional development support is often the first thing to be eliminated during funding hardships, which this state and other rural states have encountered. Yet states and schools have been challenged to continuously meet new educational reform demands. These educational reform demands are not going away and continue to be the debate of many political platforms, especially as schools and districts continue to fall into “needs improvement” categories as defined by federal guidelines. It has been these federal guidelines

Volume 5 Page 121

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

that have required states to provide a statewide system of intensive and sustainable support (McClure, 2005), thus pushing this state to develop a system coaching project to support districts and schools in “needs improvement” status. This state coaching project is being used at a critical time when the role of leadership has continued to evolve into a whole system approach of creating conditions for growth, self-renewal, and development in order to build capacity amongst others to move the whole system forward (Williams, 2009). Seashore Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, and Anderson (2010) agree strengthening leadership capacity and instruction is critical to student outcomes, thus defining the need for high-quality professional development that incorporates adult learning principles of motivation, reinforcement, retention and transference (Blase & Blase, 1999), and supports (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009; Mayotte,Wei, Lamphier, & Doyle, 2013). In addition, Fullan (2011) addressed the need to produce system leaders who are not only willing to learn from others, but committed to contributing to others for the betterment of the whole (Fullan, 2011b; Fullan & Knight, 2011). It was the gap in the research surrounding statewide coaching to build capacity among district and school leadership that led to the primary interest of this study. The purpose of this study was to focus on a state’s use of administrative coaching as a mechanism for supporting leadership skills for change. More specifically the researcher examined the perceived levels of agreement about the administrative coach’s skillset, actions used in the work to support, and the perceived impact of coaching on leadership.

Conclusion

The overall key findings of this study are as follows: 1. All participants demonstrated positive levels of agreement in that the coaches had the skill set identified by the researcher, engaged in actions that align with effective professional development, and were perceived to have an impact on leadership. 2. Administrators and administrative coaches had the highest levels of agreement with all survey items and were consistently in agreement with no statistical difference. 3. School staff members who were further removed from formal leadership roles were less aware of the skillset, actions, and effects of the coach, and although they had

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 122

positive levels of agreement, the levels of agreement were statistically lower than that of the administrators and coaches. The results from this study suggest that participants perceive the support and professional development provided by this state’s coaching project to positively align with all the components of effective professional development indicated in the survey. Theoretically, these key findings should support the state’s desire to use the program as a driver for the type of capacity building Fullan (2011a) suggests is needed for building that intrinsic motivation needed to impact and develop leaders. This can be done when both parties work in partnership and with other groups focused on purposeful and relentless work. These findings suggest that the state should continue to provide this service while considering how the variance in participant responses may be used to guide program improvements, especially related to the perceptions of staff who are not formally involved with leadership roles.

Implications for Professional Practice

The findings from this study have implications for the state administrators of the coaching program, administrative coaches, and state legislatures. Specifically, state program administrators should continue to implement coaching as a strategy for capacity building. The consistent positive levels of agreement from school staff indicate the program is likely having the needed types of influence over local systems that will theoretically support student achievement gains. The results of the Mann–Whitney U test suggest that administrator and administrative coach’s perceptions are more closely related due to their more intimate working relationships conducted through the life of the coaching project, as compared to teachers, paraprofessionals and other staff members within the building. However, the findings of all groups were consistently in positive agreement regarding their responses on the survey items, despite the inconsistent levels of agreement between leaders and others. Potential implications suggest state leaders should revisit how they inform district staff about the role of administrative coaches in order to provide clarity and transparency for systems work and to be self-advocates of the work. Advocating for the project not only supports leadership and builds capacity, but creates advocates for future support and continued funding for the work.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 123

Additionally, state program managers should consider the findings about how teachers and other staff viewed the skillset, actions, and possible impacts of the coaches’ work. Since there was some inconsistency from respondents regarding their levels of agreement with these aspects of the coaches’ work, the state should consider what changes may be necessary to ensure these individuals are effectively impacted by coaching strategies. This inconsistency suggests a need for the state to revisit the types and the frequency of the professional development offered to coaches to continue to strengthen the strategies they use to support school leadership throughout the state. In this same vein, administrative coaches should consider adapting their work to ensure greater distribution and awareness of their work so as to ensure it is not isolated solely to those in formal leadership roles. Coaches may need to consider broadening their communication strategies and collaboration roles that they use to be more inclusive of other staff. Additionally, knowing the coaching project continues to evolve, and most recently a coaching manual was created, the administrative coaches should consider sharing the manual as a support mechanism to broaden their communication. Last, this study has implications for state legislatures and state policy makers. In times where funding is often cut, legislatures and state policy makers should consider how administrative coaching can likely play a vital role in the improvement of schools. Therefore, this study suggests the legislatures and state policy makers should build upon the positive perceptions of school staff by continuing to fund coaching programs, while at the same time being supportive of ongoing refinements to support the effectiveness of those programs.

Recommendations for Further Research

Overall, findings suggest participants of this state’s coaching project perceived the project as being positive. Most respondents agreed that the major components of coaching were present to support and affect leadership in a positive way, though the levels of agreement varied amongst the different subgroups. The data also imply leadership development amongst staff members may have only taken place amongst those who served in some type of leadership role. As such, further consideration is needed to examine what the appropriate role of the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 124

administrative coach is to staff who are not in leadership roles. If the state determines the perceptions of these further removed staff should be equally aware and equally positive, then research is needed to examine what professional development components are required for the administrative coach to build leadership capacity outside the formal school leadership team and among other staff members within the building. An additional concept that should be explored further is how the work of the coach extends beyond perceptions of school staff to actually examine how the coaching project links back to changes in leader and teacher behavior related to the instructional core. This study was limited to perceptual data about participants’ views of coaches’ skillsets, actions, and perceived effects. While participants reported that they believe the coach made a positive impact, actual impact is unknown. Future research needs to also explore whether or not the participants in this state’s coaching projects truly learn new evidence-based practices from the coach and if their behaviors have actually changed as a result. Such a study might benefit from follow-up correlational research that examines how these things relate to long-term trends in student achievement data to make a case for whether or not the program is producing such desired results at the student level. As this study only focused on collecting the perceptual data around the administrative coaches’ skillset to do the activities, the type of coaching activities being used, and capturing perceptual input on whether or not the activities had a positive impact on leadership learning and behaviors, future research is essential to complete the picture of the effectiveness of administrative coaching programs. An additional recommendation for future research is the field may benefit from investigation into how the use of administrative coaching may or may not create sustainable changes in system conditions at both the school and district level. This study did not examine the overarching system conditions, such as the effectiveness of school collaboration structures, so the findings present a limited picture of the work of the coach. Qualitative, descriptive studies might be valuable at identifying how the work of the coach addresses these aspects of system reform. One final area that may benefit from consideration for further research is to examine the correlation between administrator and staff turnover when supported by administrative coach. Specifically, if a coach works in a school or district in which the formal leadership experiences

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 125

high turnover, what strategies work best for the coach to impact the system and what do state administrators need to consider when designing coaching for such locations?

Author Biographies

Dr. Adria David is currently an assistant principal in the Boise School District. She recently returned to the school setting after working for Idaho State Department of Education, in which she joined the Idaho Statewide System of Support Team in (2012), as the statewide Response to Intervention Coordinator. She has served in public education for 18 years. Her experiences include, being a classroom teacher, district professional development provider in literacy instruction, an outside literacy consultant, and an Instructional Coach. In addition, David is a certified educator in both Oregon and Idaho. She is a graduate from Northwest Nazarene University with a Master of Arts Degree in Curriculum and Instruction, Education Specialist Degree and a Doctorate Degree in Education Administration. Dr. Loredana Werth is currently an Associate Professor and Chair of the Graduate Education Department at Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho. Loredana received her Bachelors of Science from College of Idaho in Biology and Chemistry, a Master’s of Science in Education from Oregon State University, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership from University of Idaho. Her teaching and research interests primarily relate to blended learning, integrating technology in the K-12 and higher education classrooms, and retention in the online learning environment. Dr. Werth has worked in higher education for over 17 years in a variety of administrative capacities including Student Services Coordinator, International Programs Coordinator, Director of Admissions, and Vice President for Enrollment Management. Much of her work in higher education administration has focused on using and evaluating data as steps to the school improvement process. Dr. Fernanda Brendefur is currently a principal in the Boise School District. Prior to working for Boise, her work experience includes: six years serving as the Title III/LEP Coordinator for Idaho State Department of Education, five years as an assistant professor for Boise State University, seven years as an ENL and Spanish teacher. Fernanda holds an Ed.D. and Masters from Boise State University in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis in

Volume 5 Page 126

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Bilingual/ESL/Multicultural Education and her Bachelors from the University of California at Irvine in Comparative Literature and Spanish. Natasha Rush is currently the librarian at Garfield Elementary School in the Boise School District. Natasha earned her Bachelor’s of Science degree in Secondary Education with an emphasis in English and French from the University of Idaho. She then accepted a teaching position in Clark County School District in Las Vegas, Nevada where she taught English, French, and Student Government at Durango and Del Sol High Schools for five years. After returning to Idaho, Natasha was the reference librarian at the Kuna Library for two years before accepting a position in Vallivue School District as an elementary librarian for three years. In 2011, Natasha began her current position in Boise School District.

References

Anderson, S. E., Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., & Wahlstrom, K. L. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/schoolleadership/key-research/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-StudentLearning Bar-Yam, M., Rhoades, K., Sweeney, L. B., Kaput, J., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2002). Complex systems perspectives on education and the education system. Retrieved from http://www.necsi.edu/research/management/education/teachandlearn.html Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration 38(2), 130–141. Retrieved from http://www.emerald-library.com Borko, H. (2004) Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X033008003 Chval, K. B., Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J. K., Van Garderen, D., Cummings, L., Estapa, A., T., & Huey, M. (2010). The transition from experienced teacher to mathematics coach. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 191–216.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 127

Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006, July). Qualitative research guidelines project. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeCont-3822.html Collet, V. S. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change. Literacy Research & Instruction, 51(1), 27–47. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.549548 Cornett, J., & Knight, J. (2008). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp.192-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2013). Cognitive coaching seminars foundation training (9th ed.). Sacramento, CA: Cognitive Coaching Seminars. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Prentice Hall. Denton, C. A., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150–175. doi:10.1080/10474410802463296 Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181– 199. doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140 Dufour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leading of learning: How district, school, and classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Elder, D. L., & Padover, W. (2011). Coaching as a methodology to build professional practice. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 4(1), 138–144. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Elmore, R. F. (2008). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Fink, S., Markholt, A., Copland, M., & Michelson, J. (2011). Research methodology leading for instructional improvement: How successful leaders develop teaching and learning expertise (pp.189–216). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 128

Fowler, F. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2011a, May). Seminar series204: Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Retrieved from Centre for Strategic Education website: www.cse.edu.au Fullan, M. (2011b). The moral imperative realized. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011, October). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50-53. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleadershipdigital.com/educationalleadership/201110/?pg=52&amp;pm=2&amp;u1=friend#pg52 Garver, J. R. (2010). Coaching for achievement: A playbook for teachers and their leaders. Phoenix, AZ: Flying Monkey Press. Goldsmith, M., Lyons, L., & Freas, A. (2000). Coaching for leadership: How the world’s greatest coaches help leaders learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hall, C., & Youens, B. (2007). Re-forming the teaching work force: The case of the academic coach. Educational Review, 59(2), 161–178. doi:10.1080/00131910701254932 Hall, P., & Simeral, A. (2008). Building teachers’ capacity for success: A collaborative approach for coaches and school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hanne, I. J., Ammentorp, J., Erlandsen, M., & Ording, H. (2012). End-of-life practices in Danish ICUs: Development and validation of a questionnaire. BMC Anesthesiology 12(16). Retrieved from http://www.bimedcentral.com/1471-2253/12/16 Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology (Paper 373). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu /psychfacpub/373 Hess, F. (2013). Cage-busting leadership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 129

Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(2), 257281. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885452 Hull, J. (2010, October 7). Cutting to the bone: How the economic crisis affects schools. Center for Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/MainMenu/Public-education/Cutting-to-the-bone-At-a-glance/Cutting-to-the-bone-How-theeconomic-crisis-affects-schools.html Idaho State Department of Education. (2013). Idaho building capacity. Retrieved from http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/ssos/IBC.htm Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership Journal, 40(1), 4–12. Kinnaman, L. (2009). Idaho building capacity: Developing a statewide system of support for districts and schools in need of improvement. Unpublished Dissertation, Boise State University, Boise, ID. Knight, J. (2007a). 5 key points to building a coaching program. National Staff Development Council, 28(1), 26–31. Retrieved from http://www.instructionalcoach.org/images /downloads/articles/Knight_JSD2007-Winter.pdf Knight, J. (2007b). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. The Sage Commtext Series. London, UK: Sage. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Marzano, R. J.,Waters, T., & McNutty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 249– 272. doi:10.3102/0162373.7103.63743

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 130

Mayotte, G., Wei, D., Lamphier, S., & Doyle, T. (2013). Enhancing capacity to improve student learning. Catholic Education, 16(2), 264-287. McClure, P. (2005). School improvement under No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=12477595 &url=200eea8ac1e9222892e7dff9f05aebe6 National Dissemination Center for Children With Disabilities. (2013). NCLB: No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/laws Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2002). Off to a good start: Year I of collaborative coaching and learning in the effective practice schools. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters. Nichols, S. L., Glass, G. V., & Berliner, D. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/ No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425. Obara, S. (2010). Mathematics coaching: A new kind of professional development. Teacher Development, 14(2), 241–251. Pimentel, S., & Coleman, D. (2012, May). Revised publishers’ criteria for the Common Core state standards in English language arts and literacy, grades K–12. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Publishers_Criteria_for_K-2.pd Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2007). The nine characteristics of high-performing schools: A research-based resource for schools and districts to assist with improving student learning (2nd ed.). Olympia, WA: OSPI. Showers, B. (1984). School improvement through staff development: The coaching of teaching. ED249593. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED249593 Sunderman, G., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 131

Underwood, S. M. (2013). The Idaho statewide system of support: Scaling up whole-system reform in a rural western state (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boise State University, Boise, ID. U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Special education: State personnel development grants program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepsig/index.html Whitaker, T. (2012). What great principals do differently: 18 things that matter most (2nd ed.). Lanchmont, NY: Eye On Education. Williams, H. S. (2009). Leadership capacity-A key to sustaining lasting improvement. Education, 130(1), 30–41. Retrieved from http://0 search.ebscohost.com.librarycatalogs .nnu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=44016510&site=ehost-live Wise, D., & Hammack, M. (2011). Leadership coaching: Coaching competencies and best practices. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 449-477. Woodside-Jiron, H., & Gehsmann, K. M. (2009). Peeling back the layers of policy and school reform: Revealing the structural and social complexities within. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 56(1), 49–72. doi:10.1080/1034912.0802.681671

Tables and Figures Tables and figures available upon request of the author(s).

Volume 5 Page 132

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Impacting Mathematic Teachers’ Pedagogy through Project Based Learning Lisa Douglass Ohio University Marlissa Hughes Stauffer Ohio Dominican University Ronald Zielke Ohio Dominican University Molly Longstreth University of Georgia

Abstract

Our goal in conducting this research was to help teachers implement the Common Core Mathematical Practice Content and Standards in their classroom via a Project Based Learning (PBL) approach in order to ultimately equip teachers to make mathematics more meaningful to their students. This hands-on, inquiry-based method has helped students internalize mathematics through guided discovery, dialogue, and critical thinking. Students are encouraged to initiate their own learning experiences through hands-on participation, question posing, and solving a shared problem. To achieve our ultimate goal of impacting students’ learning in mathematics, we examined many aspects of PBL. In this paper, however, we examine one aspect of our twoyear PBL project: how PBL impacted teacher instruction of mathematics. Our findings show that long-term (nine months), hands-on PBL training can strengthen teachers’ mathematical instruction and make math more meaningful to their students. We found that this occurs as the teachers gain a greater capacity to teach mathematics through varying their pedagogical approach (in this case, PBL) and by providing stronger managerial techniques for teaching mathematics. Keywords: Project based learning, mathematical practice standards, 21st century skills

Volume 5 Page 133

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Introduction

By spring 2014, 43 states and the District of Columbia had agreed to adopt or adapt their content standards to align with the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2011). As administrators and teachers within those districts begin to use the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS-M), teachers need opportunities to understand the new core standards, as well as how to align the standards with their curricula. One way to address this alignment is the comprehension and utilization of the eight Mathematical Practices outlined in the Common Core. The Project Based Learning method aligns with the eight mathematical practices and offers a bridge to application of the CCSS in Mathematics within the curriculum (Keim, 2013). We wanted to examine how best to help teachers implement a method – Project Based Learning – that would help their students use the eight Mathematical Practices. We proposed that by working with mathematics teachers to help them learn how to apply the mathematical content and Mathematical Practice Standards in an inquiry-based, constructivist manner, we could influence teachers to consider a new pedagogical approach in order to meet the goals of the CCSS-M and increase their students’ learning of mathematics. In this paper, we will discuss the teachers’ pedagogical changes as they worked through this new approach to teaching mathematics in order to better understand how the teachers navigated a new method, fairly new content (CCSS), and the realities of their own classroom. We will share the findings from our work with 36 participants (19 from the 2011-2012 cohort, and 17 from the 2012-2013 cohort) who were mathematics teachers from six different middle and high schools in urban, suburban, rural, and parochial school settings. Our project outcomes included the examination by the participants of the characteristics and benefits of the PBL method; the development and implementation of peer-reviewed projects centered on the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, including the creation of formative and summative assessments tied to the standards; the dissemination of projects through a report-out symposium; and the beginnings of a Professional Learning Community through both online and face-to-face contact.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 134

Review of Literature

The Need for Project Based Learning Methodology in Teaching Mathematics

In the report, “The Opportunity Equation”, the Carnegie Institute’s Commission on Mathematics and Science Education (2008) enumerated recommendations for improving mathematics and science education. Recommendations included higher levels of mathematics and science learning for all American students; common standards in math and science; fewer, clearer, and higher aligned assessments; and improved teaching and professional learning, supported by better school and system management. They also indicated an increasing need for partnerships and professional development with high-need districts, with a focus on authentic learning, such as project-based learning (PBL). Because most teachers were not taught mathematics using inquiry methods such as project-based learning, we wanted to teach our participants project-based learning by using that method to guide their learning. We designed a three-course sequence to scaffold their understanding of using PBL methods: (a) an online introduction to PBL (48 contact hours); (b) an intensive week-long workshop using an adapted lesson study approach where the participants developed projects for implementation in their own classrooms centered on the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, as well as the eight Mathematical Practice Standards (35 contact hours); and (c) a hybrid online course where the in-service teachers explored and applied the practice of PBL in more detail by implementing what was developed in the first two courses into their own classroom, with guidance from the university professors. Our project outcomes included the examination by the participants of the characteristics and benefits of the PBL method; the development and implementation of peer-reviewed projects centered on the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (CCSS-M), including the creation of formative and summative assessments tied to the standards; the dissemination of projects through a report-out symposium; and the establishment of a sustained Professional Learning Community through both online and face-to-face contact. In this paper, we examine the teachers’ pedagogical changes as they worked through this new approach to teaching

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 135

mathematics in order to better understand how the teachers navigated a new method, fairly new content (CCSS), and the realities of their own classroom.

What is Project Based Learning?

Multiple definitions of project-based learning exist, but we generally refer our students to the characteristics of the method as explained by the Buck Institute for Education (2014). We describe project-based learning as a method of teaching that organizes learning around projects, with projects being defined as complex tasks based on challenging real-world questions or problems. We encourage work that Thomas (2000) calls realistic, not school like. A driving question guides the project; lessons center on that driving question and include multiple content standards, as well as formative and summative assessments integrated to allow students to show their learning. Typically, a speaker or audience from the community is present during some part of the project, so that students can present their solutions or ideas to the driving questions to a more authentic audience than simply the classroom participants (Figure 1). A real world PBL example follows: in a rural town, multiple storms hit in a short period of time, leaving many families without homes or needed supplies for regular day-to-day living. A group of teachers (from the 2012-2013 cohort) designed a PBL unit around “Disaster Relief.” They began by showing videos of different natural disasters around the world, and then focused on storms that hit the Midwest. This grabbed their students’ attention. They then brought in a local American Red Cross Educator, who informed the students about their organization and purpose - to help with disaster relief. After the initial launch, the question that drove their project was, “How can we, as fundraisers for the American Red Cross, design and evaluate which fundraiser will enable us to make the most profit to donate to a particular natural disaster?” Over the next several weeks in mathematics and science classes, the students learned content that would guide them in answering this question. Each teacher in the group would decide how the content was taught. We observed group work, inquiry-based approaches, implementing technology through iPads and computer research, and some direct teaching of the content. Mathematical content from CCSS-M included concepts such as “Construct a function to model a linear relationship between

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 136

two quantities,” and, “Determine the rate of change and the initial value of the function from a description of a relationship or from two (x,y) values, including reading these from a graph.” It also included science standards, such as, “Earth’s crust consists of major and minor tectonic plates that move relative to each other,” and, “A combination of constructive and destructive geologic processes formed Earth’s surface” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2011). These were just a few of many mathematics, science, as well as language arts standards that were taught during this project. Prior to the project’s initiation (for our cohort, it was during the June week-long workshop), the teachers prepared a rough timeline, created lessons, wrote assessments, created rubrics, and matched tasks to the content standards. This thoughtful process in a group setting, with the guidance of university faculty, was time consuming initially. But, in turn, the planning allowed the teachers the freedom to work with groups or individuals in their own classrooms, instead of using more traditional teaching methods - standing in front of the class and giving their students pieces of mathematical information one day at a time. In a culminating event, the students presented their fund-raising ideas to the school at an assembly. Students displayed their mathematical justification, via linear equations and mathematical calculations, for why their fund-raising idea was the most profitable and should be chosen to help aid The American Red Cross. Each student body voted and the students initiated a fund-raiser. Because the group of teachers who created this PBL were from different districts and even different grade levels, the projects chosen were, of course, different. This also displays how adaptable a well-devised PBL can be. At one school, the winning fund-raiser was a red rubber bracelet with “Hope” engraved. The students at the school purchased these bracelets for $1 during their lunch hour for one month. Representatives from the American Red Cross came in at the end of the month, and the students donated their proceeds to them– well over $300. From this one project that spanned about six weeks, the content integration was vast. The teachers applied multiple mathematics standards to support the fundraising project and integrated earth science concepts related to understanding natural disasters. Additionally, writing and speaking skills were taught as part of the students’ work for the presentations of their proposals. Students learned the content knowledge, the mathematical practice standards, and

Volume 5 Page 137

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

gained 21st Century skills, such as communication, interpersonal skills, teamwork skills, analytical skills, and adaptability (NACE, 2012).

Methodology

Constructivist Approaches to Math Education

This study is grounded in a constructivist framework. Constructivist approaches to learning actively involve students in meaning making through guided discovery, dialogue, and critical thinking. Students are encouraged to initiate their own learning experiences through hands-on participation, posing questions or solving a shared problem. The teachers’ responsibilities include facilitating a learning process or constructing an environment rich in discussion where free exchanges of ideas can take place (Beswick, 2006). Specifically, a constructivist math classroom values the connection of a problem or concept to students’ prior knowledge and personal experiences. Carr and Hettinger (2003) explain, “Constructivist theorists view mathematics strategy development as embedded within developing schemes and cognitive structures about mathematics. Strategies develop as a function of [students’] emerging knowledge about mathematics” (p. 47). In a constructivist context, time spent on developing skills and conceptual-level knowledge takes precedents over isolated instruction and memorization. This stands in opposition to traditional math teaching that often privileges student passivity where the teacher shares knowledge about facts and operations (Carter & Norwood, 1997). Booker (1996), describes this opposition, Constructivism suggests that the sharing or exchanging of mathematical thoughts and ideas is dynamic, reflecting a continually changing fit between the meaning-making of active interpreters of language and action, rather than as the result of a conduit from teacher to learner. (p. 382) Although constructivist views of learning, like Booker’s, have been commonly accepted by researchers and mathematics educators alike, “learning mathematics in school still continues to be dominated by traditional transmission of knowledge” (Wood, Cobb, & Yackel, 1991, p. 601).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 138

How We Taught PBL to In-service Teachers

We implemented PBL as the pedagogical approach to learning about PBL. As one participant commented, “We researched the PBL method itself in order to understand it and to learn how research is integral to the method” (written communication, May, 2013). The following outlines our yearlong approach to helping mathematics teachers discover and implement PBL. The initial online course introduced the mathematics teachers to the project based learning methodology. This online course allowed participants to read research supporting the use of PBL in the classroom. They examined several examples of PBL experiences used in the U.S. (i.e. Buck Institute for Education, 2014; New Media Consortium, 2011). After building a basic understanding of the PBL methodology, the participants personalized previously generated PBL units they had found online, sought to create overarching questions or themes that would interest their students, and then, by using the backwards design process, built a practice PBL unit for their own classroom. This included aligning their mathematical content standards as well as the standards for mathematical practice standards to their unit, creating a timeline, building formative and summative assessments, and creating rubrics for daily work, as well as for the final student project. In the second course, participants gathered in the summer for a week-long course which immersed them in the PBL process. We began by having them define and justify key components in the PBL process while discussing the benefits and challenges of teaching mathematics using the PBL method. They asked questions, and together we worked through examples and non-examples of PBL to help better put a border around the PBL methodology. Together we reflected on the nature of group learning and its importance in PBL. Usually one of their greatest concerns centered on integrating the content standards with this method, so we spent ample time discussing the CCSS-M content and Mathematical Practice Standards. Rich problems were also explored to help demonstrate to the participants that multiples standards could be taught with a single challenge to the students. Early in the week, the teachers formed teams of two to four teachers by considering what math content they would teach in the fall. Each group spent the preponderance of the week

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 139

developing most or all of the key components of a real-world, relevant project to fit the required curriculum for their students. For example, two seventh grade math teachers from a rural area designed a project that taught the use of linear equations as a way to examine the common problem of deer overpopulation in their community. In a county where the opening of deer season is a reason to cancel school and where stories abound of hitting a deer with a car, the relevance of the topic resonated with the students. As the unit came together, the math teachers realized that over the course of approximately one month, they were integrating about 15 different math standards, in addition to several science standards and reading/language arts standards. Because the project itself was inquiry-based, and because we focused on using inquiry practices during the summer workshop, we observed teachers use these same pedagogical practices when they returned to their own classroom. One particular middle school teacher typically organized her students in rows. After the summer workshop she decided to try putting them in groups to use more inquiry. She introduced a problem to teach a concept. She asked, “What would this line look like on a graph y=3x-4 and why?” (Observation, Teacher C, November, 2013). Traditionally, she would have taught the students step-by-step how to graph this equation. After beginning the PBL deer project, she allowed them to explore this problem instead, and she facilitated their learning within small groups. Allowing for student inquiry and exploration into a concept follows the CCSS-M Practice Standards (i.e. make sense of problems and persevere in solving them; and construct viable arguments). Our final course began in the fall semester. The hybrid format allowed us to do some work online, but mostly the teachers focused on implementing their project in their mathematics classrooms. The experiences varied greatly, as would be expected. Some teachers implemented the project immediately when school began, while others waited a month or two. Some projects lasted 10 days, while others lasted over a month; but every participant implemented a PBL project. Our culminating activity, as with any PBL, was to bring the participants back together to share their experiences and give a final evaluation of the process. We invited principals, fellow teachers, and others interested in the PBL process, to join us in December for an evening of the participants relaying their experiences of PBL. In the majority of this paper we will examine what the participants shared during the final report out session, in their survey

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 140

responses, and in written and verbal communication with us, about the process of learning how to use PBL within their classrooms.

Data Collection and Analysis

We used multiple data points to gain more accurate, credible data and to corroborate our findings. In seeking accuracy, we intended that the data collected should create a fairly true picture of the bit of reality being observed. In seeking credibility, we wanted the data to be trustworthy, capable of being believed, because this would enable us and others to use our data with confidence (Johnson, 2008). We collected data in four different manners: 1) pre-, mid-, and final program evaluations in a modified questionnaire reflecting the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM); 2) examination of analysis of participants’ assignments in all three courses; 3) verbal communication with teachers during summer workshop; 4) journal notes during observations of teachers during their implementation of the PBL project in their classrooms. We wanted to collect data specifically to capture the way the teachers experienced the change in method – both attitudinally and in practice. Therefore, we used a modified questionnaire reflecting the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) developed at the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory at the University of Texas. The model was first published in the mid-1970s and has undergone further validation over the past 20 years. Anderson (1997) declared that, "the CBAM is arguably the most robust and empirically grounded theoretical model for implementation of educational innovations to come out of educational change research in the 1970s and 1980s" (p. 331). The CBAM questionnaire appeared as items Q1 to Q35 on the early, mid-program, and final evaluations. The PBL program participants responded to items on the CBAM instrument on the early, mid-program, and final evaluations using a 4-point Likert-type scale. They chose one value for each item according to this scale: (1) Irrelevant, (2) Not true of me now, (3) Somewhat true of me now, (4) Very true of me now. They were also free not to respond.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 141

We collected three forms of qualitative data during the three-course sequence with each cohort. One of the primary ways we did this was through evaluating participants’ work on assignments for each of the courses. We were often looking for buy-in to see how much they were engaging the ideas and working to apply them to their own classroom work. We knew that the majority of the participants had little knowledge or experience in working with PBL. We watched them move from learning about it as a concept and general method in the first course, through to the application of the method in planning during the summer course, and implementing in the final course. Another manner of qualitative data collection included verbal communication with the participants. This occurred in either the university classroom setting, or in the participants’ own classroom settings when we would observe them implementing the PBL projects. These communications were either recorded via researchers’ iPhone/iPad or written down in researcher journals. We collected data by note-taking and recording the final report-out presentations in the third course, reviews of participants’ final reflections in the third course, and observation notes as we observed them implement the projects in their classroom. The research team discussed these findings often to try to gauge the participants’ responses both to the method and the way we were helping them learn the method. We were watching for patterns and anomalies or outliers in the progress toward or away from the adoption of PBL, as well as looking for what the challenges were for the participants as they learned and applied the method. In analyzing the qualitative data for this paper, we examined it with an eye to the findings from the survey data and looked for corroborating or non-confirming data in the qualitative data.

Participants and their Participation

Our goal both years was to develop a cohort of 20 middle school or high school mathematics teachers from high-need school districts. In the first year of implementation, 19 teachers from four school districts in the central state area participated. During year one (2011-2012), all 19 participating teachers responded to the first evaluation, a 100% response rate, although two evaluations were incomplete.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 142

Because of non-completion of the courses, all but one of the 18 participating teachers evaluated the course and program after completing the first course, a response rate of 94.4%. All but one of the 17 participating teachers evaluated the program at its conclusion, a response rate of 94%. During year two (2012-2013), 18 teachers enrolled, but two dropped out early in the program. Therefore, 16 participated in the first course. All 16 participating teachers responded to the first evaluation, a 100% response rate. Another teacher dropped by the time of the second evaluation, but all of the 15 remaining teachers evaluated the course and program after completing the first course and workshop. Part of the data collected summarized findings from the CBAM surveys from both cohorts (a total of six surveys). The surveys were used to show the following: 1) change over time, where appropriate; 2) change in innovativeness to learning and likelihood of use of PBL among other potentially related concepts; 3) teachers’ opinions of the distance education pedagogy employed in the program; and 4) a variety of assessments on teachers’ opinions regarding PBL, and its use to meet Common Core State Standards (CCSS-M) and 21st century skills.

Results and Findings

How PBL Strengthens Teachers’ Instruction

We conducted our research to better understand how mathematic teachers’ use of PBL impacts their student learning, but we felt we needed to begin by examining how teachers learned and applied the PBL method. In order to impact student achievement in mathematics, we realized that we would need to begin by impacting the instruction of the teachers of those students. Especially in the field of mathematics, many teachers tend to instruct in a more traditional manner (Ball, Hill, & Bass, 2005). We use the term “traditional” to represent a teacher-centered classroom, where students are given little opportunity to construct their own knowledge (Ball & Cohen, 1999). In traditional mathematics classrooms, students are given information that they are to memorize and perform in ways that are shown to them. Of course,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 143

one problem with this approach is that those traditional beliefs emphasize student performance (i.e., getting the correct answer or getting good grades) and speed rather than mathematical conceptual knowledge (Wood et al., 1991). In the project-based learning approach, students are given choices. The lessons are embedded in real-world situation in which students have ownership for figuring out both the mathematics and how it applies to real world situations. The mathematical content is taught in a manner in which students apply the knowledge learned into their project, thus, witnessing why the mathematics needs to be learned. By analyzing the pre-, mid-, and final program evaluations, as well as our field notes and observational notes, we found ways in which the teachers indicated that PBL impacted their instruction of mathematics. Namely, the data led us to make two distinct assertions about the participants. They had a greater capacity for teaching mathematics, and improved managerial techniques for teaching mathematics. The following sections will go into more detail regarding these pedagogical impacts.

Greater capacity for addressing the Common Core State Standards – Mathematics. One of the clear foci in the CCSS-Mathematics is the need for more student inquiry. This does not indicate that we should make math harder or introduce concepts earlier, but it does mean pursuing a “deep, authentic command of mathematical concepts” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 2011). For example, instead of presenting the topic of data displays as an end in itself, the topic is used to support grade-level word problems in which students apply mathematical skills to solve problems. Therefore, we define a greater capacity for teaching mathematics as understanding and applying the CCSS-M, and development of more student-centered and less teacher-led classrooms. Several answers on the surveys, as well as notes from our observations, reflect the participants’ greater capacity for teaching the CCSSMathematics after their yearlong experience with project-based learning. Teachers in both years of our study were concerned with implementing PBL and addressing the CCSS-M. However, in both years, a substantial share of teachers, 47% in 2012 and 36% in 2013, said by the end that they would use PBL because it integrated topics, and addressed multiple standards within a planned project (Table 1). In 2012, one teacher described

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 144

some implications of incorporating multiple standards in the same project and the integrative learning that can result in these two comments: Combining many common core standards into one project instead of separate lessons will help students to see how the topics are related to each other and to the real world. I am just excited to teach several standards within one project and for the kids to really see their connection!! (written communication, Teacher H, December, 2012) Teachers postulated that PBL provided a better opportunity for teaching CCSS-M with the following comments, “I did not teach this many standards in any other classes this year,” (written communication, Teacher C, December, 2012); and “The PBL project provided many teachable moments and covered even more standards than I anticipated” (written communication, Teacher D, December, 2012). In 2012 and 2013, teachers evaluated the effectiveness of PBL compared with more standard methods in addressing some “troublesome” aspects of teaching the CCSS-M. In both years, teachers, on average, evaluated PBL as more effective than more traditional methods for teaching troublesome aspects of mathematics, but in 2013, the opinion is slightly weaker (Table 2). T-tests for differences between the means in 2012 and 2013 – 2.3 vs. 2.43 – imply the difference is not significant. In 2012, when asked to compare teaching with PBL with more standard methods for teaching the mathematics concepts for which they have thus far used PBL, the preponderance of responses (63.2%) indicated or implied that, in their own classrooms, the PBL pedagogy outperformed more traditional teaching (Table 3). Approximately 11% of the participants viewed the methods as equally effective, and only 5.3% asserted that more standard methods outperform PBL. Several teachers commented on this: “The same standards were addressed but not to this degree of difficulty or application. I have experienced an improvement in graphical representations of data this year over previous years” (written communication, Teacher E, December, 2011). “The scores for the review of math concepts were higher for the PBL class. I believe that this had to do with how it was accomplished. There was more excitement in the non-traditional way that PBL is set up” (written communication, Teacher F, December, 2011).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 145

In 2013, 13 teachers provided comparisons between PBL and more standard methods for teaching mathematics (Table 4). Nearly half of the teachers said they did not teach the same topic they taught with PBL using standard methods, so they could not respond to this question. Approximately 78% of the teachers, who had taught similar material using both PBL and traditional methods this year, asserted that PBL outperformed the more traditional methods. In one case, a teacher indicated where they believed that more standard methods worked better than PBL, and in another, the teacher’s response led the reader to perceive that they viewed the two methods similarly. Two teachers commented, “After spending a month working on unit rate along with other concepts, they did not understand unit rate, after working on the project, they got it!” (written communication, Teacher A, December, 2012). “I feel that my students have a better grasp of ratios and proportions and just how they are used in everyday life” (written communication, Teacher B, December, 2012). By the end of their respective programs, a large portion of participants claimed to be very interested in using PBL in the future to teach mathematics (Table 5). In 2012, a larger percentage of teachers identified student success as motivating their desire to use PBL in the future than any other motive, whereas, in 2013, the largest group of teachers cite some aspect of PBL pedagogy, including its ability to convey CCSS-M efficiently. In 2012, the teachers especially appreciated seeing their students deeply involved in learning and, in 2013, they appreciated how PBL motivated students. In 2013, the pedagogical characteristics of PBL that interested teachers in using PBL in the future were its ability to teach the CCSS-M, including 21st century skills; their enjoyment in using it; their enjoyment of the creativity PBL required of them; or that they work in PBL-centric environments. The following is one example of how a teacher seemed to gain more capacity for addressing the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics. This particular PBL project was built around pre-algebra students comparing cell phone rate plans. After our observation of the student presentations of their choice of rate plans, Teacher Y commented to us: The algebraic rate comparisons were impressive! A great deal of math was hit – maybe even more standards than what were intended … The students truly saw the real-world application in this project because they all have cell phones. They were surprised how

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 146

they could use math in life to help them decide on something that is so real to them. (verbal communication, Teacher Y, November, 2013) By implementing her PBL project, this particular teacher was able to give mathematics more meaning to her students, while addressing multiple CCSS-M. Several teacher comments conveyed their interest in using PBL to teach mathematics, “The changes in the common core and graduation test lean towards application. For our students’ future success we need to provide this experience. PBL is a valid option to do this” (written communication, Teacher F, December, 2012); “It is more student-centered. Students take more responsibility for their own learning” (written communication, Teacher G, December, 2013): My classmates and I spent more time planning for our project than I have ever planned in 18 years of teaching! By planning like this I knew what I wanted them to learn up front. It feels much better to front load a project and be more ‘in the moment’ as the kids are learning. (written communication, Teacher H, December, 2012) With the qualitative evidence from written comments, as well as our own observations of the participants’ PBL implementation in addition to the evidence gathered from the surveys, we feel confident affirming that the year-long PBL process afforded our participants a greater capacity for teaching the CCSS-mathematics. By the end of the three-course, yearlong professional development program, the participants understood and applied multiple CCSS-M content and practice standards into their developed PBL units, and displayed more studentcentered and less teacher-led classrooms.

Improved managerial techniques for teaching mathematics. The data also lead us to assert that, after a yearlong exposure to PBL through three courses, the participants improved their managerial techniques for teaching mathematics. These managerial techniques applied to the preparation of their teaching as well as the pedagogical approaches used to teach their students. In both 2012 and 2013, regarding the strength of the entire PBL program, approximately 13-14% of the teachers specifically mentioned that the PBL program’s major strength is the pedagogy taught and the teachers’ opportunity to use it (Table 6 and Table 7). They said such

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 147

things as, “The major strength is having a new teaching strategy to help students become independent learners and problem solvers” (written communication, Teacher I, December, 2013); and, “The creation and implementation of a project was the major strength” (written communication, Teacher J, December, 2013). Another adds a spirit of enthusiasm, “I am a true believer. I have gained valuable insight and knowledge. I will advocate and use PBL” (written communication, Teacher R, December, 2013). Teachers also appreciated being able to apply what they learned. We noted this in comments such as, “It was specific to my teaching area and I was able to actually take back what I learned and put it in to practice unlike many other day conferences or seminars” (written communication, Teacher K, December, 2013). At the 2012 program’s conclusion, the sixteen respondents identified approximately two major strengths that they would use in developing a series of lessons for PBL (Table 8). The largest set of strengths the teachers identified was pedagogical skills. Knowledge of the content was the most frequently given pedagogical strength teachers cited. The type of knowledge to which they refer, by and large, is their knowledge of mathematics, including applying mathematics. Additionally, in 31.3% of their comments, participants mentioned an array of managerial skills as strengths for developing a series of PBL lessons. The most commonly mentioned are time management (6.3%) and planning, including having or starting with a goal in mind (9.4%). One teacher identified their strong knowledge of how to use PBL to meet the CCSS-M, “I can relate so many standards to the Project,” (written communication, Teacher N, December, 2012); while another teacher stated, “I feel like I’ve gained more knowledge of the subject area, and my excitement to learn right along with my students” (written communication, Teacher Q, December, 2012). We see similar results in the 2013 cohort. Thirty-eight percent of the teachers posited that their managerial skills are at least one of their strengths in implementing PBL by end of the program (Table 9). Additionally, 25% of the teachers’ comments highlighted their pedagogical skills, especially their attention to detailed lesson plans, but also their creativity. The teachers identify nine different managerial skills as their strengths in developing PBL lesson plans. The following descriptions combine managerial and pedagogical skills of these teachers: “I think I now feel confident at planning the hands-on aspects such as research, or constructing something

Volume 5 Page 148

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

based on the learning” (written communication, Teacher L, December, 2013). “I now have a solid knowledge of my curriculum and have better classroom management” (written communication, Teacher M, December, 2013). During the final presentation night, several teachers made comments regarding their growth in mathematics managerial skills. One teacher commented, “Students were so engaged in their group work … students who are typically off task were not!” (verbal communication, December, 2013). Another teacher stated, What I really learned was that planning was really important, and time consuming! But when it came time to do the project, it was much more relaxing and I was so free to work with students individually and in groups. I wasn’t using all my time standing up front! (verbal communication, December, 2013) A third teacher summed up his PBL learning curve, There was a lot of prep work, and having a speaker was very important. She could only come to one class, and there was such a difference between the class who had the chance to hear from a true professional in the field, and the class who just heard the information from me. I learned that I need to be flexible with deadlines, and that groups needed small steps and not all the directions at once. (verbal communication, December, 2013) With the qualitative evidence from written comments, as well as our own observations of the participants’ PBL implementation in addition to the quantitative evidence gathered from the CBAM surveys, we feel confident contending that the yearlong PBL process afforded our participants solid managerial techniques for teaching mathematics. By the end of the threecourse, yearlong professional development program, the participants felt their pedagogical skills in teaching mathematics were stronger and more creative, and that they were able to better plan for group work and for teaching multiple CCSS-Mathematics content and practice standards.

Discussion

Our ultimate goal was to examine how to best help teachers implement PBL, a method that we believed would help impact their instruction of math and their students’ use the eight Mathematical Practices. We believed the use of the method would also make mathematics more

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 149

meaningful to students. We followed the Carnegie Institute’s Commission on Mathematics and Science Education report’s recommendation to partner with and offer professional development to high-need districts, with a focus on authentic learning, such as project-based learning, in order to improve mathematics education. We found that by working with mathematics teachers to help them learn how to apply the mathematical content and practice standards in an inquiry-based, constructivist manner through the use of the project-based learning method, we could help assist teachers in meeting the goals of the CCSS-M. Through our use of the project-based learning approach in the three-course sequence, we watched teachers learn that mathematical concepts can become more meaningful and engaging to students through the use of PBL in their own classrooms. The application of the method helped the teachers rethink their pedagogical approach. By analyzing data with the quantitative method of the CBAM survey, along with the qualitative data from our observations and verbal and written communication with the participants, we were able to make two assertions based on our research goals. First, we asserted that the participants understood and applied multiple CCSS-M content and practice standards into their developed PBL units, and displayed more student-centered and less teacher-led classrooms. Second, through our data, we concluded that the participants felt their pedagogical skills in teaching mathematics were stronger and more creative, and that they were able to better plan for group work and for teaching multiple CCSS-Mathematics content and practice standards. We believe the participant’s rethinking of pedagogy was a result of at least two influences related to the way we helped them learn the project-based learning method of instruction. First, our participants were able to work collaboratively for an extended period of time on the creation of projects for their own classrooms. As they worked with colleagues, the professors answered questions, listened as they processed, and then came to their classrooms to observe the implementation of some part of the project. As a result, their responses demonstrated an increased confidence in curricular planning that addressed multiple standards and engaged students in more application of the learning. For example, the participants in the 2011-2012 cohort, 93.8% said they felt confident in designing a set of PBL lesson plans as part of a team, compared with 55.6% who felt similarly midway through the three-course sequence.

Volume 5 Page 150

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Second, the participants were able to actually see the use and implications of projectbased learning in their own classroom through their own planning and managing of the projects. As noted before “learning mathematics in school still continues to be dominated by traditional transmission of knowledge” (Wood et al., 1991, p. 601). However, the majority of the participants’ wanted to continue to use project-based learning in their classrooms. The participants’ pedagogical changes, then, are most probably related to their ability to actually see the application and effects of the instructional method within their own classroom. As noted before, teachers identified students’ deep involvement in learning and motivation to learn as affecting their desire to use PBL in the classroom.

Limitations

This study allowed us to have the participants share their responses to learning how to design and implement project-based learning in teaching mathematics to their students. However, we did not do any correlations to examine what else may have influenced their learning and implementation of the instructional method, such as the school setting, their confidence in teaching mathematics, the academic levels of their students, and other possible factors. Moreover, we know all of our participants did implement a PBL project in their classrooms, but we did not study how well they implemented the project with their students. Although we collected data through an observation in their classroom and by looking at their planning documents, we aimed, instead, to focus on their perceptions of the process instead of the actual results of the process. More rich data would come from seeking to examine the correlation of their learning with the ways they implemented of the PBL method.

Implications

This study shows the value of equipping mathematics teachers to implement methods that help them reach the goals of the CCSS-M and the eight Mathematical Practices. In our two years of implementing this yearlong program to two cohorts of approximately 18 teachers each year, over 70% of the teachers reported that they believed the PBL method was equally effective or

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 151

more effective than traditional methods in helping students learn mathematics. In addition, the findings support that the teachers felt they became better teachers in general – more able to manage their classrooms and make lesson plans to engage students. We assert that immersing teachers in the learning of PBL through PBL methods can strengthen teachers’ mathematical instruction by helping them gain a greater capacity to teach mathematics, and by providing stronger managerial techniques for teaching mathematics, in particular, the CCSS-M and its eight Mathematical Practices. In future papers, will we delve into how the PBL process did or did not impact these teachers’ students’ mathematical achievement.

Author Biographies

Lisa Douglass is an assistant professor at Ohio University-Zanesville. She is the coordinator of the middle child program there, and teaches mathematics and science methods courses, as well as middle level curriculum development. Prior to joining OU, Douglass taught 5-8th grades in Kansas and then Wisconsin. She received her PhD from Ohio State University. Douglass specializes in inquiry-based mathematics education, including problem-based learning. Marlissa Hughes Stauffer is an associate professor at Ohio Dominican University. She coordinates the Adolescence to Young Adult program (grades 7-12) and teaches courses in foundations, methods, and assessment and technology. Prior to joining ODU, she taught high school English and debate for eleven years in Indiana. She currently focuses on program and policy evaluation and implementation. She earned her Ph.D. from Indiana University. Ronald E. Zielke is an associate professor and the chair of the Mathematics, Computer and Natural Sciences Division at Ohio Dominican University. He teaches content mathematics courses for early and middle childhood education majors, as well as mathematics methods courses. He received his Ph.D. in Mathematics Education from The Ohio State University. Prior to coming to Ohio Dominican, he taught high school mathematics and computer science for eight years. His research interests include lesson study, project-based learning, and mathematical selfefficacy.

Volume 5 Page 152

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Molly Longstreth is a survey research specialist in the Survey Research and Evaluation Unit (SRE) of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia. She directs surveys, consults on sampling issues, and contributes to evaluations being conducted. Analyzing data and writing reports are among the areas of expertise she brings. Prior to joining the Institute, she founded the Survey Research Center at the University of Arkansas and directed it by leading a team in conducting a wide variety of surveys and evaluations for public agencies and non-profit organizations. She consults in the area of survey research. Longstreth's areas of expertise: survey research, data analysis, report writing. She received her Ph.D. in Consumer Economics at The Ohio State University.

References

Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry, 27, 331–367. Apple Pty. Limited (2014). Challenge Based Learning: Challenges. Retrieved from: http://www.challengebasedlearning.org/challenges. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching and the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 29, 14-22. Boaler, J. (2002). Learning from teaching: Exploring the relationship between reform curriculum and equity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(4), 239–258. Beswick, K. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs that matter in secondary mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 95-120. Booker, G. (1996). Constructing mathematical conventions formed by the abstraction and generalization of earlier ideas: The development of initial fraction ideas. In L. Steffe, P.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 153

Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 381396). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Buck Institute for Education (2014). Featured PBL Content. Retrieved from http://bie.org/project. Carnegie Institute’s Commission on Mathematics and Science Education (2008). The Growing Opportunity. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Carr, M., & Hettinger, H. (2003). Perspectives on mathematics strategy development. In J.M. Royer’s (Ed.), Mathematical Cognition (pp. 33-68). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Carter, G., & Norwood, K. S. (1997). The relationship between teacher and student beliefs about mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 97(2), 62-67. David, J. L. (2008). Project-based learning. ASCD: Educational Leadership. Retrieved May 30, 2012, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb08/vol65/num05/ProjectBased_Learning.aspx. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Johnson, A. P. (2008). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Keim, J. (2013). Standards for mathematical practice=Habits of mind=Project based learning. OCM BOCES Instructional Support. Retrieved from https://ocmbocesis.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/standards-for-mathematical-practicehabits-of-mindproject-based-learning/. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards - Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2012). Job outlook: The candidate skills/qaulities employers want. Retrieved from http://www.naceweb.org/s10262011/candidate_skills_employer_qualities/. New Media Consortium. (2011). Take action and make a difference: Challenge based learning.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 154

Retrieved from https://www.challengebasedlearning.org/challenges. Stipek, D. J., Givven, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213226. Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587-616.

Figures & Tables Available upon request of the authors.

Volume 5 Page 155

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDE

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

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

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

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

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 5 Page 156

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



Abstract o The abstract (150-word maximum) should effectively summarize your completed research and findings. o The word “abstract” should be bold. Keywords o This line should be indented. The word “Keywords” should be italicized and followed by a colon and two spaces. o Following the two spaces, list 3 or 4 keywords or key phrases that you would use if you were searching for your article online. o Only the first key word should be capitalized. The actual keywords are not italicized. Body of Paper (sections) ALL of the following sections MUST be present or your manuscript WILL be rejected. o Introduction o Literature Review o Methodology o Results/Findings o Discussion References –this heading is NOT bolded within the manuscript o Manuscripts should be thoroughly cited and referenced using valid sources. o References should be arranged alphabetically and strictly follow American Psychological Association (APA) sixth edition formatting rules. o Only references cited in the manuscript are to be included. Tables and Figures o If tables and figures are deemed necessary for inclusion, they should be properly placed at the end of the text following the reference section. o All tables and figures should be numbered sequentially using Arabic numerals, titled, acknowledged, and cited according to APA guidelines. o If graphs or tables are too wide for portrait orientation, they must be resized or reoriented to be included. Appendices (if applicable) o Must be labeled alphabetically as they appear in the manuscript. o Title centered at the top.

Volume 5 Page 157

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

WHY READ OUR JOURNALS?

Continuing Education: Each of the CSI's peer-reviewed journals focuses on contemporary issues, scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practices that will elevate readers' professional development. Germane Reference: The CSI's journals are a vital resource for students, practitioners, and professionals in the fields of education, business, and behavioral sciences interested in relevant, leading-edge, academic research. Diversity: The CSI’s peer-reviewed journals highlight a variety of study designs, scientific approaches, experimental strategies, methodologies, and analytical processes representing diverse philosophical frameworks and global perspectives Broad Applicability: The CSI's journals provide research in the fields of education, business and behavioral sciences specialties and dozens of related sub-specialties. Academic Advantage: The CSI's academically and scientifically meritorious journal content significantly benefits faculty and students. Scholarship: Subscribing to the CSI's journals provides a forum for and promotes faculty research, writing, and manuscript submission. Choice of Format: Institutions can choose to subscribe to our journals in digital or print format.

Volume 5 Page 158

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Student Achievement Impact: Analysis of Long-Term Effects of an Urban School-University Partnership on Student Learning Christopher A. McCullough, Saint Xavier University Catherine Larsen, DePaul University Academic Misconduct Among Nursing Students Preparing to be Licensed Practical Nurses Juanita Reese Kline, Ashland University Incorporating 21st Century Skills into Teacher Preparation Programs: A Collaborative Approach Rosemarie Michaels, Dominican University of California Elizabeth Truesdell, Dominican University of California Billye Brown, Dominican University of California Implementing Student-Generated Problem-Based Learning in Teacher Education Vincent R. Genareo, Iowa State University Adam J. Sansale, Illinois State University Margaret M. Zidon, University of North Dakota Emmanuel Adjei-Boateng, University of North Dakota Supporting Statewide Systems Utilizing External Coaches: A Concurrent Mixed-Methods Study in K-12 Schools Adria M. David, Northwest Nazarene University Affiliation Loredana Werth, Northwest Nazarene University Fernanda Brendefur, Boise State University Affiliation Natasha Rush, University of Idaho Affiliation Impacting Mathematic Teachers’ Pedagogy through Project Based Learning Lisa Douglass, Ohio University Marlissa Hughes Stauffer, Ohio Dominican University Ronald Zielke, Ohio Dominican University Molly Longstreth, University of Georgia

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241 855‐855‐8764

ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)