GATEways 1995 (Volume 8 Issue 1)

GATEways to Teacher Education The Journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators Published by College of Education, Georgia State University Volume VIII 1995 Editor: Edith Guyton, Georgia State University Associate Editor: Janet Towslee, Georgia State University

Officers of the Association President- Price Michael, West Georgia College Past President- Glenda Akins, Valdosta State University President-Elect- Kathryn Garrard, Brewton-Parker CoJJege Secretary- Debbie Floyd, Thomas Col1ege Treasurer- Jackie Castleman, Brewton-Parker College Executive Secretary- Eugene Bales, Atlanta Public Schools (GA)

Editora/ Board Burel Block, Albany State College (GA) David Byrd, The University of Rhode Island Angela Case, University of Delaware Howard Hill, Phi Delta Kappa (IN) Karen McClusky, Harrisburg Unit 3 (IL) Price Michael, West Georgia College Joyce Murphy, U.S. Department of Education (D.C.)

(iA T/;\I(I_YJ

to Tf!tlrf:er Eduwtion

From the Editor This GATEways issue addresses perennial teacher education topics such as student teacher stress as weU as topics unlikely to be found in a journal not too many years ago, such as portfolios, case studies, and the internet. Topics come and go, and perspectives on the same topics change as they are informed by experience and research. What remains the same for GATE members and others is the goa1 of educating good teachers for Georgia's schools. One article addresses perceptions of how well we are achieving this goal. Amidst the busyness of our Jives, this goal should be paramount. and we need to ask ourselves continuously how we are doing, if we are making a difference in the schools by what we are doing in our teacher education programs. It is my hope that this journal and all GATE activities enable us to do our jobs better and involve us in the conversations about the important questions. Professional stimulation is essential for individuals and groups as they go about their everyday (and sometimes not so stimulating) lives.

This issue wi1l be the last GATEway~ for which I am the editor. This six year experience as editor has been a pleasure in my professional Jife, and I thank the organization for the opportunity to serve in this way. Many people have been very important during my editorship, particularly the talented people who have served on the editorial board. Sam Deitz, dean of the Co11ege of Education at Georgia State University, has been very generous in his support of the journal, and Donna Braddy has contributed her expertise to the layout and covers. Diane Willey of Kennesaw State College wm take over next year and will bring new ideas and direction to the enterprise. Congratulations and good luck to her.

Edith Guyton Editor, Gateways to Teacher Education

2

•

GATEways to Teacher Education

•••• Table of Contents GATEways to Teacher Education The Journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

The Stress of Change From Student to Student Teacher: An Analysis of Future Student Teachers' Stress Profiles Anita S. VanBrack/e and Lewis N. VanBrackle Kennesaw State College

From "Solid C's" to "Sand Gnats": Employers Comment on Hiring and Retaining New Teachers Peggy Torrey Georgia Professional Standards Commission

The Internet and the Professor: A Mini-Guide Dawn Rodrigues and Robert Barrier Kennesaw State College

Teacher Educators Reflect About Portfolios TerriL. Wen·(.[aff and Katharine E. Cummings North Dakota State University

Use of the Case Study Approach: A Viable Tool for Preparing Preservice Teachers for the Multicultural Classroom Nancy Fichtman Dana, Pennslyvania Stare University Deborah Martin Floyd, Thomas College

.

GATEways to Teacher Educaliun

a

3

The Stress of C ange Fr Student to St ent Teacher: An Ana ysis of Future Student Teac ers' Stress Profiles Anita S. VanBrackle and Lewis N. VanBrackle Kennesaw State College

Introduction As time nears for the student teaching experience to begin. the future student teachers are immersed in a series of theory and methods classes to prepare them for their chosen careers. Along with these courses comes a deluge of feelings of insecurity and doubts. These insecurities and doubts are frequently accompanied by feelings of stress. In 1983, Bowers indicated that "student teachers show high levels of anxiety before student teaching but little is done to ameliorate this anxiety to minimize its effect on performance"{p.23). The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of the areas of stress that seniors perceive in their lives as they begin the change from a "relatively passive existence as a student in a college classroom to a student who is an active teacher in the schools., (Hourcade, 1988, p. 347). What are the areas in their lives that are impacted by the new pressures? Do the stress levels change over the course of a quarter? What are the most and least stressful areas? How can or should the stress encountered during this change in a student •s life be addressed during the methods classes?

Many studies document that student teachers experience high levels of stress. Oliver ( 1988) found that most student teachers report feeling inadequately prepared for the stress of teaching. Calhoun ( 1986) stated that stress is a major problem among student teachers. He found that student teachers ranked classroom discipline as the greatest stress-producing factor.

Only a few studies were located that found that future student teachers often 4

a

GATEways lo Teacher Education

reach high levels of anxiety before the student teaching experience. The areas of anxiety or stress that were presented in these research articles ranged from concerns about classroom discipline (Dropkin &Taylor, 1963) to writing lesson plans (Garcia & Bagley, 1992). Thompson (1963) reported that more anxieties precede student teaching than actually occur during the teaching experience. He further noted that more anxieties were reported by female student teachers than by male student teachers. Ford ( 1992) closely examined the sources of stress for students just prior to student teaching. Through the use of the Student Teacher Problems Inventory used by Lushinger,1969 (cited in Ford), Ford found support~ ing evidence that student teachers were more concerned about student teaching than their experience supported. This was especially true in the area related to the ..art of teaching" (Ford, 1992, p. 2). Bowers' (1983) work concluded that concerns appeared to "originate mainly in hearsay from other students and in personal feelings of inadequacy.,(p. 23).

Garcia and Bagley's study (1992) used an open ended question and interview strategy to assess the sources of stress that students felt prior to student teaching. The areas named by the students included specific courses, learning to do lesson plans, due dates of assignments and tests, amount of work, adjustment to CORE and concurrent courses (p.7). This work is the only one located that specifically addressed the areas of stress that were being experienced just prior to student teaching as opposed to anticipated areas of stress that might be experienced during student teaching.

Participants The students in this study were Senior Block students at a four-year state co1Iege in the southeast. The students were alJ female early childhood education majors who had previously completed Junior Block consisting of four five-quarter hour courses related to preschool education. During Junior Block, students were required to complete several observations as well as develop lesson plans and teach observed lessons to a preschool population. Junior Block students frequently discussed the high stress felt as they began their core program. During Senior Block, students were enrolled in four five-quarter hour methods courses.

The students also spent one day a week in a classroom which would be their placement for their.student teaching experience the following quarter. The Senior Block students completed course assignments, observed, kept logbooks, and developed and taught at least three observed lessons. From the students ' perceptions, Senior Block was known as a stressful time, even before students began Senior Block.

Procedures In a effort to discover the specific areas of stress perceived by Senior Block students, a brainstorming session was conducted. Many areas of stress were named. The areas were then clustered into six stress categories. The categories GATÂŁ\1 ay.s 10 Teacher Education

•

5

listed were: practicum experience, college classes (work load); home life; travel; personal relationships (significant other); and outside activities. A category ca1led Math Methods course was included because one of the researchers was the Math Methods instructor and was especially interested in the adage that ..most early childhood teachers hate math!" Each area was given a rating scale from 1 to 10.

A section wac; included on the ••stress Test" (as it affectionately came to be called by the students) for the students to write any comments related to their feelings of stress (see Appendix). The forms were kept confidential. The students were given a stress form each week at the beginning of the Math Methods class. Students completed the rating scale including comments, and the forms were turned in to the researcher. During Fa11 quarter, 55 Senior Block students participated in the study. Because of the extreme levels of stress reported by the students during the Fall quarter, the Senior Block Early Childhood Education faculty modified the due dates for course assignments during Winter Quarter. The same fonn and the same procedure for data co11ection was folJowed during Winter quarter with 54 Senior Block students.

Analysis A repeated measures analysis of variance was perfonned on the data to test the effect of quarter, area and week on the students' reported stress levels. The results show that the mean total stress level was lower in Winter Quarter than in FaH Quarter. Results for both Fall and Winter Quarters indicated a significant effect for both area and week (p <.001 ).

Figures 1-4 show the least squares means of stress level from the analysis for theweeks and areas for Fall and Winter Quarters.

Fit:ure 1. Fall quarter stress levels by week.

10.0 0

8.0

:!

6.0

:a

~

II)

4.0

fl)

e

U3

·-.

...__......_ ... •

2

4

~

. 2.0 0.0 1

6

•

3

5 6 Week

GATEways to Teacher Education

7

8

9

10

Figure 2. Fal1 quarter stress levels by area.

10.0 (I)

fa

;J en ...1

g Cl)

en

8.0 6.0 4.0

2.0 0.0 Act CourseW MathM SlgOth Home Area Pract Trav

Figure 3. Winter quarter stress levels by week.

10 (I)

a :J

8 6

...

CJ)

.....

(I) (I)

...

CD

~

4

....

2

~

0

1

2

3

4

5 6 Weelt<

7

8

9

10

Figure 4. Winter quarter stress levels by area.

10 CIJ

c

8

t1S

Q)

::E

~

m ~

1i)

6 4

2 0

Act CourseW MathM SlgOth Trav Home area Pract

GATEways ro Teacher Educm ion

7

Results Bonferroni's Multiple Comparison Method examined differences within each area by quarter and within each week by quarter. Differences between the areas within a quarter and between weeks within a quarter were also examined.

These analyses showed no significant difference between the mean stress levels of Week 4 for Fall and Winter Quarters. The same result was found for week I 0.

For an other weeks. the mean stress level was Jess in Winter Quarter than it was in Fall Quarter. The analysis for areas of stress showed that in a11 areas the mean stress level was lower in Winter Quarter than it was in Fall Quarter.

An analysis of areas of stress showed that in both quarters course work was the area with the highest mean stress level, and the Math methods course was the area with the second highest mean stress level. In both quarters the area of travel had the lowest mean stress level. Among the other areas there was no consistent pattern.

In analyzing stress level by week, in Fall Quarter, the only significant difference in mea~ stress level was in week 10, the last week of the quarter. This week had a significantly lower stress level than all other weeks of the quarter. In winter quarter the same pattern was observed.

Results of this study indicate that the modifications made by the Senior Block Early Childhood Education faculty had a significant impact in reducing the mean stress levels in aU areas during Winter Quarter. The modifications made¡ regarding due dates did not appear to have a significant impact on the pattern of stress across the weeks during-Winter Quarter.

Recommendations Preparing for student teaching is a stressful time especia11y for those entering the teaching field of Early Childhood Education. Garcia and Bagley ( 1992) stated that "students need a supportive ear to hear a concern"(p. 10) especially in the area of ..early childhood because teachers are expected to nurture their students according to appropriate professional standards and practices"(p. 10). It is important for faculty to model the kind of support and caring during the methods classes that future student teachers are expected to use in the early childhood education classroom. According to Bowers ( 1983). concerns about student teaching appeared to originate in hearsay from other students and in feelings of inadequacy. Addressing these feelings before student teaching begins may help alleviate some sources of stress or doubt for student teachers. This study demonstrated that just having faculty work together to adjust due dates for projects and tests will lessen stress among prestudent teachers. Addressing this population's concerns as they develop skills to enter student teaching will help reduce the stress.

Being aware of the various sources of stress that accompany teaching will enable our future teachers to gain a more realistic picture of the demands of the teaching profession.

8

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways to Teacher Education

References Bowers III, H. C., Eicher, K., & Sacks, A. L. (1983). Reducing stress in student teachers. The Teacher Educator. 19(2), 19-24.

Calhoun, S. E. ( 1986). Are our future teachers prepared for the stress that lies ahead? (1986}. The Clearin& House. 60(4), 178-179.

Dropkin, S., & Taylor, M. ( 1963). Perceived problems of beginning teachers and related factors. Journal of Teacher Education. 14 (4), 384-390.

Ford, C. W. (1992, October). Student teachers' anticipated concerns: Are they justified? Paper presented at the meeting of the Georgia Association for Childhood Education International, Athens, GA. Garcia, 1., & Bagley, D. ( 1992). Early childhood education majors: Study in& stress and stress reduction factors. Unpublished manuscript, IBinois State University, Normal-Bloomington, IL. Hourcade, J. J., Parette, Jr., H. P,. & McCormack, T. J. ( 1988). Stress sources among student teachers. The Clearing House. 61(8), 347-350.

Oliver, R., Moore, J., Thomson, K. A., & Hovland, M. ( 1988). Integrating a stress management and prevention component in teacher preparation (Report No. CG023260). Vermillion: University of South Dakota. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 888) Thompson, M. L. ( 1963 ). Identifying anxieties experienced by student teachers.

Journal of Teacher Education. 1~4), 435-439.

Stress before Student Teaching Appendix A Sttess Form Date.__________________

Nrune.______________________________ Areas that may cause stress:

0

,I

0

1

0 0 I 0 otherll 0

1 1 I

o Comments ~lated to your feelings of stress:

J 1'

2. ·3. ' 4.

I

s.

· 6. , 7.

Praclicum exoari•nce Colleaa claase.s rwork load) Math Methods Home life Travel Personal relationahip_{siA_nificant Outside Activitiea

'

I I

I

2 2 2

3' 3

4i s!

4;

5; 6i

3

3.

3

4 4' 4

sl

2 2

1

2

3

4l

1

21

31

61 6t

51 6

71 8'

g f t ol

71 71

a·

g;

8.

9 10 g j 1 Oj

71 8' 71 8

s ! sl 5 • sl 71 •I s l si 71

al

1 Ql

911 Oj g ! 10 •

8; 9 10

GAT£1mys ro Teacher Ed11cmivn

Ill

Q

From ''Solid C's'' to "Sand Gnats": Employers' Comments on Hiring and Retaining New Teachers Peggy Torrey, Georgia Professional Standards

C~mmission

"A mismanaged classroom where kids are never working we just don •t keep them."

• • "The first thing /look at is GPA." • "Good solid C teacher is O.K. with us. They have the "I don' 1 care to hire A students."

ability t~ transfer knowledge."

•

"Colleges recommend everyone- need to be tougher in making decisions."

•

"1 don't think content is very important-need basic knowledge, but we need to work on interpersonal skills and positive attitude.

They've got to really like kids.''

•

"Some of our beginning teachers don't come back because of sand gnats."

10

•

GATEways to Teacher Education

These quotes are part of thousands collected as part of a Professional Standards Commission survey of school system personnel involved in hiring, supporting, and evaluating new teachers. What exactly DO employers want? This artie Je presents a summary of findings particu Jarly relevant to GATE members.

The Professional Standards Commission has the responsibility for determining appropriate assessments for the initial licensing and re-certification of teachers as well as other educators. A careful examination of existing teacher assessment practices is a crucial first step in deciding whether refonns are needed. Therefore, Commission staff conducted a study to gather infonnation from state staff, teacher education institutions, and school systems about current assessment practice and the perceived effectiveness of that practice in assuring that teachers entering the profession are we11 qualified and prepared to teach.

This article addresses only phase I results of particular interest toGATE members. A description of the school system sample as well as selected information acquired through the interviews is provided. Questions used in the interviews were designed to get a picture of the types of teachers desired as well as how easily systems were able to recruit, hire, and retain such candidates. Infonnation about the support and evaluation of new teachers also was collected in an effort to determine their strengths and weaknesses andto determine the effectiveness of the current teacher assessment system in contributing to their growth.

The responses to selected questions have been presented in relation to several general themes, some of which were outlined by the study questions themselves and one of which emerged from the data. A more detailed analysis of all of the study questions is avai1able upon request.

Method Subjects

Visits to approximately one-fifth of Georgia's 180+ school systems for interviews were not feasible. At the time the sample was selected, the number of school systems in Georgia was 184. One-fifth of that number was 36.8 or 37 systems. They were purposively selected to represent one fifth of each comparison group (groups developed by DOE based on system size and average SES of pu pils as measured by the percentage of those served who are on free or reduced lunch status); geographic distribution across the state; the approximate percentage of urban, rural, and suburban systems in the state; and the approximate percentage of city and county systems in the state. Although all37 systems were contacted for interviews, only 33 actually agreed to participate in the study.

GATEn ays ru Teacher 拢dm路ation

s

II

Table 1; School System Types Number of Systems by Type Urban Suburban Rural Total

01 04 28 33

City County Total

04 29 33

Personnel within Systems Re.spondine to Suryey A total of 73 people in 33 systems were interviewed. Principals made up almost half ( 48%) of the respondents, but many others were involved including superintendents, assistant superintendents for instruction, personnel directors, and curriculum directors. The overwhelming majority of respondents were male and Caucasian.

Table 2; Positjops of Suryey Respopdents Position: Superintendents Principals Assistant Superintendent for Personnel/ Personnel Director Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Curriculum Director Administrative Assistant Director of Special Services Director of Recruitment, Placement, & Records Director of Staff Development Total

Table 3; Respopdents by Race and Sex SEX RACE

12

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEway.~

White Black

Male 48,66% 4,05%

(()Teacher EducaTion

Female 19,26% 2,03%

19 or 26%+ 35 or 48% 9or12%+ 4or5%+ 2or3% 1 or 1%+ 1 or I%+ 1 or 1%+ I or 1%+ 73 or98%+

Procedure In phase I of the study, letters were sent to system superintendents explaining the survey and asking them to decide who within their systems would be able to respond best to the interview questions. FolJow-up calls were made to get a Jist of interviewees and to set up mutuaJly convenient appointment times with each. A total of 73 people in 33 systems were interviewed at their work settings to ascertain whether they were able to hire the types of teachers they sought, what strengths and weaknesses in beginning teachers they perceived, and what suggestions they might have for future assessment policy. Notes were taken during the interview. Once the infonnation had been fuJJy transcribed, the completed interview fonns were mailed to respondents for verification and, if necessary, clarification. Suggested revisions and additions were made before the responses were initiaJJy analyzed. All responses initiaJly were entered verbatim and then read and summarized under recurrent themes and patterns. However, because of the variety of practice and preference, many individual answers were also preserved. A copy of the survey and answers to each individual question areavailable upon request.

Results Reviews of policy, legislation, and interviews with state staff revealed an overall picture of teacher assessment practice in Georgia at the time. The only state-wide assessments of teachers included the Teacher Certification Tests (TCTs), multiple choice exams in 30 fields that assess content knowledge, and the Georgia Teacher Evaluation Program, the annual evaluation for practicing teachers that consists of a classroom perfonnance section (GTOI) as well as a Duties and Responsibilities section (GTDRI). A passing score on the appropriate Tcr was required for certification. The results of the GTEP evaluation were tied to salary steps, but not directly to contracts or continued employment. Since the interviews were conducted, legislation enacted during the 1995 sessions has made use of the GTEP optional in local systems.

The phase I survey questions were divided into two general areas: those concerning hiring practices and those concerning evaluation practices. Selected results will be summarized under one general theme whil:h emerged as well as those two areas.

General Theme: The lmoortance ofAf!ective Traits and Lnteroersona/ Skills The one dominant theme which emerged from the data was the importance of affective traits and interpersonal skills in the act of teaching and thus, their importance in educating, hiring, and evaluating teacher candidates. TI1is idea appeared in response to numerous, diverse questions about decisions concerning applicants for teach ing positions. For example: 1. When asked an open-ended question about which characteristics employers looked for most often, enthusiasm was the most frequent response and GA TEnoys to Te({(路her Edumtivn

a

I .\

personality was the fifth most frequent answer:. The five qualities or characteristics listed most often when screening applicants in order of frequency are: enthusiasm; experience and overall qualifications; communication skills; )mowledee of content â&#x20AC;˘ curriculum, and learners; and personality. In all, 64 characteristics were mentioned including positive attitude, self-initiative, caring, sense of humor, and the ability to smile.

2. When asked to rate infonnation which was used in deciding whom to interview and hire using a three pointscale (unimportant= 1, important-2, very important ...3), personal characteristics were rated as most important (mean=2.97) and test scores as least important (mean-1.66). In comparison, references had a mean of 2.72 and college grades had a mean of 1.94.

3. When asked what was considered when evaluating an applicant's interview responses, over 80% of respondents' comments dealt with a candidate's personal characteristics (oral expression, attitude, confidence, sincerity) as primary among considerations.

4. When asked the best predictors of success in the classroom, over one half of all respondents cited a teacher candidate's affective traits (overall personality, enthusiasm, communication/interpersonal skills, love of kids). Other predictors cited less often (in descending order) were candidates' knowledge of teaching and content, positive references about candidates from those who have actually seen them teach, the institution where candidates went to school, and the intuition of the interviewer about candidates during the selection process.

Hiring ..Positive Dltitude-¡ifyou can 'I be positive, I don't want you."

Interviews with system personnel quickly revealed that there is no standard approach to hiring across systems and variation in hiring practice exists among schools in many systems. Different people are involved in the personnel decision making, different criteria are used to select employees, and different characteristics are valued.

Selection Process "I prefer new teachers above Q.JU other category. They are better trained in methodology."

"Other things being equal--experience would win out."

Among the 33 school systems surveyed, the total number of teachers employed per system ranged from 30 to 2500. The number of applicants per system per year varied from a low of 3 to ever 3,000. Recruitment practices ranged from systems that recruit nationwide (7) to two systems that do no recruit14

IJ

GATEways to Teacher Education

ing and interview local applicants only. In general, most systems in this sample had no shortage of applicants, except in the areas of special education, speech/ language pathology, foreign language, and some science fields. However, most systems did report a shortage of minority candidates.

Systems varied widely in the number of new hires each year (from 3 to 300) as we11 as in the type of teacher preferred for hire. Some preferred beginning teachers because they can be 路路molded" and as many as 88% of their new hires were from this category; others hired only teachers with experience.

Systems also varied widely in the personnel they include in screening, interviewing, and recommending candidates for hire. In 46% of the systems, the principal had the major role, whereas in 38% of the systems, personnel directors and superintendents participated with principals throughout the entire selection process. In 8% of the systems, superintendents personally screen, interview, and select teachers while in another 8% of the systems, personnel directors handle all hiring.

When school level personnel are involved in the hiring decision, both the process and those included in it vary. For example, in some schools, group interviews involving committees of teachers are used, in others department or team heads assist with hiring, and in some only the principal is involved in employment decisions.

Evaluation "Biggest problem: people coming out have good knowledge of teaching methods but haven't seen enough variety of classrooms. Sometimes they are totally unprepared and we lose good teachers."

"Students are prepared well for content but not other ways of dealing with kids--inclusion, time management, classroom management, teaching beyond the textbook- programs aren't moving as fast as the rest of the world."

"They need to do better screening on personality characteristicsinterpersonal skills."

Under the general section on evaluation, respondents were asked to explain how they evaluated new teachers, both formatively and summatively; to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of new teachers~ to discuss how they addressed new teachers who are not being successful; to reflect on the effectiveness of current assessments used with pre~service and in-service teachers, suggesting any changes they felt needed to be made; and to suggest the most appropriate roles for teacher education institutions, the state, and school systems in the assessment process.

GATEways to reac:her Edumtion

15

Methods a/Evaluation When system personnel were asked how they evaluate new teachers, 85% mentioned using GTEP as at least one step in the evaluation process for new teachers, but no one responded that they used only GTEP. Additional ways of assessing perfonnance included such things as using a system developed evaluation instrument, using outside evaluators, using frequent infonnal observations, and getting feedback from students and parents.

Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses Respondents were asked to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of new teachers whom they had actually hired who felJ into a variety of categories including those with no previous teaching experience, those on provisional contracts (typically indicating background in subject matter content but not in pedagogy), those from out-of-state, etc. Only selected categories have been reported here.

New Teachers with No Previous Teachinc Experience Knowledge of latest teaching methodologies was mentioned most often among the strengths of new teachers, followed by positive affective traits (such as enthusiasm, adaptability, and cooperative attitudes) and strong content and subject area knowledge.

Nearly one-third of all respondents cited "classroom management and motivating students" as a weakness of new teachers. Other weaknesses were noted in: a) dealing with diverse student populations (at-risk, different grade levels, etc.); b) understanding the realities of teaching; c) using technology in instruction; d) planning and organization; e) oral and/or written communication skills; and f) communicating with parents.

New Teacbers from Particular In-State Teacher Education Proc,rams The strengths and weaknesses of many in and out of state institutions were mentioned. Most of the responses were general. e.g., ..fine." .. doing a good job," etc. However. several programs received specific criticisms or commendations which were made available to them as anonymous responses. Two examples of the feedback received are presented below.

1. College A. Positive comments listed for College A included: "making progress," ¡¡newer teachers from College A are much better," "growing in strength (strengthened some, but still room for growth)," and "has improved a lot."

Comments concerning weaknesses for College A included: ..We have had some problemswith their graduates," "everyone we get, there 's something wrong; they always have to be straightened out," "their students have problems in basic skills-reading, writing, speaking, math," ..their students have difficulty with content; problems passing TCT; the program is not practical," .. master's program students 16

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways tu Teach~r EduC'ation

have problems in written and spoken language; they're overconfident and unreceptive to constructive criticism," ··very weak program; the supervision is deplorable -it's infrequent; they make appointments and don't show up," "lack of content know ledge."

2. College B. Positive comments listed for College B included: ·•wide range of content knowledge (whole language, Math Their Way);" ·· excellent attitude; trained in wide range of experiences," ··excellent. people are well prepared; they are good at getting the students in classrooms early." ''Early Childhood, Special Education are the only areas from which we've had their teachers, both were good," ''in classrooms a lot more than most,'' ''field-based program," "wide experience," "very strong; more in line with what we actually do," "excellent Early Childhood program."

No comments were made concerning weaknesses for College B.

New Teachers Educated Out-of-State Nearly two thirds of the respondents to this question either had little or no experience with new teachers educated out-of-state or saw no real differences in the performance of those they have employed. Those who did comment felt strongly that these teachers: a) were well prepared and weiJ grounded in their content field; b) had strong teaching skills; c) brought new ideas and different perspectives about curriculum; and d) had more experience with diverse students.

Weaknesses cited were unfamiliarity with special Georgia requirements, Georgia program standards. and forms unique to Georgia.

Mareinal Teachers The question asking how the interviewees respond to new teachers who are having difficulty generated more comments than any other question. The in forma· tion indicated that principals play the key role in mostdecisions not to renew a teacher's contract but stressed that they make these decisions only after numerous and varied attempts to help the teacher improve including: analyzing videotapes of the teacher assigning mentors bringing in outside help confere nc ing providing courses and workshops providing release time for observing successful teachers providing Professional Development Plans

GATE1myf ru 7eacher Educ:mion

a

I7

.

Asked what staff development courses they had specifically designed for and offered to beginning teachers, system personnel listed classroom management four times more often than any other. Other courses frequently mentioned were ones in cooperative learning, whole language, effective teaching, and math manipulatives.

If attempts at improvement faiJ, many respondents indicated that they are willing to dismiss the teacher. In¡ract, fifty-one percent of the systems fail to renew between 0 and 5% of new teachers; 34% fail to renew between 5 and 1CYk; and 16% fail to renew more than 10% of new teachers.

Current Assessment System When asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the current assessment process (at the time consisting of the TCT, the GTEP, and the Regents' Exam in public institutions), 29% of the respondents cited strengths; 79% cited weaknes~es, with the vast majority of both types of comments centering on the GTEP system.

Infonnation on other parts of the system included the belief that the TCT is useful as a base level screening for content knowledge in one's teaching field and that: 1. the overall system never addresses affective measures; 2. the Teacher Certification Tests are not difficult enough; and 3. colleges and universities need to assess teacher candidates earlier and in more helpful ways.

The most frequently suggested changes in the assessment system were specific to GTEP; however, other suggestions about the overall system included more extensive preservice assessments (including exploring the possibility of assessing interpersonal skills of teacher candidates) as weB as more, earlier, and better assessed practical experiences for student teachers. Other recommendations inc1uded exploring models of perfonnance evaluation, e.g., using a site-based management approach, and varying the assessments for beginning and tenured teachers.

Awrapriate Roles for Institutions q.fHigher Education in the Assessment of Teachers

"We need better advisement and counseling out if necessary."

"Before diploma given--performance-based assessment needed, perhaps a semester prior to employment."

"Colleges recommend everyone--need to be tougher in making decisions."

"Screen people up front and after they have begun - not everyone should make it."

18

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways to Tt.ac:ht>r Educariun

Respondents were asked to comment on the knowledge, skills, and abilities of prospective teachers which faculty in teacher education programs could best evaluate to inform the credentialing decision. However, most respondents to this question did not list knowledge, skills, and abilities best judged by colleges. The few who did (6 responses out of 102) mentioned content knowledge, effective teaching practices, and general knowledge. The majority of responses addressed concerns about teacher education programs. Respondents mentioned the following concerns in order of frequency: lack of variety and frequency of field experiences, the curriculum of teacher education programs, lack of screening before admission and during programs, lack of attention to students' interpe rsonal skills, lack of communication between colleges and systems, and preparation of administrators.

.

Discussion

The results of the first phase of the study were expected in some ways and were quite unexpected in others. Not surprisingly, no standardized approach exists to hiring or beginning teacher support, and system personnel are willing to non-renew an unsuccessful teacher's contract, but only following extensive remedial efforts. Of real surprise, however, was the importance placed on interpersonal skills and affective traits in theselection process. They are seen as more important than grades, references, or test scores and as the best predictors for later classroom success. More initial screening and assessment on these characteristics were also recommended.

The amount of comment and concern about education programs and the current assessment system for teachers was also a surprise. Preparers are encouraged to provide more and different field/clinical experiences, to screen more effectively both for admittance and before graduation. and to increase their attention to students' affective characteristics. The assessment programs, both Teacher Certification Testing and the annual perfom1ance evaluation (GTEP), were perceived as too easy and additional assessment was recommended. In short, it appears that the majority of school personnel involved in the hiring and support of new teachers select candidates predominantly on affective traits and interpersonal skills. Therefore, not surprisingly, they advocate additional attention from both preparers and assessments to the importance of the affective domain as well as stronger preparation programs and assessments to assure the academic quality of the applicant pool.

The I ter eta dt e Professor: A

e

Dawn Rodrigues and Robert Barrier, Kennesaw State College

WHAT SHOULD YOU KNOW ABOUT THE INTERNET? In the state of Georgia most teachers have the Internet at their fingertipsaccessible from their desktop computer or at least only a modem's free call away.

At Kennesaw State College we've been focusing on exploring ways of using email and gopher capabilities in our classes and in the Writing Center, so we've had a chance to do more than the average amount of exploring. We thought we'd share some of what we've learned. Though we've used examples and screens at KSC, most of what we say here should be adaptable to your own systems.

But first, Jet us review some Internet Basics.

SOME INTERNET BASlCS 1. I'm on e-mail? Does that mean I'm on the Internet?

If you have an e-mail address, then you can be on the Internet. Fourteen Georgia colleges are currently a part of Peachnet, a linked set of Georgia Internet sites. E-mail addresses with those school locations indicate your Internet capabilities. Moreover, if you are connected to public education in any way, you have free limited access to the Internet via GC EduNet, located at Georgia Co11ege in Mi11edgevil1e (phone. If you are a resident of the state of Georgia, you arc eligible to some free Internet access out of the Tallahassee Free Net.

20

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways to Teacher EduC"ation

2. What,s a listserv? How do I join one?

Listserv groups--often called mailing lists or "listst·--are ways that groups interested in the same topic can carry on a discussion of that topic through e-mail.

If a group of people are subscribed to the same "list," then they can easily send messages to the entire group and reply to them by writing to the list address rather than writing to each person individualJy. Here ts how to subscribe to a Jist: I. Address an e-mail message to the listserv address:

Iistserv@ [address] e.g.listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu 2. In the first line of the message, type the following: subscribe [name of Jist] [your name] e.g. subscribe K-161ink Dawn Rodrigues There are hundreds of lists in the academic disciplines. The best way to learn quickly about Iistservs in your discipline is to look at Resources by Subject on the KSC Gopher, find maillists, discussion groups, ore-lists, and read the short purpose statement and subscription information of interesting sounding lists. (Be sure to save the unsubscribe information that you will receive with each subscription. Create a special folder on your email program for this information.)

To access one of the best resources on the Internet, follow one of these procedures: A. Depending upon your system, either gopher to Riceinfo.Rice.univ (push o for open at your first Gopher screen or push Gopher if you are using Minuet and type Riceinfo.Rice.Edu) or te1net there by typing at the telnet prompt riceinfo.rice.edu or in some cases type openriceinfo.rice.edu).

B. Or key down through the hierarchies of gopher screens until you arrive at ·'Information by Subject Area.''

This is the KSC menu; your screens should be somewhat similar:

1. From the KSC Gopher Root Menu (first screen), key down to "General Jnformation Services."

2. C lick on this item, and go to "Resources by Subject."

CiATEwnys 10 Teacher Educ·a1ion

•

21

3. From there, go to "List of Subject :frees."

C. Finally, go to ''Information by Subject Area (Ricelnfo.Rice.Univ)." Click on this item, and then go to your discipline. Enter. Here you wiJl find screen after screen of resources, with listservs discussed under mai11ists, e-lists, or discussion group headings. (If you want to return to this area, you might want to set a bookmark. [See item #5, "How Can I Jump to a Specific Gopher or Web site."])

3. How can I start a listserv discussion group?

To start your own list, here's what you do: Send a message to Michael Mi11er (mmiJJer@uga.cc.uga.edu).

Ask him to set up a Jistserv for your group or class.

Here's the information he'll need: List Owner (e-mail id and name, i.e. your name): List Name (max 8 characters}: List Description (max 44 characters): Is list to be PUBLIC (anyone can subscribe or post): or PRIVATE (only owner can subscribe people; only subscribers can post.)

Lists should be for academic purposes. The Iistserv K ..16link is a discussion group on ways of integrating technology in K-12 language arts/English classes.

We plan to ask our students to subscribe to it; we've also invited members of various professional organizations to join the list.

3. What's a gopher? How do we use gopher at KSC? Computer scientists at the University of Minnesota created "gopher," menubased software that allow users at one site to create hierarchical sets of campus information (called Campus-Wide Information Systems--CWIS); gopher also allows an institution to have menu selections that link to information at other sites.

By fo11owing links, you can explore information that has been collected by scholars or students at different sites around the country and around the world.

As faculty and students across the country have discovered the ease with which they can create gopher areas, they have begun to post academic infonnation and course materials on their gophers. The University of Michigan has even created a simple bulletin board for faculty and students that works directly from the gopher: facultywrites includes messages posted by faculty~ studentwrites includes messages posted by students. We are eager to be able to add course areas to our gopher at KSC and to work with K-12 teachers to create co-operative spaces on the gopher, but currently there is not sufficient disk space to alJow us to do this.

22

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways to Teacher Edumtion

Perhaps we can collaborate on some grant proposals to help secure funding for more powerful computers.

4. What~s the World Wide Web? The World-Wide Web (WWW) is a linked set oflnternet documents, many with hypertext inner links--places within documents that lead to separate documents. You view the documents using a ''browser," software that controls how the documents look on your screen. Graphical browsers such as Mosaic and Netscape allow you full access to audio, video, and text. Most schools and institutions, however, do not yet have graphical browsers. They do have access to lynx, a text browser, either through servers besides gopher servers (often servers for students such as KSC's Pigseye) or through telnetting to outlets such as the lynx servers at the University of Kansas (telnet: ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu and signing in as WWW. Some examples of WWW sites are these: http://owl/trc.purdue/edul (Purdue's Online Writing Lab) http://www. bmgt.umd.edu!Business/ AcadcmkDepts/IS/Learning/ 1 earn.html (Descriptions of Electronic Learning Environments) http:/www.lib.virginia.edu/etext/ETC.html (British fiction , such as files of Rossetti's poetry and paintings and Keats' poetry.) http://http2.sils.umich.edu/ (The University of Michigan's School of Infonnation and Library Science home page, which includes lists of lists, including ones in humanities, K-12 education, natural science, and social sciences. The entries have addresses and synopses of various listservs in specific areas.)

When you log into a unix account, you should see either a menu of choil'cs or a unix prompt %. To access lynx, type lynx. Then type in the URL (the universal resource locator): e.g. //www.missouri.edu/-cccc95 Minuet, the e-mail package that many faculty at KSC now have on their office computers, will soon release a graphical browser for the World-Wide-Web. With a commercial product such as Prodigy you can have acc:css to a web browser for a monthly fee.

5. How Can I Jump to a Specific Gopher or Web Site?

TI1e graphics-based gopher menu that appears on most faculty rompulcrs docs not allow you to go directly to a specific gopher site. You have to click your way to the site by mov ing through random menus or by going to all the gopher ~c rvers in the world, to gopher servers in the United States, etc. When you find the gopher site you are looking for, you can place a "Bookmark'' there. 路 Bookmarks are ways of storing路gopher addresses that you want to return to CIA Tl.'ll'ays l o [ {'(wher Education

2J

later. To set a bookmark, first find the site you are looking for. Then click on ··new bookmark" and type in a name for the gopher site you want to remember. To go immediately to a site you have "'bookmarked," click on Keep Bookmark.

If you locate a file with information that you want to save, click on the file menu; select ··save asH; then type in the location where you would like to save the file (e.g., If you have a directory named ··save;· then you might want to name the file something like "bib" on your hard drive. To do that, you would type: c:/save/ bib).

The information that you save can be used in many ways for instructional purposes. Here are a few examples: · You can create exercises on disk based on the text of the information you have retrieved. · You can ask students to analyze a passage from recent legislation if the text of the bill is available on a gopher server. (After you have saved the file, you access it by retrieving it with your word processor. You might want to delete much of the text and add discussion questions at the beginning or end of the file.

Your file can be placed on the hard drive of yout school's server so that students can be asked to access the exercise later.) · You can include the file directly in the text of an e-mail message to a co11eague with whom you want to share ideas.

If you want to jump directly to a specific gopher, you may be able to telnet to your Sun account (or access it by dialing in from home via modem). (Telnet is a program that Jets you connect with computers at other sites.) First, log in. Then, at the menu, select gopher. You see the text-based gopher screen. ·To go directly to the site of your choice, you type ·•o". When prompted, type in the address of the computer you want to reach. For example, you would type in the following to telnet to the Carl library system in Colorado:

wm

telnet database.Carl.org

If you find information that you want, you can Mai1 it to yourself and then print it later.

To mail yourself information from a gopher menu, type: <m>. When prompted, type your address or the address of a colleague (at KSC or anywhere on the Internet).

H OW CAN THE INTERNET HELP YOUR TEACHING? If your students get e-mail accounts, you can begin to adapt you r teaching to the information age.

24

•

GATEways to Tettcher /:,'dlt(:ation

*

Ask students to post responses to discussion topics to the entire class.

(They will need to each create an .. alias路路- a group name such as CLASS that you usc when you want to send to everyone you've listed as belonging to a specific group.)

Class conversations can continue between meeting times. If you ask provocative questions, you'll have some disagreement. You can print out some responses and take them to class to spark face-to-face discussion. Or. you can have students who are responsible for a class presentation post some key infomlation related to their topic ahead of time, even posting questions that will be asked in class. Students can be required to come to class with a printout of the e-mail message.

*

Have students subscribe to a few listserv discussion groups in your field and take part in the national conversation of topics related to your course.

In our English 309 class, students are signed up to NCTE-Talk, English Teachers, and K-16Iink. As students work on their research papers, they send questions to one or more of these lists, asking teachers and students at other locations to help them. Students survey others on uses of technology. reactions to novels, plays, and poems, or ways of designing resumes.

*

Collaborate with professors at other colleges or universities or with K~ 12 teachers. You can have ''foreign exchange students., in your class without any expense involved. Divide your classes into groups, with students in your physical class paired with students at your colleagues' locations.

We arc organizing a collaborative project with two teachers in Pittsburgh.

PA, and a teacher in Athens, GA. Our students will read and respond to drafts of one another's papers. Our KSC students arc enroJJed in Engl 309, Principles of Teaching Writing. Without leaving the classroom, our students will have the experience or working with students at three grade levels.

*

Teach your students how to usc the Internet as an extension of the school library. Help them learn how to usc search tools such as Veronica and Archie.

When students are actively involved in searching for information, they write more clearly a~ they present the results of that search.

Veronica offers a keyword search of most gopher server menus in the entire gopher web. Archie allows you to search FTP (file transfer) sites (and other selected si tes). Unlike Archie, the search results can connect you directly to the data source. You have your own menu after you do a Veronica search. The results arc an automatically generated gopher menu, custnmized according the usc.r's keyword specifications.

GA I Eu路ay, ro T('(IC'hrr /:'ducat ion

25

SOMRINTERNEJ' SI1ES FOR YOU. AND YOUR STUDENTS The Electronic Newstand Here you can read selected articles from journals ranging from The Neu¡ Republic, the New Yorker and Discover to ComputerWor/d, Field and Stream and Sloan Management Review. gopher: enews.com The Thomas Web Server This site provides the full text of all versions of House and Senate bills. It is searchable by keywords or by bill number. The site includes background infonnation on how laws are made.

John December's List As part of his academic interests, John December, Professor of Computer Science at Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute collects, organizes, and presents infonnation describing the Internet and computer-mediated communication. This infonnation includes resources and studies about technology, applications, culture, discussion forums, and bibliographies. His areas of interest include the technical. social , rhetorical, cognitive, and psychological aspects of networked communication. You can view a summary of this list and get instructions for accessing it by using ftp. Ftp: 1/ftp.rpi.edu/pub/communications/intemet-tooJs Resources by Subject Area at Rice Univ. (See 2.3 earlier.)

An easily accessible gateway to many resources, gophers. and tistservs in the subject areas, this area organizes infonnation for quick looks or for electronic browsing.

Resources by Subject and Vanderbilt Guides and Bibliographies The reference department at Vanderbilt library has on the gopher eighty guides and bibliographies, from abortion to welfare, listing major references, with bib1iographic summaries and Library of Congress call numbers. This is an excellent first stop for students doing research in literature, social scienc.es, and education. It not only contains the most common tenn paper topics but also clearly explains how to use FTP, Uncover, Newsgroups, Veronica, ERIC, and Archie.

Access this area by clicking in sequence ..Gophers Servers of the World," ''North America," ''USA," '"Tennessee" .. VUinfo (Vanderbilt University)," ''Library Resources and Services," and "Guides and Bibliographies" or by gopher (V uin fo. Vanderbilt.ed u ).

Solinet (Southeastern Library Network) Here you can find links to the major resource and research desks at universities across the world as well as miscellaneous information such as Amtrak schedules, exact local time worldwide, dai1y foreign currency rates, and entries into 26

â&#x20AC;˘

(;A TElrays ro TMcher Education

university gophers which allow pub! ic access to Use net discussion groupe;_ Click in on.Jer ·'Gophers Servers of the World:· .. North America:· ··uSA,.. ··Georgia .. and then "SOLINET (Southeastern Library Network)" or gopher (solJ.soJinet.edu).

GC HduNct (Georgia Educational Netll'ork)

Georgia's Freenct service, operated by Regional Teacher Education Center, Georgia College. Accessible through toll free lines, this service contains confercm:es. email capability, databases in education, vocational infom1atinn, and daily CNN Newsroom Curriculum Guides (telnet: gcedunct.peachnet.cdu)

Tallahassee FreeNet

Free to residents of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, this service offers email, community info, access to libraries and research services, and overall gateway into the internet. Telnet to freenet.seri.fsu.edu and sign-in as visitor.

Tclnct to Youngstown State Frccnet (yfn2.ysu.edu) and click on Other Resources, External Tower, etc. for access into twenty-nine other freencts.

NCTE Server at Clemson

Still under construction at Clemson, the National Council of Teachers of English gopher already has an impressive array of educational resources and reviews in language arts, composition, and rhetoric (gopher: ncte.clemson.edu).

Gatell"ays into Neu·s GroupJ

To receive unrestricted entry into the thousands of news groups {unmodcratcd discussion groups), you may have to join a commercial service such as Delphi. Prodigy, or CornpuScrvc. Most educational gophers do provide ac·ccss into K-12 groups, but few university newsgroup areas open. (Like good fishing holes, they become so popular that they become restricted). Try Solinct (abnvc) for lists of current venues, especially foreign ones, or try to register on one of the best launchpad at the University of North Carolina (telnet to launchpad.unc.edu nnd sign in as launch).

Other Statewide Sites of Interest

Here arc a few more places you might want to visit. Check out the Writing Center ut the University of Georgia (gopher parallel.park.uga.edu or cl ick on the main UGA screen. to Other, then English) for discussion about writing tcnn papers and entry into Purdue's Owl. an impressive collect ion of handouts and exercises on grammar. compo~o,ition, and documentation. Try the English Dept server at Kcne nsaw State College for Regent 's Test inform ation (gopher kscsuna l.kennesaw.edu or cl ick at KSC the CWIS gopher, then departme nt,. then English). Also at KSC under CWIS. then news releases, you cnn read G/\ Tl:\ray.~ 111 Tcorhrr Educmio11

•

27

current and back issues of Reaching Through Teaching. At West Georgia, try out the EduCom gopher, with its screens of conferences, seminars, and issues of Edupage (sun. wga.peachnet.edu), and at Valdosta sec the College of Education gopher (catfish. valdosta.peachnet.edu).

CONCLUSION These suggestions, of course, only hint at the overwhelming number of sites available for educators on the Internet. We have omitted the intriguing and sometimes stunning graphical materials under the Emory, Georgia Tech, and Georgia State web pages on the Wide World Web. All of these and others not mentioned here can be found through exploring the net, where good things more often than not are found serendipitously by electronic browsing, much as we used to find books by wandering around in our college library.

28

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEu¡ayJ tu Teacher Edll<'atitm

E ec A

s

a r

â&#x20AC;˘

I

s

TerriL. Wenzlaffand Katharine E. Cummings.

North Dakota Stare Uniw?rsity

Teaching Portfolios in Teacher Education Programs The usc of teaching portfolios varies a great deal across the United States, encompassing everything from attempts to detem1ine a definition for portfolios to programmatic use of portfolios at institutions like Wichita State University (Carroll, 1995). Additionally, state departments of education and national education boards arc entertaining the idea of using professional teaching portfolios: for example, the Maryland State Department of Education has recently redesigned certification standards which consider the professional portfolio as a valued vehicle for documentation of teacher performance and growth over a period of time (Costantino, De Lorenzo, Grabis-Bunker, & Blanche, 1994). If candidates in a professional education program arc involved in the experience of assessing their own work through the usc of portfolios, they may be better prepared to continue assessing teaching throughout their careers.

Within teacher education programs, one impetus for the usc of portfolios is the widespread dissatisfaction with more traditional methods of assessment (Zollman & Jones, 1994); yet, portfolio assessment in teacher education programs is a challenge that docs not lend itself readily to a solution (Snyder, Elliott, Bhavnagri & Boyer, 1993-1994). Teaching portfolios arc being used for assess~ ment purposes in education classes (Rafferty, 1994) as well as for assessing the professional skill development of student teachers and the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs (Snyder, 1993). While purposes for constructi ng teaching portfolio~ vary across the.sc different contexts, the goal remai ns the same -- to improve teaching and learning.

Glt 1'Eu¡an /(' Teacher Etlunllion

2'-J

The increased interest in the use of portfolios in teacher education programs is evidenced by the number of sessions focusing on portfolio assessment at the 1995 national meetings ofAssociation of Teacher Educators in Detroit, Ml and American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education in Washington, DC as well as other professional organizations across the country. Presentations and articles on the use of portfolio assessment of preservice teacher education students demonstrate that the tenn portfolio is used to describe a wide range of col1ections of student work. Further, the portfolio may be focused on the candidate's work in a single course, be used to assess the student for admission to a professional education program or be used as an exit requirement for a program. The purpose of the portfolio also seems to encompass a wide array of goals: from program assessment to professional development to marketing the candidate to potential employers.

In this paper, we present the results of discussions with teacher educators concerning their understandings of and experiences with portfolios in teacher education. In addition, we present several recommendations concerning the use of portfolios in teacher education. It seems important to note that we have approached the use of portfolios as much more than a passing trend. The process of developing portfolios can provide teacher education candidates with a focus for reflection on their own development as teachers. Portfolios have helped our students articulate their beliefs about teaching and describe the developmental process that they are experiencing. Most importantly, student portfolios have become a source of pride for the students who have prepared them and are seen as an opportunity to demonstrate growth as teaching professionals.

Methods ln our study to determine the various ways in which portfolios arc being used in teacher education, we gathered data by interviewing 30 teacher educators from the upper midwest region as well as surveying teacher educators from random1y selected teacher preparation programs in each of the 50 states. The purpose was to gather additional information about portfolios and to provide some direction for our own efforts to incorporate portfolio development in our secondary education program. We hoped to find some common threads among the programs and sort through our own questions about the usc of portfolios in preservice teacher education. Specifica11y, we have struggled to focus our students on the portfolio as a method to encourage reflection rather than as a gimmick to assist them in securing employment. Our questions, then. to our friends and colleagues elicited information about their definitions of portfolios. the ways in which the portfolios were assessed, and the rationale for including portfolio development in the teacher education programs.

The questions posed during the interviews and in the written surveys were quite simple: I. How do you define a teaching portfolio? ~0

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEH¡ay~

to Teacher Education

2. How might the teaching portfolio be used in teacher education programs?

3. What is currently being done in your program with preservice teaching portfolios?

4. What are the benefits, drawbacks and/or cautions in using teaching portfolios?

5. What do you believe are the conclusions held by teacher educators about prescrvice teaching portfolios?

The goal in asking such broad questions was to detem1inc the state of understanding as well as the level of interest in the use of portfolios in preservice teacher education. Our respondents indicated that many programs were incorporating the usc of teaching portfolios as a part of preservice teacher education and that teaching portfolios were seen as important. We did not find a consensus about how or even' why portfolios should be used, however. The following summary of the responses and quotes from the surveys and interviews reflect this wide range of understanding.

Definitions for

Teachin~

Portfolios

The responses to our first question reflected several key themes rather than a concise definition for the teaching portfolio. Respondents indicated that the portfolio should illustrate the student's progression through the program and should demonstrate student skills and understandings. The word ''collection" was used to describe the portfolio, with the components of this collection ranging from student papers and unit plans to video tapes and reflective documents. The idea of an accumulation of material was apparent in most responses, but most also suggested that the portfolio should be more.than simply a storehouse. Instead, the portfolio should demonstrate that the student has constructed a purposeful paradigm for teaching and learning. The portfolio artifacts should provide a thoughtful processing of teaching behaviors; critical incidents observed or experienced; self-initiated learning experiences; and what has been learned.

Reflection as a part of portfolio development was stressed by a number of respondents. One colleague from California wrote, 路'The portfolio should be a collection of work which d~monstrates achievement of targeted outcomes coupled with student reflection about why those particular items were chosen and how they reflect achievement/growth." One clear function of the portfolio was to provide a vehicle for student reflection. The value of the portfolio as a means to improve our understanding of our students as well as their understanding of themselves was suggested throughout the responses.

The Use5 for the Teaching PQrt(olio

Preservice teaching portfolios appear to have three major purposco; for use in teacher education programs: student assessment, preparation for future employment, and professional development. In some instances. institutions GA T拢11'(1YJ 1o Tmf'her l::duc路n11on

31

encompass all three aspects and use portfolios for assessing students, for assisting students in integrating and validating their own learning, and as a tool to use in pursuing future employment. Using portfolios in teacher education programs seems to be as varied and unique as teacher education programs themselves.

Student Assessment

When using portfolios as an assessment device, the portfolio may illustrate proficiencies and actual experiences over time, and a journal may be used to document student feelings and perceptions. Portfolios may be used to evaluate students prior to the student teaching field experience; however, grading of a portfolio was referred to as a barrier of the individualistic artistic and creative design of a teaching portfo1io. In addition, educators viewed the portfolio as a device that could over time provide institutions with data for program evaluation.

Finally, it was stated that the ''portfolio review processes satisfy NCATE in a palatable way."

Future Emoloyment

Preservice teaching portfolios not only verify expected student competence, they also provide evidence of competence to prospective employers. The portfolio provides evidence of performance, growth over time, and evidence to support preparation and experiences for interviews. One individual responded by writing, ··The teaching portfolio could be developed throughout all of a student's course work and teaching experiences. It could also be used as one of the necessary screening tools because it can be shared with cooperating teachers and administrators. The portfolio provides a quality component of an application for employment".

Professional Development

When portfolios are used to assess student ability and prepare students for teaching, students illustrate their growth and strengths/weaknesses as they embark upon a teaching career. The very essence of portfoJio design provides for professional development. As students explore and document possible teaching strategies, reflect about observations and their own teaching, and develop lessons or unit plans, they are developing professionally. It is when students develop a portfolio for program entrance or a future job interview that the preservice teaching portfolio takes on a new Jook and focus. Teacher educators detennine the purpose for the portfolio as they begin to implement and use teaching portfolios.

Current Use f2(Preservice Teaching Portfolios

Responses about what currently is being done with preservice teaching portfolios in respective programs were as varied as the definitions and uses of portfolios. Some institutions are doing nothing with preservice teaching portfolios 32

•

GATEn·ays to Teacher Educarion

while others have implemented portfolios in their undergraduate and graduate courses. One South Dakota colleague replied, ..Collaboration among faculty has fostered interest in using portfolios as an ongoing process inthe courses which follow the general methods course; some portfolios follow an activity model in which the body of work completed in class provides evidence of growth for that semester".

Some teacher education programs use preservice teaching portfolios specifically during methods courses, while others implement portfolio development during the student teaching semester. Preservice teaching portfolio development seems to be dependent on the course and the professor. There appears to be ··somewhaf' of an agreement that using portfolios could provide teacher educators with a process to practice and model for students "what we preach". Enthusiasm for the use of portfolios ranges from ..enthusiastic" to .. it's a good idea for which I have no time."

Benefits. Drawbacks and Cautions ''When they are good they are compulsive and when they are bad they reflect an absence of direction from people who should know how to do them" (Ohio respondent). The obvious benefits of using teaching portfolios range from providing opportunities for collaborating with others, to self-directing one's own learning, to working toward demonstration of competencies in performance-based and authentic tasks, to adjusting such tasks to the learner's knowledge base and skill level, and to fostering professional integrity. Often portfolios provide an ongoing compilation of growth and hard evidence of competence which shows progression from entry in teacher education to program exit. At a portfolio exit interview one student commented, ··r think the portfolio is a reflection of my educational journey up to this point in time".

When the issue of drawbacks in using teaching portfolios arises, a com:ern is the timeinvolved for implementation and assessing the student portfolio. Many times students want more defined expectations and then create portfolios which do not reflect their abilities. A Washington respondent stated, "Too many teacher educators insist on equating portfolios to letter grades and demand a rubric for evaluation~ portfolios are too preplanned". The drawbacks focus on evaluation and how to ensure equitable expectations, how to measure reliability and validity. and how to inform students about criteria for evaluation without standardizing assessment. One individual from Nebraska replied, "another useful idea; not a panacea".

_Conclusions Held by Teacher Educators Many teacher educators support the idea of teaching portfolios, but few have put them into practice. Perhaps the lack of practice resu lts from the uncertainty of portfoli o effectiveness and the question of whether or not portfolios arc a true measure of actual experience. A Nebraska educator stated, "I think many teacher CiA TEu·oys 10 Tt'ncher £(/twotivn

•

33

educators are willing to employ portfolios into their programs, but they drag their feet at the implementation". Portfolios represent a major step away from tradi~ tiona] teacher education programs. From Maryland we heard, "although many remain skeptical, I think increasing numbers of teacher educators see portfolios as effective tools to use in outcomes~based education".

Those who have used a portfolio process believe in its educative value.

Portfolio development is a process, and the quality of the portfolio and the criteria we establish as well as the explanations we provide to students, evolves over time.

Teacher educators have concerns about the long~term value of the time consuming portfolio development process. They either are very supportive of using preservice teaching portfolios or are unsure, hesitant, and noncommittaJregarding portfolio implementation.

Conclusions from the Survevs and Interviews One response received to our questionnaire stated, ..portfo1ios arc just another gimmick, a waste of time, just another fad"! There are mixed feelings about using preservice teaching portfo1ios, and we be1ieve those feelings are justifiable because using portfolios is a break away from tradition, a change and venture into unexplored territory. This venture into new and different territory may be similar to what a new student teacher feels slowly inching away from the podium and into a classroom of students. That sense of uncertainty seems to be a reasonable response to a new and undefined experience.

Preservice teaching portfolios provide a way for teacher educators to better know and understand students and their teaching and programs. Portfolios a11ow and help teacher education students to reflect on their own learning, while mode1ing an alternative method of assessment. The process of thinking and reflecting about one's own work and gathering artifacts as documentation of learning encourages students to begin on the road to professional development.

Recommendations The responses from the surveys and from the interviews led us to three recommendations for teacher educators who wish to incorporate the use of portfolio assessment of teacher education candidates. These three recommendations, of course, are merely the starting point for discussion. The faculty of any program would be well advised to discuss their expectations and desired outcomes prior to adding portfolio development to their program requirements.

The first recommendation, in a sense, calls for just such discussion. It seemed clear from our respondents that the portfolio must have a specific purpose and focus. Students must be infonned of the purpose, and faculty must artkulate for themselves and for the students the rationale and the potential uses for the portfolio. Some respondents to our questions about purpose seemed to view portfolios as the latest â&#x20AC;˘â&#x20AC;˘fad" and found little value for the portfolios even though they were requiring students to develop them. Students who do not have a sense 34

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways 10 T~acher Education

of the value for the portfolio are likely to develop portfolios that have little value for them or for the program. Respondents who seemed most satisfied with the portfolios were those who also expressed a clear purpose for the development of the portfolio. Some respondents were pleased with their students' success in securing employment through the use of demonstration portfolios while others indicated that the students' abiJities and willingness to discuss their own professional development was enhanced by the development of the portfolio. In each case, the faculty members and students had a focus for the portfolio that enabled them to assess the portfolio and to structure the portfolio for the specified purpose.

It was also clear to us that students need help in learning to reflect on their teaching if the portfolios are to become more than scrapbooks of student work.

Classroom assessment techniques that encourage reflection (Angelo & Cross, 1992, and Wenzlaff, 1994) should be used to help students develop skills in selfassessment. In the teacher education program, students are often encouraged to critique their peers' and their own microteaching lessons. These critiques can provide an opportunity to help students focus on the specific aspects of good teaching that fonn the basis for the teacher education program. In addition, as students build their portfolios they should be encouraged to discuss them with course instructors, peers andmentors. As they discuss each artifact included in the portfolio, they are encouraged to explain the rationale for its inclusion as well as to reflect on how the artifact might be improved or changed as the students develop their teaching expertise.

Our final recommendation for the use of portfolios is to examine the broader scheme of teachers' professional development as we engage in the process of portfolio development. We encourage program faculty to view portfolio development as a process that may begin in the teacher education program but that should continue throughout the teacher's career. The value of the portfolio is not limited to its use in assessing teacher education candidates. Rather, its value lies in its potential as a focus for the candidate's continued reflection and development as a professional.

The process that we help students begin at the university should provide them with a system for self-assessment throughout their careers and the sense that their development as professionals, like the development of their teaching portfolios, is never truly finished.

References

Angelo. T. A. & Cross, K. P. ( 1992). Classroom assessment technigues: A handbook forcollcge teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carroll, J. A. ( 1995). Portfolio evaluation in teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators in Detroit, MI.

Costantino, P., De Lorenzo, M.â&#x20AC;˘ Grabis-Bunker, J.â&#x20AC;˘ & Blanche, K. ( 1994).

Developing a profcs~ional portfolio. Paper presented at the Annual meeting CiA n.;,~¡ays ICJ Teocher Educcllton

il

.\5

of the Association of Teacher Edu·cators in Atlanta, GA. Rafferty, C. D. ( 1994). Portfolio assessment and secondazy methods classes: What happens when the twain meet? Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators in Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 367 608).

Snyder, J. (1993). Beyond assessment: University/school collaboration in portfolio review and the challenge to program. This paper reports on a pilot project conducted at the College of Education, Wayne State University, MI (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 359 J58).

Snyder, J., Elliot, S., Bhavnagri, N. P. & Boyer, J. (1993-1994). Beyond assessment: University/school collaboration in portfolio review and the challenge to program improvement. Collaboration for Improvement of Teacher Education: Reflective Practice: Wayne State University, MI (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 158).

Wenzlaff, T. L. ( 1994). Training the student teacher to be a reflective practitioner. Education, ill(2), 278-287.

Zo11man, A. & Jones, D. L. ( J994). Accommodatin~: assessment and leamin8: Utilizing portfolios in teacher education with preservice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Research Council on Diagnostic and Prescriptive·Mathematics in Fort Worth, TX.

36

•

GATEways to Teat·her Education

eCas t y A jf ac •• A v·a e1l p ~ ar g Pr~s :rv• ce Teac ers for e t ra C assr 0 M U§~

0

Nancy Fichtman Dana, Penns/yvania State University Deborah Martin Floyd, Thomas College

By the year 2000, most schools will have substantial minority , low income, and handicapped populations, while over 95 percent of the teaching population will consist of white, middle class, female teachers (Howey & Zimphcr, I989).

Consequently, many researchers and scholars in the field of teacher education have c.:alled for a teacher education curriculum that promotes multicultural awareness and acceptance (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 197\ Ornstein & Levine. 1989; Gay, 1983; Grant, 1983; Banks, 1977; 1981 : and Baker, 1977).

Simu ltaneous to the calls for multicult ural teacher education, a new pedagogy in teacher education derived from the well-established tradition in business. medical, and law education termed the case study approach has emerged (e.g.

Christensen, 1987). The case study approach or method can be defined as an instructional technique whereby the major ingredients of a problematic teaching c;ituation are presented in narrati ve form to preservice teachers for the purposes of problem solving (Kowalski, Weaver, & Henson, 1990). Although noted scholars have advocated the infusion of the case study method into the preparation of prescrv ice teac her course work (Doyle, 1990; Shulman, 1987 ), the usc of the case study approach in teacher education pedagogy is still its infancy. with little reported research documenting its usc or impact (Scott, 1991 ).

in

GATEways to Teacher Fdttt'lllion

•

H

This study was designed to como inc the voices of advocates for a multicultural teacher education curriculum with the voices of advocates for the case study method in order to explore the possibilities of addressing multicultural issues in preservice teacher education coursework through the case study method. In order to explore the possibility of the case study method as a tool to help prepare preservice teachers for the multicultural classroom, the researchers focused on on( case for inclusion in the preservice teacher education curriculum that addressed the needs of a fourth grade bilingual boy labeled learning disabled. The results of this study provide insights into how preservice teachers might begin to make sens(; of diversity through the discussion of a case study. One assertion constituting grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was generated from this study on the use of the case study approach. Following discussion of the theoretical framework, context, methods and procedures of this study, this assertion is reported along with supporting data and conclusions and implications.

Theoretical Framework: Teacher Education and The Case Study Acwroach There has been a move away from the technical approach to teacher education to the recognition that teaching is complex and uncertain. In the past, experience-based teacher education programs assumed that once preservice teachers had su路ccessfully completed a number of courses in a particular scope and sequence framework, along with student teaching, they were prepared to teach.

Alternatives to this model, known as either competency-based programs or performance-based programs, assumed that a certain number of behaviors were necessary for effective teaching and that teachers should be able to demonstrate these behaviors prior to teaching (Richardson, 1990). Critics believed that these teacher education programs were too technical and were deeply rooted in a positivist paradigm. Doyle ( 1977) pointed out that this positivist paradigm did not allow preservice teachers to take into account the classroom history, context, fellow teachers, or students in the learning to teach process.

These types of teacher education approaches were followed by a different way to look at teaching, the teacher as a thinker or decision maker. Decisions were reached through a series of steps including selecting a behavioral objective, studying various alternative approaches to reaching the behavioral objective and, finally, selecting and implementing the appropriate procedure (Tyler, 1950).

Although this approach on the surface appeared to be a departure from a technical approach to teacher education, it was seen as linear, since it supplied teachers with one way of thinking about teaching and making decisions with an accompanying language for the analysis of teaching. The movement away from this model, influenced by Donald Schon's book The Reflective Practitioner (1983), brought about another way to look at teaching, the teacher as reflective practitioner.

Schon saw teaching not from a knowledge base but from the teacher's .. appreciation system." This system was comprised of the teacher's repertoire of values, knowledge, theories, and practices that influenced how situations were 38

D

GATEway.f

tCJ

Tea拢'her Edut路ation

perceived, what was noticed in these situations, and the kinds of decisions and questions teachers would fonn about particular actions. With Schon's concept of ·'knowledge-in~action," intuitive thinking was seen as valid and knowledge was inherent in action. Also, his idea of "reflection-in-action" acknowledged the teacher's ability to define a problematic situation, name what should be attended ro, and frame the context in which to attend to these issues.

The recent recognition by teacher educators that teaching is a complex, situation-specific, and dilemma-ridden endeavor has brought about the acknowledgment of the crucial role of thought and reflection in professional development as evidenced by the calls for ··reflective teacher education." Dewey first proposed in 1933 that educators be reflective thinkers. Dewey defined this as a type of thinking that considers options and reasons before choosing a course of action or adopting a belief (Dewey, 1933). Sparks-Langer and Colton (1991) stated that ··professional knowledge is seen as coming from sources outside the teacher and from the teachers' own interpretations of their everyday experience" (p. 7). Clark ( 1986) stated that the teacher should now be conceptualized as a professional ··sense-making" constructivist, developing and testing personal theories of the world around him/her.

Freie ( 1987) observed that by the time students reach college, they have accepted a general world view and tend to screen out what might be threatening alternatives and let in only infonnation that is friendly to their previous views.

This position demands a closer look at how college students learn and what educational methods would facilitate reflective thinking, especially on the part of preservice teachers.

The literature suggests that in order to facilitate reflective thinking, a learning environment that is problem-posing, dialogical, and empowering for students is needed (Floyd & Scott, 1991; O'Loughlin, I 988; Selman, 1989).

Posing real ~ life problems confronts students with the complexity of the real world causing them to reflect on their beliefs and learning. Once students are clear about what beliefs and values are guiding them, they can examine the grounds on which these beliefs and values are held. If, under scrutiny, the beliefs and values still appear to be valid, the students can call on these beliefs and values as part of their reasoning and argument (O'Loughlin, 1988). A class format that offers a social context for clarifying infonnation, reflecting on diverse viewpoints, and evaluating alternatives forces students to analyze and organize their ideas in order to communicate with peers (Wheatley, 1990). The value of dialogue focused on problematic situations is well supported by research on the development of moral thinking (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983; Oser, 1986). When given the opportunity to consider conflicting evidence and perspectives differing from their own, students may experience disequilibrium and be open to intellectual risk-taking (Haste, 1937: Perry, 1970). The case study approach holds promise for facilitating this type of environment.

Floyd ( 1992) reported the estabHshmcnt of the kind of environment de(iA T£u·ays 10 Te(l(·hcr Edurnrivn

~9

scribed above using the case study method. Preservice teachers were confronted with problematic situations which arise in teaching. These situations were embedded contextualJy with no one right answer. The fonnat allowed prospective teachers to define problems, identify alternatives, choose a course of action and a plan for implementation, and consider the possible consequences of a given action.

The results of the study showed that the preservicc teachers constructed multiple perspectives, considered contextual factors in decision-making, and acknowledged and examined beliefs about teaching and learning (Floyd, 1992). The case study approach facilitated the social construction of knowledge about teaching and learning.

A number of case studies deal with issues from a multicultural perspective (Kleinfeld, 1990; Shulman & Mesa-Bains, 1990). Judith Kleinfeld noted the need for beginning teachers to appreciate and respect minority cultures and to be prepared to enter a complex and foreign environment. The case study method has the potential ''to increase teachers • sensitivity about people who are different from themselves as well as to encourage them to examine their own feelings and values" (Scott, 1991, p. J0). Case studies have ~e power to evoke vicarious experiences in the preservice teachers. While there is an increase in the number of case study books now being published for use in teacher education, few studies exist on particular cases and how those cases may ·'play out" in teacher education settings.

Context of the Study To examine how preservice teachers make sense of diversity through the discussion of a case study, one case was presented and discussed with four classes of 20 to 30 preserv ice teachers in two consecutive semesters during the 199 I- 1992 academic year. The class was a four credit seminar class taken concurrently with student teaching. The purpose of the class was to build on the students, experience by creating opportunities for students to broaden their perspectives on teaching through reflection and inquiry about teaching and its contexts. Among the topics included in the course were classroom organization and management, students with special needs, child abuse, professional ethics, stress management, and creating a professional portfolio. The class met seven full days during the semester from 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

The class was organized as a cooperative learning environment in which the instructor emphasized verbalization, interaction, and reflection. The prospective teachers were organized into base groups, each comprised of 4-5 prospective teachers from a cross-section of grade levels and schools according to internship placement. The instructor organized these base groups to work cooperatively to examine cases that correlated with the day's topic (Johnson & Johnson, 1984). It was her belief that knowledge is a social construction as well as an individual understanding (Bruner, 1989; Greeno, 1989).

The case selected for the purposes of this study was entitled ''The Case of Joan Martin, Marilyn Coe, and Warren Groves." This case is summarized by its 40

•

GATEways w Teacher Education

authors in the following way: Conflict arises when a classroom teacher, a special education teacher, and an elementary school principal hold different views about mainstreaming a boy into a fourth grade social studies class (Silverman, Welty, & Lyon, 1991, p. 155).

This particular case was selected for three reasons. First, the case describes the child as learning disabled. Therefore, the case corresponded with the class's focus that day on special needs children, and therefore integrated well int the content of the course. Second, the case contained contextual information regarding the child's cultural background: Donald Garcia, a 9-year-old, had spent two years in the self-contained LD class. He was an only child, living with his mother and father ....The Committee on Special Education report noted that Donald's mother, whose native language was Spanish, spoke English with some difficulty. Donald understood but did not speak Spanish (Silverman, Welty, & Lyon, 1992, p. 160).

Finally, the case was selected for its high correlation with the reality of teaching in the State of Florida, where over 90 percent of the prcservice teachers wished to secure their first teaching job. By the year 2000, Spanish speaking students wilt predominate in Florida. In this way, ''The Case of Joan Martin, Marilyn Coe, and Warren Groves" was judged well written as Lawrence ( 1953) stated: A good case is the vehicle by which a chunk of reality is brought into the classroom to be worked over by the class and the instructor. A good case keeps the class discussion grounded upon some of the stubborn facts that must be fa(.路cd up to in real-life situations. It is the anchor on academic flights of speculation. It is the record of complex situations that must be literally pulled apart and put together again before the situations can be understood (p. 215).

The case was presented in all four classes following a similar protocol. First, the instructor read the case aloud to the students. Next, the prcservicc teachers were asked to record their reactions to the case individually. After a period of approximately 10 minutes for students to write individually, each base group was instructed to create concept maps (Novak & Gowin. 1984) based on the relationships of the characters in the case. Constructing concept maps allowed a visual representation of how the characters or players in the case all connected to one another and also allowed the facts about each character to be recorded so this information could be used in a subsequent role play. Following construction of the concept map, members were instructed to role play the meeting between the principal and the two teachers within each base group, bringing to life the multiple perspectives of the adult characters who were the main focus of this case. Role playing was then conducted by two sets of players in front of the total class with discussion following. After large group discussion, students returned to their original written reflections to record any additional thoughts bout the case. The entire process took approximately two hours. ' GA t拢wayJ w Teacher Eductlfion

41

Methods. Data Sources. and Analysis The methods employed in this research project were interpretive (Erickson, 1986), that is, they involved the co11ection and interpretation of qualitative data through participant observation, tape recordings and transcriptions of small and large group classroom discussions of the case. and document analysis of pre- and post-case discussion reflections written by the students in the class. To provide consistency in the teaching of the case, one of the researchers taught the case each time it was presented while the other researcher took field notes during the presentation and discussion of the case. In addition, the two researchers kept separate journals to enter observers' comments and interpretations (Bogdan & Bicklen, 1982) fo11owing each participant observation session. To provide an additional source of visual data, one cJass session was video-taped in addition to being audio tape recorded and transcribed. The multiple sources of data were employed to triangulate findings. Triangulation, a tool basic to ethnographic research, serves as .. the heart of ethnographic validity, testing one source of information against another to strip away alternative explanations and prove a hypotheses" (Fettennan, 1989, p. 89).

Data analysis consisted of many readings of field notes, transcriptions of class discussions, and students' pre- and post-case study discussion reflections.

During readings, patterns in the data were sought (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As patterns emerged, we conducted systematic searches of the data, looking for disconfirming and confirming evidence to support the themes that emerged (Erickson, 1986).

A constructivist epistep1ology (Bruner, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) was embod¡ ied into the collection and interpretation of data. Constructivists view learning as an interpretive process in which individuals engage in unique constructions of knowledge as they make sense of their experiences. Hence, particular attention was given to the sense-making process in which preservice teachers engage as they discuss the problems encountered in the case study. General questions that guided data col1ection and analysis included: (a) In what ways do preservice teachers make sense of the problematic situation described in the case study'? What referents do they use to make decisions about the characters and how they would behave in similar circumstances? (b) How do preservicc teachers make meaning of the concept of diversity during conversations with peers regarding a case? And, (c) Whose perspective do the preserv ice teachers use to make sense of the problem encountered in the case study? Do changes in perspective occur as a result of case study discussion with peers? One assertion that addresses these general questions is reported in the following section of this paper.

Assertion: During case study discussions that address the issue of diversity, dynamic tensions between competing perspectives of the key players in the case may 42

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways to Teacher Education

surface. Tensions between competing perspectives may lead preservice teachers to question aspects of teaching and learning that were previously taken for granted.

After the initial reading of the case. students were asked to write their reflections and thoughts on the key aspects of the situation before they began small group discussion. In the initial reflections, many prcservice teachers articulated a frustration as they considered the multiple perspectives of the key players in the case. One student wrote: This is definitely a difficult situation. On the one hand, n·e have a person wanting to mainstream a child, even though his reading skills are below level, so that he can experience life with his peers. Then there is the classroom teacher. who has a class full of students she is responsible for, and she has set high goals for rhem · goals that Donald does not seem able to.achieve. And then there is the principal who is caught in the middle. not wanting either teacher to "look bad," and trying to keep the peace. I find myself torn between the child's need to be with his peers and the teacher's need to teach an entire class.... At this moment, I could compare Donald to myself I fee/lost and confused in this case. much as Donald must feel. (Student pre·discussion reflection, October, 199/) While many students articulated an initial frustration with competing per· spectives discussed in the case, other students identified multiple perspectives but went on to discuss who was to blame for the situation and which character's ··side" they were on: I can see both the classroom teacher's and the special education teacher's points of view on why Donald should or shouldn't be mainstreamed. ... l.feel that the principal is the cause of this problem. I realize that teachers need to make their mrn decision but when they asked the principal about mainstreaming. he gives wishy-washy answers. (Student pre·discussion reflection. October, 1991) I suppose it would be much easier to draw .some conclusion about Donald if we had been given just a single point of view. However. rhe presentarion of three points of view forces us to consider a solution for the all around result. I mostly relate to the classroom teacher, though. /understand her frustration. I feel/ am in the midst of a similar experience in my internship and I find myse(f asking.

"How can I cater to all of one child's special needs without distracting from the other students ' learning?" I agree \Vith Joan Martin (the classroom teacher).

(Student pre·discussion reflection. February, 1992)

\Vhen preserv ice teachers were given the opportunity to make sense of competing perspectives in small group discussion and ro le play. prescrv icc teachers reali zed that the pcr~pect ivcs of each of.the ·'adult" players had been articulated. analyzed and discussed. Yet, there was a missing perspective in the case - that of

the child. This is exemp1ified in one student's comments that occurred before a role play was enacted in front of the entire class: (Speaking of role play) Everybody's talking about Donald like he's an object, nobody is asking him what he feels or thinks. (Class Discussion Audio tape transcription, October 2, 1991) This comment, or a similar one made by students each time this case was discussed, perplexed the preservice teachers. Many preservice teachers expressed regret and remorse as they realized that they had taken the perspective of the child for granted: My first concerns about the case dealt mainly with the two teachers that are involved. After interning for several weeks now, I realize the lack of time available throughout the school day, and so I sympathized with the classroom teacher in that she cannot take extra time to "tutor" Donald. I also sympathized with the special education teacher in that she is working hard and trying to do the best for her W students. But what really disturbs me is that my thoughts about Donald were klM instead ofJi.W.. After discussing the case, I realize that we are talking about Donald here- a young, pleasant boy who is having problems with his learning. (Student post-discussion reflection, February, 1992) My thoughts about the case as it was presented at the beginning ofclass were neither here nor there. I was unconcerned about Donald's well being and sympathized with the teachers. After the discussion of the case my thoughts and feelings did a 180 degree turn! ... The two teachers need to understand that Donald comes first in any decision they choose to make. (Student post-discussion reflection, February, 1992) Thus, through role play and small group discussion, students recognized that often the perspective of the child is hidden and/or lost as the adults in schools discuss and debate "what is best for children." This realization greatly disturbed the prospective teachers as they contemplated how many times they had thought of themseJves or their own perspective without taking into account that of the child's.

Preservice teachers articulated an awareness that their own perspectives on a situation may dominate how they approach solving any teaching dilemma. According to one preservice teacher: . 1 have learned as a result of this case that there are many perspectives to any problem. It's not like I didn't know that before, but to actually experience seeing the different perspectives in action brought it to life. I realize now how my perspectives affect my decisions as a teacher. (Student post-discussion reflection, February, 1992) Understanding that Donald's perspective had been taken for granted led preservice teachers to further examine the data that was presented in the case 44

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways to Teacher Education

regarding Donald. Prior to class discussion, most prcservice teachers used the label 路'learning disabled" that was assigned to Donald to make sense of how Donald was experiencing school. Yet, through small group and large group dist:ussion of the case, preservice teachers came to understand that the label Donald was assigned so dominated their thinking that they were blinded by cultural and contextual factors that related to the case. This assertion is best exemplified by one student's contribution to the discussion that caused the prospective teachers to acknowledge and examine their own prejudices. While students now acknowledged the need to find out what the child, Donald, felt and thought about being mainstreamcd, one student took issue with the special educati(lO label which had been placed on Donald. When this point was brought out in the large group discussion, the decision was not whether or not to mainstream this child, but whether or not this child was actually learning disabled: The cultural difference of the child, that has been totally taken for granted in the situation .... This child may not necessarily be learning disabled. He just knows how to learn but from a different language. (Large Group Discussion, February, /992)

The prospective teachers carefully searched the case for evidence that led this one student to even express that opinion, and they found enough evidence within the context of the case to make this a legitimate question. Eng! ish was the second language of the student's mother, which she spoke with some difficulty.

The mother's native language was Spanish. Donald, the student, understood but did not speak Spanish. Donald had traveled with this parents several times to South America and could relate those trips to other experiences. In addition, Donald understood concepts on his age and grade level. and he had very good listening comprehension skills.

The cultural background of this student was now put forth as the issue. Ench time this case was discussed, all but one or two preservice teachers accepted Donald's learning disabled label without question. This incident caused the prospective teachers to be more conscious of possible ignorance when reading cases in the future and to question issues that they normally would accept without question?

1\tfy opinion about this case study definitely changed as we discussed it in

our groups. At first. I thought that it was unfair to Donald as 1\'Cil as the teachers to keep him in the regular classroom. But as 1re talked about the case. I reali:ed

a lot more.' After our discussion. I really believe Donald may not be LD. fle is facing many cultural differences! I hadn 'r considered this before our discussion.

(Student post-discussion reflection, February, 1992)

In addition, the reflections written about th is incident and about not knowing to question the child's learning disabled label communicated a sense of humility and regret: (iAT/:II路ay.\ to 1'l'<l<'her fdu('l/lion

II

45

What was most interesting was that when our group talked... we never questioned whether Donald was really LD or not, which is sad. (Student Reflection, February, 1992) Final1y, prospective teachers expressed a heightened awareness of cultural factors in relation to a child's experience in school and in many cases, expressed a willingness to continue to contemplate cultural diversity and what it means for the teaching and learning situation.

Donald is at school to be taught as well as socialized into the culture and society. Yet, both teachers are aware of Donald's history. but haven't given it a second thought ....(It's important to recognize) language and cultural differences.

Just think about yourself trying to read a note a child's written in ..street slang" ....Are you LD there? Language/cultural barriers should be acknowledged. (Student post-discussion reflection, February, 1992)

I hadn't really thought about the issue of Donald !JJ21 being W until it was brought up in our class discussion. It is a very interesting point. I bet a lot could be discovered through exploring a child's cultural background.... (ln Donald's case), maybe progress could be made in a bilingual class. Perhaps he could understand things better if he heard them in Spanish. More avenues that take into account cu~hlral diversity need to be explored. I will keep this in mind as I face "Donalds.,' In,. my teaching career. (Student post-discussion reflection , February, 1992) ¡Implications/Conclusion Our research on "The Case of Joan Martin, Marilyn Coe, and Warren Groves" indicates that case studies may provide an opportunity for preservice teachers to examine their beliefs regarding diversity. Preservice teachers utilize the beliefs articulated during case study discussion to examine and critically reflect on their actions and practices as teachers. The discussion of a case with peers may serve to create the opportunity for preservice teachers to begin to understand their own subjectivities and biases and how those subjectivities and biases affect how they perceive teaching and learning situations. This, in tum, may lead to a heightened sensitivity toward cultural diversity and how cultural diversity translates into the many facets of schooling.

Other suggestions as to how preservice teachers might become aware of and understand how their subjectivities and biases affect their perceptions of teaching and learning situations have been made by educational researchers and theorists (see, for example, Benson & Floyd, 1992; Dana, 1991; Fuller & Ahler, 1987; Mahan & Stachowski, 1990; Marshall & Sears, 1991; Santos, 1986). Although additional research on specific strategies teacher educators might employ to help prcservicc teachers develop an understanding of other cultures is needed, it is apparent that teacher educators need to employ these strategies not within a course 46

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways to Te<1cht!r Education

offered on multicultural education, but infused throughout all coursework in a teacher preparation program. Because teaching cases are complex stories, cases have the ability to connect topics covered in courses (such as "students with special needs" in this study) with issues of diversity. Therefore, the use of the case study approach offers promise to address issues of diversity throughout a1J coursework in the teacher preparation program.

For this purpose, there exists a need for more cases with the potential to address issues of diversity and a database to increase teacher educators' access to appropriate cases. Although McGraw~ Hill, Incorporated is presently offering a catalogue of cases whereby teacher educators can select particular cases to have a tailored casebook printed for specific teaching needs (Silverman & Welty, 1993), the selection is greatly limited and restricted to cases written by thee authors.

Easy access to a variety of quality written case studies from which teacher educators can choose is not readily available. For the case method to be implemented as a pedagogical approach to teacher education, teachers and teacher educators/researchers (such as Shulman, 1991 and Kleinfeld, 1992) must continue to engage in documenting teaching practices and the writing of cases to add to the limited number of cases presently readily available to teacher educators.

Teacher educators who have involved their preservicc teachers in the writing and subsequent discussion of these cases have reported that students may be motivated to talk more freely about sensitive issues that are generally too personal to discuss (Shulman, 1991 ). Floyd ( 1992) reported that cases may bring out hidden feelings and prejudices, a Pandora's box so to speak. The results of this study further supports the work of Shulman and Floyd and suggest that teacher educators may need to prepare themselves to deal with sensitive issues which arise in order to facilitate preservice teachers' understandings of these feelings and prejudices. As reported in this study, students articulated a sense of humility and regret as hidden feelings surfaced through discussion of this case. Further longtenn investigation of how the surfacing of these feelings affect students both emotionally (in their private lives) and professionally (in their actions as teachers) is needed.

In addition, teacher educators must become aware of their own personal hidden feelings and prejudices, and how these may affect the teaching of a case (Shulman, 1992). While an analysis of the instructor's thoughts and actions were beyond the scope of this study, further research on the thinking processes of the instructor teaching the case may give insights into how teacher educators make sense of and subsequently deal with teaching diversity. The authors of this paper are presently studying data collected as they engaged in a collaborative action research project on their own practices as teacher educators in relation to the case study approach. We have learned from the teaching and study of "The Case of Joan Martin. Marilyn Coe. and Warren Groves" that as we ask prospective teachers to reflect on their thinking about a case, we must look in the mirror ourselves. (/ATEII'ay.t to Teclt"her 1-:dl/cation

â&#x20AC;˘

47

References American Association of Co1leges for Teacher Education. ( J973 ). No one model American: A statement on multicultural education. Journal of Teacher Education, ~( 4), 264-265.

Baker, G. C. ( J977). Multicultural imperatives for curriculum development in teacher education. Journal of Research and Development in Education, il( I), 70-83.

Banks, J. A. (J 977). Pluralism and educational concepts: A clarification.

Peabody Journal of Education, ~(4), 73-78.

Banks,.J. A. (198 J). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. Boston, Massachusetts: AJJyn & Bacon, Inc. Benson, M. L., & Floyd, D. M. ( J992, Feb.). Views of our world: Multiethnic education through the eyes of case studies. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators 72nd annual meeting, Orlando, FL. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds possible worlds. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Christensen, R. ( J987). Teaching and the case method. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. New York: MacmiHan Publishing Company.

Dana, N. F. ( 1991, Feb.). Deyelopim~ an understanding of the multicultural classroom: Experiences for the monocu1tural preservice teacher. Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators 71 st annual meeting, New Orleans, LA. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: Heath.

DoyJe, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 163-198). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Doyle, W. (1990). Case methods in the education of teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly,Jl( 1), 7-15.

Erickson, F. ( 1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.

Fettennan, D. M. ( 1989). Ethnography step by step. California: Sage Publications.

Floyd, D. M., & Scott, K. ( 1991, December). Enhancing critical thinking using the case study method. lnguiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines,~( 4 ), 11-13; 26. .

F loyd, D. M. (1992). Coming to know: Prospective elemental)' teachers' thinking and the case study approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.

48

â&#x20AC;˘

GATEways tv Teacher EducaTion

Freie, J. F. ( 1987). Thinking and believing. Colleie Teachin2. 35(3), 89-91.

Fuller, M. L., & Ahler, J. ( 1987). Muhicultural education and monocultural student: A case study. Action in Teacher Education, 2. 33-40.

Gay, G. (1983). Multiethnic education: Historical developments and future prospects. Phi Delta Kappan, M(8), 560-563.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. ( 1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.

Grant, C. A. ( 1983). Multicultural education- Renewing the discussion: A response to Martin Haberman. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 29-32.

Greeno, J. G. ( 1989). A perspective on thinking. American Psychologist, 44(2), 134-141.

Haste, H. ( 1987). Growing into rules. In J. Bruner & M. Haste (Eds.), Making sense: The child's construction of the world. New York: Methuen.

Howey, K. R., & Zimpher, H. N. (1989). Profiles of preservice teacher education.

Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. ( 1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the c1assroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kleinfeld, J. (1990). The special virtues of the case method in preparing teachers form inority schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 11( 1), 43-5 I .

Kleinfeld, J. (1992). Learning to think like a teacher: The study of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 33-49). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kohl berg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. ( 1985). Moral sta2es: A current formulation and response to critics. New York: Karger.

Kowalski, T. J., Weaver, R. A., & Henson, K. T. ( 1990). Case studies on teaching. New York: Longman.

Lawrence, P.R. ( 1953). The preparation of case method. InK. Andrews (Ed.) The case method of teaching human relations and administration, (pp. 215224). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Mahan, J. M., & Stachowski, L. (1990). New horizons: Student teaching abroad to enrich understanding of diversity. Action in Teacher Education. 11(3 ), 13-22.

Marshall, J.D., & Sears, J. T. (Eds.). ( 1991 ). The changing nature of the student: Meeting the challenge of diversity through pedagogical excellence. lSpecial issue]. Teaching Education, .4( I).

Merseth, K. K. ( 1991 ). The early history of case-based instruction: Insights for teacher education today. Journal of Teacher Education, 42( 4 ), 243-249.

Novak, J.D., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

O'Loughlin, M. ( 1988, October). Reconccptualizing educational psychology to facilitate teacher empowerment and critical reflection. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Association for Teachers of ( iA TEa¡ays to Teacher Edumtion

â&#x20AC;˘

49

Educational Psychology, Bloomington, lN. Ornstein, A. C., & Levine, D. U. (1989). Social class, race, and school achievement: Problems and prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 17-23.

Oser, F. K. ( 1986). Moral education and values education: The discourse perspective. In Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teachinf:. New 路 York: Macmillan.

Patton, M. Q. ( 1983). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Fonns of inteUectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart.

Richardson, V. ( 1990). The evolution of reflective teaching and teacher education. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.) Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 3-19). New York: Teachers College Press.

Santos, S. L. ( 1986). Promoting intercultural understanding through mu1ticultural teacher training. Action in Teacher Education, ,8., 19-25.

Schon, D. A. ( 1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think inaction. New York: Basic Books.

Scott, K. P. (1991, March). Case studies in teacher education: Promotinf: diversity and reflectivity. Paper presented at the eleventh annual Intemational'Society for Teacher Education Seminar, Panama City, FL. Selman, M. (1989). Critical thinking. rationa1ity and social practices.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.

Shulman, J. H., & Mesa-Bains (Eds.) (1990). Teaching diverse students: Cases and commentaries. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.

Shulman, J. H., (1 991 ). Revealing the mysteries ofteacher-written cases: Opening the black box. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 250-262.

Shulman, J. H. ( 1992, April). Tender feelings. hidden thoughts: Confronting bias. innocence and racism through case discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Shulman, L. S. (Speaker). ( 1987). Toward a pedagogy of cases: A vision for teacher education (Cassette recording ATE-87-02). Association of Teacher Educators.

Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education, (pp. 1-32). New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, R., Welty, W. M., & Lyon, S. (1991). Case studies for teacher problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Silvennan, R., & Welty, W. M. (1993). Primis case studies for teacher problem solving (and Instructor' s Manual). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

50

II

GATEways to Tearher Edttmlian

GATEwt~-ys

.

to Teacher Education

GATEways to Teacher Education is published by the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators. The journal is published annually and is devoted to the discussion of theory, practice, research, and issues related to teacher education, including teaching and learning, induction, in·service education, and pre-service education. Views expressed in articJes are not necessarily those of the editor, no are they necessarily the position of the publishing organization. The cost of a copy of the journal is $6.00.

The fo11owing are the criteria for submitting a manuscript: 1J

APA style

II not more than 15 pages, double-spaced IJ

four copies clipped, not stapled together

ll

one copy submitted on floppy computer disc using WordPerfect or compatible word processing (after acceptance)

ll

author's name on the title page only title included on the first page only

I! abstract not to exceed 150 words (two copies)

autobiographical sketch of the author(s) (3-5 sentences) 3x5 index card with complete name, address, and telephone number(s) of the contact person

Submit manuscripts to Diane Wiley, Editor, GATEways to Teacher Education, Kennesaw State College, Box 444, Marietta, GA 30061. 770/423-6734, dwilley@kscmail.kennesaw.edu.

52

•

GAT£w(I)S tv Teacher Edut·ation