GATEways 2014

Volume 15, Issue 1 October 2014

An Award-Winning ESOL Endorsement Program: A Case for Ethnographic Approaches in Teacher Education

GATEways to Teacher Education

GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATORS

In October 2013 at the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators (GATE) Annual Conference, The English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Endorsement Program in the Middle Secondary Education Department at Georgia State University was awarded as the Distinguished Program in

Teacher Education. Two graduates enrolled in the final course for the endorsement, Kimberly Carr and Patricia Limb, were involved in the preparation of this article under the leadership of the program coordinator, Gertrude Tinker Sachs, and contributions from ESOL program professors Jayoung

Choi and Dennis Odo. This paper is based on the submission that was made and describes the key characteristics of the program and its impact on graduates. The authors also make the case for greater use of ethnographic methods in teacher education.

Cooperative Learning: Are Teachers Practicing What We Preach?

The purpose of this article is twofold: to advocate for cooperative learning and to describe a survey that was conducted with preservice teachers and teachers-of-

record regarding the application of cooperative learning in regional elementary schools.

Survey data collected over a two-week period revealed

misconceptions and varying degrees of classroom application regarding this non-traditional pedagogical approach.

Does Differentiation Engage Gifted Students?

The purpose of this study is to determine if differentiation helps engage gifted students in general education classes.

This research involved 40 students and two units of sixth grade Earth Science.

For the first unit, one group received differentiated instruction while the other group received teacher-led

instruction. For the second unit, the groups were switched. The teacher-led instruction consisted of students sitting and taking notes. The differentiation involved student choice.

Results indicate that differentiated instruction engages gifted students in general education classrooms

better than teacher-led instruction. Therefore, it is beneficial for teachers to include differentiation as an instructional method when teaching gifted students in general education classrooms. The student benefits outweigh the time that it takes for teachers to prepare for differentiation.

A Multi-Faceted Paradigm for Teacher Leadership This article discusses multiple pathways into teacher leadership with teachers assuming the roles of collaborators, researchers, lifelong learners, effective instructors, assessors, community leaders, and advocates critical to serving

the needs of students, schools, the community, and the profession. The approach has been developed based on The Teacher Leader Model Standards (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011), a theoretical model to guide

Inside this issue: Award-Winning ESOL Endorsement Program

the preparation of effective teacher leaders for the needs of the 21st Century. It is a response to the call for a dialogue about multiple pathways into teacher leadership issued by the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium.

Don’t miss the back cover!

2

Cooperative Learning

13

Does Differentiation Engage Gifted Students?

19

Multi-Faceted Paradigm for Teacher Leadership

23

Special points of interest:  GATEways article submission requests  GATE 2014 Conference information

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

An Award-Winning ESOL Endorsement Program: A Case for Ethnographic Approaches Gertrude Tinker Sachs, Georgia State Univ ersity ; Carr, Cary Rey nolds Elementary School; in Teacher Education Kimberly Patricia Limb, Central Gwinnett High School Jay oung Choi, Georgia State Univ ersity ; and Dennis Murphy Odo, Hany ang Univ ersity

English language learners (ELLs) represent one of Georgia’s fastest growing population groups, one which already has a significant social and economic impact upon the community. Serving the learning needs of these students in the schools and community is a complex challenge for teachers, and one which requires extensive training, deep cultural understanding, and ongoing professional support. Georgia State University’s English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Endorsement Program, with its PK-12 focus, technological integration, and emphasis on advocacy and collaboration, is uniquely positioned to meet the growing need for knowledgeable, committed teachers. Graduates of the ESOL Endorsement Program, who are working as teachers in the field, recognize the tremendous value of its contributions to the community and in shaping their lives and the lives of their students. In light of this reality, the ESOL Endorsement Program was nominated for and subsequently won the Georgia Association for Teacher Educators’ award as the 2013 Distinguished Program in Teacher Education.

The ESOL Endorsement program at Georgia State University is a unique one, designed to meet the needs of previously certified teachers as they seek additional training to work with bilingual students who are learning English as an additional language. Students seeking admission into the program must apply and be accepted into the Graduate School of Education at the university. Only students who hold teaching certification are admitted for the ESOL Endorsement, and the instruction and

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

field experiences are designed to build upon and refine already-developed teaching practices as well as transfer the skills of teaching ESOL. The program of study consists of 12 semester hours of coursework, completed over four courses that include a supervised practicum experience teaching ESOL, and the completion of a professional portfolio reflecting experiences and growth in five key areas. Throughout the course of study, students engage in reflective practice, collaborate with each other to build a supportive professional network, and practice community-based teaching. They learn the critical skills and strategies required to teach ELLs in a variety of settings ranging from early childhood through high school. Because this endorsement is PK-12, students focus on a broad range of ages and settings throughout their time in the program, resulting in greater flexibility and the ability to serve a wider range of diversity in the school community.

Classes are scheduled for evenings and during the summer, to fit into working teachers’ schedules. Candidates enroll in a teaching methods course, a practicum seminar, and applied linguistics and culture courses. The courses are graduate-level courses, with rigorous standards for the quality of work and research that students perform. Students are expected to draw upon their current teaching experience, apply new skills, and work collaboratively throughout the program.

The coursework requires multi-modal and technology-based projects and technologyintegrated teaching, resulting in teachers with a 21st Century skill set. This focus reflects the

PAGE 2

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

belief that the ELLs deserve teachers who can offer them full access to the curriculum and thus prepare them to contribute to and enjoy the benefits of full integration into society.

Critical to the program’s success is its extraordinary, non-traditional teaching practicum (Tinker Sachs et al., 2008).

Endorsement candidates are matched with refugee families through the program’s partnership with the Refugee Family Services agency in Clarkston. The candidate goes into the home of the refugee family and works closely with the mother to teach English literacy skills.

Working with the mothers supports the fundamental belief that by strengthening her skills and increasing her connection with the community, the whole family will benefit. The teachers conduct a needs assessment and create learners’ goals-driven lesson plans, and show pre-and post-testing data on the mother’s learning progress.

Working in the home of the refugee family is a powerful experience. Teachers learn firsthand of the range of cultural resources available in the home: the family’s “funds of knowledge” (Gonzales, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). ESOL teaching is centered on the mother’s needs and desires for language, literacy, and increased autonomy. It positions the teacher in the role of facilitator and cultural broker, as well that of language instructor. The practicum seminar’s class time is structured to support and enrich this teaching experience; students present their lessons as cases and offer feedback to each other. Readings for the course focus on inclusive pedagogy, the refugee experience, and ethnographic research, as well as the integration of teaching behaviors introduced in the program’s methods course. This opportunity for the integration of theory and practice provides an invaluable experience for its participants.

The exit criteria for the program is the successful completion of an online portfolio, showcasing artifacts which demonstrate the teacher’s growth and understanding in the program’s standards of language acquisition theory, planning and instruction, the role of culture in language acquisition, advocacy, and professional development. Teacher candidates are also required to document their PK-12 ESOL

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

experiences in traditional school settings.

Teachers work on the portfolio throughout their time in the program; thus, it represents true evidence of their work and understanding of the standards. The portfolio also serves as an important way for department faculty to evaluate the success of the program in meeting its goals.

Program Description The ESOL Endorsement program at Georgia State University leads to a professional add-on certificate in ESOL. Upon successful completion of the program, graduates earn a certificate as endorsed ESOL teachers for grades PK-12. Individual components of the endorsement program, including courses, the practicum experience and portfolio are detailed in this section.

Learning Outcomes The following program standards are based on the 2010 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, now Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation [CAEP]) Program Standards.

1. Candidates demonstrate understanding of language as a system and demonstrate a high level of competence in helping ESOL students acquire and use English in listening, speaking, reading, and writing for social and academic purposes. (Standard 1.a. Describing Language) 2. Candidates understand and apply concepts, theories, research, and practice to facilitate the acquisition of a primary and a new language in a variety of classroom settings. (Standard 1.b.

Language Acquisition and Development) 3. Candidates understand various issues of assessment (e.g., cultural and linguistic bias; political, social, and psychological factors) in assessment, IQ, and special education testing (including gifted and talented); the importance of standards;

PAGE 3

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

and the difference between language proficiency and other types of assessments (e.g., standardized achievement tests of overall mastery), as they affect ESOL student learning.

(Standard 4.a. Issues of Assessment for ESL) 4. Candidates know and use a variety of standards-based language proficiency instruments to inform their instruction and understand their uses for identification, placement, and demonstration of language growth of ESOL students. (Standard 4.b. Language Proficiency Assessment) 5. Candidates demonstrate knowledge of history, research, and current practice in the field of ESOL teaching and apply this knowledge to improve teaching and learning. (Standard 5.1.ESOL Research and History) 6. Candidates serve as professional resources, advocate for ESOL students, and build partnerships with students’ families. (Standard 5.b. Partnerships and Advocacy) Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Courses taught in the Department of Middle and Secondary Education rest upon the assumption that all learners bring a variety of linguistic and cognitive strengths from their families and communities into the classroom, and these strengths are to be appreciated and utilized rather than ignored or dismissed.

Multicultural education is not simply “about” certain subjects nor does it merely offer “perspectives” on issues; rather, it is an orientation to purposes in education and life.

Emphasizing the importance of cultural diversity in literacy scholars’ professional development, these courses provide graduate students with opportunities to examine their potential manuscripts so that topics addressed in teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages and literacy are considered in light of multicultural perspectives.

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

Course Requirements Following is a detailed description of the courses included in the ESOL Endorsement Program curriculum at Georgia State University.

TSLE 7440 Methods and Materials for the Bilingual/English as a Second Language Teacher Course description. TSLE 7440 is a foundation course in the endorsement program.

Successful learning can often be attributed to effective English language instruction in the classroom. A desire to teach well and overall classroom are also determining characteristics in student achievement organization (Akbari and Allvar, 2010). This course aims to accomplish these goals by familiarizing the ESOL teacher candidates with current second language research and how best practices, sound teaching methods, and appropriate materials are adapted to specific classroom settings. The course content is driven by the National Board for Professional Teaching (NBPT), TESOL, and CAEP standards. The expectation, upon completion, is that students will be able to create curriculum that allows for diverse learner needs and creates channels for access to the core academic program at every level. The reading and resource materials for the course are broad and chosen both to provide a thorough introduction to the research and practice in second language instruction as well as to function as a useful resource for the program graduate in the field.

Learning opportunities and course requirements. Throughout the semester-long course, both individual effort and collaborative cooperation are emphasized as students engage in microteaching to familiarize themselves and classmates with different strategies for language development. Students learn the importance of scaffolding for instruction and questioning behaviors in the classroom through reading and responding to authentic written and video case studies. The instructor utilizes a variety of teaching strategies including lecturing, providing formative feedback, leading discussions, guiding and facilitating cooperative learning group activities, having individual meetings, and modeling. Technology

PAGE 4

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

is integral to this course through the use of information technologies, videos, and PowerPoint slides in course presentations. The ethical and appropriate use of information technology is integral to course lectures, presentations, and assignments. Students are expected to use technology as a vital tool for teaching and learning and incorporate its use in their assignments and learning. A team project of a month-long integrated teaching unit, showcased on a Weebly site, is a culminating activity for the course.

EDCI 7660 Practicum for ESOL Endorsement Course description. EDCI 7660 is the aspect of the program that sets it apart from other teacher preparation programs in the area.

Through a strategic and supportive relationship with the Refugee Family Services agency in Clarkston, GA, each student in the ESOL endorsement program is partnered with a refugee family in the area. The student performs a needs assessment, collects data, and plans and teaches a literacy and English curriculum with the mother of the family in the family’s home.

Learning opportunities and course requirements. Through readings, discussions, and applications to the work with the refugee mothers, the teachers in the program gain valuable experience in curriculum design. They develop an understanding of what it means to be a change agent working for social justice and learn more about the experiences of refugees and immigrants in America.

A funds of knowledge approach is the theoretical foundation for the teaching part of the practicum (Gonzales, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). This approach, along with strengthsbased, ecological, resilient and anthropological orientations (Fong, 2004), attempts to counter the deficit model of viewing language learners and economically disadvantaged homes as places with no resources and provides additional support for the school-aged children who live there. In a funds of knowledge approach, the teacher visits the home and, using an ethnographic lens, works to acknowledge the cultural linguistic resources and strengths that exist within the family structure.

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

Elements that enrich family life, build resilience, and support children’s participation in school and society are classified as funds of knowledge. Such resources may be cultural practices, skills and habits that support successful adaptation and learning, religious faith, a family garden, the existence of books, or music in the home. Students working with the refugee mothers collect assessment data on the mother’s reading and literacy practices, as well as her functioning in English. They interview her, with an interpreter if necessary, about her learning goals and desires for herself as they relate to learning English. The student then designs a 10-week unit of lessons to be conducted in the family’s home, based upon the mother’s current functioning in English, with the aim of helping her to move forward in some area of her life, usually one that benefits the entire family.

Some past themes to come out of this instruction have been reading to children, using English at the doctor’s office, taking a driver’s license test, writing checks and planning finances, and writing letters to a family member in the home country. Key to the success of the curriculum is that the unit be connected to the mother’s interests and personal goals.

At the end of the practicum, postinstructional data is collected in order to demonstrate learning. Data is a critical factor in the practicum, as the collection and use of data is a fundamental skill in teacher planning and instruction today. Whatever instruction is chosen, it must benefit the student; the teacher must be able to demonstrate, through the use of data, that the student has learned from the instruction. In many cases, the teacher-student relationship continues after the practicum course ends, resulting in extended learning opportunities for the mother, which benefits the family (Tinker Sachs et al., 2008).

TSLE 7250: Applied Linguistics for the Bilingual/English as a Second Language Teacher Course description. Students receive an overview of the principles of language structure, the processes of first and second language acquisition, and the issues involved in assessing language proficiency with special attention paid PAGE 5

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

to the application of linguistic knowledge to the multilingual and multicultural school setting.

Learning opportunities and course requirements. Two of the main assessments for this course are interviewing an English language learner and the final multimodal project. Through these assessments, students are afforded valuable learning opportunities with regards to applied linguistics for ESOL students.

Interviewing an ELL. The student conducts one 20-30 minute interview with an ELL (K-12 students preferred) with respect to a topic of their choice. Possible topics include asking a student about his or her motivation to learn English, experience in an American school, challenges for language learning, unique needs in language learning, perceptions of academic literacy practice and development, and so forth. After finishing the interview, the student transcribes it and submits a brief report (1-2 pages) about the interview. The report will include (1) the context of the interview, (2) a description of the interviewee, including language background and proficiency, (3) major findings from the interview, and (4) what was learned from interviewing and transcribing an interview.

Final project: Multimodal/multimedia representation of the key concepts learned. In the final project, the students demonstrate (1) understanding of some key concepts, terminology, or theories in the teaching and learning of language(s), (2) application of selected concepts to actual teaching, and (3) report how ESOL students take up these concepts/theories. In addition, by designing a lesson plan that centers on this approach and actually teaching it, the student’s understanding of the concept is greatly enhanced. This also gives students an opportunity to reinforce their growing awareness of the affordances of integrating multimodal approaches to information sharing in their professional practice. Some of the concepts chosen for the final project are tested in an actual PK-12 ESOL classroom setting or with an ELL.

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

TSLE 7260: Cultural Issues for the Bilingual/ESL Teacher Course description. This course familiarizes students with key cultural theories and concepts with the goal of helping teachers to become more critically reflexive intercultural educators.

Learning opportunities and course requirements. Three of the main assessments for this course are the reading in the park engagements, submitting creative products made from the children at Seven Courts, and the “Who Am I” reflections. Through these assessments, students are afforded valuable learning opportunities with regards to cultural issues for the Bilingual/ESOL teacher.

Reflections on reading in the park engagements. Who are the people that we pass every day in the park? To answer this question, students work in pairs to speak with people in Woodruff Park. One person makes notes and the other conducts the conversation, which may be recorded if the participant agrees. Students inquire about the participant’s reading habits and his or her viewpoints. Students also draw on the class readings and share an excerpt with the participant for five minutes and ask for his or her response. Students record a 5-minute audio response after the first visit and submit a typed, one-page response for the second visit to the park. Students incorporate the comments made by the respondents and draw on the course readings to strengthen his or her observations in response to the question, “Who are the people in the park?”

Fun time with the kids – reading, sharing and creating engagements. Students are expected to be prepared to engage with the children at the Seven Courts Residence. Being punctual, prepared, and engaged are included in the grades for this section as are responses and quality of interactions. Students submit three creative products made by the children in their group. The three submissions must be accompanied by reflections on the process, what the student learned, and applications to teaching and learning Who am I, parts 1 and 2. From the activities stemming from the first lesson, telling and reporting on culture and body biography, PAGE 6

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

students write their response to these activities (Part 1). From all the activities in this course, including class readings and class engagements at Seven Courts and in the park, students develop Part 2. Each student addresses his or her past, present, and future self as an intercultural educator and elaborates on what all of this has to do with teaching and learning.

Program Evaluation An accurate evaluation of the success of any program relies upon multiple measures. A survey of program graduates, letters of support and endorsement for the program, as well as the formal portfolio rubric and scores are the ways in which the ESOL Endorsement program has been evaluated.

ESOL Endorsement Program Survey A survey was sent to fifteen of the past participants in the Georgia State University Endorsement Program. However, it was difficult to obtain responses because of defunct student e-mail accounts. Fortunately, five of the past participants were able to answer the survey.

They were asked to choose one answer (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) to the following five questions: 1. The information that I learned in this program helped me provide better instruction for my ESOL students.

2. The instructors modeled the same skills, techniques, and strategies that I should use in the classroom.

3. I implemented new strategies as a result of this program.

4. This program helped me reflect upon my teaching practices.

5. I believe that completing this program has made an impact on the achievement of my students.

Survey participants were also asked, “Please elaborate and provide examples as to why you chose a particular answer choice for one of the questions above.”

Quotes from ESOL program participants.

Below are some of the responses to the open-ended survey question.

Respondent 4. “This program helped me reflect upon my teaching practices. I definitely

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

am more reflective as a result of the program. I find that I include the students’ interests and cultural experiences as much as possible. When possible I have students translate for others to aid in vocabulary understanding to promote the positive nature of their first language.”

Respondent 2. “The ESOL endorsement program at GSU is challenging and transformative. It provided me with many opportunities for reflection and active learning.

The practicum experience I had was truly life changing and offered me an opportunity to work with learners I never would have otherwise met.

In that experience I learned a great deal about teaching literacy to learners often labeled as “illiterate.” I learned so much from them, from my classes, and from the other students in the practicum class with me. It was an amazing opportunity for me and challenged me, my thinking, and helped me imagine new and better ways of teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students. I grew tremendously as a teacher and have become more critical and more reflective as a teacher.”

Respondent 5. “As a result of readings in my practicum class, I revisited my writing program for my 4th graders. I am now providing a great deal more scaffolding within my writing workshop for my ELL students, particularly for research, and informational writing.”

Respondent 3. “While my classes that were specifically ESOL related were of a high quality, I felt like some of the other classes in the program were not quite as helpful, especially considering that many of the classes were designed for students who were entering education as a second career (having no classroom experience). At times, things felt a little redundant or very basic. As I stated, though, I very much enjoyed the ESOL classes and felt like I got a lot out of them. I currently teach in an International School in Central America and feel like I was well prepared for the challenge.”

Respondent 1. “As a graduate of the program, I felt more confident in looking for a new job; I was able to speak from personal experience about the real issues affecting children and their families, well as sell my teaching skills and experience. I see myself now

PAGE 7

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

as much more of a community advocate. I was able to find a teaching job that gives me opportunities to lead parent education, support fellow teachers and teach ESOL to students. I feel the program has prepared me very well to enter this new role.”

Letters of support. In addition to the survey, past graduates were invited to submit letters of support, detailing their personal experience, and how the program affected their professional lives. Following is an excerpt from a letter from one graduate: Dear Readers, I am incredibly thankful to have had the opportunity to work on the ESOL Endorsement while completing my doctoral degree in language and literacy at GSU. In fact, the ESOL Endorsement program influenced and shaped my doctoral studies and the research that has followed. My dissertation has grown directly out of my ESOL studies and practicum experiences in the program. Through this refugee family literacy work, it became clear to me that working with refugee women was something I wanted to do. So, I began seeking out other places where I could tutor or teach. I wound up with an English teaching position at the Global Village Project in Decatur, teaching refugee young women from around the world. I taught English for two years there. I am still a tutor and mentor for those past students and am now the newly hired Head of School for GVP – one of the only schools entirely dedicated to refugee young women’s education. I am still also working on my dissertation that focuses much needed attention on refugee women’s lives and literacy practices. I am so excited by my work and by the amazing women I have come to know. I am dedicated to adding to the limited and much needed research on refugee literacy and learning.

Amy E. Pelissero, M.Ed. Doctoral Candidate, Language and Literacy

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

Portfolios Each teacher in the endorsement program completes an online portfolio, hosted through LiveText. The portfolio documents the candidate’s understanding and application of the program’s learning outcomes. Successful completion of the portfolio is a requirement of the program.

Teachers must address five standards within the portfolio, through the inclusion of narrative essays describing their understanding of the standard, citing appropriate references for course material and outside reading, as well as through the inclusion of artifacts such as student work, which are uploaded as documents. Also included in the portfolio is a documentation and description of the candidate’s teaching and observation experiences in grades PK-12.

Because the endorsement granted is a PK-12 endorsement, students must participate in several experiences including observations to document their teaching experiences in primary, upper elementary, middle and high school settings. The range of grade levels addressed in the teaching methods class, TSLE 7440, supports this requirement as well. The student’s personal teaching philosophy and résumé round out the requirements for the exit portfolio. The online portfolio serves three purposes: 1. It is a summary of the student’s understanding of the standards and goals of the program, and documents how they have integrated the theory and practice of the program into their own teaching.

2. It serves as a means for the program faculty to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher education and the success in meeting the program’s goals.

3. It is an important professional tool for graduates to use in job interviews and presentations to showcase their accomplishments during the program.

Following is a summary of the program’s recent student portfolio scores, with a brief analysis and discussion of the data patterns and their implications for instructional improvement.

This data covers program participation for three years. A score of 5 represents full marks on the portfolio.

PAGE 8

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

20082009

20092010

20102011

Table 1 Portfolio Scores

Number of Candidates

3

6

4

Language Acquisition and Learning

4.3

3.83

4.5

4.3

3.83

4.5

4.3

4

4.25

Evaluating Impact on Student Learning

4.3

4

4.25

Professional Development

4.6

4.33

4.5

Advocacy and Collaboration

4.3

4.67

5

The Role of Culture in Learning and Teaching Language, Literacy, and Content Area Instruction

As shown in Table 1, student performance on both the language and culture standards is consistently strong across the three years. It appears that the larger the cohort, the greater the distribution and hence the lower average scores.

Generally most students indicate proficiency in the two standards with neither language nor culture being stronger than the other. While there is a slight fall in the second year scores (20092010) attributed to the larger cohort, the third year shows some gains with an average score of 4.5 on both language and culture standards.

Clearly, every year’s performance is also indicative of how hard-working students are, but it could also be that smaller cohorts get more attention from the instructors. Nevertheless, students are demonstrating consistent strengths in these standards across the years.

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

The students’ performance on the content area instruction standard shows a strong and consistent performance across the three years.

There is little variance in the performance over the three years but the lower performance in the second year (2009- 2010) is noted and may be attributed to the larger size of the cohort with a greater spread of the scores. However, students are attaining averages that demonstrate “proficiency” for the majority.

The students consistently demonstrate a strong performance evaluating impact on student learning. There is no great difference in the scores attained across the three years, but small differences can be observed with no demonstrated growth or large gains over the assessment period. Because there is no clear pattern of improvement, this is an area that can be worked on so that large scale improvements can be demonstrated more clearly.

Students’ performance on the professionalism and advocacy standards is usually very strong. The individual advocacy averages show progressive improvement across the first three years: 4.3, 4.67, and 5, respectively). Because of the wonderful service that students perform when they work with the refugee families, they demonstrate on a large scale how proactive they are in going the extra mile for their families as well as the students in their classes. It is not surprising, therefore, that students show very strong performance in these areas.

It is clear from the data presented that the small size of the program supports deep learning and strong student ability in the portfolio, and that the experience of teaching in the home of a refugee family is a pivotal experience which affects students’ sense of themselves as advocates for their students, and that this identity is reflected in the portfolio piece and its supporting artifacts.

In March 2013, the program was reviewed as a part of the entire Georgia State University’s Professional Education Unit’s recent NCATE visit and evaluation. Students in the program participated with department faculty in presenting posters from the different programs in the department at the beginning of the event.

They were able to speak to the NCATE

PAGE 9

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

reviewers regarding their experiences about the program as well as its strengths and effectiveness in preparing them as PK-12 ESOL endorsed teachers. The program, along with all other programs at Georgia State, passed the NCATE evaluation on all levels. This speaks for the program’s overall effectiveness.

Ethnographic Approaches in Teacher Education Three of the four endorsement courses are also part of Georgia State University’s Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) ESOL, Language and Literacy program. The endorsement practicum course is not taken by these preservice students because they have extensive practicum experiences in PK-12 classrooms across the span of their certification program. The endorsement inservice teachers are also required to have PK12 ESOL experiences in order to complete the endorsement. PK-12 experiences are built into the program and documented in the portfolio in addition to the work in the homes of refugee families. Though there are some differences between the certification and endorsement programs, there is great cross-fertilization of ideas across the coursework and multiple opportunities for sharing insights.

A core feature of the program that makes it exceptional in terms of teacher preparation is the integration of inservice and preservice teacher reflections guided by an ethnographic lens. In essence, teachers engage in ethnography when they “spend some time in schools studying various aspects of classrooms, curriculum, and teacher-pupil interactions, with varying degrees of guidance provided by teacher educators” (Zeichner, 1987, p. 569). The purpose of ethnography is to “capture the essence or spirit of what is going on during the observers presence, it is especially useful when the observer wants to capture a broad picture in a lesson rather than focus on a particular aspect of it” (Day, 1990, p. 44). The teacher educators in our program have primarily used ethnography as a tool to problematize inservice and preservice teachers’ assumptions about schools and push them to “explore the ideological nature of curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation and the interrelationships between these socially constructed practices within the school and the

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

social, economic and political contexts in which they are embedded” (Zeichner, 1987, p. 569).

Scholars have identified a number of benefits of using ethnographic techniques in teacher education such as the ability of ethnographic explorations to serve as the basis of teacher inquiry which supports teacher professional development (Dana & YendolHoppey, 2008; Frank, 1999; Zeichner, 2003) and the continued development and expansion of teachers’ knowledge base (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). Additionally, involving teachers in the inquiry process engages them as in their own professional growth and helps them develop a sense of agency (Darling-Hammond, 1994) that has been ignored by traditional forms of teacher education (Britzman, 2003).

In terms of specific skill development, ethnographies can be useful within second language teacher education programs because they enable preservice and inservice teachers to recognize just how complex and multifaceted the second language classroom is. As Day (1990) points out, “student teachers are often not aware of what complex environments their future classrooms are until they attempt to describe what actually happens in one” (p. 44). Likewise, ethnographic work enables student teachers to begin to see the multiple roles they will be expected to assume as second language teachers.

A final advantage of teachers’ use of ethnography is that “relative to other observation of techniques, it provides more information about the social context of the classroom, which may be useful in interpreting behavior” (Day, 1990, p. 45). Thus, it helps new teachers to view the class from a more holistic and ecological perspective on student learning. Providing for exchanges between our preservice and inservice teachers in the MAT and endorsement programs strengthens these teachers’ ethnographic gaze.

The advantages of teachers’ use of ethnography are also balanced against a number of potential pitfalls of which teacher educators need to be cognisant. For instance, some teachers may lack the requisite extensive training in observation techniques that make ethnographic description such a powerful technique.

Therefore, “an untrained observer may be overwhelmed by the complexity of what goes on

PAGE 10

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

and not be able to focus on important events as they unfold in the classroom” (Day, 1990, p. 44).

Similarly, in the continuous buzz of activity that characterizes a typical second language classroom, the teacher may struggle to maintain the stamina required to accurately record important classroom events across time. As well, the anecdotal record may be affected by the biases of the teacher so that important dynamics fail to be observed or reported. Lastly, ethnographic observations usually do not address specific questions and field notes often do not yield information that would allow the teacher to address specific classroom issues (Day, 1990).

These shortcomings point to the need for deep and rich scaffolding of all ethnographic activities in the teacher educator classroom. Without this scaffolding, there a possibility of reinforcement of stereotypic views and negative associations.

For the ESOL endorsement students it is the close reading and extensive discussion of the entire funds of knowledge book by González, Moll, and Amanti (2005) as well as the other texts that facilitate deep reflection on attitudes and dispositions. Class discussions also directly address applications in the PK-12 classroom.

This is a feature of the program for which teachers have expressed a particular appreciation.

Summary and Closing We introduce our award winning ESOL Endorsement Program at Georgia State to support our contention that adopting an ethnographic approach to teacher education into the program produces ESOL teachers who have a solid knowledge base and feel well prepared for the inevitable challenges they will face. It is one thing for an academic program to deliver theory and professional knowledge to its students; it is quite another for it to demand that those students integrate such theory into their professional practice and for the program to provide the means and support for them to do so.

As experienced teachers, having the opportunity to refine their practice and immediately apply it to their classrooms, while at the same time teaching and learning with non-traditional students in a family setting, is a rich and rewarding experience. They leave the program as stronger teachers who feel a new commitment

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

to the profession as a whole and to their students and their families in particular. These teachers have grown in their understanding of what it means to work in their community for justice and equal access to language and literacy. Their time as students may have come to a close, but their connection to the department and its ongoing mission continues as they continue to grow as ESOL professionals in new roles as teachers, researchers, and educational leaders.

References Akbari, R., & Allvar, N. K. (2010). L2 teacher characteristics as predictors of students’ academic achievement. TESL-EJ, 13(4), 1–22.

Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany: SUNY Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (1993).

Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (Eds.). (2008). The reflective educator's guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

Day, R. (1990). Teacher observation in second language teacher education. J. C. Richards, & D. Nunan (Eds.). (1990). Second language teacher education. (pp. 43-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frank, C. (1999). Ethnographic eyes: A teacher's guide to classroom observation. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Fong, R. (Ed.). (2004). Culturally competent practice with immigrant and refugee children and families. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2005).

Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms.

Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (2010). TESOL/NCATE standards for the recognition of initial TESOL programs in P-12 ESL teacher education. Alexandria, VA: Global Education Association.

Tinker Sachs, G., Hendley, M. L., Klosterman, S., Muga, E., Roberson, A., Soons, B., Wingo, C., & Yeo, M. (2008). Integrating funds of knowledge in the ESOL practicum: The missing element.

GATESOL in Action, 21(2), 23 – 30

PAGE 11

GATEways to Teacher Education A journal of th e Georgia As s oc iation of Teac h er Educ ators

Zeichner, K. M. (1987). Preparing reflective teachers: An overview of instructional strategies which have been employed in preservice teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(5), 565-575.

About the Authors Gertrude Tinker Sachs, PhD Dr. Gertrude Tinker Sachs is an associate professor of ESOL, Language and Literacy in the Middle and Secondary Education Department of Georgia State University. She is the coordinator of her program’s 2013 award winning ESOL Endorsement Program. Tinker Sachs sees herself as a critical international intercultural teacher educator. She is concerned with community building through partnerships in Atlanta and has collaborative research projects with colleagues across the United States and internationally. As a critical language, literacy and ESOL teacher educator professor, Tinker Sachs has an interest in activist research and community literacy practices; her research focuses on local and international teacher professional development through transformative and culturally responsive literacy pedagogies.

educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in Education in Social Studies Education with an emphasis in history from the University of Georgia and a Master of Education in Social Studies Education from Georgia State University. In addition, she holds an ESOL Endorsement from Georgia State University.

Jayoung Choi, PhD Jayoung Choi is a clinical assistant professor of ESOL/Literacy education at Georgia State University. Her research interests include adolescent English and heritage language learners’ literacy practices and identity development and multimodal literacies taken up and practiced by ELs and ESOL teachers. Her work has been published in Foreign Language Annals, TESL Canada Journal, and Journal of Asian Pacific Communication.

Dennis Murphy Odo, PhD Dr. Dennis Murphy Odo received his PhD in Language and Literacy Education from The University of British Columbia. He has taught ESL/EFL and served as a teacher trainer in Canada and Korea. He is currently a Lecturer with the International Language Institute of Hanyang University in Seoul, Korea.

Kimberly Carr Kimberly Carr is a graduate from Georgia State University’s ESOL Endorsement Program and is an ESOL teacher at Cary Reynolds Elementary School.

She works closely with parents and new teachers where she stresses the importance of funds of knowledge. Her first and second graders are mostly immigrant students from Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico. Ms. Carr is a member of the school’s STEM team and serves as a voice for ESOL and the importance of language development in the content areas.

Patty Limb, MEd Patty Limb currently teaches ESOL sheltered History classes and ESOL language development content classes at Central Gwinnett High School. Her

V OLU ME 1 5, ISSU E 1

PAGE 12

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

Cooperative Learning: Are Teachers Practicing Linda Ann H. McCall and Glenda L. Ogletree What We Preach?

Armstrong State University

Before moving into the university classroom, each of us taught in elementary schools for over 30 years in a variety of settings (i.e., inclusive classrooms, open classrooms, homogeneous classrooms). During this time we used varying strategies with our students. One particular approach to learning that proved highly successful was cooperative learning, which is a move away from traditional practice wherein students are expected to work and be assessed independently and competitively (McCurdy, 1996). We found that traditional practice, which also means teacher-centered and text-focused instruction, only served to reduce student motivation and stifle the development of interpersonal skills. Conversely, when our students (including our university students) were involved in cooperative learning activities as we have defined in this paper and which we have taught and modeled, motivation and class spirit were high, as evidenced by exemplary class attendance and punctuality. Students also demonstrated academic risk-taking by asking questions and formulating and investigating hypotheses. Further, student use of metacognitive strategies (e.g., problem-solving and research) increased.

Purpose The purpose of this article is to advocate for cooperative learning and to describe a survey conducted in the fall of 2012 with preservice teachers and teachers-of-record regarding application of cooperative learning techniques in our regional elementary schools. Attitudes concerning its use or disuse are also examined.

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

Literature Review During the past three decades, increasing attention has been paid to the idea of cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is an instructional approach wherein students work in teams, according to prescribed guidelines, to achieve certain academic goals across the curriculum (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1994; Kagan, 1990; Slavin, 1990). The instructor’s role is that of model, facilitator, and monitor. A group usually includes three to six students of varying abilities.

Students are assigned varying roles such as team captain, materials manager, recorder, and reporter. Responsibilities for both the content of the lesson and the success of the group are shared by all group members. The two most vital elements of cooperative learning are positive interdependence and individual accountability.

Social interaction, cooperative skills, and group processing are also important aspects (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1991).

Additional benefits of cooperative learning are that members learn from each other, and when members interact with each other, the alienation, passivity, and loneliness prevalent in competitive, individualistic settings are reduced.

Cooperating with others boosts feelings of being respected and cared for by others in the group.

Hence, self-esteem and attitudes toward school improve (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Slavin, 1984). Students who practice working together to accomplish a task enhance their ability to work as a team, thereby improving their social skills (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2009). Further, cooperative learning may be used with any age group, including university students (Springer,

PAGE 13

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

Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Cooperative learning strategies positively affect learning in the cognitive and affective/socioemotional domains (Abell & Lederman, 2007), especially for at-risk students (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1991) and English Language Learners (Troncale, 2002). Cooperative learning may be used in any content area (Brown & Ciuffetelli, 2009; Herreid, 1998; Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1991). For example, one of the assumptions of science teaching is that students’ understanding is actively constructed through individual and social processes. This is the way that scientists develop their own knowledge and understandings as they find answers to questions. Also, according to Nagel (2008), cooperative groupings in the social studies classroom make the content more “meaningful, integrative, value-based, challenging and active” (p. 366).

Cooperative grouping strategies support some older and well-respected views. For example, according to John Dewey (1916), integrative, experiential, authentic learning is more compatible with the natural inclinations of the learner. This suggests the value of interactive learning wherein participants work together to solve problems and reach goals in and outside the classroom.

Population Survey participants included undergraduate and graduate candidates in elementary education attending class on the main campus of a southeastern university in the United States.

Enrollment records at the time of the survey revealed a total of 57 early childhood education teachers-of-record (past and present) and 238 early childhood education preservice teacher candidates. Given the rather small number of students enrolled, the entire population was surveyed. A total of 38 teachers-of-record, or 67% of the 57 teachers-of-record enrolled, participated in the survey. A total of 184 preservice teacher candidates, or 77% of the 238 preservice teachers enrolled, participated in the survey. Those not participating were either absent or chose not to complete the voluntary survey.

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

Instrumentation The survey instrument for this crosssectional study (a single stand-alone research effort administered to a group of individuals once), is based on the work of Fink (2003) and Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2009). It was designed in questionnaire format, and because of its uniqueness, was created by the researchers. It consisted of structured or closed-ended items (i.e., “yes-no” questions) and free response items (i.e., open-ended statements) and was divided into five parts: a consent statement, a definition of cooperative grouping, directions for completing the survey, a section for teachers-ofrecord, and a section for preservice teachers.

Following the consent statement, the survey noted: Cooperative learning strategies are designed to encourage student interaction and teamwork for the purpose of completing a task.

A group usually includes three to six students (sometimes a few more and sometimes a few less) of varying abilities. Students are assigned varying roles such as team captain, materials manager, recorder, and reporter. Responsibilities for both the content of a lesson and the success of the group are shared by all group members.

After reading this definition, teachers-of-record were asked whether or not they used cooperative grouping strategies in their own classrooms. If they answered “yes,” they were asked to identify which subject area(s). If they answered “no,” they were asked to write why not. Preservice teachers were asked whether or not they had been in a field experience where cooperative grouping strategies had been used. If they answered “yes,” they were asked to identify which subject area(s).

In order to insure that the survey questionnaire was unambiguous, we conducted a pilot study. The pilot study was conducted in a smaller than average university class with both teachers-of-record and preservice teachers seeking initial certification in early childhood education. Survey completion was voluntary. All class members (100%) completed the pilot survey.

The pilot study questionnaire revealed that some participants had questions regarding anonymity and whether or not they were required to take the survey. Upon advice from

PAGE 14

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

the Institutional Review Board, a consent statement was added at the top of the survey form. Also, preservice teachers seemed confused by the wording in question one, especially the words “class setting.” Question one read, “Have you ever been in a class setting where cooperative learning strategies are used?” This was modified to read, “Have you ever been in a field experience where cooperative grouping strategies are used?”

Procedures Permission was granted by the Institutional Review Board to conduct the survey. Also, permission was granted by colleagues in the early childhood education department to survey their students in their classrooms, and a schedule of approved dates and times was created. One researcher was responsible for visiting each classroom and personally administering the surveys to all participants in the same manner.

The researcher read the consent statement, the definition of cooperative grouping, and the directions for completing the survey form while participants followed along on their own copies of the survey. Participants taking more than one course were directed to complete the survey only one time. The researcher waited until all participants had completed the form. Surveys were collected, and the researcher left the room.

Quantitative and qualitative survey data were collected. Data/information and results were anonymous. Quantitative data were tallied by hand, and reported anonymously in group totals only. Qualitative data (i.e., attitudes, opinions) were also presented anonymously and reported in narrative form.

Results Quantitative data As evidenced in Table 1, the majority (i.e., 29 out of 38, or 76 %) of teachers-of-record responded, “Yes,” to their first question, “Do you use cooperative learning strategies?” A small majority (i.e., 106 out of 184, or 58 %) of preservice teachers responded, “Yes,” to their first question, “Have you ever been in a field experience where cooperative grouping strategies are used?”

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

Table 1 Number of Teachers-of-Record Using or Not Using Cooperative Grouping and Number of Preservice Teachers Observing or Not Observing Cooperative Grouping _____________________________________________________

Teachersof-Record

Preservice Teachers

______________________________________________________

Using or observed

29

106

Not used or not observed

9

78

______________________________________________________

Table 2 Subject Areas Wherein Cooperative Grouping Has Been Used _____________________________________________________

Subject Areas

Teachersof-Record

Preservice Teachers

_____________________________________________________

Math Science Reading Language Arts Social Studies ELL Health Writing Spanish Music Physical Education Visual Arts All subjects

17 18 11 6 13 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

49 38 21 30 35 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 6

______________________________________________________

As evidenced in Table 2, the teachers-ofrecord who indicated they used cooperative grouping in their classrooms stated cooperative groupings were used more in the areas of math, science, reading, and social studies, and less, or not at all, in the areas of language arts, health, writing, Spanish, music, physical education, and visual arts. One teacher-of-record stated she used cooperative grouping strategies with her English language learners (ELL). Preservice teachers who indicated they had been in a field experience where cooperative grouping strategies were used stated that cooperative

PAGE 15

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

grouping was used in the areas of math, science, reading, language arts, and social studies, and less, or not at all, in the areas of health, writing, Spanish, music, physical education, and visual arts. None of the preservice teachers had observed cooperative learning strategies with English language learners. Six of the preservice teachers stated they had observed cooperative learning strategies in all subjects.

Qualitative data Teachers-of-record who stated that they did not use cooperative grouping in their classrooms offered rationales which included the following: Three teachers wrote that cooperative learning strategies were not used in their schools. One teacher stated, “I work at a private school where there are not clear roles assigned.

We do a lot of differentiated learning but not cooperative learning. We do not do science projects that are student led for the most part.”

Another teacher reported, “My school was a Montessori preschool. The students usually teach themselves using Montessori materials.

Most lessons are given on individual basis.” A third teacher wrote, “I taught a self-contained SPED classroom. My students had moderate, severe, and profound intellectual disabilities. We taught our students one-on-one or in small groups. Even when we used small groups, we did not assign the students roles and responsibilities.”

Two teachers felt that cooperative grouping was inappropriate for their students. The first teacher wrote, “Cooperative learning was not used because students were at different developmental stages and they could begin in the room at any time throughout the year. This made it difficult to assign roles and have consistent groups.” A second teacher wrote, “Have not thought of using them due to young age of students.”

Two teachers indicated insecurity and/or a lack of knowledge regarding the application of cooperative learning in their classrooms. One wrote, “I would like to use them; however, I do not feel like my routines and rituals for cooperative grouping are set yet. Also, I moved to another grade level so my confidence in the content is not strong enough yet to incorporate cooperative grouping.” Another teacher stated,

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

“I have never formally assigned roles to each student in the group. I have used groups for Reader’s Theater with a designated leader.”

One teacher reported that she was not teaching right now, but thought cooperative learning was a good idea. “I have not held a job in the school system yet other than that of a long term substitute teacher. If I get an opportunity to use cooperative strategies in the future when I am responsible for my own plans, I will definitely incorporate them.”

Discussion Many schools use teacher-centered textbook-controlled instruction. However, these traditional or “back-to-basics” competitive ideas of rote learning, memorization, and teacherconstructed assignments and tests are being replaced in some areas by a more interpersonal, or cooperative, approach---an approach which we have used successfully over time in our own classrooms.

Survey results revealed that the majority of teachers-of-record stated they used cooperative grouping in their classrooms (see Table 1), and we assumed they understood and applied cooperative grouping properly. However, the fact that so many teachers stated they used cooperative learning in certain subject areas and very little or not at all in others (see Table 2) contradicts our assumption and makes us question whether or not cooperative learning is being distinguished from simple group work.

A minority of teachers-of-record stated they did not use cooperative learning in their classrooms. Several themes emerged from their rationales. First, cooperative learning is not used in their schools. Second, cooperative learning strategies are not appropriate for their students.

Third, the concept of cooperative learning is not understood and there is a feeling of insecurity regarding its application.

Survey results revealed that a little more than half of the preservice teachers stated they had observed cooperative grouping strategies in the field (see Table 1). They stated that they had observed cooperative learning being used in certain subject areas and very little or not at all in others (see Table 2).

Even though the definition of cooperative learning was read to each class before they took

PAGE 16

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

the survey, it is not clear whether the participants understood the concept and/or application of cooperative learning. Preservice teachers may not recognize cooperative grouping in the field, and may not have discussed grouping strategies with their supervising teachers. Also, university faculty may or may not be using or modeling cooperative learning in their methods courses.

In order to further our understanding regarding the application of cooperative learning strategies in our schools, more research is needed. Are teachers using research-based cooperative grouping in their classrooms? Do they have the training to be able to implement this grouping strategy? In the future, study participants should be interviewed before the survey is administered in order to check their knowledge of cooperative learning. This may ensure more accurate data.

References Abell, S., & Lederman, N. (Eds). (2007). Handbook of research and science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, H., & Ciuffetelli, D. (Eds.). (2009).

Foundational methods: Understanding teaching and learning. Toronto: Pearson Education.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2009).

Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Herreid, C. (1998). Why isn’t cooperative learning used to teach science? Bioscience, 48(7), 553559.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1991).

Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 12-15.

McCurdy, A. (1996). A study of the effects of cooperative learning strategies on the motivation of a high-ability student. Retrieved from www.amybmc.com/arp.htm Nagel, P. (2008). Moving beyond lecture: Cooperative grouping in the secondary classroom. Education, 128(3), 363-368.

Slavin, R. (1984). Team assisted individualized instruction: Cooperative learning and individualized instruction in the mainstreamed classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 5(6), 33-42.

Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999).

Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis.

Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-51.

Troncale, N. (2002). Content-based instruction, cooperative learning, and CALP instruction: Addressing the whole education of ESL students. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 1-8.

About the Authors Linda Ann H. McCall, EdD Dr. Linda McCall is an Associate Professor in the Department of Childhood and Exceptional Student Education at Armstrong State University. She earned her Doctorate in Curriculum Studies with an emphasis in Instructional Improvement from Georgia Southern University. She has taught for over thirtyfive years, fifteen in private education, and eighteen in public education, and has received numerous awards for her thematic integrated approaches to teaching and learning. Her primary interests are critical thinking/ praxis and pedagogical reform,

PAGE 17

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

especially in the areas of curriculum and the structure of schooling itself.

Glenda L. Ogletree, PhD Dr. Glenda Ogletree is an Associate Professor in the Department of Childhood and Exceptional Student Education at Armstrong State University. She earned her Doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction and Elementary Science Education from the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

PAGE 18

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

Does Differentiation Engage Gifted Students?

J. B. Imand, South Forsyth Middle School; B. Sorohan, Brenau University; and R. A. Cooper, Brenau University

Because of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, more pressure has been placed on teachers to remediate students who do not master the curriculum, yet little attention has been given to advanced learners. These advanced students need educators who value their potential and are willing and able to differentiate instruction in order to facilitate their learning (Manning, Standford, & Reeves, 2010). Differentiated instruction ensures that what a student learns, how he/she learns it, and how the student demonstrates what he/she has learned is a match for that student’s readiness level, interests, and preferred mode of learning (Tomlinson, 2004). Making connections between subject content and students’ interests through differentiated instruction is even more important today, according to Hertberg-Davis and Brighton (2006), as in recent years the push for inclusion and the nation’s changing demographics have further expanded the range of students learning together in the same classroom. In a typical public school classroom with 27 students, the academic levels can span more than five grade levels.

Literature Review Sondergeld and Schultz (2008) used differentiation with third grade students. The classroom consisted of 26 students with varying learning styles; however, only 2 were gifted. The assignments were very flexible and the students could decide which method of learning suited them. Students could work alone or in groups.

Outcomes were monitored through observation and interviews, and students reported liking the differentiated unit on simple machines more than previous units. The teacher discovered that differentiated teaching for gifted students was very useful, especially with science content. In

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

addition to engaging students, this research indicated that students learned more through differentiated instruction than with traditional methods of teaching.

Beecher and Sweeny (2008) described research from a low-performing urban elementary school. The school had a very culturally and linguistically diverse student population with high poverty. Over eight years, a strategic plan for school improvement was implemented to include a school-wide enrichment team, differentiated units of study across the curriculum, extended day enrichment programs, staff development, and accountability and assessment measures. The enrichment included integrating gifted and talented strategies into the school’s curriculum. At the end of the study, student performance on district and state assessments increased and students had more positive attitudes.

Singh (2009) researched how self-regulated learning (SRL) with gifted students was more effective than directed teaching and allowed for more discovery and inquiry. There are three components of SRL that facilitate metacognitive processes and learning for gifted students: (1) self-regulated learners plan, organize, selfinstruct, and self-evaluate at different stages; (2) self-regulated learners perceive themselves as self-efficacious, autonomous, and intrinsically motivated; and (3) self-regulated learners select, structure, and create social and physical environments. This research involved 60 gifted high school students in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The experimental group of 30 students used an SRL strategy for learning. These students were expected to use problem-solving exercises along with technology and other resources from the school’s media center. The

PAGE 19

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

control group of 30 students received direct teaching and was expected to listen and take notes. The pretest scores were about the same for both groups; however, the experimental group demonstrated better material retention and understanding from using SRL and consequently received better grades on the posttest.

Participants The participants in this study were 40 sixth grade students in two Earth Science classes at a middle school in North Georgia. Group one consisted of 20 students with the following demographics: fifteen White, four Indian, and one Asian, including 10 boys and 10 girls; group two consisted of 20 students with the following demographics: fourteen White, three Indian, two Asian, and one African American, including 10 boys and 10 girls. These two classes were chosen because they were very similar in demographics.

Methods For the first Earth Science unit, group one received differentiated instruction while group two received teacher-led instruction. For the second unit, the groups were switched so that each set of students received each type of instruction. The differentiation involved student choice. Students could choose to learn through inquiry, cooperative learning groups, or individually, as well as work quietly or listen to music with headphones. These students were also able to work in class or use the technology in the media center.

Results Data was collected through the use of parent and student surveys, teacher and researcher observations, and pre- and posttests for each unit. The parental surveys were given before the onset of the research and at the end of the first unit of instruction. Student surveys were administered at the end of instruction for both units. Students were told not to include their names on the survey and were encouraged to speak honestly. Four teachers (of science, math, language arts, and special education) observed the classes during each unit for at least 10 minutes and provided the researcher with their thoughts. All of this data was compiled and

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

compared. The pre- and posttest unit data was analyzed using an independent samples t-test.

Data Analysis The parental surveys completed before the research began indicated that 11 of the parents felt that his/her child did not like science, 29 thought his/her child enjoyed hands-on activities, 19 indicated that his/her child did not enjoy group work and preferred teacher-led instruction, and 15 did not know what type of learning his/her child preferred. A second parental survey administered after unit one was completed revealed that many parents had stronger opinions regarding instructional methods. The number of parents who indicated that his/her child liked science increased from 29 to 32 and the number of parents who felt that his/her child did not like science dropped from 11 to four. The number of children who enjoyed hands-on activities jumped from 29 to 32 while the number of children who did not enjoy group work and preferred teacher-led instruction dropped from 19 to 12. On the first survey, 15 of the parents did not know what type of learning was preferred by his/her child, but on the second survey, not one parent indicated this.

An independent samples t-test comparing the means of the unit pretest scores showed that the groups were not significantly different in their knowledge of either unit. There were no significant differences in either the unit one or the unit two pretest for groups one and two (p=0.165 and p=0.762).

An independent samples t-test comparing the means of the posttest scores indicated that for unit one, there was a significant difference in the scores for groups one and two for the posttest (p=0.013). For unit one, group one performed significantly better with differentiation than did group two with teacherled instruction. The results of the student survey given after the first unit of instruction showed that the students who were taught using differentiation enjoyed the unit because of the activities provided, while the majority (14/20) of the students taught using teacher-led instruction preferred to be doing the same activities as the other students. An independent samples t-test comparing the means of the posttest scores for unit two indicated that there was not a

PAGE 20

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

significant difference in the scores for groups one and two (p=0.288). The second student survey given after the second unit of instruction indicated that the students who were taught through differentiation as well as those taught through teacher-led instruction preferred the differentiation. Students also stated that the activities were more fun, the classes seemed shorter than usual, and the lessons were more interesting when instruction was differentiated.

The teacher observations indicated that the students were more engaged during the units taught using differentiation verses the units that were taught through teacher-led instruction. The researcher observations mirrored those of the teacher observations and revealed that the students were more engaged during the differentiated units. When students were working in groups, completing computer assignments, or working independently, engagement increased. Students were less engaged during lecture or when completing activities that did not involve moving around or working with others.

Discussion The results indicated that differentiated instruction engaged gifted students in a general education classroom better than teacher-led instruction for the first unit. There may not have been a significant difference for the second unit because group one may have used some of the differentiation techniques on their own for the unit in which they were taught using teacher-led instruction. However, both groups of students were more interested and eager to learn when differentiation was used, which is similar to the findings of Sondergeld and Schultz (2008) and Beecher and Sweeny (2008). Before teaching the second unit, students were positive regarding the unit with teacher-led instruction; however, after receiving differentiated instruction, these students did not want to go back to teacher-led instruction. Students thought it was more fun working in groups or having the option to work alone, as differentiation considers a student’s preferred way of learning (Tomlinson, 2004).

Using differentiation to help students enjoy a unit or activity is a wonderful way to facilitate learning. This idea supports the work of Manning, Standford, and Reeves (2010), which

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

expresses the importance of valuing and supporting the needs of advanced learners.

It is important for students to learn how to independently find answers and to make critical discoveries in classes such as science. Therefore, teachers should work to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of gifted students. However, all students can benefit from learning that is tailored to their specific readiness level, interest, and preferred style of learning.

References Beecher, M., & Sweeny S. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530.

Hertberg-Davis, H., & Brighton C. (2006). Support and sabotage: Principals’ influence on middle school teachers’ responses to differentiation.

Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 90(17), 90-102.

Manning, S., Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2010).

Valuing the advanced learner: Differentiating up. Clearing House, 83(4), 145-149.

Singh, P. (2009). An experimental study of selfregulated learning with gifted learners.

International Journal of Learning, 16(1), 101117.

Sondergeld, T. A., & Schultz, R. A. (2008). Science, standards, and differentiation: It really can be fun! Gifted Child Today, 31(1), 34-40.

Tomlinson, C. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188-189.

About the Authors Joan Imand, EdS Ms. Imand is a science teacher and Science Department Chair at South Forsyth Middle School in Cumming, GA. She has a B.A. in Anthropology from

PAGE 21

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

The University of North Carolina, an M.S. in Science Education from North Georgia College and State University, and an Ed.S. in Middle Grades Math and Science from Brenau University in Gainesville, GA. She teaches sixth and seventh grade science for gifted, advanced, and on-level students. Her areas of interest include differentiation in the science classroom and mentoring new science teachers.

Dr. Bryan Sorohan, PhD Dr. Bryan Sorohan is currently an Associate Professor of Education at Brenau University in Gainesville, GA. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill in 1985, an M.Ed. in Social Studies Education from North Georgia College and State University in 1991, and a Ph.D. in Middle School Education from the University of Georgia in 2003.

He currently teaches courses in Social Studies Methods, Instructional Technology, Instructional Design, and Educational Foundations in the School of Education at Brenau. His research interests are instructional technology, middle grades teacher preparation, Latino and immigrant education, and educational policy.

Rebecca A. Cooper, PhD Dr. Cooper is a Professor of Education and Chair of the Advanced Education Programs at Brenau University in Norcross, GA. She has a B.S. in Biology from Allegheny College, an M.S. in Biology from Florida International University, an M.Ed. in Science Education from the University of Florida, and a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Florida. She teaches science methods and science content courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels online and on-ground. Her areas of interest include students’ attitude toward science, environmental education, and online teaching.

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

PAGE 22

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

A Multi-Faceted Paradigm for Rieger, Valdosta State University; Teacher Leadership PeggyAlicja Perkins Auman, Florida A&M University; Jessica B. Graves, Valdosta State University

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.

(John Quincy Adams) Contemporary approaches to teacher leadership advocate forming leadership that abandons traditional administrative top-down practices and instead replacing them with broader and more flexible practices of leadership (Wilhelm, 2013; Collay, 2013). This results in the teacher leaders sharing their governance with the members inside and outside their school communities as well as the teaching profession (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2007; Danielson, 2006; Nazareno, 2013). This article discusses multiple pathways into teacher leadership with teachers assuming the roles of collaborators, researchers, lifelong learners, effective instructors, assessors, community leaders, and advocates critical to serving the needs of students, schools, the community, and the profession. However, it is not expected that a new teacher leader will assume all of these roles at the same time or in the same linear sequence as outlined in this article. On the contrary, different times and different school contexts will require different kinds of teacher leadership. The approach has been developed based on The Teacher Leader Model Standards (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011), a theoretical model to guide the preparation of effective teacher leaders for the needs of the 21st Century. It is a response to the call for a dialogue about multiple pathways into teacher leadership issued by the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium (2011).

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

Collaborators Effective leaders recruit colleagues to achieve consensus on their vision and support for improving programs that will result in all students learning regardless of their abilities, backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, and languages (Danielson, 2007). The traditional and transformational leadership traits nurture collaborative, inclusive, and culturally responsive teaching environments (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011; Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011).

The reframed teacher leadership is no longer solely identified with the principal’s role.

Now, it is distributed among the team members, with teachers acting as team players in the school’s shared decision-making and becoming agents of change. Kenyon (2008) explains, “it is not the industrial, hierarchical model of delegation, direction, or distribution of responsibility but the distributed model of teachers’ agency and choice in initiating and sustaining vision and change regardless of their experience and status” (p. 25). Successful and sustained change should not be pursued in isolation. On the contrary, research of highperforming schools shows that those schools which establish and maintain cultures of collaboration increase student learning and achievement (Jaquith, 2013; Kenyon, 2008). The multi-faceted paradigm for reframed teacher leadership calls for the development of strong cultures of collaboration to ensure that their colleagues can support one another in the effort to implement a change effectively and to promote a success for each student regardless of their abilities, backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, and languages.

PAGE 23

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

Teacher leaders, however, need to be provided with resources and other support structures within and outside schools to promote the culture of collaboration. “Schools and districts should not invest in teacher leaders unless they intend to support teacher leaders adequately through time, administrative follow through, and training to help teachers develop the positive social relations on which their work depends” (Gigante & Firestone, 2008, p. 302).

Too many times the change is too poorly resourced, there are insufficient funds available, and there is no shared time or release time provided for teachers to plan (Hargreaves, 1997; Jaquith, 2013). If we want to encourage teachers to work collaboratively, then they need to be compensated for teamwork and collaboration endeavors. Thus, the shift needs to be made from solely individual compensation and evaluation to school systems that evaluate and award teamwork and collaboration (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011).

Furthermore, what makes successful teacher leadership is a creation of a safe environment that promotes a teacher empowerment (Lieberman & Miller, 2004).

“There is no way around it,” argued Schmoker (1997, p. 146), who continued, “if we want continuous improvement in schools, leaders must create, with the help of their staff, a setting where team leaders and team members feel empowered and encouraged to strive and stretch for better results which they know reflect the institution’s highest priorities, its core values” (p. 146). Lintner (2008) stated “the outcomes of teacher empowerment are high energy levels, positive attitudes, high productivity and commitment to education” (p. 11). Researchers hold constant that the combination of trust and respect is the foundation of teacher empowerment and shared governance (Sergiovanni, 2004).

Successful teacher leaders are also mindful of the school culture and its impact on teaching and learning. Evidence is mounting that schools do not function in a vacuum but in the cultural contexts. “All that happens in schools occurs in a cultural context” (Drake & Roe, 1999 cited in Lintner, 2008, p. 36). Research also informs that the positive school culture is correlated to job

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

satisfaction, commitment, motivation, communication, and leadership skills of teachers (Sahin, 2011). For school leaders to be culturally proficient, they need to be responsive to the unique needs of diverse teachers and learners, as well as meeting the requirements of both internal and external accountability (Sahin, 2011).

Effective teacher leaders recognize the need for a goal oriented approach to teacher leadership in which there is no need for direct leadership and/or bureaucratic solutions to complex problems as “teachers follow the vision and not the person” (Lintner, 2008, p. 41).

Thomas, Herring, Redmond, and Smaldino (2013) in a recent publication provided a blueprint for preparing the TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge) which competent teacher candidates could emulate. The probability that these ideas will be accepted by teachers is enhanced by the ground-up approach used to develop the blueprint, as illustrated by the authors’ statement, “this vision will set a direction for transforming teacher education programs. Because a vision is unlikely to inspire people if communicated in top-down fashion, all system stakeholders need to be engaged in setting goals that are personally compelling and achievable, even if challenging” (p. 57).

As a result, teachers are internally motivated to do their best to make a difference in their student learning and their school performance. The vision is shaped by the shared, measurable goals and outcomes that allow progress monitoring in order to improve teaching and ultimately optimize student learning. Additionally, they provide teacher leaders with areas for effective professional development. “Visible tangible indicators can reveal not only who is and who isn’t getting a good education; they can also reveal areas of program strength and weaknesses, which in turn create opportunities for improvement” (Schmoker, 1997, p. 132).

It is paramount that the shared goals will be developed based on all available data and that a manageable number of goals be established.

Research suggests that the teacher leaders and the schools limit to two specific goals per year based on justifiable priority (Schmoker, 1997).

PAGE 24

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

These goals should be aligned with assessment to determine objectively what is working and what needs to be done better, followed by an implementation of evidence-based strategies to generate better results.

It is crucial that teacher leaders are offered release time and opportunities to set up regular meetings to discuss the data and the progress made toward meeting these goals (Schmoker, 1997). Without provided release time, teacher leaders and teachers may feel overwhelmed and overcommitted, leading to resistance and setbacks. Without goal-oriented and collective focus on better performance, both teacher leaders and teachers may end up working toward tasks that only remotely have connections to improving student learning, or counterproductively, they may spend time pursuing too many tasks that only undermine the rate of real progress (Hargreaves, 1997).

Researchers Another premise of reframed teacher leadership is that teacher leaders pursue school improvement through teacher inquiry.

Consequently, in the multi-faceted paradigm systematic inquiry is a significant feature of the teacher leader as a researcher and facilitator. In order to be effective in this work, the teacher leader works collaboratively in collecting, analyzing, and using the data to improve teaching and student learning (Cody, 2013; Duke & Martin, 2011; Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011).

Within this context, Sagor (1997) proposed collaborative action research as a vital example of teacher inquiry for effective educational change. According to the author, such action research emerges from collectively identified educational and professional needs and concerns and is not mandated by any school authority.

Rather, it is based on voluntarism of team teachers who share the mutual interests and concerns which leads to data collection, analysis, and taking actions. The team teachers can gain the insight needed to implement appropriate strategies which address the identified needs and concerns. Thus, the ultimate purpose of any collaborative research is to improve teaching and student learning through

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

evidence-based strategies and data based decisions.

This does not mean that collaborative action research is a simple process. On the contrary, like any systematic inquiry into critical educational issues and concerns regarding teaching and student learning, it involves developing an understanding of collaborative action research as “ever-evolving works in progress” (Sagor, 1997, p. 175). The participants of collaborative action research should be provided with sustained support, encouragement, and resources to carry the teams through varied stages of the action research process. But, perhaps more important, collaborative working relationships should be of an uncontrived nature. That is, teachers need to be allowed to collaborate with one another based on their emerging and shared interests and needs and not to be forced to compromise their individual interest and needs for the sake of group solidarity. Within such an uncontrived working environment, “educators would constantly be creating and recreating work teams based on emergent goals and shared needs” (Sagor, 1997, p. 174).

Lifelong Learners The reframed teacher leadership values lifelong learning. The teacher leader recognizes the issues associated with the changes in technologies and their impact on school communities. Teachers and administrators must work together to plan for the appropriate professional development that will meet the needs of their colleagues. Team-based support is important to sustain the ever-changing and differentiated needs of the professionals and students (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011; Wilhelm, 2013).

Teacher leaders should use technology to assist them in their professional growth both on individual and collective levels. For instance, online discussion boards, or peer-to-peer coaching/mentoring, and online learning communities may be used by the teacher leaders as vehicles for advancing professional growth and building sustained professional development programs among the colleagues. These online learning communities are referred differently across the professional literature. Some examples include “‘communities of practice,’

PAGE 25

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

‘network of practice,’ ‘cybersociety,’ ‘coconstruction of knowledge,’ ‘colleagueship,’ ‘galactic network,’ ‘virtual community,’ and a ‘learning organization’” (Franken, 2009, p. 106).

Regardless of the different terms used, their unifying purpose is the sharing of practices and knowledge with professional colleagues in order to facilitate professional development and the learning trajectory of adults in school communities.

The key in any successful and meaningful professional development program is that teacher leaders are responsive to the diverse learning needs of their colleagues. Evidence suggests that effectiveness of mentoring programs is limited when teacher leaders take on the task of mentoring their novice colleagues based solely on the perceived seniority or fulfillment of leadership responsibilities.

Optimal programs are based on regard for the individual learning needs of their novice colleagues and then matching their expertise with those needs (Elisa et al., 2011).

More often than not, research on the mentoring process confirms that for teacher leaders to provide authentic, relevant, concentrated, and sustained support for their novice colleagues, their mentoring needs to be established based on mutual connectedness as colleagues. Such mentoring is a two-way street that should enhance professional development for both parties involved: the mentor and the mentee (Freeman, 2008).

Elisa et al. (2011) proposed a multicomponent professional development model for novice teachers, especially those placed in urban schools. This model pairs a novice teacher with a peer-nominated key opinion teacher leader and an external coach to work collaboratively to incorporate evidence-based strategies and practices for improving the classroom management and student motivation, as well as establish professional networks with the colleagues in the field for ongoing support and dissemination of evidenced-based teaching strategies and practices. “A fundamental assumption of the model is that social relationships are crucial for novices not only because they are a conduit for building skills that lead to effectiveness, but because

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

connections with colleagues fosters a sense of belongingness within the workplace necessary to engender longer-term commitment to teaching” (Elisa et al., 2011, p. 468).

It is also critical that teacher leaders coplan for professional development activities that help infuse the acquired knowledge and effective pedagogy into the daily classroom’s curricula and align those activities with content standards to benefit student learning. Over the past two decades, research indicates strong relationships between teacher “Knowledge, pedagogy, and subsequently, student learning” (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

Effective Instructors Gardner (1990) argued, “teaching and leading are indistinguishable occupations, but every great leader is teaching, and every great teacher is leading” (p. 18). The effective leaders believe that no matter how effective they are in the classroom, their teaching can be improved (Seldin, 1997). They advocate reflective teaching and take initiative in the collection and use of classroom- and school-based data to improve curriculum, instruction, assessment, school organization, and school culture (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011).

The extent of a student’s overall success in school seems to focus on one common factor: the teacher. Yet, there are many complex factors that contribute to teaching and learning. Leana (2011) pointed out in her discussion of school reform that there is a predominant ideology of how to reform public schools which includes “the power of the individual . . . focusing on improving the capabilities of the individual teacher; wisdom from the outsider . . . outside experts – or even novices – to solve problems; and the principal as instructional leader” (p. 33).

These beliefs are supported by a variety of contemporary and influential sources (e.g., the 2010 documentary, Waiting for Superman; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [Leana, 2011]; and Michelle Rhee [2008 cited in Leana, 2011]; etc.). Indeed, these indicators of student achievement all focus on the effectiveness of the individual teacher. However, since teaching is not done in isolation, the research suggests that when effective teachers engage in collaborative relationships with their colleagues, they become

PAGE 26

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

better at what they do, and student achievement increases (Leana, 2011). A large-scale research study was conducted during 2005 and 2007 in the New York City public schools to examine the effects of teachers’ collective collaboration in teaching mathematics on student math performance (Leana & Pil, 2009 cited in Leana, 2011). Over time, the study investigated to whom teachers went for assistance and advice in teaching math to their students, their administrators, or their peers. The evidence showed that teachers “were twice as likely to turn to their peers as to the experts designated by the school district, and four times as likely to seek advice from one another than from their principal” (Leana, 2011, p. 33). This seems to be consistent with the idea that if one asks another in authority or in a supervisory role, it may be perceived as a weakness and/or lack of knowledge. Therefore, teachers’ comfort levels for reaching out to one another are “safer” and may result in them feeling less vulnerable. In other words, they see each other as valuable resources from whom they can learn, and this becomes even more attractive and powerful when their students’ achievements rise as well.

It is through ongoing collaboration among teachers that effective teaching becomes more influential, which leads to optimal learning.

Additionally, an example of a teacher-led public school in Denver, CO illustrates the benefits of continuing collaboration among effective teachers (Nazareno, 2013; Wieder, Daughtey, & Berry, 2011). The school opened in 2009 as the Math and Science Leadership Academy (MSLA). The teacher-led school had no single administrator; rather, the teachers worked together to make the decisions for the school’s success. One of their goals was to increase student achievement in a high-needs neighborhood with open admissions for grades K-2, with plans to expand a grade per year over time. The teachers formed teams with a variety of skills and strengths among them. The success of the mission of the MSLA depended upon flexibility, diversity, planning, recruiting, and hiring. The collaborative effort reached beyond the teachers into the school community. The positive results demonstrate how teacher leadership is worthwhile.

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

Community Leaders and Advocates Effective leaders embrace families, their cultures, and the larger community as being vital to the growth and academic achievement of diverse students. As a result, they embody collaborative relationships with families and community members to increase their awareness of family and community cultures, close student achievement gaps, and address the needs of families and the communities (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011).

They are leaders in service learning projects (Stewart, 2012). In order to reach goals set within the academic setting, effective teacher leaders must invest all stakeholders in the learning process. All members of the academic community must operate on the principle that learning is a collective effort and does not occur without the support of those who are equally invested in the lives of students outside the walls of the classroom. According to Farr (2010), teacher leaders “recognize that achieving the big goal is too big a task to take on alone and that students are most likely to change their beliefs and behavior when they hear consistent messages in all facets of their lives” (p. 57). In fact, schools subscribing to such new model of school leadership are schools “where everyone is a learner, teacher, and leader” (Nazareno, 2013, p. 51).

To serve as both a community leader and an advocate for all students in the classroom setting, teachers must make a deliberate effort to acknowledge, understand, and incorporate the cultural backgrounds of diverse students in the learning process. As teachers deeply invest in the lives of students, they “can increase access to learning and to educational success and can challenge the prevailing perception that differences among students are problems rather than resources” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 53).

Effective leaders contribute beyond their own school when they advocate for the best practices that influence student achievement and promote effective teaching (Danielson, 2007). They use their position of leadership to gain respect and enlist support within the community and profession. They use the research and evidencebased practices to expand their leadership

PAGE 27

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

beyond their own classrooms (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011).

The teachers at the MSLA relied heavily upon a main office staff member who spoke Spanish and who was trusted by the Latino parents. She was able to explain, in their language, the MSLA’s rules, procedures, forms, and exchanges among teachers, parents, and administrators. The community had to be willing to embrace the school in their neighborhood and, over time, the school personnel had to perform in ways that would earn their trust and confidence to ensure the school’s success. One testament provided in the article states, “but as teaching and learning become more complex and challenging in the years ahead, MSLA can serve as a bedrock for how to organize and utilize classroom experts in creating innovative solutions to local educational problems” (Wieder et al., 2011, p. 13). Teacher leaders can engage in opportunities that will arise in the 21st Century of teaching and learning. The necessary collaboration among teachers will grow and expand into the communities that they serve as leaders, liaisons, and advocates for the children and their parents.

Assessors Teacher leadership requires accountability to operate as a collaborative effort. The accountability process must be shared among administration, colleagues in the teaching profession, those within the community, and the students taught in the classroom. With regard to shared accountability, the stakes are high.

Lambert (1998) asserted that “as long as improvement is dependent on a single person or a few people or outside directions and forces, it will fail (p. 3). Rather than be totally reliant on the principal of a school or state and national policy for direction, teachers must invest in the development of a shared vision and subsequently feel a sense of responsibility in the accountability process to ensure that the school community functions to advance this vision (Farr, 2010).

As a part of this shared accountability process, teacher leaders must be able to provide evidence of their impact on student learning that can be used to drive the school improvement process. In introducing his data-driven school improvement model, Bambrick-Santoyo (2010)

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

asked both a provocative and fundamental question: if teaching is occurring, but students aren’t learning, is it really teaching? Thus, in response to his question, Bambrick-Santoyo posited that four key initiatives should guide the data-driven instructional accountability process: A) Develop meaningful assessments.

B) Initiate a plan to analyze data in meaningful ways.

C) Develop an action plan in response to findings from data.

D) Create a culture in which data-driven decision-making is sustainable.

As a collaborative accountability model is facilitated within a school by all stakeholders, members begin to feel a sense of obligation with regard to the learning opportunities that are being provided to students. Instead of approaching evaluation of teaching on an individual basis, teacher leaders advocate for a holistic perspective that challenges members of a school community to reflect on the impact of their decision-making and instructional implementation on the lives of students.

As an addition to the evaluation of data for reflection and instructional planning, teacher leaders must also invest in the continuous improvement of quality teaching. As a supplemental exercise to evaluations conducted by administration in a building, teacher leaders provide peer evaluations to offer meaningful feedback that will allow teachers to improve the effectiveness of individual instructional approaches. The context of peer evaluation is typically viewed as safe and fosters suggestions for improvement. A study by Humphrey, Koppich, Bland, and Bosetti (2011), found evidence that suggests teachers’ evaluations of each other are both “tougher” and more comprehensive than administrators’ evaluations of teachers. Consequently, peer evaluations provide opportunities for teachers to challenge one another to refine their strategies and instructional approaches with regard to the art of teaching.

Closing Teacher leadership is critical to the continuous school improvement initiative.

Undoubtedly, researchers have documented that expanding the role of teachers with regard to

PAGE 28

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

leadership provides unique opportunities for school improvement (Ackerman and Mackenzie, 2007; Danielson, 2006). As contemporary leaders acknowledge and begin to transition into a teacher-centered leadership model, it may require a paradigm shift for those currently teaching students in classrooms today (Collay, 2013; Farr, 2010; Wilhelm, 2013). Teachers must expand their perceptions of the role they may choose to play in their school setting to incorporate the multiple pathways to act as collaborators, researchers, lifelong learners, effective instructors, community leaders and advocates, and assessors (Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011). In the words of basketball coaching icon, Bobby Knight, “most people have the will to win; few have the will to prepare to win.” In order to reach all learners in the classroom, teachers must make an intentional effort to prepare for the diverse populations of students entering classrooms as they intersect with the unique instructional contexts present in contemporary schools by taking ownership of the leadership process.

References Ackerman, A., & Mackenzie, S.V. (2007).

Uncovering teacher leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2010). Driven by data: A practical guide to improve instruction. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Leadership in the college classroom: The use of charismatic leadership as a deterrent to student resistance strategies. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 46(2), 4-10.

Cody, A. (2013). Two ways to lead. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 68-71.

Collay, M. (2013). Teaching is leading. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 72-76.

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Danielson, C. (2007). The many faces of leadership.

Educational Leadership, 65(1), 14-19.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005).

Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Duke, N.K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). 10 things every literacy educator should know about research.

The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9-22.

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

Elisa, S. S., Ane, M. M., Stacy, L. F., Lara, J. J., Marc, S. A., & Bonner, D. (2011). Teachers supporting teachers in urban schools: What iterative research designs can teach us. School Psychology Review, 40(4), 465-485.

Farr, S. (2010). Teaching as leadership: The highly effective teacher’s guide to closing the achievement gap. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Franken, C. M. (2009). Building capacity for professional development through on-line discussion boards. (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304865116).

Freeman, H. R. (2008). Mentoring is a two-way street: An examination of mentor/mentee relationships in a pre-service, residency-based, teacher education program. (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304690670).

Gardner, H. 1990. Four factors in educational reform.

In Context 27, 15.

Gigante, N. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2008).

Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 302-331. doi: 10.1108/09578230810869266.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). (Ed.). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Humphrey, D. C., Koppich, J. E., Bland, J. A. & Bosetti, K. R. (2011). Peer review: Getting serious about teacher evaluation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://policyweb.sri.com/cep/publications/PAR_ PeerReviewReport_2011.pdf Jaquith, A. (2013). Instructional capacity: How to build it right. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 56-61.

Kenyon, C. L. (2008). Reframed teacher leadership: A narrative inquiry. (Doctoral dissertation).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304381514).

Lambert, L. (1998). Leadership capacity in schools.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Leana, C. R. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4), 30-35. Retrieved from http://www. ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_missing_link_in _school_reform Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004).Teacher leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lintner, J. D. (2008). The relationship between perceived teacher empowerment and principal use of power. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

PAGE 29

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

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 89141781).

Nazareno, L. (2013). Portrait of a teacher-led school. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 50-54.

Sagor, R. (1997). Collaborative action research for educational change. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp. 169-191). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Sahin, S. (2011). The Relationship between Instructional Leadership Style and School Culture (Izmir Case). Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 1920-1927.

Seldin, P. (1997). Using student feedback to improve teaching. In D. DeZure (Ed.), To Improve the Academy, 16 (pp. 335-346). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2004). Balance individual autonomy and collaboration to center on students. Education Digest, 70(3), 17–23.

Schmoker, M. (1997). Setting goals in turbulent times. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp.

128-148). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Stewart, T. (2012). Classroom teacher leadership: service learning for teacher sense of efficacy and servant leadership development. School Leadership and Management, 32(3), 233-259.

Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. (2011).

Retrieved from http://www.teacherleader standards.org Thomas T, Herring M, Redmond P, Smaldino S. (2013). Leading change and innovation in teacher preparation: A blueprint for developing TPACK ready teacher candidates. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(5), 55-63.

Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wilhelm, T. (2013). How principals cultivate shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 6266.

Wieder, A., Daughtey, A., & Berry, B. (2011). Math and Science Leadership Academy: Creating a Teacher-Led School for Diverse Learners. NC: Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved from http://166.78.18.218/content/math-and-scienceleadership-academy-creating-teacher-ledschool-diverse-learners

VOLUME 15, ISSUE 1

About the Authors Alicja Rieger, PhD Dr. Alicja Rieger is an associate professor of Special Education at Valdosta State University.

Her scholarship focuses on humor in families with a disability, second language acquisition, and culturally responsive teaching.

Peggy Perkins Auman, PhD Dr. Peggy Perkins Auman is in the College of Education at Florida A&M University. She focuses her research on aspects of the instructional design system and the effects on student learning.

Jessica B. Graves, PhD Jessica B. Graves is an assistant professor of Early Childhood and Special Education at Valdosta State University. Her scholarship focuses on best practices for teacher education, elementary literacy, and technology.

PAGE 30

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

Those wishing to become members or renew membership GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF TEACHER EDUCATORS

may find an application online.

GATEways to Teacher Education

We’re on the Web! www.gaate.org

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

Each issue is non-thematic. The journal, published annually in October, is soliciting manuscripts concerned with teacher education, including teaching and learning, induction, in-service education, and pre-service education.

Project descriptions, research reports, theoretical papers, debates, papers espousing a particular point of view, and descriptions of activities or issues in teacher education at the local, state, or national level would be appropriate topics for the journal.

Editors: Dr. Judy Butler, University of West Georgia Dr. Janet Strickland, University of West Georgia Copy Editor: Dr. Robyn Huss, University of West Georgia

Join us at the GATE 2014 Fall Conference Conference Registration forms are available on the GATE home page:

www.gaate.org

Make Hotel Reservations Directly with the Hotel $139.00 per night single or double occupancy

Room Reservations: 800-201-3205; 706-379-9900 www.brasstownvalley.com

“Reflecting on Practice: The Past and Future Unite” October 29-31, 2014 Brasstown Valley Resort and Spa 6321 U.S Highway 76 Young Harris, GA 30582