Precipitous Events: The Impact of Classroom … · Web viewThe New York Association of Colleges for...

INSIDE FRONT COVER (REMOVE Call for Reviewers heading and paragraph that we usually put in on top of this page.)

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning is published by the New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (NYACTE). 2010 New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Copyright NoticeThe New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education owns the copyright of this publication. Permission to photocopy is granted for classroom use only. Written permission must be obtained from NYACTE for other uses. Address permission inquiries to the Editor.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning is issued bi-annually as a service to members of the New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. The subscription price is included in the association’s annual dues. Extra copies may be purchased for $15 per copy. Send orders along with a complete mailing address and a check made payable to “NYACTE.” Institutional subscriptions to the journal are available. Contact the editor for the current rate. Send orders to the Editor.

Editor’s address:Cynthia A. LassondeEditor, ExcelsiorSUNY College at Oneonta501 Fitzelle HallOneonta, NY 13820

Cover design by Eileen Cunningham, Ian Lascell, and Ricmar—The Design and Print ShopPage layout, design, and printing byRicmar—The Design and Print Shop, 101 Edson Street, Amsterdam, New York

1

ExcelsiorLeadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010

Message from the President by Lois FischPage X

Notes from the Editor by Cynthia A. LassondePage X

Update from the New York State Education DepartmentBy Joseph P. Frey

Page 1

From the 2009 NYSATE/NYACTE ConferenceSister Miriam Honora Corr, 2009 Recipient of the Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership AwardBy David Arneson

Page XX

Debra Calvino, New York State Teacher of the Year 2010: My Philosophy of Teaching – Never Give Up! By Debra Calvino

Page XX

Nancy Fichtman Dana: New York Teacher Impact Award WinnerBy Nancy Fichtman Dana

Page XX

Reports of Research and Self-Study

Modeling Collaboration in Teacher Education: The Effects on Preservice Candidates Roberta M. Wiener and Joanne Falinski

Page XX

Science Education and TESOL: A Collaborative Professional Development Model for First-Year Teachers in Alternative Certification ProgramsBy Angela M. Kelly and Joye Smith

Page XX

Sharing Perspectives

Doctoral Student Socialization: Moving from the Margins to the CenterBy Lisa S. Bircher, Katherine O’Brien, Sandra Pech, and William P. Bintz

Page XX

2

Educational Leadership and School Counselor Education Programs Collaborating to Close PreK-12 Achievement, Opportunity, and Attainment Gaps By Janet R. DeSimone, Tamisha M. Bouknight, and Stuart F. Chen-Hayes

Page XX

Storytelling through Collaborative Musical TheaterBy Penny Prince

Page XX

Nota Bene

Reflections on Collaboration, Technology, and Identity in a Global World By Zanna McKay

Page XX

Book Review of The Role of Research in Educational ImprovementReviewed by Barbara Garii

Page XX

Call for ManuscriptsPage XX

3

NYACTE Executive Board 2009

President Vice President/President ElectLois Fisch Kate DaBoll-LavoieUtica College Nazareth College

Past President Secretary

Robert J. Michael Craig HillSUNY College at New Paltz Nazareth College

TreasurerAnnjanet Woodburn

Pace University

Board of Directors

David Arneson Christine Givner New York Institute of Technology SUNY Fredonia

Joanne M. Curran Mark LaCelle-PetersonSUNY College at Oneonta Houghton College

Margaret Egan Paul VermetteCollege of Mount Saint Vincent Niagara University

Journal Editor WebmasterCynthia A. Lassonde Ed TeallSUNY College at Oneonta Mount Saint Mary College

National Editorial Board

Dominic Belmonte, Golden Apple Foundation Helene Napolitano, Marymount Manhattan Mary E. Diez, Alverno College College, EmeritusLaura Dorow, Utica College Robert J. Nistler, University of St. ThomasJoanne Kilgour Dowdy, Kent State University Susan Polirstok, Kean UniversityLois Fisch, Utica College Sandra Stacki, Hofstra UniversityAlthier M. Lazar, St. Joseph’s University Robert J. Starratt, Boston CollegeCarol Merz-Frankel, University of Puget Sound

4

Editorial Review Board

Amy E. Barnhill, SUNY College at BrockportBrian D. Beitzel, SUNY College at OneontaFred J. Brandt, Lesley UniversityKathleen M. Brown, Niagara UniversityMelissa Jarvis Cedeno, Brighter Choice Charter SchoolCynthia C. Choi, Le Moyne CollegeCarolyn F. Chryst, SUNY College at OneontaJoanne M. Curran, SUNY College at OneontaMargo DelliCarpini, Lehman College, CUNYJanet R. DeSimone, Lehman College, CUNYBernadette Donovan, Molloy CollegePatricia A. Dunn, Stony BrookBrian Evans, Pace UniversityJoanne M. Falinski, Editorial ConsultantMinaz B. Fazal, New York Institute of TechnologyJoAnne Ferrara, Manhattanville CollegeBarbara Garii, SUNY College at OswegoVicky Giouroukakis, Molloy CollegeJean Hallagan, SUNY College at OswegoPatrice W. Hallock, Utica CollegeDon Halquist, SUNY College at BrockportCharles F. Howlett, Molloy CollegeBarbara Ann Iannarelli, Niagara UniversityRoberto Joseph, Hofstra UniversityLaurence Krute, Manhattanville CollegeDiane E. Lang, Manhattanville CollegeJennifer Lauria, Wagner CollegeElaine Lawrence, SUNY College at OneontaAnita C. Levine, Kent State University, StarkKenneth Lindblom, Stony Brook UniversityAndrew Livanis, Long Island University, BrooklynJoAnn M. Looney, Nyack CollegeWen Ma, Le Moyne College

5

Lawrence J. Maheady, SUNY College at FredoniaJill G. Marshall, SUNY College at FredoniaMargaret Cain McCarthy, Canisius CollegeSonia E. Murrow, Brooklyn College, CUNYDeniz PalakRoy R. Pellicano, St. Joseph’s College, Suffolk CampusDavenport “Mike” Plumer, New York Institute of TechnologyGerald Porter, SUNY College at CortlandLinda Pratt, Elmira CollegeKathleen Rockwood, Manhattanville CollegeAnne L. Rothstein, Lehman College, CUNYSini Prosper Sanou, SUNY Stony BrookEllen Durrigan Santora, University of RochesterSusan S. Shenker, Long Island University, C. W. Post CampusBruce A. Shields, Daemen CollegeRaymond Siegrist, SUNY College at OneontaChristina Siry, Manhattanville CollegeJoye Smith, Lehman College, CUNYKaren Stearns, SUNY College at CortlandEdward J. Sullivan, SUNY College at New PaltzMarilyn Tallerico, Binghamton UniversityCecelia E. Traugh, Long Island University, Brooklyn CampusSteven L. Turner, Kent State UniversityJennifer Tuten, Hunter College Kjersti Van Slyke-Briggs, SUNY College at OneontaRobin Voetterl, Siena CollegeRoberta Wiener, Pace UniversityStacy A. S. Williams, SUNY, University at AlbanyAnnjanet Woodburn, Pace UniversityRene Wroblewski, St. Bonaventure University

New York State Association of Teacher Education,

New York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,

and

Task Force

invite you to participate in this year’s annual conference.

NYSATE & NYACTE Annual Conference.

Please note that this will be the ONE AND ONLY NYSATE/NYACTE conference for the 2009-2010 academic year.

There will be NO Spring 2010 conference.

Our Theme is

XXXXXXXXX

October 21-22, 2010

Preconference EventOctober 20, 2010

Gideon Putnam Resort and SpaSaratoga Springs, NY

(www.gideonputnam.com)

Visit www.NYACTE.org and www.NYS-ATE.org

for more information.

6

Message from the President

By the time you are reading this, I hope the snow has melted, the buds have begun to bloom, and we’re all working with renewed energy and vigor. When thinking about the impact on teacher preparation programs brought about by new federal and state administrations in combination with the recent economic crisis and subsequent criterion-based funding opportunities, I am hopeful that, together, we will strengthen our existing preparation programs with creativity and imagination fueled by rich and varied collaborative relationships throughout the state. Collaboration alone, however, is not enough. To assure that our efforts will yield the results we seek, our activities must occur within a context of research. We must look to existing studies that will guide our planning; then we must generate additional studies that will fill in the gaps in our current knowledge.

Your NYACTE Board has been active in supporting these efforts. Three Research Mini-Grants have been awarded funding and will yield results this spring. Efforts are also underway to develop opportunities for meaningful dialogue among State education representatives and our members. Watch the website www.nyacte.org for upcoming news regarding these and other efforts. And, of course, Excelsior continues to provide a forum for our shared efforts.As I reach the end of my term as President, I would like to thank all of you for your overwhelming encouragement and support. The past two years have been an honor and a pleasure, and I look forward to additional years of service as your Immediate Past President under the leadership of Kate DaBoll-Lavoie.

Lois A. Fisch

President, NYACTE

Utica College

7

Notes from the Editor

Cynthia A. Lassonde, Editor

INSERT FIGURE #1 HERE

Saratoga State Park near 2009 Conference

Photo courtesy of Margaret Egan

8

Start new page. This begins page 1.

Update Fromthe New York State Education Department


I guess this could be the understatement of the year, but the current focus on education in general and teacher education specifically, has been unprecedented during my professional career. On the federal level, the President and the Secretary of Education have challenged us to rethink the way we do business and aggressively improve the academic preparation of those students in the performance gap. In New York State, the performance gap includes a significant number of Black and Hispanic males, English language learners and students with disabilities. Also, in New York State, we have a new educational administration with Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and Commissioner David Steiner. The Chancellor and the Commissioner have brought a vision to our work that is grounded in the belief that our educational system must serve all students equally as we prepare them for citizenship and the world of work in a 21st century global economy.

During the first 90 days of his administration, the Commissioner has been faced with three challenges: communicate his vision for closing the performance gap across the entire State of New York, attempt to implement this vision during a time of severe fiscal crises in New York State, and effectively compete for up to $700 million dollars in Race to the Top funding for New York State. While Race to the Top funds will certainly help us leverage change and address educational issues, it still has a significant number of prescriptive requirements that must be followed.

To address both his agenda to strengthen teaching and learning in New York State and to compete for much needed Race to the Top funds, Commissioner Steiner presented to the Board of Regents at their November and December meetings a comprehensive package of policy initiatives. These initiatives relate to the effectiveness of teacher and school leader preparation, support for teachers and principals, and a clear and specific focus on strengthening teaching and learning in our high-need schools. (See http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2009Meetings/November2009/1109heemscd2.doc and http://www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2009Meetings/December2009/1209hed2.doc.)

In conversations with my colleagues in teacher education, I have heard support for some of the initiatives and concerns about others. Specifically, concerns have been expressed about the Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010 1

9

Joseph P. FreyDeputy CommissionerOffice of Higher Education

Running head from here to end of article should be: Freyrecommendation that non-collegiate institutions, along with collegiate teacher education programs, be allowed to participate in a pilot for the preparation of teachers and leaders for high-need schools. In the case for non-collegiate teacher preparation programs under this pilot, the Board of Regents would confer the Master’s degree for students completing these preparation programs. Many of you have expressed concerns to me that we are focusing more on “training” teachers as compared to preparing them to be effective educators. Some have expressed the concern that we are devaluing the historic role of colleges to prepare our teachers. Additionally, I hear concerns about allowing assessments to be used in lieu of coursework to help fulfill a candidate’s content major requirement, pointing to a possible reduction in the value of the collegiate teacher preparation programs.

The teacher education system in New York has effectively met the need for the vast majority of schools in our State, but not for all of our high-need schools. Between 2004 and 2005 and 2008 and 2009, the number of teaching certificates issued in STEM fields grew by about 17 percent a year, from 1,987 to 3,344, for a total increase of nearly 70 percent. Data from the State’s school accountability system report employment of 16,300 science teachers, 17,700 mathematics teachers, and 41,400 special education teachers, statewide in 2008 through 2009. Yet, for our identified 503 high-need schools, there were 1,247 vacancies in STEM disciplines, special education, and language instruction during that same year.

It is clear that New York’s public schools have made progress in assuring that all students are taught by appropriately certified and highly qualified teachers. The 2000-01 to 2007-08 data show 13 to 34 percentage point declines in the shares of uncertified teachers in these areas in the largest high-need school districts. However, the data shows that the percentage of students taught by highly qualified teachers is still lower in high-poverty middle and secondary schools, in three large cities (New York, Syracuse, and Rochester), in the STEM fields, in languages other than English, and in special education, particularly for grades 5 through 12.

I know we all have been frustrated over the years with dealing with a myriad of factors that prevents our State from having an equitable distribution of talented teachers across all schools, irrespective as to whether low or high need. Yet the equitable distribution of qualified teachers is a key component to the Race to the Top requirements. The Board of Regents and the Commissioner have placed this issue as the centerpiece for their strategy and the focus for the Great Teacher and Leader component of New York’s Race to the Top application. While the proposed initiative is bold, there will be appropriate checks and balances. For the proposed pilot for a clinically rich graduate teacher preparation program, the Department will propose very specific standards. The educational community will have the opportunity to comment and recommend adjustments to these standards. We will employ researchers to assess the effectiveness of the different pathways and report our findings to the public. We expect to run the pilot for a number of years (possibly 4 or 5) and then report back to Regents and the educational community what we have learned from these pilot programs. We must strengthen our ability to provide qualified teachers for our high-need schools and seek out innovative ways to do so. We are looking to the collegiate teacher preparation programs to assist us in meeting this goal. I know the quality programs and dedicated educators in our teacher preparation institutions. We will certainly need many of you to participate in the pilot program to implement a clinically rich graduate teacher preparation program for our high-need schools. We share your goal to prepare quality teachers for all our students. This is our only goal.

10

In addition to the proposed graduate model to implement a clinically rich teacher preparation program for high-need schools, the Regents endorsed, for inclusion into our Race to the Top application, funding for an undergraduate model designed only for collegiate programs. This proposal is for an undergraduate clinically rich teacher preparation program specifically directed at high-need schools. In this model, teacher education candidates would complete the fourth year of their collegiate program in a year-long residency within a high-need school. The residency period will allow the teacher candidates to understand firsthand the diversity of the student population and the culture of the learning environment and to gain a deep understanding of what they will be doing as first-year teachers. Faculty will be expected to work with the teacher candidates even after they complete the program to ensure the continuity of support. Colleges would be expected to demonstrate to the Department how the faculty who are working in the P-12 schools will be rewarded with respect to tenure and promotion at their college for this type of service.

The second issue that teacher educators have commented on relates to the replacement of coursework for rigorous assessments. I do recognize this must be a balancing act and teachers with a deep understanding of their content areas will be better prepared to meet the learning needs of their students. Colleges have historically used their academic discretion to determine instances where teacher education candidates can be given advanced standing because of such factors as work experience, demonstrating proficiency by assessments or even where non-collegiate instruction can be deemed to be equivalent. We are not proposing removing the discretion of the faculty to make this determination. We are suggesting that as we attempt to widen the pool of individuals who may wish to serve as teachers, we afford them every opportunity to complete requirements in a variety of different ways. Many of you have been doing this for years, but we believe it is time to emphasize we may be able to create greater efficiencies and shorten time to program completion through this approach.

Finally, as I pledged during my time with you at your fall conference in Saratoga, the Department has always operated in a collaborative way as we developed policy relating to teacher and school leader preparation. As we begin to develop many of the initiatives proposed in November and December, that approach will not change. We will begin our work with the development of teacher standards that will be the foundation for all our work with performance assessments, annual professional performance reviews for teachers, and professional development. Teacher educators will have a seat at the table as will other educational partners. We plan to start our work on the teacher standards in January and take six months to ensure a thorough review. I will look forward to our collaboration on the teacher standards as well as all the other initiatives in the coming months.

Author BiographyJoseph Frey is the Deputy Commissioner, Office of Higher Education for the New York State Education Department. Mr. Frey has been with the State Education Department for 30 years serving in various leadership positions and has worked extensively with the New York State Board of Regents on teacher- and leader-preparation initiatives.

11

Start new page

From the 2009 NYSATE/NYACTE Conference


David presenting award to Sister Miriam

Sister Miriam Honora Corr, CSJ, Ed.D., was honored by the New York State Association of Colleges for Teacher Education at the Fall 2009 NYACTE/NYSATE Conference and awarded the Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award. Sister Miriam’s professional education career began with teaching at the elementary and junior high school levels, but now includes extensive experience at the college level, having served as faculty member and Chairperson at St. Joseph’s College in Brooklyn, New York, for 50 years. She has demonstrated her commitment to ongoing scholarship and best practices by leading the development of several Master’s degrees and serving as Co-Director of a Master’s program in Early Childhood Special Education. She was promoted to Professor in 1994. She has rich and varied experiences with the Teacher Center Professional Development Board, Sister’s Advisory Council, college-wide committees, New York State committees, and Middle States and NCATE accreditations. Her greatest dedication is to school children and young people. The Provost of St. Joseph’s College summed up Sister Miriam’s qualities best when she stated, “Sister Miriam embodies the ideals of integrity, intellectual and spiritual values, social responsibility, and service.”

The Charles E. Mackey Award is one of the highest honors we can bestow on one of our colleagues. It has been awarded to only the best among us—those whose impact on our profession and the field of education is indisputable and valued. Sister Miriam matches well the criteria set to select those who would be thus honored, and her selection for this award continues the tradition established in honor of Charlie Mackey, our good friend, colleague, and leader.

Author BiographyDavid Arneson is recently retired from New York Institute of Technology, where he served as Chairperson of the Teacher Education Division in the School of Education, with graduate and undergraduate childhood and adolescent education programs. Dr. Arneson served as President of the NYIT Academic Senate for five terms and various other institutional positions. He currently serves on the Leadership Foundation for Teacher Education as the Associate Chairperson and serves on several state and local policy boards and civic associations. Email: [email protected] Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning

12

Sister Miriam Honora Corr 2009 Recipient of the Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award

David ArnesonNew York Institute of Technology

Volume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010 XX

13

Call for Nominations for NYACTE’s Annual CHARLES C. MACKEY, JR.

EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE LEADERSHIP AWARD

Complete nominations must be postmarked by July 1, 2010.

The Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award honors an educator in New York State who has demonstrated personal and professional qualities that exemplify the highest standards of service leadership in teacher education. An excellent servant leader is one who through personal knowledge, wisdom, ethical practice, and courage models effective practice and thus enables others to reach individual, institutional, and communal goals.

The Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award recognizes an individual who represents Teacher Education in his/her respective institution of higher education in New York State. The individual exemplifies service leadership within his/her institutional setting and within the broader New York professional community through engagement, initiative and personal qualities that reflect relevant High Standards for Teacher Education Accountability as defined by the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education:

1. Serve first and foremost as an advocate for P-12 students, especially for promoting the growth and development of all students;

2. Promote diversity in teacher education faculty, preservice teachers, curriculum, and programs;

3. Be accountable to prospective teachers for their preparation to meet state licensure expectations (including knowledge of subject matter and of the students to whom those subjects are taught);

4. Be informed by the best practice and most current research on teaching and learning theory and practice, including the commitment to active scholarship by teacher education faculty;

5. Operate in collaboration with professional agencies responsible for quality assurance in the teaching profession.

Past recipients of the award:Charles C. Mackey, Jr., Doris T. Garner,

James Shuman, Linda Beimer, Jan McDonald, Suzanne Miller, Joseph Frye,

and Sister Miriam Honora Corr

For more information on requirements and to access the nomination form, go to www.NYACTE.org

or contact David Arneson at [email protected].

14

Start new page

Debra Calvino, New York State Teacher of the Year 2010Philosophy of Teaching – Never Give Up!

At the 2009 NYSATE/ NYACTE annual conference, Debra Calvino was recognized and congratulated for being this year’s recipient of New York State’s Teacher of the Year Award. Ms. Calvino graciously is allowing us to publish her philosophy of teaching essay. She is excited to share the following insights with teacher educators, preservice teachers, and inservice teachers.


As an undergraduate, one of my required courses was Philosophy of Teaching. The experience of agonizing over each and every word in my thesis has stayed with me until today. Whatever word I chose, I would be challenged by my professor to prove that I truly meant that word. In one draft I boldly wrote “all can learn,” but I never knew how much would be required to prove that it was true. Today after 28 years of teaching special education and high school math, I still believe all can learn. However, I am humbled by the efforts that might be required to achieve it.

Yes, all can learn, but I now would add an admonition to that ideal: Teacher, never give up! Regardless of age, sex, race, ability, situation, knowledge, or skill to be attained, some learning is not automatic. In fact, during my career, I would say most of my real experiences with students have been in times where learning was not automatic. You see, rarely is a teacher required for learning that is automatic. If a student can learn something on his own, the teacher may initiate, guide, and support that learning. But, is the teacher required? I dare to think it is in those other times and places where there is a stumbling block to the learning that the teacher is necessary and pivotal. Those are the hard places. Those are the moments for which I look.

I have taught learners of all types, abilities, and ages. While their learning styles and needs may be different, I have found a common theme. I am needed in the hard places. I choose to anticipate those struggles and make provision for them before I even begin the instruction. This provision includes multiple tools in my “bag of tricks.” No one method will work in every situation with every person. In fact, many times when you find an approach that works today with one student, it might not work tomorrow with that same person. Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010 XX

15

Debra CalvinoValley Central High SchoolMontgomery, New York

Running head for this page is: CalvinoTeaching is a process. Naturally, it begins with understanding your subject and topic. If I

don’t understand it, how can I hope to convey it to others? Next, I must break down the skill to its component parts. If I understand the ordered steps required for the learning, then and only then will I be able to formulate a plan to help others master that skill. This leads to writing the plan including investigating materials that will make the student an active learner. All of this must be completed before I even address the student. However, when the meeting occurs, I must make the learning “come alive.” I must convey a belief that this learning is worthwhile, possible, and, yes, even enjoyable. (We all know Math is Fun!)

Whenever and wherever the learning occurs, I find my reward. When a student acknowledges understanding, I rejoice! Ultimately, when a student who thought he couldn’t do “it” does achieve, my joy is complete. Sometimes that realization does not occur for many years. Sometimes all I can accomplish is to plant the seed that he can do it. Then, one day years later, I meet a former student in the mall. I hear of how she once gave up but is now in college finding success (maybe even in math) or is happily working as an apprentice--just like I told her she would. I knew it would happen. I must look into all eyes at all times watching for those moments of success; but more importantly, I must be aware of signs of confusion or worse yet, frustration. If either of these occur, I must try to correct it as soon as possible. Sometimes that can take place in class, but sometimes I must meet with the student one-on-one outside of the formal class time to explore and then hopefully fix any barrier to learning.

So I am needed, and thus I prepare, equip and, lastly, persist. I never give up. If one approach does not work I try another. If it does not work on one day, I try again the next day. If I thought it worked and now I see it did not, I just try again.

All can learn if I never give up!

Author BiographyMy story is a little unique. I am a graduate of Valley Central High School in

Montgomery, New York who hired me to teach special education in September of 1981. I taught in a resource room until the spring of 1984 when there was a shortage of math teachers. I have taught math at Valley Central ever since, always teaching at least one level of math to a struggling if not classified population. In 2008, my colleagues nominated me for the SUNY New Paltz Dean’s Award for Excellence. Upon winning that prestigious honor, my colleagues implored me to apply for the New York State Teacher of the Year. I was very appreciative they would even consider me. I politely said yes, never expecting to “win.” Each accolade and opportunity that has come my way as been a complete surprise and an extremely humbling experience. Email: [email protected]


Avenue of the Pines near ConferencePhoto courtesy of Margaret Egan

16

start new pageNancy Fichtman Dana:New York Teacher Impact Award Winner

At the October 2009 NYSATE and NYACTE annual conference, Nancy Fichtman Dana was the recipient of our organizations’ New York Teacher Impact Award, given to recognize contribution and leadership to the field of teacher education. Highlighted was Dr. Dana’s work in the area of teacher research. Here is a condensed version of her presentation.


Teacher Research and the Teacher EducatorTeacher research, or teacher inquiry, is defined as systematic, intentional study by

teachers of their own classroom practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009). As evidenced by the hundreds of teachers with whom I have worked, the teacher researcher movement has enabled teachers to generate meaningful knowledge about teaching and learning from within the four walls of their classrooms. The generation of knowledge by practitioners heavily contributes to the possibilities for real change to take place in the classroom – for improving schools from within! The teacher research movement has provided a structure for the voices of individual teachers to be raised and included in better understanding, informing, shaping, reshaping, and reforming school practice. The teacher researcher movement has enabled teachers to become leaders in educational reform, without leaving their classrooms for administration or higher education.

The teacher researcher movement has made great strides in transforming the profession of teaching itself! This transformation is characterized by the recognition that practitioners generate valuable knowledge about teaching and learning. With such valuable knowledge, practitioners serve as leaders and change agents in school improvement efforts with and for each other. So how can we, as teacher educators, socialize new teachers into a profession that is in the process of transformation? To do so, we must simultaneously prepare our preservice teachers for Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010 XX

17

Nancy Fichtman DanaUniversity of Florida, Gainesville

Running Head from here to end of article is: Danawhat is, and what could be, a pretty daunting task, but one I think can be accomplished by infusing teacher research into our initial teacher preparation experiences in authentic and meaningful ways.

What Can Teacher Research Do for Prospective and New Teachers?Young teachers often are intrigued with, puzzled by or frustrated with attempts to meet

the unique or special needs of one or more learners in their classroom. Many novices enter the profession proudly proclaiming, “If I can make a difference in the life of at least one student, it will be worth it!” Confronted with the overwhelming reality of the difficulty of meeting individual learners’ needs while progressing through curriculum and managing all of the other intricacies of teaching simultaneously, it’s easy for a young teacher to become disheartened. Inquiry can help novices focus their enthusiasm and energy for meeting the needs of individual learners, and give them hope for their ability to have success with puzzling learners throughout their teaching careers.

Young teachers often enter the profession with an unabashed enthusiasm for implementing creative pedagogy. Many novices enter the profession proudly proclaiming, “If I can make learning fun, it will be worth it!” Confronted with the overwhelming reality of classroom management and discipline, it’s easy for young teachers to abandon their beliefs and knowledge of pedagogy, returning solely to the comfort of the ways they were taught through direct, book-oriented instruction, and become disheartened. Inquiry can help novices focus their enthusiasm and energy for designing, implementing, and understanding creative and meaningful forms of pedagogy and hope that they will be able to teach in a way that is consistent and consonant with their philosophy of teaching.

Young teachers often enter the profession without knowledge of the routines that are apart of the teaching workday but may be unrelated to instruction (such as attendance taking, lunch count, book money collection, etc.). Young teachers also often enter the profession without knowledge of the need to establish routines as a teacher that will ready students for learning. It is easy for novices to drown in the sea of managing non-instructional routines while simultaneously establishing classroom routines that will ready learners for instruction. Inquiry can help novices better navigate routine tasks as well as establish their own routines that serve as the crucial foundation for all instruction.

What Can Teacher Educators Do for Teacher Research?As teacher educators, we need to continue to find ways to create authentic experiences

for engagement in inquiry for new and practicing teachers. We need to be sure that we are utilizing university traditions of coursework, assignments, papers, theses, dissertations, and grades, to help shape the teacher research experience in productive and credible ways for the real world of classroom, rather than let university traditions of coursework, assignments, papers, theses, dissertations and grades define the teacher research experience.

Next, related to the traditions of the university, we need to continue to help our colleagues understand the differences between teacher research and university research. If the teacher research our students are conducting in classrooms mirrors exactly the type of process-product quantitative research produced at a university by professors in a miniature form, we are not doing any service to teachers or to schools. Teacher research is not about a controlled setting, an experiment with a control and treatment groups, crunching numbers, sample sizes,

18

populations, generalizability, or an objective scientist removed from the subjects of study so as not to contaminate the findings. Rather, teacher research is a natural extension of good teaching -- Observing students closely, analyzing their needs, and adjusting the curriculum to fit the needs of all students. Teacher research is a personal journey, where teachers articulate burning questions they wish to explore that emerge from the real world of practice, and develop a systematic and intentional plan to gain insights into those questions, in a continual and never-ending search to impact the learning of every child in his classroom in positive and productive ways. In the university setting, this kind of research can be easily be misunderstood or dismissed, so it is our job, as teacher educators, to educate others about the nature of teacher research and the ways it differs from traditional research.

To aid in this process, I often invoke the words of Lawrence Stenhouse (as quoted in Hubbard & Powers, 1999) who noted that the difference between a teacher-researcher and the large-scale education researcher is like the difference between a farmer with a huge agricultural business to maintain and the “careful gardener” tending a backyard plot:

In agriculture the equation of invested input against gross yield is all: it does not matter if individual plants fail to thrive or die so long as the cost of saving them is greater than the cost of losing them…. This does not apply to the careful gardener whose labour is not costed, but a labour of love. He wants each of his plants to thrive, and he can treat each one individually. Indeed he can grow a hundred different plants in his garden and differentiate his treatment of each, pruning his roses, but not his sweet peas. Gardening rather than agriculture is the analogy for education (Rudduck & Hopkins, 1985, p. 26).This view of the teacher-researcher as a “careful gardener” is a much more productive image to hold in our minds of the ideal teacher-researcher – not a scientist in a lab coat, staring down at a “research subject” (a kid!), but a human being in the midst of teaching, carefully weighing the value of different ways of teaching and learning (Hubbard & Powers, 1999, p. 4).

As teacher educators, we need to continually highlight this difference for others, so teacher research does not take the form of miniature university research.

Furthermore, research tells us that the quality of any individual piece of teacher research is directly related to the coaching a teacher receives in the process. Therefore, as teacher educators, we need to pay particularly close attention to our coaching skills, and the time and energy we can place into guiding the novice teacher researcher through four critical junctures of the process – finding, defining and refining their first wondering, developing a research plan, analyzing their data, and sharing their work with others (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2008).

A final place teacher educators can turn their attention in support of the teacher research movement is, ironically, not to teachers, but to principals! There’s no sense preparing prospective and practicing teachers to work in a culture of inquiry if the administration in their schools is not supportive of this endeavor. Principal support is critical to teachers’ engagement in inquiry and engagement in inquiry is critical to the effective leadership of the principal and school improvement efforts. Therefore, as teacher educators, we can help administrators in the schools we work as well as our colleagues in Educational Leadership departments understand the power of teacher research and the ways the underpinnings of the teacher research movement can be applied to the principalship. This is the area where I am currently focusing my own writing

19

and research. More can be learned about this topic in Leading with Passion and Knowledge: The Principal as Action Researcher (Dana, 2009).

I’ve just put forth a pretty ambitious agenda for teacher educators to help the teacher research movement in the future. When you make suggestions for people to do something, I’m always a big proponent of addressing the WIFM question. WIFM stands for “What’s in it for me?” This is always an important question to address, so I turn to the final question of this talk.

What Can Teacher Research Do for Teacher Educators?I don’t know of any dean, chair, or faculty in a college of education that isn’t

overwhelmed every 7 years when NCATE accreditation roles around. Perhaps the latest, greatest challenge we face as we prepare for NCATE reviews is to demonstrate impact of the candidates and graduates from our teacher education programs on P-12 student learning. Teacher educators understand the importance of this NCATE imperative, and yet find it difficult to find tangible ways to satisfy it. I believe one tangible way to demonstrate impact of our teacher candidates and graduates on P-12 student learning is simple. By organizing and synthesizing the teacher research our students have produced during their time in our programs, we can clearly show the relationship between teacher practice and student learning. Addressing the call NCATE has made to demonstrate the relationship between teachers who were educated at our colleges and universities and the learning of their students is one potentially incredibly helpful feature of the teacher research movement for teacher educators.

In closing, I’d like to share a quote from one of my favorite educational writers, Roland Barth (1981):

Nothing within a school has more impact upon students in terms of skills development, self-confidence, or classroom behavior than the personal and professional growth of their teachers. When teachers examine, question, reflect on their ideas and develop new practices that lead towards their ideals, students are alive. When teachers stop growing, so do their students (p. 142).

Our job as teacher educators is to keep teachers, both new and old, growing throughout their professional lifetime. Engaging teachers in teacher research is one way to succeed at this rewarding, but challenging job. I hope you will join me in continuing to support and study the impact of teachers’ and administrators’ engagement in practitioner research. In so doing, we not only keep teachers and students alive in their learning, but we keep our own teacher education programs alive and growing as well.

ReferencesCochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next

generation. New York: Teachers College Press.Barth, R. (1981). The principal as staff developer. Journal of Education, 163(2), 144-162.Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey (2009). The reflective educator’s guide to classroom research:

Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2008). The reflective educator’s guide to professional development: Coaching inquiry-oriented learning communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

20

Dana, N. F. (2009). Leading with passion and knowledge: The principal as action researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1999). Living the questions: A guide for teacher researchers. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Ruddock, J., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London: Heinemann.

Author BiographyNancy Fichtman Dana is currently a professor of education and director of the Center for School Improvement at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Under her direction, the Center promotes and supports practitioner inquiry, or action research, as a core mechanism for school improvement in schools throughout the state. Dana began her career in education as an elementary school teacher in Hannibal Central Schools, New York, and has worked closely with teachers and administrators on action research, building professional learning communities and school-university collaborations in Florida and Pennsylvania since 1990. She has authored numerous articles in professional journals as well as published five books (including three with Diane Yendol-Hoppey). In 2008, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) honored Dana and Yendol-Hoppey with the 2008 NSDC Staff Development Book of the Year award for The Reflective Educator's Guide to Professional Development: Coaching Inquiry-Oriented Learning Communities (Corwin, 2008), and this writing team continues to enjoy researching and writing together about their passion – powerful professional development for all educators. In addition to her books coauthored with Diane, she is the author of Leading With Passion and Knowledge: The Principal as Action Researcher (Corwin, 2009) and coauthor of The Power of Teacher Networks (Corwin, 2009). Email: [email protected]

21

START new page

Reports of Research and Self-Study

Modeling Collaboration in Teacher Education: The Effects on Preservice Candidates

Roberta M. WienerPace University

Joanne FalinskiEducational Consultant

AbstractIn this research project, a special educator and a general educator tested the efficacy of

modeling collaboration for teacher education candidates in a childhood program. Two professors taught an instructional strategy to preservice candidates using a variety of co-teaching models. Data about the effects of this intervention were collected using a pre- and post-survey. Overall, the intervention had a positive effect on candidates' perceptions of their knowledge about collaboration, even considering prior knowledge, as well as a disposition to value collaboration. Modeling collaboration by a special educator and a general educator appears to be efficacious.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010 XX

22

Running head from here through last page of this article: Wiener and Falinski

Background and Purpose

Over the past few decades, federal policy and regulations mandating the education of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment have demanded cooperation between special education and general education. Policy and regulation changes in the reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require new knowledge, skills, and dispositions in the area of collaboration for both general and special educators. Collaborative teaching is a service delivery structure in which teachers with different knowledge, skills, and talents have joint responsibility for designing, delivering, monitoring, and evaluating instruction for a diverse group of learners in general education classrooms (DeBoer & Fister, 1995).

The most popular example of collaboration, according to Friend and Cook (2009) is co-teaching, a unique form of team teaching that requires joint instruction for all students. Examples of co-teaching models are one teach-one observe, one teach-one assist, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching. The one teach-one observe model involves one teacher providing the instruction and the other teacher assisting the teacher and students. It is an easy model to implement because it requires the least amount of planning but is not the most effective use of two teachers. One teach-one assist is a very simple approach that involves one teacher providing the instruction while the other teacher assists the teacher and students. As with the one teach, one observe model, this is not the most desirable model because it does not make effective use of two professionals in a classroom. Station teaching requires dividing the instruction into two parts with each teacher responsible for planning and instructing one of the parts while the students rotate between the two stations. This is a very effective method to reduce the student- teacher ratio in a classroom. Parallel teaching is another method that lowers the student-teacher ratio. It requires two teachers to teach the same material by dividing the class into two heterogeneous groups. Alternate teaching is a popular format for pre-teaching or re-teaching difficult material and is sometimes used for a small group of students who need specific instruction. Team teaching is when both teachers are responsible for the planning and the instruction for all students. This format is very interactive and creates a synergy that enhances student participation. Teachers often remark on “how difficult collaboration is [and] how little attention was paid to collaboration in their professional preparation” (Friend, 2000, p. 133). An important component in successful collaborative teaching is the ability for two teachers to work together to instruct all students. When collaborative teaching fails, there are several possible causes. If the teaching pairs have not had proper staff development or training, they may lack the important guiding tools for success. Teachers need to know and be able to apply the appropriate models of collaborative teaching for student success. Teachers need proper guidance, instruction, and modeled practice. Administrative support is another key component for success. Administrators must provide the necessary time and opportunity for collaborative teachers to plan and work together. The administrator ensures both teachers are willing participants and share mutual purpose, value, and respect (Cramer, 1998).

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA reaffirmed the mandate that students with disabilities are educated in the least restrictive environment, but it also gave school districts a very clear incentive for doing so. This reauthorization introduced the requirement that all students have

23

access to the standards-based, general education curricula and participate in state assessments whenever possible. States also became accountable for reporting the percent of the school day students with disabilities were being educated in general education settings. At the same time, reform efforts were initiated to raise academic standards for all children and improve the education of at-risk students, especially poor children who attend urban schools. These efforts led to the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002. The emphasis on higher standards and accountability in both NCLB and IDEA underscored the importance of access to standards-based instruction for all students. This reality moved the inclusion process forward and the collaboration and co-teaching option increased in popularity.

Winn and Blanton (2005) state that the culture in universities and colleges work against the activity needed to deliver quality inclusive education. The authors note faculty rarely venture out from their own discipline and the common cliché “we’ve always done it this way” is a barrier to collaboration in teacher education (Winn & Blanton, 2005). Higher education institutions have supported the merger of special education with general education by embedding discussions about collaboration into courses; however, teacher educators rarely show student candidates how to actually “do” collaborative teaching.

The present study investigates how a collaborative intervention in teacher education can prepare new teachers for collaborative teaching. Our overarching research question is, What is the effect of a collaborative teaching model on the perceived knowledge and dispositions of preservice candidates?

Theoretical FrameworkOne of the fundamental tools for success as an educator in today’s classroom is the

ability to work and collaborate with other professionals (Friend & Cook, 2009). As reported by Darling-Hammond (2005), teachers need to understand how to collaborate, plan, assess, and improve learning to meet the needs of today’s diverse learners. Educators are finding that one of the most powerful ways to cultivate and nurture student diversity is to combine efforts and expertise with colleagues (Kluth & Straut, 2003). Collaboration has many benefits for both teachers and students. Special and general education teachers have the opportunity to have a colleague in the classroom who can strengthen their teaching and increase their effectiveness. Both teachers have a partner to share, reflect, and improve their craft. The students have the opportunity to learn in a diverse environment and become skilled in tolerance and appreciation of differences. Heiman (2004) defined the following models of inclusion: in-and-out, two-teachers, full inclusion, and rejection of inclusion. This study compared British and Israeli teachers’ perceptions, expectations, and needs regarding inclusion. Heiman’s survey revealed both sets of teachers prefer the in-and-out model of instruction, stating the mixed model gives students with disabilities the special instruction necessary for academic success and provides opportunity for interaction with peers in a regular setting. The two-teacher model was the second most popular model with full inclusion and no inclusion to be the least favorable models. It appears from the results of this study that it is not just the regulations that have increased inclusion and collaboration but teachers’ understandings of the power of inclusion when educating all children.

Connections to the LiteratureIt was during the time of the Civil Rights Era of the late 1960s and 1970s that children

with disabilities began to be considered as a minority population with unmet needs and

24

unrecognized rights. Advocates and parents of students with disabilities began moving special education initiatives that would allow children with disabilities to be educated, with the necessary supports and services, in public schools. Their efforts were instrumental in the passage of P.L. 94-142, later renamed IDEA, which ensures not only that all students gain entry into public schools, but that students with disabilities be educated appropriately within these schools. One measure of an appropriate education is whether the required special education services are provided to students with disabilities in settings typical of the learning environments of their non-disabled peers. The mandate to have students with disabilities educated in the least restrictive environment serves as a guiding principle in education to this day (Wiener, Soodak, & McCarthy, in review). The inclusion movement, formally initiated in the early 1990s with the authorization of IDEA, effectively placed the majority of students with disabilities into general education classrooms.

Simultaneously, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education School Act of January, 2002, commonly referred to as NCLB, increased accountability by mandating testing for all students, including students with disabilities. NCLB required all teachers and teaching assistants to be “highly qualified.” This requirement gave all students with disabilities access to knowledgeable personnel in both academic content areas and research-based instructional techniques and strategies. In addition, NCLB included students with disabilities in high-stakes testing and imposed state sanctions when this group of students did not meet expected standards. It required that important information be reported, including the number of graduates, drop-out rates, and state assessment results.

The mandate that all special education students must have access to a general education curriculum came into effect in 1997 with new IDEA regulations (Karger, 2005). The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA not only reaffirmed that students with disabilities have a right to education in the least restrictive environment, but further required that they have access to the general education curriculum and participate in state assessments. NCLB incorporated reforms that affected the efforts toward inclusion. The assessment and accountability provisions of NCLB required students with disabilities to participate in state assessment. Despite concerns about the compatibility of IDEA and NCLB, the two legislations appear to have been necessary partners in creating greater and more meaningful participation of students with disabilities in general education classes. Access to the general education curriculum was a requirement of IDEA but it was the NCLB accountability mandates that pressed schools to make adjustments in instruction and services that were necessary for the inclusion of students with disabilities (Wiener, Soodak, & McCarthy, in review).

Since the 1980s, special and general education teachers have typically worked in isolation from one another. Their instructional repertoires included different techniques and different materials based on the assumption that special education students would be instructed separately for basic academic subjects. Most educators assumed that students with a disability could not be held responsible for learning most, if not all, of the general education curriculum. Special educators convinced parents, school administrators, and their teaching colleagues that they had the expertise needed to teach classified students using parallel curriculums and in separate pull-out locations. This practice resulted in a lack of connectedness between the special education and general education classroom instruction, a focus on teaching low-level skills to special education students, and a stigmatization for many special education students (Winn & Blanton, 1997). Furthermore, special education students were not achieving at levels commensurate with their general education peers.

25

This issue of inequitable education has recently been addressed by placing most students with disabilities in general education classrooms with the primary responsibility for instruction of those students placed on the general educator. The general educator is expected not only to participate in educating classified students but also to be accountable for their instruction. In co-taught classrooms, each professional has an important responsibility in coordinating and delivering substantive instruction to all students (Friend & Cook, 2009; Murray, 2004). This does not mean both teachers are responsible for full-class instruction all the time, but it does mean both teachers share all responsibilities for planning and delivery of instruction (Friend & Cook, 2009). The special educator is no longer just the remedial instructor and behavior management specialist. This is an enormous shift in roles and responsibilities for both the general and special educators.

To meet the challenges of educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom, successful collaboration between the general educator and special educator is essential (Rainforth & England, 1997; Keefe, Moore, & Duff, 2004). Conversations about student learning, shared knowledge, mutual problem-solving, curriculum development, and differentiated lesson planning are basic essentials to this new relationship. Even though the interdependency between general and special education teachers is expected, it has not been taught, nurtured, or modeled for preservice teachers. Some experienced teachers have had the advantage of developing collegial and collaborative relationships between general educators and special educators long before the required changes. They had, formally and informally, developed a community of trust, support, and collaborative techniques. Typically, new and inexperienced teachers have not had this informal opportunity or the advantage of having observed collaboration in their field experiences. Oftentimes, new teachers need to scramble to acquire information and skills; while they do so, they may jeopardize facilitating the learning opportunities for their students. Novice teachers, both special and general educators, need to develop knowledge and skills in working with diverse learners, sharing a classroom, and communicating effectively, including resolving conflicts (Friend & Cook, 2009). These components for successful collaboration need to be part of the preservice experience.

While many effective teacher training programs recognize the significance of collaboration, all too many fail to address the techniques for successful collaboration (Meyer, Mager, Yarger-Kane, 1997). Brownell, Ross, Colon, and McCallum (2005) concluded that one of the seven common characteristics of effective teacher education programs is faculty use of active pedagogy. According to this research, professors who engage in modeling and assisting their candidates to make connections between theory and practice make a difference in teaching and learning. In an article appropriately titled, “As We Say and As We Do,” Kluth and Straut (2003) explain that university co-teaching, teaming, and collaborating must be modeled to help preservice teachers become effective. They implemented a collaborative experience for preservice teachers and evaluated the reactions of their candidates. They concluded that research in the area of collaboration and co-teaching needs to be conducted to uncover how to provide effective collaborative models in college and university teacher-preparation programs. Friend (2000) suggested a common misconception is that collaboration “comes naturally” (p. 132). She views collaboration as a skill that needs attention, refinement, and nourishment. Kluth and Straut appropriately state, “How better [is it] to encourage the development of these skills than to invite candidates to observe and participate in a collaborative environment during their teacher preparation sequence?” (p. 239).

26

Mode of InquiryFor this study, there was an experimental group (n = 31) and a control group (n = 13).

The experimental group consisted of preservice undergraduate students (15 juniors and 16 seniors) enrolled in a childhood education program in a small teaching university in the Northeast. The control group consisted of preservice undergraduate students (13 juniors) who did not receive the collaborative intervention. The juniors in the experimental and control groups were enrolled in a required general methods course. The seniors were enrolled in a general methods graduate-level course as part of the first semester of a combined undergraduate and graduate program (Fifth-Year Program). All of the candidates were elementary education majors, and all but two of the candidates in the total sample were females. All candidates were Caucasian and approximately 21 to 22 years of age. None of the candidates were practicing teachers at the time of the study.

The study was conducted during the spring semester. The juniors were participating in one day a week of fieldwork in a childhood classroom in public school settings. The seniors were not involved in fieldwork because they had just completed a semester of student teaching in a childhood classroom during the previous fall semester.

The intervention involved a special education and a general education professor. They taught a collaborative unit on differentiated lesson planning. By chance both professors were scheduled to teach methods courses during approximately the same timeframe and in classrooms across the hall from each other. Using a co-teaching model, the special educator and the general educator demonstrated an interdisciplinary approach to developing a lesson plan in social studies and literacy to meet state standards in both content areas. The candidates, in turn, developed their own lesson plans with differentiated strategies through a guided practice experience as well as a peer mentoring experience. The intervention consisted of three hours of instruction delivered over two class sessions. Students were taught the basic structures and philosophy of differentiation in the first session, viewed a collaborative social studies/literacy lesson, deconstructed the lesson with a specific focus on the benefits of collaboration, and, working in pairs, identified a topic for their lesson plan. During the second session, the special educator and general educator employed a think-aloud procedure while teaching a differentiated lesson to highlight the benefits of collaboration. Students discussed the lesson and proceeded to develop their differentiated lesson plan through a guided practice experience. Each pair shared its lesson plan with the whole group.

The purpose of the study was to answer the following questions:

1. Did modeling collaboration between a regular educator and a special educator make a difference in the perceived knowledge of collaboration held by preservice candidates?

2. Did modeling collaboration between a regular educator and a special educator change the perceived dispositions held by preservice candidates concerning the importance of collaboration?

MethodThe methodology for the study was a pre-test, intervention, and post-test design. The

data collection began with a pre-test of all candidates in class groups on their perceived knowledge of and dispositions toward collaboration, as well as for the topics of lesson planning, differentiation, and explicit instruction. The pre-test consisted of seven Likert-scale questions

27

and nine open-ended opinion questions. For the purpose of this study, we are going to focus only on the collaboration items, that is, two Likert-scale questions and four open-ended questions. (The survey questions used for this study appear in the appendix.) The metrics for the knowledge and the dispositional items were different. The knowledge item scale ranged from 1) No Knowledge, 2) Very Little Knowledge, 3) A Working Knowledge, 4) Very Knowledgeable, to 5) Experienced. For the disposition item, the scale was reverse scored and ranged from 1) Very Important, 2) Somewhat Important, 3) Not Very Important, 4) Not Important, to 5) Don’t Know. Additionally, there were four open-ended questions for knowledge of and disposition toward collaboration as well as the perceived benefits and drawbacks to collaboration.

At the conclusion of the intervention, we post-tested all the candidates in the experimental group and the control group using a survey instrument that included the same items as the pre-test. We were able to match pre- and post-test surveys for 41 out of 44 candidates. The loss of three candidates was due to absences during the intervention. There were 14 juniors and 16 seniors in the experimental groups and 11 juniors in the control group (Table 1).

Table 1 Sample Sizes

*Loss of participants due to absenteeism

Results Knowledge

Our results for the survey question, “How much do you think you know about collaboration?” were significant. In the junior cohort, 64% reported an increase in their knowledge of collaboration. In the senior cohort, 69% indicated the same. In the control group, 21% of the candidates indicated any increase in their knowledge of collaboration (Table 2).

A regression was performed using the candidates’ post-test answers to the same question ("How much do you think you know about collaboration?") as the dependent variable. The candidates’ pre-test answers to the same question were found to have a significant positive effect (R square = 0.181, β = 0.425, σ = 0.006) as an independent variable, indicating that prior knowledge was a determinant of candidates' answers on the post-test. Adding student participation in the intervention (vs. the control group) to the equation as an independent variable returned a negative effect (β = -0.419, σ = 0.005), indicating that candidates who had not had the intervention had lower post-test scores on this question than participating candidates. Adding this variable to the equation obtained a higher overall R square (0.337) than when only student pre-test answers were included, a change of 0.156. Overall, the intervention appears to have had

28

Experimental Group

Total Participants

Pre/Post Matched Pairs

Juniors 15 14*Seniors 16 16

Control GroupJuniors 13 11*Total 44 41

a positive effect on candidates' perceptions of their knowledge about collaboration, even considering prior knowledge.

Table 2 Perception of Knowledge of Collaboration

Question: How much do you think you know about collaboration?

Very Little A Working Not No Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledgeable Experienced

N (%) N ( %) N ( %) N (%) N (%)Juniorsn =14

PrePost

1 (7) 6 (43)1 ( 7)

7 (50)11 (79) 2 (14)

Seniorsn =15

PrePost

1 ( 7) 1 ( 7)2 (13)

11 (73)2 (13)

2 (13)7 (47)

4 (27)

Controln =11

PrePost

3 (27)2 (18)

5 ( 45)3 (27)

2 (18)6 (55)

1 (9)

Narrative comments that candidates made on the post-test surveys supported this conclusion. On the post-test 8 junior candidates and 11 senior candidates in the experimental group but only 1 junior candidate in the control group defined collaboration as teachers working together for the benefit of the students, special needs and/or regular education students. Some representative comments to the item, “List what you know about collaboration” from the experimental group were as follows:

Working with two or more teachers to create lesson plans for the children. (Junior)

Classroom teacher working with support staff (SPED teacher, literacy specialist) to make sure individual needs are met. (Junior)

Teachers working together to meet the same goals and objectives for individual students or classes. Collaboration can be on many levels – e.g., combining classes [or] splitting up classes based on the learning needs of the students. (Senior)

More than one teacher working together to benefit all students in the classroom. (Junior)

29

Teachers work together and teach the students together. They pool their knowledge and work off each other. (Senior)

As one teacher teaches, the other [teacher] can assess and respond. (Senior)

Several students’ responses supported the idea that candidates need to learn more about collaboration and practice skills of collaboration in their preservice programs.

I never really observed collaboration. I did not know about collaboration. (Junior)

I knew what collaboration was before the lesson, but I never experienced collaboration with a person I did not know. (Senior)

Although the collaboration we participated in was effective, I cannot imagine how to productively do so myself. (Senior)

From what I have observed in schools, there is no such thing. (Senior)

DispositionsFor the dispositions question, “How do you feel about collaboration?” many students

rated the level of importance high on the pre-test survey; therefore, there was a small increase in the numbers of students who indicated an increased level of importance on the post-test (5 juniors and 2 seniors in the experimental group and 3 juniors in the control group). More importantly, the number of students who felt collaboration was Very Important or Somewhat Important after the intervention was 85% for juniors and 100% for seniors but only 63% for the control group (Table 3).

Table 3 Perception of Disposition toward Collaboration

Question: How do you feel about collaboration?

Very Somewhat Not Very Not Don’t Important Important Important Important Know

N (%) N ( %) N ( %) N (%) N (%)Juniorsn =14

PrePost

4 (29)3 (21)

6 (43)9 (64)

2 (14)1 (7)

2 (14)1 ( 7)

Seniorsn =15

PrePost

11 (73)13 (87)

3 (20)2 (13)

1 ( 7)

Controln = 11

Pre 3 ( 27) 2 (18) 6 ( 55)

30

Post 3 ( 27) 4 (36) 4 (36)

A regression was performed using the candidates' post-test answers to the same question ("How do you feel about collaboration?") as the dependent variable. The candidates' pre-test answers to the disposition question were found to have a small positive effect (R square = 0.140, β = 0.374, σ = 0.018) as an independent variable, indicating that candidates’ predispositions did affect their ratings on this question. As expected, there was a small positive effect because many of the candidates believed in the importance of collaboration and, therefore, had high scores on the pre-test. Additionally, candidates who felt strongly about the benefits of collaboration on the pre-test maintained their strong beliefs on the post-test survey. Adding student participation in the intervention (vs. the control group) to the equation as an independent variable also returned a positive effect (β = 0.330, σ = 0.051), indicating that candidates who had not had the intervention had lower post-test scores on this question than participating candidates. Adding this variable to the equation obtained a higher overall R square (0.225) than when only student pre-test answers were included, a change of 0.085 indicating that the change in students' dispositions on the post-test resulted more from the intervention than from their pre-test dispositions. Overall, the intervention appears to have had an effect on candidates' perceptions of their dispositions toward collaborative teaching.

Narrative comments that candidates made on the post-test surveys also supported this conclusion. The candidates in the experimental groups said, “…collaboration is important because it is good to work together and gain others’ perspectives” (Junior); “it can help a teacher reach a lot of children in good ways” (Junior); and “it is important to hear other ideas from colleagues” (Senior). One senior stated she thought it “makes instruction more effective” while another senior stated that “it’s important because you gain multiple perspectives on ways to teach. You stay teachable and learn from listening to other teachers’ thoughts, keeping an open mind about different ways to teach lessons.”

Students expounded further on the benefits of collaboration when directly asked to respond to the question, “What are the benefits of collaboration?” A sampling of their comments from the experimental group reveals that students thought collaboration “was a learning experience for teachers” (Junior); “getting the best from both people” (Junior), and “is important because as a professional you need to work with other teachers to improve teaching and learning” (Senior). Two juniors stated, “I know that collaboration works to benefit all students in the classroom” and “teachers need to collaborate but also…students need to collaborate as well.” One senior said, “I learned about how teachers can build on each other’s energy and expertise” while another senior stated, “you get a better understanding of the depth of what you wish to teach when you discuss what you are doing with your colleagues.” Other students identified the benefits of more feedback, the ability to be reflective, and the opportunity for teachers to share ideas and new ways of teaching with each other.

When asked about the drawbacks of collaboration (“What are the drawbacks of collaboration?”), a few students commented on the amount of time and planning needed to do collaboration as well as the need to compromise and lack of ability to be flexible in your teaching. “I learned that collaboration takes a lot of planning ahead [but that] even in presenting the two teachers continue to work together and [learn] from each other,” stated one senior. Another senior elaborated on the issue further by saying, “It takes a lot of time to plan. Teachers may have different theories and different goals/objectives and may need to make compromises.”

31

And, still another senior said, “[You are] not able to experiment on your own because you need to involve both people and discuss what you are doing prior to doing it. [This is] very time consuming.” Several students commented on the necessity of a good match of teachers for collaboration to work successfully. “It is very important and helpful when you are working with the right professionals” (Junior) and “if teachers don’t get along well, it [collaboration] will not be that effective” (Senior).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future ResearchResults of the current study have limitations, specifically the small sample size, the short

duration of the intervention, and the different characteristics of the senior cohort. First, the sample came from a small group of candidates from one teacher education program. The small sample size (n = 31) creates concern about the statistical power for the analyses. However, we feel that the results are valid. Isaac and Michael (1990) support the use of small sample sizes (between 10 and 30) for exploratory studies. They believe that larger samples can produce possible treatment effects whereas small samples can indeed test the null hypothesis. Additionally, the intervention was limited in duration (only 2 out of 15 sessions) because of practical considerations concerning the course content required for each individual course. Given the results of the student self-reported data, there may also be questions related to the fact that the three groups of candidates were not equivalent at the outset of the study in regard to their knowledge and dispositions concerning collaboration. One group, the seniors, was one year ahead in their academic studies and did evidence stronger scores on their pre-tests. A new hypothesis that could be tested in future research is that with more education and field experience, candidates are able to see the value of collaboration even without the demonstration of collaboration between a regular and special educator. The differences between the undergraduate groups cannot be so easily explained.

Future research needs to extend the collaboration model from the college classroom to the public classroom. Future educators need not only the knowledge and positive dispositions about collaboration but the skills to apply collaboration to the school setting. Because there are very few models currently operating in our field placements, our candidates do not observe teachers collaborating but, perhaps even more importantly, never have an opportunity to practice their skills in collaboration and to document the effects on student learning. Another area for further research is the way teacher candidates transform academic learning into the personal knowledge that guides classroom practice.

Contribution to the FieldOur research demonstrates that candidates can increase their knowledge about

collaboration through structured modeling and guided practice. As a result of our intervention, candidates learned about and viewed collaboration as a positive experience for teachers. This study adds to the increasingly large number of studies that conclude co-teaching and collaboration must be taught to general and special education teachers for them to have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to employ these strategies into their teaching repertoire. Although collaboration has long been recognized as essential in special education programs, the need for collaboration in general education, especially in light of NCLB mandates and inclusion, is imperative. It is the responsibility of teacher education institutions to produce teacher candidates who are dedicated to using collaboration as a tool to maximize the

32

opportunities for all learners. We believe this research project, as well as future collaborative activities, will strengthen teaching and learning for us and for our student candidates.

ReferencesAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2002). Preparing teachers to work

with students with disabilities: Possibilities and challenges for special and general education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED468743).

Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169-185.

Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C.L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242-252.

Cramer, S. F. (1998). Collaboration: A success strategy for special educators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Educating the new educator: Teacher education and the future democracy. The New Educator, 1(1), 1-18. DeBoer, A., & Fister, S. (1995). Working together: Tools for collaborative teaching. Longmont,

CO: Sopris West.Dettmer, P., Thurston, L. P., & Dyck, N. J. (2005). Consultation, collaboration, teamwork for

students with special needs. (5th ed.). New York: Pearson. Friend, M. (2000). Myth and misunderstandings about professional collaboration. Remedial and

Special Education, 21, 130-132. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2009). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (6th

ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Gately, S. E., & Gately, F. J. (2001). Understanding coteaching components. Teaching

Exceptional Children. 33(4), 40-47.Griffin, C. C., & Pugach, M. C. (2007). Framing the progress of collaborative teacher education.

Focus on Exceptional Children. 39(6), 1-12.Heiman, T. (2004). Teachers coping with changes: Including students with disabilities in

mainstream classes: An international view. International Journal of Special Education. 19(2), 91-103.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§1,401-1,487. Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation. (2nd ed). San Diego: EdITS.Kamens, M. W. (2007). Learning about co-teaching: A collaborative student teaching experience

for preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(3), 155-166.Karger, J. (2005). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A discussion of

the interrelationship between IDEA’97 and NCLB: A policy paper for educators and families. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved on October 27, 2008, from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_discussion2004.html

Keefe, E. B., Moore, V., & Duff, F. (2004). The four “knows” of collaborative teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 36-42.

Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do: Teaching and modeling collaborative practice in the university classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 54, 228-240.

33

Meyer, L. H., Mager, G. M., Yarger-Kane, G., Sarno, M., & Hext-Contreras, G. (1997). Syracuse University’s inclusive elementary and special education program. In L. Blanton, C. Griffin, J. Winn, & M. Pugach (Eds.), Teacher education in transition. (pp. 18-30). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Murray, G. (2004). Clarifying collaborative roles in urban high schools: General educations’ perspectives. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(5), 44-51.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) (1997). Learning disabilities: Preservice preparation of general and special education teachers. Position paper and statement. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

No Child Left Behind. (2002). P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6,301-7,941.Rainforth, B., & England, J. (1997). Collaborations for inclusion. Education and Treatment of

Children, 20, 85-104.Richards, S., Hunley, S., & Weaver, R. (2003). A proposed model for teaching collaboration

skills to general and special education preservice candidates. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 246-250.

Scanlon, D., Gallego, M., Duran, G. Z., & Reyes, E. I. (2005). Interactive staff development supports collaboration when learning to teach. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(1), 40-51.

Schnorr, R. F., & Davern, L. (2005). Creating exemplary literacy classrooms through the power of teaming. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 494-506.

Winn, J., & Blanton, L. (1997). The call for collaboration in teacher education. In L. Blanton, C. Griffin, J. Winn, & M. Pugach (Eds.), Teacher Education in Transition. (pp. 1-17). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Authors’ BiographiesRoberta Wiener, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor of Education at Pace University in Pleasantville, New York. Her research interests include educating students with disabilities, special education leadership and teacher development in special education. Email: [email protected]

Joanne Falinski, Ph.D., formerly of the Charter School Institute of SUNY and Pace University, is currently working as an educational consultant. Her research interests include digital storytelling, teacher professional development, and the efficacy of charter schools. Email: [email protected]

34

Start new pageAppendix

Collaboration Survey

Please circle the numeral that most closely matches your feelings for each item.

1. How much do you think you know about collaboration?

1 ______ 2 _ 3______ 4 ______ 5 No Knowledge Very Little A Working Knowledge Very Knowledgeable Experienced

Knowledge

List what you know about collaboration.

2. How do you feel about collaboration?

1 2 3 4 5 Very Somewhat Important Not Very Not Don’t KnowImportant Important Important

Please describe the reasons why you feel the way you do.

Please respond to the following questions:

3. What are the benefits of collaboration?

4. What are the drawbacks to collaboration?

35

start new pageScience Education and TESOL: A Collaborative Professional Development Model for First-Year Teachers in Alternative Certification Programs

Angela M. KellyJoye SmithLehman College, City University of New York

AbstractTo support novice urban secondary science teachers in their interactions with English

Language Learners (ELLs), Science Education and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) faculty created a framework for a collaborative professional development model based on surveys, discussion groups, and targeted intervention from preservice training through the first year of teaching. Once the model was implemented, many teachers reported adopting effective pedagogical strategies, although few had worked collaboratively with TESOL colleagues to improve instruction. Several teachers experienced persistent difficulties in understanding and addressing the learning needs of their ELLs, in part because of a lack of administrative and peer support. Implications for the continuation and further development of the collaborative model are discussed.


36

Running head from here through last page of this article: Kelly and SmithIntroduction

One of the most challenging issues confronting new teachers in urban schools is working with students whose primary language is not English. This is particularly problematic for novice science teachers, since science itself is a new language of specialized vocabulary. The purpose of this exploratory study, initiated by a science education faculty member and a Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) faculty member in a graduate program at an urban university, is to lay the groundwork for a collaborative professional development and research model for promoting effective instructional practices with English Language Learners (ELLs) in secondary science classrooms. The model is based on the self-described needs and concerns of the teachers, expressed both at the preservice stage and during their first semester of teaching. As we gathered data, we also enacted support and modeled research-based practices for the teachers through presentations, sensitization exercises, and focus groups.

Our research was guided by the following question: How might science education and TESOL faculty collaborate to create a replicable professional development model where teachers can learn effective instructional practices for ELL students as they transition from preservice training to first year teaching? From this overarching objective, several sub-questions emerged:

1. How did the concerns of novice science teachers regarding the teaching of ELLs evolve as they entered the classroom?

2. How did the model of collaboration presented by the researchers influence the teachers’ vision of collaboration with TESOL or English as a Second Language (ESL) colleagues in classroom settings?

3. What persistent issues were inhibiting effective ELL science teaching and learning, as well as the collaboration between ESL and science teachers? And how might school administrators and teacher educators facilitate the resolution of these issues?

BackgroundThe Crisis in Science Education in the United States

There has been much recent concern about the quality and quantity of science education in the United States (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2007). Echoing numerous reports in the media and the academic world, a recent issue of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study suggested that American high-school students have been performing well below the levels of their international peers in science (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2004). Of the students who did have access to quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) preparation, many were not likely to pursue further study in science (Redish & Steinberg, 1999) and had a limited understanding of key scientific tenets and how they might have been applicable to everyday experiences.

Across the country, low-income underrepresented minority students lack access to high-quality science education and careers in science (Brown, 2006; Kelly & Sheppard, 2008, 2009; NCES, 2002; Tate, 2001). In addition, scientific research in the United States has largely ignored a talent pool that could broaden participation and provide diverse cultural perspectives (NAS, 2007). This systemic disparity has severely constrained students’ opportunities in STEM-related

37

disciplines. Science education is, therefore, an issue of equity and social justice in underserved communities and of national concern.

Improvement in science education must include differentiating instruction for ELLs, students who speak a language other than English at home and who score below a minimum score on a standardized English assessment test. In the last ten years, the number of ELLs has grown nationwide by 57% (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2008). While there is a tremendous range of languages, educational backgrounds, and socio-economic status among the families of ELLs, nearly 60% of ELLs are typically eligible to receive free or reduced lunch. Many received a less-than-adequate education in their home countries (NCELA, 2008), and their parents have been less educated, on the whole, than the parents of native-English speakers (U.S. Census, 2000).

Issues and Challenges for English Language Learners in the SciencesAssessing ELLs’ progress in science, reading, and math is challenging because

standardized assessments were created for native speakers of English, making it difficult to know whether ELLs’ scores are a result of subject knowledge, English limitations, or slower language processing on timed examinations (Menkin, 2009). Even given test limitations, however, the achievement gap between ELLs and native-English speakers is staggering; it begins early and increases as students get older (Goldenberg, 2009). In 2007, fourth-grade ELLs scored 25 points lower on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math test. Until recently, science was not even tested on a large scale. Tthe gap was even more pronounced in eighth grade; similar disparities were evident on the New York State examinations (New York Immigration Coalition [NYIC], 2008). In terms of college preparedness, just 20% of Black students and 16% of Hispanic students graduate with college-ready transcripts, compared to 46% of White students (Greene & Forster, 2003).

The challenges facing ELLs in science classrooms are considerable. First, they are still mastering English. While conversational fluency, cognitively undemanding and embedded in immediate, personal context, develops within a year or two, context-reduced, cognitively demanding “academic” forms of the second language, prototypically reading and writing, may take anywhere from five to ten years to master, depending on the learners’ prior education (Collier, 1987, 1989; Cummins, 1981a, 1981b, 2008).

The challenges facing ELLs increase in complexity when considering secondary science. While non-specialist elementary teachers cover all of the sciences in a single year, secondary teachers specialize in a single science for an entire semester or year. As ELLs move up in grades, they must cope with increasingly complex scientific concepts and academic language (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Short & Thier, 2006). While some middle and high schools engage in discovery learning and guided inquiry, many continue to rely on lecture, textbooks, and “cookbook type” laboratory sessions, making it even more challenging for ELLs to make critical connections between experience and understanding (Short & Their, 2006). In New York City high schools, the majority of students take Living Environment (biology) and Earth Science (The City Council of the City of New York, 2004), and both courses require an understanding of extensive vocabulary and complex scientific ideas.

Also, secondary science places complex linguistic demands on ELLs. In contrast to the largely Anglo-Saxon vocabulary of conversational English, science textbooks are dense with specialized Greek or Latin-based vocabulary items (Corson, 1997). For example, one biology textbook states: “Members of the kingdom Protista are single-celled eukaryotes, both autotrophs

38

and heterotrophs” (Curtis & Barnes, 1985, p.195). Like much academic language, this sentence is an abstract, expository generalization of a phenomenon, not a descriptive narrative of a specific animal that the reader and writer both recognize, and little of the sentence meaning can be inferred from context, as it might in a narrative text (Gibbons, 2002). Scientific discourse is also less accessible to English learners because it relies on grammatical structures such as the passive voice and abstract nominalization of verbs (Lemke, 1990). Finally, science textbooks are essentially dense reference volumes, providing few avenues for students to make personal connections between new and existing knowledge about science (Freeman & Freeman, 2009).

Research-Based Strategies for Teaching Content to ELLsAlthough learning English is a significant challenge, ELLs cannot wait 5 to10 years for

their academic language skills to mature before learning science. Content and language must be taught together in a systematic and deliberately planned way (Mohan, 2001). Sixty-percent of all ELLs are in English-only content classes, some without any specialized language support (Goldenberg, 2009). Therefore, all content teachers need to integrate language learning principles to give them language support throughout the day (Short, Echevarria, & Vogt, 2008).

In the classroom, successful research-based teaching approaches include creating linguistic “scaffolds,” or temporary support structures, to help ELLs attain grade-level content (Gibbons, 2002; Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008; Verplaeste & Migliacci, 2008). Successful scaffolding begins with content teachers assessing their ELLs’ literacy skills in English and the native language -- not simply their oral fluency. Next, they need to reflect on the linguistic demands of their academic specialization, including vocabulary, grammatical structures, and academic tasks. They need to select language objectives to complement science objectives for each unit of study (Fathman & Crowther, 2006; Short, Echevarria, & Vogt, 2008).

Keeping in mind their students are processing their second language more slowly than their first, teachers can limit their use of idioms, provide longer wait time, and give precise directions for class activities (Gibbons, 2002). Next, they can build bridges to the content for their students by, for example, a) creating outlines for lab reports, b) supplementary material with visuals (e.g., graphic organizers), c) hands-on demonstrations that reinforce key concepts (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008), or d) graphic maps of textual meaning structure (Mohan, 2001). Teachers can scaffold dense, superficial textbooks by a) first talking about the concepts colloquially (before introducing technical terms and complex grammatical structures); b) creating study guides; c) incorporating “text sets” on a topic (a range of resources at different reading levels); d) structuring collaborative discussion about text; e) modeling teacher think aloud of reading strategies as well as direct teaching of strategies; and f) connecting material to students’ lives (Calderón, 2007; Freeman & Freeman, 2009; Gibbons, 2003; Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Short, Echevarria, & Vogt, 2008).

Collaboration between ESL and Content TeachersMoving beyond individual classrooms and teachers, evidence suggests that schools that

have been successful in educating ELLs consciously create and facilitate partnerships between ESL teachers and content area teachers. The NYIC (2008) advocated for ESL classes coordinated with content area classes, and listed several school districts having exemplary success with ELLs, all of which require collaboration between ESL and content area teachers. In practice, such collaboration has not been found to be automatic or easy (Arkoudis, 2006). Because of the ESL teachers’ low status in most schools, they may be viewed by content

39

teachers as mere “service providers” to the content areas, with no curricular objectives of their own and no recognizable propositional knowledge from which to position themselves in a collaborative conversation (Creese, 2002).

Successful cross-disciplinary collaboration benefits from the creation of sustained professional communities, grounded in teachers’ experiences, reflections, and questions, rather than one-shot, “top-down” professional development workshops (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Rueda, 1999). In a “top-down” model, professional development is handed to the teachers through traditional in-service presentations. In a “bottom-up” or interactive model, professional development evolves through teacher-researcher inquiry groups and ongoing exchanges. A high-quality professional development program for teachers should be conducted over a longer period of time, with sustained interaction consisting of the discussion and modeling of new strategies, accompanied by feedback from expert teachers and peers (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995; Porter, Garet, DeSimone, Yoon, & Birman, 2000; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). While our research is still in the beginning stages, the professional development model that emerged from it lays the foundations for a learning community where issues of teaching science to ELLs could be raised and science teachers prepared to be linguistically responsive to their ELLs, starting in the preservice phase and continuing into their first year of teaching.

MethodologySubjects and Context

The researchers began their collaboration with a new cohort of 44 New York City Science Teaching Fellows during the summer of 2008. The cohort consisted of 27 women and 17 men; of these, 29 were identified as White/Caucasian, 4 were Asian, 5 were Black, and 6 were Latino. Each of them had earned a bachelor’s degree in a scientific discipline – biology (30), chemistry (8), geology (2), or physics (4). Although a few were from the greater metropolitan area, most were from other parts of the United States.

The Teaching Fellows Program is an alternative certification pathway for prospective New York City teachers with a background in the content area but no teaching certification. Students are required to complete 200 hours of training (graduate coursework and field observations) during the summer before their initial placement, in addition to passing standardized tests in their content area and language arts. Once these credentials are met, they are awarded a transitional certificate, which becomes permanent after two years of successful teaching experience and meeting other requirements. These students took two courses during the summer – Educational Psychology and Teaching Science in Middle and High School. One of the researchers was the instructor for the science methods course, which was where our collaboration began.

All of the teachers had accepted positions in Bronx middle or high schools beginning in the fall of 2008. The Bronx is a high-poverty, densely populated county, one of the five boroughs of New York City. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, their 1.3 million residents are 48.4% Latino (primarily Puerto Rican, followed by Dominican), 14.6% White, 31.2% Black, and 2.8% Asian. The median household income is approximately $35,000. Bronx schools typically have more than a 90% population of underrepresented minority students. The Bronx has the lowest graduation rate in the city (48%), and 91% of all students qualify for free or reduced lunch (New York City Department of Education, 2007).

Research Design

40

A four-stage approach was designed as the mechanism for professional development and research. The first component was a baseline survey (Appendix A), administered to all participants prior to the professional development workshop. The initial survey was designed to collect information on the backgrounds of the teachers, their prior involvement with ELLs, their knowledge of a foreign language, and their anticipated concerns with teaching science to students whose primary language is not English. The survey was administered during the summer of 2008, prior to any formal graduate instruction in teaching science to ELLs. A nearly identical survey was administered during their first semester of teaching (Appendix B). Because the surveys were not quantitatively analyzed but rather used to inform the professional development and focus groups, they were not piloted. However, the survey questions about ESL-content teacher collaboration were based on the findings of faculty colleagues involved in a similar English Education-TESOL collaboration (DelliCarpini, 2009). Questions about anticipated difficulties with ELLs were based on existing research on teaching and learning in the content areas.

The second stage involved the professional development training, which consisted of language sensitization exercises and an overview of effective science instruction for ELLs. During one sensitization exercise, the TESOL faculty member read a story in Hausa, an African language. The researchers elicited feedback on how participants might have felt after hearing this story in a completely foreign tongue as well as cues they had picked up from her intonations. The story was then repeated with a PowerPoint presentation with illustrations of key characters and other graphical representations of the plot, leading to greater understanding. In this way, the teachers were exposed to the importance of extralinguistic supports in teaching science to ELLs.

During the workshop, the science education researcher elaborated on science-specific challenges for ELLs, while the TESOL researcher focused on best practices from a broader disciplinary context. A discussion ensued where students debated various misconceptions associated with teaching science to ELLs, such as assuming that ELLs would not have difficulty with mathematics, associating their fluency in English with science proficiency, and insisting on English only as a means for communication. Finally, the researchers led a discussion of research-based scaffolding strategies as a means for effective science instruction, such as

Preparing for classes by explicitly stating language objectives as a key component of a lesson plan. Working with ESL teachers to develop appropriate targets for individual students.

Becoming familiar with the backgrounds of students, so teachers can build on prior knowledge and students’ cultural experiences in developing new science understandings. Work with administrators and ESL teachers to gather pertinent information on students’ countries of origin and current proficiency levels.

Using clear, understandable instructions, and avoiding jargon, idioms, and jokes that involve double meanings. Modeling academic tasks and showing examples of the expected level of student work.

Using questioning as a strategy to promote higher-level thinking and English proficiency. Encouraging peer interaction through carefully structured small group discussions. Teaching science through hands-on, inquiry-based learning. Avoiding excessive lecture. Continuously reviewing and assessing student understanding.

41

The third stage of the research involved the collection of data through a follow-up survey (see Appendix B), administered to the teachers approximately two months after they had been in the classroom. The survey asked teachers about challenges they were facing in teaching ELLs and collaborating with school-based ESL colleagues. The researchers used feedback from the surveys to plan stage four of the study.

The fourth and final stage of the study involved a series of focus groups, where the researchers met with groups of 8 to 10 teachers during their first semester of teaching to discuss some of the challenges they faced. The semi-structured sessions were guided by questions about what teaching strategies were working for their ELLs, what issues were presenting the greatest difficulty, and how collaborations with ESL teachers could be initiated or strengthened. As participant-observers, the researchers responded to questions and used their students’ experiences to formulate new questions. The researchers took extensive field notes during the discussion and analyzed them inductively to draw conclusions on how the summer professional development model informed the pedagogical strategies used by the teachers with ELLs (Johnson & Christenson, 2004). Notes were examined and coded by both researchers to identify recurring themes; these themes were confirmed by recursive examination of the data, indicating high interrator reliability. Furthermore, the responses were evaluated to determine how school-based collaborations with ESL teachers might be facilitated through future professional development initiatives.

Results and DiscussionInitial Questionnaire: Backgrounds and Concerns of Preservice Teacher-Participants

The initial questionnaire was distributed on the first day of the workshop, before any instruction on teaching science to ELLs. Respondents first reported on key background characteristics, then answered questions on anticipated difficulties in teaching science to ELLs, and the types of collaborations and support they thought would be beneficial.

Most participants (86%) reported studying or learning a foreign language at some point in their lives. Of those with experience using other languages, 66% had studied a foreign language in the classroom, 29% had lived in a foreign country with a dominant language other than English, and 8% had bilingual parents. The majority of participants (84%) had no experience teaching ELLs.

Table 1 summarizes responses concerning the participants’ views on potential science/ESL collaborations. Most students were looking for situations where they might collaboratively plan lessons and have access to an ESL teacher, either through informal discussions or having a support teacher present in their science classrooms. The least desired collaboration was team teaching, chosen by just 45% of participants. When asked about anticipated difficulties with ESL teachers, two main concerns emerged. First, a lack of common planning time was considered a major roadblock to successful collaboration (93% of respondents agreed). Secondly, a slight majority of participants (52%) felt that ESL teachers would have insufficient content knowledge for meaningful collaboration. Other concerns included lack of administrative support (30%), lack of motivation/interest (20%), feelings of intimidation (2%), and negotiating power struggles (2%).

42

Table 1 Participants’ Views on Science and ESL Teacher Collaborations (n = 44)

Types of Desired Collaborations with ESL Teachers Collaborative planning lessons/units ESL teacher helping individual ELL students in classroom Informal conversations Team teaching

Percentage of Respondents68%64%57%45%

Anticipated Difficulties with Science/ESL CollaborationsLack of timeESL teacher not knowing enough science Lack of administrative support Lack of motivation/interest Feeling intimidated as a first-year teacher Negotiating power struggles

Percentage of Respondents93%52%30%20% 2% 2%

The remaining two survey questions provided qualitative insights into teachers’ concerns and questions about teaching ELLs. On the first open-ended question, they reported several anticipated difficulties that they felt ELLs might encounter in a science learning environment. Most teachers were concerned about ELLs acquiring new scientific vocabulary, as well as being able to distinguish between colloquial and scientific meanings. Some were unsure how to teach large concepts when important details might be difficult for students to understand, while others commented on concerns with maintaining engagement and an appropriate pace, given that some ELLs may need additional time for processing instructions and explanations. A second major concern was the availability of ESL teachers who could provide individualized instruction, suggest testing modifications, and share insights into students’ cultural and social backgrounds.

On a second open-ended question, prospective teachers shared questions about teaching ELLs, including how to communicate higher-level concepts to ELLs and what kinds of assessment techniques they might employ. They also asked whether they would have access to appropriate science curricular resources (for dual-language students), classroom support, and lab equipment for hands-on inquiry. One teacher wondered whether it would be appropriate to present material in both languages. Others asked a few questions that reflected some degree of naïveté regarding the amount of variation they must be prepared to encounter. For example, one asked, “How much English do they usually know?” And another asked, “What percentage of chemistry students are ELLs, and how many of them pass the Regents Exam?” Another expressed a deficit view by asking, “How important is it for ELLs to do well in science?” suggesting content mastery for ELL students might not need to be a priority for science teachers. Overall, the survey data provided the researchers with rich insights into the needs and expectations of the study participants.

In-Service Survey ResponsesAn online follow-up survey was administered in the fall to get a general sense of the

experiences of the study participants with ELLs. The teachers had been in their classrooms for approximately two months. Although the response rate was relatively low (30%), some important points were evident. Nearly two-thirds (64%) reported not having experienced any kind of collaboration with ESL colleagues. All of those who had experienced collaboration were biology or Earth science teachers; for the study participants, ELLs were present in larger

43

numbers in these classes. Notably, no ELLs were present in any chemistry or physics classes, suggesting a focus on basic skills and lower-level science classes for these students.

A little over one third of all respondents (38%) had participated in some kind of collaboration. Four teachers -- one teacher who was team teaching with an ESL teacher, two who were collaboratively planning lessons, and one teacher from the informal conversations group -- reported that the lack of ESL teacher knowledge about science made collaboration difficult. Only one of the five respondents involved in collaboration mentioned a lack of administrative support as an obstacle to collaboration. Our focus groups confirmed the trends that were suggested by these survey responses.

When asked about the specific difficulties their ELLs have learning science, teachers most frequently mentioned a) content vocabulary, and b) not enough one-on-one time with the teacher; the next two most frequent responses were c) developing higher-order processes, and d) test-taking difficulties. This was consistent with initial survey “predictions.” The researchers used these concerns to plan subsequent semi-structured focus group discussions.

Focus Groups – Emerging ThemesFocus groups were held during the students’ first semester of teaching, several weeks

after the second survey. Several themes emerged from the discussions (summarized in Figure 1): the sharing of best practices on successfully implemented strategies, persistent problems in classroom practice, and support structures (both existing and desired). Both researchers were present to lead the discussion and respond to teachers’ concerns. Their collaborative handling of the questions was meant to serve two purposes: a) to combine their disciplinary expertise in answering pedagogical questions with maximum clarity and insight, and b) to model how the teachers might initiate and foster collaborations with ESL teachers in their own schools. In this way, science teachers might be more likely to value ESL teachers as assets in developing instructional practices.

Teachers discussed strategies that had enabled them to engage their ELL learners in more effective ways, many of which had been introduced and modeled by the researchers during the summer professional development. However, it was evident many of them needed additional support to master these approaches. For example, while some reported having successfully scaffolded instruction (breaking down grade-level content material to help ELLs reach benchmark standards), they also mentioned having lowered their expectations so ELLs could meet with some success on less demanding assignments, something that would never happen in true scaffolding. This sometimes involved an external low-level motivation, such as giving extra points for communicating orally in English. Most teachers recognized the need to move beyond such low-level motivation, so students might better envision themselves as lifelong learners. As one teacher warned, low expectations can have harmful results: “Their [ELLs] behavior is good, but they are very babied, everyone tippy-toes around it when they miss homework; I feel like we need to keep them to the same standards.”

Still, teachers asked many questions about designing appropriate tasks for ELLs. One researcher suggested that they choose tasks that are value-added, that is, that promote their understanding of both the content and the English language. Also, she encouraged teachers to model questions frequently to familiarize ELLs with English questioning, which is often more complex than their native language, and to include higher-order thinking questions. Some teachers expressed the need to become more proficient in questioning and choosing meaningful tasks.

44

Figure 1 Emerging Themes from Focus Groups on ESL/Science Collaboration

Teachers further commented on the benefits of making the assignment objectives as explicit as possible, which some had done by showing examples of excellent student work. Others discussed the importance of making connections with prior knowledge when introducing new topics. They reported utilizing a variety of media through which students could learn and express understandings, such as visual organizers, writing lab reports (emphasizing scientific writing rather than prose), and different types of text-based resources, such as web-based information on recent scientific advances, and worksheets with key terminology written in both English and the native language. One teacher required his students to keep journals of mistakes, so they might monitor their learning. Another usually paired an ELL with an English-speaking student.

Many of the focus group participants expressed frustration with persistent problems in meeting the needs of their ELLs. The most frequently mentioned problem was the lack of information on the varying needs of the ELLs in their classrooms, and the lack of sufficient support structures for meeting these needs. One teacher lamented that although she had several ELLs in her classes, “no one has given me advice on how to proceed.” Another had a new ELL student (among many existing ELLs) and had no idea what language the student spoke, commenting, “I have no idea how to reach these kids.” When the researchers prompted the teachers about ways of seeking support from ESL colleagues and administrators, one said that, “…at my school, our ESL teachers went to our classes and realized it would be helpful if they came to our classes, but nothing ever happened.” Teachers also reported some confusion regarding whether students had learning disabilities or were ELLs (or both). One teacher admitted that he had first “assumed that my students [were] ELL, but now I think they are actually classified [as special needs].”

45

Teachers shared some additional concerns about their students, including the detrimental effects of chronic absenteeism, the prevalence of plagiarism and copying other students’ work, and the unwillingness of students to write rather than speak. Their students often misinterpreted the meaning of models and analogies. Some teachers also commented on the seeming lack of motivation of ELLs; the researchers suggested to them that the inability to complete a task could often be misinterpreted as low motivation. One teacher recognized the lack of relevance that many ELLs may have associated with science, so she actively sought out STEM resources that conveyed a diversity of representation in scientific disciplines, such as posters and worksheets with Black and Hispanic scientists.

The final theme that emerged from focus group discussions was the sense that teachers lacked the consistent support from administrators and ESL teachers that they considered essential for teaching ELLs. Most wanted school administrators to be more proactive in providing detailed information on ELLs as soon as they enrolled. In addition, some felt that existing ESL teachers needed to support the ELLs in more effective ways, such as designing graphic organizers to illustrate science concepts. Others lamented the lack of consistency with which ESL teachers helped in the classroom. Finally, teachers realized that communicating with parents was an important bridge between the home and school, and this could be facilitated with help from ESL teachers, translators, and school administrators.

Summary and ImplicationsThe purpose of the TESOL/science education collaboration was to elicit teachers’

concerns about working with ELLs, prepare teachers to use research-based instructional practices and address their emergent concerns, and model how science teachers might work with ESL specialists to design strategies for teaching ELLs. We observed that many teachers had adopted our strategies and created some of their own with varying degrees of success, while others needed further support (including that of school-based colleagues) to implement effective practices. Through our discussions with the novice science teachers, we were able to assess the effectiveness of our professional development workshop and anticipate ways in which we might improve future training workshops and facilitate collaboration with ESL teachers.

Survey responses gave us a general sense of the teachers’ backgrounds, as well as their initial experiences with ELLs. The initial survey revealed that this cohort of NYC Teaching Fellows had very little, if any, experience working with ELLs. Although most had studied some foreign language at one point in their lives, they were greatly concerned about communicating effectively with their non-native English-speaking students, particularly given the specialized language and conceptual requirements of science, the demands of standardized testing, and severe time constraints. They also expressed the desire to collaborate with ESL teachers at their schools. The survey data allowed us to craft questions and suggest possible topics for the focus group sessions.

The focus groups, in turn, raised additional questions and concerns and also offered opportunities for collaborative problem-solving and discussion. The following thematic summary outlines the essential elements of our collaboration - emerging critical issues, teachers’ corresponding concerns, and proposed solutions.

Collaboration with ESL TeachersFew of the novice teachers had experienced collaboration with an ESL teacher, and those

who had were not always positive about it. Existing collaborations were often described as

46

inconsistent and unfocused. We encouraged the participants to seek structured collaborations that targeted the needs of specific students. We modeled the types of solutions-oriented pedagogical approaches from both disciplines that can facilitate ELLs’ linguistic and academic improvement. Many teachers had incorporated strategies from the summer professional development workshop, such as encouraging peer interaction and modeling academic tasks. We hope to continue to follow these teachers and include them in future workshops to build upon their skills and continue to share best practices.

To extend our learning community and gather fresh perspectives, future research will also involve bringing together these novice science teachers and their ESL colleagues to reflect on their collaboration and to explore school cultures and the divergent discourse communities represented by ESL and science.

Pedagogical PracticesSeveral issues were mentioned concerning how to teach science successfully, especially

in the area of vocabulary and scientific discourse. One disheartening comment in the focus groups was that teachers “lowered their expectations” rather than changing the way they were teaching, a very different conceptualization of the term “scaffolding” than the researchers had suggested. Since true scaffolding is critical in order for ELLs to reach grade-level competency in science, teachers need training in research-based techniques in a) teaching vocabulary, b) developing an awareness of scientific discourse and grammar, and c) helping learners move from conversational, context-embedded language to academic, context-reduced language (Freeman & Freeman, 2009; Gibbons, 2002), areas that we planned to include in the second year of our professional development and research module. Teachers also needed a better of sense of how to create complementary science and language objectives.

No teacher can give every student the time that he or she needs; it is critical to create carefully structured cooperative learning activities to increase helpful peer-to-peer interaction (Verplaetse, 2008). However, few of these novice teachers spoke of using cooperative learning. They need practical skills for setting up groups or pairs and thinking, more broadly, about using oral interaction to scaffold literacy events.

The teachers shared that they were experiencing considerable pressure from administrators to achieve high passing rates on standardized tests. They openly wondered about ways in which they could best prepare their students for these high-stakes assessments. This raises the question, What precisely were their ELLs struggling with on the exams? Was it science vocabulary and concept knowledge, understanding the questions, or lack of time? What would be the most useful preparation for examinations? Specific instruction in test-item analyses might help these teachers better prepare their students for standardized assessments.

Issues with School AdministratorsOne of the most prominent issues raised by the participants was the lack of information

about their ELLs, including prior academic performance, level of English proficiency, and country of origin. Clearly, better communication was necessary to transition these students as seamlessly as possible into English-speaking classrooms, and the teachers needed to be more assertive in gathering information. The teachers were encouraged to initiate targeted discussions about specific ELLs with administrators at the start of the school year, and immediately upon the enrollment of new students. They were also prompted to inquire about ESL support, whether it

47

would be consistently maintained, and what role the ESL teacher could assume inside and outside the classroom.

Time constraints were paramount in the minds of all survey respondents, including those actively engaged in collaboration with ESL teachers, leading us to believe that either the administration was distracted by other factors in its planning or that they did not realize how much time real collaboration requires. We suggested that teachers approach school administration with specific requests for increased time for collaboration, arguing that even with the best professional development and coaching, a lack of time would hinder effective collaboration.

Science Teachers Identifying and Knowing their ELLsSome teachers said they knew of no ELLs in their classrooms. Was it their lack of ability

and experience in recognizing second language learners (either designated or recently exited ELLs who are still learning English), or did the school fail to inform them about the status of their students? Certainly, identifying and assessing ELLs is critical, and this includes distinguishing them from children with special needs. ESL teachers and administrators are key links to providing this baseline information for these science teachers. Another pervasive theme, evident in both survey responses and the focus groups, was that many of these science teachers did not know their ELLs on a personal level nor did they grasp the importance of getting to know their students, something we feel is essential to planning effective instruction. Although ESL teachers can be a resource, the science teachers themselves must take responsibility for getting to know their students and actively seeking the information necessary for designing appropriate instruction.

Knowing their students also involves knowing themselves as teachers, including their own limitations. This is an important focus for any professional development module for novice teachers (Luft & Roehrig, 2005). The teachers often framed comments about ELLs that demonstrated a lack of awareness about second language learning processes and a lack of critical reflection on their own teaching practices. They attributed ELLs’ difficulties with learning to a lack of motivation -- almost exclusively. Only rarely did they mention the cause of disengagement as their own failure to understand the students or their inability to create meaningful learning experiences. For example, they commented that there is “plagiarism and copying among ELLs,” but copying is not universally prohibited and can stem from cultural misunderstandings; students can, unwittingly, use it as a scaffold. Teachers also observed “an unwillingness to write when they can speak instead,” but failed to note that strong oral skills are a vital bridge to writing, nor did they share how they had built on that strength.

Many of these teachers came from affluent households and very different subcultures from the students they served, yet they were hesitant about and sometimes prohibited from engaging in activities such as family visits, which can help bridge cultural gaps. Smith’s (2008) experiences with teachers doing micro-ethnographic research led to a shift in how they positioned themselves vis-à-vis their learners (as learners rather than as teachers). In the future, it would be beneficial to incorporate either a case study of an ELL student or a microethnography into their summer preservice field training.

Implications for Future Professional Development and Research

48

The researchers were pleased with some aspects of the professional development model, particularly having the expertise of both science and TESOL faculty to support teachers and model collaboration. However, the data suggested potential areas for improvement. Although the teachers had incorporated many of our modeled strategies, they needed additional training to refine their techniques. Teachers reported successful use of inquiry-based instruction, modeling academic standards, using a variety of media, promoting metacognition, and encouraging communication in English. We saw particular weaknesses with forming productive relationships with ESL teachers, and with their knowledge about questioning, scaffolding instruction, maintaining rigorous standards, and eliciting information about ELLs.

As we move forward in planning future workshops with these teachers and newly enrolled Teaching Fellows, we will expand our professional development module to include more instruction in advanced teaching techniques. In addition, we will invite school administrators and ESL teachers to join teachers in roundtable discussions on creating sustained, meaningful school-based collaborations. Such efforts might include developing teacher-led orientations for ELLs when they arrive at new schools, or formally assigning teacher teams to evaluate the progress of ELLs throughout their first two years on a consistent basis.

Our experiences with the professional development model strengthened our belief that ELLs will benefit considerably from having a team approach to meeting their evolving individual needs. Our collaborative project is a starting point in fostering communication about effective science instructional practices, addressing teachers’ concerns through group discourse, and promoting interdisciplinary cooperation. Ultimately, we believe our shared expertise will help science teachers in their efforts to promote the academic and linguistic growth of their ELLs.

ReferencesArkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415-433.Brown, B. (2006). It isn’t no slang that can be said about this stuff: Language, identity, and

appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 96-126.Calderón, M. (2007). Teaching reading to English language learners grades 6-12: A framework

for improving achievement in the content areas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Chamot, A.U., & O’Malley, M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive

Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.The City Council of the City of New York. (2004). Lost in Space: Science Education in New

York City Public Schools. New York: The City Council of the City of New York: Committee on Education.

Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617-641.

Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509-531.

Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning, 47, 671-718.

Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 597-616.

49

Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language Education. (2nd ed.). (pp. 71-83). New York: Springer.

Cummins, J. (1981a). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.

Cummins, J. (1981b). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada. A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, l32-l49.

Curtis, H., & Barnes, N. E. (1985). Invitation to biology (4th ed). New York: Worth.Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational

Leadership, 55, 6-11.DelliCarpini, M. (2009). Dialogues across disciplines: Preparing ESL teachers for

interdisciplinary collaboration. Current Issues in Education, 11(2). Available at: http://cie.asu.edu/volume11/index.html

Fathman, A., & Crowther, D. (2006). Teaching science through English and English through science. In A. Fathman & D. Crowther (Eds.), Science for English language learners: K-12 classroom strategies (pp. 3-8). Arlington, VA: National Science Teacher Association Press.

Fathman, A., & Crowther, D. (Eds.) (2006). Science for English language learners: K-12 classroom strategies. Arlington, VA: National Science Teacher Association Press.

Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2009). Academic language for English language learners and struggling readers: How to help students succeed across content areas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gersten, R., Morvant M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children 62(1), 52-66.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2); 247-273.

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English Language Learners: What the research does – and does not – say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-23, 42-44.

Greene, J. P., & Forster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college readiness rates in the United States. New York: Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute. Retrieved July 1, 2009 from http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ewp_03.pdf.

Guthrie, J., & Davis, M. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 9, 59-85.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Kelly, A. M., & Sheppard, K. (2008). Newton in the Big Apple: Access to physics in New York City. The Physics Teacher, 46(5), 280-283.

Kelly, A. M., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Secondary physics availability in a U.S. urban district: Issues related to academic achievement and course offerings. American Journal of Physics, 77(10), 902-906.

Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. New York: Ablex.

50

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ewp_03.pdf

Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361-373.

Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. (2005). Enthusiasm is not enough: Beginning secondary science teachers in primarily Hispanic settings. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 116-126.

Menkin, K. (2009). No Child Left Behind and its effects on language policy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 103-117.

Mohan, B. (2001). The second language as a medium of learning. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp.107-126). Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.

National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubSearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002313.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Highlights from TIMMS. Washington, DC:Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved May 30, 2009, fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999081.pdf.

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA]. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building capacity. Washington, DC: NCELA.

New York Immigration Coalition [NYIC]. (2008). Getting it right: Ensuring a quality education for English language learners in New York. New York: NYIC. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from http://www.thenyic.org/templates/documentFinder.asp?did=967.

New York City Department of Education, Office of English Language Learners. (2007). New York City’s English Language Learners: Demographics and performance. New York: Author. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://schools.nycenet.edu/offices/teachlearn/ell/DemoPerformanceFINAL_10_17.pdf.

Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study. American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Washington, DC.

Redish, E. F., & Steinberg, R. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52, 24-30.

Rueda, R. (1999). Standards for professional development: A sociocultural perspective. Berkeley, CA: Research on Education, Diversity, & Excellence.

Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Vogt, M. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Short, D., & Thier, M. (2006). Perspectives on teaching and integrating English as a second language and science. In A. K. Fathman & D. T. Crowther, (Eds.), Science for English Language Learners: K-12 classroom strategies (pp. 199-219). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Smith, J. (2008). Personalizing culture through microethnography. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 12(3), 149-154.

51

http://schools.nycenet.edu/offices/teachlearn/ell/DemoPerformanceFINAL_10_17.pdf

http://www.thenyic.org/templates/documentFinder.asp?did=967

http://nces.ed.gov/pubSearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002313

Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development of science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37(9), 963-980.

Tate, W. (2001). Science education as a civil right: Urban schools and opportunity to learn considerations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1015-1028.

U. S. Census 2000. (2004). Census 2000 Special Reports: Children and the households they live in: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Verplaetse, L. S. (2008). Developing academic language through an abundance of interaction. In L.S. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.), Inclusive Pedagogy for English Language Learners (pp.176-180). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Verplaetse, L. S., & Migliacci, N. (2008). Making mainstream content comprehensible through sheltered instruction. In L. S. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.), Inclusive Pedagogy for English Language Learners (pp.127-165). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Author BiographiesAngela M. Kelly, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Science Education at Lehman College, City University of New York. Her research interests include science teacher professional development, and access to advanced science in urban secondary schools. Email: [email protected]

Joye Smith, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor of TESOL Education and Chair of the Department of Middle and High School Education at Lehman College, City University of New York. Her research interests include TESOL teacher development, long-term ESL students, and the teaching and learning of grammar. Email: [email protected]

52

Start new pageAppendix A

Preservice Questionnaire of Science Teachers

1. What is your science certification area? 2. Have you ever learned a second language? 3. If you answered "yes" to #2, how did you learn it?

a) Classroomb) Living in another culturec) Parent(s) was bilinguald) Combination of the abovee) Other

4. Have you ever taught science (or any other subject) to English language learners (ELLs)? 5. As a novice teacher, what difficulties do you anticipate your ELLs will have in learning

science content?6. What kinds of collaboration would you like to have with the English as a Second Language

teacher in your school? Check all that apply.a) Noneb) Informal conversationsc) ESL teacher present in my science classroom to help ELLsd) Team teachinge) Collaboratively planning lessons/unitsf) Other

7. What kinds of difficulties do you anticipate with such a collaboration? Check all that apply.a) Lack of timeb) Lack of motivationc) Lack of administrative supportd) ESL teacher not knowing enough sciencee) Other

8. At this point in your teaching career, what questions do you have about teaching science to ELLs?

9. Would you be interested in completing follow-up surveys during the coming school year? If so, please provide your contact information.

53

Start new pageAppendix B

In-Service Questionnaire of Science Teachers

1. What is your science certification area? 2. What areas of science education are you currently teaching? Check all that apply.

a) Life Science/Biologyb) Earth Sciencec) Physicsd) Chemistrye) General Science

3. What grade levels are you currently teaching?4. Do you have English Language Learners (ELLs) in your classroom?

a) Yesb) No

5. What difficulties do you find that your ELLs have in learning science content? Check all that apply.a) Content-specific vocabularyb) Science conceptsc) Instructions/proceduresd) Higher order processes (inference, deduction, analysis) reading the textbooke) Take longer time understanding and processing info.f) Not enough one-on-one help g) Not enough time in classh) Test-taking difficultiesi) Don’t knowj) Other

6. What kinds of collaboration have you experienced with English as a Second Language teacher in your school? Check all that apply.a) Noneb) Informal conversationsc) ESL teacher "pushing in" to my science classroom to help ELLsd) Team teachinge) Collaboratively planning lessons/unitsf) Other

7. What kinds of difficulties have you experienced with such a collaboration? Check all that apply.a) Lack of timeb) Lack of motivationc) Lack of administrative supportd) ESL teacher not knowing enough sciencee) Other

8. At this point in your teaching career, what questions do you have about teaching science to ELLs? (Use the back if you need it.)

54

Start new pageSharing Perspectives

Doctoral Student Socialization: Moving from the Margins to the Center

Lisa S. BircherKatherine O’BrienSandra PechWilliam P. BintzKent State University

AbstractThis article describes the inception, growth, and future plans of the Doctoral Forum, a

grassroots organization focused on supporting and encouraging peer and faculty collaboration among doctoral students in Kent State University's College of Education, Health and Human Services. Forum activities discussed include annual retreats, summer picnics, monthly professional development sessions, a listserv, and website. Experiences from one retreat are highlighted including one literacy educator who shares, as part of a keynote address, a text set of high-quality and award-winning children’s literature that offers important lessons for being a successful doctoral student. Future plans including greater collaboration with faculty and peers are discussed.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning

55

Volume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010 XX

56

Running head from here through last page of this article: Bircher, O’Brien, Pech, and Bintz This article addresses the topic of doctoral student socialization in higher education. It

describes the inception, growth, and future plans of the Doctoral Forum designed to help doctoral students who feel marginalized move themselves from isolation to collaboration within their doctoral programs. The Forum was initially developed in response to student need for greater communication among peers and now serves students across five departments in the College of Education, Health, and Human Services (EHHS) at Kent State University. We begin with the recent research on doctoral socialization. Then, we describe the evolution of this grassroots organization. We conclude with future plans to enable doctoral students to become part of a collaborative community.

Demographic InformationDoctoral students in EHHS at Kent State University are primarily part-time students

(56%) who are in the coursework phase of their departmental programs. Many of these students struggle to balance coursework with full-time employment in public and private K-12 schools. Approximately 30% hold graduate or teaching assistantships in the college and work closely with faculty on research projects, grant proposals, publications, conference presentations, and teaching courses. Unfortunately, the majority of doctoral students feel isolated due to their part-time status and lack of opportunity to collaborate with faculty in the same ways full-time students enjoy.

Clearly, not all students receive the same quality of doctoral socialization. For example, finding a faculty mentor and selecting committee members is often a stressful experience. Many students experience great anxiety in selecting committee members due to the fact that they have little familiarity, much less sustained contact, with a variety of faculty. As a result, many students feel alienated from their own programs. This feeling of alienation is further exacerbated by small doctoral programs that share classes with Master’s level students. Thus, it is not uncommon that a first-semester doctoral student may only know one or two other doctoral students from his or her program.

Research on Doctoral Socialization and Peer Mentorship Socialization has been defined as when “a newcomer is made a member of a community—in the case of graduate students, the community of an academic department in a particular discipline” (Golde, 1998, p. 56). Socialization initiates students into the professional life of a scholar and is crucial to the success of doctoral students across all academic disciplines (Gaff, 2002; Gardner, 2008; Nettles & Millett, 2006). According to Golde (1998), four general tasks must be accomplished by the doctoral student to be successful. These tasks include intellectual mastery, learning about the realities of life as a graduate student, learning about the profession one is preparing for, and integrating oneself into the academic department. Recent research indicates that successful socialization results from the quality of interactions with both faculty and peers as students move through their course of study (Gardner, 2008; Nettles & Millett, 2006; Weidman & Stein, 2003). The Preparing Future Faculty Program is one example of faculty mentorship. It advocates a formal system of mentoring to aid doctoral students in developing abilities to teach, conduct research, and provide service (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). It is based on the notion that a faculty mentor is often “the central and most powerful person” (Lovitts, 2001, p. 131) in a doctoral student’s graduate school experience. “Peer culture” (Schein, 1968, p. 4) has also been recognized as critical to the success of graduate students. Cohorts have been suggested as one method of creating a successful peer culture

57

among graduate students (Bason, Yerkes, Norris, & Barnett, 1996; Erikson, Howard, Borland, & Baker, 2004; Twale & Kochan, 2000; Weidman, Twale, & Stein, 2001). However, peer interactions that occur naturally over the course of graduate study have been identified as more meaningful for individual students and appear to benefit them well into their professional careers (Austin, 2002; Boud & Lee, 2005; Carson & Beale, 2008; Devenish et al., 2009; Gurvitch, Hadjioannou, Shelton, Fu, & Dhanarattigannon, 2007). Peer mentorship is an important form of collaboration between “participants who are roughly equal in terms of age, experience, rank, and/or position along hierarchical levels within their institution” (Angelique, Kyle, & Taylor, 2002, pp. 198-199). Mentors have been described as “guides” that “lead us along the journey of our lives” (Daloz, 1986, p. 17). Although the spontaneous relationships that develop between doctoral students are not formally recognized by the University due to the informal nature of the mentoring (Mullen, 2006), these relationships are critical for the success of students, especially part-time and international students who feel isolated. Research on the impact of informal doctoral mentoring shows that several positive outcomes will result from the experience that students have from these relationships. The outcomes include the following: “opportunity to connect with others, increased feeling of confidence, familial support system, discovery of reciprocal learning, and holistic development as a scholar-practitioner” (Mullen, 2003, pp. 421-422). Indeed, collaborative relationships that are established between peers in the collegiate environment are “quintessentially reacculturative” as well as “quintessentially collaborative” (Bruffee, 1999, p. 9).

The Doctoral Forum at Kent State University builds on this research by emphasizing collaboration with faculty and peer mentorship. Specifically, it reaches out to students in the College of EHHS in an effort to develop sustained interaction between faculty and students. Although much work remains to be done, positive growth has occurred in our college since the inception of the Forum. In the following section, we describe the origin of this grassroots organization.

IsolationI really appreciate your work of connecting doctoral students because otherwise there would be nothing, there would be nothing I would know (part-time doctoral student).

We have a two-tiered system and we (part-time doctoral students) are in tier number two whether we like it or not. You have to live your life as a doctoral student on that basis (part-time doctoral student).

The Doctoral Forum at Kent State University originally grew from class discussions about curricular theory within the Curriculum and Instruction Department. These discussions revealed specific challenges doctoral students were facing. These challenges included a lack of collaboration at all levels, isolation from peers, marginalization of part-time and international students, and a failure to move from the role of student to that of scholar. In response, ten doctoral students, all of whom were in the coursework phase of the Curriculum and Instruction program, decided to develop a study group that would meet outside of the regular class time to address these concerns. These discussions quickly evolved into a student learning community. The learning community expanded its scope in Fall 2005 to include candid and often uncomfortable discussions about the alienation many part-time and international students feel during doctoral studies. These discussions compelled the group to move beyond talk and take

58

action. A retreat was planned off campus to foster the doctoral community in a relaxed environment where all students could participate and share their ideas. The first Doctoral Forum Retreat was held in Fall 2006. Five faculty members and 15 students attended and shared concerns not normally addressed in coursework and advising. These concerns included how to write the curriculum vitae, planning and writing a dissertation, academic publishing, and job search strategies. Based on participant evaluations, the retreat was a resounding success. One of the most important successes noted by students was the opportunity to interact with faculty outside of class for the first time. This was one of the first steps taken by the doctoral learning community that began to invite students into the interactive process of engaging with their peers as well as faculty. Subsequent retreats followed and became a way to introduce new and former students to the opportunities that were available to them as doctoral students. After the first Doctoral Forum Retreat, the Doctoral Socialization Committee was formed. It comprised two faculty members and two doctoral students. The Doctoral Forum was registered as an official University student organization and plans were made for future events including monthly professional development sessions. The purpose remained clear: create a community where doctoral students could experience both faculty and peer mentorship and create an environment conducive to collaboration and professional development.

InclusionJust completing my coursework and anticipating comprehensive exams has raised the level of my anxiety about this whole process. The Forum allowed me to experience support and guidance as well as practical information and wisdom about this journey. Thank you for initiating these programs so that the spirit of community permeates the experience. My journey has been very lonely and quite different from my masters' and undergraduate experiences. I look forward to attending more of these forums (part-time doctoral student).

Part-timers don't have the luxury of anything. You do what you can do. And that was all I could do was hang around, so I just kept hanging around (part-time doctoral student).

The Doctoral Forum continued to meet and plan upcoming events. A blog page was created online where students could post thoughts, questions, and experiences they were having in their doctoral program. The purpose of this was to facilitate collaborative communications between members of the learning community between professional development sessions and retreats. In 2007, a summer picnic was attended by doctoral students and faculty. However, after the picnic, the group faced two significant challenges. One was finding sufficient financial support to continue as a student organization; another was leadership. Many doctoral students expressed interest in coordinating events but were unable or unwilling to assume leadership roles in the organization. Although frustrated, the leaders persevered and planned the second Doctoral Forum Retreat for Fall 2007. A total of twenty-three students and eight faculty attended. This retreat, like the first, was also successful for two reasons. First, the attendance of students and faculty increased. Second, the Forum experienced a change in leadership when the original organizers stepped down to concentrate on their comprehensive exams and dissertations. Two doctoral students at the beginning of their programs volunteered to be coordinators. These new coordinators were

59

committed to continuing the mission of the Forum-- to keep doctoral students communicating and collaborating with one another.

OutreachLately my problem is that it is not easy to catch the conversation related on the book or classroom discussion. Most of international students seem like me. I'm not good the English listener… I need critical and careful friends to be open minded to each other in the academic and in the life (full-time international doctoral student).

I was really lost when I started my doctorate in the fall of 2006; I was just taking classes with little thought to the future. When I got connected to the Doctoral Forum Group, I received the direction that I needed through interaction with my peers… I believe many of my fellow students do not make these connections and fall through the cracks. It is sad to hear those stories. I really think all doctoral students can benefit from having sustained and consistent interaction with others, both faculty and other students (part-time doctoral student).

The new coordinators of the Doctoral Forum, with the help of the original leadership team, were able to offer four Saturday professional development sessions during the 2007-08 academic year for all doctoral students in EHHS, not just Curriculum and Instruction students. These sessions were well attended and resulted in lively and productive discussions about topics rarely addressed in doctoral coursework. These topics included creating a productive line of inquiry in research, using technology to aid research, writing for publication, submitting proposals and delivering presentations at professional conferences, and interviewing for university teaching positions. These sessions allowed students who were currently isolated with dissertation writing to finally engage in peer mentorship. As part of the Saturday-morning sessions, students had the opportunity to meet and talk with other students. Areas of interest and topics of research were discussed allowing students to find others with similar interests or research methodologies. Several exchanged emails and others made plans to get together outside of the Forum gatherings. In addition, students who were just beginning doctoral coursework or approaching comprehensive exams also benefitted from the insight of those who had “been there.”

As knowledge about the Doctoral Forum grew among the faculty, graduate students who were near the end of their coursework or in the dissertation phase were invited to speak to Residency I and II courses. The purpose of Residency I is to initiate students into the doctoral journey and familiarize them with their program; Residency II serves as a capstone course. In both courses, personal experiences and bits of wisdom were shared while connections were made between those beginning coursework and those who had successfully made it through the various stages of the journey through the doctoral program. In fall of 2008, the Doctoral Forum began its third year with another retreat and several scheduled Saturday professional development sessions. As part of the process to grow and expand collaboration with faculty, the student representatives of the Doctoral Forum committee attended one of the first faculty meetings of the school year and explained the work of the Forum. Faculty was then invited to participate and share their expertise at either the retreat or the professional development sessions. For example, one of the faculty (Author Four) delivered the keynote address at the retreat “Lessons Learned from Children’s Literature on Being a

60

Successful Doctoral Student.” The speaker, a literacy educator whose research interests deal with using high-quality and award-winning children’s literature to teach reading, writing, and content-area material across the curriculum, used a collection of engaging children’s books to identify enduring lessons for being a successful doctoral student. The list of books, a summary of each work, and the lessons learned are included in the appendix. The Doctoral Forum’s co-coordinators visited faculty meetings to share the group’s progress, to continue to highlight the challenges of the graduate students, and restate the need for collaboration. Several faculty members were interested in presenting at Saturday professional development sessions on topics ranging from writing dissertation proposals to writing vitaes in preparation for job searches. While this faculty involvement was welcomed, it still failed to create collaborative research relationships between faculty and doctoral students.

CollaborationMy concern is that the part-time student has to operate on a somewhat different plane in order to acquire the richness of scholarship that should accompany a Ph.D. Building a vita through professional experiences, while attainable, is far more challenging for a part-time student (part-time doctoral student).

I feel like I am never going to get through coursework and dissertation because I don’t even have anyone to work with me, no mentor (part-time doctoral student).

Although the Doctoral Forum has many future directions, its primary goal is to aid in thesocialization and professional development of doctoral students. We believe this goal will be best achieved through enhanced collaboration with faculty and peers. In the past three years, a doctoral community has been created within the College of EHHS. The next step is to take the existing social network further and build meaningful professional collaborations which will enhance students’ credentials and prepare them for academic careers.

Currently, most members of the Doctoral Forum are engaged in conversation with peers and faculty, but they have not begun to collaborate with others. The exception is the forum’s co-coordinators who have written this article and presented at state conferences with one faculty member. These important experiences, however, should not be isolated to the leadership of the Doctoral Forum. It is our goal for the coming year to help all members experience meaningful levels of collaboration.

To this end, the Forum will continue to promote faculty and peer interaction and tostrengthen its presence as a student organization. In particular, it will continue to support students who voice their concerns about doctoral socialization. One major concern is not every doctoral student has a faculty mentor. Therefore, many students rely on their peers for insights about the process, such as awareness of timelines (When is it due?), research support services (Where can they be found?), and university contacts (Who can help me?). The Doctoral Forum will also continue to reach out to faculty because unfortunately, not all faculty in the college are aware of the group’s efforts or students’ concerns. By establishing stronger communication, we hope to extend the EHHS learning community and create an environment conducive to faculty mentorship and peer collaboration. In addition to visiting faculty meetings and utilizing an established listserv, plans have been made to create a matrix of faculty research interests and methods so that students can seek out faculty researchers with similar interests and engage in collaborative research and learning. Our newly created website

61

will aid in this process by profiling faculty research interests and research initiatives within the College of EHHS. While we hope to increase mentoring between faculty and students, the Doctoral Forum’s scope is much wider. Most of our doctoral students depend on their peers to provide encouragement and guidance. To increase peer mentorship, we will use our listserv and website to invite doctoral students into our learning community, especially those unable to attend on-campus events. We plan to form peer research and writing groups, both in-person and online. Also, we will make a greater effort to reach out to new doctoral students through classroom visitation and orientation activities and updating the Forum’s listserv each semester.

To increase our campus presence, we plan to pursue grant opportunities to defray the cost of the annual retreat. In previous years, we’ve found that even a nominal registration fee has acted as a deterrent to participation. We will also continue to advocate for a physical meeting place on campus where doctoral students may receive information and socialize with other EHHS doctoral students. Finally, we have purchased copies of What They Didn’t Teach You in Graduate School: 199 Helpful Hints for Success in Your Academic Career (Gray & Drew, 2008) to distribute to participants of the Fall 2009 Retreat and will incorporate chapter discussions as part of our professional development sessions throughout the academic year.

Final ThoughtsAlthough a relatively young organization, the Doctoral Forum in the College of

Education, Health, and Human Services at Kent State University has made great progress in just three short years. What began as a class discussion has grown into a successful, student-led organization which empowers graduate students by socializing them to academia through professional development, peer and faculty mentoring, and opportunities for collaboration.

ReferencesAngelique, H., Kyle, K., & Taylor, E. (2002). Mentors and muses: New strategies for academic success. Innovative Higher Education, 26(3), 195-209.Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122.Basom, M., & Yerkes, D. (1996). Using cohorts as a means for developing transformational leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 6(1), 99-112. Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). 'Peer learning' as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501-516. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Devenish, R., Dyer, S., Jefferson, T., Lord, L., van Leeuwen, S., & Fazakerley, V. (2009). Peer to peer support: The disappearing work in the doctoral student experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 59-70.Dyer, S. (2002). Five little fiends. New York: Bloomsbury Children’s Books.Erickson, J. L., Howard, R. D., Borland, K. W., & Baker, L. J. (2004). Full-time leaders/ part-time learners: Doctoral programs for administrators with multiple priorities. Lanham, Maryland: ScarecrowEducation.

62

Eversole, R. (1995). Floodfish. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.Gaff, J.G. (2002). Preparing future faculty and doctoral education. Change

(November/December), 63-66. Gardner, S. K. (2008). "What's too much and what's too little?": The process of becoming an

independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326-350.

Golde, C. M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition.In M. S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration (Vol. XXVI, pp. 55-64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gray, P., & Drew, D.E. (2008). What they didn't teach you in graduate school: 199 helpful hints for success in your academic career. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Gurvich, R., Carson, R. L., & Beale, A. (2008). Being a protege: An autoethnographic view of three teacher education doctoral programs. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16(3), 246-262. Hadjioannou, X., Fu, D., & Shelton, N. R. (2007). The road to a doctoral degree: Co- travelers through a perilous passage. College Student Journal, 41(1), 160-177.Jeffers, O. (2006). The incredible book eating boy. New York: HarperCollins.Knowles, S. (1998). Edward the emu. New York: HarperCollins.Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from

doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Merriam, E. (1999). The wise woman and her secret. New York: Aladdin.Mullen, C. A. (2003). The WIT cohort: a case study of informal doctoral mentoring. Journal of Further & Higher Education, 27(4), 411.Mullen, C. A. (2006). A graduate student guide: Making the most of mentoring. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore, MD:

The Johns Hopkins University Press.Rylant, C. (1988). All I see. New York: Orchard Books.Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Gaff, J. G. (2004). Preparing future faculty: Changing the culture of doctoral education. In D. H. Wulff & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 177- 193). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Say, A. (2000). The sign painter. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company. Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9(2), 1-16. Twale, D. J., & Kochan, F. K. (2000). Assessment of an alternative cohort model for part- time students in an educational leadership program. Journal of School Leadership, 10(2), 188-208.Watson, J. (1989). Grandpa’s slippers. New York: Scholastic.Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms.

Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641-656. Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Author Biographies

63

Lisa S. Bircher, M.S., is a doctoral candidate studying Curriculum and Instruction at Kent State University. Her research interests include science education, literacy and science education and doctoral student socialization. Email: [email protected].

Katherine F. O’Brien, M.Ed., is a doctoral student studying Curriculum and Instruction at Kent State University. Her research interests include the teaching of writing, community colleges, and graduate student socialization. Email: [email protected].

Sandra Pech is currently the Early Childhood Education coordinator and an instructor at Kent State University at the Tuscarawas campus. Her dissertation topic focuses on the importance of teacher-student relationships and how they impact the social-emotional climate of classrooms. She also has interests in teacher education, inquiry based curriculum that supports the holistic development of students, and the cognitive neurosciences as they relate to education. Email: [email protected].

William P. Bintz, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Literacy Education in the Department of Teaching, Leadership and Curriculum at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. His research interests include literature-based reading and writing instruction across the curriculum, K-12, and classroom-based teacher research. Email: [email protected].

64

Start new pageAppendix

Engaging Books, Enduring Lessons

1. Five Little Fiends (Dyer, 2002) tells the story of five fiends who love their environment and decide to take different parts of it as their own. One takes the land, one the sun, one the moon, one the sea, and one the sky. They give them back when they realize that their parts can’t survive on their own because they are interrelated. In the end they learn that real beauty comes from seeing the whole, not just the parts.

Lesson Learned: Learning is social, but knowing is personal. Doctoral students need to actively seek potential collaborators and learn to collaborate with them. A team of learners is always more powerful than individual learners themselves. Also, in terms of coursework, students should see courses, not as individual entities, but as interconnected experiences and the connections between courses as potential lines of inquiry.

2. Edward the Emu (Knowles, 1998) is the story of Edward who is tired of his life as an emu. He decides to try being something else. He swims with seals, lounges with lions, and slithers with snakes. He discovers that being an emu is the best thing after all. So, he goes back to his pen and finds Edwina, an emu who was brought to the zoo to take Edward’s place. In the end they become friends and Edward learns that being himself is best for him.

Lesson Learned: Doctoral students should try on different perspectives once in awhile. That is, they should look at lines of inquiry from multiple perspectives, particularly from perspectives different from the one they are most comfortable with at the time. This is important because being able to understand the perspective of others helps them better understand their own. Also, students should consider the power and potential of perspective when they are thinking about and ultimately selecting faculty members to serve as members of their doctoral committee. Specifically, they should think about the contribution that perspective will make to their current and future thinking.

3. All I See (Rylant, 1988) is a fascinating story of a boy named Charlie who summers at a lake. One day he sees a man named Gregory painting pictures on the shore of the lake. Now and then Gregory takes breaks from painting by drifting in his canoe out on the lake with his cat, Stella. When he is gone, Charlie peaks at Gregory’s paintings and always sees the same thing: blue whales. One day Gregory invites Charlie to paint with him on the shore. Charlie and Gregory stand side-by-side painting. Finally, Charlie asks Gregory why he paints only blue whales and he says: “It is all I see.”

Lesson Learned: Doctoral students need to value mentorship and look for mentors who will share their intellectual life with them. Students should always remember to select mentors who they want to think with.

4. The Sign Painter (Say, 2000) is a provocative story about a young man who aspires to be a painter. One day he arrives in an unfamiliar town looking for work. There, he meets a sign painter and agrees to help him paint a series of billboards in the desert. Each billboard is the

65

same and advertises a magnificent structure named Arrowstar. The boy finishes the job and returns to the town but now understands that painting and painting signs is not the same thing.

Lesson Learned: Basically, sign painters paint the same image, over and over again. Artists, however, create and paint new images; each one is different. Doctoral students need to be artists with their scholarship. In order to do this, they need to be risk-takers. One way for them to start is to surround themselves with risk-takers. They also should remember that doing research can be a transformative act, both for the researcher and the researched. It can be, and should be, a life-altering experience.

5. The Wise Woman and Her Secret (Merriam, 1999) tells the story of a woman who is so wise that people come from far and wide to learn the secret of her wisdom. They search but find no secret. Finally, a little girl named Jenny appears. She is a curious child who effortlessly wonders about things. In the process she discovers the secret that everyone else has missed: to live is to always wonder and wander, and if you do you, too, you will become a wise person.

Lesson Learned: The secret of wisdom and the impetus for research is to be curious. Doctoral students should not be in a blind hurry to quickly find a dissertation topic. Rather, they should be rigorously and systematically exploring potential lines of inquiry that could be the focus of their life’s work. They should spend time wandering and wondering, and never dismiss or underestimate a preliminary impression, hunch, or half-formed thought. Often, they are the seeds to powerful ideas.

6. The Incredible Book Eating Boy (Jeffers, 2006) is about a boy who loved to eat all sorts of books. The more books he ate the smarter he got. He ate so many books that one day he became ill. He was eating many books so quickly that he didn’t have time to digest them. Everything he was learning was getting confused. Once day he found a half-eaten book but, instead of eating it, he began to read it. Suddenly he discovered that he loved to read and now reads all the time.

Lesson Learned: Reflection is critical to learning and researching. Doctoral students need to be thoughtful and reflective. Both are generative and can create surprising, unexpected insights.

7. Flood Fish (Eversole, 1995) is a mystery about a fascinating natural phenomenon that occurs each year in the Australian Outback. In the Northern Territory the Finke River is usually a dry bed. But when the rains come it fills with much water and huge fish. Scientists are puzzled about where the fish come from. They only have hypotheses: maybe fish swim across the flooded land from billabongs (watering holes) or perhaps fish lay eggs that survive droughts in the damp sand and earth of soakage areas. Scientists ask: if eggs hatch with the rains, how can the fish be so big only a day or two later? The possibilities are intriguing and research continues on the mystery of the flood fish.

Lesson Learned: Doctoral students should understand that a powerful line of inquiry can be triggered by an intriguing question, curiosity, observing a mystery, or detecting an anomaly.

66

8. Grandpa’s Slippers (Watson, 1989) tells the story of Grandma who feels Grandpa needs new slippers. His old ones are falling to bits. Grandpa disagrees. He likes his old slippers just the way they are. Grandma buys him a new pair but he refuses to wear them. She hides his old slippers in the attic, but he finds them. She puts them in the garbage can but he retrieves them. She puts them in the compost heap, but he discovers them. One day his old slippers fall apart and he is forced to wear the new ones. Grandpa discovers that they fit fine and are quite comfortable. Grandma then says that he needs a new sweater.

Lesson Learned: Research methodology is important. Doctoral students need to know that epistemology is also important. They need to think about and reflect on the epistemological position they take on teaching, learning, and researching.

67

Start new pageEducational Leadership and School Counselor Education Programs Collaborating to Close PreK-12 Achievement, Opportunity, and Attainment Gaps

Janet R. DeSimoneTamisha M. BouknightStuart F. Chen-HayesLehman College, City University of New York

AbstractThe importance of strengthening preservice collaboration to close PreK-12 achievement,

opportunity and attainment gaps between Educational Leadership (EDL) and School Counselor Education (SCE) graduate programs is addressed. Opportunities exist within EDL and SCE graduate programs to develop and refine collaborative skills of future principals and school counselors. Activities that increase leadership candidates' knowledge of principal and transformative school counselor roles; strengthen EDL and SCE candidate advocacy, collaboration, program development and data assessment skills; and create mutual understanding and an exchange of ideas between preservice principals and school counselors are discussed.


68

Running head from here to end of this article is: DeSimone, Bouknight, and Chen-HayesIntroduction

Collaboration is a central component in increasing school effectiveness and student achievement for all school staff, including principals, teachers and school counselors (Hatch & Bowers, 2005; Stone & Dahir, 2006). Although an effective principal can impact the academic success of a school profoundly, many stakeholders need to unite in the school vision and mission and collaborate in creating, maintaining and evaluating a learning environment promoting academic, career, college and personal/social success for every student. However, collaboration may not come naturally to everyone; it is a skill often needing practice, strengthening and encouragement (Stone & Dahir, 2006).

Since many individuals pursuing educational leadership (EDL) degrees come from teaching backgrounds, often EDL candidates struggle with expanding leadership perspectives beyond the role of classroom teachers to include close collaboration and shared leadership with other integral educational stakeholders (e.g., school counselors, special education service groups, parents and guardians). Similarly, while many school counselor candidates come from non-teaching and non-leadership positions outside of schools, school counselor education candidates benefit from regular in-class activities and field experiences in schools with teacher and building leader candidates united in equity assessment using data and advocacy for the success of all students.

While instructional leadership and closing achievement gaps are the main priority of transformative principals, fostering collaboration with all school constituents is an equally important principal role that guarantees a PreK-12 school operates effectively and successfully and ensures that all stakeholders, including teachers and school counselors, feel valued and have an essential shared role in creating, maintaining and evaluating effective school policies, practices and programs for all students. Similarly, transformative school counselors’ primary goal is to ensure academic, career, college and personal/social competencies are delivered in a school counseling program for every student annually, in each PreK-12 grade level, to help close achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps (Bailey, Getch, & Chen-Hayes, 2007; Chen-Hayes, 2007; Holcomb-McCoy, 2007; Stone & Dahir, 2006).

Principals' Perceptions of School Counselor RolesResearch has shown that principals have many misperceptions about the professional role

of school counselors and the tasks and duties they should perform within a school setting (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Dollarhide, Smith, & Lemberger, 2007; Leuwerke, Walker, & Shi, 2009). Although school counselors often possess the skills and knowledge needed to assist with exposing and closing the achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps that permeate many rural, urban and suburban schools, instead, often school counselors are forced to spend their time on scheduling, clerical, crisis and disciplinary tasks (Hatch & Bowers, 2005). The main problem is that principals are not well educated on the varied skills possessed by counselors and the essential role they play in closing gaps in schools through implementing school counseling programs that deliver academic, career, college and personal/social competencies to every student (Chen-Hayes, 2007). Therefore, principals often do not know how to make effective use of counselors' talents (Musheno & Talbert, 2002) or how to involve them in helping effect change in schools as advocates and leaders. Principals better understand and are more comfortable with the role of teachers, unless they have been school counselors; principals know that when they put teachers in a classroom, their main responsibility is to educate the students.

69

However, school counselors often have been a mystifying presence in schools, and for principals, school counselors' duties are not as tangible as teachers. Since principals often are not sure what school counselors are capable of, principals misuse counselors as quasi-administrators to help release them (or their assistant principals) from more mundane duties and burden counselors with organizational and administrative duties (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Leuwerke et al., 2009). Other principals misuse counselors as babysitters and crisis managers. Both strategies are equally outmoded and do nothing to allow school counselors to help close achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps. There is no educational research that supports the use of counselors as disciplinarians, crisis managers and high-paid clerks to help schools close the various existing gaps.

In a national survey sent to principals, Pérusse, Goodnough, Donegan, and Jones (2004) found that more than 80 percent of secondary school principals believed that the following duties were appropriate for counselors: registration and scheduling, filing and tracking student records and test administration. Such tasks are deemed inappropriate according to best practices cited in the American School Counseling Association (ASCA) National Model (Hatch and Bowers, 2005; Leuwerke et al., 2009).

Research has revealed a disconnect between principals' perceptions of school counselors’ roles and school counselors' self-perceptions of their roles (Pérusse et al., 2004). As Monteiro-Leitner, Asner-Self, Milde, Leitner, and Skelton (2006) stated, "school counselor role confusion is not new; rather it has been a chronic and unresolved issue" (Discussion section, ¶ 1) for a long time (Aubrey, 1973, 1977, as cited in Monteiro-Leitner et al., 2006). In other words, principals view school counselors very differently than counselors view themselves.

Research on principals’ perceptions of school counselors and appropriate job tasks showed that principals often underutilize or misuse school counselors, instead of seeing them as collaborative partners and leaders in academic achievement advocacy and closing gaps through delivering academic, career, college and personal/social competencies in transformative school counseling programs (Bailey et al., 2007). Results of survey and qualitative studies administered to principals, counselors and counselors-in-training showed that principals believed that counselors should spend some time involved in disciplinary functions such as bus, hall and/or lunch duty, but counselors and counselors-in-training thought that these duties should not be part of their jobs (Monteiro-Leitner et al., 2006). Further, principals thought that counselors should spend more time involved in testing students, whereas the counselors believed they should spend half the amount the principals thought (Monteiro-Leitner et al., 2006). Finally, results also showed that some of the counselors were required to perform clerical, administrative and disciplinary duties, as well as covering classes for teachers (Amatea & Clark, 2006; Monteiro-Leitner et al., 2006).

Through a survey of school administrators-in-training, Fitch, Newby, Ballestero, and Marshall (2001) found that more than one-fourth of the respondents rated disciplining students as a significant or highly significant task for school counselors. Further, more than half of the school administrators-in-training rated keeping records and registration as significant or highly significant tasks for school counselors. Since research has indicated that even preservice principals do not seem to be aware of the role of the transformed school counselor, it is not surprising that many practicing principals require school counselors to perform inappropriate tasks and do not provide them with adequate support.

A recent national survey of school counselors and principals revealed certain characteristics reported to be predictive of effective school counselor-principal relationships

70

(College Board, 2009). Communication, sharing information, shared vision and mutual trust and respect were some of the characteristics found to be predictive of collaborative, working relationships between principals and school counselors. Further analysis revealed that both principals and school counselors ranked respect and communication as the two most important features of an effective principal-school counselor relationship (Finkelstein, 2009). However, while principals ranked high the need for respect for their own vision and goals, school counselors ranked high the need for personal respect of their expertise (Finkelstein, 2009). Results clearly indicate the need for principals and school counselors to sustain a shared vision, to understand roles and expertise, and to build a collaborative partnership in order to improve student outcomes.

Since it often is difficult to change completely an individual's practice, it is imperative to comprehensively educate principals-in-training on the role of the transformed school counselor and focus efforts on changing misperceptions at the preservice level before such misperceptions impact practice. Research has shown that the best time to educate principals on school counselor roles is while they are enrolled in EDL programs (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Pérusse, Goodnough, & Bouknight, 2007; Ross & Herrington, 2005-2006).

Research on Collaboration between Educational Leadership and School Counselor Education Graduate Programs

There is not much research that has addressed the ways that EDL and school counselor education (SCE) graduate programs can increase contact and communication between preservice principals and school counselors. Existing literature has discussed creating a seminar course between preservice principals and school counselors, where the groups engaged in problem-solving activities (Shoffner & Williamson, 2000); developing an interactive CD-ROM to increase understanding of the professional roles of each job (Shoffner & Briggs, 2001); and running a four-hour class where both groups were brought together to dialogue on their respective roles (Rambo-Igney & Grimes- Smith, 2005-2006). The researchers found that all of these strategies were somewhat helpful in increasing role awareness and school perspectives of both groups. In their qualitative study involving school administrators’ perceptions of the school counselor role, Amatea and Clark’s findings (2005) suggest that uniting preservice EDL, SCE, and teacher candidates through seminars and field experiences may promote mutual understanding, as well as strengthen collaboration between all three groups. Most recently, Pérusse and colleagues (2007) surveyed SCE faculty on how they collaborated with EDL faculty. Their results indicated that more than half of the school counselor educators who responded indicated that they collaborate with their EDL colleagues on activities such as guest speaking in one another's classes, joint classes with leadership and school counseling candidates and class assignments.

EDL and SCE Graduate Programs: Background Our university has offered a 48-credit graduate program in counseling since the late

1960s. In 2002, the program was renamed Counselor Education/School Counseling, and every course of the required 14 was refocused from a generic counseling theme to a focus on transformed school counseling in texts and instructional objectives to help close gaps; preservice experience in schools was increased to 750 hours of internship, practicum and pre-practica. The SCE transformation of curriculum, admissions and mission statement into one focused on closing achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps resulted from a 1999 partnership with The

71

Education Trust’s National Center for Transforming School Counseling (NCTSC), and more recently, a 2006 partnership with the National Office for School Counselor Advocacy at the College Board to ensure every school counselor candidate has college readiness skills for all PreK-12 students and their parents and guardians. School counselor candidates learn the ASCA National Model program framework (Hatch & Bowers, 2005) and demonstrate action plans, reports, and program audits showing their outcome results in closing achievement and opportunity gaps (Hatch & Bowers, 2005; Holcomb-McCoy, 2007); in their practicum and internship class assignments of group counseling, individual counseling, developmental school counseling curriculum lessons; and through career and college readiness activities using evidence-based practices (Dimmitt, Carey, & Hatch, 2007). The SCE program was nationally recognized when accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), for an eight-year cycle that began in 2008. The SCE program's mission is to develop culturally competent, caring and qualified professional school counselors within a PreK-12 urban educational framework, and SCE courses emphasize an integration of theory and practice as students develop their abilities to promote social justice and human rights advocacy in their scholarly, clinical practice and action research experiences.

The EDL graduate program, begun in 2007, unites both the development of schools and the development of educational leaders through preparing individuals as catalysts for school change and improved PreK-12 student performance. The program’s mission is to cultivate culturally sensitive, caring, and competent leaders who are committed to and passionate about closing achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps in schools. EDL courses integrate practice with theory and emphasize critical thinking, reflection and problem solving with a strong emphasis on early and regular field experiences in schools.

EDL and SCE Graduate Programs: Collaboration in PracticeProgram and Curriculum Development Input from SCE Faculty

Our SCE faculty have been highly aware of the challenges school counseling graduates face as they enter schools and begin working for principals who have little or no awareness of the transformed role of school counselors and school counseling programs focused on delivering academic, career, college, and personal/social competencies to all students in every grade annually, with a focus on equity and closing gaps for all students. Regardless of the exceptional training provided to SCE candidates, our candidates recognize that once they take on positions in schools, the principals are the people who have the single most authority to impact and frame the job roles of school counselors in a state where there is no agreed upon definition of school counselor roles and responsibilities. Further, research has indicated that effective, collaborative principal-counselor relationships have a great effect on student outcomes, including closing the academic achievement gap (Finkelstein, 2009). These insights greatly influenced the development of our EDL program and the continued collaboration between the EDL and SCE programs.

The first collaborative activity that the EDL and SCE graduate programs engaged in was creating the EDL program and curriculum. We knew, as we developed the EDL program, that we had the opportunity and the responsibility to shape preservice principals' perceptions of school counselors, by embedding transformative school counseling content and collaborative opportunities between EDL and SCE candidates within the leadership curriculum to ensure that our principals-in-training were exposed to this critical material alongside other important skills such as budgeting, instructional observations and data analysis. During the development of the

72

EDL graduate program, our EDL and SCE faculty worked closely to include the necessary transformative school counselor education content that would raise preservice principals' awareness and increase their shared roles in promoting academic achievement and closing achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps.

Guest SpeakingEDL and SCE faculty guest speaking and shared classes between EDL and SCE

candidates are effective instructional methods used by graduate programs to familiarize students on principals' and school counselors' roles (Pérusse et al., 2007). One of the required courses for our EDL candidates focuses on collaborating with all school stakeholders. In this course, EDL candidates learn about the roles, needs and challenges of the school community (both inside and outside the building) and ways to work productively with the various stakeholders who clearly contribute to school effectiveness; emphasis is placed on various school constituents and staff roles other than teachers. Many preservice principals come from the classroom and are familiar with teacher perspectives and roles and need to expand their point of view and recognize that a school is comprised of many different individuals, with various responsibilities and needs, who all contribute to student growth.

A major emphasis is placed on covering the role of transformed school counseling throughout this course. Required readings include articles that address the ASCA National Model for School Counseling programs; the Transforming School Counseling Initiative out of the Education Trust’s NCTSC; the best practices of school counselors and PreK-12 schools in creating college readiness environments that graduate large numbers of poor and working class students into college admissions, derived from evidence-based research studies funded by the National Office for School Counselor Advocacy at The College Board and research partners including the Center for School Counseling Outcome Research (Dimmit et al., 2007); appropriate tasks and roles for school counselors; and principals' misperceptions of school counselors. In addition, a SCE faculty member teaches the EDL candidates and establishes a strong foundation on which they can begin to build their perceptions of the equity and access for all students, focused on the transformed school counselor role. This is important for two reasons: first, the SCE faculty is providing relevant, critical school counselor education content for the EDL candidates; and second, the EDL and SCE faculty model collaboration (through team teaching) for the EDL candidates, and the modeling of faculty collaboration serves as a highly powerful instructional tool for principal and school counselor candidates.

When Leuwerke et al. (2009) surveyed school principals on their knowledge of the ASCA National Model school counseling framework program (Hatch & Bowers, 2005), they found that principals who were aware of the ASCA Model—even from brief training—had a much stronger idea of the school counselor’s appropriate roles and functions. Providing our leadership candidates in-depth information on the ASCA National Model, at the preservice level, fosters greater awareness once these individuals assume principal positions.

Joint Class Projects and AssignmentsWithin the first two semesters of the EDL graduate program, we try to bring together

some of our EDL and SCE candidates. In the EDL introduction course, the candidates have an in-basket activity with one section that requires them to address difficult situations (through role-playing scenarios) with various school constituents (e.g., parents, school staff). We have brought EDL and SCE classes together where the SCE candidates role play with the EDL candidates.

73

This activity proved beneficial for both groups because the EDL candidates were able to practice their communication, negotiation and decision-making skills regarding real school issues, and the SCE candidates strengthened their understanding of conflict resolution skills by being asked to critique the methods the EDL candidates used to handle the varied issues and complaints. Another benefit, perhaps more important, was the interaction between the two groups. It is our belief that making time for EDL and SCE candidates to connect has increased the comfort level between the two groups and has contributed to a stronger mutual understanding.

We also have united EDL and SCE candidates through assignments. In the developmental school counseling course, SCE candidates are required to create a website that showcases the school counseling program academic, career, college, and personal/social competencies and services they provide for schools. From a principal's perspective, EDL students were asked to critique the SCE program content and design and to provide feedback on ways to improve how the SCE candidates’ websites conveyed the SCE program mission, competencies and goals. This joint assignment was useful in three ways: first, the SCE candidates gained valuable and objective feedback on the content of their websites; second, the EDL candidates learned about transformative school counseling programs in action, by reading SCE candidates’ website information, specific to PreK-12 schools; and third, both groups of candidates were given practice working together on a project with deadlines, a scenario they will encounter regularly working together in schools. Joint assignments and activities are important components to developing mutual understanding of roles and practicing collaboration and communication between school counseling and educational leadership students (Amatea & Clark, 2005; Rambo-Igney & Grimes-Smith, 2005-2006).

EDL and SCE Graduate Programs: Future Directions for CollaborationSince our EDL program is only in its second year, we have not had the opportunity to

explore and implement all of our ideas on collaboration between EDL and SCE programs. Moving forward, we plan on expanding our prior activities and testing new methods for increasing collaboration between preservice principals and school counselors. The following are some activities we are pursuing, which also can be explored easily by all EDL and SCE programs.

Creating Principal-School Counselor Opportunities to Dialogue Although we have created opportunities for our EDL and SCE candidates to interact

through shared classes or joint projects, the interaction has been irregular and more infrequent than we desire. Since the collaborative opportunities we have provided, to date, seem to have yielded broader perspectives and increased awareness of school counselor roles, one of our goals is to foster more sustained dialogue between EDL and SCE candidates. Our hope is that increased dialogue will expand the perspectives of both groups. More frequent chances for EDL and SCE candidates to sit together and share general information, goals and philosophies on education and student success is a simple activity and one that all EDL and SCE programs can implement.

Shared EDL/SCE Orientation SessionsEDL and SCE faculty also have discussed running a joint orientation session, each fall, to

welcome new EDL and SCE candidates, which we plan on implementing for the next admission period. New candidate orientation provides a chance for both programs, before coursework even

74

begins, to establish a collaborative tone between the two groups of candidates and to emphasize the importance of both groups working together within a graduate classroom environment, in order to more effectively work together within a school environment. Pre-practicum, Practicum, and Internship Activities

EDL and SCE faculty are strategizing new ways to support collaboration between EDL and SCE candidates at the internship level. Currently, as a component of their internship requirement, EDL candidates must complete 15 hours directly working with a counseling program in a PreK-12 school. In addition, in some courses, EDL candidates have to spend specific hours completing leadership experiences that are related to school counseling such as interviewing and collecting information from a working school counselor. These requirements are another way EDL faculty try to increase the awareness of preservice principals regarding school counselor professional roles. Right now, the EDL candidates can complete their required hours working with any school counselor.

During the first year in the SCE program, SCE candidates, in their beginning pre-practicum, go into a school and interview the following: building leader; a counselor; a parent or guardian; a teacher; and a student, to discuss the views of the school counseling program from different school stakeholders. Students are then able to write a paper critiquing the school counseling program on four levels using the Academic, Career, College, Emotional, and Social Skills (ACCESS) Questionnaire (Chen-Hayes, 2007). The information provided from the ACCESS questionnaire also allows the students to examine a variety of issues, including school counselor roles and professional identity; school counselor and building leader collaborations; how the school counseling program addresses career and college readiness and helps close achievement and opportunity gaps; and multicultural and social justice issues.

EDL and SCE faculty are in discussions about ways that both programs could also match preservice EDL and SCE candidates in pre-practicum, practicum and internship experiences that are shared by both groups of candidates. In other words, EDL and SCE candidates would be grouped or teamed (e.g., either those from the same school or same type of school – elementary, middle, high) to complete pre-practicum, practicum and internship activities and tasks that require them to work together in actual schools on authentic problems related to closing achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps (Chen-Hayes, 2007). Through this type of problem-based learning, candidates would be exposed to the actual challenges they would encounter as future principals and school counselors.

Joint Seminars, Workshops, and Team ProjectsWe are also in the process of creating shared workshop and seminar experiences for EDL

and SCE candidates that would commence on a yearly basis. These seminars would focus on school-related issues/themes and would be taught by several different members of the school and university community, serving as a further collaboration model for our candidates. For example, recently, the SCE program sponsored a seminar and panel discussion on affirming and supporting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students in K-12 schools, which was offered to EDL and SCE candidates. SCE faculty, teacher education faculty and building leaders were invited members of the panel. Candidates were able to ask questions and engage in a mutual collaborative discussion with each other and with faculty members, creating a learning experience for all. EDL and SCE faculty are in the process of scheduling future shared discussions and workshops, on critical PreK-12 issues, between program faculty and candidates.

75

Lastly, at our university, EDL and SCE faculty are working with teacher education faculty to develop a model that unites principals, counselors and teachers, all at the preservice level, around the tasks of Inquiry Teams. School Inquiry Teams are found in New York City Public schools and also in modified forms, within many PreK-12 schools. However, such teams may be called different names. Inquiry Teams undertake an intense study, steeped in data collection and analysis, of a specific population (e.g., special education, English-language learners) of students within their school who have not met No Child Left Behind’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets and are responsible for increasing the academic progress of these students and for sustaining long-term improvement within this population. EDL, SCE and teacher education faculty are discussing creating a simulation of Inquiry Teams that would combine all three types of preservice candidates. These mock Inquiry Teams would be charged with studying authentic instructional problems, using assessment data, and arriving at a plan to improve student learning. Currently, some leadership training programs, such as the New York City Leadership Academy's Aspiring Principal Program, integrate Inquiry Team work within their curriculum. In addition, some leadership training models, such as the Scaffolded Apprenticeship Model, are heavily based on an Inquiry Team framework. However, our model would involve all three preservice candidates: principals, counselors, and teachers.

ConclusionIf principals do not have a strong understanding of the role of school counselors, as well

as the contributions they can offer to increase a school's effectiveness, and do not support school counselors in their efforts, there is a danger that the school counseling program goals will become "marginalized and superfluous to the core mission of the school" (Bemak, 2000, ¶ 16). EDL and SCE programs must join together to integrate leadership and school counseling program content and provide frequent and wide-ranging opportunities for both groups of candidates to interact and learn from each another.

There are many small and simple steps EDL and SCE programs can take (Table 1) to encourage alliances and improve communication between preservice principals and school counselors and to help them work collaboratively to close achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps in PreK-12 schools using data-driven, evidence-based practices (Chen-Hayes, 2007; Dimmitt et al., 2007; Hatch & Bowers, 2005; Holcomb-McCoy, 2007). All that is required is planning, flexibility and collaboration on the part of the EDL and SCE faculty. Since principals have the most influence in shaping the roles of school counselors within schools (Dahir, 2000; Ponec & Brock, 2000) and need to encourage school counselors to apply transformative skills and knowledge to ensure academic, career, college and personal/social competencies for every PreK-12 student, it is imperative that EDL and SCE graduate programs work together to ensure that our candidates graduate with a mutual understanding of both the principal and school counselor roles and with the best collaborative skills needed to effect school change and close achievement, opportunity and attainment gaps.

76

Table 1Recommendations for Promoting Collaboration and Communication between Educational Leadership (EDL) and School Counseling Education Programs (SCE)

1. EDL and SCE faculty co-teaching classes and/or courses;2. Bring guest speakers into the classroom; EDL candidates should have opportunities to listen to and learn from working counselors, and SCE candidates should have the same opportunities with working principals;3. Frequent, programmed interactions between EDL and SCE candidates (on and off campus) to exchange ideas, goals and philosophies on education and student success; unite the groups through conversation; 4. Joint EDL and SCE new student orientation sessions before graduate study commences;5. Dual program projects and assignments that prepare EDL and SCE candidates for future work-related collaborations in schools and that encourage them to explore shared school visions;6. Role-playing activities involving both EDL and SCE candidates that foster mutual understanding of roles and professional expertise;7. Shared pre-practicum, practicum and internship activities and assignments that require them to work together in actual schools on authentic educational problems; 8. Joint seminars and workshops on school-related themes and issues that are moderated by EDL and SCE faculty and school building leaders; and9. Inclusion of preservice teachers in dialogues and assignments to improve communication and collaboration between principals, school counselors and teachers.

ReferencesAmatea, E., & Clark, M. A. (2005). Changing schools, changing counselors: A

qualitative study of school administrators’ conceptions of the school counselor role. Professional School Counseling, 9, 16-27.

Bailey, D. F., Getch, Y. Q., & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2007). Achievement advocacy for all students through transformative school counseling programs. In B. T. Erford, (Ed.), Transforming the school counseling profession (2nd ed.) (pp. 98-120).

Bemak, F. (2000). Transforming the role of the counselor to provide leadership in educational reform through collaboration. Professional School Counseling, 3(5), 323-31. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ627612) Retrieved March 3, 2009, from ERIC database.

Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2007). The ACCESS Questionnaire: Assessing school counseling programs and interventions to ensure equity and success for every student. Counseling and Human Development 39, 1-11.

College Board (2009). Finding a way: Practical examples of how an effective principal-counselor relationship can lead to student success for all students. A project of College Board’s National Office for School Counselor Advocacy, American School Counselor Association and National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/files/FindWay.pdf.

Dahir, C. A. (2000). Principals as partners in school counseling. The ASCA Counselor, 38, 13.

77

Dimmitt, C., Carey, J. C., & Hatch, T. (2007). Evidence-based school counseling: Making a difference with data-driven practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Dollarhide, C. T., Smith, A. T., & Lemberger, M. E. (2007). Critical incidents in the development of supportive principals: Facilitating school counselor-principal relationships. Professional School Counseling, 10, 360-369.

Finkelstein, D. (2009). A closer look at the principal-counselor relationship: A survey of principals and counselors. A project of College Board’s National Office for School Counselor Advocacy, American School Counselor Association and National Association of Secondary School Principals. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.schoolcounselor.org/files/CloserLook.pdf.

Fitch, T., Newby, E., Ballestero, V., & Marshall, J. L. (2001). Future school administrators' perceptions of the school counselor's role. Counselor Education & Supervision 41, 89-99.

Hatch, T., & Bowers, J. (2005). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling programs (2d ed.). Alexandria, VA: American School Counselor Association.

Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2007). School counseling to close the achievement gap: A social justice framework for success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Luewerke, W. C., Walker, J., & Shi, Q. (2009). Informing principals: The impact of different types of information on principals’ perceptions of professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling 12, 263-271.

Monteiro-Leitner, J., Asner-Self, K., Milde, C., Leitner, D., & Skelton, D. (2006). The role of the rural school counselor: Counselor, counselor-in-training, and principal perceptions. Professional School Counseling, 9(3), 248-251. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Musheno, S., & Talbert, M. (2002). The transformed school counselor in action. Theory Into Practice, 41(3), 186-191.

Pérusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., & Bouknight, T. (2007). CE and educational administration: An exploratory survey of collaboration. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from

http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v5n24.pdf. Pérusse, R., Goodnough, G., Donegan, J., & Jones, C. (2004). Perceptions of school

counselors and school principals about the national standards for school counseling programs and the transforming school counseling initiative.Professional School Counseling, 7(3), 152-161. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Ponec, D. L., & Brock, B. L. (2000). Relationships among elementary school counselors and principals: A unique bond. Professional School Counseling, 3, 208-217.

Rambo-Igney, B. C., & Grimes-Smith, P. H. (2005-2006). Changing educational leadership and school counseling students' views of their respective roles and responsibilities. Connections, 7, 27-40.

Ross, W. & Herrington, D. (2005-2006). A comparative study of pre-professional counselor/principal perceptions in the role of the counselor in public schools. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision, 43(4E). Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Ross,%20William%20A%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20Pre-Professional%20Counselor-Principal%20Perceptions.pdf.

Shoffner, M. F., & Briggs, M. K. (2001). An interactive approach for developing

78

interprofessional collaboration: Preparing school counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40, 193-202.

Shoffner, M. F., & Williamson, R. D. (2000). Engaging preservice school counselors and principals in dialogue and collaboration. CE and Supervision, 40, 128-140.

Stone, C. B., & Dahir, C. A. (2006). The transformed school counselor. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Lahaska Press.

Authors’ BiographiesJanet R. DeSimone, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator of Educational Leadership at Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, New York. Her research interests include creating open school cultures and climates, effective co-teaching models, inclusive classrooms, and learning disabilities. Email: [email protected]

Tamisha M. Bouknight, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor and Clinical Coordinator of Counselor Education/School Counseling at Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, New York. Her research interests include multicultural counselor competence, career development in urban K-12 schools, school counselor identity, and the relationship of school climate and racial identity development. Email: [email protected]

Stuart F. Chen-Hayes, Ph.D., is Associate Professor and Program Coordinator of Counselor Education/School Counseling at Lehman College, City University of New York, Bronx, New York. His scholarship is devoted to advocacy, social justice, and equity issues in school counseling, college access, and counselor education locally and internationally. Email: [email protected]

79

Start new pageStorytelling through Collaborative Musical Theater

Penny PrinceLehman College, City University of New York

AbstractStorytelling provides a means by which the teller examines a tale,

reframes it, and shares it with others. Collaborative musical theater offers a multi-dimensional platform for this retelling in which participants join together todiscuss, write, and stage a play. In work outlined in this article, preservice education graduate students experience reauthoring stories as they learn to stage mini-musicals in a class project. The model takes place in Lehman College, City University of NewYork, where the author serves as faculty member and facilitator.


80

RUNNING HEAD FROM HERE TO END OF ARTICLE: Prince

Recently, I have been reading everything I can find about Abraham Lincoln. I grew up with a father who was a die-hard Civil War buff. He read everything he could get his hands on about the period and traveled to Gettysburg, Antietam, and beyond, bringing home rocks, uniforms, and other artifacts from each site he visited.

Abraham Lincoln was known as a great communicator. Among other things, his biographers relate how time and again in his personal as well as political life, he would employ stories and fables to illustrate concepts or beliefs for his audiences.According to Goodwin (2005), Lincoln’s father also was well known as a talented raconteur who would enchant their neighbors with tales each evening. Whenever young Abe heard something in his father’s stories that he did not quite understand, he would spend hours trying to figure it out and “reformulate the conversations until, as he recalled, ‘I had put it in language plain enough, as I thought, for any boy I knew to comprehend’ ” (p. 50). Then, the next day, Abe would climb up on a tree stump and retell his father’s stories to his circle of friends.

Storytelling, or reauthoring, requires the teller to come to terms with a tale through her experience and vocabulary, and find a means of expressing her understanding in a way accessible to others. As a music educator, I have seen how the art of storytelling is something collaborative musical theater accomplishes extremely well as participants are invited to draw upon their linguistic, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences in the creation of an original theatrical work. Just as young Lincoln used his multiple intelligences to tell a story in his way, it is my intention that my music education students choose themes and, in collaborative groups, determine how to retell and present these themes in their own ways, in the form of short musical plays.

Collaborative Musical TheaterFor the past ten years at Lehman College where I teach music education courses,

and many years before that in a variety of schools and community centers, I have been involved in guiding students through a collaborative process in which theyexperience the writing and staging of musical theater works. At the college and graduatelevel, where many of my students are preservice teachers, this work introduces all facets of arts in education. In our courses, the students experience music and lyrics, poetry and drama, dance, scenic design, and direction. They become writers, composers, and artists, as well as performers and audience members. Eventually, they will become the teachers, facilitators, and directors in their own right, carrying out these projects with their pupils in the elementary school.

In the world of music and arts education, collaborative musical theater is unique in its invitation to participants to share their talents, intelligences, passions, and artistry in the creation of a new work. It provides a structure within which a community may grow by way of personal contribution towards a group goal. To collaborate and devise something new, participants bring their unique experiences and interests to the group, and share in the collective responsibility for the product they achieve. The facilitator of the process, often a teacher or director, has multiple and extensive responsibilities, yet is aware that her authority is a shared one and her control is limited.

In writing about her methodology as a teacher of dramaturgy, Thomson (2003)

81

provided a definition for this type of collaboration: “I teach that true collaboration is a verb not a noun, a process of engagement, a map more than a destination. The process fosters a community of makers, who engender a shared vision which in turn fuels individual creation” (p. 118). In discussing the pitfalls and rewards of devising theater of a collaborative nature, Schirle (2005) writes, “Devisers are often found multi-tasking in ensembles, the artistic home where wearing many hats is a commonplace strength rather than an anomaly, and the nonhierarchical nature of devising mirrors the horizontal spectrum of each individual’s talents” (p. 96). This “multi-tasking” affords pupils a huge array of possibilities to develop their multiple intelligences and interests.

In my graduate course, Music in the Elementary School, we begin the unit on assemblies and collaborative musical theater with a discussion about the value of storytelling, and the large range of opportunities the arts offer in shaping and expressing stories and themes. We examine the benefits of looking at stories critically and inviting pupils to bring their experiences and talents to the understanding and retelling of stories.

Berry (2001) has written extensively of the value of fairytales and folktales in encouraging students to think critically. She turns to myths and tales to help students deconstruct issues rather than passively accept and internalize them. As she introduces her pupils to the possibilities of reauthoring or repositioning a text, adding characters and juxtaposing events, they are encouraged to interpret a story from multiple perspectives, and ask such questions as why the hero so often is a prince and not a princess (p. 87).

Moreno (1990) also has studied the ways folktales can empower students to think critically. By presenting multiple versions of a traditional tale, such as Cinderella, her pupils analyze the various paths corresponding characters take to deal with challenges. The exploration demonstrates to the students how they too have a range of choices to apply to challenges in their lives (pp. 4-5).

In our course, we view live or videotaped examples of children’s theater. We brainstorm to come up with themes and genres appropriate to the elementary school. Themes might reflect struggles our pupils are facing such as bullying, mastering reading, making friends, or coming to a new country. They might be instructive such as stories about safety, nutrition, or citizenship. The themes might stem from any unit in the curriculum such as geography; the solar system; inventors; or a literacy unit such as the fairytale, memoir, biography, or science fiction. We discuss the large range of roles and responsibilities that go into staging a play--scriptwriting, directing, acting, arranging or composing music, choreography, staging, designing props and scenery, lighting, costumes, sound, publicity, and makeup. We examine how elementary school pupils might hold these same types of discussions as they are experiencing lesson units in every one of these areas.

The preservice teachers begin to imagine how they may facilitate these types of sessions with their pupils to determine the types of genres and themes they would like to dramatize, and how their pupils could tackle every aspect of the plays themselves, from the writing, artwork, music, to the public relations. We discuss the potential for partnership and collaboration within the school community, with the music teacher, art, dance or computer technology teacher, paraprofessionals, as well as parent volunteers.

Once this foundation is laid, my students are divided into groups of five and invited to create 10-minute mini-musicals. In their groups, they choose themes, divide up responsibilities, and make all decisions regarding scriptwriting, providing music and lyrics (either found, composed, or improvised), designing props and costumes, directing, singing, dancing, acting,

82

and producing playbills for their peers. As they compose their plays, they write journals reflecting how they are experiencing the work, how decisions are reached in their groups, and any challenges or successes they wish to report. They are allotted 20 to 30 minutes of class time in five of our sessions to meet with their groups and rehearse the plays. They are encouraged to meet outside of school as well. Finally, their efforts culminate in performances for their peers in an event we have dubbed “Showtime.”

Over the years, this mini-musical unit has proven to be a much loved feature of our music methods course. Subjects students have chosen for the mini-plays have included The Three Little Pigs, Rapunzel Reconsidered, Shrek, The Immigration Experience, Becoming a Teacher, The Life of Beethoven, Nutrition, Don’t Talk to Strangers, Fire Prevention, Patriotism, and many other themes and tales the students wished to retell. All have been written collaboratively through the creativity of the students, to the delight of their peers.

The project has opened up a plethora of possibilities for my students as they reflect on all the creative collaboration has taught them. They report discovering skills they never knew they had in music, dramatic writing, editing, prop design, stage management, and organizational abilities. They have been able to look critically at familiar stories and characters, and re-author them in dynamic, complex ways. They appreciate the hard work and discipline involved in musical theater and the value of learning to cope with challenges engendered by working with others and reaching consensus. They acknowledge the benefits of stepping outside their every day selves, their comfort zones, as they begin to inhabit unfamiliar roles and see things from multiple perspectives. Many of my students enthusiastically plan to apply what they have learned to their classrooms, so their pupils may benefit from these skills and practices as well. They see how the collaborative theater process allows students to utilize their multiple intelligences, and to take chances in areas that may seem foreign or frightening at first, yet may yield great rewards in self-esteem and confidence in the long run.

The following guidelines are offered to teachers wishing to engage in this exciting work.

Collaborative Musical Theater with Children 1. Brainstorm with students to choose a theme and story for the play such as a biography, the commemoration of a holiday, a dramatization of current events, science fiction, a retelling of a folktale, fairy tale, or work of fiction being read in class, or a totally original story. Children will vote on the selection of the genre. 2. Conduct discussions about theatrical values, personnel, and responsibilities involved in a production: direction, script, music, musicians, choreography, acting roles, scenery and props, lighting, costumes, makeup, public relations, stage management, and crew. (In my experience with grades two through six, every one of these jobs can be undertaken by the students themselves except the direction, which often is best left in the hands of the teacher due to conflicts that may arise when one child directs another.) 3. Hold auditions for the various jobs: those who wish to be writers can adapt one page of a story into a scene of a play for homework. Scenic designer hopefuls might be asked to prepare a sketch of a palace chamber, a courtroom, or a forest. Public Relations candidates can be asked to design a page of a Playbill, and so on. 4. Determine which faculty members, staff, or parents would like to be partners in the production. Will the music teacher collaborate on the score or help rehearse the play? Will the art teacher work on the scenery with the children? Will the custodial staff assist in building and locating props? Will the computer technology teacher or secretarial staff assist the students with

83

formatting the playbill and photocopying flyers? Will parents help by sewing costumes or providing yards of fabric?

5. With the teacher’s guidance, students writing the script or preparing music and scenery will meet in groups to write, sketch, and make key decisions. Once the script is completed, actors will work with their scene partners in small groups until the class is ready to run through the entire script. Student choreographers will assist in leading dance rehearsals, and the stage manager and crew will make note of cues. 6. Carve out a rehearsal time every day, from as little as 20 minutes, which could be part of a literacy block, to 45 minutes if time permits. Generally, a 30-minute school assembly production entails 10 weeks of work from inception to showtime. Throughout the process, literacy and social studies lessons may be developed on concepts and vocabulary from the play.

In SummaryBell (2008) writes, “The arts serve as powerful, and eloquent articulations of other

perspectives. But when one participates in theater and drama, he or she moves from experiencing the eloquent articulation of another’s perspective to actually assuming and acting upon that perspective” (pp. 13-14). Storytelling provides a means by which the teller may crystallize his understanding of concept, tale, and character, and find effective ways to reframe and communicate them to others. Collaborative musical theater provides a multi-dimensional platform for this retelling: through music, dance, word, image, and acting, a story’s multiple facets come to life in rich, captivating ways for the participants as well as the audience.

In reauthoring stories and working collaboratively, our pupils are making use of a wide range of skills while using their imagination and expressing themselves. As Lincoln did with stories he heard, I dare to hope that our students will experience and share a wealth of learning through the stories they hear and choose to tell throughout their lives.

ReferencesBell, B.G. (2007). Exploring the drama-lives of adolescent boys. (Dissertation, New York University).Berry, K. S. (2000). The dramatic arts and cultural studies: Acting against the grain, with an introduction by Dorothy Heathcote. New York: Falmer Press.Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: BasicBooks.Goodwin, D. K. (2005). Team of rivals: The political genius of Abraham Lincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.Moreno, B. G. (1990). Empowering young children. (Dissertation, University of San Francisco.)Prince, P. (2009). Co-creating Cinderella: Examining and documenting a collaboratory musical theater process. (Dissertation, New York University.)Schirle, J. (2005). Potholes to devising. Theater Topics, 15(1), 96-102.Thomson, L. M. (2003). Teaching and rehearsing collaboration. Theater Topics, 13(1).

84

Author BiographyPenny Prince, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Music Education at Lehman College, City University of New York. Her research interests include collaborative musical theatre, and developing motivational strategies for college students and preservice teachers. She is an active composer and pianist. E-mail: [email protected]

85

Start New page

Nota Bene

Reflections on Collaboration, Technology, and Identity in a Global World

Zanna McKaySUNY College at Oneonta

As a teacher educator reading Excelsior’s call for a special issue on collaboration, I began to consider what collaboration means to me. I soon realized there are a number of questions we as teacher educators should be asking ourselves about collaboration and technology, mostly in consideration of how technology impacts who we are individually and in collaboration. This article is a reflection on these areas, looking to begin to establish the questions we might ask.

The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are.Joseph Campbell

Collaboration is the formation of a group identity from the collective agreement on what is “true” or “valid” (Tappan, 2001, p. 52). Identity is an internal agreement about what is true or valid for the individual (Erickson, 1950). Technology is having a profound effect on our ability to come to agreement, internally or in collaboration, about what is true or valid. How is technology impacting our ability to be who we are, individually and collaboratively? How is this informed by the fact that our ongoing definition of identity itself seems to be becoming fluid?

Silverstone (2007) believes that the quintessential characteristic of media in our global and digital world is its potential to link strangers to each other, across geographic, social, and historical space. Recently I received a call for help that is emblematic of social networking sites impact on issues centered on individual identity formation. Though it was from my daughter, a first-year student in college, it wasn’t about food, laundry, or coming home. It was a need for me to access on her old computer, photos that she wanted to use with a paper she was constructing on how, to this point, her identity has been formed.

It is synchronistic that I was, at the time she called, shifting through my own thoughts and readings about how adolescent identity is formed, for a research project a colleague and I will be conducting this spring, in which adolescents from all over the world are connected, through digital space, to share with each other constructions of themselves. As I searched her computer, using telephone headphones, to leave my fingers free, with my computer positioned so she could see her old computer, we turned on skype and she tried to walk me through her folders and the intricacies of uploading to Facebook. We searched old folders, photo album sites, MySpace, a blog she had created when we moved to Vietnam two years ago, and Facebook.

She walked me through five separate sites she had created in the last two years to share herself with the world. I was amazed that these constructions were textbook timeframes of the Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 4, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2010 XX

86

Running head from here to end of this article is: McKayongoing development, the evolution of the capacities of digital space to provide opportunities for connection. As the affordances and constraints of this technology evolved, and my daughter matured, so did the person my daughter constructed to share her view of the world (Postman, 1992 ). I saw clearly how recursive discourse is, both within and about the internet and the internet’s ability to impact identity. How much of who my daughter is today, has not only been presented by the technologies she has used, but constructed by them? The medium is the message, to reference McLuhan (1964).

Many of us are from Erickson’s generation. We see identity as an outgrowth of our geography, the family we were born into: who they were in the community and our position within that family. At a recent faculty gathering to discuss teaching there was talk of technology, a joke was shared about Thanksgiving 2009. The picture is of a family sitting around the table laden with turkey, each child holding his or her own iphone, texting their friends. I was reminded of 50 years ago when television first entered our family with, the “Wonderful World of Color” on Sunday nights. Now this shared experience is seen as a prime example of “quality” family time. Then there was a lot of talk, much of it from our parents, about families not interacting, drifting away from each other, because of television.

It is interesting to note that over the same two-year timeframe, I was in collaboration with two other professors at my university in studying not only our students’ constructions of identity, as new teachers, but our understanding of our process and identity as researchers (Chryst, McKay, Lassonde, 2010). This vignette is emblematic of technology’s impact on issues centered on collaborative identity. Because of distance, Vietnam was just too far for physical meetings, busy schedules, and the pressure of time (tenure), we moved forward in our work through technologically mediated processes. We emailed and wrote, revised and resent and soon we found,

our collaboration allowed us to foreground through our conversations and written discourse with each other. Through foregrounding we responded to each other’s probing questions and thoughts about unfamiliar theoretical perspectives. As we narrated responses, we confirmed and negotiated our understandings, transforming our self-perceptions both individually and as a group (p. XX).

One day we realized, we did not know any longer, who wrote what, we had developed a collaborative identity, that we came to call the Invisible Researcher. The narrative was no longer recognizable as any one of ours—each researcher’s contribution. Cognition and character merged and emerged as a single new voice. As I reflect on this, I wonder how much of this new identity occurred because of the media through which we were able to continue our work.

Unlike my daughter’s technologically mediated identity, this identity has a very clear boundary. It is not a representation of us in this world as a whole, however, it could be seen as something similar to an avatar, our research or professional avatar. Indeed, the whole concept of authorship is, if not under attack, in question. Research in all fields is rarely continuing to occur in linear isolation, as was once the standard form. Today, new concepts are occurring in more of a synaptic style, with one researcher immediately building on the insights of another, as they instantaneously fire off information and insights in professional networking sites and private internet correspondences.

My daughter’s ability to create agency, which refers to the capacity of an individual to act independently and to make his or her own free choices, in her global community, was directly

87

LASSONC, 01/16/10,

Need page number

related to the affordances and constraints of the technology she used. Our ability to create agency as researchers also reflected the influence of technology. How does one fulfill “the privilege of a life time” in this forming and reforming of identities?

How Is Technology Forming Our Understanding of the World?

Spaceship earth is still operated by railway conductors.We drive into the future looking in our rearview mirror.

Marshall McLuhan

It has also been argued by Silverstone (2007) that the images of strangers, mediated by television, computers, cell phones, radio, and the like, largely constitute our understanding of the world. When the images of strangers constitute our understanding of the world, where is the capacity for agency, to make free choices? How does collaboration occur in a world were identities are fluid? More interestingly, what will both identity and research look like for the students of the teaching candidates we are now teaching? If these many changes have occurred in two years, what will they be seeing as technologically mediated identities and relationships in the four to five years it will take for them to find and settle into a job?

Not long after 9/11, an interview broadcast on BBC Radio featured an Afghani blacksmith, who when asked why so many bombs were falling on his village, his translated voice proposed, “Al Qaeda had killed many Americans and their donkeys and had destroyed some of their castles” (p. 1). Media and morality: on the rise of the mediapolis by Silverstone (2007) uses this story to raise interesting issues around the affordances and constraints of technology, the opportunities for reversing the “customary polarities of interpretation” (p. 4) and the moral obligations of technology inherent in this world view, or “worldframe” (p. XX).

As a multicultural educator I find this reversal interesting; persons who are accustomed only to being interpreted get their turn at the wheel. Some have called to attention to the fact that today practical autonomy, in the moral and political sphere, is defined as the capacity to exercise choice and agency over the conditions of one’s narrative identifications (Sen, 2006). Holland (1998) states identity is a concept that figuratively combines the intimate or personal world with the collective space of cultural forms and social relations (p. 5). Further, as we consider the need to communicate and understand across differences, we see a growing number of our colleagues (e.g. see Gee 2003, 2004; Harris, 2001; Hull, 2003; Hull & Nelson, 2005; Kress, 2005; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Lemke, 1998; New London Group, 1996; Wysocki et al, 2004) take as a given that we now need to define literacy as a multimodal enterprise. If this is true, what should the content of our literacy classes for the teaching candidates we now have, be? What media will they be watching their students engage with? How will this impact instruction?

I have chosen to move a number of times during my daughter’s short life and technology has offered more and more sophisticated ways to stay connected as years pass. This both has facilitated and interrupted our opportunities for local connections. An interesting development in the understanding of who my daughter sees as occupying her collective space of cultural forms came during her transition to Vietnam during the blog period of her online identity.

Initially her only audience was her family and friends back home, mostly friends. A week or so after school started, however, when I was busily trying to figure out how to eat by negotiating, mostly in sign language and pictures on the internet, with the person who would

88

LASSONC, 01/16/10,

Need page number

spend the hours I did not have, at local markets and shops finding something that smelled and tasted like food to a 16 year-old American, Katie independently took her school uniform to a local tailors to be taken in. She demonstrated, as she had in Africa, by sign language and movement what she wanted.

However, since in Vietnam not understanding someone is a loss of face for the person who doesn’t understand, instead of getting empathy and help she was ignored. She returned home crying and sobbing. To vent her frustrations she created a humorous, slightly ethnocentric account that caught the essence of this struggle on her blog. The next day of school one her new Vietnamese friends quietly asked her to come to her house, she would have her maid fix the uniforms. We discussed long into the night what this meant for her blog, what she would now share there and how. Overnight, who was occupying her collective space and what cultural forms she would reference moved from local to global frame. How does this impact her capacity to exercise choice and agency over the conditions of her own narrative identifications?

One of the recurring themes of Postmodernism is that the self is multiple. Turkle (1997) contends that in providing an opportunity for people to explore alternate identities online, the Internet is a “technology that is bringing Postmodernism down to earth” (p. 268). I was surprised to see that not only are there any number of social and professional networking websites such as Facebook but that within Facebook there are virtually limitless opportunities for both social and professional interactions and group affiliations ranging from the completely personal to global action connections. Katie has 585 friends on her current Facebook profile. More than half of her friends are international and many of them have met on line, her friends back home. How will their collective cultural forms be changed because of this?

Unfortunately, rather than coming to some conclusion I am left considering still, how does the confluence among the rapid changes in technology, identity, and collective space, impact collaboration? Most pressing how will this impact the teaching our candidates will be doing? I know of very few educational institutions that have kept up with the rapid changes in digitally mediated interactions, five different social networking opportunities have passed in two years, for my daughter. What is the average rate of change for language arts programs, goals, or directions in our schools? How could her teachers 5 years ago have prepared her to use Facebook when not only the technology, but the concepts behind it were not yet fully developed? What would educators accept as appropriate collaboration, when 585 people have had input?

When will the “railway conductors” finally retire on Spaceship Earth?

ReferencesAppadurai, A. (1996) Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis,

MN: University of Minnesota Press.Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin. E. M. E. Holquist,

trans. Caryl emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Bartlett, L.,Holland, D. (2002). Theorizing the space of literacy practices. Ways of

Knowing Journal, 2(1), 10-22.Benhabid, S. (2002). The claims of culture: Equality and diversity in the global era. Priceton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.Chryst, C., McKay, Z., & Lassonde, C. (2010). Thinking together: The birth of the invisible

researcher. In C. A. Lassonde & S. E. Israel, Teacher Collaboration for Professional Learning: Facilitating Study, Research, and Inquiry Communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

89

Erickson, Erick (1950) Childhood and Society. New York: Norton Press.Gee, J.P., Hill, G., & Lanskshear, C. (1996). The new work order: Behind the language of

new capitalism. New York: Westview Press.Harris, R. (2001). Rethinking writing. London: Continuum.Holland, D. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Hull, G. (2003). Youth culture and digital media: New literacies for new times. Research in the

Teaching of English, 38(2), 229-233.Hull, G., & Greeno, J. (2006). Identity and agency in non-school and school worlds. In Z.

Bekerman, N. Burbules, & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education reader (pp. 77-97). New York: Peter Lang.

Hull, G., & James, M. (2007). Geographies of hope: A study of urban landscapes and a university-community collaborative. In P. O’Neill (Ed.), Blurring boundaries: Developing writers, researchers, and teachers: A tribute to William L. Smith (pp. 250-89). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Hull, G., & Katz, M. (2006). Crafting an agentive self: Case studies on digital storytelling. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(1), 43-81.

Hull, G., & Nelson, M.E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224-262.

Hull, G., Zacher, J., & Hibbert, L. (in press). Youth, risk, and equity in a global world. Review of Research in Education, 33.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of text, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22, 5-22.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

Lemke, J. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 283-302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man., New York: McGraw-Hill.New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard

Educational Review, 66, 60-92.Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. New York: W.W. NortonSilverstone, R. (2007) Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Cambridge, UK:

Polity.Tappan, M.B. (2001). Interpretive psychology: stories, circles, and understanding lived

experience: in D. L. Tolman & M. Brydon-Miller (Ed.). From subjects to subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory methods. New York: New York University Press.

Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.

90

Wysocki, A., Johnson-Eiola, J., Selfe, C., & Sirc, G. (2004). Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of composition. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Author’s BiographyZanna McKay, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the Department of Elementary Education and Reading at the SUNY College at Oneonta, where she teaches Diversity in Education and History and Philosophy of Education. McKay has taught in Africa and recently completed a two-year sabbatical teaching in Vietnam. She has had articles published in the field’s esteemed journals.

91

Start new pageBook Review: The Role of Research in Educational ImprovementBy John D. Bransford, Deborah J. Stipek, Nancy J. Vye, Louise M. Gomez, and Diana Lam

Barbara GariiState University of New York, Oswego

The nine essays in The Role of Research in Educational Improvement (Bransford, Stipek, Vye, Gomez, & Lam, 2009) effectively illustrate a well-known and increasingly troubling dilemma in current educational practice. Policy makers and researchers, both academic and commercial, are in constant communication with each other, creating a business model of education based on efficiency and accountability. Teachers are actively omitted from the educational dialogue. The conversations between and among researchers and policymakers produce seemingly generalizable solutions to deep-seated educational challenges, yet this two-sided discussion embedded in a triangular structure (teacher, researcher, policy-maker) reduces the collaborative, insightful, and child-centered practices of teachers to data-driven models of pedagogy that are devoid of meaning in individual classrooms. The essays presented in this book map a broken system in terms of educational effectiveness: state-level oversight of K-12 academic success is, in fact, controlled, and at times undermined, by federal policy mandates. Neither the state-level oversight organizations nor the enactors of the federal policy mandates are able to identify, recognize, or respond to the local contexts of educational needs inherent in classroom practice. Commercial and non-commercial (not-for-profit) purveyors of educational support services focus on their own bottom lines, often at the expense of actual classroom needs. Ultimately, schools and students suffer when the voices of teachers are ignored.

In this book, Schoenfeld (2009) reminds us of the dual level of testing that is incorporated in scientific research practice. Alpha-level testing identifies broad models and potential practices and solutions that are grounded in appropriate theory. Beta-level testing explores utilization of these proposed models within explicit and identified populations to articulate needed implementation nuances to account for inadequate supports and/or different needs within specific groups. Most educational research, Schoenfeld argues, fulfills the alpha-level testing paradigm. Many of the articles in this volume discuss the lack of classroom-teacher input into educational research practice, thereby belying the influence educational research can have on educational improvement. By omitting teacher voice and expertise—the beta-testing, the evaluation of theoretical research-based models within contextualized classroom situations is limited, thereby ensuring that many educational “solutions” based on educational research are inappropriate for policy planning expected to lead towards education improvement.


92

Running head from here to end of article is: GariiThe questions explored in these essays ask in what ways can, do, and should teachers

contribute to our understanding of successful processes, practices, pedagogies, and contexts seen in K-12 schools? Recent literature (Moss et al, 2009; Servage, 2009) suggests that the marginalization of teacher voices along with the omission of teachers’ insights from the interpretations of research evidence, reduces our ability to effectively implement the research solutions suggested. An analogy will help illuminate this point. For many years, research within the hard sciences assumed underlying similarity across contexts. Specifically, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed an underlying assumption that medical models describing white, middle-class, males would be consistent with models describing other populations (e.g., non-white, poor, females). However, subgroup analyses suggested that ethnic, cultural, gender, and age-related factors rendered the white, middle-class male models irrelevant for large portions of the population (Curry & Jackson, 2003; Nápoles-Springer & Pérez-Stable, 2001; Ory, Lipman, Barr, Harden, & Stahl, 2000). In 2001, the NIH formally recognized that the assumption of similarity across populations was both untrue and unrealistic. New regulations requiring researchers to produce models that compare and contrast a variety of populations in order for the scientific community to better serve its many client communities were issued in 2003 (National Institutes of Health, 2003). In educational research, however, the specific contexts within which teachers work are routinely ignored. The nature of schools, schooling, and educational structures is very complex and no two schools or classrooms are the same. Thus, there is an underlying dissimilarity, associated with the different communities served. However, the accepted research models in educational practice do not account for those differences because these models fail to recognize the evidence that only teachers can contribute.

The subtext in all of these essays explores the question of what teachers can and should contribute to our understanding of excellence in terms of pedagogies and practice. Hargreaves and Stone-Johnson (2009) offer, as an example, physicians, many of whom consume professional research but do not directly contribute to the medical literature. Physicians are understood to be “professionals” partly because they interpret scientific evidence in conjunction with their own discretionary judgment associated with the specific contexts of their practice and patients. Scientific evidence is understood to be one element of medical decision-making strategies, to be weighed together with physicians’ knowledge about the communities and individuals they serve. Yet teachers are actively discouraged from incorporating discretionary judgment into classroom practice and are then penalized for not utilizing explicit analytic skills to inform their pedagogical decision making (Hargreaves & Stone-Johnson, 2009; Schoenfeld, 2009). Schwartz and Kardos (2009), also in this volume, explain this dichotomy through the lens of the marginalization of teacher expertise. They suggest that teachers’ professional knowledge is diminished because administrators and policy-makers who oversee schools and curriculum misinterpret formal research results as “truth” and fail to recognize research evidence as equivocal information that requires deep understanding of the complicated contexts in which these educational solutions will be implemented.

Two articles in this book consider how non-academic research solutions are integrated into educational decision-making and classroom practices (Gomez & Hentschke , 2009; Smylie & Corcoran 2009). Commercial vendors and non-profit agencies purport to offer to schools “research-based programs” to improve curriculum, student achievement, and educational overall practice. Reading between the lines, both essays indicate that these vendors and agencies are not necessarily sensitive to the needs of teachers, due to financial and/or political needs of these

93

organizations. Thus, the research completed under the auspices of these organizations is often self-serving – an organization’s longevity is associated with product placement and/or the sale of professional development support services, which predisposes these organizations to favor certain research agendas that are narrowly framed. Commercial vendors, by necessity, must make a profit: to do so, they often cater to the broad and (relatively) easy-to-solve challenges in schools rather than the circumscribed and more pressing needs found in individual classrooms. Similarly, non-profit agencies tend to focus their attentions on specific programmatic concerns or designated populations that are identified in the agency’s statement of purpose. In both cases, economic survival for these organizations is predicated on business models shaped by responses to high level policy makers looking for easy-to-explain solutions to complex problems. Ultimately, the research-based solutions that these organizations present fail to acknowledge the complex nature of schools and classrooms.

The essays in this book point to the devaluation of teacher-research, which is completed within the confines of teachers’ own classrooms, and which focus on questions that are of value to teachers (and not necessarily valued by administrative decision-makers and policy planners). As a teacher educator who works with both undergraduate preservice teachers and teachers-in-practice completing graduate degrees, I find this marginalization and lack of acknowledgement to be very troubling. I teach my students that it is imperative for them to pay attention to their students as individual and recognize that their role as teachers is to support students’ individual growth. We understand that results from such micro-research are not generalizable beyond individual classrooms, yet taken together the integration of such results across many classroom experiences paints a detailed, variegated picture of how best to achieve educational improvement and excellence across diverse populations. Questions that resonate within administrative and policy circles address classroom-, school- and district-level results. Yet student success cannot be obtained, and effective policy decisions cannot be implemented, unless teachers focus on the individuals in their classrooms and unless teacher-research is accepted as legitimate and valuable. This book points to a culture of educational research that is not grounded in the realities of classroom practice.

Individually, the essays in this book suggest that educational research is at the heart of administrative decisions to improve educational practice. Together, these essays suggest that policy makers who rely on educational research to guide their thinking are ignoring the most important piece of educational data: what happens in real classrooms?

ReferencesBransford, J. D., Stipek, D. J., Vye, N. J., Gomez, L. M. & Lam, D. (Eds.). (2009). The role of

research in educational improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Curry, L., & Jackson, J. (2003). The science of including older ethnic and racial group

participants in health related research. The Gerontologist, 43,15-17.Gomez, L. M., & Hentschke, G. C. (2009). K-12 education and the role of for-profit providers.

In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds). The role of research in educational improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Hargreaves, A., & Stone-Johnson, C. (2009). Evidence-informed change and the practice of teaching. In J. D, Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds). The role of research in educational improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

94

Moss, P. A., Phillips, D. C., Erickson, F. D., Floden, R. E., Lather, P. A., & Schneider, B. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: a dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38(7), 501-517.

Nápoles-Springer, A., & Pérez-Stable, E. J. (2001). The role of culture and language in determining best practices. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(7), 493-495.

National Institutes of Health. (2003). NIH grants policy statement, revised December 1, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/nihgps_2003.pdf

Ory, M. G., Lipman, P. D., Barr, R., Harden, J. T., & Stahl, S. M. (2000). A national program to enhance research on minority aging and health promotion. In S. E. Levkoff , T. R. Prohaska, P. F. Weitzman, & M. G. Ory (Eds). Recruitment and Retention in Minority Populations: Lessons Learned in Conducting Research on Health Promotion and Minority Aging. New York: Springer.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2009), Instructional research and the improvement of practice. In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds). The Role of Research in Educational Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Schwartz, R. B., & Kardos, S. M. (2009). Research-based evidence and state policy. In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds). The Role of Research in Educational Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Servage, L. (2009). Who is the “professional” in a professional learning community? An exploration of teacher professionalism in collaborative professional development settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(1), 149-171.

Smylie, M. A., & Corcoran, T. B. (2009). Nonprofit organizations and the promotion of evidence-based practice in education. In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds). The Role of Research in Educational Improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Author BiographyBarbara Garii, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Education and Associate Dean of the School of Education at the State University of New York, Oswego. She teaches interdisciplinary teaching methods and pedagogical practices to preservice teachers and research methods to both preservice and practicing teachers. Her research addresses how elementary school teachers contextualize mathematics in their classrooms. Email: [email protected]

95

New page. No running head

Call for Manuscripts

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning provides a forum to explore issues related to teaching and learning at public and independent colleges and universities with programs in teacher preparation. Excelsior solicits original, thought-provoking manuscripts of various formats, including papers presenting research on issues and practices important to teacher education and in-depth discussions of perspectives on issues and practices that contribute to the preparation and professional development of educators. A third format—Nota Bene—contains brief, focused articles; book reviews; website or technology recommendations; and a What Are You Reading? feature.

Deadlines for submission:June 1 for the fall/winter edition

December 1 for the spring/summer edition

See also projected deadlines for two upcoming Special Topic Issues.

Manuscript Preparation and Submission

To submit a manuscript to be considered for review Send an electronic file compatible with Microsoft Word as an e-mail attachment to the editor,

Cynthia Lassonde, at [email protected]. Manuscripts must follow APA style as outlined in the most recent edition of the APA style

manual. Research and Perspectives manuscripts should not exceed 25 pages, including references.

Nota Bene manuscripts should not exceed 5 pages, including references. Include a 100-word abstract for Research and Perspectives manuscripts. The cover page should consist of the title of the manuscript, a suggested running head, as

well as the authors’ names, affiliations, addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers. Omit headers and footers except for page numbers. Omit all identifiers of the authors and affiliations from the manuscript. Be sure computer

software does not reveal author’s identity as well. Secure all permissions to quote copyrighted text or use graphics and/or figures of other non-

original material. Include permissions with manuscript. Data-based manuscripts involving human subjects should be submitted with a statement or

verification from the author that an Institutional Review Board certificate or letter approving the research and guaranteeing protection of human subjects has been obtained from the researcher's institution.

Manuscripts will be subject to a blind review by peer reviewers and the editor. The review process will take approximately three months from time of submission.

All manuscripts will be judged on their scholarship, contribution to the knowledge base, timeliness of topic, creative/thoughtful approach, clarity and cohesiveness, appropriateness to

96

category, and adherence to preparation guidelines. Selections may also be affected by editorial decisions regarding the overall content of a particular edition.

CALL FOR NOTA BENE’S NEW FEATURE: WHAT ARE YOU READING?

Send us a short description of the professional book you are currently or have recently read. Tell us, what are you reading and what do you think of it? Would you recommend it to other teacher educators? Why? How has it informed your

practice, your research, or yourself as a teacher educator? Brief, focused articles; book reviews; or website or technology recommendations

are also requested for this section.

Deadlines for submission:June 1 for the fall/winter edition

December 1 for the spring/summer edition

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS FOR SPECIAL TOPIC ISSUE:Teacher Preparation for Special Education and Inclusion

Deadline June 1, 2010With guest Associate EditorsPatrice W. Hallock, Ph.D.,

Assistant Professor of Education at Utica College in Utica, New York, and

Alicja Rieger, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Education at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Georgia

Topics may include (but are not limited to) inclusive practices; educational policy; attitudes and values related to special education and individuals with disabilities; pervasive disabilities; categorical issues such as learning disabilities, emotional/behavioral disabilities,

speech/language disabilities, autism, etc.; culture and disability; working with families; disability-related humor; humor in inclusive classrooms and communities; leisure and recreational activities for individuals with disabilities; evidence-based practices; use of children’s literature to promote disability awareness; use of culturally diverse children’s literature to promote culturally (including ability

differences) responsive classrooms and communities; Response to Intervention; academic intervention services; diagnosis and identification of students for special education services; assessment and the issue of fairness in grading students with special needs; alternative assessment; assistive technology and use of educational technology in classrooms; Universal Design;

97

distance education and teacher preparation programs; systems change; action research in inclusive classrooms; co-teaching in inclusive classrooms; cross-cultural research related to special education; transition; promoting self-determination and self-advocacy skills among individuals with

disabilities; employment; IDEA and/or NCLB as they relate to the education of students with disabilities; and the future of special education.

Manuscript content that reflects research and models best practice is encouraged. All manuscripts must use people-first language.

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS FOR SPECIAL TOPIC ISSUE:Instructional Technology in Teacher Education

How are teacher education programs preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom?

Why, or in what ways, is instructional technology important to teaching?Deadline June 1, 2011

With guest Consultant EditorsGary DeBolt, Ed.D.,

Associate Professor, EducationRoberts Wesleyan College, Rochester, New York,

andSarah McPherson, Ph.D.,

Chair, Instructional TechnologyNew York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York

Topics may include (but are not limited to) What new technologies are most useful as preservice teachers prepare for their teaching

careers? How do teacher education preparation programs incorporate new instructional

technologies in their programs? What does research tell us about effective uses of new technologies to improve student

learning and teaching? What are effective uses of online courses in teacher education? What knowledge and skills should teacher education programs provide for assessing

effects of technology on learning in the classroom? What should teachers know about technology for students with special needs? What challenges do teacher education programs face in preparing teachers for applying

instructional technology in their teaching careers? How are teacher education programs addressing the following new technologies for use

in classrooms?Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.)

98

Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs, and nings)Gaming, virtual worlds, and alternative realitiesStudent Response SystemsInteractive presentation systems (SmartBoards, etc.)Cell phones, iPods, or other mobile devices

How should teacher education programs prepare teachers to negotiate legal, ethical, and equitable uses of technology in classrooms?

What are effective teacher preparation models for university and K-12 collaboration? What are future trends for using technology in teaching and learning?

99

Start new pageExcelsior:

Leadership in Teaching and Learning

A forum for research-based discourse to inform the preparation and professional development of educators

Yearly Subscription (2 issues) $30Contact Editor for Library Subscription Rate

[email protected]

Make checks payable to NYACTE. Mail check with information below to

Cindy LassondeEditor, Excelsior

SUNY College at Oneonta501 Fitzelle Hall

Oneonta, NY 13820

Your Name ________________________________________________________

Mailing Address ___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

Email Address ______________________________________________________

100

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangduong
View:	216 times
Download:	4 times

Precipitous Events: The Impact of Classroom … · Web viewThe New York Association of Colleges for...

Documents