Windows into Teaching and Learning
1
Running Head: WINDOWS INTO TEACHING AND LEARNING
Windows into Teaching and Learning [WiTL]: Exploring Online
Clinicals for a Distance Education Social Studies Methods Course
Tina L. Heafner, Ph.D.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
March 8, 2012
Paper presented at the SITE Annual Conference, Austin, T.X.
Windows into Teaching and Learning
2
Windows into Teaching and Learning in Social Studies Teacher Education
Abstract
A pilot project, Windows into Teaching and Learning (WiTL), was developed by researchers at a
large, urban research university in southeast United States to provide relevant and meaningful
technology-mediated clinicals for expanding online education programs. Participants engaged in
synchronous and asynchronous field experiences that were purposefully designed to address
deficits of summer content and licensure-based clinical experiences. Following a discussion of
the challenges of clinical experiences, the author explores the outcomes of remote partnerships in
learning between candidates enrolled in a distance education social studies methods course and
mentor teachers employed in middle and secondary schools. Initial analyses of data collected
through participant interviews, Wimba text transcriptions, archived mediated lessons, student
work products, and focus groups indicate that from its inception WiTL has exceeded expectations
by opening some unanticipated windows into the profession of teaching, both for the candidates
and the teacher mentors who participated in the study. This article provides rich descriptions of
these opportunities, as well as the potential within WiTL, as it has progressed beyond being
merely an adequate substitute to rather a means of transforming clinical observations in both
distance education and teacher preparation programs in a traditional university setting.
KEYWORDS: social studies, teacher education, clinical experiences, remote observation,
asynchronous, synchronous, video
Windows into Teaching and Learning
3
Introduction
Clinical field experiences for preservice social studies teachers provide a fundamental
source of knowledge and experience that allows the candidate to conceptualize the demands of
the teaching profession and begin to comprehend the extensive amount of content knowledge
necessary to effectively engage students in social studies education. So critical are these
experiences that they are defined as one of six essential standards by the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). According to NCATE (2010), well-designed and
sufficiently supervised clinical experiences are fundamental to developing a deep understanding
of the pedagogical knowledge and skills required to promote student learning. Furthermore, the
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) advocates the importance of diverse field-based
experiences in the preparation of teachers (NCSS National Standards for Social Studies Teachers,
2002).
However, clinical experiences are not always actuated in a manner conducive to
achieving this objective (Darling-Hammond, 2006). A variety of challenges quite often hinder
social studies candidates’ abilities to participate in productive, meaningful clinical experiences
consistently throughout their preparation programs. These challenges are exasperated when
coursework takes place in an online format in distance education programs or in alternative
placements necessitated for experiences occurring outside of the traditional academic school year.
For these reasons, teacher educators seek ways in which to transform candidate experiences into
purposeful and relevant opportunities for candidates to observe classroom teaching and explore
content area pedagogical processes in a variety of diverse settings. As researchers advocate, well
integrated clinical work taught in the context of schools needs to create field-based learning
environments that challenge candidates to rethink deep-seated pedagogical and content
orientations, to bridge methods course content with practice through aligned school-university
partnerships, and to emphasize a more in-depth understanding of teaching and learning (Cole &
Knowles, 1993; Darling-Hammond et al., 2006; Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, Grossman,
Rust, & Shulman, 2005).
This article describes a study originating through a pilot program entitled Windows into
Teaching and Learning (WiTL), conceived and engendered by researchers at a large, urban
College of Education located in the southeast of the United States. While the project was initially
conceptualized as a manner by which to provide meaningful clinical opportunities to candidates
enrolled in an online social studies methods course, a host of corollary outcomes emerged,
requiring one of the researchers to explore ways in which the project might revolutionize content
area clinical field experiences in teacher preparation programs, embodying the aforementioned
benefits of effective clinically-oriented education in both distance education and traditional
university settings. Furthermore, the author defines and contextualizes the challenges that
precipitated the development of WiTL and that validate its future utility in social studies teacher
preparation programs. The conceptual framework of WiTL is grounded in and supported by
scholarly work in the fields of online education, social studies education, and clinically-based
teacher education. In addition, a discussion of the analyses of data and the results illustrate the
abundant potential for content area clinical experiences like those conducted in WiTL to
transform teacher preparation programs by providing all who participate in them an opportunity
to become partners in learning and to make critical connections between what they have learned
or come to believe and what actually occurs in the classroom.
Background
While inarguably a valuable component of teacher preparation programs, clinical field
experiences pose many challenges for candidates, cooperating school systems, as well as
university personnel. Four major challenges related to providing meaningful clinical experiences
Windows into Teaching and Learning
4
in distance education licensure programs have been identified: accessibility, flexibility, quality
and relevance. In an ongoing struggle to provide meaningful field opportunities for aspiring social
studies professional educators, each of these obstacles must be addressed vigorously in order to
re-instate the credibility and utility of this important component of teacher preparation in distance
education.
Accessibility and Flexibility
Dramatic shifts in the nation’s economy have impacted the overall demographics of those
seeking social studies licensure. Younger university students with family support who possess the
ability to attend teacher education programs full-time are being surpassed in number by nontraditional university students who are older and faced with the demands of independent living
and supporting a family of their own. In addition, colleges of education are seeing second-career
candidates more frequently, necessitating the development of programs that accommodate
students with limited time to attend classes in the traditional university setting. In addition, a
decline in available funding has forced universities to reconsider and reprioritize costs related to
infrastructure and staffing, making online teacher preparation programs a viable and sensible
solution.
One benefit of such online programs is the ability of colleges of education to attract a
more geographically-diverse pool of candidates. With the availability of online teacher
preparation coursework, candidates from anywhere in the state are able to attend classes from the
comfort and convenience of their own homes. While certainly advantageous in expanding the
pool of potential candidates, this phenomenon problematizes the facilitation and supervision of
clinical field experiences. With shrinking budgets and rising costs of gasoline, it is not practical
for candidates or university personnel to travel to multiple remote locations to establish the
relationships necessary to ensure available classrooms and quality observations.
A further necessary consideration is that those individuals seeking licensure while
maintaining full-time employment in their first career must be given some flexibility in order to
meet the demands of multiple teacher preparation courses, each with its own clinical experience
requirements. A program that requires candidates to take an unpaid leave of absence or to
abandon their current employment all together places an unfair burden on non-traditional
university students and could ultimately force otherwise highly-qualified individuals to eliminate
the profession of teaching as an option for future employment. In addition, because summer
courses are particularly appealing to those teaching with conditional or emergency licensure, as
well as those who have second careers, course designers must consider ways they might open
doors to PK-12 schools at times when they are traditionally not in operation. Colleges of
education must seek ways in which to accommodate the needs of this diversifying population of
candidates without sacrificing essential components of teacher education programs, such as
meaningful early and content-based field experiences, so as not to compromise the depth of
knowledge and understanding possessed by future social studies teachers in the classroom.
Relevance and Quality
Because of the often concrete and tangible barriers that have been discussed, social
studies candidates are often left to scramble for opportunities to serve their required hours without
the support of a university office dedicated to supervising placements. In many cases
inappropriate and inadequate substitutions are made, such as placement in daycares, community
centers, or camps, simply for a lack of an alternative solution. Social studies candidates face the
additional burden of finding relevant classes to observe when social studies courses are often not
taught on a consistent or regular basis in elementary and middle grades. Furthermore, content area
teaching is not an applied skill that can be learned in a one-size-fits-all placement. Candidates
Windows into Teaching and Learning
5
preparing to teach social studies need to observe content teaching and learning in action in PK-12
schools. The complexity of teaching social studies to young and adolescent learners requires an
understanding of how content-learning and social studies skills prepares students in becoming
effective citizens and critical decision-makers in a globally-dynamic society. Moreover, relevant
field observations are particularly important due to the multifaceted diverse social considerations
necessary to successfully engage students in a culturally relevant and responsive social studies
curriculum.
In addition to concerns for the relevancy of traditional field experience is the predicament
of how to ensure that candidates are observing and interacting with model social studies
professional educators. It might be easy to assume that school administrators would only make
available classrooms where exemplary pedagogy was being enacted; however, the reality is that
this is often not the case and is particularly problematic for large higher education institutions
with elevated teacher education enrollments. Many programs require that candidates attend hours
in multiple contrasting settings in order to broaden their perspective on teaching and student
diversity. The candidate is most often sent into the field to observe solitarily, requiring the novice
candidate to make sense of unfamiliar settings and scenarios that they are often not yet prepared
to decipher on their own. In these situations, the cooperating teacher is frequently unaware of
what course work has been completed by the candidate and what methods and strategies are being
covered in the university setting. Conversational exchanges between cooperating teachers and
candidates tend to focus on issues of management and student behaviors. So isolated is this
experience that even the university instructor is not privy to what is being observed and is unable
to bridge the gap from theory to practice by bringing the candidates’ experiences into class
discussions in meaningful ways. If early field experiences are to be productive and meaningful,
colleges of education must take steps to ensure the quality and relevance of the teaching being
observed by candidates (Zeichner, 2010).
These potential barriers evoke a need to re-conceptualize clinical requirements, both in
terms of what they entail and how they are experienced. While perceived as barriers, WiTL
presents itself as a possible solution to these challenges by creating opportunities for transforming
licensure training and enhancing the overall outcome for all participants in clinical field
experiences.
Review of Relevant Literature
Clinical Experiences for Social Studies Candidates
In the early to mid-1980’s there was a national push to overhaul teacher preparation
programs by increasing standards and accountability measures in an effort to improve the quality
of professional educators entering the workforce. Dumas, Weible and Evans (1990) describe a
series of studies and reports that specifically targeted initially licensed social studies teachers.
They found that despite an average 20% increase in the requirement for early field experiences,
the standards were still not high enough. These calls for reform pushed universities to require
even more field experiences to enhance the overall program quality for social studies candidates.
In addition, the National Council of the Social Studies National Standards for Teachers (NCSS,
2002) recommends multiple clinical experiences supported by university-school partnerships
beginning early in a candidate's program of study. The expectations articulate the importance of
varied content-based applications in diverse school settings with a broad range of learners.
Of special concern for social studies educators is whether or not these recommendations
have come to fruition. In the decade prior to NCSS standards revisions, Passe (1994),
determined that social studies candidates enrolled in university methods courses that required
clinical hours in traditional settings were producing substandard results. According to Passe,
cooperating teachers were found to use outdated practices resulting in candidates who were quick
Windows into Teaching and Learning
6
to abandon alternative, innovative strategies introduced in their coursework. In addition, he
asserted that because teacher educators have little or no control over the selection of cooperating
teachers in traditional clinical experiences, they should seriously question the overall
effectiveness of early field experiences in the preparation of social studies candidates. Passe
encouraged university methods instructors to play a central role in the design and implementation
of field experiences for their courses so as to ensure that there is a firm connection between what
is taught in class and what is seen in schools.
Purposeful clinically-based teacher preparation continues to be of concern in
contemporary schooling. In 2010, NCATE purported the centrality of clinical experiences in
teacher preparation as a means for transforming teacher education programs. NCATE concluded
that:
To prepare effective teachers for 21st century classrooms, teacher education must shift
away from a norm which emphasizes academic preparation and course work loosely
linked to school-based experiences. Rather, it must move to programs that are fully
grounded in clinical practice and interwoven with academic content and professional
courses. Creating a system built around programs centered on clinical practice also holds
great promise for advancing shared responsibility for teacher preparation; supporting the
development of complex teaching skills; and ensuring that all teachers will know how to
work closely with colleagues, students, and community" (NCATE, 2010, p. ii).
Furthering the importance of more early and meaningful field experience requirements,
expanding the technological preparation of candidates pushed to the fore-front of educational
reform. These views are expressed in the Partnership for 21st Century Skills Framework for 21st
Century Learning (2009):
"People in the 21st century live in a technology and media-suffused environment,
marked by various characteristics, including: 1) access to an abundance of
information, 2) rapid changes in technology tools, and 3) the ability to
collaborate and make individual contributions on an unprecedented scale. To be
effective in the 21st century, citizens and workers must be able to exhibit a range
of functional and critical thinking skills related to information, media and
technology" (p. 5).
In addition, the National Council of the Social Studies Technology Position Statement (NCSS,
2006) asserts that teacher educators of social studies candidates have a unique obligation to
incorporate the use of technology in teacher preparation to illustrate the ways in which society is
impacted by the evolution of technology. Because social studies teachers must ultimately be
prepared to address this topic with their future students, the Council encourages teacher educators
to make technology and integral and constant presence within university coursework.
Authentic Technology-Mediated Clinical Experiences
A peripheral benefit of online education is that it affords an opportunity to develop and
hone various technology skills. Mason, et al. (2000) argue that social studies teacher educators
are charged with the responsibility of integrating technology throughout program coursework to
effectively model its application to candidates who will later be expected to deliver lessons that
appropriately utilize technology to social studies students in a K-12 setting. They assert five
principals of a technology-infused curriculum for social studies candidates. Among the five is the
principal that technology use must be taught in context. The author cautions that candidates must
be shown the utility of technology and its appropriate application as they will rely heavily upon
what they learn in their methods courses in their future work as social studies teachers. In
addition, Mason, et al. propose that there is an obligation of social studies teacher educators to
Windows into Teaching and Learning
7
prepare candidates for the demands of an electronic era that is replete with the rapid acquisition of
information and knowledge. Unique to the field of social studies is the need to examine how this
evolving technology impacts education and the relationship between technology and society as
expressed in the national standards for social studies (NCSS, 2011). In order to prepare
candidates to address these topics, they must establish and maintain a profound knowledge base
as well as a heightened level of familiarity with technology in the classroom.
Decades of research advocating for the use of technology in social studies has had limited
impact on the overall context and preparation of teachers (Akengin, 2008; Angeli, 2005; Bolick,
Berson, Coutts, & Heinecke, 2003; Bolick, Berson, Friedman, & Porfeli, 2007; Friedman, &
Hicks, 2006; Krueger, Hansen, & Smaldino, 2000; VanFossen, 1999-2000; Whitworth & Berson,
2003; Yildirim, 2000). Issues of efficacy in technical skills (Hew & Brush, 2007; Koehler,
Mishra, & Yahya, 2007; Yildirim, S., 2000) as well as explicit understanding of the
interconnectedness of technology, content, and pedagogy, (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Brush, &
Saye, 2009; Lee, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006) continue to pose barriers for applications of
technology in clinical settings. Furthermore, technology supported remote observation redefines
the clinical classroom enabling observers, graduate teaching interns, and potentially
administrators to build professional relationships in transparent educational settings (Hartshorne,
Heafner, & Petty, 2011; Heafner, Petty, & Hartshorne, 2011, in press). Therefore, exploring both
how university professionals are using technology to transform teacher education and the settings
in which technology applications occur provides context for future learning opportunities in fieldbased content methods coursework.
Video in the Classroom
In two concurrent studies that involve the use of video in the classroom, Sharin and van
Es (2005) posit that the use of video impacted the way in which teachers or students notice
phenomena within the classroom. Resting on a theoretical framework which asserts an educator’s
ability to notice in the classroom implies teacher expertise in that it allows the teacher to navigate
and prioritize the multitude of complex interactions occurring simultaneously within the
classroom, the use of video was found to enhance observation skills. In addition, proficiency in
noticing encourages teachers to develop the ability to conceptualize large concepts from small
details and to apply increased logic and reason to their teaching contexts. Based upon these
assumptions, the author suggests that video provides teachers the opportunity to notice more and
different factors related to their teaching because they are no longer bound by the limitations of
memory and are, thus, able to view things from an alternative perspective. In the second of the
studies, which relates most closely to the current WiTL project, Sharin and van Es employed
video as a tool in a teacher education program with 6 preservice teachers, requiring them to write
reflections of the type of things they noticed when watching themselves teach. Over time, when
compared with other preservice teachers not utilizing this tool, those who used video were able to
hone their noticing skills and discern significant from insignificant events in the classroom. In
addition, they found that the content of their analysis advanced from being simply evaluative to
interpretive in nature. Consistent with the practices of the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2011), these benefits
affirm the use of video as a tool for systematic reflection in ongoing professional growth and
aligns clinical learning outcomes with those advocated by NCATE (2010).
Rosean, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen and Terpstra’s 2008 study focusing on the reflective
and evaluative skills of preservice teachers using video in the classroom supports the work of
Sharin and van Es (2005). The systematic viewing of videotaped teaching sessions allowed
candidates to operate outside the constraints of memory and improve their ability to notice in the
classroom. Participants in the study were able to be more specific in their written reflections, to
shift the emphasis from self to student and focus more on pedagogy rather than classroom
Windows into Teaching and Learning
8
management. Moreover, they determined that the flexibility afforded by the use of video
provides candidates with the ability to revisit interactive portions of taped sessions to evaluate
and assess student understanding and learning. These technology-mediated clinical processes
supported ongoing learning and reflective thinking that are essential to quality teacher
preparation.
Guiding Questions
The initial implementation of WiTL sought to explore possibilities to improve clinical
experiences for university students enrolled in a distance education program offering year-round
coursework to candidates seeking licensure for teaching middle or secondary social studies.
Fundamental questions that guided the study are:
RQ1: How does the use of online social studies clinicals in a social studies
methods shape learning experiences of all participants?
RQ2: What are the experiences of social studies methods students and social
studies teachers who engage in a common online clinical experience?
RQ3: How do online clinicals in a methods course facilitate learning,
professional development, reflective thinking, and interactive (maybe
critical) discourse?
Methodology
To examine the outcomes of a clinically-based, online social studies methods course, a
qualitative research design with a constructivist paradigm was employed. The researcher sought
to understand the constructions held by all participants about online field experiences as well as
social studies teaching and learning. In accordance with Patton's (2002) recommendations for
appropriate uses of a constructivist perspective, the researcher sought participants' reported
perceptions, explanations and beliefs as well as documented learning outcomes identified in
candidate work.
The participants in this study included six purposefully selected social studies mentor
teachers, three of which taught in a middle school and three who were employed in a high school.
The selection of the two schools was based on university faculty connections to community
partnerships and work in these schools. Additionally schools were selected from two distinctive
and remote geographic regions to represent teaching in diverse contexts: urban, suburban, rural
settings. Mentor teachers were chosen for inclusion in the study based on identification as
teacher leaders by their principal, experience and expertise, and their recognized success in
supporting economically and culturally diverse adolescent learners. The range of teaching
experience was 6 years to 24 years. Mentor teachers either held a Master's degree in social
studies and/or were Nationally Board Certified. University candidates were selected due to their
enrollment in a summer social studies methods course. The participating six candidates were
graduate students seeking initial licensure in social studies.
To address the guiding research questions, data were collected from the following
sources: mentor teacher post-project interviews and transcriptions, archived candidate postproject focus group, candidates' summative written course clinical reflections, and candidate work
samples including content module tasks and the culminating instructional unit plan assignment.
Additionally, archives of synchronous and asynchronous observations and mentor teacher lesson
debriefings including text chat transcripts were used as data sources. Transcripts of
asynchronous threaded discussions in NiceNet, a free web-based resource available to mentor
Windows into Teaching and Learning
9
teachers and candidates, provided yet another layer of data. Data were analyzed using content
analysis (Silverman, 1999) in which inductive coding and sorting allowed themes to emerge. The
researcher and graduate assistant read and listened to data sources to identify data patterns. In
weekly meetings, the researcher and graduate assistant discussed data patterns and agreed to four
overarching themes. Subsequent review of data was conducted both individually and collectively
to further define and describe emergent themes using Glaser & Strauss' (1967) constant
comparative analysis.
The WiTL Project
During the spring semester prior to the delivery of the summer social studies methods
course, three to four lessons were taped for each of the mentor teachers using a laptop, webcam,
and wireless headset. The methods instructor and/or graduate assistant observed each lesson realtime for the purpose of serving as the camera operator. Guided observation notes were created to
describe what was observed and to help candidates to notice important content pedagogical
connections relevant to the methods course. For asynchronous lessons, the university instructor
developed voice overlays and integrated text observation notes using Camtasia©
(http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia/). Videos were uploaded to Moodle, the online course
delivery platform, for candidate-required viewing during the summer methods course.
Capitalizing on the flexibility afforded with the use of technology, candidates then watched
observations at their convenience during the second and third weeks of the course. After
completing all asynchronous observations, candidates engaged in a threaded discussion with all
middle and secondary social studies teachers using NiceNet (http://www.nicenet.org/).
Participants discussed content methods, resources, classroom and behavioral management,
assessment practices, and student learning. They explored teaching philosophies as they
collectively unpacked the purposeful decision-making employed by veteran teachers.
In the first week of the social studies methods course, synchronous observations were
held with each of the six middle and secondary teacher mentors. Synchronous observations were
facilitated using Wimba, a web-conferencing tool compatible with Moodle, a webcam, and
wireless headset/microphone. Tools within Wimba simultaneously offered participants an
adjustable video window for classroom observations, PowerPoint capabilities for instructional
resource sharing, whiteboard and text chat features, and video/audio exchanges among
participants. For university students to engage in the Wimba synchronous observations, they
each had internet access, a computer, webcam and headset. During the synchronous
observations, the university instructor, international teaching assistant, and graduate assistant
dialogued with the candidates through the text chat feature. Again their purpose was to help
make explicit connections to course content and to help candidates to notice important attributes
of good social studies teaching and learning.
Results
A Window of Opportunity- providing practical and authentic field experiences
Applegate (1985) defines various dilemmas that arise as teacher preparation programs
strive to maintain high standards, such as the need to provide candidates with relevant and
meaningful early field experiences. Among these obstacles are what she terms “institutional
dilemmas” (p. 61) where university personnel grapple with complex logistical issues such as
travel costs and availability of appropriate settings for clinical experience placements. In
addition, she describes “individual dilemmas” (p. 62), when in many cases the participants
involved in the clinical experience find that it falls short of their expectations. Because traditional
clinical observations occur in isolation, where a single candidate is assigned to a single
Windows into Teaching and Learning
10
classroom, there is often a disconnection between what is being taught in the university and what
is experienced in the classroom. In addition, Applegate addresses the lack of time that is often
available for interaction between the teacher mentor and the candidate, citing fixed schedules and
excessive time demands on the part of both parties. She argues that this lack of available time for
reflection and discourse leaves the responsibility for deciphering what has been observed in the
classroom with the novice candidate who ultimately remains uncertain as to why the clinical
experiences were assigned in the first place.
Data analyses reveal that the field experiences facilitated through WiTL study directly
address many of the shortcomings described by Applegate (1985). Candidates responded
overwhelmingly that they were grateful for the relevance of the field experiences provided
through WiTL to their specific course of study. Many participants reflected on prior experiences
where they conducted observation of day camps or irrelevant summer school programs simply
because they were compelled to meet the course clinical licensure requirements. Many were
thankful not to be required to take time off of work or neglect the demands of family life, with
one student calling the WiTL clinical experiences a “logistical blessing”. When asked how
online clinicals compared to the face-to-face experiences, one participant responded that she was
appreciative of the fact that all of the lessons she observed during the methods course were,
indeed, some form of social studies. She reported that in prior field experiences, she had been
forced to compromise by attending observations in other content areas (e.g. mathematics or ELA)
because middle school social studies classes were simply not available.
In addition to the opportunity to see relevant teaching, respondents felt that WiTL
afforded candidates the chance to view a wide variety of teaching. For example, in a post-project
focus group designed to assess participant satisfaction with the program, candidates expressed
appreciation for the ability to view both middle and high school social studies classes. Many had
never seen a classroom outside of their licensure level and providing a lateral perspective of
social studies teaching allowed them to draw conclusions about developmental skills differences,
such as historical thinking, among adolescent learners. One candidate asserted that she gained an
understanding for the need to infuse more skill-based lessons in middle school, versus more
concept-driven instruction in secondary classes. Candidates also noted distinct content
differences across grade-levels that mirrored standards-based curriculum expectations.
Similarly, analyses of the text chat revealed that candidates took note of the diverse
demographics that were present as a result of utilizing schools in distinctly different districts. In
one classroom, students watched English language learners in a world history course and were
able to discuss specific strategies that might be helpful as they collectively viewed, from their
remote locations, the teacher mentor meeting the needs of these students during a synchronous
observation session. The university instructor, present as the session facilitator in the classroom,
was able to recommend via typed communications specific literature that support the candidates’
understanding of the unique needs of these students (e.g. Cruz, & Thornton, 2009). Later in that
same week, these students observed classrooms in a completely different district under the same
circumstances and the transcriptions of dialogue between the candidates revealed that they
capitalized on this opportunity by making comparisons and inferences about the ways in which a
school’s setting might impact the student demographics and subsequent teaching styles being
observed and linking learning to course readings (e.g. Epstein, 2009; Parker, 2010).
Beyond making diverse classrooms accessible to candidates, the window of opportunity
created by WiTL afforded an opportunity to hand-select teacher mentors and classes that modeled
the type of teaching appropriate and beneficial for novice observers. Candidates overwhelmingly
noted a higher quality of teaching than had been observed in prior early field experiences. Many
referred to the excellent level of student engagement in the classes they watched, as well as social
studies teacher mentors who possessed obvious enthusiasm and adept skill for working with
adolescent learners. One participant cited prior experiences where a 30-year veteran teacher sat
at her desk and handed worksheets out to keep students busy throughout his observation. Several
Windows into Teaching and Learning
11
other students made reference to “cooperating” teachers who were either not aware of their
scheduled observations or seemed to resent the intrusion into their classrooms. Without
exception, candidates capitalized on the high level of expertise and knowledge possessed by the
teacher mentors, as well as the dedicated and structured opportunities to interact, evidenced by
the thoughtful and constructive questions found throughout the transcriptions of the postobservation debriefing sessions and threaded discussions.
An additional corollary benefit of the type of clinical experiences implemented through
WiTL became evident through comments made by both candidates and teacher mentors during
the post-project interviews and focus groups. Because the camera used to videotape the sessions
was small and unobtrusive, and because the session facilitator was someone with whom the
students and teacher mentors were already familiar, candidates were given the rare opportunity to
witness authentic teaching and student conduct. Several of the teacher mentors noted that
typically the presence of a visitor in the classroom for observations made students exhibit
unnatural behavior. However, in the WiTL observations, students were quick to forget about the
camera in the classroom, and teacher mentors reported that student behavior accurately mirrored
what would be seen on any given day. Mentor teachers too noted forgetting about the camera.
Moreover, candidates expressed appreciation for the fact that they did not feel as if they were
inconveniencing the classroom teacher or creating unwelcomed disruptions in the school day.
Rather, they felt they were given the unique opportunity to become legitimate voyeurs, taking
advantage of the fisheye lens provided for them by WiTL.
Widening the Aperture- an active role in collective experiences
The findings of Pryor and Kuhn’s (2004) study comparing the outcomes of field
experiences across two semesters for 61 candidates enrolled in social studies methods courses
suggest that there must be close involvement of university personnel in the implementation of
field experiences for students conducting early field experiences. She asserts that without the
direct guidance of the methods course instructor, candidates simply do not know what to observe.
In her discussion of the results, she strongly argues for the integration of field observations into
methods course to enhance understanding and improve reflectivity for candidates. Additionally,
Garrison and Anderson (2003) have argued that technology facilities collaboration, yet collective
learning will not occur without appropriate intervention of the online instructor and active
engagement of all participants (Paloff & Pratt, 2003). To create successful online communities a
shared community of inquiry is essential (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).
Responses from participants in the WiTL study indicate that there is a multi-tiered and
interwoven theme of collectiveness on the part of all participants that resides within the opening
that the project created between the observer and the observed. This sense of collaboration and
sodality was expressed among participants of all levels, teacher mentors and candidates alike,
permeating the mullioned roles that are assumed in traditional clinical experiences. A review of
the synchronous and asynchronous debriefings showed that the university supervisor was able to
contextualize the observations within the course discussions and readings on many instances.
Because a methods instructor or teaching assistant was onsite they were able to guide
conversation in the debriefings to ensure its relevancy to the university coursework. For example,
during one observation of a high school history teacher, the university instructor requested that
the teacher mentor discuss interactive notebooks he used in his class as a means of supporting
students in organizing class materials, notes and assignments and as a model for methods text
readings. In a subsequent observation of a geography teacher in an entirely different school, the
methods instructor was able to identify the use of a specific writing method used for assessing
student understanding and focusing student thinking. She made the suggestion that these
exercises could be completed within the interactive notebooks they had previously observed, thus
connecting the two observations and creating a more complete understanding of how to enact the
Windows into Teaching and Learning
12
method for the candidates. Furthermore, connections to relevant content such as geographic
thinking (“…a map can reveal what no amount of description can” de Blij, 2005, p. 23) and
spatial learning (“Why did this event happen here and not elsewhere?” Alibrandi and Sarnoff,
2006, p.138) linked clinical observations of practice to course theory in an immediate and
transparent manner. This type of overarching understanding for what is being observed during
early field experiences is simply not possible in traditional settings.
Candidates were given clear guidance in what to look for and asked to draw conclusions
and make inferences about what they were seeing. On several occasions, the university instructor
used the text chat feature in Wimba to draw attention to and elaborate upon various elements of
classroom instruction. For example, in a social studies elective class focused on a historical study
of the Old and New Testament of the Bible, candidates questioned the controversial nature of the
curriculum. The methods instructor explained the political forces behind the locally-funded
curriculum available to all high school students in the county. University students examined
differences in local and state curriculum as well as variations in surrounding counties.
Additionally, candidates were able to discuss curricular concerns about "teaching the Bible" with
the mentor teacher. This dialogue in the threaded discussion lead to a broader collective
discourse of why controversial issues need to be included in the social studies curriculum and how
this might be achieved. In the formation of their posts, candidates made explicit references to
both research-based theory (Hess, 2009) and to a U.S. history lesson they had synchronously
observed that modeled an effective class discussion of several controversial topics.
Similarly in a Civics and Economics class, candidates observed a mentor teacher passing
back scored benchmark assessments that were administered during a prior class. While the
candidates watched, the instructor gave a detailed explanation of current testing practices and
policies within the local district. She engaged students in critically thinking about this topic by
asking them to consider what ramifications there might be for recent policy and legislative
changes. In this state, the General Assembly passed House Bill 48 which eliminated all highstakes testing for social studies. As the participants offered their various conjectures and ideas,
instruction within the classroom commenced. The university instructor quickly shifted focus to
the differentiated reading strategies being employed in the class by the teacher mentor in order to
make her lesson more comprehensible to all learners. The transitions employed by the mentor
teacher were also highlighted within the guided viewing provided by the university methods
instructor. Scaffolded viewing helped candidates to notice pedagogical strategies and to focus on
relevant course content in addition to exploring contemporary social studies issues.
One unique opportunity that arises in the shared viewing of clinical observations was
seen throughout the analyses of the summative reflections written by the candidates. Because all
members of the methods course had attended or viewed the same classrooms, they were able to
make detailed and productive comparisons between them. Superficial comments that focused on
classroom appearance and student behavior appeared immediately. However, over time,
comparisons were made on a deeper level. In one reflection, a candidate noted that some teachers
use hand signals and kinesthetic cues to engage students, while others utilize music and visual
sources. Similarly, they analyzed various collaborative grouping strategies employed by the
teacher mentors. These comparisons that made candidates and teacher mentors to consider why
more than how, highlighting the significance of purposeful and meaningful social studies
instruction that makes teaching and learning powerful (NCSS, 2009). This ability to compare the
selection of content resources as well as teaching methods allowed candidates to choose attributes
from each observation that were both memorable and impactful. For example, one candidate
noted a teacher mentor's positive rapport and close connections with his students, and vowed to
strive for the same in his future classroom, while another noted the skilled pacing of another
teacher mentor as a trait that should be emulated.
Where the analyses of data produced during the WiTL project took an unexpected turn
was in the examination of the post-project interviews that sought to explore the experience from
Windows into Teaching and Learning
13
the teacher mentors’ perspective. A strong theme of collectiveness and shared experience
emerged as teacher mentors described an increased understanding and appreciation for their
colleagues who participated in the study. Though several participants referenced informal
conversations in the hallways of the school, the majority of this expanded esteem grew from their
collective participation in the asynchronous threaded discussions. Many of the questions and
comments from the candidates were posted to the teacher mentors in general, at times with more
than one mentor teacher responding to any given candidate. increased understanding and
appreciation for their colleagues A significant byproduct of the collective nature of the field
experiences facilitated throughout the study was what one participant called, “active
observations”. In a post-project focus group, she asserted that the WiTL field experience, when
juxtaposed with other school-based experiences attended in prior coursework which she described
as “passive”, required her to become more engaged and assume a role of active participant. Other
candidates echoed her sentiments by expressing appreciation for the ongoing text dialogue
between their peers. Many claimed to notice specific pedagogical acts that they otherwise would
have ignored or disregarded if other candidates in the class had not drawn attention to them. By
providing the ability to ask and answer questions with immediate feedback, participants
responded that they were able to explore points they would not have in traditional settings.
Similarly, candidates reported that reading the comments and questions of their peers caused
them to feel more engaged and to think more deeply about what was being asked.
Overall, participants from both sides of the project, teacher mentors and candidates alike
expressed a heightened sense of community as a result of both the structured and unstructured
opportunities to interact with one another. Despite the physical distance afforded by the use of
video, teacher mentors repeatedly referred to candidates by name, referencing their specific areas
of interest and their questions. Similarly, candidates noted the benefit of diverse expert
perspectives when they received multiple answers to the questions they posed. In addition, in the
post-project debriefing each candidate was able to easily define a method or strategy that they had
observed with a specific mentor teacher that they hoped to incorporate in to their own classrooms
in the future.
Holding up a Mirror in Teaching- expanding beyond how to why in social studies pedagogy
In the spirit of Deweyian philosophy, teaching and learning occur in a practicum where
participatory thinking is practiced. The experiential foundations rich with reflective inquiry thus
become essential for enacting democratic education. While Dewey's ideologies have been
embraced by social studies researchers, Adler (2000) cautions that the objective of reflective
inquiry falls short in achieving the level of critical discourse Dewey envisioned. The segmented
goals of teacher education programs to serve both the need to challenge schooling practice and to
promote success of candidates create gaps in meaningful reflective applications. NCATE (2010)
argues that, "Teacher education has too often been segmented with subject-matter preparation,
theory, and pedagogy taught in isolated intervals and too far removed from clinical practice" (p.
2). NCATE recommends that to bridge learning divisions, that robust clinical practice must be
central to professional content and pedagogical development. WiTL models promising
applications of technology described in online teacher education literature (see, for example,
Frey, 2008; Heafner & Petty, 2010) and provides a meaningful context for reflection (Freese,
2006). Through analyzing and comparing the multitude of data sources produced by WiTL, a
recurrent theme of this type of in-depth inquiry and reflection emerged on the part of the teacher
mentors and was shared with the candidates who, in turn, cultivated reflective skills throughout
the project. For the teacher mentors, reflection surfaced as a result of the design of the project as
well as through interactions with other project participants. Four major sources of reflection
became apparent during the post-project interviews. The first of these, self-reflection, played a
dominant role in the teacher mentor experience, with a majority of participants describing
Windows into Teaching and Learning
14
moments of clarity that resulted from considering their motivations for various pedagogical
actions in the classroom. For example, one high school social studies teacher was asked by a
candidate why she implemented the use of hand signals in her classroom. This teacher mentor, in
formulating her response to the candidate, stated that she gave serious thought to elements of her
teaching that she had not considered in years. From her perspective, these interactive experiences
were beneficial because it forced her to ponder the difference between what constitutes conscious
action in her teaching, versus what has become, over time, an automated response to
circumstances in the classroom. Similarly, one U.S. history teacher was asked to explain her
rationale for creating an all-female cooperative learning group in one synchronous session. The
specific activity was centered on an issue of gender in Islamic societies. In defining her reasoning
during a post-observation debriefing, it became clear to her and to the candidates that her
motivation was to empower these young girls, whose voices might have otherwise been stifled in
a traditionally male-dominated classroom, enabling them to become active classroom
participants. In this case, the teacher mentor’s careful consideration for why, versus how she
created the groups became a powerful lesson for the entire learning community on how to
promote social justice in the classroom through small, yet purposeful actions.
Signs of reflection also surfaced in the reported interactions between the teacher mentors
and their colleagues and assumed a role in precipitating professional growth and the formation of
collaborative learning communities based on an increased mutual appreciation amongst the
participants. One primary example of such increased understanding is seen in the comments of
one teacher mentor who discovered the she unexpectedly found as much benefit from reading her
colleagues responses as she did reflecting on her own practice while answering candidates’
questions. She described the experience of uncovering that she “lined up” with someone in
terms of teaching philosophies and approach to student relationships as being a productive force
in team-building among these two teachers who are geographically isolated from one another in
the same building. On a related note, one world history teacher expressed a similar sense of
positive affirmation in reading responses posted by his colleagues that corroborated and expanded
on input he had previously offered the candidates. In his post-project interview, this particular
teacher explained that prior to the project, he felt he dwelled within the periphery of his
instructional team. Reading the remarks of his colleagues caused him to feel that his input to this
professional learning community could be impactful and valued.
A surprising source of reflection and growth for the teacher mentors was their interaction
with novice candidates who had recently been exposed to the discourse and dialogue of the
university classroom. One U.S. History teacher stated:
Another thing is, (the candidates) ask some great questions and they brought up
points that maybe I hadn’t thought about in a while. So it was a learning
experience for us too, some of my other colleagues would say the same thing. To
hear them have some fresh thoughts or perspectives, as I was reading though (the
threaded discussion) and watched what some of them said, I was like ‘wow, I
hadn’t thought about that in a while. That’s really something; I need to really
think about that when I am going into the next year.’
Teacher mentors noted as well that being involved in the project and witnessing the interaction
between the university instructor and the candidates made them think more deeply about what is
entailed in preparing teachers for the classroom. Many reported that this observation forced them
to view their teaching from the perspective of a teacher educator, which provided further
opportunities for reflection. Additionally, teacher mentors reported that the feedback they
received from candidates, both immediately following the synchronous lessons, as well as
through the threaded discussion proceeding the asynchronous sessions caused them to deeply
consider the rationale for pedagogical decision-making.
Figure 1. Windows into Teaching
Windows into Teaching and Learning
15
•Written responses to student questions
•Reflection of why versus what in
pedagogy
•Exploring conscious versus unconscious
actions in the classroom
Self
Colleagues
University
Participants
Technology
•Shared teaching philosophies
•Affirmation
•Efficacy
•Modeling how to mentor
•Cross-curricular exposure
•Peer observations
•Feedback in the form of questions from
students
•Observed instruction of candidates
from methods teacher
•Reference to texts, readings and
methods being discussed in class
•Live demonstration for classrooms
students of the way in which
technology is impacting society
•Familiarity with a replicable tool that
can be used in the classroom
•Increased comfort with the use of video
and video conferencing
•Viewing of archived teaching sessions
The ongoing utilization of technology resources played a significant role in facilitating
professional development through reflection on the part of the teacher mentors. In post-project
interviews, the teacher mentors consistently reported that the use of an online threaded discussion
as a means of interfacing with candidates forced them to reflect on the responses they offered to
the questions that had been posed. For example, one social studies elective teacher reported that
she found the questions from the candidates to possess more depth than they might have if they
had been meeting face to face. She attributed this deeper level of questioning to the time afforded
by technology. In other words, the asynchronous nature of the dialogue allowed the participants
the time to really think, to “absorb” and to really “dissect it all and pull it apart”. This same
teacher mentor, who admitted that she considers herself a “face-to-face kind of person” and
initially had trepidations about being required to articulate her thoughts and responses in writing,
reported that she found the process to be beneficial in that it allowed her to reflect more deeply
and be more deliberate in her replies to the candidates. Synchronous technology applications also
supported teacher mentors in reflecting on their practice. A middle school teacher commented
Windows into Teaching and Learning
16
that the synchronous debriefings between teacher mentor and candidates immediately following
an observed lesson helped her to “notice things” she might not have noticed otherwise. Because
of the nature of the questions being asked she reported:
(Answering candidates questions made me) really think about WHY, why was I
doing these things, how can I get that across to people? Kids in general want to
know why they have to do the things that they do, so I tried to make that a center
focus of the lesson…I can say, well, North Carolina says you have to learn this,
this is the goal and the objective, or I can make it more real to them. (Answering
candidates’ questions) made me do that.
Overall, when this same teacher mentor was asked if her involvement in WiTL and the
interactions with the candidates had caused her to think more critically about her teaching she
indicated that this was one of the primary benefits of being involved in the project. One
additional manner by which technology instigated personal and professional growth was through
the presence of a camera in the classroom. Teacher mentors were provided access to archived
lessons to watch and review as the pleased. Without exception these veteran teachers reported
that they felt, at minimum, some level of initial discomfort with the idea of being videotaped, a
feeling that escalated significantly when they capitalized on the opportunity to watch themselves
teach.
Technology also allowed candidates multiple opportunities for personal reflection and
critical thinking related to they observed and the dialogue they had with the teacher mentors.
Candidates reported that one of the primary benefits of the asynchronous observations provided
through WiTL was the time and flexibility to view sessions at a pace that allowed time to absorb
what was seen and to notice what might have otherwise been missed. Candidates had the ability
to re-visit archived sessions and view them as many times as they pleased- providing the ability to
focus attention on teaching elements that directly related to the university coursework. Evidence
of this increased level of reflective thinking was evident in the questions candidates posed in the
threaded discussions. Similarly, student produced thorough and thoughtful summative reflections
of their clinical experiences in the social studies methods class. All of the students made some
reference to the positive impact of the observations on their thinking about teaching social
studies. Several students identified specific methods they would borrow or significant statements
they would remember. One student reported:
If I had made my (Instructional Unit Plan) without watching the synchronous
observations, I would be very hesitant as to whether or not the methods I was
putting forward in the IUP would actually work in a real life classroom. Yet after
seeing these teachers use the TCI approach and other methods we explored so
effectively, I now have no doubt.
Through the Looking Glass and into the World of Teaching- bridging the gap between theory
and practice
In order to be effective and beneficial to participants, what is observed in early field
experiences must align with what candidates are reading and discussing in the their university
coursework (Myers, 1996). In a study examining the perspective development of 21 preservice
teachers, Ross (1987) found that social studies candidates expressed frustration related to the
inconsistencies between what they were learning in class and the realities of the classroom.
Zeichner (2010) argues that one sizeable flaw in the implementation of field experiences as they
are experienced in traditional teacher preparation programs is an inconsistency and lack of
planning that might otherwise enable the field experience to be contextualized with the
candidate’s program of study. In addition, he asserts that there is often little logic in the
sequencing of traditional field experiences, and that there is at times even a lack of consensus
Windows into Teaching and Learning
17
among university faculty as to the purpose of these experiences. He advocates for a hybrid space
between universities and PK-12 schools, where the boundaries between the two settings are
removed for the candidates who is then left free to explore classrooms through inquiry and
practice.
In a pilot study Greene (2005) examined online learning communities comprised of
preservice teachers who viewed prerecorded virtual recorded teaching episodes while
communicating with veteran professional educators. She found that a model of interaction with
active teachers, in conjunction with class lectures enhanced student understanding of the teaching
they viewed. In reviewing the transcripts of text chat that occurred throughout various
observations, the researcher and graduate assistant discovered several instances where direct
connections between theory and practice were supported by the observation facilitator’s similar
interaction with candidates. For example, in the observation of one middle school world history
class, candidates were asked by the observation facilitator to identify other supports for student
comprehension of expository text about which they had recently finished reading in their course
textbook. In a subsequent observation, students viewed a lesson on the Middle Ages where
students in the classroom were assigned various roles and asked to think historically. Direct
connections were made between this activity and a discussion that had transpired in the social
studies methods course the prior evening, where candidates were encouraged to “do history” in
order to connect social studies to the lives of young students. The methods instructor
subsequently made links to additional course readings (Parker, 2010; VanSledright, 2011;
Wineburg, 2001). As one candidate reported, these purposeful, direct and overt theory to practice
connections between what was being read about and discussed in class and what they were
actually witnessing through the window really “married the two” for the observation participants.
Evidence of this bridge created by WiTL could be clearly seen in the candidates’
evolving understanding of course concepts as demonstrated through their responses to assigned
readings and their comments pertaining to the classroom observations. For example, the course
text used by social studies methods students, Bringing Learning Alive!: Methods to Transform
Middle and High School (Teachers’ Curriculum Institute, 2010) details specific strategies for
enhancing students’ comprehension of social studies concepts. Transcriptions of the text chat
show that students used the observations as a chance to identify these methods, such as preview
assignments and focused writing tasks, as they occurred in an authentic classroom setting and
further explore these methods by asking questions regarding their development and
implementation. Evidence of their increased understanding of these methods was seen in the
accurate and appropriate application of these concepts in the capstone project for the course- the
Instructional Unit Plan (IUP). Another recurrent connection that was made between what the
candidates had read and what they had observed related to the construction of collaborative
groups during classroom activities. Candidate questioning around this topic was pervasive,
primarily due to the fact that there were multiple instances of group work assignments present in
the WiTL observations. Candidates were able to see the strategies they had read about come to
life as the teacher mentors grouped their students strategically to enhance learning outcomes.
This connection was plain to see from the perspective of one candidate who stated, “We started
very pedagogical and moved into the very functional with our IUP plan- it married the two for me
as far as instruction- you connected it”.
The bridge from theory to practice worked in reverse as well, according to analyses of the
data gathered during the post-project candidate focus group. One student reported that she found
the observations “laid the groundwork” for future course readings, attributing this phenomenon to
the fact that the university instructor was able to indicate specific pedagogical elements on which
to focus. Others said that the dialogue among the university instructors during the observations
“foreshadowed” material that had yet to be introduced in the coursework. Perhaps the most
powerful testimony to the bridge created by WiTL is the complete absence of reference, in any of
Windows into Teaching and Learning
18
the hundreds of pages of data gathered, to incongruence of any kind between what was observed
in the classroom and what was read about and discussed in the methods coursework.
Limitations
WiTL was a pilot study, and for that reason, complications and limitations were
anticipated and documented so as to improve on future replications and adaptations of the project.
As with all things technological, there were unexpected complications in the implementation of
WiTL, such as classrooms that only had one internet portal, sessions recorded without audio,
imperfect picture quality and students who did not return an authorization to be videotaped. All
of these obstacles are easily overcome with the foresight and advanced planning that comes with
repetition. Selecting the most appropriate software was also a challenge as issues of file size and
privacy were constant concerns throughout the study. One limitation that cannot be addressed
through adjustments to project procedures is the lack of interaction between candidates and
students. While this distance afforded the candidates the opportunity to strongly focus on the
pedagogy being observed, candidates inarguably need the opportunity to work with young
learners directly at some point in their licensure program. Additionally, the timing of
synchronous sessions for summer school classes presents formidable conflicts with assessments
and end of year preparation in the PK-12 setting.
Suggestions that will be taken into consideration in future expansions of the project
include the distribution of lessons plans and hardcopies of class handouts to candidates as well as
the exploration of software that will enable observers to view what is occurring on classroom
SmartBoards during videotaped sessions. In addition, through analyzing results, a pre-conference
debriefing between teacher mentors and candidates, facilitated by the university instructor
provides enhanced overall observation. And finally, accountability measures, such as
observations guides or response assignments, must be put in place to ensure that candidates take
the time to view and re-view each asynchronous session in its entirety.
Discussion
In the words of Dewey (1938), “it ought not be necessary to state that experience does
not occur in a vacuum” (p.40). He argues that there is an active side to every genuine experience
that is had by a person, and that one’s dynamic reaction to the experience further shapes
subsequent experiences for this individual and for others. Educators, according to Dewey, are
entrusted with the responsibility of sculpting formative experiences, as well as recognizing the
settings in which they are most likely to occur and spark growth. Through the intrinsic capacity
to influence these experiences, “places upon him the duty of determining that environment which
will interact with the existing capacities and needs of those being taught to create a worth-while
experience” (p.43). The design and implementation of the WiTL project takes a significant step
in meeting the challenge expressed through Dewey’s comments.
Looking ahead there is still much to be explored within the framework of WiTL, both as
it was originally conceived- a tool for transforming clinical observations- as well as what it
became- a powerful instrument that holds the constructive potential to cultivate extended,
mutually beneficially relationships between those who aspire to teach and those who already do.
These professional learning communities would present flexible, dynamic and viable solutions to
bridging the distance between the university coursework and classroom teaching, and might stand
to promote active and continuous reflection on the part of the veteran team members. Work must
be done to create partnerships between universities and the community that will foster this type of
collaboration.
The growth that occurred through the WiTL project was multi-dimensional and impacted,
in one way or another, all project participants. The dynamic and continuous interaction between
Windows into Teaching and Learning
19
teacher mentors and candidates provided an unprecedented view of the why of pedagogy. In
Schon’s (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner, he asserts that professional preparation can
never ready a novice for every situation they will encounter, so more benefit comes from teaching
novices to think like experienced professionals. In those moments when a practitioner is
confronted with an unfamiliar problem, they must pair the theory learned through professional
preparation with the circumstances confronting them in the classroom, framing the problem
within their prior knowledge and experiences. He terms this process, “reflection-in-action” (p.39)
and argues that candidates must be trained to think like their more experienced counterparts if
they are to acquire the ability to make reason of new situations and apply their university training
to the realities of the classroom. By structuring opportunities for dialogue and exploration, WiTL
allowed the otherwise solitary act of reflecting on practice as well as the isolated learning
indicative of online courses to become the precipice for new understandings on both sides of the
window pane, tenants of democratic thinking and critical discourse in social studies.
Conclusions
The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows.
- American Journalist, Sydney Harris
Teachers are most likely to replicate the experiences they have in their preservice
courses, this is why social studies teacher educators must diligently model effective strategies and
techniques (Passe, 1994). In particular, programs designed for the education of future teachers of
the social studies must foreground the notion of fostering a democratic classroom in the design
and construction of licensure programs. Gillaspie, Harrington, Van Tassell and Watkins (1996)
argue that teacher educators have an obligation to engage in practices that promote democratic
ideals so that “as perspective teachers associate theory with practice, democracy begins to unfold
in these authentic, democratic classroom settings” (p. 3). They posit that a democratic model of
teacher education encourages partnerships with public schools where the learner is supported by
mentor teachers and encouraged to reflect on learning strategies that promote democratic
thinking. The architecture of the WiTL project models the type of program described by
Gillaspie, et al.
Democratic ideals are reflected in the manner by which the university instructor assumes
the role of facilitator of a team of professionals and aspiring professionals working together
toward a common goal of an aggregate understanding of teaching and learning. This interaction
between teacher mentors and candidates is devoid of power dynamics and provides all
participants a voice, representing a society we can only envision. It is this collective nature of
and active participation in the early field experiences provided through WiTL that suggests a
spirit citizenship, as participants use dialogue as a tool for uncovering what works best in the
classroom that will ultimately produce better social studies teachers. By tapping the funds of
potential encapsulated within the framework of WiTL, teacher preparation programs will make
significant strides toward creating the types of early field experiences that are most beneficial to
the educators of this nation’s future generations.
Windows into Teaching and Learning
20
References
Adler, S. (2000). Critical issues in social studies teacher education (HC): Research in social education.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Akengin, H. (2008). Opinions of prospective social studies teachers on the use of information technologies
in teaching geographic subjects. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 127-139.
Alibrandi, M., & Sarnoff, H. M. (2006). Using GIS to answer the ‘whys’ of ‘where’ in social studies.
Social Education, 70(3), 138-143.
Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on
preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45, 383-398.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and mythological issues for the conceptualization,
development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154-168.
Applegate, J. H. (1985). Early field experiences: Recurring Dilemnas. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2),
60-64.
Bolick, C., Berson, M., Coutts, C. & W. Heinecke (2003). Technology applications in social studies teacher
education: A survey of social studies methods faculty. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 3(3), 300-309.
Bolick, C. M., Berson, M. J., Friedman, A. M., & Porfeli, E. J. (2007). Diffusion of technology innovation
in the preservice social studies experience: Results of a national survey. Theory and Research in
Social Education, 35(2), 174-195.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. W. (2009). Strategies for preparing preservice social studies teachers to integrate
technology effectively: Models and practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education [Online serial], 9(1). Retrieved from
http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/socialstudies/article1.cfm
Cole, A., & Knowles, J. G. (1993). Shattered images: Undertanding expectations and realities of field
experiences. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9(5/6), 457-471.
Cruz, B. C., & Thornton, S. J. (2009). Teaching social studies to English language learners: Teaching
English language learners across the curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3),
300-314.
Darling-Hammond, L. (with Fickel, L., Macdonald, M., Merseth, K., Miller, L., Ruscoe, G., Silvernail, D.,
Snyder, J., et al.). (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
de Blij, H. (2005). Why Geography Matters: Three Challenges Facing America [Climate Change, The Rise
of China, and Global Terrorism]. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. New York: Touchstone.
Dumas, W., Weible, T., & Evans, S. (1990). State standards for the licensure of secondary social studies
teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 18(1), 27-36.
Epstein, T. (2009). Interpreting national history. New York, NY: Routledge.
Freese. A. (2006). Reframing one’s teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflection and
inquiry, 22, 100-119.
Frey, T. (2008). Determining the impact of online practicum facilitation for inservice teachers. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education 16(2). 181-210.
Friedman, A. M., & Hicks, D. (2006). The state of the field: Technology, social studies, and teacher
education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 6(2).
Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol6/iss2/socialstudies/article1.cfm.
Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and
practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(23), 87-105.
Gillaspie, L. C., Harrington, M.-M., Tassell, F. V., & Watkins, R. M. (1996). Classrooms as democratic
communities. Tarpon Springs, Florida: Paper presented at the ATE Summer Workshop.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Greene, C. H. (2005). Creating connections: A pilot study on an online community of learners. Journal of
Interactive and Online Learning, 3(3), 1-21.
Windows into Teaching and Learning
21
Hartshorne, R., Heafner, T., & Petty, T. (in press). Examining the effectiveness of the remote observation
of graduate interns. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of
teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers
for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Fransisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Heafner, T. L., Petty, T. M., & Hartshorne, R. (in press). Moving beyond four walls: Qualitative evaluation
of ROGI (Remote Observation of Graduate Interns) for the expanding online teacher preparation
classroom. In N. A. Alias & S. Hashim (Eds.), Instructional Technology Research, Design and
Development: Lessons From The Field. IGA Global Publishing.
Heafner, T. L., Petty, T. M., & Hartshorne, R. (2011). Evaluating modes of teacher preparation: A
comparison of face-to-face and remote observations of graduate interns. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 154–164.
Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge
gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 55(3), 223-252.
Kim, K., Sachin, J., Westhoff, G., & Rezabek, L. (2008). A quantitative exploration of preservice teachers’
intent to use computer-based technology. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(3), 275-287.
Krueger, K., Hansen, L., & Smaldino, S. (2000). Preservice teacher technology competencies: A model for
preparing teachers of tomorrow to use technology. TechTrends, 44(3), 47-50.
Lee, J. K. (2008). Toward democracy: Social studies and TPCK. In the AACTE Committee on Innovation
and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for
educators (pp. 129-144). New York: Routledge.
Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidlelines for using technology
to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
1(1).
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Myers, E. (1996). Early field experiences: A question of effectiveness. The Teacher Educator, 31(Winter),
226-237.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2011). Choosing excellence: National board
certification. Retrieved Ocober 2, 2011, from http://www.nbpts.org/.
National Council for Addreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through
clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: NCATE.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2002). National curriculum standards for social studies: A
framework for teaching, learning and assessment. Silver Springs, MD: National Council for the
Social Studies.
National Council for the Social Studies. (2002). National standards for social studies teachers. Retrieved
October 10, 2011, from National Council for the Social Studies:
http://downloads.ncss.org/NCSSTeacherStandardsVol1-rev2004.pdf
National Council for the Social Studies. (2006). Technology Position Statement and Guidelines. Retrieved
October 2, 2011, from National Council for the Social Studies:
http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/technology
National Council for the Social Studies. (2009). Vision of Powerful Teaching and Learning in the Social
Studies: Building Sound Understanding and Civic Efficacy document, section II. Washington, DC:
National Council for the Social Studies. Accessed December 15, 2011 from
http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/powerful.
Paloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2003). The virtual student: A profile and guide to working with online learners.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Parker, W. C. (2010). Social studies today: Research and practice. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Building 21st century skills. Retrieved on October 9,
2011 from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5&Ite
mid=2.
Windows into Teaching and Learning
22
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21 st century learning. Retrieved on October 9,
2011 from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/framework_flyer_updated_jan_09_final1.pdf.
Passe, J. (1994). Early field experience in elementary and secondary social studies methods courses. Social
Studies, 85(3), 130.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Pryor, C. R., & Kuhn, J. (2004). Do you see what I see? Bringing field experience observations into
methods courses. The Teacher Educator, 39(4), 249-266.
Rosean, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). How does investigation of
video records change how teachers refect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education,
59(4), 347-360.
Ross, E. W. (1987). Teacher perspective development: A study of preservice social studies teachers. Theory
and Research in Social Education, 15(4), 225-243.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning
in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..
Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers ability to notice in the classroom.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491.
Silverman, D. (1999). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. 2nd
ed. London: Sage.
Teachers' Curriculum Institute. (2010). Bringing learning alive!: Methods to transform middle and
highschool. Palo Alto, CA: Teachers' Curriculum Institute.
VanFossen, P. (1999-2000). An analysis of the use of the Internet and World Wide Web by secondary
social studies teachers in Indiana. The International Journal of Social Education, 14(2), 87-109.
VanSledright, B. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Whitworth, S. A., & Berson, M. J. (2003). Computer technology in the social studies: An examination of
the effectiveness literature (1996-2001). Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 2(4), 472-509. Also available:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss4/socialstudies/article1.cfm.
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
Press.
Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on preservice and inservice teachers: A
discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
32(4), 479-495.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in collegeand university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99.