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 Notice
The 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. Lassonde
Editor, Excelsior
SUNY College at Oneonta
501 Fitzelle Hall
Oneonta, NY 13820
Cover design by
Eileen Cunningham, Ian Lascell, and Ricmar—The Design and Print Shop
Page layout, design, and printing by
Ricmar—The Design and Print Shop, 101 Edson Street, Amsterdam, New York
1
Excelsior
Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
Message from the President by Lois Fisch
Page X
Notes from the Editor by Cynthia A. Lassonde
Page X
Update from the New York State Education Department
By Joseph P. Frey
Page 1
From the 2009 NYSATE/NYACTE Conference
Sister Miriam Honora Corr, 2009 Recipient of the
Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award
By 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 Winner
By 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 Programs
By Angela M. Kelly and Joye Smith
Page XX
Sharing Perspectives
Doctoral Student Socialization: Moving from the Margins to the Center
By 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 Theater
By 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 Improvement
Reviewed by Barbara Garii
Page XX
Call for Manuscripts
Page XX
3
NYACTE Executive Board 2009
President
Lois Fisch
Utica College
Vice President/President Elect
Kate DaBoll-Lavoie
Nazareth College
Past President
Secretary
Robert J. Michael
SUNY College at New Paltz
Craig Hill
Nazareth College
Treasurer
Annjanet Woodburn
Pace University
Board of Directors
David Arneson
New York Institute of Technology
Christine Givner
SUNY Fredonia
Joanne M. Curran
SUNY College at Oneonta
Mark LaCelle-Peterson
Houghton College
Margaret Egan
College of Mount Saint Vincent
Paul Vermette
Niagara University
Journal Editor
Cynthia A. Lassonde
SUNY College at Oneonta
Webmaster
Ed Teall
Mount Saint Mary College
National Editorial Board
Dominic Belmonte, Golden Apple Foundation
Mary E. Diez, Alverno College
Laura Dorow, Utica College
Joanne Kilgour Dowdy, Kent State University
Lois Fisch, Utica College
Althier M. Lazar, St. Joseph’s University
Carol Merz-Frankel, University of Puget Sound
Helene Napolitano, Marymount Manhattan
College, Emeritus
Robert J. Nistler, University of St. Thomas
Susan Polirstok, Kean University
Sandra Stacki, Hofstra University
Robert J. Starratt, Boston College
4
Editorial Review Board
Lawrence J. Maheady, SUNY College at Fredonia
Jill G. Marshall, SUNY College at Fredonia
Margaret Cain McCarthy, Canisius College
Sonia E. Murrow, Brooklyn College, CUNY
Deniz Palak
Roy R. Pellicano, St. Joseph’s College,
Suffolk Campus
Davenport “Mike” Plumer, New York Institute
of Technology
Gerald Porter, SUNY College at Cortland
Linda Pratt, Elmira College
Kathleen Rockwood, Manhattanville College
Anne L. Rothstein, Lehman College, CUNY
Sini Prosper Sanou, SUNY Stony Brook
Ellen Durrigan Santora, University of Rochester
Susan S. Shenker, Long Island University,
C. W. Post Campus
Bruce A. Shields, Daemen College
Raymond Siegrist, SUNY College at Oneonta
Christina Siry, Manhattanville College
Joye Smith, Lehman College, CUNY
Karen Stearns, SUNY College at Cortland
Edward J. Sullivan, SUNY College at New Paltz
Marilyn Tallerico, Binghamton University
Cecelia E. Traugh, Long Island University,
Brooklyn Campus
Steven L. Turner, Kent State University
Jennifer Tuten, Hunter College
Kjersti Van Slyke-Briggs, SUNY College at Oneonta
Robin Voetterl, Siena College
Roberta Wiener, Pace University
Stacy A. S. Williams, SUNY, University at Albany
Annjanet Woodburn, Pace University
Rene Wroblewski, St. Bonaventure University
Amy E. Barnhill, SUNY College at Brockport
Brian D. Beitzel, SUNY College at Oneonta
Fred J. Brandt, Lesley University
Kathleen M. Brown, Niagara University
Melissa Jarvis Cedeno, Brighter Choice Charter School
Cynthia C. Choi, Le Moyne College
Carolyn F. Chryst, SUNY College at Oneonta
Joanne M. Curran, SUNY College at Oneonta
Margo DelliCarpini, Lehman College, CUNY
Janet R. DeSimone, Lehman College, CUNY
Bernadette Donovan, Molloy College
Patricia A. Dunn, Stony Brook
Brian Evans, Pace University
Joanne M. Falinski, Editorial Consultant
Minaz B. Fazal, New York Institute of Technology
JoAnne Ferrara, Manhattanville College
Barbara Garii, SUNY College at Oswego
Vicky Giouroukakis, Molloy College
Jean Hallagan, SUNY College at Oswego
Patrice W. Hallock, Utica College
Don Halquist, SUNY College at Brockport
Charles F. Howlett, Molloy College
Barbara Ann Iannarelli, Niagara University
Roberto Joseph, Hofstra University
Laurence Krute, Manhattanville College
Diane E. Lang, Manhattanville College
Jennifer Lauria, Wagner College
Elaine Lawrence, SUNY College at Oneonta
Anita C. Levine, Kent State University, Stark
Kenneth Lindblom, Stony Brook University
Andrew Livanis, Long Island University, Brooklyn
JoAnn M. Looney, Nyack College
Wen Ma, Le Moyne College
5
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 Event
October 20, 2010
Gideon Putnam Resort and Spa
Saratoga 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 MiniGrants 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 From
the New York State Education Department
INSERT FIGURE #2 HERE
Joseph P. Frey
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Higher Education
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 Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
1
9
Running head from here to end of article should be: Frey
recommendation 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 highneed 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 noncollegiate 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 Biography
Joseph 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
Sister Miriam Honora Corr
2009 Recipient of the Charles C. Mackey, Jr.
Excellence in Service Leadership Award
David Arneson
New York Institute of Technology
INSERT FIGURE #3 HERE
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 Biography
David 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:
learneson@earthlink.net
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
XX
12
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 learneson@earthlink.net.
13
Start new page
Debra Calvino, New York State Teacher of the Year 2010
Philosophy 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.
INSERT FIGURE #4 HERE
Debra Calvino
Valley Central High School
Montgomery, New York
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 Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
XX
14
Running head for this page is: Calvino
Teaching 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 Biography
My 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: dcalvino@vcmail.ouboces.org
INSERT FIGURE #5 HERE
Avenue of the Pines near Conference
Photo courtesy of Margaret Egan
15
start new page
Nancy 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.
INSERT FIGURE #6 HERE
Nancy Fichtman Dana
University of Florida, Gainesville
Teacher Research and the Teacher Educator
Teacher research, or teacher inquiry, is defined as systematic, intentional study by
teachers of their own classroom practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Dana & YendolHoppey, 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 Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
XX
16
Running Head from here to end of article is: Dana
what 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 processproduct 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,
17
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 neverending 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
18
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.
References
Cochran-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.
19
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 Biography
Nancy 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: ndana@coe.ufl.edu
20
START new page
Reports of Research and Self-Study
Modeling Collaboration in Teacher Education: The Effects on Preservice Candidates
Roberta M. Wiener
Pace University
Joanne Falinski
Educational Consultant
Abstract
In 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 Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
21
XX
Running head from here through last page of this article: Wiener and FalinskiBackground 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 coteaching, 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 preteaching 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
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
22
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 Framework
One 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 Literature
It 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
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
23
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.
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
24
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 cotaught 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).
Mode of Inquiry
25
For 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?
Method
The 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
and nine open-ended opinion questions. For the purpose of this study, we are going to focus
26
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
Experimental
Total
Group
Participants
Juniors
15
Seniors
16
Control Group
Juniors
Total
Pre/Post
Matched Pairs
14*
16
13
44
11*
41
*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
a positive effect on candidates' perceptions of their knowledge about collaboration, even
considering prior knowledge.
27
Table 2 Perception of Knowledge of Collaboration
Question: How much do you think you know
about collaboration?
Very Little
No Knowledge Knowledge
Juniors
n =14
Pre
Post
Seniors
n =15
Pre
Post
Control
n =11
Pre
Post
N
(%)
1
(7)
N ( %)
A Working
Knowledge
N
Not
Knowledgeable
Experienced
N (%)
N (%)
( %)
6
1
(43)
( 7)
7
11
(50)
(79)
2
(14)
1
( 7)
1
2
( 7)
(13)
11
2
(73)
(13)
2
7
(13)
(47)
3
2
(27)
(18)
5
3
( 45)
(27)
2
6
(18)
(55)
1
(9)
4 (27)
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)
Teachers work together and teach the students together. They pool their knowledge and
work off each other. (Senior)
28
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)
Dispositions
For 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
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not Very
Not
Important Important
N (%)
N ( %)
N ( %)
Juniors
n =14
Pre
Post
Seniors
n =15
Pre
Post
4 (29)
3 (21)
6 (43)
9 (64)
2 (14)
1 (7)
11 (73)
13 (87)
3 (20)
2 (13)
1 ( 7)
Control
n = 11
Pre
Post
3 ( 27)
3 ( 27)
2 (18)
4 (36)
N (%)
Don’t
Know
N (%)
2 (14)
1 ( 7)
6 ( 55)
4 (36)
29
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 posttest 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.”
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
30
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 Research
Results 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 Field
Our 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
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.
31
References
American 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.
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.
32
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’ Biographies
Roberta 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: rwiener2@pace.edu
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:
jmfalinski@aol.com
33
Start new page
Appendix
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
Very
Important
2
Somewhat Important
3
Not Very
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?
34
4
Not
Important
5
Don’t Know
start new page
Science Education and TESOL: A Collaborative Professional Development Model for
First-Year Teachers in Alternative Certification Programs
Angela M. Kelly
Joye Smith
Lehman College, City University of New York
Abstract
To 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.
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
35
XX
Running head from here through last page of this article: Kelly and Smith
Introduction
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?
Background
The 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 highquality 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
36
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 socioeconomic 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 Sciences
Assessing 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
37
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 ELLs
Although 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 Teachers
Moving 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
38
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 highquality 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.
Methodology
Subjects 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
39
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 ESLcontent 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 researchbased 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.
40
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 schoolbased collaborations with ESL teachers might be facilitated through future professional
development initiatives.
Results and Discussion
Initial 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%).
41
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
Anticipated Difficulties with Science/ESL Collaborations
Lack of time
ESL 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 Respondents
68%
64%
57%
45%
Percentage of Respondents
93%
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 Responses
An 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
42
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 Themes
Focus 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.
43
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].”
44
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 Implications
The 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 Teachers
Few 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
45
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 Practices
Several 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 Administrators
One 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
46
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 ELLs
Some 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
47
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.
References
Arkoudis, 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.
48
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. 7183). 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.
49
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), 116126.
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, from
http://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.
50
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 Biographies
Angela 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:
angela.kelly@lehman.cuny.edu
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: joye.smith@lehman.cuny.edu
51
Start new page
Appendix 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) Classroom
b) Living in another culture
c) Parent(s) was bilingual
d) Combination of the above
e) 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) None
b) Informal conversations
c) ESL teacher present in my science classroom to help ELLs
d) Team teaching
e) Collaboratively planning lessons/units
f) Other
7. What kinds of difficulties do you anticipate with such a collaboration? Check all that apply.
a) Lack of time
b) Lack of motivation
c) Lack of administrative support
d) ESL teacher not knowing enough science
e) 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.
52
Start new page
Appendix 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/Biology
b) Earth Science
c) Physics
d) Chemistry
e) General Science
3. What grade levels are you currently teaching?
4. Do you have English Language Learners (ELLs) in your classroom?
a) Yes
b) No
5. What difficulties do you find that your ELLs have in learning science content?
Check all that apply.
a) Content-specific vocabulary
b) Science concepts
c) Instructions/procedures
d) Higher order processes (inference, deduction, analysis) reading the textbook
e) Take longer time understanding and processing info.
f) Not enough one-on-one help
g) Not enough time in class
h) Test-taking difficulties
i) Don’t know
j) Other
6. What kinds of collaboration have you experienced with English as a Second Language
teacher in your school? Check all that apply.
a) None
b) Informal conversations
c) ESL teacher "pushing in" to my science classroom to help ELLs
d) Team teaching
e) Collaboratively planning lessons/units
f) Other
7. What kinds of difficulties have you experienced with such a collaboration? Check all that
apply.
a) Lack of time
b) Lack of motivation
c) Lack of administrative support
d) ESL teacher not knowing enough science
e) 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.)
53
Start new page
Sharing Perspectives
Doctoral Student Socialization: Moving from the Margins to the Center
Lisa S. Bircher
Katherine O’Brien
Sandra Pech
William P. Bintz
Kent State University
Abstract
This 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
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
54
XX
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 Information
Doctoral 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 parttime 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
55
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.
Isolation
I 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
56
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.
Inclusion
Just 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
57
committed to continuing the mission of the Forum-- to keep doctoral students communicating
and collaborating with one another.
Outreach
Lately 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
58
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 contentarea 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.
Collaboration
My 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 parttime 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 the
socialization 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 cocoordinators 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 to
strengthen 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
59
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 oncampus 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 Thoughts
Although 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.
References
Angelique, 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.
60
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: Cotravelers 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. 177193). 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 parttime 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
61
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: lbircher@kent.edu.
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: kobrie20@kent.edu.
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:
speech@kent.edu.
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: wbintz@kent.edu.
62
Start new page
Appendix
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
63
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.
64
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.
65
Start new page
Educational Leadership and School Counselor Education Programs Collaborating to
Close PreK-12 Achievement, Opportunity, and Attainment Gaps
Janet R. DeSimone
Tamisha M. Bouknight
Stuart F. Chen-Hayes
Lehman College, City University of New York
Abstract
The 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.
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
66
XX
Running head from here to end of this article is: DeSimone, Bouknight, and Chen-Hayes
Introduction
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 nonteaching 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; ChenHayes, 2007; Holcomb-McCoy, 2007; Stone & Dahir, 2006).
Principals' Perceptions of School Counselor Roles
Research 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.
67
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 MonteiroLeitner, 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; MonteiroLeitner 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
68
(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 problemsolving 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
69
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 Practice
Program 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
70
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 Speaking
EDL 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 Assignments
Within 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 roleplaying 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.
71
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 Collaboration
Since 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 Sessions
EDL 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
72
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 prepracticum, 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 Projects
We 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.
73
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.
Conclusion
If 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.
74
Table 1
Recommendations 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; and
9. Inclusion of preservice teachers in dialogues and assignments to improve
communication and collaboration between principals, school counselors and teachers.
References
Amatea, 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 principalcounselor 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.
75
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%20
Volumes/Ross,%20William%20A%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20PreProfessional%20Counselor-Principal%20Perceptions.pdf.
Shoffner, M. F., & Briggs, M. K. (2001). An interactive approach for developing
76
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’ Biographies
Janet 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: janet.desimone@lehman.cuny.edu
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: tamisha.bouknight@lehman.cuny.edu
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:
stuart.chen-hayes@lehman.cuny.edu
77
Start new page
Storytelling through Collaborative Musical Theater
Penny Prince
Lehman College, City University of New York
Abstract
Storytelling provides a means by which the teller examines a tale,
reframes it, and shares it with others. Collaborative musical theater offers a multidimensional platform for this retelling in which participants join together to
discuss, 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 New
York, where the author serves as faculty member and facilitator.
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
78
XX
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 Theater
For 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 they
experience the writing and staging of musical theater works. At the college and graduate
level, 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)
79
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,
80
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
81
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 Summary
Bell (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.
References
Bell, 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).
82
Author Biography
Penny 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: catchymusic1@aol.com
83
Start New page
Nota Bene
Reflections on Collaboration, Technology, and Identity in a Global World
Zanna McKay
SUNY 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 Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
XX
84
Running head from here to end of this article is: McKay
ongoing 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
85
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
86
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?
References
Appadurai, 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.
87
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. 25089). 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. Norton
Silverstone, 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.
88
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 Biography
Zanna 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.
89
Start new page
Book Review:
The Role of Research in Educational Improvement
By John D. Bransford, Deborah J. Stipek, Nancy J. Vye, Louise M. Gomez, and Diana Lam
Barbara Garii
State 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 twosided 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.
Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning
Volume 4, Number 2
Spring/Summer 2010
90
XX
Running head from here to end of article is: Garii
The 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
91
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-inpractice 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?
References
Bransford, 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.
92
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 Biography
Barbara 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: Barbara.garii@oswego.edu
93
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 Lassonc@oneonta.edu.
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 nonoriginal 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
94
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, 2010
With guest Associate Editors
Patrice 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;
95








Universal Design;
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 Editors
Gary DeBolt, Ed.D.,
Associate Professor, Education
Roberts Wesleyan College, Rochester, New York,
and
Sarah McPherson, Ph.D.,
Chair, Instructional Technology
New 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?
96




How are teacher education programs addressing the following new technologies for use
in classrooms?
Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.)
Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs, and nings)
Gaming, virtual worlds, and alternative realities
Student Response Systems
Interactive 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?
97
Start new page
Excelsior:
Leadership in Teaching and Learning
A forum for research-based discourse to inform the preparation and professional
development of educators
Yearly Subscription (2 issues) $30
Contact Editor for Library Subscription Rate
Lassonc@oneonta.edu
Make checks payable to NYACTE. Mail check with information below to
Cindy Lassonde
Editor, Excelsior
SUNY College at Oneonta
501 Fitzelle Hall
Oneonta, NY 13820
Your Name ________________________________________________________
Mailing Address
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Email Address ______________________________________________________
98