ARTICLE PDF

Dispositions and Applications for Classroom Management:

Pre-Service Teachers Build a Community of Learners

 

Jan Byers-Kirsch, Ed. D.

Central Washington University

jbkirsch@cwu.edu

Kimberlee Bartel, Ph. D.

Central Washington University

bartelk@cwu.edu

Abstract

This empirical study discerns whether candidates’ dispositions and applications of classroom management strategies change after completing the university classroom management course and whether their views are aligned with current research on effective techniques. A voluntary, confidential, ongoing survey was offered to candidates completing the course over a period of two years at least one quarter after they completed the course. Beginning with the second year, candidates will given a short survey the first week of the course to more clearly ascertain dispositional changes from the beginning of the course to the end, as well as after they have teaching opportunities to practice their skills. The preliminary results from the first year confirm the benefits of creating effectual classroom management plans and identifying the basis for their future success as classroom teachers. This study substantiates the importance of a research-based course in teacher preparation programs with future implications for further study.

Introduction

Classroom teachers have all witnessed or can visualize the following scenario. An enthusiastic beginning teacher has spent hours planning a wonderful, innovative lesson on state standards with engaging instructional strategies, and an aligned assessment. The teacher begins teaching the lesson, and it becomes rapidly apparent that many students in the class are disengaged, talking, or displaying inappropriate behavior. The teacher asks for attention several times and calls on students who are not paying attention without successfully regaining control of the class or the lesson. The teacher is feeling frustrated, anxious, and vulnerable. Finally, the teacher stops the lesson and invokes some type of consequence or punishment on the entire class. The students (and the teacher) are angry and resentful; what went wrong? The scenario doesn’t have to end this way, but of greater significance: the teacher isn’t teaching and the students aren’t learning. How can we provide support for new teachers to be successful before they enter the classroom?

Theoretical Framework

Our K-12 colleagues and veteran teachers know that effective classroom management skills are an essential component for beginning teachers to become successful, yet they often lack the confidence or ability to implement them appropriately. The research shows that effective classroom management is “preventative rather than reactive”; it is important that educators model, identify, and effectively teach desired classroom behavior (Emmer & Stough, 2001). With the emphasis on improving student academic achievement linked with teacher evaluation, mastery of these strategies becomes a critical factor in teacher longevity. The significance of supporting teachers’ professional growth and practice in implementing research-based practices to improve academic and behavioral outcomes for all learners has been demonstrated (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andrée, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Emmer & Stough, 2001; Greenwood & Abbot, 2001; Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J., 2009, Wong & Wong, 2009). What can we do to better prepare our neophyte teachers to be effective classroom managers?

Having been classroom teachers and now teacher educators, many university professors understand how inextricably linked the salient components of classroom management are to effective instruction and student achievement. Many of us experienced the scenario described above as student teachers, convinced we were going to be dismal failures, all due to a lack of appropriate techniques. Until recently, many undergraduate programs did not offer a classroom management course; new teachers learned on their feet, by trial and error, which was a stressful and ineffective method.

University instructors can hopefully prevent our novice teachers from experiencing this agonizing situation by providing them with some “tools in their toolbox” to manage the students in their classroom without coercion and punishment, which is largely ineffective in changing student behavior. Attention and nurturing should be given to all students, and teacher praise can be a useful tool in achieving essential objectives ((Sprick, Garrison, & Howard, 1998; Marchant & Anderson, 2012). Teacher education programs should introduce classroom management strategies along with lesson planning to prospective teachers. Teacher candidates learn when creating a positive learning environment, they must construct a classroom in which learning consistently occurs (Young & West, 2008), and which is characterized by an apparent focus, high expectations, a warm environment, and predictable routines and consequences (Latham, 1998; Sprick et al., 1998; Young & West, 2008).

Our university graduates approximately 400 teacher candidates a year. We have a quarter system requiring teacher candidates to take a senior undergraduate course on classroom management for 10 weeks. The most effective way to develop successful classroom management skills is to create one’s own personalized plan using the most current and relevant information available (Charles, 2014), which our teacher candidates do. They work in groups to analyze and synthesize the development of modern discipline strategies based on major researchers in the field, view various classroom videos of teachers demonstrating techniques, and relate learning to observations of or interviews with real classroom teachers in prior field experiences.

Wong and Wong (2009) state effective teachers are good classroom managers and have positive expectations their students will be successful. Teacher candidates develop several papers based upon various interrelated topics, including their philosophy of student behavior, their personal management style, and expectations. Identification of classroom management style is important to promote more democratic, humanistic, and positive styles for interventionists (Chambers and Hardy, 2005). Teacher candidates determine their seating chart, procedures, rules, rewards, consequences, and how they will communicate with stakeholders. Training in specific key strategies can provide teachers with the resources to prevent problem behavior and manage disruptions without the use of reactive consequences. Teachers can devote more time to instructional activities rather than on reactions to problem responses that rarely contribute to positive long-term outcomes (Ducharme & Shecter, 2011). The teacher candidates also analyze how to integrate specific classroom management in developing each Task in The Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA, 2013), which is Washington’s required performance-based assessment for pre-service teachers that is completed during student teaching.

The final “Classroom Management Plan” is a compilation of their personal research, theory, and practice; it is a professional document in APA format, “published” for future use during student teaching, employment interviews, and in their first teaching position. Many students comment they how extremely proud they are of their enormous effort in creating and publishing their plan.

Method

Participants

We received university Institutional Review Board approval to conduct educational research. An anonymous, online, ongoing survey was created and consisted of 27 questions to collect data over a period of two years. It was disseminated in stages to 170 senior level teacher candidates who enrolled in this course during four university quarters (one year) following restructuring the course using their university email addresses through the web-based tool Qualtrics. Data collection and analysis are ongoing and still in process. Teacher candidates’ verbal and written feedback indicates their perceptions changed and the content learned was very valuable after taking the course. The anecdotal comments are wonderful, but insufficient; we were still curious specifically how their perceptions changed from before taking the course to after creating their Classroom Management Plan. Beginning with the second year, candidates will be asked during the first week of class to answer five questions in one or two sentences about the meaning and purpose of classroom management. These narrative responses will be compared to the results from the survey at the end of the second year.

Procedure

The first six questions identified the participants’ demographic information: gender, age, year graduated, teaching level (EL, MS, HS), current position, and number of teaching opportunities. The remaining 21 questions were based on understanding and applying the research-based strategies learned in the course in teaching situations as well as how their disposition towards management changed as a result of the course. The responses were recorded on a Likert-like scale from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 10 = “Strongly Agree” (see Appendix). Responses were downloaded, quantified, and aggregated by question. The survey will remain open until June 2015 to allow all participants an opportunity to complete their coursework and student teaching before completing the survey.

            In our professional education program sequence, some candidates complete their student teaching the quarter after completing this course, and some still have coursework to complete. We prefer that participants complete their student teaching before they participate in the survey; therefore, we decided to wait one or two quarters after the participants completed the course to distribute the survey instrument. Most candidates also participate in practica experiences or work as substitute teachers giving them other opportunities to work with K-12 students as well as a basis for responding to the survey questions if they choose to take it prior to student teaching.

Results

At the beginning of the course, most candidates equate classroom management with rules and punishment or disciplinary methods and have no concept of how to structure their classroom, based on verbal comments in class. Ashley stated that her students will be high school age and should know how to behave, so she shouldn’t have to tell them what to do. They have not considered that management largely involves teaching students daily routines and procedures to achieve an orderly, structured learning environment. Joette stated that she participated in a mock interview before taking this course and, when asked a question about classroom management, she had no idea how to answer it. After she completed the course, she felt comfortable describing her management plan and strategies. Pre-service teachers rank classroom and behavior management highly in what makes an effective teacher (Minor, Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, & James, 2002; Lee, Tice, Collins, Brown, Smith, & Fox, 2012). These “ah-ha” reflections are incredibly rewarding for course instructors.

Steven went directly from taking the course to student teaching in high school history and shared his method for knowing students:

Having to think about what we would do in these situations has definitely helped. Obviously, I have not memorized everything I wrote (in my plan), but taking the time to think about it has been valuable. The first few days I implemented “I-messages” and proximity with a high level of success. I pass back papers in class each day, so I wanted to make it a priority to learn their names quickly. When I pass back papers, I ask students questions and associate their names with the story. Whenever I had the chance I would look at the seating chart and learn one row at a time, rhyming their name to help learn faster. It looks like I’m talking to myself as I go through the roster, but it’s how I learned them. Once I feel comfortable with the name I make sure to use it as often as possible with the student.

Mary shared how her strategies were tested the second day of student teaching in middle school physical education:

I became the emergency sub on my second day of student teaching when my teacher got sick, and they couldn’t find a sub. I learned A LOT being on my own so fast! In the fifth period class (the most difficult one), I had a girl “de-pants” another girl right in front of me. The whole class stopped and looked at me to see what I would do. The “popular girl” who did the “de-pantsing” asked if I was going to tell the teacher (the day before, all the classes got the speech that I am no different than any other teacher and that I have earned that right. Any problem with me, and it will be an immediate referral, no lunch suspension). When asked if I was going to speak to the teacher when she returned, all I said was, “Of course, that is totally unacceptable.” I just continued the class like nothing happened. At the end of class, the popular girl had her swarm of friends around her protecting her and glaring at me. I sent them all in to get dressed and asked her to come to my office when she was finished changing. The air was thick. I sat in the office wondering what the heck I was going to say or do about this awful incident. AHHHH, WONG CAME TO MY MIND! HA! I couldn’t believe it! I had just a few minutes to reflect on his “My Action Plan” before the student arrived. When she sat down, we totally went through the scenario of what went wrong and why it was wrong and what other places her hands should be. We both agreed that her choice to keep her hands to herself would be a great choice. We opted to leave this conversation and agreement between us and start over fresh with a new agreement…MOORISH! She was relieved, and I got to be the cool teacher and write her an excused tardy slip for her next class. She and I have been cool ever since. It was soooo great to experience that! It really does work! Anyway, it made me smile, and so relieved that I took your class and had all those theorists drilled in my head. It is so important to have a game plan because students are going to test you from day one (or two, in my case!).

The teacher candidates’ responses from the first group are shown in the Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows the first six questions, which identify the participants’ demographic information: gender, age, year graduated, teaching level (EL, MS, HS), current position (student, student teacher, teacher, not teaching), and number of teaching opportunities. The characteristics indicate a traditional university of undergraduate students majoring in education. Table 2 shows the percentage of respondents who selected a response of five or higher (on a scale of 1-10), with 10 being “Strongly Agree.”

Teacher candidates indicated the course concepts learned were useful in their overall success as a teacher, as shown in Table 2. The preliminary survey results suggest a strong positive connection between the Classroom Management course content learned and application of the strategies to classroom teaching with 90% of respondents reporting the course was an integral component of the professional education program. Ninety percent of the survey participants also reported the Wong (2009) textbook was valuable (question 16), the skills learned for the first day of class helped them set the tone for the classroom environment (question 22), and they learned how to encourage positive behaviors (question 24). More than 80% of the respondents stated they applied the philosophical foundations developed and honed as well as techniques and strategies learned throughout the course in managing classroom behavior (questions 10 & 17). About 75% of respondents stated they gained confidence (question 12), and about 66% to 75% communicate effectively as a result of the completing the classroom management course (questions 18-21).

The responses showed candidates felt some areas of the course were not as important as others in preparing them to successfully teach. Only about half of the respondents stated their perceptions about student teaching changed significantly (question 11), which wasn’t surprising because they already know the expectations. Only 60% of the respondents stated the course content gave them insight for successfully completing the Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA, 2013), which is completed during student teaching (question 27). The candidates completed an assignment during the course in which specific classroom management strategies learned were effectively implemented in each of the edTPA (2013) Tasks. As previously stated, not all respondents have completed their student teaching; therefore, not all have completed the edTPA (2013). We expect the positive responses to increase as candidates who completed the course in the second year show the benefits of instructors’ experience teaching the course, more emphasis on field experiences, and making course modifications based on candidate feedback.

Discussion and Implications

The trend that teacher candidates are reporting shows they are effectively implementing the strategies learned in the classroom management course as they begin teaching in the classroom. Their disposition changed and their confidence increased as a result the curricular content covered, contributing to their overall success as a teacher. Teacher candidates discovered that classroom management involves building a community of learners in their classroom by bonding with and supporting their students, rather than using discipline, coercion, and punishment to achieve optimal behavior. Ongoing survey dissemination and analysis will further generalize these results. Offering candidates the pre-course survey will provide valuable insight into how their perceptions changed as a result of the aptitude they gained. The research discusses the importance of classroom management skills for beginning teachers, and many university teacher preparation programs require their teacher candidates to learn and implement management strategies as part of their foundational coursework. Classroom management expertise necessitates effective teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms, thereby increasing teacher success and personal satisfaction, which concomitantly has a significant positive impact on their students’ well-being and academic achievement.

The findings are summarized in the following list:

1. Candidates use the strategies learned in the classroom management course effectively when teaching students.
2. Candidates find the resources provided useful and practical in the classroom.
3. Candidates’ perceptions about how to effectively manage a classroom changed as a result of the course.
4. Candidates gained confidence in their ability to plan and implement instruction based on the context of their classroom.
5. Candidates learned skills to manage undesirable behaviors and promote positive behavior in their classroom.

The survey results suggest a strong positive connection between the Classroom Management course content learned and application of the strategies to classroom teaching (questions 7-10, 13-17, and 22-24, 26). We presented these findings at the NWATE Conference in June, 2014. Most participants were university or college instructors, some of whom offer a classroom management course, and some who don’t. There was keen interest in developing and implementing cogent, research-based coursework for pre-service teachers as an integral component of teacher preparation programs. We would like to continue this research study through 2014-15 to ascertain cogent trends and strategies that can be extrapolated to undergird the basis of university classroom management courses.

 

References

Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. (2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(1), 3-16.

Chambers, S. M. & Hardy, J. C. (2005). Length of time in student teaching: Effects on classroom control orientation and self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Research Quarterly, 28(3), 3-9.

Charles, C. M. (2014). Building classroom discipline (11^th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andrée, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). State of the profession: Study measures status of professional development. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42-50.

Ducharme, J. M. & Shecter, C. (2011). Bridging the gap between clinical and classroom intervention: Keystone approaches for students with challenging behavior. School Psychology Review, 40(2), 257–274.

edTPA. (2013). Teacher performance assessment for Washington. Retrieved from http://edtpa.aacte.com

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103-112.

Greenwood, C. R., & Abbot, M. (2001).The research to practice gap in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276-289.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(3), 133-144.

Latham, G. I. (1998). Keys to classroom management. Logan, UT: P & T Ink.

Lee, J., Tice, K., Collins, D., Brown, A., Smith, C., Fox, J. (2012). Assessing student teaching experiences: Teacher candidates’ perceptions of preparedness. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(2), 3-19.

Marchant, M. & Anderson, D. H. (Spring, 2012). Improving social and academic outcomes for all learners through the use of teacher praise. Beyond Behavior, 22-29

Minor, L., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., & James, T. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ educational beliefs and their perceptions of characteristics of effective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(2), 116-127.

Sprick, R., Garrison, M., & Howard, L. M. (1998). CHAMPs: A proactive and positive approach to classroom management. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest Publishing

Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (2009). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications, Inc.

Young, K. R., & West, R. P. (2008). Building positive relationships and social skills: A nurturing pedagogy approach. Provo, UT: Positive Behavior Support Initiative, Brigham Young University.

Appendices

Table 1

 Classroom Management Candidates’ Demographics

Question                                                                           % of Highest Response

1. Gender                                                                                                             71% = Female
2. Age                                                                                                                   88% = 18-27
3. Year of Graduation                                                                                            59% = 2014
4. Current or anticipated teaching grade level                                                      59% = MS/HS
5. Current position (student, student teacher, teacher, not teaching)                   56% = ST/T
6. Number of teaching opportunities                                                                     56% = 1-5

 

Table 2

Classroom Management Candidates’ Selected Responses of Five or Higher

 Question                                                                                                                     % Agree

7. Course provided useful techniques to use…………………………………………………..83
8. Strategies learned in the course are applied when instructing students………………..83
9. Course changed perception about effectively managing a classroom………………….73
10. Philosophical foundations of classroom management are applied when instructing students…………………………………………………………………………………………..80
11. Course helped in gaining confidence as a teacher………………………………………..70
12. Perceptions about student teaching changed significantly……………………………….53
13. Course positively affected personal classroom management skills……………………..80
14. Course created confidence in ability to plan/implement instruction based on
    learner characteristics & context of school and community……………………………..83
15. Charles textbook used in course was valuable…………………………………………….70
16. Wong textbook used in course was valuable……………………………………………….90
17. Philosophy of classroom management developed in course is applied…………………87
18. Course prepared how to communicate effectively with students………………………..77
19. Course prepared how to communicate effectively with parents……………………….. 67
20. Course prepared how to communicate effectively with colleagues…………………….67
21. Course prepared how to communicate effectively with administrators…………………67
22. Skills learned for the “first day of class” are applied to set the tone and the
    classroom environment………………………………………………………………………..90
23. Plan developed is applied for how to manage undesirable classroom behaviors……..83
24. Plan developed is applied for how to encourage positive classroom behaviors……….90
25. Video examples for implementing strategies helped develop personal
    behavior management plan……………………………………………………………………70
26. Course was extremely important component of overall professional education program…………………………………………………………………………………………..90
27. Course provided valuable insight for completing a successful edTPA…………………..60

Classroom Management Survey

Please check the appropriate category for each of the questions below:

1. Gender: Male, Female
2. Age: 18-22, 23-27, 28-32, 33-37, 38-45, over 45
3. Year of Anticipated Graduation: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017
4. Current Status: CWU student, Student Teacher, Certified Teacher Teaching, or Certified Teacher Not Teaching, None of These Options Apply to Me
5. Teaching Level: Pre-K, Elementary, Middle School, High School
6. Number of Teaching Opportunities or Positions: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, more than 15, Not Applicable

For each of the following questions, please select the location on the spectrum that best represents your response. (Scale was provided under each question).

             Strongly Disagree                                                                                      Strongly Agree

1           2           3          4          5          6          7          8          9          10

7. The classroom management course provided useful techniques for me to use.
8. I apply the strategies learned in the course when instructing students.
9. This classroom management course changed my perception about effectively managing a classroom.
10. I apply the philosophical foundations of classroom management that were learned when instructing students.
11. This classroom management course helped me gain confidence as a teacher.
12. By completing this course, my perceptions about student teaching changed significantly.
13. This course positively affected my own classroom management skills.
14. Because of the content of this course I am confident in my ability to plan and implement instruction based on learner characteristics and the context of the school and community.
15. The research-based textbook used in this course, authored by Charles, was valuable to me.
16. The research-based textbook used in this course, authored by Wong, was valuable to me.
17. I apply the philosophy of classroom management that I developed in this course.
18. Because of this course, I am better prepared to communicate effectively with students.
19. Because of this course, I am better prepared to communicate effectively with parents.
20. Because of this course, I am better prepared to communicate effectively with colleagues.
21. Because of this course, I am better prepared to communicate effectively with administrators.
22. I apply the skills learned in this course for the “first day of class” to set the tone and classroom environment.
23. I apply the plan I developed in this course for how to manage undesirable classroom behaviors.
24. I apply the plan I developed in this course for how to encourage positive classroom behaviors.
25. The video examples for implementing classroom management strategies helped me develop my own classroom behavior management plan.
26. This course was an extremely important component of the overall professional education program.
27. This course provided valuable insight for completing a successful edTPA.

ARTICLE PDF

   Idaho Teacher’s Attitudes about Child Abuse and/or Neglect: Trends and Implications of Reporting      

Leah Meredith Huff

Master’s Student

leah.huff@yotes.collegeofidaho.edu

The College of Idaho

Abstract This mixed-methods study investigated problems impeding teachers and, in particular, Idaho elementary teachers in fulfilling their responsibility to report child abuse and neglect (CAN) as mandated by law. Teachers were asked about their desires to know more about child protective services (CPS) and its court process. Quantitative data was gathered from a sample of 25 teachers using an adapted version of Teachers and Child Abuse Questionnaire (ECAQ). Qualitative data was obtained from teacher interviews. Both sets of data were analyzed separately and compared providing triangulation. Teachers reported uncertainty about education adequacy pertaining to CAN. Teachers wanted to know more about CPS and the CPS court process to help fulfill their mandated duties. The researcher’s recommendations include building relationships between CASA personnel and educators to assist teachers’ self-confidence in reporting cases of CAN. Federal intervention should give consistent educational guidelines within CAN laws to improve CAN education regarding teacher’s mandated duties.                              

Overview of Study In the United States in 2012, there was a nationally estimated rate of 686,000 victims of child abuse and neglect resulting in approximately 1,640 child fatalities (National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect [NDACAN], 2012). During 2013-2014, I conducted a mixed-methods study to discover why Idaho teachers were struggling to fulfill their duties as mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect (CAN). The following four research questions guided my study:

1. How adequate is teacher pre-service and post-service training for helping make teachers aware of mandated reporting of CAN?
2. What complications impact teacher preparedness and willingness to report suspected cases of CAN?
3. What professional supports do teachers feel are needed regarding CAN?
4. What further information do teachers want about Child Protection Services (CPS) and the court system’s procedures that children and families must go through?

During the quantitative part of the study, I used an adapted version of the Teachers and Child abuse Questionnaire (ECAQ), which had been previously used in other child abuse studies (Kenny, 2001; Kenny 2004) to survey twenty-five elementary school teachers from three elementary schools in southwest Idaho. I organized survey responses according to my four research questions. During the qualitative part of my research, I conducted, recorded, and transcribed three interviews. The three teachers I interviewed were a purposeful sample; one teacher was interviewed from each of the three elementary schools, additionally, the interviewees were chosen according to the responses from the ECAQ survey. I performed cross-case coding between the interviews to find the common interview themes. Common interview themes and survey themes were analyzed and compared. I called the themes established between both sets of data recurring themes. These recurring themes generated the findings for this study.

Study’s Findings

The purpose of this article is to better make sense of my research study. Specifically, I wish to explore what the five findings of this study (based upon the recurring themes) suggest for future practice. The five findings from my research are listed below:

1. Professional obligations: Participants cared about protecting their students from CAN and believed it was their professional obligation to report such cases.
2. Education Adequacy: Participants felt unsure about their pre-service and post-service training adequacy about how to deal with CAN a teacher. Participants desired further education and support about CAN and how to deal with it as a teacher.
3. Reporting Policies: Participants believed they were correctly fulfilling their mandated duties to report CAN by following their school’s reporting policies. However, the reporting policies for the three schools studied did not allow the participants to self-report cases of suspected CAN.
4. Contact with CPS system: Participants contact with social workers was rare.
5. CPS Knowledge: Participants wanted to know more about the CPS system and its court process.

Explanation of Findings What do the five findings of this study mean, and what questions and concerns do they raise? How do they coincide with the past research concerning teachers reporting CAN? Finding #1. Professional Obligations: Teachers in this study were accurate in believing they are professionally obligated to report suspected cases of CAN. Starting in 1974, The Child Abuse and Treatment Act, Law 93-247 (CAPTA) was the law that helped paved the way for educators to become mandatory reporters of CAN in all fifty states (Kenny, 2001; Bruno & Hinkelman, 2008; Crosson-Tower, 2003). Furthermore, educational personnel have played a pivotal role in recognizing and preventing future episodes of abuse. Teachers may spend as much or perhaps even more time with a child than the actual parent or guardian, allowing them to build strong teacher-student relationships, which gives students support and guidance, while also being valuable advocates for elementary children who are especially vulnerable to abuse (Riggs & Evans, 1979; Hinkelman & Bruno, 2008; Abrahams, Casey & Daro, 1992). Knowing the critical role teachers play for abused and/or neglected elementary aged children, it is important that teachers know what to do if they suspect CAN; and, to suspect CAN, teachers must be educated about their role as mandated reporters of CAN. Finding #2. Education Adequacy: The participants in this study did not feel adequately prepared to deal with cases of CAN and wanted to learn about how to handle CAN as a teacher. This finding is not uncommon. A common research theme is that, although school professionals commonly report child maltreatment, they lack enough knowledge about CAN to help identify and report potential cases (Levin, 1983; Haase & Kempe, 1990; Abrahams, Casey & Daro, 1992; Kenny 2001; Zellman & Fair, 2002; Kenny, 2004; Webster, O’Toole, O’Toole & Lucal, 2005; Hinkelman & Bruno, 2008; McKee & Dillenburger, 2012; Krase, 2013). Numerous studies have found that most teachers are unaware of the indications of specific types of abuse especially because some symptoms and indications can be subtle (Hinkelman & Bruno, 2008; Crosson-Tower, 2003). Other studies indicate that teachers may ignore symptoms or simply not understand that the symptom “i.e., the very quiet child” is masking deeper abuse (2008). The lack of education that teachers are receiving about their duties to report CAN is worrisome and the consequences can be catastrophic for an abused and/or neglected child. For example, The Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) (Sedlak et al., 2010) (a congressionally mandated periodic research report) found that, although school personnel are known to make the most reports of CAN, reports made by schools receive the fewest CPS investigations. The NIS-4 (2010) stated that these low investigation rates might be explained from some school policies barring teachers from making direct reports to CPS. Conversely, it is also known that when teachers are allowed to make direct reports to CPS agencies, they account for the fewest reports made to CPS agencies compared to staff of other agencies (e.g. health agencies and law enforcement) (2010). It is clear that teachers are struggling with aspects of reporting cases of CAN: as a result of teachers not reporting suspected cases of CAN in a sufficient manner, abused and/or neglected children may never receive the help they desperately need. Finding #3. Reporting Policies: Most teachers in this study did not self-report suspected cases of CAN as Idaho CAN law mandates (“Idaho Statutes 16-1605”) and seemed unsure what reporting suspected CAN entailed. Why might these teachers not have known or understood what Idaho law mandates? Haase and Kempe (1990) explained, there is a lot of “legal confusion” (p. 261), especially when it comes to knowing when and how to report CAN. They also noted a lack of “Clear, written procedures or guidelines within the schools system for reporting” (p. 261). These ambiguities in CAN state’s laws can cause confusions about teacher’s legal obligations (Haase & Kempe, 1990; Foreman & Bernet, 2000, p. 190). My study suggests that teachers might unknowingly be acting in opposition to the law when reporting suspected cases of CAN. Teachers who fail to self-report cases of CAN have been a concern discussed by other researchers in the past (Kenny, 2001; Kenny, 2004; Alvarez et al., 2005, Abrahams et al., 1992; Sedlak et al., 2010). Barring teachers from self-reporting CAN has dire consequences. Kenny (2001) and Abrahams (et al., 1992) explained that, if teachers make their reports to other school personnel, such as counselors, nurses, or principals and fail to directly report to CPS agencies and/or law enforcement, many cases go unreported and/or not able to be investigated. Such a policy may continue to place a child at risk for further CAN. My findings suggest the importance of noting that procedures that bar teachers from making direct reports to CPS might be in opposition to states’ CAN mandated reporting laws and hinder the ability of CPS and law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations of reports of suspected CAN. Finding #4 & Finding #5. Contact with the CPS and Knowledge about the CPS system: Although participants had little to no contact with social workers, the majority felt it was important to learn more about the CPS process and its court system. Little to no attention has been given to teachers and the idea that they should obtain knowledge about the CPS court system. Many education programs are designed to help teachers increase reporting cases of CAN and focus on obtaining knowledge about the symptoms abused children show (Yanowitz, Monte & Tribble, 2003). Should teachers know about the CPS court process? Crosson-Tower (2003) wrote the manual titled The Role of Educators in Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse and Neglect. This document is alone in detailing information for educators about what happens once a report is made to CPS. It also explains that some “educators may be asked to appear in court as witnesses” (p. 36). The manual then gives information known as “tips” for the educator to adhere to when going to court and explains that notes can be subpoenaed for a CPS court system. These “tips” and information may help a teacher navigate the critical features of the CPS court system that they may find themselves part of. However, recommendations from recent research state that teachers and CPS workers should build working relationships to help teachers understand their mandated duties to report CAN and create the needed rapport between both professionals (Sedlak et al., 2010; Haase & Kempe, 1990; Alvarez, Kenny, Donohue, & Carpin, 2004; Sinanan, 2011). Additionally, working relationships between teachers and CPS workers are critical to develop because teachers have been known to believe that CPS does not help abused and/or neglected children (Krase, 2013). Distrust between these two professionals have been known to arise from the “mysterious elements” teachers have been said to have felt surrounding the disappearance and lack of knowledge about the cases they reported (Haase & Kempe, 1990; Crosson-Tower, 2003; Alvarez et al., 2004). Having little to no contact with CPS workers may impede ways for teachers to build trust with CPS workers.

Implications of Findings

The following section presents four recommendations derived from the five study findings already discussed.

1. Consistent Educational Guidelines: Findings from my study suggest that most teachers want to fulfill their role as mandated reporters of CAN, but lack the education to properly do so. A lack of awareness exists regarding the issue that teachers are receiving little to no education about their mandated duties as reporters of CAN. The federal government must become more aware that most states have CAN laws that lack a specific law mandating teachers to be given the proper resources to be able to follow the law; no federal law makes education about CAN laws mandatory.

My research compels me to believe the federal government should give education requirements for all fifty states to follow. These education requirements should give teachers the information needed to properly fulfill their mandated duties to report CAN. Education requirements within every state’s CAN laws would create fewer ambiguities and more knowledge about teacher duties as reporters of CAN.

2. School Districts Evaluating School Policies: Past research concluded that educational personnel seemed unknowledgeable about reporting procedures (Abrahams et al., 1992; Kenny, 2001; Kenny, 2004; Levin, 1983, Dillenburger & Mckee, 2012) and school policies surrounding them might not be in compliance with state and federal reporting laws (i.e. not letting a teacher self-report a case of CAN) (Kenny, 2001; Alvarez et al., 2005; Sinanan, 2011). Because teachers are mandated reporters of CAN at the state and federal level in the United States, lacking knowledge of the legal faultiness reporting procedures within in their schools may practice puts teachers at a disadvantage. The federal government should require school districts to evaluate individual school policies regarding reporting CAN in their districts and make sure they accord to their state’s CAN laws.
3. Teacher Education with CASA and CPS Workers: Teachers in my study felt unsure and undecided about the adequacy level of their CAN training; specifically, they did not know whether it prepared them to report CAN as educators. Such uncertainty with their preparedness to report cases of CAN is worrisome in light of past research that found a positive relationship between teachers having higher self-confidence levels and having better abilities to report potential cases of CAN (Walsh, Farrell, Schweitzer & Bridgestock, 2005; Kenny 2004; Yanowitz et al., 2003).

Teachers may want to report cases of CAN, but obstacles such as the lack of education about CAN laws and reporting CAN and school policies barring staff from making direct reports of CAN leave teachers underperforming at the advocacy levels they wish to and as mandated by federal and state laws. I have come to believe that all undergraduate colleges should educate soon-to-be teachers about the warning signs of CAN. Undergraduate programs must focus on teaching educators about the state and federal laws concerning CAN they must adhere and how to handle suspected cases of CAN. I also believe undergraduate programs should create working relationships with local CPS workers (Hinkelman & Bruno, 2008; Sedlak et al., 2010) and build stronger relationships between teachers and CPS workers during undergraduate years. Furthermore, the growing distrust between the CPS system and teachers might be prevented if educators built relationships with the CASA program. Both professionals have one unique duty that sets them apart from other professionals: to advocate for what is in the best interest of the child (About Us. – CASA for Children, n.d.). Therefore, teachers and CASA workers may relate to and perhaps trust each other more than an educator and CPS worker may. Support from a CASA to an educator can bring teachers a sense of comfort about the CPS system, which may help them gain the confidence needed to report more cases of CAN. The school district also plays an important role between building working relationships with local CPS workers and teachers (Sedlak et al., 2010; Hinkelman & Bruno, 2008). Most study participants wanted more education and support about CAN. School districts must become aware of the increasing need for relationships between CPS workers and other such professionals to develop trust and education that their district’s need to report more cases of CAN. A professional development day could include CASA and CPS representatives and create a safe environment where teachers ask important questions that have been revealed only through practice. It is crucial that school districts provide resources to teachers by giving them annual updates about the ever-changing CPS system and their mandated duties as reporters of CAN.

4. Teacher Training Programs Incorporating the CPS System and its Court Process: Teachers in my study wanted to know more about the CPS system and its court process. Teachers have a professional duty to know how they can support their student during a court process and be given information about the role they may play during a CPS court process (Crosson-Tower, 2003).

Additionally, because of the inadequacy of knowledge teachers acquire about the signs of CAN (McIntyre, 1990; Abrahams et al., 1992; Tite, 1994; Kenny, 2001; Kenny, 2004), confidence issues existing about reporting cases of CAN (Yaniowitz et al., 2003; Goldman, 2007; McKee & Dillenburger, 2012), the legal ambiguities teachers are facing when reporting suspected cases of CAN (Levin, 1983; Haase & Kempe, 1990; Abrahams et al., 1992; Foreman & Bernet, 2000; Kenny, 2001; Kenny, 2004; Goldman, 2007; Sinanan, 2011), and confidentiality laws and policies that usually surround follow-up of reported cases of CAN (Haase & Kempe, 1990; Crosson-Tower, 2003; Alvarez et al., 2004), it becomes easier to see why many teachers are experiencing distrust for the CPS system. However, such distrust for the CPS system may dwindle if the CPS system were not a mysterious entity for most educators as it currently is (Haase & Kempe, 1990; Crosson-Tower, 2003; Alvarez et al., 2004). Teachers maintaining distrust for the CPS system is a serious dilemma. Teachers will forever be on the front lines of reporting suspected CAN because of the strong teacher-student relationships that form within their classrooms. Consequently, teachers often acquire firsthand knowledge and observations of the suspected CAN of their students (Riggs & Evans, 1979; Hinkelman & Bruno, 2008; Abrahams, et al., 1992), conceivably making them one of the most influential advocates for their students enduring suspected CAN. Such powerful advocates for abused and/or neglected children must be better heard and incorporated within a CPS court process instead of feeling mystified by it. Once training programs for teachers include information about their sometimes essential and professional involvement with the CPS system/court process, teachers may become more empowered and motivated to learn how to use their direct knowledge and observations about suspected CAN and develop into more involved and valuable members of a child’s advocacy team during a CPS court process. Training programs for teachers learning about their mandated duties to report CAN would benefit teachers, CPS workers, the CPS system/court process, and students by including information about the CPS system and its court process that their students and teachers themselves might become a part of.

Summary

If teachers were equipped with knowledge to fulfill their roles as mandated reporters of CAN, they could better protect and advocate for students who might be suffering from CAN. Particular attention should be paid to this study’s recommendations detailing fostering relationships between personnel at CASA programs and teachers and establishing training programs for teachers that incorporates information about the CPS system/court system process that teachers may find themselves and their students involved in. Findings from my study strongly suggest that the federal government create consistent and firm educational guidelines every state must follow and incorporate into the CAN laws. Only then would teachers find the help and support they deserve to have to fulfill their mandated duties as reporters of CAN.                                        

References

About Us. (n.d.). – CASA for Children – National CASA. Retrieved June 20, 2014, from http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5301303/k.6FB1/About_Us__CASA_for_Children.htm Abrahams, N.,Casey, K., & Daro, D. (1992). Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, And Beliefs About Child Abuse And Its Prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(2), 229-238.

Alvarez, K., Kenny, M., Donohue, B., & Carpin, K. (2004). Why Are Professionals Failing To Initiate Mandated Reports Of Child Maltreatment, And Are There Any Empirically Based Training Programs To Assist Professionals In The Reporting Process? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 563-578.

Alvarez, K. M., Donohue, B., Kenny, M. C., Cavanagh, N., & Romero, V. (2005). The process and consequences of reporting child maltreatment: A brief overview for professionals in the mental health field. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(3), 311-331. Crosson-Tower, C. (2003). The role of educators in preventing and responding to child abuse and neglect. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Foreman, T., & Bernet, W. (2000). A Misunderstanding Regarding the Duty to Report Suspected Abuse. Child Maltreatment, 5(2), 190-196. Goldman, J., Wolcott, D., & Kennedy, K. Y. (2003). A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice. A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for Practice Jill Goldman Marsha K. Salus with Deborah Wolcott Kristie Y. Kennedy 2003 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Administration ,114.

Haase, C. C., & Kempe, R. S. (1990). The School and Protective Services. Education and Urban Society, 22(3), 258-269. Hinkelman, L. & Bruno. M (2008). Identification And Reporting Of Child Sexual Abuse: The Role Of Elementary School Professionals. The Elementary School Journal, 108(5), 376-391. Idaho Statutes 16-1605. (n.d.). Statutes. Retrieved August 4, 2014, from http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title16/T16CH16SECT16-1614.htm

Kenny, M. C. (2001). Child abuse reporting: teachers’ perceived deterrents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1), 81-92.

Kenny, M. C. (2004). Teachers’ Attitudes Toward And Knowledge Of Child Maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(12), 1311-1319.

Krase, K. S. (2013). Educational Personnel as Reporters of Suspected Child Maltreatment. Children & Schools, 35(3), 147-154.

Levin, P. G. (1983). Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, and reporting of child abuse/neglect. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 62(1), 14-20.

McIntyre, T. (1990). The Teacher’s Role in Cases of Suspected Child Abuse. Education and Urban Society, 22(3), 300-306.

Mckee, B. E., & Dillenburger, K. (2012). Effectiveness of child protection training for pre-service early childhood educators. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 348-359. National Data Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2012). User guide. Retrieved from http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/

Riggs, R. S., & Evans, D. W. (1979). Child Abuse Prevention -Implementation Within the Curriculum. Journal of School Health, 49(5), 255-259.

Sedlak, A.J., Mettenberg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Spencer, L. (2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Sinanan, A. N. (2011). Bridging the Gap of Teacher Education about Child Abuse. Educational Foundations, 25, 59-73.

Tite, R. (1994). Detecting the symptoms of child abuse: Classroom complications.. Canadian Journal of Education, 19(1), 1-14.

Walsh, K., Farrell, A. M., Schweitzer, R., & Bridgstock, R. S. (2005). Critical factors in teachers’ detecting and reporting child abuse and neglect: implications for practice : a project funded by the Abused Child Trust. Kelvin Grove, Qld.: Queensland University of Technology.

Webster, S. W., O’Toole, R., O’Toole, A. W., & Lucal, B. (2005). Overreporting And Underreporting Of Child Abuse: Teachers’ Use Of Professional Discretion. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(11), 1281-1296.

Yanowitz, K. L., Monte, E., & Tribble, J. R. (2003). Teachers’ beliefs about the effects of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(5), 483-488.

Zellman, G., & Fair, C. (2002). Preventing and reporting abuse.. the APSAC handbook on Child Maltreatment, 0, 449-475.

ARTICLE PDF

Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Different Types of Bullying and The Likelihood They Will Intervene

 

 

 

 

Jennifer R. Banas, MPH, MSEd, EdD

Assistant Professor

Northeastern Illinois University

5500 N. St. Louis Ave

HPERA Department

5500 North St. Louis

Chicago, IL 60625

j-banas@neiu.edu

Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs Towards Different Types of Bullying and The Likelihood They Will Intervene

Abstract

To increase the likelihood a preservice teacher would intervene into a bullying situation, it is necessary to understand their attitudes towards and beliefs about different types of bullying. Results from this study indicate preservice teachers respond to different types of bullying in different ways. They are more likely to rate bullying directed towards one’s sexual orientation as serious and important in which to intervene; however, compared to other types, they are more likely to intervene into physical bullying. The attitudes and beliefs that most greatly predicted the likelihood of intervention included empathy towards the victim, believing it was important to intervene, and having the self-efficacy to do so. Suggestions for how professional preparation programs can use this information to design learning experiences that better prepare preservice teachers’ and increase the likelihood they would intervene into bullying are shared.

 

Keywords: preservice teachers, bullying, bullying intervention and prevention, attitudes and beliefs

Introduction

Bullying is an unfortunate occurrence in schools nationwide. A survey of 5,064 teachers and educational support staff revealed 62% witnessed bullying two or more times in the last month and 41% at least twice per week (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O’Brennan, & Gulemetova, 2011). Other surveys revealed 20% percent of high school students and 37% of sixth grader students were bullied within the last 12 months (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010; Robers, Kemp, Truman, & Snyder, 2013). Also, 26% of elementary school students heard others make homophobic bullying remarks (GLSEN & Harris Interactive, 2012).

Bullying is not without consequences. Swearer, Espelage, Vaillaincourt, and Hymel (2010) cite short- and long-term complications for bullies and victims including academic problems, psychological issues, and social relational problems. Victimization is linked to illness, school avoidance, poor academic performance, suicide ideation, and long-term difficulties with self-esteem, anxiety, and depression (McDougall, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2009). Being a witness to bullying is associated with damaged relationships, social mistrust, and anxiety (Carney, Jacob, & Hazler, 2011).

Making an impact on bullying requires making an impact on future teachers. In the current study, I investigated preservice teachers’ attitudes towards and beliefs about different types of bullying situations and the likelihood they would intervene. I also studied the relationship between attitudes and beliefs with likelihood of intervention. As a teacher educator, my hope is this research will help professional preparation programs design learning experiences that influence the likelihood a preservice teacher would intervene into or work towards the prevention of bullying in a future school setting.

 

Literature Review

Bullying Defined

Bullying is “any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated” (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014, p. 7). Direct bullying is aggressive behavior that occurs in the presence of the target. Conversely, indirect bullying is directed at a target not present. Types of bullying include physical, verbal, and relational. Physical bullying includes behaviors such a punching, pushing, tripping, and spitting. Verbal bullying includes communication such as threats, taunting, name-calling, offensive hand gestures, or degrading notes and electronic messages. Relational bullying includes behaviors intended to harm relationships or reputation by way of ignoring, isolating, or exclusion from activities (Gladden et al., 2014).

Teachers intervening into bullying

Teachers play a pivotal role in the prevention of bullying (Bauman & DelRio, 2005). Frey, Jones, Hirschstein, and Edstrom (2011) found direct links between teachers’ empathy and assertiveness behaviors and students’ responses to bullying. When teachers intervened, students were less likely to endorse the bullying. Teachers who quickly respond to bullying send a message that bullying is unacceptable, thus creating an anti-bullying environment (Doll, Song, Champion, & Jones, 2011). When teachers take the perspective that bullying is just “kids being kids,” higher levels of bullying exist (Holt, Keyes, & Koenig, 2011).

Not all teachers intervene into or work towards the prevention of bullying. Although most school staff are willing to intervene, less than 40% are involved in its prevention (Bradshaw et. al, 2011) and reasons why vary widely (Yoon, Bauman, Choi, & Hutchinson, 2011). Gender (Hirdes, 2010), perceived severity of the situation, empathy towards the victim, efficacy to respond (Boulton, 1997; Yoon, 2004), type of bullying (Yoon & Kerber, 2003), knowledge and skills (Milburn & Palladino, 2012), and lack of administrative support (Meyer, 2008) have been linked to teachers’ response.

Preservice teachers’ knowledge about, attitudes towards, and beliefs about bullying

Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying also vary. Moreover, Bauman and DelRio (2005) contend preservice teachers’ lack of knowledge about bullying may result in ineffective and even harmful interventions. Bauman and Del Rio (2006) and Craig, Henderson, and Murphy (2000) found more preservice teachers took action when bullying was physical as compared to verbal or relational. Also, Craig, Bell, and Leschied (2011) found preservice teachers rated physical bullying more serious than homophobic, relational, or cyber-bullying. Finally, Boulton, Hardcastle, Down, Fowles, and Simmonds (2014), found perceived seriousness, ability to cope, and empathy towards the victim predicted preservice teachers’ likelihood of intervention.

Research Questions

Given the literature, there is value in studying one’s own preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs to conduct better matched professional preparation. To that end, my research questions were:

RQ1: Do preservice teachers’ attitudes towards, beliefs about, and intentions to intervene into a bullying situation vary depending on the type of bullying?

RQ2: Do preservice teachers’ attitudes towards and beliefs about a bullying situation predict the likelihood they will intervene? Which attitudes and beliefs predict?

Methods

Participants and Recruitment

With Institutional Review Board approval, participants were a sample of convenience as they were students recruited from one of my courses for three semesters between 2011-2012. The course, Organization and Administration of School Health Programs, is required for preservice teachers working towards their health education endorsement. Participation was voluntary; all participated.

Study Design and Procedures

I administered the survey during the second week of the course. To avoid bias, my colleague provided participants with the survey link while I was out of the room. To maintain confidentiality, participants did not provide names.

Measures

The assessment contained 28 items. Two questions were demographics (age and gender); 24 were the same six questions presented after four different scenarios. In the scenarios, a power imbalance exists between two students and the victims are left feeling angry, miserable, and/or isolated. Each scenario presented a different type of bullying: verbal, verbal but directed towards sexual orientation, relational, and physical. Scenario 1 is identical to one appearing in Bauman, Rigby, and Hoppa (2008); the others were patterned off the first. The scenarios are as follows:

1. A student is being repeatedly teased and called names by another, more powerful student. The more powerful student has successfully persuaded other students to do the same as much as possible. (Verbal bullying.)
2. A student is being repeatedly teased and called slang names referring to sexual orientation by another, more powerful student. The more powerful student has successfully persuaded other students to do the same as much as possible. (Verbal bullying – sexual orientation focus.)
3. A student repeatedly excludes certain other students from both play and classwork group activities. This student, who appears to be perceived as popular, also has successfully persuaded other students to do the same as much as possible. (Relational bullying.)
4. A student, who appears to have a powerful social influence, repeatedly pushes and trips another student. Sometimes the student threatens to beat up the other student. (Physical bullying.)

After reading each scenario, participants rated their agreement, on a scale of 1 to 7, with attitudinal and belief statements. Questions related to the seriousness of the situation, importance of intervening (i.e. duty), empathy towards the victim, efficacy of intervening, self-efficacy to intervene, and likelihood of intervening (See Appendix). Respectively, the questions made up these six variables: seriousness, duty, empathy, intervention efficacy, self-efficacy, and intervene.

Results

Data Analysis

I used Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Version 20 to analyze the data. Reliability analysis revealed a Cronbach alpha value of .87 for the attitude, beliefs, and likelihood of intervention questions as a whole. Alpha values for the seriousness, duty, empathy, intervention efficacy, and self-efficacy variables across the four scenarios were .54, .52, .74, .68, and .84, respectively. The alpha value for the likelihood of intervention was .74.

Participants

There were 67 participants. Ages were grouped in 5-year segments. The majority (92.5%) fell into the 18-22 years old (35.8%), 23-27 years old (41.8%), and 28-32 years old (14.9%) brackets. Gender was split fairly even; 56.1% (n=37) were male, 43.3% (n=29) were female, and .6% (n=1) did not indicate. Education levels were high school (38.8%), associate’s (37.3%), bachelor’s (16.4%), master’s (4.5%), and no reply (3%).

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Likelihood of Intervening into Different Situations

I used a one-way, repeated measures (or within subjects) analysis of variance (ANOVA) to explore differences in attitudes, beliefs, and intentions for the different scenarios. There was a significant effect for the type of bullying on seriousness, Wilks’ Lambda = .54, F (3, 64) = 17.90, p < .0005; duty, Wilks’ Lambda = .77, F (3,64) = 6.30, p < .001; empathy, Wilks’ Lambda = .68, F (3, 64) = 10.28, p< .0005; intervention efficacy, Wilks’ Lambda = .48, F (3, 64) = 23.10, p < .0005; and intervene, Wilks’ Lambda = .88, F (3, 64) = 2.70, p = .05. Partial eta-squared values were .46, .28, .33, .52, and .11 respectively. See Table 1 for descriptives.

Using guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988) (.01 = small, .06 = moderate, and .14 = large effect), these results suggest large effect sizes. There was not a significant effect for the type of bullying on self-efficacy. These results suggest the type of bullying did not have an effect on most of the preservice teachers’ attitudes towards, beliefs about, and intentions to intervene into a bullying situation. Because there were statistically significant differences, paired samples t-tests were used to make post hoc comparisons between the scenarios, using the Bonferonni test, for five of the six variables.

Seriousness. I found significant differences between scenario 1 (verbal) and 2 (verbal – sexual orientation focus), scenario 1 and 3 (relational), and scenario 1 and 4 (physical). A scan of mean scores in Table 1 reveals participants rated scenario 2 as more serious than any of the others. This means participants perceived bullying directed towards sexual orientation as the most serious. General verbal bullying was rated lowest.

Duty. I found significant differences between scenario 2 and 3, and scenario 2 and 4. Table 1 reveals participants rated scenario 2 more serious than any other scenario. Relational bullying was rated lowest. This means participants believed it was more important to intervene into bullying that was sexual orientation in nature, compared to relational.

Empathy. I found significant differences between scenario 1 and 4, scenario 3 and 4, and scenario 2 and 3. Table 1 reveals participants rated scenario 4 as the highest and scenario 3 the lowest. This means they would more likely have empathy towards a victim of physical versus relational bullying.

Intervention efficacy. I found significant differences between scenario 1 and 4, scenario 2 and 4, and scenario 3 and 4. Table 1 reveals participants rated scenario 4 as the highest and scenario 1 the lowest. This means participants believed intervening into physical bullying, compared to verbal, would more likely resolve the situation.

Intervene. I found significant differences between scenario 2 and 3, and scenario 3 and 4. Table 1 reveals participants rated scenario 4 the highest and scenario 3 the lowest. This means participants would more likely intervene into physical versus verbal bullying.

Ability of Attitudes and Beliefs to Predict Likelihood of Intervention

I averaged participant responses for each variable across the four scenarios to investigate whether attitudes and beliefs, in general, predicted intentions to intervene. A multiple regression analysis, via the enter method, was conducted. Performing a multiple regression analysis assumes lack of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity exists when more than two predictors correlate very strongly. When this happens, it creates biased estimates between variables. Collinearity diagnostics were performed and did not reveal violations. In accordance with Pallant (2010), tolerance values were high (above .10) and variance inflation factor (VIF) values were low (below 10), both suggesting the likelihood of multicollinearity (and biased estimates) was low. Moreover, bivariate correlation values were below .70, therefore omission of variables was not considered (Pallant, 2010). Correlations appear in Table 2; tolerance and VIF values appear in Table 3.

The regression analysis revealed participants’ attitudes towards and beliefs about different types of bullying situations predicted the likelihood they would intervene. The total variance explained by the model was 56.1%, F = (5, 61) = 15.57, p < .001. Duty (beta = .30, p < .01), empathy (beta = .38, p = .001), and self-efficacy (beta = .31, p = .001) predicted significantly. Seriousness and intervention efficacy did not predict. (See Figure 1 and Table 4) This means participants’ belief that it was important to intervene (i.e. duty), empathy towards the victim, and self-efficacy to intervene influenced whether or not they would intervene. Given the high correlations between these factors, this finding is no surprise. The findings also mean whether intervening will resolve the situation or the seriousness of the situation is not important,

Discussion

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Likelihood of Intervening into Different Situations

Results indicate the preservice teachers reacted differently to different types of bullying. Specifically, they judged it was important to intervene (i.e. their duty) or it was serious when the bullying was verbally directed towards sexual orientation. Conversely, they held empathy towards the victim, believed intervening would make a difference (i.e. intervention efficacy), and indicated they would intervene when bullying was physical.

Findings regarding sexual orientation bullying contrast with previous literature. Perez, Schanding Jr., and Dao (2013) found teachers rated physical bullying related to sexual orientation or gender identity as less serious. Also, teachers were less empathetic towards the victim and less likely to intervene. Similarly, Craig et al. (2011) found preservice teachers rated homophobic bullying less serious compared to physical. Reasons why the current study participants rated this type of bullying as more serious and important in which to intervene were not investigated. Reasons could relate to the diversity of the participant’s university or its urban surroundings. A popular media source recognized the university as one of the most ethnically diverse in the nation. Also, its urban setting might have provided a more supportive environment. Goodenow, Szalacha, and Westheimer (2006) indicate lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth in urban communities face less hostile school climates because of the wider array of social niches to which students may belong.

Regarding empathy, intervention efficacy, and likelihood of intervening, participants rated physical bullying the highest. Similarly, Craig et al. (2000) and Duy (2013) found teachers’ indicated greater likelihood to intervene into physical bullying compared to verbal or relational bullying. Likewise, Bauman and DelRio (2006) and Yoon and Kerber (2003) found preservice teachers had less empathy for relational bullying victims and were less likely to intervene into such incidents. These latter results, however, might not reflect the increase in public acceptance, tolerance, in the years since the studies were published.

Ability of Attitudes and Beliefs to Predict Likelihood of Intervention

Results indicate participants’ attitudes towards and beliefs about bullying predict whether or not they are likely to intervene. Of the five variables studied, empathy towards the victim, importance of intervening (i.e. duty), and self-efficacy predicted likelihood to intervene. Seriousness of the situation and intervention efficacy did not predict. Similarly, Yoon (2004) found efficacy and empathy towards the victim predicted teachers’ likelihood to intervene. Also, Craig et al. (2000) found preservice teachers’ empathy predicted likelihood of intervention, a finding that reflects Mehrabian and Epstein’s (1972) seminal research on empathetic tendencies and helping behavior.

Limitations

There are at least three major limitations to the findings in this study. First and foremost, the situations presented in the scenarios were hypothetical; therefore, there may be discrepancies between how a preservice teacher would respond in a real situation. Exposing preservice teachers to real bullying situations via video could be a way to gather data that more closely resembles how they would respond. Second, the participants in this study attend a diverse university in an urban setting. Additional research should compare responses of preservice teachers from different types of settings. Third, the sample size was modest. A larger sample size could potentially reveal different or more accurate results. Despite these limitations, results from the current study reinforce findings in the literature and point to areas in need of attention.

Research into Practice

Previous research and the current study can point professional preparation programs in the right direction when it comes to educating preservice teachers about bullying. Differences in attitudes, beliefs, and likelihood of intervention based on type of bullying, indicate a need for instruction on the damaging effects of bullying, particularly relational bullying, which can be equally or even more damaging (Kawabata, Crick, & Hamaguchi, 2013). Findings also suggest preservice teachers need learning experiences that foster empathy towards individuals involved in bullying, promote the importance of intervening, and develop their self-efficacy to intervene. Specific ways to carry out these experiences are describe next.

Developing empathy.

According to Barrett-Lennard (1959), there are at least four components of empathy: 1) understanding another person’s actions and feelings, 2) wanting to understand another person, 3) being able to communicate that understanding, 4) experiencing what another person feels. Cultivating these components could serve as training goals with preservice teachers.

To develop an understanding of another person and the desire to understand, mentoring-based learning experiences could help. Fresko and Wertheim (2006) found appointing preservice teachers as mentors to at-risk children increased sensitivity towards this population. Professional preparation programs could replicate this training via service learning projects matching preservice teachers with children who are both similar and dissimilar to them and who have been involved in bullying. A similar impact could be made via guest speakers, reading young adult literature in which the character(s) have been bullied (Pytash, 2013), and video game avatars (Chen et al., 2012; Shrier, 2012).

To develop empathy-related communication skills, professional preparation programs could incorporate peer counseling using bullying case scenarios with students from different backgrounds. Among preservice teachers, Lasseigne and Martins (1979) found peer counseling improved empathy and expression of empathy. Arizaga, Bauman, Waldo, and Castellanos (2005) multicultural sensitivity and interpersonal skills training lead to an improvement in empathetic listening skills.

Developing the ability to experience someone’s feelings, the last of the four empathy components, is complicated. In a meta-analysis, Lam, Kolomitro, and Alamparambil, (2011) concluded empathetic behaviors could be expressed with or without the feeling. Also, they were uncertain whether empathy developed in trainings extends to the natural environment. This does not mean empathy training is pointless, but training expectations should be realistic and focus on empathy skills that can be observed.

Cultivating a belief that intervening is important.

To cultivate the belief that intervening into a bullying situation is important, professional preparation must provide a basic overview of bullying. They should also discuss professional and legal obligations to advocate for students’ safety. A basic introduction would cover the definition of bullying, causes, short and long-term consequences, and methods of prevention linked to research. Recognized training programs such as Bully Busters (Horne, Bartolomucci, & Newman-Carlson, 2003), Bully Proofing Your School (Bonds & Stoker, 2000), or the Olweus school-based bullying intervention program (Olweus, 1978) can help. Instruction related to legal obligations should include child protection laws and opportunities to practice processes for reporting abuse (Weimer, 2012).

Cultivating self-efficacy to intervene.

Self-efficacy is influenced by four main sources: 1) mastery experiences, 2) vicarious experiences provided by social models, 3) social persuasion, and 4) somatic and emotional states (Bandura, 1992). This means preservice teachers need opportunities to practice bullying intervention skills, to observe others successfully intervening, to be exposed to positive messages about prevention, and to redirect stress in a positive direction. Benitez, Garcia-Berben, and Fernandez-Cabezas (2009) and Newgent, Higgins, Lounsbery, Behrend, and Keller (2011) found significant improvements in preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, knowledge and skills to confront bullying after receiving intervention strategy training. In my own research, I found authentic learning exercises rooted in professional standards lead to an increase in preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to perform bullying prevention activities Banas (2014). Activities included reviewing and revising bullying policies, designing bullying-related faculty trainings, and planning for an anti-bullying school health council. In all of these studies, role-playing, case studies, and self-reflection were a regular instructional strategy.

Conclusion

Results from this study indicate preservice teachers respond to different types of bullying in different ways. They are more likely to rate a bullying situation directed towards one’s sexual orientation as serious and important in which to intervene; however, they are more likely to intervene into a physical bullying situation. Overall, the attitudes and beliefs that most greatly predicted the likelihood of intervention included empathy towards the victim, believing it was important to intervene, and having the self-efficacy to do so.

Professional preparation programs can play a pivotal role in the reduction of bullying. Findings from this study highlight opportunities for professional preparation programs to positively influence preservice teachers attitudes towards and beliefs about bullying. In end, the goal should be to foster appropriate attitudes and beliefs and to empower preservice teachers to make bullying intervention related decisions based on sufficient, reliable, relevant, and valid information.

References

Arizaga, M. P., Bauman, S., Waldo, M., & Castellanos, L. P. (2005). Multicultural sensitivity and interpersonal skills training for preservice teachers. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 44(2), 198.

Banas, J. R. (2014). The influence of collaborative, authentic learning exercises on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and intentions to intervene into and prevent bullying in their future schools. American Journal of Health Education, 45(4), 239-248.

Bandura A. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanisms. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 3-38). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1959). Dimensions of perceived therapist response related to therapeutic change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2005). Knowledge and beliefs about bullying in schools: Comparing Pre-service teachers in the United States and the United Kingdom. School Psychology International, 26(4), 428-442.

Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 219-231.

Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837-856.

Benitez J, Garcia-Berben A, & Fernandez-Cabezas M. (2009). The impact of a course on bullying within the pre-service teacher training curriculum. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7(1), 191-207.

Bonds, M. & Stoker, S., (2000). Bully proofing your school: A comprehensive approach for middle schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Boulton, M. J. (1997). Teachers’ views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology,67, 223-233.

Boulton, M. J., Hardcastle, K., Down, J., Fowles, J., & Simmonds, J. A. (2014). A comparison of preservice teachers’ responses to cyber versus traditional bullying scenarios: Similarities and differences and implications for practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2),145-155.

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O’Brennan, L. M., & Gulemetova, M. (2011). Findings from the National Education Association’s nationwide study of bullying: Teacher’s and education support professional’s perspectives. National Education Association. Retrieved from: http://www.nea.org/assets/img/content/Findings_from_NEAs_Nationwide_Study_of_Bullying.pdf

Carney, J. V., Jacob, C. J., & Hazler, R. J. (2011). Exposure to school bullying and the social capital of sixth-grade students. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50(2), 238-253.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010, June 4). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States 2009. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59 (SS-5). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5905.pdf

Chen, G., Lee, J., Wang, C., Chao, P., Li, L., & Lee, T. (2012). An empathic avatar in a computer-aided learning program to encourage and persuade learners. Educational Technology and Society, 15(2), 62-72.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Craig, K., Bell, D., & Leschied, A. (2011). Preservice teacher’s knowledge and attitudes regarding school violence. Canadian Journal of Education, 34, 21-33.

Craig, W. M., Henderson, K. and Murphy, J. G. (2000) Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and victimization, School Psychology International, 21, 5–21.

Doll, B., Song, S., Champion, A., & Jones, K. (2011). Classroom ecologies that support or discourage bullying. In D.L. Espelage & S.M. Swearer, (Eds.). Bullying in North American schools (2nd ed., pp. 147-158). New York, NY: Routledge.

Duy, B. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes toward different types of bullying and victimization in Turkey. Psychology in the Schools, 50(10), 987-1002.

Fresko, B., & Wertheim, C. (2006). Learning by mentoring: Prospective teachers as mentors to children at-risk. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership In Learning, 14(2), 149-161.

Frey, K. S., Jones, D., C., Hirschstein, M. K., & Edstrom, L. V. (2011). Teacher support of bullying prevention: The good, the bad and the promising. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.). The handbook of school bullying: A North American perspective (pp. 266 – 277). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., & Lumpkin, C.D. Bullying Surveillance Among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education; 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf

GLSEN & Harris Interactive. (2012). Playgrounds and prejudice: Elementary School climate in the United States, a survey of students and teachers. New York, NY: GLSEN.

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 573–589.

Green, S. P., Shriberg, D., & Farber, S. L. (2008). What’s gender got to do with it? Teachers’ perceptions of situation severity and requests for assistance. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation,18(4), 346-373.

Hirdes, C. L. (2010, April). Gender and race of teacher and student: Are they related to teacher responses to incidents of school bullying? (Unpublished thesis). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/193408/1/azu_etd_11060_sip1_m.pdf

Holt, M., Keyes, M., & Koenig, B. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes toward bullying. In D.L. Espelage & S.M. Swearer, (Eds.). Bullying in North American schools (2nd ed., pp. 119-131). NY: Routledge.

Horne, A. M. Bartolomucci, L., & Newman-Carlson, D.A. (2003) Bully busters: A teacher’s manual for helping bullies, victims and bystanders (grades k-5). Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Kawabata, Y., Crick, N. R., & Hamaguchi, Y. (2013). The association of relational and physical victimization with hostile attribution bias, emotional distress, and depressive symptoms: A cross-cultural study. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16(4), 260-270.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 national school climate survey. New York, NY: GLSEN. Retrieved from http://glsen.org/nscs

Lam, T., Kolomitro, K., & Alamparambil, F. C. (2011). Empathy training: Methods, evaluation practices, and validity. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 7(16), 162-200.

McDougall, P., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2009). What happens over time to those who bully and those who are victimized? In S. Hymel & S. Swearer (Eds.).Bullying at school and online [Special edition]. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/topic/school-bullying-teasing

Mehrabian, A. & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525-543.

Meyer, E. J. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers’ (non) interventions. Gender and Education, 20(6), 555-570.

Milburn, W., & Palladino, J. (2012). Preservice teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions of LGBTQ bullying intervention. The American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 16, 86-100.

Newgent, R. A., Higgins, K. K., Lounsbery, K. L., Behrend, B. A., & Keller, E. A. (2011). Bully busters modified: The effect of a brief universal intervention on elementary school teacher efficacy, skills and knowledge, and reports of student victimization of peers. ERS Spectrum, 29(1), 35-45.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4^th ed.). New York, NY: Open University Press.

Perez, E. R., Schanding Jr, G. T., & Dao, T. K. (2013). Educators’ perceptions in addressing bullying of LGBTQ/gender nonconforming youth. Journal of School Violence, 12(1), 64-79.

Pytash, K. E. (2013). Using YA literature to help preservice teachers deal with bullying and suicide. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(6), 470-479

Robers, S., Kemp, J., Truman, J., & Snyder, T. (2013). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012 (NCES 2013-036/NCJ 241446). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC.

Shrier, K. (2012). Avatar gender and ethical choices in Fable III. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 32(5) 375-383.

Spence, J. T. & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity & femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, & antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Swearer, S., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47.

Weimer, A. (2012). Examining pre service teacher knowledge of student rights and tort liability (Unpublished thesis). University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=srhonors_theses

Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1), 37-45.

Yoon, J., Bauman, S., Choi, T., & Hutchinson, A. S. (2011). How South Korean teachers handle an incident of school bullying. School Psychology International, 32(3), 312-329.

Yoon, J. S., & Kerber, K. (2003). Bullying: Elementary teachers’ attitudes and intervention strategies. Research in Education, 69, 27–34.

Table 1

Descriptives for Attitudes, Beliefs, and Likelihood of Intervening for Different Situations

Variable	n	M	SD
1 –Seriousness	67	6.25	.86
2 – Seriousness	67	6.73	.59
3 – Seriousness	67	5.67	1.42
4 – Seriousness	67	6.49	.90
1 – Duty	67	6.40	.97
2 – Duty	67	6.58	.80
3 – Duty	67	6.04	1.24
4 – Duty	67	6.07	1.25
1 – Empathy	67	6.36	.93
2 – Empathy	67	6.55	.82
3 – Empathy	67	6.01	1.22
4 – Empathy	67	6.82	.49
1 – Intervention efficacy	67	4.78	1.46
2 – Intervention efficacy	67	5.13	1.55
3 – Intervention efficacy	67	5.30	1.40
4 – Intervention efficacy	67	6.22	1.06
1 – Self-efficacy	67	5.64	1.32
2 – Self-efficacy	67	5.46	1.39
3 – Self-efficacy	67	5.79	1.26
4 – Self-efficacy	67	5.81	1.29
1 – Intervene	67	6.34	.93
2 – Intervene	67	6.39	.83
3 – Intervene	67	5.99	1.31
4 – Intervene	67	6.48	.96

Table note:

1 = verbal bullying scenario

2 = verbal bullying scenario with a sexual orientation focus

3 = relational bullying scenario

4 = physical bullying scenario

Table 2

Correlations

	Seriousness	Duty	Empathy	Intervention efficacy	Self-efficacy		Intervene
Seriousness	1.00	.54**	.55**	.15	.26**	.52**
Duty	.54**	1.00	.45**	.33**	.27*	.58**
Empathy	.56**	.45**	1.00	.20	.10	.58**
Intervention efficacy	.15	.33**	.20	1.00	.25*	.24*
Self-efficacy	.26*	.27*	.10	.25*	1.00	.45**
Intervene	.52**	.58**	.58**	.24*	.45**	1.00

* p < .05.

**p < .001 level.

Table 3

Linear Regression Results and Collinearity Diagnostics

	B	SE(B)	β	t	p	Tolerance	VIF
Seriousness	.08	.14	.07	.60	.55	.56	1.77
Duty	.33	.12	.30	2.77	.01	.61	1.64
Empathy	.42	.12	.38	3.56	.00	.65	1.54
Intervention efficacy	.01	.07	.02	.19	.85	.85	1.18
Self-efficacy	.22	.06	.31	3.41	.00	.87	1.15

Appendix

Bullying belief and attitude questions

1. How serious is this bullying situation?

not serious :___1__:___2__:___3__:___4__:___5__:___6__:___7___: very serious

2. How empathetic do you feel towards the victim?

not empathetic :___1__:___2__:___3__:___4__:___5__:___6__:___7___: very empathetic

3. Intervening in this situation will resolve the bullying problem.

not likely :___1__:___2__:___3__:___4__:___5__:___6__:___7___: very likely

4. Intervening in this situation is

not important :___1__:___2__:___3__:___4__:___5__:___6__:___7___: very important

5. I have the skills to intervene in this bullying situation.

strongly disagree:___1__:___2__:___3__:___4__:___5__:___6__:___7___: strongly agree

6. How likely are you to intervene into this bullying situation?

not likely :___1__:___2__:___3__:___4__:___5__:___6__:___7___: very likely

ARTICLE PDF

 Negotiating Place, Identity, and Role:

First Experiences as a Teacher Leader

(What is the Experience of a Teacher Moving into a Teacher Leadership Role?)

 Jeff Kuntz

Doctoral Candidate and Teacher Educator

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta

jpkuntz@ualberta.ca

  

Abstract:

In their respective positions as instructional coach, lead teacher, and consultant, teacher leaders are to implement and in many cases, lead educational reforms by modeling and encouraging changes in pedagogy and practice. This complex leadership role necessitates constant negotiation as teacher leaders gauge when and how they may encourage, direct, and support the teachers they work with. Further complicating this role is its non-supervisory nature; teacher leaders are not to evaluate their colleagues for employment purposes nor can they discipline or reprimand them. Instead, teacher leaders must rely on their credibility as experienced educators and their ability to encourage and support. Teachers who move into teacher leadership positions report that this transition is complicated by a need to balance collegial relationships while at the same time provide constructive criticism. This phenomenological inquiry, based upon lived experience descriptions from teacher leaders, examines two of the first interactions of newly appointed teacher leaders: meeting the staff and visiting the classroom. The paper provides insight into the negotiation process teacher leaders go through as they assert and define their role with their colleagues. Dimensions explored include entering new territory, being set apart, encountering skepticism, coming under fire, finding a place, providing feedback, considering the impact, and receiving validation.

 

 

Keywords:

 

teacher leadership, professional development, phenomenology, instructional coaching, consulting, school improvement, identity, role, relationships

Negotiating Place, Identity, and Role: First Experiences as a Teacher Leader.

 

(What is the Experience of a Teacher Moving into a Teacher Leadership Role?)

It is my first visit to a classroom in my new role as a teacher leader. At this point, I’m not quite sure what to do with myself. What is my role? Do I just sit at a desk in the back corner and take notes? Do I hover around the classroom? Should I actually jump into the lesson? Am I here to encourage, critique, or model? Am I really ready to become a mentor, or am I just pretending to be something I’m not?

With the current emphasis on school improvement, many teachers are being challenged to become “teacher leaders” in their schools and in their school districts. Taking on roles like instructional coach, lead teacher, and consultant, these educators are to implement and in many cases, lead educational reforms by modeling and encouraging changes in pedagogy and practice. However, it can be difficult to make the transition from working with children to working with adults. While these teachers may be comfortable in their own classrooms, they often have little experience in motivating adults, leading change, accessing research and providing support.

One very challenging factor in this transition from teacher to teacher leader is the teacher leader’s obligation to effect change: “It entails mobilizing and energizing others with the goal of improving the school’s performance of its critical responsibilities related to teaching and learning” (Danielson, 2006, p. 12). As Killion states: “Teacher leaders have a single guiding purpose – to build capacity in others. They use their talents to influence, shape, support, and catalyze change that results in increased student achievement. Their actions reveal their fundamental belief that they more they build capacity in others, the more they contribute to sustaining long-term, deep transformation that allows others to address today’s challenges and to be prepared for facing those that arise tomorrow (Killion, 2007, p. 11).

Providing effective teacher leadership is a tall task. Teacher leaders often find themselves “straddling the line” between colleague and coach, providing some teachers with a sympathetic ear and an open heart and others with a firm push to make meaningful changes in their practice and planning. Further complicating this charge is the fact that most teacher leaders are in non-supervisory roles; they are not to evaluate their colleagues for employment purposes nor are they able to discipline or reprimand them. These educators are to be teacher leaders, using their credibility and kinship as a teacher to lead through encouragement and support rather than through administrative coercion or demands.

As Danielson points out, “the role of teacher leader and the phenomenon of shifting from colleague to coach requires further attention. Teacher leaders are more than teachers, yet different from administrators. Such a concept of teacher leadership reflects an increasingly recognized hole in models of teacher professionalism that has not yet been fully explored in the professional literature” (Danielson, 2006, p.15). Just what is the lived experience of a teacher transitioning into a teacher leadership role? How do newly appointed teacher leaders encounter their new surroundings and adjust to their new situation? And what insights might we gain about their negotiation for space, identity and a meaningful role in the classrooms and schools they are to serve?

To further investigate these questions, four teacher leaders were asked to write first-hand accounts describing some of their early experiences as an instructional coach. These teacher leaders were assured their anonymity (through the use of pseudonyms) and were told that, for the purposes of this study, they were to focus on the “lived experience” of those initial interactions; I was looking for moment-by-moment recollections about the nature of these exchanges. The accounts were not to explain or rationalize the particular reform the teacher leaders may have been championing (e.g. best practices in assessment or differentiation), but were to capture the essence of the experience – focusing on individual and collective perception and response. What follows is a phenomenological analysis of these teacher leader accounts. In particular, we will examine accounts related to two significant events: the initial meeting of a teacher leader with the staff they are to work with, and one of the teacher leader’s first visits to a classroom. In both instances, these leadership accounts provide significant insight into a previously under-researched area of study: the delicate negotiation process teacher leaders go through as they assert and define their role with their colleagues.

Meeting the Staff

Entering “New Territory,” Facing New Challenges

I walk through the front doors of the school, which looks a little like a battlefield bunker – tons of concrete and very few windows, and I register at the office and introduce myself to the administrative staff. This is my first visit to the school and I am a little nervous, but at the same time I feel empowered. I do not know the teachers I will be working with and, as such, I feel I have nothing to lose. “Bring it on!” I think, “Today will be an adventure!”

At first glance, the simple act of entering the school, registering at the office, and making introductions may seem most inconsequential and ordinary, but it actually reinforces the fact that this coach is “out of place” and is entering new territory. This disorientation is evident as the teacher leader describes the moment as evoking both nervousness and a sense of empowerment. Entering new territory (as this teacher leader does) or even a familiar place but in a different role, we see and experience people and situations as if for the first time.

This new beginning causes the teacher leader to be especially conscious of feelings and impressions that he may usually take for granted. As the teacher leader adjusts to the new role, he notices the look and feel of the building, the disposition of the staff, and how quickly or slowly time elapses. Of course, each teacher leader will experience this newness in different ways based upon their life experience and outlook. Never the less, every teacher leader will experience some level of disorientation and the need to self-orient; to survey and assess their surroundings.

A new beginning may also bring with it physical effects. Some recently appointed teacher leaders experience a level of stress that comes with insecurity, second-guessing, and doubt. Others experience the opposite: the rush (positive stress) of facing a new challenge and the opportunity to show their leadership. What is common in this experience though, is anticipation and uncertainty. A new teacher leader may have adequately prepared themselves for this day by doing some planning, seeking clarity about their role from supervisors and friends, and trying to visualize how the first few months might unfold. However, until they meet the people with which they will be working there will always be a measure of apprehension, ambiguity, uncertainty and excitement.

Being Placed in a New Position; At the Front and Set Apart

It’s time to officially meet the staff. We walk into the library and I see a really large group spread out at different tables. They are just getting settled. I shake hands with the principal, introduce myself to the assistant principal and sit down at their table.

I am sitting right up front; I’d almost rather be in the back.

The first introduction of the teacher leader to the staff often happens a day or two before the school year starts. The teachers gather in the library or the cafeteria to listen to their new consultant or instructional coach. Many of the teachers would prefer to be in their classrooms preparing materials, realigning desks and setting up pin boards. They, like the new consultant, are feeling the anticipation of the new term and are impatient to get started. As they file into the gym or library, teachers will share some of their plans, recount summertime experiences, and rekindle relationships. There is a very visible camaraderie based on shared experiences and the promise of the new school year; it is a camaraderie that the new teacher leader is not part of.

Entering such an environment, the teacher leader may end up watching the staff rather than interacting with them. She may feel pressure to find a place within the culture the school. Will staff and students welcome her? Will she be validated and appreciated or meet with resentment or indifference? Here, the new instructional coach is uncomfortable with “sitting right up front.” The physical, spatial separation underlines, to the teacher leader, that she has been set apart. She has been given a special position. Instead of sitting with the teachers, as she was used to, she is now sitting with the administration, which indicates a power shift: an alignment with the management of the school and not with the staff. However, the teacher leader does not “fit” with the administration either. She is not responsible for the daily functioning of the school as the principal and assistant principal are. The teacher leader has a much narrower focus: that of supporting teachers and leading instructional reform.

Sitting with the administrators, facing the teachers and speaking to them (instead of conversing with them) tacitly sends out a message that can work against the goals of the teacher leader. This “apartness” is indicative of a relational and situational dilemma. On the one hand, the teacher leader wants to show that she is still very much a teacher and shares the concerns and pressures that teachers have. On the other hand, the teacher leader must demonstrate that she has expertise and can provide support that will lead to improved classroom practice, and she needs to do this without denigrating or demeaning current practices. The teacher leader has been set apart in a type of limbo. She is between two worlds: the world of the teacher (which she may be leaving behind if she moves to a full time coaching role) and the world of the administrator (a world that she may not ever choose to be part of). How she chooses to act from this position and how she builds connections with both teachers and management will determine how successful the teacher leader may be.

Making First Contact and Encountering Skepticism

As we go through the introductions, it is apparent that many of the teachers are skeptical. They don’t come right out and say it (especially in front of their principal), but their lack of enthusiasm and some of the offhand comments make it clear that they have reservations. I just need to get through my initial presentation. Not one person is smiling. In my nervousness, I actually say: “You can laugh, that was funny.” A few people smile, but only a couple.

I continue my presentation.

This teacher leader unexpectedly finds himself in a vulnerable position. There are unspoken assumptions, expectations, and perceptions with which to deal. No training and preparation could prepare him for the undercurrent of tension he is experiencing. His intention to establish collegial relations is quietly and quickly undone by his physical position in the room, his assumed alignment with administration, and his charge to “reform” practice. The teacher leader is vulnerable and exposed, susceptible to the disposition of the teachers as they listen and evaluate what he has to say. His attempts to lighten the mood and connect with the teachers only draw more attention to the fact that he is not one of them; he has been set apart.

Such isolation may result in feelings of inadequacy and incompetence. What makes it even more challenging is the public place in which the teacher leader has to wrestle with such skepticism. As he senses the apprehension of the staff, the teacher leader may even have begun to second-guess his decision to take on the position. For some teacher leaders, such an event might lead them to question their readiness, competency, and conviction. Fortunately, this teacher leader perseveres with his presentation.

First interactions with instructional staff are all about making connections. Teacher leaders must justify their position and prove to their colleagues that they have valuable skills and expertise. Fortunately, not all first experiences are as stiff and tense as the one above. Some schools and teachers are looking for support and welcome consultants, lead teachers and instructional coaches into their staffrooms and the classrooms.

Never the less, every time that a teacher leader meets a new staff, a negotiation process begins. Teacher leaders may have invested time and energy into assuming a new role and may have carefully visualized how they want to affect change, but their intentions can quickly butt up against reality. The teacher leader must now adjust as he or she works with the staff to develop a new, shared vision for embedded professional development. This negotiation of roles and vision involves consideration of the district goals, the willingness of the staff to take these goals on, and the various ways in which the teacher leader might support the teachers in this process. Factors that influence this negotiation process might include time, previous experiences with teacher leaders (and the effects thereof), allocation of resources, administrative support, staff relationships, and school politics. Effective negotiation may also depend upon whether or not the personality of the teacher leader meshes well with the personalities in the school.

Coming under Fire

As soon as the principal leaves, the questions start:

“Why are we really here?”

“How much time will this take?”

“Seriously, what does literacy have to do with Math?”

“Are you prepared to support French teachers?”

“My kids are hands-on learners. They come to the shop to get away from books and writing. Do you expect me to give them homework and readings in their CTS courses?”

I do my best to listen to their questions and answer them as directly and honestly as I can without seeming uncertain. It is a tricky process.

This is going to be much harder than I anticipated.

From the moment he arrives, this particular teacher leader is on inspection. The teacher leader finds himself in a new and very awkward position of authority – and under the microscope. Initially, he is somewhat protected from cross-examination by the presence of an authority figure, the principal. When the principal leaves the room, the teacher leader is quickly put on trial. There are very valid questions about purpose, legitimacy, relevance, and practicality. All of the questions have an undercurrent of skepticism and seem to ask, “Who are you to make assumptions about our classrooms and our practices?”

Feeling somewhat exposed and isolated, the teacher leader must now continue on his negotiation process. He has made his initial “sales pitch” but, in order to support these teachers, he must now try to understand their needs. It is obvious that many of the teachers he will work with have been “voluntold”; that is they have been strongly encouraged or even into the improvement initiative by their administration. It is a daunting task; the teacher leader cannot possibly know each of the teachers’ individual situations. He cannot be an expert in every subject and grade level in the school, nor should he be. That is not his role. Never the less, the teachers continue to grill him, testing his mettle and seeing how quickly he can adjust. The teachers are also letting him know that he cannot expect to advance his goals with a one-size-fits-all approach. Like the teacher leader, these teachers want respect for their experience and expertise, their commitment to their students and to providing quality education in very specific contexts. Most of all they want to be worked with and not upon.

When teacher leaders “come under fire,” like this one has, they are forced to adjust and redefine their role and identity. Experiencing challenges may compel the teacher leader to confront some very deep questions about their purpose and their person. Who am I, really? Am I an expert, a friend, a support, or the consultant that challenges teachers to make improvements and be reflective? How determined am I to seeing this role through? Moreover, what am I about to lose by taking on this identity of teacher leader?

Transitioning into the role of teacher leader requires a shift in orientation. Not only do teacher leaders need to reinterpret how they see themselves, they need to reinterpret how they see their colleagues. This shift happens when the new teacher leader begins to learn about the world of the colleagues they will be working with rather than simply make assumptions about it. In some ways, the confrontational experience related above is actually quite helpful; the teacher leader has immediately been made aware of many of the challenges he will face. The negotiation and bargaining process has begun in earnest; it is a critical moment in a personal and professional negotiation for space, identity, recognition, and validation.

Most often, this negotiation is not so public or confrontational. It happens during parking lot conversations, in quick classroom pop-ins, and while meeting with smaller groups of teachers in department groups or learning teams. Teacher leaders learn to address the concerns of the teachers they work with; concerns about time commitments, applicability, and levels of support. They make assurances about the lasting importance of the professional support they will provide and try to dissuade any notions of bandwagons or flavour-of-the-month professional development. Negotiation and bargaining happen when teacher leaders:

• market themselves, selling the value of their expertise and the dividends of improved student achievement or reduced teacher workload;
• distance themselves from administration and assure teachers that they are to support – not to report (tattle);
• build inroads by providing materials and resources, designing lessons, working with individual students, or providing substitute coverage for teachers to attend workshops;
• model particular teaching strategies and provide feedback, or demonstrate and explain why some traditional approaches don`t work; and

• make connections, build relationships, share concerns and build trust.

Working with Teachers

Finding a Place without Upsetting the Climate

I arrive at the classroom just before the bell. Mr. Carson is greeting kids at the door and they are taking their seats in the classroom. I’m not quite sure what to do with myself so I settle into a desk near the back. Then a student comes in, hovers, and I immediately recognize that I am sitting in her seat. I blush, get up, and go to the back of the room to wait until all the places are taken. I try to look casual, leaning against the pin board, clutching my clipboard to my chest, pen in hand.

One of the students blurts “Hey, Mr C., who is that dude?” Mr. Carson explains that I am an instructional coach: here to observe and work with both the class and the teacher.

“So are we like, being evaluated? Or is he here to help you, Mr. C.?”

In this first visit to a particular classroom, the teacher leader is seeking to find a place in an already established order. While Mr. Carson greets the students and reconnects with them, the teacher leader is only an observer, watching and waiting for some kind of cue or acknowledgement that is late in coming. The newness of this situation for teacher leader is quite apparent in his uncertainty and tentativeness; he is unsure of where to sit or how to interact with the students. Choosing to blend in rather than stand out, the teacher leader opts to settle into a chair like a student. However, he is not a student and blending in is impossible. When the girl hovers by her desk, she politely reveals that there are certain developed patterns and expectations in this classroom. The teacher leader’s attempts to mask his confusion and disorientation by retreating to the back and by clinging to the clipboard further reinforce the awkwardness of the moment. At this point, another student draws attention to the teacher leader and confronts the artificiality of the situation. This student may simply be trying to tease his favorite teacher, show off for his classmates, or test the teacher leader. In any case, he reinforces the uncertainty and fluidity underlying every visit to a new classroom. The student also puts his finger on one of the central tensions associated with teacher leadership; the perceived role of the teacher leader and the various viewpoints associated with this role.

For the teacher leader, the first visit to the classroom of a colleague can feel otherworldly. A teacher leader will undoubtedly be someone who has a history of success as a classroom teacher – but this is not his or her classroom. The teacher leader did not work to build the environment, nor have they cultivated a relationship with the students in it. In their “new” context, they may be perceived as intruders; they rupture classroom routine and have immediate environmental impacts. This feeling of being “out of place” may affect a teacher leader in many ways. In terms of location and space, the coach must wait to see how the classroom operates, what kinds of routines have been set, and where in the classroom they can take up position. A teacher leader who moves immediately to the front of the classroom usurps the teacher’s authority in the classroom; a teacher leader who retreats to the back of the classroom may unconsciously imply that they are either here to evaluate from a distance or that they are of little consequence and can be ignored.

How teacher leaders choose to incorporate themselves into classrooms and routines varies greatly. Some teacher leaders will immediately introduce themselves, initiating conversations with students as they enter the classroom and asking them for assistance. Other teacher leaders will have discussed the situation with the teacher beforehand, working out a way to introduce the teacher leader to the students in appropriate manner. However, there may not always be the opportunity to do this kind of preparation, especially with a full slate of classrooms to visit. Again, this is where negotiation comes in. Teacher leaders must recognize the complexity of the classroom and integrate their work and presence into already established routines and relationships. This negotiation requires confidence, flexibility, sensitivity, and tact. The presence of another adult in a classroom could cause the students to act up or, alternatively, to go quiet. The students may purposely ignore the teacher leader or they may overwhelm him with questions and a need to be noticed and recognized. Teacher leaders must be prepared to clarify and work out their role every time they enter a new classroom.

Taking Note to Provide Concrete Feedback

I am observing Tanya’s class, a teacher in my school with whom I have become good friends over the years. In our school, each classroom has an observation room attached with a one-way glass. While I am an unobserved observer, Tanya knows that I am there. This is the first time that I will be giving Tanya written feedback.

I feel it is my duty to pass on some concrete ideas and suggestions for improvement. I note things like: The class is moving along quickly, very little “down time”; needs to make sure to wait long enough for students to respond; “make sure you don’t just give them nouns on their communication boards, they need action words, comment words, and questions.” After an hour’s observation, I go to my office to work on the report for Tanya, gathering more research to fill it up with all kinds of good ideas to improve her practice. Just before the end of the day, I pop “my report” into her mailbox….

Not all teacher leaders are assigned to new schools; some work in their home schools with colleagues that they have had a long history. No longer are they colleagues popping in to borrow the hole punch or to pass on a message from the office; they are now in a coaching role. The teacher leader hopes to assist his or her colleague to make changes or improvements and that might mean watching with a discerning eye: taking careful notes, making judgements, giving advice and asking for specific changes. Suggestions for change are always uncomfortable even when they are considered to be good or helpful changes; these suggestions can often evoke feelings of confusion, inadequacy, or resentment.

In the case above, the teacher leader does her best to focus on the task of providing support for her colleague. She is confident, embraces her new role, and feels empowered by it. Behind the glass, she is able to take notes without having to deal with the curious eyes and queries of the students. Like an anthropologist, she can see the classroom in its “natural” state and is able to make judgments based on her experience and research. For the teacher leader, it is an ideal situation. If she were to be in the classroom, her note taking would be distracting for the teacher and the students alike, people notice when you take notes. Because of her careful observation, the teacher leader can now give practical or “hard” feedback; specific suggestions, links to research, and cautions about oversights. The teacher leader’s work engrosses her, after an hour’s observation she is able to write a detailed report, one that no doubt will be appreciated for its thoroughness and tangibility.

Her emphasis on instructional improvement and on providing concrete suggestions has already affected the orientation of this teacher leader. The classroom reveals itself as a place to be noticed, studied, and critiqued and less of a place simply to live and interact in. This detachment, this critical observation, allows the teacher leader to look past her relationship with the teacher and students and zero in on how things might be improved. In doing so, she chooses not to re-affirm many of the successful practices in the classroom. Instead, she chooses to focus on growth areas, citing deficiencies like inappropriate pacing, inadequate wait time, and missed opportunities. Her careful attention to detail and her commitment to sharing expertise are admirable, but as we will see later on, this teacher leader fails to anticipate or gauge the response she would receive from her friend, Tanya.

Giving useful feedback is at the heart of the teacher leadership role and it is a very challenging task. Without “hard” feedback, visits from teacher leaders do little more than create goodwill. In some cases, these coaching visits are regarded as nuisances or interruptions that interfere with lesson sequencing and disrupt the classroom climate. Moreover, knowing what to look for and how and when to give critical but supportive feedback is art that can take years for teacher leaders to develop. Most teacher leaders work directly in the classroom where their note taking, facial expressions, and level of interaction with the students and teacher set off ripples of apprehension and nervousness. Both teacher and students are conscious of being watched and perhaps judged. For this very reason, many teacher leaders will choose to put away their clipboards and formulate their notes only after the lesson is completed.

Considering the Impact; The Scathing Report

The next morning I try to catch Tanya right away so we can have a chance to talk about my observations. As I come in, she walks right by me. She actually she storms by me, not saying hello or making eye contact. My stomach twitches. Hmm… that’s odd. I put my things in my office and go to her classroom. As is my usual practice I knock quickly and then enter with a “Hi, it’s me!” Stony silence. Now my stomach is really turning. Something is wrong. “Tanya, are you okay? Can we talk?”

She takes a long, deep breath before turning to face me. Then as she does, she says, “I am not sure I want to talk to you ever again.”

“What?” I say, clueless.

“I thought you liked what I was doing! I thought you believed I was a good teacher!” then, worst of all: “I thought you were my friend! I never want to have you in my classroom again!”

I feel sick: Tanya is one of the best teachers I know.

We spend the next hour reflecting not on Tanya’s class, but on my scathing evaluative observation. Tanya walks me through my “brilliant” report showing me the criticisms that she reads there. During this hour, we talk, we cry and I come to understand.

Any shift from a collegial, friendly relationship to one based upon “school and district goals” comes with overtones of evaluation, the politics of power, and the complexity of interpersonal relations. In this continuation of the last anecdote, the teacher leader encounters all of these pressures. When she dropped off her report for Tanya in the mailbox the day before, the teacher leader believed she had done her job, and done it well. Eager to talk about her observations and the work she had done, the teacher leader seeks out her colleague only to encounter tension. While some teachers may have tried to mask their disappointment, Tanya’s feelings are in open display. She “storms by” refusing to make eye contact or say hello. The signals are unmistakable and give evidence that more negotiation and bargaining need to take place. When the teacher leader pops in to Tanya’s classroom and tries to re-establish a collegial rapport, she meets with silence, resentment, and even anger. Tanya feels betrayed.

The result is a shock to the teacher leader. Once again, good intentions have met unanticipated but very real roadblocks. She did not envision her report as being scathing, only as constructive and purposeful. Faced with this sudden realization, the teacher leader is at a loss. She feels sick. Her physical and emotional state reveals just how important it is for her to maintain both her role as teacher leader (expert) and as colleague (friend). Rather than become defensive or haughty, the teacher leader chooses to try to understand Tanya’s reaction. This choice to listen and learn from the teacher she was to coach, ultimately brought about a restoration of the relationship, or perhaps the development of the relationship of a new relationship based upon their revised roles.

In this instance, removing the teacher leader to a spot behind a one-way glass may have assisted the teacher in being more at ease and forgetful of the ever-present eyes, but it also interfered with the subtle negotiation of roles that needs to happen when teacher leaders are in the classroom as participant observers. As the lesson transpires, both teacher and teacher leader will communicate in verbal and nonverbal ways, sharing understandings and sensing each other’s intentions. A one-way glass does not permit such a negotiation. In this instance, the one-way glass served as a physical and emotional barrier that interfered with rapport and relationship building. Because she was not engaged in the classroom, the teacher leader failed to notice the vulnerability of the teacher, and there was no friendly connection in the greeting or reassurance that she liked what she saw in the good bye. Moreover, when a teacher leader interacts in the classroom, she can disclose her own vulnerabilities, her humanness. Ironically, many teacher leaders have made the mistake of operating as if they are behind a one-way glass even when they are physically present in the classroom. In keeping quiet, making clinical observations and scribbling notes, they can put up barriers and miss relational subtleties and nuances while focusing only on instructional and procedural structures.

However, even the most experienced and sensitive teacher leaders can sometimes be blindsided by reactions to their well-meaning guidance. Despite best intentions and careful wording, constructive criticism can still provoke defensiveness, embarrassment, hurt feelings, and even anger. Written reports, however delivered, can sometimes burn – scorching relationships and damaging trust. The formality of any written report and the specificity of it, indicates a radical shift from a teacher-friend role to a more evaluative teacher leader role. Such a report also invites reciprocal action: the teacher-leader’s performance in their new role is also a source for evaluation. This tension around criticism is one of the paradoxes facing teacher leaders. It is difficult to build relationships while at the same time provide “hard feedback” (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2011, p.49). Teacher leaders may seek to provide concrete (hard) suggestions for improvement, but any suggestions that imply that the teacher is doing a less than optimal job are “hard” to hear.

Unlike the teacher leader singled out above, many teacher leaders actually choose to avoid giving feedback that is, in any way, critical or judgmental. Instead, they try to support their colleagues in more subtle ways (by co-teaching with them, supplying them with timely readings, and asking thought provoking questions about planning, practice and the nature of learning). These teacher leaders actually skirt around anything that might seem confrontational, often allowing ineffective practices to continue so they might still be welcome in the classrooms of their colleagues. For these teacher leaders, the leadership aspect of teacher leadership is less important to them than their need to remain collegial. They just want to be one of the teachers; they do not want to be seen as an evaluator or even as a coach, just as a supporter. The irony is that, in working so hard to build relationships and establish trust, these teacher leaders actually devalue their own work with the result being that staff members may conclude that the teacher leader really does not have much to offer as far as expertise or insight (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2011, p.49).

In order to give “hard feedback” teacher leaders must first address this issue directly by redefining peer relationships, the improvement process, and norms of teaching (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2011, p. 49). In addition, the teacher leader needs to read each situation and carefully consider the world of each of the teachers they work with. What constraints do they face in terms of time for planning, availability of resources, amount of training, and class composition? Moreover, the teacher leader must recognize the individuality of each teacher with which they work, doing more than just listening. They need to know their colleagues by working beside them and reading body language, level of eye contact, and tone of voice. When a situation gets difficult or miscommunications happen, the teacher leader will need to address the issues, not avoid them. Moreover, there will be times when a teacher leader might need to take their turn as the learner rather than as the leader, and acknowledge the wisdom and experience of the teachers they are working with.

Making a Difference, Receiving Validation

It was my second visit to this particular school. I was just heading down the hallway to check in with the principal to find out who I might be working with when I was intercepted by a young teacher in the hallway. She spied me from the end of the hallway and flagged me down.

“Hey Pete!” she called out, “got a minute?” I stopped in my tracks, I knew who she was, but I couldn’t remember her name. Frantically I started searching my memory; I had worked with her only a couple of weeks earlier! In seconds, she was upon me. “I just wanted to say thanks,” she said. “I tried several of the “call to order” techniques you suggested after your last visit with my 7Bs. It only took a few times for them to get it! Now my classes are quieter and I have enough voice to get through the day. You can come to my classes anytime!”

I wasn’t sure how to respond, but it didn’t matter. She said something about photocopying and headed off with some speed to the prep room. I remained standing in the hallway, processing the moment. It may have been a quick thank-you for her, but I would remember it for the rest of my life.

On this second visit, our last anecdote, we meet a teacher leader still finding his way in relatively new territory. Rather than popping by the staffroom, or checking in on teachers he may know, he conscientiously checks in at the office to gain direction from the principal. When confronted on his way by a teacher, uncertainty bubbles forth. The teacher leader is acutely aware that he has lost his colleague’s name. He feels exposed, he knows how important it is for each of the people he works with to feel acknowledged and valued. What makes the situation even more difficult is the fact that the teacher feels comfortable enough to address him by his first name. Pete has obviously built up a level of trust and familiarity; will he undermine this by admitting his momentary lapse or simply bluff his way through? Before Pete can pretend or come clean, the teacher startles our teacher leader in a second way; she pays the teacher leader a compliment. Pete is unsure as how to respond. In spite of its awkwardness, this is an important moment for both Pete and the teacher. For the teacher, it is an opportunity to say thank you and perhaps to show Pete that things are improving in her classroom. Thankfully, while this teacher makes a special trip down the hall to say thanks, she is kind enough not to linger. Perhaps she sensed Pete’s embarrassment or maybe she really did have photocopying to do. All the same, the teacher leaves Pete alone in the hallway to reflect upon this moment. For Pete, this simple “thank you” is even more important; it brings validation to his work.

Teacher leaders will receive feedback and validation in many different ways, through email, online and paper surveys, feedback from administrators, and conversations with the teachers. This feedback may positive and direct, like the “thank you” Pete received. Alternatively, it may be negative, in the form of unanswered emails, avoided interactions, and whispered conversations in the staffroom. Sometimes feedback can be disingenuous; intended only to flatter or hurt. When analyzing follow-up surveys, teacher leaders do well to sift through the comments and put aside their egos. They need to “read between the lines,” and find areas to improve on amid the kudos and the criticisms. Teacher leaders also need to look elsewhere for feedback; they need to study school achievement records and gauge the openness and disposition of the staff. If there are less behaviour issues, more engaged students and more invigorated teachers stepping into instructional leadership roles, it may reveal something about the effectiveness of the teacher leader.

Concluding Thoughts

While many educators believe that moving from a teacher to a teacher leader is an easy and natural transition, a closer examination of this conversion reveals that this is not necessarily the case. Even though teacher leaders may be motivated and passionate about their work, this passion may not be shared or even understood. The classroom is a complex place, fraught with tensions related to expectations, relationships, and power.

Teacher leaders are, by the nature of their position and charge, distanced from those that they would serve. These leaders feel obligated to provide solutions and facilitate change. This obligation often comes into conflict with the need to create trust and build relationships. As a result, from the very moment of their appointment, teacher leaders will spend their energies seeking to narrow this distance while at the same time working to earn respect and gain influence. Their complex role (colleague, coach and expert) necessitates constant negotiation as teacher leaders gauge when and how they may encourage, critique, advise, and support the teachers they work with.

Training can help, and in many school districts prospective teacher leaders are given some preparation for the roles they are about to take on. In some cases, teacher leaders might attend a weeklong retreat shortly before the school year begins to meet with their new colleagues (other teacher leaders), discuss expectations, and clarify their goals. But teacher leadership is learned minute by minute and situation by situation on the job. It is shaped and defined when teacher leaders make sense of their experiences, learn from them, and enact in response to their learning (Norris, 2010, p. 169). Experienced teacher leaders have related how they grew into their roles during the first few months on the job and that the lessons they learned are not in any “how to” manual or teacher research publication.

How newly appointed teacher leaders negotiate place, identity and role depends greatly on their level of expertise, their sensitivity, their willingness to be flexible and on the professional climate in which they have been placed. Throughout their careers, but especially in the first few months, teacher leaders need to regularly examine and consider their experiences and interactions. They need to reflect on their orientation, identity, and role and how they might balance personal, relational, and professional goals.

For the newly appointed teacher leader, opportunities present themselves in the form of teachers who open their classrooms and volunteer for consultation and collaboration. Dangers present themselves when teacher leaders fail to recognize the commitment, investment, and humanity of the teachers they work with. Teachers, as well as teacher leaders, take risks and invite criticism when they collaborate for school improvement. Both teacher and teacher leader have a need to be valued and validated as part of the school culture. Teacher leaders who are sensitive to this need and brave enough to share their vulnerabilities as well as their experiences and expertise will be able to negotiate a place, an identity and a fulfilling role within the fabric of the school.

References:

Danielson, C. (2006). Teacher leadership that strengthens professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Killion, J. & Harrison, C. (2007). Ten roles for teacher leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 74-77.

Mangin, M., & Stoelinga, S. (2011). Peer? Expert? Teacher leaders struggle to gain trust while establishing their expertise. Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 48-51.

Norris, C. (2010). Living within reform: A phenomenological study of the lived experiences of teacher leaders in high schools (Doctoral dissertation). University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. Retrieved from: http://library.usask.ca/theses/available/etd-09182010-220244/

ARTICLE PDF

Trauma-sensitive Classrooms

Georgia Davies

Georgia Davies is a Grade 2 teacher at Abbott school in Edmonton, Alberta. She specializes in trauma-sensitive teaching practices and shares classroom strategies with co-workers and people across the district in Edmonton Public Schools. Georgia is currently a graduate student at the University of Alberta, working towards her master’s in Elementary Education.

Voices of Experience

Passing teaching wisdom from experienced teachers to new teachers is a cherished part of teacher professional learning. In this essay to young teachers – really to all of us – experienced elementary teacher Georgia Davies shares her experiences teaching children who have experienced trauma. We trust her insights can help all teachers create more hospitable classrooms so that all children may flourish.

Every day in classrooms across North America, children come to school from homes where they are neglected, abused, or may suffer violence. Emotionally in turmoil, anxious, frightened or angry, they are not ready to learn when they walk through the school door. A typical scenario:

Jay walks in late to class again. He is cold. His brown socks are ripped up to his ankles. He has his boots in his hand and I am taken aback when I realize he is holding rain boots. It is -35C today. Jay just walked to school in rain boots with torn socks. I ask him if his feet are cold, and immediately look up his mother’s phone number. Not to my surprise, her number is not in use. I am not able to contact her.

I ask Jay to hang up his things. He does as he is asked, and hangs up his old worn-out cheetah print coat. Yes, it is a girl’s coat, but it is all he has. He then hangs up his black and green backpack. It is worn out with a few holes and one broken zipper. Inside are the following:

• his agenda
• old newsletters
• granola bar wrappers
• a very old note from me
• pencils
• a few books

His agenda is used every day to remind him what he needs to do each night. Jay is responsible and does not forget his agenda. His agenda is never signed and notes to his parents are not read. Old newsletters are left in the front pocket. He has granola bar wrappers, pencils, and some books that were given to him from the school, as he expresses that he is often hungry and does not own any pencils or books at home.

Jay’s story is similar to those of perhaps millions of children in North America. These children cannot function well unless their school’s teachers and staff are attuned to the conditions they live in and the emotional states they bring to school. We call schools that are sensitive to these matters “trauma-sensitive.” Work in a trauma-sensitive school is intense, because a significant majority of children live with violence, neglect, and abuse. How does a teacher even begin to create a classroom environment that allows traumatized children to focus, thrive, and succeed in the classroom? In this essay, I hope to share a number of ideas that have worked successfully in my classroom and school.

Five strategies that work well include: (1) building strong relationships; (2) understanding children with trauma; (3) creating a structured, calming learning environment; (4) teaching through differentiation; and, (5) engaging children in daily lessons. Each strategy focuses on helping children who have experienced trauma in their home and can be used by any classroom teacher to help improve the community, relationships, and behaviors of children who have experienced trauma. They are also good strategies for “regular” kids.

1. Building Strong Relationships

The teacher’s relationships with children and parents, as well as children’s relationships with each other, are key to optimum classroom success. Creating strong bonds where children feel safe and can have trusting relationships helps build a classroom where traumatized children can learn and grow. Getting to know each child, listening to them, and allowing them to have a voice in the classroom are all crucial to success.

It is important to understand that parents of at-risk children often shy away from being involved or even appearing at school, which is sometimes due to intimidation or fear of teacher confrontation. Either way, it is up to the teacher to welcome parents without approaching them in negative ways. Teachers must try to make school a safe and caring place for both children and their parents. Simple things like making phone calls home to give parents good news about their children can help form positive relationships.

2. Understanding children with trauma

Traumatized children come to school without basic tools to self-regulate their feelings, get along with others, follow rules, and respect and listen to adults. They often experience strong power struggles where they fight to keep any sense of autonomy. In addition to these deep-rooted feelings, many children arrive hungry, angry, unfocused, and out of control. The result is that teachers must understand that, before positive learning can happen, they have to help children become ready to learn.

Obviously, creating a hospitable environment for learning works best when the whole school staff collaborates and coordinates efforts. For example, a school can put together a snack program to feed the children in the morning when they arrive. Some traumatized children might not have even eaten since lunch at school the day before. Obviously, hungry children find learning secondary to their irritating, gnawing stomachs. Allowing for a period of calmness where children eat a snack together while perhaps watching a tumble book (online story book) or something educational helps alleviate some of the most pressing issues.

Second, teachers can progress to a “feelings check.” A feelings check helps measure how children are feeling when they get to school. Feelings checks can be instituted school-wide as a way to help identify children who need help becoming emotionally regulated so they can learn. One by one, children will explain how they are feeling. If a child expresses anger, sadness, or fear, a teacher should ask that child to express one way she could be happy. Such expressions help children self-regulate, because their negative feelings can be replaced with positive ones.

Once a feelings check is completed, teachers will be more aware which children might need extra assistance, emotional help, or attention during the day. Teachers should share that information so that playground and lunch supervisors can reinforce the strategy. Such a process can help prevent outbreaks from occurring. By understanding the children’s emotional states and needs, teachers will know when to back off and let a child cool down.

Cooling down can take as long as 30 minutes if a traumatized child has been emotionally triggered. Cooling down requires a safe classroom space in which to calm body and mind. Teachers should take care to explain to children that this space is not a “timeout” place, but rather a safe place for when they feel emotionally upset or frustrated.

Over time, teachers can learn what triggers certain children’ emotions and what helps them become regulated again. The best way to learn children’s emotional needs is gentle directness – simply ask children what they need. They will most often come up with a better strategy than even the most sensitive teacher can devise. Understanding what we as teachers can do to help traumatized children is a first step to success in the trauma-sensitive classroom. Children will, in most cases, have the answers. The teacher must simply listen.

In my experience, children are brilliant at finding solutions and, when teachers adopt children’s ideas, children will be strengthened, relationships between children and teachers will grow, and children become calm. Establishing calm and trusting relationships is absolutely essential in creating environments where traumatized children can become productive children.

Traumatized children are sensitive to any signs of danger. Therefore, it is important that teachers remain calm in frustrating situations – and, in my experience, situations can become frustrating for everyone involved. Resisting anger is a key. Good teaching calls for calmly expressing exactly how, where, and why the frustration has emerged. Naming frustrations helps children understand that they are not in danger and that sometimes frustration is natural – but avoidable. Calmly discussing frustrations also helps children learn to better deal with their feelings. Ultimately, teachers can help reform how traumatized children perceive adults and teach children what positive, caring relationships look like between adults and children.

Teachers are never alone when engaging traumatized children. One source of help is other children. Specifically, children who grow up in stable homes, without violence, neglect, or abuse, are already equipped with tools to help treat others in accepting and loving ways. Often stable children come to school knowing the difference between right and wrong and knowing how to treat others respectfully.

Teachers should always avoid power struggles with children. Traumatized children do not always listen because teachers are adults and have authority. Sometimes, it might seem as if power – just stopping an action – is the most pragmatic way to alleviate difficulty; however, often power struggles steal the last thing many children can hold onto. A more effective solution is to allow children to retain power but to offer a choice of consequences, lessons, and projects.

3. Create a structured and calm learning environment

All teachers know the importance of creating classroom rules and routines. In a trauma-sensitive classroom, rules and routines must be intentionally consistent so that classrooms have a high level of predictability. Predictability helps children begin to regulate their actions and thoughts throughout the day. Predictability in the classroom also creates stability and ease in the minds of children. Children like to know what the day will look like and how long certain activities will be.

Because the physical area of a classroom can help children remain calm, classrooms should be organized, clean, welcoming, and structured. Creating this environment should be a responsibility that children share. Having a designated slot each week for desk cleaning helps keep children’s spaces and minds organized. The more organized children are, the less frustration and confusion they experience. Classrooms should contain tools and activities children can use to calm their bodies and brains. Puzzles, Buddha boards, coloring books, lava lamps, etch-a-sketch, and play dough are amazingly successful. Some teachers argue that access to toys will lead to children excusing themselves from classroom learning. However, as children build relationships with their teachers and learn that these are calming tools, not toys, most will understand and respect this rule.

In extreme cases, children with severe behaviors will need more than just calming tools. Here’s a real-life example from my classroom:

In November of my first year of teaching, a lovely grade 3 girl named Lindsey had a stroke in my arms in the middle of class. She was bright, sensitive, and affectionate, although had difficulty expressing these positive traits. She was rushed to hospital and had emergency surgery. I visited her in the hospital and was told by the doctors that she had almost died, had to have two large tumors removed, and might never walk, talk, or think the same again.

Lindsey’s mother was advised to admit her little girl into the Glenrose Rehabilitation School for Children for one full year. However, a month later, when the school’s psychologist questioned Lindsey to see where they should place her, she refused to answer any questions. Lindsey never even made it into their education program because they could not elicit enough cooperation from her. However, she made a miraculous physical recovery, and so just two months after her stroke she was put back into my classroom.

This little nine-year-old girl came back into the classroom more terrified than before. She could barely stand without shaking, a large portion of her head was shaved from the surgery, and all she wanted to do was be at my side or just run away. I ended up teaching with her in my arms off and on for about one month. Lindsey was unable to sit and do any work. She was just so afraid.

By June, Lindsey was able to sit, play, walk, talk, and think like most grade 3 children. She even wrote her Provincial Achievemnt Test with the help of a scribe. Lindsey still had a phobia of people being sick, but in all other areas she was acting normally. How was this even possible? What support was given to her so that she could function in a classroom again? I believe Lindsey recovered because of her incredible inner strength, coupled with my strong relationship with her. She trusted me, and I listened to what she needed from me and gave that to her.

I also used several trauma-sensitive strategies that I believe helped significantly. When I found that Lindsey was coming back to our school, I knew I had to prepare for her successful re-entry into the classroom. I could not fail, so I had to take stock of what I knew and what I could do. I knew she loved animals. She often pretended to be a cat, and was constantly drawing them. Before her stroke, she continually asked me to get a hedgehog as a classroom pet. So, the week before her return, I bought a little albino hedgehog, a miniature tent, and a few big coloring books. I was determined to help Lindsey get her life back and learn to function in a classroom.

The hedgehog had a huge impact on her recovery. When Lindsey was not by my side, she would be coloring at her desk with the hedgehog sleeping in his little tent. The hedgehog had a profound calming effect on her. She was able to stay in her desk when the hedgehog was there. She could stay at school, participate, and learn. Between the hedgehog and I, Lindsey gradually quit being so frantic.

To my surprise, the little hog also helped many other struggling children as well. I became a firm believer in pet therapy and what animals can do to help the most severely-behaved children. As time went on, and I learned how effective the hedgehog was, I bought two frogs that swam around in a small movable tank. I mostly used them for a little boy who had severe test anxiety. He could not finish any test without crying, ripping the test, or running away. As soon as I put the frogs on his desk, his test anxiety faded away. He was able to finish tests without any outward behaviors. This therapy worked so well in the classroom that his parents ended up getting him frogs at home.

4. Differentiation

In my experience, each child presents a different challenge and teachers know that every child has different learning needs. I believe teachers must be inquisitive, listen to what children communicate (verbally or otherwise), and be alert to the range of possible approaches that will help meet that challenge. Fair is not always equal, and in any classroom setting teachers must use their wisdom to ensure that children experience fairness. Different children will need different learning tools to achieve the same outcome. One of the best approaches for children who need different learning strategies is to simply listen and watch. A struggling child often expresses frustrations through body language. Sometimes teachers will be able to think of adaptations, but in many cases children are able to express what they need to do to achieve a certain learning goal. Simply watching and listening can be productive.

Another idea that works well is structuring a seating plan so children of different learning abilities sit beside each other. Restructuring opens opportunities for children to learn from each other and to build teamwork within the classroom. Some teachers may disagree with extrinsic rewards, but children differ. Some may need extrinsic rewards to reach a point where they can independently complete a task or achieve a behavioral goal. If so, provide these rewards but slowly decrease them until the outcome is accomplished, then celebrate with the child who no longer needs the extrinsic reward. Children usually respond well.

5. Engagement

For the most part, engaged children do not behave inappropriately. Thus, engagement is especially important in trauma-sensitive classrooms where children are prone to daily displays of negative behaviors. Student engagement is especially important in a trauma-sensitive classroom because, for many children, doing well in school and learning how to enjoy learning is poorly supported at home. Teachers can engage children by presenting them with challenges. Challenges force all of us to problem-solve and find different ways to achieve goals.

Children are also social and love to talk and interact with their classmates. As teachers, we should reinforce learning through collaboration. Such sharing will also help create a strong community within the classroom. Forming safe bonds with each other – both children and adults – helps us more safely express our thoughts and ourselves. When children feel safe enough in the classroom to take risks without worrying about failure, we know we have created a safe learning environment. I have learned that, when children feel safe, have opportunities to work and share together, and can draft and challenge ideas, they learn.

Not every child learns or can be assessed in the same manner. As teachers, we must work to engage children in formative assessment so both teachers and children can see growth and improvement. Engaging children in learning helps create lifelong learners where children learn how to learn. These ideas to help engage children are always important, but especially in trauma-sensitive classrooms because children need the most support and encouragement to become internally motivated to continue to learn.

What I have learned as a beginning teacher in a trauma-sensitive school

Because I began my career in a trauma-sensitive classroom, I had little choice but to do what I could both to survive and then to thrive along with my children. The ideas outlined above are just a few of the many I’ve tried. My experience suggests that these ideas work to help all children succeed. Sadly, my children have shared horrible stories that no one, especially a child, deserves. I came to believe I had a responsibility to make school a special, happy, healthy, and safe learning space. Instead of seeing teaching as emotionally and physically challenging, I chose to come to work each day believing I was lucky to be a part of my children’s day. I knew that, for most children, I would be the most important and positive person in each of their lives that day. To me, that is an amazing gift, from them to me – not me to them.

Article PDF

The Standards Made Me Do It:

Reculturing Teacher Education to Redeem the Curriculum

Kevin M. Talbert; Assistant Professor, Education; The College of Idaho; ktalbert@collegeofidaho.edu

Terah R. Moore; Assistant Professor, Education; The College of Idaho; tmoore@collegeofidaho.edu

 

Abstract

This article discusses a common lament heard from education students: “But that’s what the standards say we have to do!” This paper will address the need to create teacher education pedagogies that help teachers disentangle standards from curriculum.

Our students exemplify a technical mindset, one that supposes teaching is primarily the selection and implementation of best practices, therefore reducing curriculum to a synonym for standards.

We believe that education pedagogies rooted in the spirit of the liberal arts are needed, instead of those rooted in professional studies. Teacher education must be reimagined, a movement away from training and toward education (Eisner, 2002). The Foundations of Education provide an alternative metaphor: An approach that, “understands education as other than a technical enterprise of means-ends reasoning capable of being packaged as a consumer product” (Quantz, 2013, p. 177). The Foundations provide a conceptual scaffold for teacher education curriculum across disparate courses.

Introduction

Crime Scene: The classroom was silent; a pin drop could be heard. Not a word escaped the victim’s mouths as they peered zombie-like at computer screens in front of them, mindlessly clicking buttons. Week in and week out, routine had become to sit in uncanny silence while completing practice test after practice test. Classroom teachers have become the surprising criminal in this setting, giving up precious class time for the sake of standardization—a sterile and drab environment. Teachable moments sacrificed for the sake of the extra point gain on standardized testing. Valuable resources and teaching time redirected, all for the sake of teaching to the test. Yellow crime scene tape had taken the form of generic computer print offs stating, “TESTING DO Not DISTURB!!” which consequently warned the unsuspecting passersby to leave the area undisturbed.

So many teachers, unaware, participate in this heinous and unmerited practice without even a hint of questioning. Scripted classroom curricula sold under the guise of being mapped to standards are placed in innocent teachers’ hands. Standardized testing, used to rank and sort, are required administered once a year and results are used to score teacher performance. Teachers resort to drill and kill techniques to teach the content encountered on these tests. They replace real classroom teaching with memorized and paced scripts with the hope of better student performance on the tests. Teaching becomes dummified, minimized to generic statements crafted by others, often by folks who have not spent time in classroom settings.

Teachers – when called out on their decision to relinquish their critical thinking rights to scripted curricula and an overabundance of standardization – cry, “But, that’s what the standards say we have to do!”

In our current roles as teacher educators, in response to our students’ lament, we ask: Why is it this way? Why is forming a pedagogy of critique so difficult? What factors are needed to catapult pre-service teachers into deep and critically thought provoking practice? How can we empower future teachers to resist committing educational crimes in the name of fulfilling standards? In what follows, we engage these questions further.

Effects and Causes

As teacher educators, we (the authors) hear the exasperated, “Standards made me do it” refrain regularly from our students. Our student teachers often exemplify what we believe is a common issue facing teachers in today’s standards-driven educational contexts: a technical mindset, one that supposes teaching is primarily, or what is more troubling, merely the selection and implementation of best practices, therefore, reducing curriculum to a synonym for standards. Indeed, this technical discourse is the governing discourse in education writ large, especially policy focused toward teacher education, in this era of accountability.

The result, in the lived reality of these interns’ classroom experience, is that their own education—including their preparation as teachers—has betrayed them. They often experience an existential dissonance when the techniques (classroom management, content strategies, or otherwise) they have been taught fail and when the standards they have attempted to directly teach are not met. The result is a sense of failure and a commensurate disempowerment. One can make a powerful argument that this is exactly the point of the current “reform” movement—to create a deskilled and deprofessionalized class of teachers, who are consequently inexpensive, interchangeable, and expendable. Current teachers worry about being fired and future teachers worry about never being hired if they dare to deviate from prescribed curricula. How might we teacher educators help our students (future teachers) to liberate the curriculum from standards, and in the process liberate teachers from the technicist discourse governing their teaching lives?

Teacher education programs are often complicit, unfortunately. Education theorist Richard Quantz argues,

At universities the education of teachers has been replaced by the training of teachers. Today, teachers are trained to take their place as educational engineers to monitor and modulate the progress of students from their given start to their given end…. [T]heir teachers have been trained as little more than technicians. (Quantz, 2013, p. 177)

In fact, our department even refers to student teachers as “interns,” evident of corporate professional discourse. Increasingly, licensure wags the dog. Nearly all the courses we offer in our education program—even at our liberal arts college—exist to fulfill state (and accreditor, i.e. “market”) mandates. And, we devote a great deal of time and energy as faculty to attending meetings to learn about policy projects for which we have neither input nor control. Even as we write this, our department faculty are engaged in hours of online “trainings” to certify our competence with the Danielson Framework for Evaluation, which of course detracts time we could devote to the actual observation and mentorship of student teachers. Frustratingly, we spend little of our time engaging questions about the true educational merits of our practices, never mind questions of ultimate significance (Purpel, 1989) one might expect a liberal arts college to engage.

David Purpel (1989) refers to the collapse of teaching into mere technique, along with neglect or evasion of sociocultural critique, as symbolic of the trivialization of education (p. 2-3). As Purpel argues, “it is techniques themselves that have come to be revered rather than that which has ultimate significance” (1989, p. 56). In our experience, teacher education students are rarely asked to consider issues of ultimate significance. On the contrary, teacher education typically demoralizes and depoliticizes—anesthetizes—its curriculum. Methods courses, assessment courses, and educational psychology courses dominate the curriculum alongside “rigorous” content mandates. Few, if any, of these classes have as even a secondary purpose to consider moral dimensions of education. Few would allow for any conception of the “sacred,” to borrow Purpel’s metaphor. Curriculum has been reduced to a commodity, a package, a “thing” to be used and consumed, rather than as something to be contemplated and deliberated. This commodity is embodied in the narrative that opens this article. How do we undo that?

A reculturing (Joseph, 2011) of curriculum is necessary. “[C]urriculum must be conceptualized as an undertaking that encompasses inquiry and introspection” and to “reflect on our beliefs and actions and to engage in a vigorous discourse about moral and social visions for education” (Joseph, 2011, p. 3). Joseph (2011) continues:

Educators who understand the moral purposes of their work think about curriculum as dynamic. They do not refer to curriculum as an object or commodity but understand curriculum as a process of creating a rich and meaningful course of study that integrates their knowledge of pedagogy, scholarship in the academic disciplines, educational research, and learners’ and families’ needs and interests. (p. 37)

Consequently, teacher education pedagogies rooted in the spirit of the liberal arts rather than professional studies are needed. We must redeem teacher education! Redemption (following Purpel’s “sacred” metaphor) means moving away from training and toward education (Eisner, 2002; Quantz, 2011) to liberate curriculum by disentangling curriculum from standards and privileging curriculum inquiry.

Redeeming Curriculum: Foundations as a Guiding Metaphor

The Foundations of Education provide an alternative metaphor by which to conceive curriculum: An approach that “understands education as other than a technical enterprise of means-ends reasoning capable of being packaged as a consumer product” (Quantz, 2013, p. 177). The Foundations provide a conceptual scaffold for teacher education that defies training. That is, it is not a class but an approach that privileges “reading the world” as a framing discourse—an ontology/epistemology for the teacher—and so a teacher education curriculum that embodies the Foundations across disparate courses. Additionally, Foundations as metaphor rejects an additive approach, which marginalizes foundational study to a mere class (or two). Rather, it privileges interpretive, normative, critical dispositions infused throughout (and foundation for) the teacher education curriculum (Council for Social Foundations of Education, 1996). In opposition to technical, skill-oriented teacher “training,” which focuses on narrow how-to and selection and application of best (most efficient) technique, foundations of education as metaphor requires a moral, political, critical orientation. To resist the hegemonic professional orthodoxy, “The education we offer our candidates should engage them in the best the liberal arts tradition has to offer: reflective self-discernment as well as critical cultural understanding” (Liston, Whitcomb, and Borko, 2009, p. 107).

Without the normative and critical imperative that Foundations provides, and which the liberal arts invigorates, we might merely be advocating a re-application of technical teaching. That is, there is the possibility that we simply replace one form of technical teaching—embodied by scripted curricula—with a slightly less constricted one that simply requires selecting from one technique over another. Even if the latter requires more “critical” thinking, in that it requires the discerning and selection from two possible alternatives, it does not inherently include the normative, that is, considerations of what ought to be. In short, what we advocate, and what foundations as metaphor requires, is curriculum wisdom. Henderson and Kesson describe curriculum wisdom as a “particular kind of educational decision making” that includes both this second, more complex technical, or practical, reasoning, and a normative decision making: “At this deeper level, the problem solving becomes infused with critical and imaginative insights. The search for a practical resolution is transformed into the aspiration to advance a critically informed moral vision” (Henderson and Kesson, 2004, p. 8).

Teacher-students (future teachers as well as current) must devote themselves to inquiry into pedagogy as a moral and political practice and to casting visions of (democratic) public life—in short, become transformative public intellectuals. They must critically construct representations of their teacher-selves. And the must understand and advocate for physical, political-economic, and social ecologies that empower their students’ learning.

Education Department Conceptual Framework

How do we, the authors, empower our students within the contexts of our own settings, given the aforementioned convictions? One thought is to begin with a close examination of practice, which moves into careful consideration of mission, value, and practice and then a critical alignment of these elements. It is our hope that our values under the umbrella of our education department and our teaching actions truly exemplify who we are and the desired outcome of liberated teaching professionals who practice a pedagogy of critique. The examination begins with an exploration of our mission and values. These are taken directly from our departmental handbook, which grounds who we are in the classroom.

The Education Department at The College of Idaho strives to be an educative learning community. The conceptual framework of our programs is one based on John Dewey’s understanding of educative experiences that encourage personal and community growth (Dewey & Archambault, 1964). In our community students are provided with a reflective, caring environment so that the process of becoming a teacher can be explored. It is a community where students are offered a vision of schooling that promotes and helps create to a more just and democratic society.

• Community of Learners: An educative learning community counters the image of the teacher as a “technician” with one of the teacher as an active participant in issues that affect the larger educational community (Apple & Beane, 2007). Rather than avoid a discussion of values, this perspective advocates the necessity of such discussions, because teaching is, at its core, a value-laden enterprise (Goodland, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990). The program, based upon students who learn and grow together, encourages ongoing conversations about meaningful issues central to a liberal arts education.
• Critical and Caring Pedagogy: An educative learning community takes the position that a hopeful, democratic future depends upon educators committed to emancipatory education (Giroux, 1997). It reflects Landon Beyers’ description of an emancipatory curriculum in teacher education as one designed to emphasize the following: equal access to knowledge, images of human equality, development of a “critical consciousness,” self-reflectivity, creativity, cultural acceptance, moral responsibility, democratic empowerment, and a pedagogy of caring (Beyer & Apple, 1998). It affirms Nel Noddings’ belief that, for schools to be true centers of learning, they must embrace caring in all its forms—care for self, for intimate others, for associates and acquaintances, for distant others, for nonhuman animals, for plants and the physical environment, for the human-made world of objects and instruments, and for ideas (Noddings, 2005).
• Constructivist Learning: An educative learning community takes a constructivist perspective toward classroom practice in which learning is seen as active, purposeful, and generated from within. This perspective, rooted in Piagetian principles of development and drawing on Vygotsky (Tryphon & Voneche, 1996), extends the notion of the construction of knowledge from one that is primarily an individualized and internal process to one that more comprehensively encompasses social foundations of thinking (Bruner, 1986). In this view, knowledge is not only embedded in socio-historical and socio-cultural elements, but is actually generated through shared interactions and individual internalization (Wertsch, 1991). (College of Idaho Education Department Handbook, 2014, pp. 4-5)

Education Department Program Structure

Students enrolled in teacher preparation at the College of Idaho have the following programmatic options:

• Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Studies for Elementary Precertification Major.
• Undergraduate Secondary Education Precertification Minor.

(Note that both undergraduate programs are pre-licensure. Students must complete the 5^th year student teaching placement and coursework, and pass Praxis exams in two licensure areas, to earn the department’s Institutional Recommendation for Licensure).

• The 5^th Year Internship Teacher Certification program (elementary or secondary)
  • With the option to add The Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT)
• Bilingual/ENL endorsement programs
  • With the option to add The Master of Education: Curriculum & Instruction

(The conceptual framework and additional program details are available in the Education Department Handbook online at http://www.collegeofidaho.edu/education-handbook).

This structure aligns with our conceptual framework, college-wide curricular requirements, and state mandates; though we are mindful about whether and how the program meets the educational needs of our students as future teachers. The aforementioned mission, conceptual framework, and program offerings drive our process. Each member of our education department believes in these core values. We strive to live them out in our teaching practice. We believe that our programs, based in these elements, encourage teachers to think critically, to establish community, and teach using constructivist values. The conundrum we have encountered – despite such clarity in program and values – is that teachers, including us, fall prey to the devouring demise of the standards made me do it…. We have what we think is a good program structure, yet we are faced with graduates who struggle to negotiate standardization through a pedagogy of critique. We, in the role of teacher educators, need to double back and see if this is true across our curriculum. We need to assess our own practices in light of this metaphor and work to redeem teacher education curriculum.

The stakes are high. Teacher educators must, as Paulo Freire claims, “come to see how the domesticating power of the dominant ideology causes teachers to become ambiguous and indecisive, even in the face of blatant injustice” (Darder, 2002, p. 38).

To this extent, we, the authors, desire to be part of the action in our own work. This marks the beginning of our critical exploration of our own practices – this makes the place in which we seek to establish, support, change, align, refine, our practices as we work to prepare and support teachers in the spirit of a liberal arts education – an outcome that does not produce the status quo or cookie cutter teacher replicas who are a mere reflection of what is the current face of education. Rather, we seek teacher education as a pedagogy of critique – unique, impactful, and true to our mission!

References

Beyer, L. E., and Michael, W. A. (1998). Values and politics in the curriculum. New York: SUNY Press.

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

College of Idaho Education Department Handbook. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.collegeofidaho.edu/education-handbook.

Council for Social Foundations of Education. (1996). Standards for academic and professional instruction in foundations of education, educational studies, and educational policy studies (2nd ed.). Council of Learned Societies in Education.

Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Dewey, J. and Archambault, R. D. (Ed.). (1974). John Dewey, on education: Selected writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Henderson, J. G., and Kesson, K. R. (2004). Curriculum wisdom: Educational decisions in democratic societies. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice.

Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling, a critical reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Goodlad, J. I., Soder, R., and Sirotnik, K. A. (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Joseph, P. B. (Ed). (2011). Cultures of curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Liston, D., Whitcomb, J., and Borko, H. (2009). The end of education in teacher education: Thoughts on reclaiming the role of social foundations in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education (60)2, 107-111.

Noddings, N. (2005). Caring in education. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/caring-in-education/

Purpel, D. (1989). The moral and spiritual crisis in education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Quantz, R. A. (2013). Backing in to the foundations. Critical Questions in Education, Special Issue, 4(2), 168-180.

Quantz, R. A. with Terry O’Connor and Peter Magolda. (2011). Rituals and student identity in education: Ritual critique for a new pedagogy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tryphon, A. and Voneche, J. (Eds.). (1996). Piaget-Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Wertsch, J. (1991) Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.