Home » Posts tagged 'Teacher education'
Tag Archives: Teacher education
Kathleen M. Cowin
Teacher and Counselor Education
Oregon State University – Cascades Campus
A question listed in the call for this issue was: What are the sources and examples of hope for teachers, school leaders, and students as experienced and gained through learning,…, [and] community connections? This portrait of a beginning teacher’s experiences learning about community as she navigates her first year of teaching provides a way for readers to think about how to develop community within a classroom and school, the roles members of a school community play in community development, and how mentoring may influence community building. Through portraiture methodology (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997) the reader will glimpse a deeper view of Maria in her first year of teaching and as a veteran teacher. Maria’s approach to the tragic death of several parents in her school community helped both children and adults experience a sense of community, renewal, and hope in a very difficult time.
I will tell the story of a beginning teacher who, through her experiences in a time of death and loss, was able to create hope for herself, her students, and her school community. This portrait of Maria, interwoven with examples of mentorship by her supportive principal and mentor teacher, may offer insights into how one teacher created a community in her classroom and school during a difficult time, and how her mentors helped her integrate into the school community during her first year of teaching. This portrait also explores how relationships developed within the context of community helped create a supportive and learning-filled community to help both children and adults make sense of the happenings of their lives.
Portraiture Methodology Overview
Portraiture methodology (Lightfoot, 1983; Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997) was used to create this view of Maria (a pseudonym) and a series of events that occurred during her first year as a teacher. The portrait presented here is excerpted from a longer portrait due to its length. A word portrait is shaped by a dialogue between the researcher (portraitist) and the participant (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. 3). As the portraitist of this study, I used the essential elements of portraiture: context, voice, and relationship as lenses through which the emergent themes came into view. The aesthetic whole, the portrait that is written, gives the participant and the reader of the research an opportunity to step into the story of the participant as well as the researcher. In portraiture the researcher’s voice is present through her or his own understanding of the setting. Producing “a full picture of an event or person that tells as much about the subject as it does the researcher, or portraitist” (Chapman, 2007, p. 157) and makes the research presented through portraiture applicable to those from a variety of areas of interest – not only practitioners and scholars. Portraiture is a methodology that seeks to “combine systematic, empirical description with aesthetic expression, blending art and science, humanistic sensibilities and scientific rigor” (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997, p. 3).
The search for what Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997) call “goodness” (p. 9) is in contrast to research methodologies documenting failures that can often evoke a feeling of hopelessness. Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis explain goodness in portraiture in this way:
Portraiture resists this tradition-laden effort to document failure. It is an intentionally generous and eclectic process that begins by searching for what is good and healthy and assumes that the expression of goodness will always be laced with imperfections. The researcher who asks first “what is good here?” is likely to absorb a very different reality than the one who is on a mission to discover the sources of failure. But it is also important to say that portraits are not designed to be documents of idealization or celebration. In examining the dimensionality and complexity of goodness there will, of course, be ample evidence of vulnerability and weakness. (p. 9)
Critiques of portraiture (English, 2000; Hackmann, 2002) may offer points for further dialogue in the exploration of paradox in the methodology in such themes as truth-seeking, goodness, or stance of the researcher. These themes are important considerations in learning more about the methodology and are welcomed dialogue by this researcher. Hackmann (2002) makes the point in his critique, citing the work of Fullan and Miles (1992), that “reform initiatives fail when educators act on incomplete information, misunderstand the change process, or simply refuse to change” (p. 58). The challenge that Hackmann offers in his critique of portraiture is for practitioners to “see themselves” in the research, otherwise change is unlikely and the research “will merely sit on a shelf, collecting dust” (p. 58). I invite practitioners and researchers alike into a view, through this portrait, of many educational issues. Each one viewing the portrait may come away with different ideas but this is what I believe portraiture can do: invite the dialogue about our views.
This portrait was taken from a larger study of 10 candidates who participated in a study about their beginning mentoring and teaching experiences. I interviewed Maria several times based on prepared questions and follow-up probes. The interviews were tape recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Participant checks were conducted to ensure the accuracy of the data. I also conducted site visits to Maria’s classroom and school. Each time I interacted with Maria in her classroom and school, I made notes in what Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997) call the “Impressionistic Record” (p.188). I recorded my ongoing observations and reflections from my interviews and interactions as they were happening, and as I transcribed and listened to the tape recordings, on multiple occasions. Often, as I observed or listened to the tape recordings I would note a tone of voice, or repeated phrase, or a question to follow-up on at a future meeting. The reflections made in my recording of my Impressionistic Record would often help me plan for future visits with Maria and highlight additional themes to review in greater detail.
Listening to the tape recordings of the interviews while making the transcription of the tape recorded interviews, rereading the transcriptions as I listened to the tape recordings, and referring to my notes in my Impressionistic Record and from site visits, I began to construct the word portrait of Maria. I used multiple interchanging aspects of each of the lenses – context, voice and relationship – allowing for an initial shaping of the emergent themes of Maria’s portrait. After multiple readings and editing of Maria’s portrait, I sent the portrait to Maria for her review and then scheduled a meeting to discuss her feedback. Her feedback and our dialogue was noted and used in shaping the final portrait. It is through the layering of all these components that triangulation occurs in portraiture.
In the next section I will discuss the definition of “community” as used in this article, and present related literature.
Definitions of Community and Supporting Literature
The definition of classroom and/or school based community used in this article is based on a developmental model. Schaps and Solomon, writing in 1990, described the first step in promoting community as taking into consideration the “prosocial development” of and among children, focusing on interpersonal awareness and the ability to balance one’s own needs with the needs of others as well as on kindness and consideration for others (p. 39). I echo this developmental approach in my own definition of community, stressing as a primary value the ethic of care for everyone, and extending this ethic of care approach to taking responsibility for our actions and how our actions affect not only ourselves but others and the environment of the classroom and school. The type of community described in this article is not just a group of children and adults banded together by proximity or purpose alone. It is also demonstrated in how the children and adults treat each other and how they think and feel about each other.
This is the type of community I have always strived to form in my classrooms or the schools I have led. Combining an ethic of care with personal responsibility can create an opening for a reciprocal type of care to begin to flourish. From this type of reciprocal care for each other and our environment, I have found that the value of respect can grow and be experienced. Caring and respect, present in action and observable among a group of people in relation to one another – this defines community for me.
A definition of community can also be shaped by what it is not. Lewis, Schaps and Watson (1996), citing the work of Palmer (1986), define caring in the classroom as:
A learning space needs to be hospitable, not to make learning painless but to make the painful things possible . . . things like exposing ignorance, testing tentative hypotheses, challenging false or partial information, and mutual criticism of thought. [None of these] can happen in an atmosphere where people feel threatened or judged. (p. 21)
An environment in which caring and respect is not present can make it difficult to maintain the vulnerability which is needed to learn.
Another definition by Schaps and Lewis (1999) in a study of The Child Development Project, defines community “as a student’s experience of being a valued, influential member of a group committed to everyone’s growth and welfare” (p. 216). The concepts of being committed to not only one’s own growth but to those of the other members of the community are a central component of this definition of community.
Creating Community within Schools
Lewis, Schaps and Watson (1996) named five principles of practice for schools to become “caring communities of learners”: (a) warm, supportive, stable relationships; (b) constructive learning; (c) an important, challenging curriculum; (d) intrinsic motivation; and (e) attention to social and ethical dimensions of learning (pp. 17-20).
Schaps and Lewis (1999) continued their work with the Child Development Project and outlined five areas that educators interested in creating community should consider. The first is “‘caring’ doesn’t mean ‘easy’” (p. 216). The authors expand on this theme by contrasting the fine line educators must walk with their students to make the academic component of school challenging while creating an environment in which students feel safe to express themselves and everyone is supporting each other’s academic successes (Schaps & Lewis, 1999, p. 216). Second, “teachers are still central in the student-centered classroom” (Schaps & Lewis, 1999, p. 217). The role a teacher takes in the delicate balance between acting as facilitator of learning, and taking an expert role not only with consideration of the content of the curriculum but in pedagogy/instructional practices used in the classroom, is vital (Schaps & Lewis, 1999, p. 217). Third, “schoolwide change is essential” (Schaps & Lewis, 1999, p. 217). Interestingly, in their study, in the schools in which change was embraced by less than half of the faculty, students faced a sing-song effect of going between classrooms where building community was a primary agenda and classrooms that were impersonal and in which community was not a focus. The authors determined this was more harmful to the students than trying to build community in the first place. A fourth area was “school values must be examined” (Schaps & Lewis, 1999, p. 217). The content of those values were central to this component of building community and this relates directly back to the teacher’s role in the classroom. For example, the teacher’s authority and use of extrinsic classroom based rewards were discussed as potential issues that could cloud school values. Lastly, “assessment must be aligned philosophically with instruction” was a component of community building outlined by Schaps and Lewis (1999, p. 217). For example, if state based assessments are given based on individualized, competitive processes, and the students have not previously experienced this type of assessment, the results from the assessment may not demonstrate what the children truly know and have mastered.
Others, writing on the development of the concept of professional learning communities (DuFour, 2004, 2007; DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Many, 2010; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Eaker, DuFour & DuFour, 2002; Hord, 1997; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace & Thomas, 2006) offer a foundation for the continued study of community within the school. What I have been thinking about is how these writers focusing on professional learning communities, along with others in the area of educational leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2008; Fullan, 1998, 2005; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Palmer, 1993,1998, 2007; Senge, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1994; Wheatley, 1992, 1999, 2005) might come together with educational researchers, policy analysts, politicians, teacher educators and practitioners to examine how the formation of community may be at the heart of the work we all do.
With these definitions of community and learning communities in mind, I present Maria’s portrait.
A Portrait of Maria
The fall leaves were turning beautiful shades of orange, yellow, and red as I drove to Maria’s school. The view of the mountains was breathtaking. The area has a rural feel but it is not far from the hustle and fast-paced life of the city or suburbs. The small change in the altitude makes the air crisp and clean smelling as I walk across the parking lot to check in at the main office. The main building has a familiar feel with busy kids moving in and out past the office as I check in and wait for the principal to receive me. After the principal gives me a tour of the main building she walks me out to the darling little house which is Maria’s classroom (Impressionistic Record).
This former home has been reconfigured to accommodate a classroom with work areas for science, and lots of storage for curriculum and materials. Every inch of the main classroom space clearly evidences a project in progress and screams, “This is a place where learning is going on.” The seventh grade students sitting at the tables are actively engaged in a discussion from an earlier presentation and are just about to begin the hands-on project. The students accept me with an air of being used to having adults come and go through their classroom space. The bulletin boards are bright and cheery with all available display space being used. Even the restrooms’ walls have been decorated by these middle school students. The girls’ restroom reminds you that “girls are cool” and to “watch out for girl power!” I move around the classroom watching as the students work on the hands-on project. Maria moves around the room answering questions, offering suggestions and feedback to her students. The students are making a paper box from one sheet of paper. There is a feeling tone that spills from the classroom that says this is a fun project! It is a project in which creativity comes out through drawing and which also allows students to let off a little steam by moving around. The students soon find, though, that it is a challenging project, and the noise level rises as they talk with each other and offer help and suggestions (Impressionistic Record).
As the students work it is clear that collaboration is valued within this group of students. As the students clean up, I help out with recycling paper left over from the project, and note how the students work together cooperatively and help each other with the project, offering positive suggestions to each other. This is a very familiar scene for me. It is the middle schooler dance of give and take, with some showing off for each other, others teasing and pushing the limits, but Maria is not bothered at all and plays along seamlessly with the verbal give and take. She has danced this dance many times before and handles it like the seasoned veteran she is. One student really pushes the limits and finally gets a caution from Maria and immediately draws back a bit. There is a settled feeling in her class; one in which most students know the limits and expectations and adhere to them. Maria’s classroom procedures are clearly defined, and exemplified by how the students clean up after the project and get ready to change classes. As the class period ends, the eighth graders who have home room in this space wait patiently outside the entry door until the seventh graders pack up and leave. They too enter the classroom and get packed up for the end of the day in an efficient manner, but still with the enthusiastic give and take of teenagers. Maria calls the students to their closing activities for the day and reminders for tomorrow. Her ability to relate to each individual student is evidenced by her personalized reminders and remarks to many of the students as they leave for the day. She seems to enjoy the banter with them as they ask the last few remaining questions of the day (Impressionistic Record).
Maria invites me to sit at one of the tables and walks over to the kitchen area to make coffee. With her coffee mug in her hand she begins describing her first year of teaching as being welcomed into a community atmosphere at the school which began during her interview process for the position. Maria describes her experience as “being pulled into community” and given “a ton of support” (Personal Communication). Maria mentions that she had two mentors during her first year who really helped her understand the importance of community at the school. One mentor was Rosa, a teacher from another grade level, who had invited Maria to enter into a mentoring relationship, and whose class was assigned to partner with Maria’s class for school-wide activities. Maria’s other mentor was her principal, Pat.
Maria explained that her principal, Pat, did not “sugar coat things” but that she appreciated this “as you knew where you stood with her” (Personal Communication). Maria’s principal gave her small, accomplishable tasks, concrete things to do and compliments along the way. Maria explained how from the first time Pat assigned her to work on a faculty committee, she encouraged Maria by offering a balance of both positive and thoughtful, critical critique. Pat was also very supportive in Maria’s formal teaching evaluations. “It was not like she didn’t offer insights or areas to improve on, but she always had a compliment about a lesson she observed or work you did” (Personal Communication).
Maria stresses that Pat provided leadership in making the establishment of community within the school a priority. Without the establishment of time to go for out for drinks and snacks after school, and celebrating with parties during the holidays, there would not have been opportunities for relationships and community to grow. Maria recalls that during her interview she was asked by the interview panel how she would feel about going out after school together to socialize and attending parties to celebrate at holidays. Her memory of that interview over 20 years ago is still very vivid and her face is animated as she speaks (Impressionistic Record). She said, “Sounds like fun!” (Personal Communication) and states that this is one reason she felt pulled into her new community from the very beginning.
Maria explains that her principal, Pat, also valued making time for mentoring to occur. Pat balanced such things as time for meeting formally, such as faculty meetings, with ensuring that as a beginning teacher, Maria had time without other duties to talk with her mentor teacher, Rosa. Maria reiterates that she felt invited into her school community, and this invitation and acceptance was the form the effective mentoring she received took.
Maria described how her mentor teacher, Rosa, would stop in at the end of every day to ask how Maria’s day had gone, and to share the events of her own day. This dailyritual of stopping in and sharing how the day went continued not only in the beginning years but every year Maria worked at the school. The story Maria tells to illuminate this daily stopping in to share revolves around a particularly sad grouping of events within the community, involving the deaths of several parents of students in the school. Though the school community had faced the death of one parent from a long illness and a sudden death of another due to an accident, two other deaths of parents in the school community were due to suicide.
During one of her after school chats with her mentor teacher, Rosa, Maria shared her concern about searching for a way to help her students cope during this difficult time. Maria felt the students’ questions about what had happened and the deaths should not be brushed off or the subject changed. Maria expressed that she needed to do something more than she was doing for her students to promote “healing” (Personal Communication).
From this initial chat her mentor teacher, Rosa, shared a story about her own experiences with a death that had occurred in the school community years before. Rosa shared how she worked with her principal to prepare lessons on topics related to death and dying and then to also include parents in the lesson planning process and in the lessons. Maria’s mentor teacher told her how she and other faculty members had used community activities to honor those in the school community who had died by planting a rose bush and a tree, but how as time passed the rose bush and tree had been forgotten and other plants had grown over them and they were no longer a focal point in the school landscape.
This initial chat grew into extended conversations and discussions after school. Soon the discussions became planning sessions for lessons and activities. Later that school year a new garden was being planned. A community garden renovation project was initiated by Maria, her mentor teacher, and their students. The students studied not only about gardening but about dying, death, community service, outreach, and most importantly about empathy for their fellow classmates who had experienced the death of a loved one.
The students, with the support of their teachers, the principal, parents, and community businesses, also learned about gardening, and designing a garden, and then came together with their parents and the entire school community to work, plant, and make a beautiful garden space to honor all those in their school community who had died. The students in Maria’s and Rosa’s classes led a commemoration ceremony to open the garden and the whole school community came together to celebrate the learning and work in creating the garden and honoring the families named in the garden project. Maria, Rosa, and their current and future students committed to a long-term service project maintaining the garden.
From a small after school chat, and time given by her mentor teacher to listen and share, and with the support of her principal, a community was given an opportunity for healing, and the focus on community building in her classroom and school flourishes and is vital and life giving today. As we took a walk to the garden, Maria was oddly silent. Then as the garden came into view and we took in the scene together, she said in a quiet, but firm voice, “I was welcomed into a community and they kept me centered” (Personal Communication). Maria created a community within her classroom and school then, and she continues to do that today. I reflect as I leave the garden that it seems the legacy of community that was shared with Maria is continuing to be shared – those are lucky students to be in her care (Impressionistic Record).
Analysis of the Portrait
In the following sections, I will examine several emergent themes the portrait of Maria illuminates relating to different aspects of community including leadership of her principal, teacher relationships, mentoring relationships, time for mentoring, and aspects of community development among students, parents, guardians, and the greater community in which the school was situated.
Maria’s portrait demonstrates a community building process that is aligned with the definitions and descriptions of community in the work of Schaps and Solomon (1990), Schaps and Lewis (1999), and Lewis, Schaps and Watson (1996) in that Maria and her mentor teacher, Rosa, focused on the interpersonal needs of the children in their care and also worked to balance their own feelings about the deaths that had occurred. The sensitivity required to even begin to approach the topic of death with elementary-aged students was an area in which Maria believed she needed complete support from her mentor teacher and principal. She wanted to be thoughtfully prepared to lead discussions or answer questions raised by her students as well as learn how, as a beginning teacher, to address topics such as death with her students’ parents and guardians.
The need for caring and respect in approaching a topic of which students all have different levels of understanding or experience is aligned with the work by Lewis, Schaps and Watson (1996) who posit that learning is not made painless in a community but the differences each individual within the community brings are respected and other members of the community are encouraged to be mindful of the differences in a way that does not compete or hold others’ views up in a competitive manner. This type of caring and respect can be fostered by a sense of community.
Intrinsic motivation for the garden project was evident throughout the project as students sought to work together on all aspects of the project from planning, to acquiring community and business support for the needed materials, to the physical labor of installing the garden, to the leadership capacities in bringing the whole school community together including parents, guardians, and community members to the opening garden ceremony. Much of the project was led by what the students wanted to do and were able to do.
Maria balanced the need to be directly in charge of the project with the need for student involvement, and used a shared leadership approach which is aligned with Schaps and Lewis’ (1999) approaches to community as “teachers are still central in the student-centered classroom” (p. 217). For example, Maria allowed for a great deal of student input into the garden project but she was always looking for ways to align the children’s interests with curriculum requirements. Both Maria’s principal and her mentor teacher, Rosa, were instrumental in providing feedback on this alignment process as well as assuring the garden project was curriculum rich and assessable. Maria also balanced direct instruction with the questions that the children had, particularly in the areas of the project that focused on the psycho-social environment of the classroom, and when questions about dying and death arose. Maria also balanced her direct leadership of the project with Rosa, and with the children in Rosa’s class, again aligning with Schaps and Lewis’ conclusion that even within student-centered classrooms – teachers are the leaders.
Community Fostered by School Leadership
Maria described the feeling of being “pulled into community” from the beginning of her association with this school as there were questions she remembered from the interview about her willingness to be involved in social events with the faculty. Maria also commented on the leadership of her principal, Pat, who purposefully created an opening for community to develop by allowing for, and scheduling, time to meet with her. Pat also set up specific times for Maria to meet with her mentor teacher, Rosa. Pat had structured the master schedule and duty roster in a way to allow Maria and Rosa joint planning time and time to work together in the daily duties of teachers – such as playground supervision or supervising the end of the day release of students. Maria also described her principal releasing her from some typical extra duties and asked her to use that time to meet with her mentor teacher. Maria described this time as a time to “chat” and how these chats developed into deeper conversations and discussions and were the opening that allowed her to explore the issues she saw coming up with her students around the deaths that had occurred in the school community. Maria underscored that these chats did not feel forced but were very comfortable and conversational. In earlier research I found the theme of providing time for mentoring was a key component of successful mentoring relationships (Cowin, 2013). Pat is an example of a principal who understood how to structure time for mentoring to occur.
The principal’s leadership also provided experiences for Maria to get to know the other faculty through Friday afternoon get-togethers and holiday events, as well as through her step by step mentorship on a curriculum committee. Maria commented that her principal gave her positive feedback that helped her gain a voice in her work on a faculty committee. She described how her principal gave her both positive feedback and critical critique of her work on the committee. It was this balance of affirming and critical critique that Maria said made her feel “pulled into the community” as there was a balance and she did not believe she was being given just the “good news” or having her work “sugar-coated.” Cherkowski (2012) described how “the impact of emotions in leadership is highlighted as an important consideration for fostering conditions for sustaining learning communities” (p. 56) and Maria’s principal is an example of the type of leader who took time to make connections with her teachers daily – especially her beginning teachers.
Community Building among Teachers
Parsons (2013) describes current research findings in which teachers describe the importance of relationship building among teachers to their own teaching and learning success (p. 11). Five key attributes of professional learning were expanded upon: supportive and shared leadership, collective creativity, shared vision and values, supportive communities, and shared personal experience (Parsons, pp. 12-14). When teachers in a particular school come together these are the seeds of community formation that could go on to grow and develop as demonstrated in the portrait of Maria and her mentor teacher, Rosa. Without Rosa’s invitation to Maria to form a mentoring relationship there would have been no relationship. The ability of the mentor to offer an invitation to be in a relationship without it seeming forced relies on many interpersonal dynamics. Cowin (2013) described one quality as an openness to the possibility that the mentee/protégé may not willingly enter into relationship and thus a relationship may not happen. Not forcing a mentoring relationship to happen is key. Maria describes this in her portrait as the relationship being formed by mutual interactions, and being “comfortable and conversational” (Personal Communications).
Seeking to discover the effects of operating a classroom as a learning community, Watkins (2005) reviewed three areas of research on classrooms as learning communities: classrooms as communities, classrooms as communities of learners, and classrooms as learning communities seeking to discover what the effects of operating a classroom as learning community were. Watkins reviewed work by Marzano (1998) which was an analysis of over a million learners from combined studies, and found that “metacognition” and “how the classroom engages learners’ beliefs and learners’ control is crucial” (p. 47). Watkins posits that classrooms as learning communities seek to “embrace both of these conclusions” (p. 47). Studies like these may help us to more fully understand how community enhances learning of all members within a school and provide two additional lenses through which to view individual learning by members in a classroom or school community.
Community Fostered by the Gift of Time
Maria was very clear that her mentor teacher, Rosa, made time for her every day. She was also very clear that the time was not given with a glance at the clock, but was given generously from the perspective of a veteran teacher who knows what the first years of teaching are like. Maria stated that she felt her questions were welcomed and that feeling of welcome was central to not believing the mentorship was something they both had to do as a matter of school policy or duty. Maria stated that she never had the feeling that she was alone. The themes of being invited into a community, time, and scheduling to create space for community to grow, and the leadership of the principal in structuring the mentorship process in a way that allowed their schedules to align, gave them a joint perspective on their work and roles.
Maria was very clear in her description that her principal saw the time for her to meet with her mentor teacher to have worth to the whole school community in that those teachers who were not serving as mentors had to take on extra duties, such as dismissal after school, to allow Maria and her mentor teacher the time to meet together. This mentoring time was viewed as equally valuable to the entire school community as completing any other duty (Personal Communication).
Community Fostered among the Students
In this school there was a built-in process for community building in that students in primary grades were partnered with upper elementary-aged students with opportunities to work together across the grade levels. This cross-grade level time that was built into the school schedule allowed for the collaboration among the students in both Maria’s and Rosa’s classes to grow. The work on the garden project also gave students in both classes many opportunities to form relationships and for community to grow.
Community Fostered among the Parents, Guardians, and the Greater Community
The garden that Maria’s and Rosa’s students built with the support of the students’ parents, guardians, and the school and greater community still stands today. The upper elementary-aged students take great pride in their work with their buddy grade primary-aged students at the school. This tradition has grown and is a positive characteristic that is recognized within the school district and local community where the school was located. There have been other deaths within the community of students and their family members over the years and within the district and Maria’s work has served as a model for other school communities. This is a community where events at the school are well attended and supported not only in a financial manner but in the way community members hold their local school in high esteem as seen on billboards, posters and other public notices that are displayed publically and in private businesses (Impressionist Record).
I presented this portrait of community building influenced by themes of caring, compassion, empathy, sympathy, and mentoring as an example of hope for all who read it. I believe this portrait offers insights into how community interacts with mentoring themes such as how to extend an invitation to be in a mentoring relationship, welcome, time, and adept mentoring practices by both a principal and veteran teacher serving as a mentor to a beginning teacher. The portrait and its analysis may offer other readers insights into the importance of community as a component of educational practice that could be discussed with inservice teachers who serve as mentors for beginning teachers, and may serve as the basis for continuing dialogue among teacher educators who work with pre-service teachers, their cooperating teachers, and school leaders. There is also potential for this portrait with its intersection of community and mentoring to provide insight to both beginning and inservice school leaders and those who mentor them. This portrait also demonstrates in action benefits to the children in Maria’s and Rosa’s classrooms on many levels. For example, the students learned about science and mathematics curriculum topics related to the gardening project, and also incorporated language arts and design elements as well as leadership and service learning topics to make connections to business community partners for the needed gardening materials. Then there are the topics related to the psycho-social issues of life, dying and death, not only for those children directly affected by their parents’ deaths but also for the children and adults who may respond to others experiencing the turmoil that death brings. Topics such as compassion, caring, empathy, and sympathy were central themes to the students’ curriculum that year, but this curriculum also drew in the parents and guardians and eventually the entire school community to a greater awareness of these issues that may not be directly stated in the curriculum, but are components of classroom and school life. My greatest hope is that this portrait may offer educative examples of how community can be lived out in classrooms and schools.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2001). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapman, T. K. (2007). Interrogating classroom relationship and events: Using portraiture and critical race theory in educational research. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 156-162.
Cherkowski, S. (2012). Teacher commitment in sustainable learning communities: A new “ancient” story of educational leadership. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(1), 56-68.
Cowin, K. M. (2013). Carol’s portrait: The lasting effects of early career mentoring. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 11(2), 20-43.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 14-21.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a” professional learning community”? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal, 39(1), 4-8.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Eaker, R. E., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. B. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
English, F. W. (2000). A critical appraisal of Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot’s portraiture as a method of educational research. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 21-26.
Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. Educational leadership, 55, 6-11.
Fullan, M. (2005). Professional learning communities writ large. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 209-223). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Hackmann, D. G. (2002). Using portraiture in educational leadership research. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11, 51-60.
Hargraves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, C. C., Schaps, E., & Watson, M. S. (1996). The caring classroom’s academic edge. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 16-21.
Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. New York: NY: Basic Books.
Marzano, R. J. (1998). A theory-based meta-analysis of research on instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory.
Palmer, P. J. (1993). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life (10th anniversary edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Parsons, J. (2013). Work less: Party more: A review essay about collaborative teacher professional learning. Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 11(2), 10-19.
Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (1999). Perils on an essential journey. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 215-218.
Schaps, E., & Solomon, D. (1990). Schools and classrooms as caring communities. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 38-42.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.
Watkins, C. (2005). Classrooms as learning communities: A review of research. London Review of Education, 3(1), 47-64.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.
Wheatley, M. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
By Alan Jeans
Ms. Sanders is new to Meadow Hills Elementary School. Having only graduated from university the previous April, she was shocked at how quickly she was able to find a position as a grade two teacher. Throughout her five-year Bachelor of Education degree she was often instilled with the importance of ‘dressing for success’. Her practicum adviser had even given Ms. Sanders a helpful list of ‘does and don’ts’ for professional teacher dress. Based on this list, Ms. Sanders’ mother took her shopping for professional teacher clothing as a graduation gift. As one of only two students from her graduating class to be teaching in a school this term, Ms. Sanders believes that her attitude of ‘dressing for success’ enabled her hiring. How may Ms. Sanders’ assumptions regarding appearance influence the values she instills in her students? How may Ms. Sanders’ ‘dress for success’ attitude impact her students? Which students may be included? Which students may be excluded?
IMAGES OF TEACHING AND LEARNING
When it comes to student-teacher attire, teacher-training programs often tout the mantra, ‘Dress for Success!’ (Tarleton State University, 2009; Brackett & Brackett, 2013; Pronini & Tomaszewski, 2013). Many teacher-training programs provide guidelines and rationale for ‘dressing for success’ (Tarleton State University, 2009; Brackett & Brackett, 2013; Pronini, Tomaszewski, & Cunningham, 2013). Men are often encouraged to wear dress pants, collared shirts, sport jackets, and shined shoes. Women are encouraged to wear dresses and hose, slacks, blouses (non see-through!), and appropriate shoes (3 inch heels are often recommended). With this ‘dress for success’ agenda comes major issues and implications, not the least of which is the query ‘success according to whom?’
Judith Butler (1993) speaks of gender as a performative role within our society. Likewise, teacher dress codes provide a performative image of ‘success,’ grounded in a conservative, middle to upper class perspective. This performative image of success is a frozen symbol of social norms, projected upon the teacher’s body via the dress code; however, the verb ‘to teach’ dictates the occurrence of action. The paradox of a frozen symbol needing to perform an action brings about tension within the role of the teacher, a tension that can’t help but shape the activities of the classroom.How is classroom learning impacted by these images of success? Who is included and excluded by these images?
The perspective of ‘teacher as upholder of traditional social values’ is implicit within the social construct of the teacher role. In 2011, news broke of a male substitute teacher in Vancouver, Washington, who had worn women’s capri pants in the classroom (Vogt, 2011). Although the school’s personnel director stated that the school’s clothing guidelines weren’t gender-specific and the substitute teacher hadn’t violated any codes of conduct (Vogt, 2011), the event did make news headlines and drew several complaints from parents. Likewise, an attempt to change the wording within the nondiscrimination policy for Orange County Public Schools drew fear from parents and public-groups that it would legitimize teacher cross-dressing in the classroom (ClickOrlando.com, 2012). These stories stand as illustrations of the societal pressure that constrict teacher dress codes into traditional gender norms. The notions of ‘success’ in these cases are based on the teacher’s willingness to adhere to these traditional gender norms.
In the story above, Ms. Sanders’ found herself able to quickly align her personal style with that of the teacher style. In the realm of role theory, this alignment is referred to as ‘role embracement’ (Workman & Freeburg, 2010). Becoming a teacher was an integral part of Ms. Sanders’ personal identity, and she embraced the role. However, for some individuals, personal identity is not congruous with the socially-constructed image of ‘teacher’. These cases represent ‘role distancing’ (Workman & Freeburg, 2010). Dress codes in the classroom become problematized in the face of ‘role embracement’ versus ‘role distancing’.
As dress codes are encouraged, the ‘role distancing’ teacher, who does not adhere to or identify with the socially constructed images of ‘teacher’ set forth in the dress code, may be viewed as unprofessional and therefore unskilled (Workman & Freeburg, 2010) by colleagues. What impact can this ‘unprofessional’ label have on a teacher’s classroom? A common rationale for dress codes is that they help teachers maintain student respect (Santa Ana Unified School District, 1998; Tarleton State University, 2009; Abbasi, 2013; Brackett & Brackett, 2013; Pica, 2013; Pronini et al., 2013). But what has more impact on a teacher’s ability to maintain student respect: a given teacher’s non-adherence to a dress code or a colleague’s labeling of a teacher as ‘unprofessional’ as a result of non-adherence to the dress code?
When dress codes are set in place as images of success based on societal norms, students can be included or excluded based on gender, economics, sexual orientation, race, or role distancing. These same dress codes may also lead to excluding skilled and dedicated teachers based on their ability to match personal identity with the image of success proposed in such dress codes. Do teacher dress codes limit a student’s experience in/of the world? What are the impacts of this educational monoculture on a fertile student’s mind?
It is the first parent-teacher event of the year, and the Fields’ have been excited to meet their son’s favorite teacher, Ms. Smart. This is Ms. Smart’s third year of teaching social studies at Hidden Valley High School, and she is finally gaining confidence in her role, which is evident in her appearance. This year she is often stylishly dressed in the latest fashions of skirts, boots, and tight sweaters, which has gained her rave reviews from her fashion conscious colleagues and students. When the Fields’ tell Ms. Smart that she is their son’s favorite teacher, she is surprised. Bobby Fields never participates in class discussions, doesn’t complete assigned homework, and seems completely uninterested in the topic of social studies. She is aware, however, that Bobby often compliments her clothing. She begins to wonder if her newfound style might have unforeseen impacts on her students? Is it necessary to forgo her fashionable attire for the sake of maintaining authoritative respect in the classroom?
EXCLUSION AT WHAT COST
The history of the teaching profession in the Western world has been conflated with female sexuality, although historically the focus was on suppression and control of female sexuality (Atkinson, 2008; Kahn, 2013). In the early days of the profession, female teachers were forbidden from wearing make-up and required to wear several petticoats, so as not to show the shape of their legs (Atkinson, 2008; Kahn, 2013). Teachers were also forbidden from marrying, which Becky Atkinson (2008) claims to be an exercise of control over the virginal model of a teacher. Female teachers were forbidden from the company of non-familial men, even being required to live with other female teachers and administrators (Atkinson, 2008; Kahn, 2013). When the fear of lesbianism became apparent, women were permitted to marry; however, this decision opened the door for sexuality to enter the classroom (Atkinson, 2008).
In modern days, as in the past, dress codes are more problematic for female teachers than for male teachers. Modern dress codes still highlight control over female sexuality, with dress codes even stating that female teachers are meant to keep “traditionally private body parts covered at all times” (Freeburg, Workman, Arnett, & Robinson, 2011, p. 37). Atkinson (2008) isolates three different styles of female teacher dress (although she admits that more exists). The first style, the apple-jumper teacher, wears long skirts and jumpers and often adorns herself with trappings of the season (pumpkins earrings at Halloween, sweaters with reindeer and snowmen at Christmas, etc.) (Atkinson, 2008). The second style, the teacher babe, is signified by fashionable high boots, short skirts, and low cut sweaters (Atkinson, 2008). The third style, the bland uniformer, is signified by a modest style of pants and loosely fitted shirts that is “rather androgynous, and downplays feminine physical characteristics for the sake of comfort and coverage” (Atkinson, 2008, p. 100). Atkinson reports that female student teachers in her college prefer the bland uniformer style for its utilitarian appeal. This choice raises the question, what is being excluded when role models of positive female sexuality are removed from the classroom?
Ms. Smart’s newly acquired fashion sense places her firmly in the role of ‘teacher babe’. Whereas the bland uniformer allows for the singular vision of teacher as a professional in the school (i.e., public), the sexuality present in the teacher babe projects a duality of teacher as professional in school and woman out-of-school (i.e., public and private) (Atkinson, 2008). But dress codes aren’t meant to keep women from looking like women, they’re meant to keep women from “looking like a certain type of woman” (Kahn, 2013, p. 62). The female teacher body as a sexualized body in the classroom gives rise to the fear of teacher-as-predator. Atkinson expresses this fear as the vision of teacher as mother and student as son, bringing with it an Oedipal vision of incest (Atkinson, 2008). Atkinson (2008) even reports on instances of female teachers referring to a female colleague as ‘the teacher slut’ due to her appearance, and her perceived behavior. How would the classroom differ with the presence of role models of positive female sexuality?
In her article “Their image of me:” A phenomenological study of professional dress choices of female professors, Laura Abbasi (2013) interviewed several female professors to learn of their personal experiences with dress code. All professors pointed to the impact clothing had on their mental and emotional states in the classroom and one professor stated, “I generally like what I wear. If you don’t, you don’t feel confident. It reflects in your performance” (Abbasi, 2013, p. 11). Kahn (2013) supports this experiential account, claiming that dress code policies set “limits on [teacher] performance and can influence in negative ways the expectations they hold for students” (Kahn, 2013, p. 63). How will the pressures to adhere to unwritten social codes about sexuality in the classroom impact Ms. Smart’s clothing choices? What impact will these choices have on her personal confidence? What impact will these choices have on her class?
The role of teacher is a socially constructed one in which clothing and dress are viewed as outward expressions of a teacher’s professional attitude. Teacher dress codes, set to uphold these socially constructed images of teaching, become particularly problematic in a hiring process. A role-embracing teacher, who adheres to the socially constructed norms of ‘appropriate’ teacher attire, may appear as a more attractive candidate than a role-distancing teacher who does not adhere to the socially constructed norms of ‘appropriate’ attire. In this way, a greater importance might be placed on the performative structures of teaching (i.e., appearance) as opposed to the efficacy of a teacher’s practice.
Abbasi, L. (2013). “Their image of me”: A phenomenological study of professional dress choices of female professors. Proceedings from the New York State Communications Association: Vol. 2012, Article 4. Retrieved from http://docs.rwu.edu/nyscaproceedings/vol2012/iss1/4/
Atkinson, B. (2008). Apple jumper, teacher babe, and bland uniformer teachers: Fashioning feminine teacher bodies. Educational studies: A journal of the American Educational Studies Association. 44(2), 98-121. doi: 10.1080/00131940802368372
Brackett, P., & Brackett, N. (2013). Dress for success/ Dress code. Retrieved from http://www.online-distance-learning-education.com/dress-code.html
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York & London: Routledge.
ClickOrlando.com (December 10, 2012). Group fears policy change will allow cross-dressing teachers in classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Group-fears-policy-change-will-allow-cross-dressing-teachers-in-classrooms/-/1637132/17716032/-/ce7n15z/-/index.html
Freeburg, B.W., Workman, J.E., Arnett, S.E., & Robinson, J.R. (2011). Rationales and norms for teacher dress codes: A review of employee handbooks. NASSP Bulletin. 95(31), 31-45. doi: 10.1177/0192636511405514
Kahn, Michele. (2013). (Un)dressing teachers. Academic Exchange Quarterly. 17(2), 58-66.
Pica, R. (2013, January 11). A dress code for teachers? Or anything goes? Huff Post Education. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Pronini, C., Tomaszewski, J., & Cunningham, J. (2013). Dressing (teachers) for success. Retrieved from www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin422_a.shtml
Santa Ana Unified School District. (1998). Dress and grooming. Santa Ana, CA.
Tarleton State University. (2009). Dress for success/ Field experiences dress code. Texas, US.
Vogt, T. (October, 28, 2011). Law protects cross-dressing teacher. The Columbian. Retrieved from http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/oct/28/law-protects-cross-dressing-teacher/
Workman, J.E., & Freeburg, B.W. (2010). Teacher dress codes in employee handbooks: An analysis. Journal of family consumer sciences. 102(3), 9-15.
Beginning in the Spring of 2014, the Northwest Journal of Teacher Education is moving to an online format! This means that submissions can be made at any time during the year and, once peer-reviewed through our review process, will be published in a new online format (with PDF versions accessible online).
By Jan Byres, Nicole Day, and Jim Parsons
Jan Byers is Programme Coordinator, Bachelor of Teaching Primary, Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT), Hawkes Bay, New Zealand. Her email is firstname.lastname@example.org Nicole Day is a PhD student in the Department of Secondary Education at the University of Alberta. Her email is email@example.com Jim Parsons is a Professor in the Department of Secondary Education at the University of Alberta. His email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Teaching is far from straightforward. People argue over its classification – is it science or art? Educators and experts often palaver with certitude, but no definitive answer exists. What is certain is that “the epistemology of teaching must encompass a pedagogy that goes far beyond the mechanics of teaching. It must combine generalizable principles of teaching, subject-specific instruction, sensitivity to pervasive human qualities and potentials, and full awareness of what it means to simultaneously ‘draw out’ and enculturate” (Goodlad, 1990, p. 50-1).Because teacher education always engages these complexities, the weighty responsibility of teacher education programs is both to model and value this complex epistemology to prepare, “draw out,” and “enculturate” future teachers. But how is that done?
Ken Zeichner (2006) suggests we are naïve to hope that research on teaching and teacher education will be able to provide clear answers about what we should do in teacher education. He sees little evidence-based or research-based practice and believes that, although research can contribute to policy and practice in teacher education, its influence is mediated by moral, ethical, and political considerations. Research can help us think about teacher education in useful ways, but it cannot tell us what to do even under the best of circumstances.
John Goodlad (1990), in his seminal work Teachers for our Nation’s Schools, notes that the conditions of exemplary teacher education programs are tied to moral positions about the nature of teaching, learning, schooling, and society and are not subject to empirical proof. Teaching and teacher education are inherently complex and are not reducible to simple prescriptions for practice. So, what makes a teacher education program good?
The goal of all teacher education programs should be to graduate teachers who become adaptive experts of curriculum instead of compliant implementers of scripts. Because teaching is dynamic (so much is happening) and complex (working with diverse children requires insight), educating “good enough teachers” is inadequate. Good teaching is more than getting students to perform well on standardized tests; one must learn people skills, problem solving, aesthetics, how to create a space for civic and social development, and understand subject area content well enough to explain it to up to thirty different children an hour.
Elements of Teacher Education Programs
Teacher education programs are structured on similar elements. Once a student is selected for enrolment, a teacher candidate faces a program that includes: (a) a framework and philosophy; (b) formal and informal curriculum; (c) field experiences; (d) the use of instructional strategies; (e) organizational features; (f) and program decision-making structures. The various choices institutions make about the specifics of delivery, content, and decisions within each of these categories significantly impacts the quality of an institution’s teacher education program.
Framework and philosophy. A teacher education program’s framework and philosophy generally includes clear statements about the program’s view of teaching, learning, schooling, and teachers’ roles. Programs differ in how clearly each is defined, how widely the community shares these beliefs, and the degree of commitment the program deems necessary to uphold these frameworks and model the philosophy it endorses.
Formal and informal curriculum. Teacher education program curricula are taught both formally and informally. This curriculum includes an institution’s choice of subject matter, where curricular components are placed within the program, the program’s rigor, and the philosophy of pedagogy modeled. Similar to any organization, culture is crucial; and, a program’s culture can perhaps be studied best in the informal – the way people treat each other or the match between philosophy and action. These are the lessons teacher candidates will carry to their work as teachers – whether they are conscious of these or not. They simply become the uncontested and non-discussed way things are done.
Field experiences. Organized field experiences are an important part of a pre-service teacher’s education program. The number of placements, their length, and where they are arranged within the program’s curriculum vary between programs. Programs must also make important choices regarding the philosophical relationships of how placement experiences are linked to what is taught during formal courses in the teacher education program and the nature, quality, and philosophy of teacher mentoring and assessment.
Instructional strategies. Instructional strategies are crucial to teacher education programs. Programs vary depending upon what strategies are taught, whether these strategies are only advocated for candidates or modelled for candidates as part of their program. How and for what purpose these strategies are used, introduced, and supported is also important.
Organizational features. A teacher education program’s organizational features include how teacher candidates are grouped, including the use of student cohorts. Additionally, this program element includes decisions regarding how teacher candidates are expected to relate to program staff and faculty (the encouragement of horizontal or vertical relationships), who the teacher educators are, and how they are prepared and supported in their instructional roles.
Decision-making structures. Each previous element involves decision-making. It matters how these decisions are made and what data is used to support these decisions. Choices must be made about how and what data are collected about the program and then how data are used to inform future program decisions.
Elements of Successful Programs
Research provides a foundation for understanding key elements of successful teacher education programs. Darling-Hammond (2006) found that successful programs share seven common characteristics: (1) common and clear visions of good teaching; (2) defined standards of professional practice; (3) strong core curricula that do not separate theory and practice; (4) extended practica in schools that share the program’s values; (5) a focus on reflection and development; (6) methods that help teacher candidates overcome their misconceptions about teaching; and, (7) strong relationships between schools and university faculty.
Darling-Hammond (2006) also found six required pedagogical cornerstones for successful teacher education programs: (1) strong coherence and integration between courses and coursework; (2) assignments that build on theory and supplement each other; (3) faculty communication and sharing; (4) course interaction and integration; (5) adequate time in schools; and, (6) schools that share the program’s values and model its practices.
In a paper titled “Building a Teacher Education ‘To Do List,’” Beauchamp, Parsons, and Harding (2013) reviewed current practices in pre-service teacher education to suggest possible improvements that might help mediate pressures young teachers face. Their paper synthesized their own recent research about in-service teacher professional learning as a way to inform teacher education programs and to suggest possible changes and improvements to these programs. They generated a “To Do List” of six activities they believed would improve pre-service education programs to help build more efficacious teachers, help stem the exodus from teaching, and help teacher education programs begin to educate teachers for the wellness of long and healthy careers.Their “To Do List” included the following suggestions:
- During coursework, instruct and engage teacher candidates in action research processes, ethics, and methods.
- Engage young teachers in collaborative work to successful school pedagogy.
- Build classroom cultures that support community, agency, and service. (Community centered on working together. Agency simply meant the belief that one could make a difference. Service centered upon doing “good things” for others.)
- Work transparently on real classroom issues.
- Celebrate diversity, working to increase individual skills and interests.
- Allow young teachers to actively consider the kinds of cultures they hope to build in their classrooms and schools and practical ways those cultures might be built.
The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report (2005) noted that the key program elements of a teacher education program included collegial relationships where teachers: (a) analyzed student work samples together, (b) sought each other’s advice about instructional issues, (c) observed each other’s classrooms to offer feedback, (d) exchanged ideas, and (e) discussed student assessment to make decisions about instruction. However, the SRI noted that much of what is believed to be the goals of teacher education cannot be supported empirically and concluded that research on teacher education programs is difficult because quality ranges within any model. Finally, they conclude that the search for the most effective program model will fail because program is the wrong level of analysis. Instead, a more correct focus would be on program characteristics, which are shaped to meet particular goals, particular populations, and particular contexts.
The Nelson Campus of the University of Canterbury
This section of the paper will discuss the history, background, and overview of the Nelson, New Zealand, campus of the University of Canterbury’s Faculty of Education as an example of a program that models the characteristics of a strong teacher education program. The Nelson campus was established in 1998 by the (then) Christchurch College of Education (CCE) in response to requests by local primary and secondary principals and identified need within the community. The rationale included providing opportunities for:
(1) local people who were unable to move to Christchurch to become teachers – generally mature individuals with families;
(2) a larger pool of qualified beginning teachers for local schools;
(3) professional development and career enhancement for local teachers and principals through opportunities for part-time lecturing teacher education courses, and becoming Associate Teachers to mentor student teachers in their classrooms;
(4) support staff in schools (such as teacher aides) to become teachers and progress their careers using their already developed experiences and skills; and,
(5) school leavers to participate in tertiary education without having to leave home.
Since the merger of CCE with the University of Canterbury in January 2007, the Nelson campus has continued to provide teacher education for primary teachers. At the end of 2010, a proposal to close the Nelson Campus, as well as the other regional campuses (Rotorua – primary, Tauranga – early childhood, and New Plymouth – early childhood) was suggested as a way to reduce EFTS (Equivalent Full Time Student is used to measure student numbers at New Zealand educational institutions), in response to changed government policy. The response of the Nelson educational community was overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the campus for the economic and social benefits to individuals and families in the Nelson region. Local principals, current and past students, teachers and staff made supportive submissions and the issue was widely reported in the media.
In response, the decision was made to retain the Nelson, Rotorua, and New Plymouth campuses, but the mode of delivery at the Nelson campus would change from a primarily face-to-face delivery to a blended method. Beginning with the new intake of teacher candidates in 2012, all courses would be delivered fully by distance, or by a mix of on-line and face-to-face. Instead of teacher candidates coming into campus several days a week for lectures, they would be required to attend only one or two days a week.
Currently teacher candidates are still able to complete the three-year Bachelor of Teaching and Learning (primary) without going to the University of Canterbury’s main Christchurch campus. Each group is between 20 and 35 teacher candidates. Nelson teacher candidates choose to come onto the Nelson campus for the extra support and enhanced face-to-face delivery, rather than study by distance.
At the present, the campus is staffed by a full-time Primary Coordinator, two part-time lecturers, and an office administrator. As well, local teachers are employed to lecture part-time for some courses; some courses are delivered in blocks by lecturers from Christchurch; and some courses are delivered completely on-line.
Characteristics of the Nelson Campus
No program description can clearly capture the unique nature of the Nelson campus. The vision, philosophy, and key values drive the day-to-day organization, teaching approaches, and interactions, and underpin the ways of “being” and “doing.” The characteristics of the Nelson campus include some ways the program is enacted and the ways things are done, reflecting a prescribed program framework, coursework, and fieldwork. However, the vision and values of Nelson staff put flesh on the program’s bones and breathe life into the program.
Culture of the Nelson campus. The Nelson campus creates a particular culture of community, collaboration, and support. The first two orientation weeks of the teacher candidates’ three-year program begin an enculturation into the culture of the campus. One key goal of orientation is to introduce and establish an ethos of collegial support and an ethic of caring. Teacher candidates get to know each other and the staff, and a safe and positive learning environment is established. Staff create a campus culture that is inclusive, supportive, and welcoming.
Throughout their campus experience, teacher candidates participate in mihi whakatau. In this Māori ceremony, newcomers (manuhiri – visitors) are welcomed by the people already there (tāngata whenua – people of the land). The ceremonial protocols include whaikōrero (speeches) and waiata (songs). The mihi whakatau concludes with the hongi – both groups sharing a breath by pressing noses, and sharing kai (food). The ceremony bonds all people into one group. During orientation, new teacher candidates are welcomed onto the campus by the group already there and staff. Over the course of their time on the campus, those same teacher candidates will welcome other visitors to the campus with mihi whakatau, taking responsibility for the whaikōrero and waiata. For many, this ceremony is their first introduction to biculturalism.
Biculturalism is the relationship between Māori – the indigenous peoples of New Zealand and Pakeha – those who have descended from the European settlers of the 18th 19th and 20th centuries. Although some teacher candidates have experienced tikanga Māori (Māori ways) in their own schooling or life after school, many – particularly older teacher candidates – have not. Inclusion of bicultural concepts and ways of doing things within the campus culture in authentic ways means that teacher candidates are increasingly comfortable with tikanga Māori.
Orientation also introduces the kaupapa (expectations and ways-of-acting) of classes and groups. At the Nelson campus, the kaupapa includes (1) actively listen, valuing everyone’s ideas and the diversity of views; (2) respectfully critiquing the ideas, not the person; (3) honoring a commitment that what is said in the group, stays in the group; and (4) believing everyone contributes to the group; It might also include protocols for texting and student Facebook groups. For first-year teacher candidates, “building” the kaupapa is a responsibility of lecturers, with student input. Starting in the program’s second year, teacher candidates take responsibility and contribute to renewing the kaupapa.
The kaupapa paradigm – and expectations constructed by the class – are additional to the University’s policies. The kaupapa paradigmis an example of the Nelson campus living its vision and values, creating a safe foundation that allows for risk-taking. Throughout their three years, teacher candidates challenge each other by sharing their own experiences, questioning, affirming, and confronting. Although this challenge is often difficult and can cause conflict, it leads to powerful learning about self and teacher identity and about how to relate to “different” others.
Establishing and maintaining a safe learning environment is paramount to learning at the Nelson campus, allowing and encouraging teacher candidates to learn from each other and to connect with people different from themselves. This safe learning environment is important as student groups become more diverse. The most recently graduated group included teacher candidates from 21 to 52 years; three Māori males and two Māori females; one Chinese student; and several teacher candidates from working class backgrounds.
Throughout their three-year program, teacher candidates also learn basic te reo Māori (Māori language) and tikanga Māori (Māori ways, values, beliefs, practices) in their courses. They also learn about the context of schooling in New Zealand, reasons for the under-achievement of Māori children, and strategies to raise achievement. Māori conceptual understandings, values, and world-views are explored.
Each day of classes throughout their three years begins with a whakataukī (proverb) and waiata (song). After the first few weeks of staff modeling, student pairs take responsibility for selecting and leading these proverbs and songs. Participation in these at the start of the day encourages kotahitanga (being as one, unity, working together) and sets up the focus on learning. The whakataukī is appropriate to the group and the context – whether it be a time of stress with major assignments due or support for a student with personal issues.
This formal and informal curriculum demonstrates how the Nelson campus encourages and structures opportunities for teacher candidates to engage with new concepts in the authentic context of their shared lived experiences. In their cohort and interactions between cohorts, teacher candidates and their instructors practice whanaungatanga (kinship, family, community, process of building relationships), manaakitanga (ethic of caring), and kotahitanga (being as one, unity, working together, inclusiveness). The intimate nature of the Nelson campus fosters relationships, and while interactions are sometimes difficult, these concepts assist conflict resolution and are integral to the culture of the campus.
The Office Administrator also plays a key role in the establishment of the campus culture. She greets, farewells, and chats with teacher candidates. All staff model positive professional and collegial relationships with each other and teacher candidates feel part of a community. Partners and children often come onto campus outside of class and are welcomed by staff and other teacher candidates. Teacher candidates often organize social get-togethers, generally with families, and sometimes invite staff. This is whanaungatanga in practice.
Additionally, the organization and physical set-up supports the campus culture. On-campus classes provide face-to-face interactions, which build community and relationships. Teacher candidates do much of their learning in groups. In the first few weeks, teacher candidates are expected to participate in small groups rather than offer ideas to the whole class, a less threatening introduction. Teacher candidates are encouraged to change groups often; and, as teacher candidates gain confidence and trust each other, the main seating arrangement becomes a circle or a U. The physical space encourages professional discussion and debate, and discussion between all – rather than through the lecturer – increases throughout the three years of the program.
A structured and thoughtful induction lays the foundation for commitment to the campus culture. This commitment contributes to student retention and successful tertiary study. Participation in mihi whakatau, committing to the kaupapa, learning and practicing Māori cultural concepts, interacting with others in group, and the physical organization are integral elements to establishing the Nelson campus culture – a culture that joins individual learners into powerful learning communities. The Nelson campus creates and maintains a collaborative, positive learning community that supports and encourages its members to take risks, contribute to the campus, and the learning of all.
Support of teacher candidates. A second key characteristic of the Nelson campus is the support of teacher candidates by staff and other teacher candidates. The campus culture includes manaakitanga (ethic of caring) and a commitment to supporting teacher candidates, referred to in the previous section. This section describes how teacher candidates are supported.
Twenty to thirty-five teacher candidates form a small cohort. Teacher candidates remain in this cohort for all three years, allowing relationships to form and trust to be built. They support each other with academic challenges and personal issues. Teacher candidates also support staff and appreciate the efforts of staff to enhance their campus experience.
In the first semester of the program, the Coordinator sets up extra study sessions for the on-line courses. Because many Nelson teacher candidates are older and have not studied for some years, these teacher candidates benefit from extra encouragement. Teacher candidates also set up their own sessions where they work together to discuss readings and work on tasks. Student study groups are particularly important in the first semester of the program when teacher candidates are learning foundational skills.
In the first few weeks of the program, whānau (extended family) groups are established. Five or six teacher candidates from different cohort groups on the campus are formed into whānau groups based on similar demographic characteristics. For example, there might be two or three groups of mothers with children. The whānau groups informally discuss campus life, study issues, or other topics of importance. The Coordinator sets aside time in the timetable two or three times a semester for these groups to meet.
Staff also support teacher candidates by recognizing them as social and emotional beings with challenges and issues they bring with them. Teacher candidates feel that staff members care about their well-being as well as their academic progress. The Coordinator’s door is open and teacher candidates often drop in to chat, as well as make formal appointments for a meeting to discuss an issue.
In part, the Nelson Coordinator provides a level of pastoral care for teacher candidates. Teacher candidates might discuss course or personal issues that impact their studies. The Coordinator works to help teacher candidates solve immediate issues and, in cases where that is not possible, teacher candidates are referred to other agencies. Sometimes teacher candidates simply need a chance to discuss issues in confidence. At times, teacher candidates bring issues that affect the group and, individually or in small groups, they might discuss this and strategize together to resolve issues. The campus Coordinator advocates for teacher candidates and assists them as they navigate formal university processes, for example, if they fail a course. As well as supporting individual teacher candidates, the Coordinator has advocated for face-to-face lecturing and for local teachers to lecture into courses to enhance student learning.
Partnership with schools. While ‘partnership’ between teacher education provider and schools is a lauded concept and goal (Le Cornu, 2012), partnership in practice takes many forms. Strengths of the Nelson campus include the way this partnership operates to forge strong relationships between principals, teachers, lecturers, and teacher candidates. Because principals and teachers work so closely with the Nelson campus, they feel connected and involved with the Nelson campus: like teacher candidates, they too feel a sense of ownership. Because the region is small, it is possible for lecturers to know all the principals and many of the teachers. As well, the Nelson Coordinator makes developing these relationships a priority.
Principals and teachers are involved in the campus in a number of ways. They participate as guest lecturers; they work in mock interviews for final year teacher candidates; and they engage in selection interviews for candidates who enter the program. Being part of selection interviews provides an opportunity for principals to become active stakeholders in the program, engage in professional discussion, and feel valued.
Employing local teachers with particular curriculum expertise as lecturers has also been particularly valuable. An example is the Physical Education (PE) course taught over the past three years. Teacher candidates attended lectures and practical sessions at a local primary school, provided by a teacher with expertise in PE. Practical sessions included structured opportunities for teacher candidates to teach groups of children and apply theory to practice. For this practice to happen, schools willingly provided financial support – as well as the use of resources, facilities, and equipment.
Another example of the Nelson campus’ partnership in action is the mentoring scheme for first-year teacher candidates. Teacher candidates spend one day a week in local school classrooms for several weeks during their first semester. They establish relationships with teachers, make observations, interact with children and other staff, and become part of that classroom and school community. Mentoring is additional to the formal practicum experiences. Because of strong partnerships between the Nelson campus and area schools, principals were given significant input into how the mentoring scheme would run in Nelson. They wished it to continue.
Principals have had a strong voice in other areas as well. A number of Nelson campus meetings invited principal feedback on a proposal for a redeveloped degree and blended delivery method in Nelson. Nelson principals met with Program Managers from the University of Canterbury’s main campus in Christchurch and advocated that Nelson teacher education teacher candidates should continue to receive a significant amount of face-to-face lecturing within the new blended model. They expressed considerable concern about the limitations of on-line learning in preparing teachers for primary classrooms. They also voiced their belief that teacher candidates must learn the skills of teaching through active interactions with others, and expressed concerns over a program substituting online lessons for personal contact. As a result, face-to-face lectures and workshops for Nelson teacher candidates – in some courses – were continued through 2012.
A further indictor of the strong partnership was demonstrated by the principals’ responses to requests for Associate Teachers. Principals value discussion about matching teacher candidates with Associates, even if a request is presented at the last minute or when a previously arranged practicum placement no longer works; and, principals encourage their teachers to become Associate Teachers. Local principals trust that Nelson teacher candidates will begin their practicums prepared and briefed about school requirements and that teacher candidates understand their professional and ethical responsibilities.
A concerted effort by the Nelson staff to build and maintain school-based relationships keeps the partnership strong. The Nelson Campus Coordinator communicates regularly with principals by email, and supervising lecturers catch up with principals when they visit their schools. Supervising lecturers also mentor and support new Associate Teachers and assist these Associate Teachers with teacher candidates on practicum, particularly when concerns arise. These reciprocal relationships grant the Coordinator and local lecturers an awareness of the principal/employers needs. As a result, they are able to address areas of need within courses to prepare Nelson graduates with the specific skill sets their employing principals are looking for.
The sense of shared ownership and support from principals, teachers, and schools enriches learning experiences for teacher candidates. The degree of autonomy that the Nelson campus coordinator had to respond to needs, shape the Nelson program, and work alongside the principals, schools, and teachers has been a key element in building effective partnerships.
Standards and expectations. High standards and expectations for teacher candidates are vital for the quality of graduates and the reputation of the campus. A reputation for excellence contributes to the graduates being sought after for employment. Standards and expectations are set and maintained for conduct and dispositions as well as for professional knowledge and practices.
The concept and multiple meanings of professionalism are discussed throughout the program’s three years. Early in the first semester of the program, teacher candidates explore professionalism and ethical decision-making and behavior, and their responsibilities to children, whānau (families), community, school and teachers, self, and each other. The importance of these standards continues to be a topic of paramount importance. Nelson teacher candidates are regularly reminded of the expectations and obligations attached to the role of teacher. Teacher education candidates are aware of the campus, principals, and Associate teachers’ expectations of exemplary, professional behavior.
Nelson campus staff members are expected to meet – and model – the same rigorous standards of professionalism. Nelson campus lecturers review the first tasks teacher candidates complete and endeavor to provide these candidates with timely, worthwhile, and relevant feedback. Teacher candidates value the extent of this quality feedback and comments from lecturers.
Teacher candidates consistently say they appreciate quality feedback about their practicum experience through the thorough review of their practicum documentation. Nelson lecturers have maintained this practice. Principals and teachers know that teacher candidates graduating from the Nelson campus will have demonstrated the skills to plan, teach, assess, and to thoroughly assess learners’ needs and evaluate children’s learning. It is important that only teacher candidates who meet the course’s Learning Outcomes pass and those who don’t fail. However, some teacher candidates struggle for legitimate reasons. It can be a difficult decision to fail teacher candidates that staff members have formed strong working relationships with. Moderation and clear policies on assessment practices are important, and a strict adherence to the high standards and expectations must be maintained.
Courses and modes of delivery. All courses are blended or completely on-line. With the move towards more and more on-line delivery in the last few years, teacher candidates consistently note that a strength of the Nelson Campus is the face-to-face component of the blended courses. Because each cohort consists of only 20-35 teacher candidates, face-to-face lecturing, group work, and discussion is more common than exposition-style teaching in lecture theatres to large groups. Teaching strategies are modeled and pedagogies deconstructed. Reflection, critical reflection and cooperative learning are taught, modeled, encouraged, and practiced. Links across courses and from practice to theory are made.
Social constructivist approaches underpin face-to-face sessions, recognizing and valuing the experiences that teacher candidates bring. Teacher candidates become aware of different views and the experiences of others through group or whole class interaction. Learning with and from others in the class, in discussion, and on tasks is a powerful aspect of the Nelson program.
Over the years, local principals have consistently valued Nelson graduates’ understanding, confidence, and classroom practice of Te Reo and tikanga Māori. A local part-time lecturer, who is also a Resource Teacher of Māori with strong connections to iwi (tribal groups) in the area, teaches these courses. Clearly, this teacher’s face-to-face teaching method has had powerful and positive influence on graduating teacher candidates’ mastery of the subjects she has been teaching.
Teacher candidates themselves confirm this impact. Some teacher candidates (Māori and Pākehā) comment how a single two-day workshop delivered face-to-face by an expert lecturer “changed their lives.” This powerful learning experience explored the context at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840; the expectations and hopes of Māori and Pākehā settlers; the ongoing grievances of Māori in response to breaches of the treaty; and the processes of resolution and restitution. Although the content of the workshop was significant, graduating teacher candidates unequivocally described the impact the lecturer had as equally significant.
Lecturers’ passion, charisma, and skills have provided Nelson teacher candidates’ unique learning opportunities. They can also offer Nelson teacher candidates a more individualized approach. Lecturers have flexibility to both respond to teacher candidates’ learning needs as well as teach prescribed content. This ability and flexibility to “teach to needs” is at the heart of good practice. This modeling creates a situation where teacher education candidates also learn to identify children’s needs and teach to these in their own future classrooms. The Nelson campus’ program believes it is of utmost importance that these future teachers experience the practice of responding to learner needs – including see how this practice is modeled and to understand its importance.
Until now, Nelson lecturers have had autonomy to shape courses – within the parameters of the approved course prescriptions – to meet student needs. An example of this was the optional Inquiry course that all the graduating Year 3 Nelson teacher candidates elected to take in 2012. This course demonstrated the professional growth of teacher candidates from their first year, in which they needed scaffolding by lecturers, to the final year where the teacher candidates were largely responsible for their own learning supported by lecturers in a facilitating role. As part of the process, teacher candidates had to contribute to others’ learning in small groups. They chose their topic, the inquiry process they would follow, which ‘experts’ to consult, and how to present their findings. Feedback from teacher candidates was overwhelmingly positive about the quality of the learning and their sense of efficacy. The quality of the inquiries and the professional discussion throughout were high.
Creating and maintaining a collaborative, positive learning community, based on an experience of face-to-face interaction, allows teacher candidates to be supported, encouraged, and to learn effectively. The Nelson campus’ program recognizes that teacher candidates bring strengths, agendas, and needs to their learning. Building this community of practice among teacher candidates is a strength of the Nelson program. Opportunities to learn about oneself, others, pedagogies, and knowledge is stronger than if teacher candidates were studying in isolation. Relationships are at the core of primary teaching and are at the core of the way the Nelson campus works.
The Nelson campus contributes to teacher candidates’ success, but it has limitations. Because the teacher education program is small, staff members can feel professionally isolated because they lack regular and on-going face-to-face interactions with other professionals, exposure to new ideas, and current developments. The lack of professional discussion about teacher candidates, educational concerns, organizational management, and relationship issues can be stressful and impede problem-solving. A tension exists between having autonomy and being supported.
All lecturers are busy and prioritizing means compromising. Sadly, important professional reading and research seem to fall victim to the need for day-to-day management; and, keeping up-to-date with new developments in the profession is difficult. This isolation can be further complicated by disconnects between teacher education programs at the Nelson Campus and the main University of Canterbury campus is Christchurch. Different programs come with a different vision and operational values.
What are the characteristics of a good teacher education program, and in what ways is the University of Canterbury’s Teacher Education program an example of a program with positive characteristics? First, previous literature on quality teacher education programs suggests that good teacher education programs engage specific strategies that help candidates confront their own beliefs and assumptions about learning. Certainly, confronting beliefs and assumptions about children’s needs and teaching is a central aspect of the Nelson campus’ program. Second, good teacher education programs help teacher candidates learn about the experiences of people different from themselves. The Nelson campus’ focus on Māori culture and activities is central to the program’s ethos. Third, good teacher education programs build upon strong relationships, common knowledge, and shared beliefs that link schools and university-based faculty. These relationships – both internally within the program (between teacher candidates themselves and between teacher candidates and faculty) and externally (between the Nelson campus and schools within the community) – are prized and modeled within the program.
Literature also suggests that case study methods, teacher and student research, performance assessments, and portfolio evaluation are all helpful because they apply learning to real problems of practice (Darling-Hammond, 2006). The Nelson campus’ program is strong in these areas: standards are high. Finally, the literature tells us that teacher education programs also work best when they are grounded in child and adolescent development, inquiry, social contexts, and subject matter pedagogy that are taught in the context of practice. The depth of modeling of these good pedagogies is central to the Nelson campus’ program and teacher candidates benefit from these pedagogical practices.
Darling-Hammond (2006) also suggests that beginning teachers need: (1) a chance to consider why the new practices are better than conventional ones; (2) opportunities to see examples of the new practices; (3) experience in learning the new practices firsthand; and, (4) on-site assistance and support in learning to put the new practices in place. They need knowledge and skills for assessing pupil learning and a wide repertoire of practice along with the knowledge to know when to use different strategies for different purpose. Good teacher education programs must recognize and address problems that teacher candidates encounter and meet the learning needs of all of their teacher candidates. Again, our study of the Nelson campus’ teacher education program suggests that these activities are central to the practical ethos of the work.
Darling-Hammond (2006) also notes that teacher candidates must learn from practice as well as learn for practice. Programs must not only provide knowledge but help teachers access this knowledge so they might reflect on their practice. Teachers should be trained as researchers and collaborators who can learn from their own and others practice. The inquiry project during teacher candidates’ final year of their program reflects this need. Teacher educators should be concerned with what they teach and how they teach it. The goal should be to educate teacher candidates to be adaptive experts who continue to learn. Again, insofar as possible, the Nelson campus’ program reflects these necessary actions.
What makes a teacher education programs effective? Darling-Hammond (2006) wraps it up by suggesting that good teacher education programs must be powerful enough to help teacher candidates understand that teaching differs from what they remember from their days being a student in school. It must help teacher candidates both think and act like a teacher. It must prepare teacher candidates for complex classrooms, to adapt to their professional requirements, and to handle the many needs they will meet as they engage their vocation as teachers. In our estimation, the Nelson campus’ teacher education program meets these needs. We salute its outstanding work educating teacher candidates for a complex vocation.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. http://jte.sagepub.com.cyber.usask.ca/cgi/reprint/57/3/300
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Humphrey, D. C., & Wechsler, M. E. (2007). Insights into alternative certification: Initial findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 483-530.
Le Cornu, R. J. (2012). School co-ordinators: leaders of learning in professional experience, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 18-33.
Macfarlane, A. (2004) Kia hiwa ra! Listen to Culture – Māori students’ plea to educators. Wellington: NZCER.
Parsons, J.; Beauchamp, L.; & Harding, K. (2013). Building a Teacher Education ‘To Do List.’ Northwest Journal of Teacher Education, 11 (1), 103-113.