(Advances in Teaching and Teacher Education) Yeping Li, Janet Hammer (Eds.) - Teaching at Work-SensePublishers (2015)

Teaching at Work
ADVANCES IN TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION
Volume 1
Series Editor:
Yeping Li, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
International Advisory Board:
Miriam Ben-Peretz, University of Haifa, Israel

Cheryl J. Craig, University of Houston, USA
Jennifer Gore, University of Newcastle, Australia
Stephanie L. Knight, Pennsylvania State University, USA
Allen Yuk Lun Leung, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Ian Menter, University of Oxford, UK
Yolanda N. Padrn, Texas A&M University, USA
Hersh C. Waxman, Texas A&M University, USA
Scope:
Advances in Teaching and Teacher Education is an international book series

that aims to provide an important outlet for sharing the state-of-the-art research,
knowledge, and practices of teaching and teacher education. The series helps
promote the discussion, improvement, and assessment of teachers quality, teaching,
and instructional innovations including technology integration at all school levels as
well as through teacher education around the world. With no specific restriction to
disciplines, the series strives to address and synthesize different aspects and stages
in teaching and teacher professional development both within and across disciplines,
various interactions throughout the process of instructional activities and teacher
education from various theoretical, policy, psychological, socio-cultural, or cross-
cultural perspectives. The series features books that are contributed by researchers,
teacher educators, instructional specialists, and practitioners from different education
systems.
For further information:

https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/advances-in-teaching-and-
teacher-education/
Teaching at Work
Edited by
Yeping Li and Janet Hammer
Texas A&M University, USA
A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-94-6300-080-2 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-94-6300-081-9 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6300-082-6 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,

P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved 2015 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgementsvii
Part 1: Introduction and Perspectives
1. Teaching at Work: Innovating and Sharing Teaching Approaches
andPractices to Advance Teacher Preparation 3
Yeping Li and Janet Hammer
2. Research-Based Approaches for Identifying and Assessing
Effective Teaching Practices: Challenges, New Directions, and
PolicyImplications 9
Hersh C. Waxman, Nancy Dubinski Weber,
Susana E. Franco-Fuenmayor and Kayla B. Rollins
3. Connecting Research and Practice through Teacher Knowledge 29
Emily Binks-Cantrell and R. Malatesha Joshi
Part 2: Selected Approaches and Practices in Teaching and
Teacher Preparation
4. Preservice Teachers Problem-Solving Lesson Engagement and
Knowledgeand Beliefs about Teaching for Equity 51
Trina J. Davis, Gerald Kulm, Ayse Tugba Oner,
S. Enrico P. Indiogine, Dianne S. Goldsby and Tingting Ma
5. Changing Preservice Teachers Attitudes Toward Linguistic
Diversityby Introducing a World Englishes Perspective 81
Zohreh R. Eslami, Edie Cassell and Burcu Ates
6. Subtracting Stereotypes through Studying Abroad: The World
Is a Book, and Those Who Do Not Travel Read Only
One Page (St. Augustine) 105
Cynthia Boettcher, Janet Hammer and Sunni Sonnenburg
7. Preparing Preservice Teachers for Diverse Urban Classrooms 123
Kamala Williams and Norvella Carter
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8. Modeling the Write Teaching Practices: Instructor Influences

on Preservice Teachers 145
Tracey S. Hodges, Erin McTigue, April G. Douglass,
Nancy Dubinski Weber, Katherine Landau Wright and
Anna de La Garza
9. Minding the Gap: Mentoring Undergraduate Preservice Teachers
inEducational Research 171
Katherine Landau Wright, Tracey S. Hodges, Amanda D. Franks,
ErinMcTigue and April G. Douglass
10. Technology Integration and PreserviceTeachers: Theory
and Practice 193
Robin Rackley and Radhika Viruru
11. The Examined Life: Using Digital Stories to Develop the
ReflectiveCapabilities of Preservice Teachers about Culture
andDiversity 211
Lynne Masel Walters, Martha R. Green, Timothy N. Walters
and Liangyan Wang
12. Mentoring Viewed through an Open Classroom Experience 235
Dianne S. Goldsby and Mary Figuero-Charles
Part 3: Commentary
13. Quality Teaching and Teacher Preparation: Challenges,
Commitment,andInnovation 253
Douglas J. Palmer
Index261
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is a themed collection of chapters on the important topic of

teaching and teacher education. Similar to many other books, it is an edited
volume on a specific theme. At the same time, the book differs from many
other volumes, as it contains several unique features that we would like to
highlight as follows.
1. The volume is not typical, as it embodies close collaborations of 35
scholars who work in the same large department at a Research Tier I
University. The faculty of this department take pride in their work of
preparing quality educators. Their collaborations demonstrate joint
efforts of many faculty members across tracks and ranks and together
with graduate students, they are dedicated to the improvement of teaching
and teacher preparation.
2. The volume presents collaborations stemmed from an open classroom
program that started about three years ago. The open classroom program
has fostered the spirit of pursuing excellence in teaching and teacher
education through sharing, reflection, and collaboration. This volume
goes beyond regular open classroom visits and organized discussions on
Fridays to develop scholarship on teaching and teacher education.
3. With the launch of a new book series, this volume presents a starting point
for expanded and increased collaborations within and across institutions to
advance teaching and teacher education. The book series aims to provide
a platform that can help facilitate important on-going discussion about
teaching and teacher education nationally and internationally, especially
in times of change. We hope the inaugural volume will reach a broad
global readership.
We want to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge all of those
who have been involved in the process of preparing this book. This book
would not have been possible without the dedicated group of more than 30
contributors who have been our colleagues and friends over the years and we
thank them for their contributions. This group of contributors also worked
together as a team to review chapters. Their collective efforts helped ensure
this books quality.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks also go to a group of peers who took the time to help review many
chapters of the book. They include: Lynn Burlbaw, Mary Margaret Capraro,
L. Quentin Dixon, Valerie Hill-Jackson, Patricia Larke, Mnica Vsquez
Neshyba, and Julie Singleton. Their reviews and comments helped improve
the quality of many chapters.
Finally, we want to thank Carol Gonzalez for her assistance in formatting
many chapters of this book and Michel Lokhorst (a publisher at Sense
Publishers) and Jolanda Karada for their professional assistance in making
this publication a smooth and pleasant experience. As the first volume of
the new book series on Advances in Teaching and Teacher Education, this
books timely publication would not have been possible without Michel and
his team.
viii
PART 1
INTRODUCTION AND PERSPECTIVES
YEPING LI AND JANET HAMMER
1. TEACHING AT WORK
Innovating and Sharing Teaching Approaches and
Practices to Advance Teacher Preparation
INTRODUCTION
Teaching plays an important role in all of our lives and provides us

opportunities to learn from others including parents, friends, and of course,
our classroom teachers. It can occur in formal as well as informal settings
and is a form of practice that is so common in our society that it often goes
unnoticed. Everyone is a teacher in some form; however, not everyone
engages in teaching as a professional practice. The same is the case when
parents use Band-Aids to take care of their childs minor scratches but are
not trained in the professional practice as medical doctors to take care of
their childs broken arm. In contrast to medical doctors practices, teaching,
as a professional practice, still needs more systematic studies to identify
what helps determine good teaching practices and what helps make a good
teacher.
This book is sparked by the on-going efforts in innovating, sharing and
pursuing excellence in teaching and teacher preparation by a group of teacher
educators and researchers who have been involved in teaching and teacher
preparation for many years. This is not a book of rhetoric debates about the
nature of high-quality teaching, nor a book that provides a bag of tricks for
others daily usage. Rather, this is a book by teacher educators to share their
instructional approaches and practices in teacher preparation with reflection,
often supported with collected evidence of preservice teachers learning. The
title of the book highlights the nature of the book as follows.
The title, Teaching at work, refers to three related, yet different meanings:
(1) good teaching makes a difference in students learning; (2) teaching can
be taken as a platform to promote scholarly discussion and to study what
defines and demonstrates good teaching; (3) teaching helps to prepare
preservice teachers through teacher preparation programs for their future
roles as classroom teachers.
Y. Li & J. Hammer (Eds.), Teaching at Work, 38.

2015 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
Y. Li & J. Hammer
The first meaning, good teaching makes a difference in students learning,

refers to all types of classroom and online instruction, pre-kindergarten
through grade twelve as well as in a university setting. Certainly, it also
includes good teaching practices developed and used in teacher preparation,
which is the focus of this book. The general scope of teaching at work
recognizes the importance of good teaching in students learning at all levels.
The second meaning, teaching can be taken as a platform to promote
scholarly discussion and to study what defines and demonstrates good
teaching, refers to such special settings where teaching becomes the subject
of scholarly discussion and study. This meaning helps make the book different
from many others that aim to provide practical suggestions for designing,
planning, implementing, and assessing classroom instruction. This meaning
highlights the focus of the book, which is scholarship development on
teaching and its quality improvement.
The third meaning of this books title refers to such settings where the
students are preservice teachers and the preparation of excellent teachers
becomes the mission. In these settings, teaching differs from the case in K-12
education, where teaching is expected to help students learn knowledge and
skills but not necessarily help students become qualified educators. The
readers can find many books available on teaching in K-12 education within
and across education systems (e.g., Li & Huang, 2013; Stigler & Hiebert,
1999), and about teaching in general (e.g., Gay, 2010; Richardson, 2001;
Saha & Dworkin, 2009) as well as in different subject areas (e.g., Bain,
2004; Li, Silver & Li, 2014; Osborne & Dillon, 2010). However, there are a
very limited number of books available on teaching in a teacher preparation
program. In addressing this shortage, this book is designed to present and
share many teaching approaches and practices that have been used and valued
by a group of teacher educators who also uphold teaching improvement as a
scholarly pursuit.
Indeed, this book presents a new and important scholarship on teaching,
at the time when studies on teaching in teacher education programs are long
overdue. This book is designed to put together such a set of chapters contributed
by those teacher educators who are taking teaching not only as a professional
practice, but also modeling good teaching practices for preservice teachers in
an effort to prepare them for their future classrooms. What makes this set of
chapters unique is that they are the result of collaborative efforts focusing on
teaching in a large teacher preparation program in a research tier I institution
in the U.S. As part of these collaborative efforts, teaching is being taken
as the subject of scholarly inquiry with and through an open classroom
4
Teaching at Work
approach. It is in the spirit of pursuing excellence in teaching and discussing

various instructional approaches and practices in teacher preparation through
classroom observation and open discussion that we would like to share with
you what we have learned.
This book also presents a unique collaboration between two scholars:
Yeping Li and Janet Hammer. Teaching is not only what we do normally as
faculty members, but also our shared interest from different perspectives.
Li, as an educator and researcher originally from China, has been living in
the United States for over 20 years and studying mathematics instruction in
K-12 classrooms and teacher education programs between the East and the
West (e.g., Li, Silver & Li, 2014). His previous experiences as a student,
mathematics teacher and teacher educator in China have provided great
sources for reflection on issues related to teaching and teacher education.
Hammer, with over 25 years teaching experience in K-12 classrooms and
teacher preparation programs, is an award-winning educator and has insight
into the traits of high-quality teaching and what it takes to develop excellent
teachers in the United States. Moreover, this book also represents the first
of its kind in connecting scholarly collaboration and administrations, as we
not only work closely together in leading and managing the departments
teacher preparation programs, but also encourage close collaborations among
different tracks of faculty and graduate students within the department.
Through editing this volume, we appreciate the valuable opportunities
of learning from our contributors and colleagues. We are convinced that
upholding teaching as a professional practice and its study as a scholarly
pursuit, as this book presents, provides a unique lens for educators in
different teacher education programs to work closely together to reflect upon
and improve teaching.
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
This book is structured in three parts that include a total of 13 chapters: Part
I: Introduction and Perspectives (3 chapters), Part II: Selected Approaches
and Practices in Teaching and Teacher Preparation (9 chapters), and Part III:
Commentary (1 chapter). In the following sub-sections, we will provide brief
summaries for Parts I-III.
Part I: Introduction and Perspectives

The first part provides an overview of the book and select perspectives on
identifying and assessing effective teaching practices and on the importance
5
Y. Li & J. Hammer
of teachers knowledge in teaching. Because the quality of teaching is elusive,

its effectiveness can be defined and affected by many different factors. No
universal agreement is in existence to define and assess effective teaching
practices. Nevertheless, efforts to improve teaching have led to the development
of different perspectives and approaches in identifying and assessing effective
teaching practices. In particular, Waxman and his colleagues (this book)
provide a review of four approaches that have been developed and used to
identify and assess the effectiveness of teaching practices.
The chapter by Cantrell and Joshi (this book) highlights the importance of
teachers knowledge for making effective teaching possible. With the implicit
assumption about the effectiveness of research-based instruction, the authors
argue that teachers are key to the development and delivery of research-
based instruction that will lead to students success. Preparing teachers with
the knowledge necessary for research-based reading instruction thus holds
the promise of developing and delivering effective teaching.
Part II: Selected Approaches and Practices in Teaching and Teacher

Preparation
Making teaching effective within a teacher preparation program is more
complicated than the act of delivering knowledge itself. By examining
teaching beyond daily practices, readers can learn from reading the chapters
included in this section several important aspects of teaching in a teacher
preparation program. Designing and delivering teaching to preservice
teachers needs careful consideration recognizing that the students must be
prepared for tomorrows classrooms. By providing knowledge, skill sets and
dispositions, preservice teachers can and shall obtain from their program
studies, effective teaching practices and approaches. Also important when
working with preservice teachers is the consistent modeling of effective
teaching practices in order to help guide their learning.
Specifically, many chapters in Part II highlight important aspects that
preservice teachers can and shall learn for tomorrows classrooms through
program studies, including: preservice teachers awareness of teaching
for diversity and knowledge and the ability to employ problem-solving
heuristics in Chapter 4 (Davis et al.), preservice teachers attitudes toward
linguistic diversity in Chapter 5 (Eslami et al.), preservice teachers world
views in Chapter 6 (Boettcher et al.), preservice teachers preparation for
teaching in diverse urban schools in Chapter 7 (Willams and Carter), and
preservice teachers learning of technology integration in teaching in Chapter
6
Teaching at Work
10 (Rackley and Viruru). With the ever-increasing diverse student population

and classroom environment, these chapters provide valuable suggestions
to help prepare preservice teachers for teaching in tomorrows schools.
Moreover, specific teaching practices and approaches are also shared in
these chapters demonstrating the work of teacher educators within different
content. Various research methods are employed by these contributors to
document their teaching effectiveness. As a collection, these chapters provide
rich ideas and useful information about teaching and teacher education.
Several other chapters in Part II also highlight some other teaching practices
and approaches that are developed and used in preservice teacher preparation
or graduate courses, including modeling, mentoring and digital storytelling.
The chapter by Hodges et al. (this book) presents a quasi-experimental study
that shows possible effects of modeling the write teaching practices for
preservice teachers. In Chapter 9 (Wright et al.) and Chapter 12 (Goldsby
and Figuero-Charles), the contributors present their use of a mentoring
approach in educating undergraduate preservice teachers and graduate
students, respectively. The use of digital storytelling approach, as presented
in Chapter 11 (Walters et al.), shows another promising method that can be
used to develop preservice teachers global competence and consciousness
perception about culture and diversity through reflection and writing.
Part III: Commentary

The book concludes with a chapter in Part III, where Palmer highlights
challenges that teacher education programs face, even more so in our
current rapidly changing society. Addressing these challenges calls for more
collaborations and knowledge development in teacher preparation. This
book makes timely knowledge contribution and is positioned to stimulate
further discussion and exploration.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The books title indicates the content of this book. Also explained in the
beginning are the several meanings that this title is designed to contain. We
do hope that the book, as outlined above, provides much useful information
about different teaching practices and approaches developed and used in
teacher preparation.
At the same time, we want to inform readers that this book is not put
together to ignore learning, in this case, preservice teachers learning. In
7
Y. Li & J. Hammer
fact, readers should know that preservice teachers and their learning are
actually at the center of different teaching practices and approaches that are
discussed in this book. Teaching is never meant to be a purpose in itself
for what readers can learn from this book, but rather learning is the focus.
Just as we can learn from our own teaching through practice and reflection,
we also learn about teaching through sharing and collaboration. Teaching,
as a professional practice, needs systematic studies, especially in teacher
preparation where much still remains to be explored.
REFERENCES
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Boston,MA: Harvard University Press.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New
York,NY: Teachers College Press.
Li, Y., & Huang, R. (Eds.). (2013). How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching.
New York,NY: Routledge.
Li, Y., Silver, E. A., & Li, S. (Eds.). (2014). Transforming mathematics instruction: Multiple
approaches and practices. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Publishing.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say.
London: Open University Press.
Richardson, V. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC:
American Education Research Association.
Saha, L., & Dworkin, A. G. (Eds.). (2009). International handbook of research on teachers
and teaching. New York,NY: Springer.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds teachers for
improving education in the classroom. New York,NY: The Free Press.
Yeping Li
Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture
College of Education and Human Development
Janet Hammer
8
HERSH C. WAXMAN, NANCY DUBINSKI WEBER,
SUSANA E. FRANCO-FUENMAYOR AND KAYLA B. ROLLINS
2. RESEARCH-BASED APPROACHES FOR

IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING
EFFECTIVE TEACHING PRACTICES
Challenges, New Directions, and Policy Implications
INTRODUCTION
Research has found that having an effective teacher is one of the most
influential factors that improve students academic achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 2011). Unfortunately, the inequitable distribution of high-
quality teachers within and across schools is one of our most serious
educational problems (Darling-Hammond, 2010, 2011; Rothman, 2009;
Waxman, Padrn, Shin, & Rivera, 2008). High-poverty schools that serve
predominantly minority and poor students have been found to typically have
less-experienced and less-qualified teachers than low-poverty schools (Almy
& Theokas, 2010; Jerald, Haycock, & Wilkins, 2009). Students from high-
poverty schools have also been found to have diminished opportunities to
learn and receive a lower quality of classroom instruction than their more
affluent peers from low-poverty schools (Boykin & Noguera, 2011; Camburn
& Han, 2011). In addition, the quality of teachers classroom instruction has
also been found to vary dramatically within the same school thus creating an
additional equity concern for students who do not have opportunities to learn
from effective teachers (Day & Gu, 2010; Duncan & Murnane, 2014). This
lack of consistency across classrooms and grade levels also has been found
to interfere with student learning (Duncan & Murnane, 2014). To address
these concerns of providing equal access to good teachers to students of all
ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, the federal government has recently
developed a 2014 initiative Excellent Educators for All that requires states
to develop plans for providing effective educators for all students.
One of the challenges in addressing this problem of closing the gap of
access to effective teachers is that there is considerable debate in the field
regarding the identification and assessment of effective teaching practices

H. C. WAXMAN et al.
(Darling-Hammond, 2013). As City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009)

describe this problem, one of the greatest barriers to school improvement
is the lack of an agreed-upon definition of what quality instruction looks
like (p. 3). Researchers different perspectives and approaches to defining
and measuring the construct of teacher effectiveness has resulted in
contradictory findings related to the critical question of identifying and
evaluating effective teachers (Camburn & Han, 2011; Goe, Bell, & Little,
2008; Roehrig, et. al. 2012). These conflicting perspectives and approaches
about identifying effective teachers have also impacted federal, state, and
local educational policy regarding teacher evaluation and how to determine
teacher effectiveness. The failure to systematically identify effective teaching
practices has resulted in policymakers trying to evaluate teachers and
teachings based solely on student test scores (Cuban, 2013). Consequently,
this identification and measurement issue is one of the most important
educational issues today. The present chapter describes four of the most
prevalent approaches that are currently used to identify and assess effective
teaching. They are (a) meta-analyses or research syntheses of quantitative
studies in the field, (b) checklists of teaching skills and strategies, (c)
systematic classroom observation, and (d) value-added measures of teacher
evaluation. For each of these four approaches, we will explain the rationale
of the approach, the qualities they generally use to define effective teaching,
and then summarize some of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach.
A description of each approach follows in the sections below.
META-ANALYTIC APPROACHES
For the past three decades, meta-analyses or quantitative research syntheses

of studies have helped education become a more evidence-based field. Meta-
analysis is a method that summarizes prior research on specific instructional
programs or teaching behaviors and quantifies how much of an impact
that particular teaching practice has on students academic achievement.
The effect size or scale that is used in meta-analysis is d or the standard
deviation unit that is typically created by subtracting the mean of the control
group from the mean of the treatment group and dividing the difference by
the pooled sample standard deviation. For example, an effect size of d =
1.0 indicates that a particular teaching practice increases student academic
achievement by standard deviation. Although there is no uniform standard
for interpreting effect sizes, Cohen (1988) suggested that d = 0.2 was a small
effect, d = 0.5 was a medium effect, and d = 0.8 was a large effect.
10
RESEARCH-BASED APPROACHES
There have been over a thousand meta-analyses conducted in education

during this period (Hattie, 2009, 2012) and researchers have begun
summarizing these meta-analyses to specifically focus on those salient
education processes (e.g., teaching behaviors and practices) that lead to
improved student outcomes. John Hatties Visible Learning: A Synthesis of
Over 800 Meta-Analyses Related to Achievement (2009) is one of the most
comprehensive meta-syntheses in education; it included many meta-analytic
studies that focused on teaching approaches and instructional strategies.
Hatties (2009, 2012) findings revealed that the top teaching strategies based
on overall effect sizes are (a) teacher credibility (d = 0.90), (b) providing
formative evaluation (d = 0.90), (c) classroom discussion (d = 0.82), (d)
teacher clarity (d = 0.75), (e) feedback (d = 0.75), (f) reciprocal teaching
(d = 0.74), and (g) teacher student-relationships (d = 0.72). Overall, Hattie
(2009) found that teachers active involvement in teaching has greater effects
on student learning as compared to teaching practices where the teacher is
less involved or not involved at all.
Hatties research has also been rewritten for preservice and in-service
teachers so that they could apply the principles to any classroom in the
world (Hattie, 2012). His major perspective for effective teaching is that
student learning needs to be visible to teachers and that teachers need to
make teaching visible to students so that they can become their own teachers.
Other educators like Robert Marzano have similarly summarized the findings
of meta-analyses and developed professional development programs for
teachers based on those findings (Marzano, 2007; Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock. 2001).
In the past decade, this evidence-based approach has been strongly
promoted by the U. S. Department of Education (USDOE). The What
Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established by the USDOE to review the
research on different programs, products, practices, and policies in education.
By focusing on the results from high-quality research, the WWC tries to
answer the question What works in education? Unfortunately, the rigorous
criteria for selecting studies to be reviewed by the WWC (i.e., randomized
controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs that established equivalence
in matched control designs) have often resulted in the WWC being called the
what doesnt work clearinghouse due to the large number of studies that
have not met the criteria for selection.
One of the major concerns with meta-analyses and evidence-based
education approaches is that they typically only focus on what is
scientifically proven to be effective for improving students academic
11
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
achievement and they often ignore examining the impact of instructional

practices and programs on other important student outcomes such as
engagement in learning or motivation to learn (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
A second concern is that most meta-analyses only include experimental or
quasi-experimental studies that report appropriate quantitative statistics.
Meta-analyses ignore all qualitative research that has made important
contributions to the field of teaching. This is an important selection bias
that should always be considered when making assertions from meta-
analytic research. A third concern is that meta-analyses and meta-syntheses
generally aggregate the findings from individual studies and often ignore
emphasizing important individual student or school contextual variables
that may mediate the overall effects. In other words, meta-analyses
often ignore key school demographics (e.g., socio-economic status, size
of school, and location of school) and student characteristics (e.g., sex,
ethnicity, etc.). A fourth major concern is that individual meta-analyses
often focus on individual variables like teacher clarity, feedback, and
classroom discussion. In typical classroom situations, however, these
variables occur simultaneously and are considered related components
of quality instruction. In other words, meta-analyses often simplify the
instructional process to focus on individual variables rather than clusters
of variables that typically comprise classroom instruction. A final concern
with the meta-analytic and what works approach is that it assumes that
evidence only comes from research and it ignores the value of teacher
expertise and experience (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Payne, 2008).
CHECKLIST APPROACHES
Historically, research on effective teaching typically consisted of subjective

data based on personal and anecdotal accounts of effective teaching (Nuthall
& Alton-Lee, 1990). These accounts have often developed into specific
checklists of teacher behaviors or teaching practices that educators argue
leads to improved student outcomes. Recently, educators and researchers
have re-emphasized this approach and begun developing checklists to
identify and assess teaching practices. Several popular education books
such as Doug Lemovs (2010), Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques
that Put Students on the Path to College, and Bryan Goodwins (2013),
The 12 Touchstones of Good Teaching: A Checklist for Staying Focused
Everyday are good examples of the recent checklist approach. Deborah
Ball and her University of Michigan colleagues have also initiated a
12
project called TeachingWorks that focuses on 19 high-leverage practices

that are hypothesized to improve student outcomes. These practices are
very diverse and range from making content explicit through explanation,
modeling, representations, and examples to communicating with parents
and other professionals. Some additional high-level practices include
designing a sequence of lessons toward a specific learning goal and
implementing organizational routines, procedures, and strategies to support
a learning environment. These high-leverage practices are intended to be a
comprehensive framework that can be used for the professional preparation
of teachers.
Many of these checklist approaches are used for teacher evaluation and
preparation purposes that advocate a more practice-oriented perspective
for teachers professional development (Ball & Forzani, 2009). Often,
performance assessments are developed from these checklists and
professional development programs are designed based on these assessments
that measure these specific practices. Checklists provide a common language
for teachers and researchers to analyze, discuss, and reflect on quality
teaching practices (Chen et al., 2012). This common language facilitates
clear communication between teachers, administrators, and evaluators,
allowing for specific feedback on strengths and weaknesses as well as areas
for improvement and informs professional development needs assessments
(Chen et al.). The evaluation of teaching practices fosters improved quality
of teaching for individual teachers by analyzing the extent to which specific
strategies are successfully implemented (Chen et al.). Chen and colleagues,
outline several benefits of checklists. Checklists can be used: (a) as a means
for self- and peer-evaluation, (b) as a diagnostic tool for evaluators to assess
teaching practices and overall teaching quality, (c) to allow administrators
and decision-makers to compare and contrast the teaching practices of
more- and less-effective teachers, and to help differentiate between the
quality levels of teacher instruction as well as provide a means for gauging
instructional practices and diagnosing the overall quality of an individual
teacher.
Evaluations based on a checklist of strategies can be particularly
accessible for teachers as they are less inclined to refer to published research,
which typically addresses achievement gains on standardized exams.
Published research generally does not easily translate to strategies that can
be immediately implemented in classrooms to address todays problems
(Goldstein, 2012). Teachers are often overwhelmed by their day-to-day
responsibilities and value meaningful feedback that helps them develop their
13
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
practice to increase positive student academic outcomes. Improving student

education and learning is highly dependent upon teacher preparation and
support (Ball & Forzani, 2009), so providing teachers with feedback that
helps them improve efficiency and efficacy for their practice will help them
manage their classrooms, motivate students and promote academic effort,
improve students retention of previously learned material, and deliver
effective and engaging instruction (Goldstein, 2012).
There are a number of concerns with the use of checklists to assess
effective teaching. First, the behaviors included on the checklists are often
derived from personal experiences or individuals perceptions regarding
the importance of individual practices. Second, checklists are often laundry
lists of simple techniques that over-simplify the complexity of teaching and
distract educators from focusing on aspects of teaching that are not easily
measured (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Third, these checklists are often used
to identify deficiencies in classroom practice rather than focus on teachers
strengths and assets.
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION APPROACHES
Classroom observation approaches to examine effective teaching have been

prevalent for decades and they generally consist of systematic classroom
observation or walkthrough instruments. Systematic classroom observation
is a quantitative method of measuring classroom behaviors from direct
observations that specify both the events and behaviors that are to be observed
and how they are to be recorded (Waxman, 2003). For the past several
decades, researchers have begun to use more objective and reliable measures
of systematic classroom observations in order to develop a scientific basis to
teaching (Hilberg Waxman, & Tharp, 2004). Generally, data collected from
this procedure focus on the frequency with which specific behaviors or types
of behavior occurred in the classroom and the amount of time they occurred.
There are several elements that are common to most observational systems:
(a) a purpose for the observation, (b) the operational definitions of all the
observed behaviors, (c) the training procedures for observers, (d) a specific
observational focus, (e) a setting, (f) a unit of time, (g) an observation
schedule, (h) a method to record the data, and (i) a method to process and
analyze data (Stallings & Mohlman, 1988).
Systematic classroom observation has often been used to provide a
description of current classroom instructional practices and to identify
instructional concerns (Waxman, 2003). Descriptive observational studies
14
allow researchers to examine the extent to which specific instructional

practices (e.g., small-group instruction, teacher explanations and feedback)
are implemented in the classroom as well as to evaluate programs and the
fidelity of program implementation. Systematic classroom observation has
also been used to provide individualized feedback to teachers regarding their
classroom instruction. Most importantly, classroom observation research has
yielded scientific evidence that the teaching practices like (a) opportunity
to learn, (b) effective use of time, (c) focus on meaning and practice, (d)
teacher expectations, and (e) good classroom management predict students
academic achievement (Good, 2011; Good & Brophy, 2008).
A more recent observational approach that is also being used both for
research and evaluative feedback purposes is the walkthrough or walkabout
instrument that is designed to obtain multiple snapshots of classroom
practices in order to provide a rich data picture (Early, Rogge, & Deci, 2014;
Kachur, Stout, & Edwards, 2010; Smith, Cude, Braziel, Waxman, & Smith,
2008). These typically are short observations (e.g., 5 20 minutes) that focus
on specific teacher behaviors and general classroom environment measures
in the classroom. Kachur, Stout, and Edwards (2010) describe the common
elements of a classroom walkthrough as: (a) informal and brief, (b) involving
administrators, instructional leaders, and teachers, (c) quick snapshots of
classroom activitiesinstructional and curricular, (d) not intended for formal
teacher evaluation purposes, (e) focused on specific elements to improve
teaching and learning, (f) an opportunity to give feedback to teachers for
reflection on their instruction, and (g) having the improvement of student
achievement as its ultimate goal. City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009)
have a specific type of the walkthrough that they call instructional rounds.
Instructional rounds are based on the medical rounds model and they integrate
improvement strategies in their approach.
Classroom observation approaches have long served as the foundation
of traditional teacher evaluation systems; however, research has found that
many of these evaluation systems rate most teachers as proficient or highly
proficient even when schools are failing to meet state standards (Weisberg,
Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009). Additionally, many of the traditional
evaluation systems fail to identify instructional areas in need of development
or teachers that are most effective. In an effort to improve classroom
instruction in Chicago Public Schools, the Excellence for Teaching Pilot
using the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching was launched in 44
elementary schools in the first year and expanded to 101 elementary schools
in the second year (Sartain, Stoelinga, & Brown, 2011). Results from the
15
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
pilot study were promising and indicated that the classroom observation
ratings were valid measures of teaching practicestudents showed the most
academic growth in classrooms where teachers received a high rating and the
least academic growth in classrooms where teachers received a low rating.
Classroom observation research along with studies using more indirect
measures have revealed that instructional practices and levels of cognitive
demand vary greatly from classroom to classroom within the same school
(Rothman, 2009). Hamre and colleagues (2013) developed the Teaching
through Interactions framework, which suggests that much of the effect that
teachers and the classroom have on student learning is found in the teacher-
student interactions. Results from over 4,000 classroom observations
indicated that teacher-student interactions across grade levels fit into
three domains: (a) emotional support, (b) classroom organization, and (c)
instructional support.
While classroom observation instruments have a primary role in
examining effective teaching, critics of current practices argue that classroom
observations have failed to provide teachers with the necessary feedback
to improve their instructional practices (Sartain, Stoelinga, & Brown, 2011;
Hill & Grossman, 2013; The New Teacher Project, 2013). Additionally, it has
been noted that the observation instruments used are often generic in regard
to content area and grade level observed indicating the feedback from the
observation lacks the specificity needed for instructional changes. Additional
concerns regarding whether this observational approach will lead to improved
teaching and student outcomes involve the expertise of the observer. School
principals or other administrators often conduct classroom observations that
are used for the purpose of teacher evaluation and instructional feedback (Hill
& Grossman, 2013). Principals and administrators, however, often lack the
instructional expertise for specific content areas making it nearly impossible
to provide effective feedback. Furthermore, teachers are typically only
observed two to four times per year making it unlikely that such infrequent
feedback can have a meaningful impact on classroom instruction.
While there are many critics regarding current observational practices,
feedback from classroom observations is still viewed as a crucial aspect
to making changes in instructional practices in order to ultimately impact
student learning. Hill and Grossman (2013) argue specific changes that
should be made to current practices of using classroom observation to
examine effective teaching including (a) develop content area specific
observation protocols with appropriate instructional practices for the
grade level being observed, (b) conduct more observations for struggling
16
teachers rather than fewer observations across all teachers, and (c) consider
the possibility of using content area observers (e.g., department chairs)
to provide more specific feedback than administrators. The New Teacher
Project (TNTP) (2013) recommended additional specific changes to be made
to existing classroom observations practices including (a) removal of any
items on the observation instrument that cannot be directly observed, (b)
simplify the observation instrument by condensing items that measure the
same instructional aspects, and (c) provide meaningful formative feedback
on lesson content and support adaptation efforts.
VALUE-ADDED APPROACHES
The most controversial approach for assessing and evaluating effective

teaching is the use of value-added measures. Value-added is a measure of
teachers contributions to the achievement growth of their students and the
purpose of this approach is to determine how much a teacher contributes
to student growth during the time students are in that teachers classroom.
This approach is strongly advocated by the U.S. Department of Education
and a key component of the U. S. Department of Educations Race to the
Top program. Currently, over 40 states in the United States have adopted
value-added measures to evaluate teachers. Advocates of this approach
argue that a teachers record of promoting achievement remains the strongest
single predictor of the achievement gains of their future students (Kane &
Staiger, 2012). Additionally, many states have passed legislation to enforce
that 30-50% of the teachers evaluation is linked to the students test scores
on standardized tests (Everson, Feinauer, & Sudweeks, 2013).
The National Research Council and the Educational Testing Service, among
other research organizations, however, have concluded that ratings of teacher
effectiveness based on student test scores are too unreliableand measure
too many things (i.e., school demographics and student characteristics) other
than the teacherto be used to make high-stakes decisions. Other critics
of value-added measures are concerned that they are (a) based on one test
given on one day, (b) based on state tests that do not measure growth and
higher-order skills, and (c) penalize teachers who serve the neediest students
(e.g., low SES students who have fewer opportunities for summer learning).
Other critics of value-added teacher evaluation argue that the majority of
teachers do not teach in tested subjects or grades and as a consequence
standardized student achievement data is not available to be used in their
ratings. It is believed that publicly reporting teachers effectiveness will be
17
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
another reason among many why talented young people will avoid entering
the teaching profession or leave just as they are becoming effective teachers
(Darling-Hammond, 2013).
It is important to understand the underlying assumptions of the value-added
approach since there are different models that are commonly used. Scherrer
(2012) points out that the underlying assumptions of value-added modeling are
dubious, at best (p. 58). He considers that value-added models improve current
accountability systems using status models to measure student performance on
a one-time assessment and then compares it to a target level. He also believes
that this approach seems to reward teachers for whom they teach and not how
they teach (p. 58). Some value-added models rely exclusively on student test
scores from previous grades and prior teacher effects to estimate the teachers
contribution to current learning as opposed to other models that adjust for
differences in regards to the student, classroom, and the school. Consequently,
the latter not only include students test scores from the previous year, but also
account for other background characteristics that could be related to student
learning such as school level aggregates and other measures of classroom and
school-level inputs (Kersting, Chen, & Stigler, 2012).
Kersting et al. (2012) argue that it is crucial to understand how much
teacher value-added estimates depend on the type of data and statistical
models used. They explored the effects of (a) differences among students in
their prior learning, (b) using single or multiple cohorts of students, and (c)
the number of students contributing to the value-added estimates for each
teacher on the stability of value-added estimates. Additionally, they highlight
that studies have divided the value-added distribution into different types of
performance groups. For example some have divided teachers in three groups
according to how effective they are according to the student data (i.e., below
average, average, and above average), while others have divided teachers
into quartiles when they report the percentage of teachers that either remained
in the same group or changed categories. This difference in classification
confuses users of value-added scores when comparing percentage changes in
teacher designations if these are based on different numbers of performance
groups. Kersting and colleagues concluded that almost two-thirds of teachers
remained in the same performance group across all conditions. Additionally,
they found that differences in number of students used in the statistical
model accounted for up to one-third of teacher reclassifications into different
performance groups while single versus multiple cohort models accounted
for about one-fifth. Different methods for controlling for student prior
learning accounted for about one-sixth of teacher reclassifications.
18
In another study, Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff (2012) analyzed

school-district data from grades 38 for 2.5 million children and linked it
to information on their outcomes as young adults and the characteristics
of their parents. They concluded that value-added measures accurately
predicted teachers impacts on test scores when they controlled for student
characteristics. They also found that students who are assigned to high
value-added teachers are more likely to attend college, earn a higher salary,
and live in higher socioeconomic status neighborhoods. Furthermore, they
argued that teachers in grades 4-8 have large impacts on their students adult
lives. They also emphasized that replacing a teacher whose value added is
in the bottom five percent with an average teacher would increase students
total lifetime incomes by a significant amount of money.
Advocates and critics of the value-added approach have led to much
controversy in the field regarding whether this approach will lead to improved
teaching and student outcomes. Amrein-Beardsley, Collins, Polasky, and
Sloat (2013), for example, describe the debate between policymakers and
researchers in regards to value-added models and the evaluation of teacher
effectiveness and educational quality. They argue that although policymakers
are increasing the use of value-added models within educational evaluation
and accountability systems, researchers question the methodological,
technical, and inferential attributes of these models.
Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, and Rothstein (2012),
who are critics of value-added models, argue gains in student achievement
are not only influenced by an individual teacher, but also by other factors such
as school factors (i.e., class size, resources, curriculum), individual student
needs, home environment, prior teachers, summer learning loss, as well as
the kinds of tests used. Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2012) emphasize
that value-added models of teacher effectiveness are inconsistent, teachers
value-added performance is affected by the students assigned to them, and
that value-added ratings cannot disentangle the many influences on student
progress. They advocate other ways of evaluating aspects of effective teaching
and incorporating these into professional standards for teaching. In fact,
they recommend using other approaches to evaluate teachers performance,
such as multiple classroom observations, expert evaluators, multiple sources
of data, as well as timely and meaningful feedback to teachers (Darling-
Hammond, et al., 2012).
In contrast to Darling-Hammond et al. (2012), Chetty and colleagues
(2012) showed that standard value-added measures are not biased by the
students assigned to each teacher when they statistically control for student
19
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
characteristics. Hence, value-added metrics successfully disentangle

teachers impacts from the many other influences on student progress. They
concluded that students who have high value-added teachers not only benefit
from scoring higher on math and reading tests at the end of the school year,
but also through improved outcomes later in life such as students future
earnings.
DISCUSSION
In spite of the recent attention, effective teaching practices remains a construct

with few agreed-up characteristics or descriptions (Tellez & Waxman, 2006).
Better ways of measuring and recognizing effective teaching practices need to
be developed (Darling-Hammond, 2011). One of the most serious problems
related to the increased use of approaches for examining effective teaching
is that there has been a proliferation of approaches prior to the completion
of adequate research and evaluation examining their effectiveness. Before
certain approaches become widely implemented, they should undergo
systematic programs of research. In addition, this research needs to be widely
disseminated so that their findings can be used to guide and improve practice.
Furthermore, there needs to be more systematic programs of research that
incorporate several of the distinct approaches described in this chapter. For
example, one of the more promising programs of research for examining and
assessing effective teachers is being conducted by the Measures of Effective
Teaching (MET) project from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Kaine
& Staiger, 2012). The MET project focuses on improving teaching and
learning through better evaluation, feedback, and professional development
on effective teaching. They maintain that in order to make reliable and valid
assessments of effective teachers, the evaluation system should include (a)
multiple systematic classroom observations of teachers, (b) student feedback
or perceptions of teaching, and (c) student achievement gains.
A second critical issue relates to the exclusive emphasis of some
approaches on improving student test scores such as done with the value-
added approaches. Focusing on improving test scores, for example, may be
detrimental to improving other important non-cognitive or socio-emotional
outcomes such as motivation, self-control, interpersonal skills, and grit.
These non-cognitive outcomes have been found to be critical in predicting
students life success (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger,
2011; Tough, 2012), yet there are very few studies focusing on teaching
strategies or practices that promote these affective dimensions. In addition,
20
there have been few studies examining teacher practices which specifically
foster students resilience or internal protective factors that contribute to
students academic and social success (Rivera & Waxman, 2011; Waxman
& Chen, 2006).
A third major concern with most of these approaches for evaluating and
assessing effective teaching is the lack of conceptual and theoretical models.
Cuban (2013) describes this issue as the black box of classrooms because
we have a lack of understanding of what actually happens in the classroom
during instruction. Comprehensive theories of instruction are needed
to provide us with explanations of which instructional practices are most
important and how they should be combined in order to provide greater effects
on student outcomes. Classrooms are highly complex and generally consist
of different domains or dimensions of teaching. Roehrig and her colleagues
(2012), for example, argue that there are four dimensions of effective teaching
that make up a dynamic, highly-complex inter-rated system: (a) developing
caring classroom communities, (b) enhancing students motivation to learn,
(c) planning and delivering engaging, assessment-driven instruction, and
(d) supporting students deep processing and self-regulation. Although the
dimensions or constructs of teaching have been identified in this model, we
do not have an explicit specification of the model that provides us with an
understanding of how these constructs impact each other during ongoing
classroom instruction.
Another important issue to address is whether the teaching practices
described in this chapter are generic and effective for all students or are some
instructional practices differentially effective for some students. Research
on effective instructional practices often fails to take into account important
individual student characteristics or school contextual differences that may
differentially impact their relative effectiveness. For example, effective
classroom instruction for students in urban schools or high-poverty schools
may be different than schools serving suburban or rural classrooms. Similarly,
effective classroom instruction for English language learners (ELLs) may be
different than instruction for non-ELLs (Waxman, Padrn, & Garcia, 2007).
Classroom contexts are diverse and educators need to focus on what works
best, under what conditions, and for whom.
A final concern and policy implication is the need for researchers to
collaborate with practitioners to design better research on assessing effective
teaching. John Easton, the former director for the Institute of Education
Sciences, has recently argued our greatest challenge is in working better
with practitioners and policy makers to use the research to make schools
21
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
better places where students learn more (Easton, 2010, p. 1). Others have
similarly advocated for use-inspired basic research (National Research
Council, 2002; Stokes, 1997) or engineering approaches to educational
research that focus on how to make things actually work in the settings
we want to improve. Berliner (2009) succinctly describes this issue, it is
the tinkering by teachers and researchers and the study of their craft by the
teachers themselves, that seems to me the most likely to pay off in improved
education (p. 311). The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, for example, describes this collaborative process as building
networked improvement communities in education (Bryk, Gomez, & Grunow,
2011). Penuel, Fishman, Cheng, and Sabelli (2011) similarly describe the
emerging model of design-based implementation research that focuses on
the persistent problems of practice from multiple stakeholders perspectives
and calls for reconfiguring the roles of researchers and practitioners. Such
collaboration can lead to improved approaches for identifying and assessing
effective teaching practices. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) support this
position by arguing that, good teaching is perfected through continuous
improvement (p. 14).
In their recent book on improving teaching, Professional Capital:
Transforming Teaching in Every School, Andy Hargreaves and Michael
Fullan (2012) argue that the professional expertise is not just having and
being aware of evidence, its also about knowing how to judge the evidence
and knowing what to do with it (p. 54). We strongly agree with their
perspective and also maintain that educational researchers similarly need to
be able to (a) be more mindful and reflective of the quality of their own work,
(b) focus on the ignorance or biases in their own research, and (c) try to
work collaboratively with researchers from other disciplines, practitioners,
and policy makers to address important research questions (Waxman, 2013-
14). When these three activities are done on a more consistent basis, it will
promote more mindful research that will make a difference in education.
The serious equity-related teacher quality issues that plague many students
from high-poverty schools highlight the need for schools and teachers to begin
using scientific evidence to determine effective teaching practices and then
ensure that all students have access to high-quality teachers. Furthermore,
critical out-of-school factors that affect the outcomes of schooling for
students must also be addressed. If we only focus on school or teacher
factors and ignore the importance of family and community influences
on the education of students, we will clearly fail in our endeavors. There
is a critical need to develop a solid knowledge base on effective teaching
22
practices and policy for all students that focuses on practices that improve
students academic achievement and affective outcomes. Hargreaves and
Fullan (2012) argue that the teaching profession continuously creates new
practices while (a) building on the knowledge base, (b) testing the impact
of classroom practices, and (c) developing, circulating, and adapting best
practices. In other words, communities of teachers need to simultaneously
use best practices while developing new, innovative practices. Strengthening
links between evidence-based research and educational practices can benefit
the growing population of students at risk of failure in schools and those
who share responsibility for educating them. With greater understanding and
support of the needs of all students and their teachers, schools can improve
the quality of teaching practices and ensure that no child, teacher, or school
is left behind.
REFERENCES
Almy, S., & Theokas, C. (2010, November). Not prepared for class: High-poverty schools
continue to have fewer in-field teachers. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
Amrein-Beardsley, A., Collins, C., Polasky, S. A., & Sloat, E. F. (2013). Value-added model
(VAM) research for educational policy: Framing the issue. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 21(4), 114.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497511.
Berliner, D. C. (2009). Research, policy, and practice: The great disconnect. In S. D. Lapan &
M. T. Quartaroli (Eds.), Research essentials: An introduction to designs and practices (pp.
295213). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research
to practice to close the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building
networked improvement communities in education. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in the
sociology of education (pp. 127162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Verlag.
Camburn, E. M., & Han, S. W. (2011). Two decades of generalizable evidence on U.S.
instruction from national surveys. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 561610.
Chen, W., Mason, S., Staniszewski, C., Upton, A., & Valley, M. (2012). Assessing the quality
of teachers teaching practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability,
24, 2541.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff J. E. (2012). Great teaching: Measuring its effects on
students future earnings. Education Next, 12(3), 5864.
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional round in education:
A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
23
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in
American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How Americas commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2011). Effective teaching as a civil right. Voices in Urban Education,
31, 4458.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for
effectiveness and improvement. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, L., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating
teacher evaluation: Popular modes of evaluating teachers are fraught with inaccuracies and
inconsistencies, but the field has identified better approaches. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6),
815.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers: Teacher quality and school development.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2014). Restoring opportunity: The crisis of inequality and
the challenge for American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011).
The impact of enhancing students social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405432.
Early, D. M., Rogge, R. D., & Deci, E. L. (2014). Engagement, alignment, and rigor as vital
signs of high-quality instruction: A classroom visit protocol for instructional improvement
and research. The High School Journal, 97(4), 219239.
Easton, J. (2010, June). New research initiatives for IES. Paper presented at the annual
IES Research Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved fromhttp://ies.ed.gov/director/
speeches2010/2010_06_29.asp
Everson, K. C., Feinauer, E., & Sudweeks, R. R. (2013). Rethinking teacher evaluation: A
conversation about statistical inferences and value-added. Harvard Educational Review,
83(2), 349402.
Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teaching effectiveness: A
research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teaching Quality.
Goldstein, M. (2012). Studying teacher moves. Education Next, 12(1), 2228.
Good, T. L. (2014). What do we know about how teachers influence student performance on
standardized tests: And why do we know so little about other student outcomes? Teachers
College Record, 116(1), 146.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (2008). Looking in classrooms (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Goodwin, B., & Hubbell, E. R. (2013). The 12 touchstones of good teaching: A checklist for
staying focused every day. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M.,
Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework
of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4),
461487.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New
York,NY: Oxford.
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York,NY: Routledge.
24
Hilberg, R. S., Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Introduction: Purposes and
perspectives on classroom observation research. In H. Waxman, R. Tharp, & S. Hillberg
(Eds.), Observational research in the U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding
cultural and linguistic diversity (pp. 2147). New York,NY: Cambridge.
Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and
opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review,
83(2), 371401.
Jerald, C. D., Haycock, K., & Wilkins, A. (2009). Fighting for quality and equality, too: How
state policymakers can ensure the drive to improve teacher quality doesnt just trickle
down to poor and minority children. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
Kachur, D. S., Stout, J. A., & Edwards, C. L. (2010). Classroom walkthroughs to improve
teaching and learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Kaine, T., & Staiger, D. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality
observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation.
Kersting, N. B., Chen, M., & Stigler, J. W. (2012). Value-added teacher estimates as part of
teacher evaluations: Exploring the effects of data and model specifications on the stability
of teacher value-added scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(7), 139.
Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to
college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for
effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollack, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. InR.J.Shavelson &
L.Towne(Eds.),Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Nuthall, G., & Alton-Lee, A. (1990). Research on teaching and learning thirty years of change.
The Elementary School Journal, 90, 546570.
Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban
schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and
development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational
Research, 40, 331337.
Rivera, H. H., & Waxman, H. C. (2011). Resilient and non-resilient Hispanic English language
learners attitudes towards their classroom learning environment in mathematics. Journal
of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16(3), 185200.
Roehrig, A. D., Turner, J. E., Airastia, M. C., Christen, E., McElhaney, S., & Jakiel, L. M.
(2012). Effective teachers and teaching: Characteristics and practices related to positive
student outcomes. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational
psychology handbook: Vol 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors
(pp. 501527). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rothman, R. (2009). Behind the classroom: A rare glimpse indicates the extentand
persistenceof variation in teacher practice. Harvard Education Letter, 25(6), 14.
25
H. C. WAXMAN et al.
Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago:
Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district
implementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Scherrer, J. (2012). Whats the value of VAM (value added modeling)? Phi Delta Kappan,
93(8), 5860.
Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical
underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24,
569608).
Smith, D. L., Cude, K. C., Braziel, K. C., Waxman, H. C., & Smith, L. J. (2008). A WalkAbout
observation of pre-service student behaviors during field placement: Do they practice what
we preach? Texas Association of Teacher Educators Forum, 33(2), 111.
Stallings, J. A., & Mohlman, G. G. (1988). Classroom observation techniques. In J. P. Keeves
(Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook
(pp. 469474). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteurs quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Tllez, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2006). Preparing quality teachers for English language learners:
An overview of the critical issues. In K. Tllez & H. C. Waxman (Eds.), Improving
educator quality for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices
(pp. 122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
The New Teacher Project [TNTP]. (2013). Fixing classroom observations: How common core
will change the way we look at teaching. Brooklyn, NY: Author.
Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and hidden power of character. New
York,NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Waxman, H. C. (2003). Systematic classroom observation. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of education (2nd ed., pp. 303310). New York,NY: Macmillan.
Waxman, H. C. (201314). Avoiding ignorance and mindlessness in educational research:
Moving from good enough studies to more mindful approaches. Journal of Contemporary
Research in Education, 1(3), 98103.
Waxman, H. C., & Chen, H.-L. (2006). Mixed method approaches for examining classroom
learning environments for resilient and nonresilient students in urban elementary schools.
In D. L. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning
environments: Worldviews (pp. 195220). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishers.
Waxman, H. C., Padrn, Y. N., & Garcia, A. (2007). Educational issues and effective practices
for Hispanic students. In S. J. Paik & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Narrowing the achievement
gap: Strategies for educating Latino, Black and Asian students (pp. 131151). New York,
NY: Springer.
Waxman, H. C., Padrn, Y. N., Shin, J. Y., & Rivera, H. H. (2008). Closing the achievement
gap within reading and mathematics by fostering Hispanic students educational resilience.
International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 2434.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The
New Teacher Project.
26
Hersh C. Waxman
Education Research Center
Texas A&M University
Nancy D. Weber
Susana E. Franco-Fuenmayor
Kayla B. Rollins
27
EMILY BINKS-CANTRELL AND R. MALATESHA JOSHI
3. CONNECTING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

THROUGH TEACHER KNOWLEDGE
INTRODUCTION
There is evidence that a teacher is the most influential factor upon a

students success, or lack thereof, in school in the United States: The
teachers influence on student achievement is 20 times greater than any
other variable (EdTrust Good Teaching Matters, 1998); Evidence
shows clearly what most people know intuitively: Teachers matter more
to learning than anything else inside a school (Learning About Teaching,
MET Project, 2011). So what does it take to be a good teacher? A growing
body of research indicates there is a science to good teaching that requires
knowledgeable teachers who are prepared with an understanding of
evidence-based, or research-based, instructional practices. Simply put,
good teacher knowledge is correlated with good classroom instruction,
and good classroom instruction is correlated with higher levels of student
achievement (McCutchen, Abbott, Green, Beretvas, Cox, Potter et al.,
2002a; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Piasta, McDonald, Fishman, & Morrison,
2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004).
Historically speaking, the field of education was not initially a highly
researched field. With time, educational researchers increased in number
and we began to learn more about instructional practices that produced
the best results through scientifically-based research. For example, with
the increased funding due to No Child Left Behind, systematic, well-
controlled studies were conducted. Yet, a gap persisted between research
and practice. The findings and implications of educational research often
went no further than the publications of scholarly journals. Most recently,
efforts have been made to build a bridge between educational research
and teaching practice by improving teacher knowledge. This chapter will
discuss a few examples of such efforts, with a focus on the field of reading
and literacy education.

E. Binks-Cantrell & R. M. Joshi
THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH-BASED

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICE
A great deal of research has rather recently been devoted to reading

instruction at the elementary level. Yet despite such a large body of research,
many children still struggle to acquire basic reading skills:
33% of fourth grade students (60% of minorities) are unable to read simple
books with clarity and fluency
38% of the fourth graders are reading below the Basic level and 29% of
the eighth graders are reading below the Basic level, which means that
these students cannot perform at the minimum academic expectations
Approximately 25% (or 70 million) individuals in the U.S. have reading
difficulties (e.g., unable to read a newspaper or bus schedule)
3 million students are placed in learning disabled classrooms because they
cannot read
Of the ~15% of students who drop out of school, more than 75% report
difficulties in learning to read
2% of students receiving special or compensatory education for difficulties
learning to read will go on to complete a four-year college program
>50% of the adolescents with criminal problems and history of substance
abuse have reading problems
(NCES, 1999; NAEP, 2005, 2013)
Further, the United States ranks 25th among 29 nations in student reading
achievement (UNESCO, 2005). Because of the concerns with reading
achievement and performance, the Congressional Hearing on Measuring
Success: Using Assessments and Accountability (Lyon, 2001), declared
illiteracy a public health issue. Various reasons have been proposed for the
reading problems: poor oral language development (Hart & Risley, 1995;
Moats, 2000), number of books available at home (Chiu & McBride-Chang,
2006), genetics (Pennington & Olson, 2005), and poor classroom instruction,
especially at the early primary grades (Foorman, Francis, Shaywitz, Shaywitz,
& Fletcher, 1997a; Torgesen, 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Jaccard, 2003).
In response to this situation, many theories, models, and materials have
been offered (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1967; Goodman & Goodman, 1979;
Huey, 1908), but in 2000, the National Reading Panel identified that
systematic phonics instruction, training in phonemic awareness, fluency,
vocabulary, and strategies for comprehension are all necessary components
of quality reading instruction (NICHD). Furthermore, the National Research
30
Connecting Research and Practice Through Teacher Knowledge
Council (Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998) concluded that quality classroom
instruction in kindergarten and the primary grades is the single best weapon
against reading failure (p. 343). While a students language awareness
and incoming reading skills are the best predictors of reading achievement
(Olson, Keenan, Byrne, & Samuelsson, 2014), effective instruction in
basic language constructs such as phonology, the alphabetic principle, and
morphology that is explicit, systematic, and synthetic can enable students
to overcome other factors that may be stacked against them (Blachman et
al., 2004; Brady, 2011; Denton, Foorman, & Mathes, 2003; Foorman et al.,
2006; Torgesen, 2004).
Because the acquisition of reading skills does not come naturally or easily
for many children, these children become dependent upon the skills and
knowledge of the primary grade classroom teacher as their main source for
learning to read. The National Research Council (Snow, Burns, and Griffin,
1998) cited poor classroom instruction as a statistically significant cause of
reading difficulties in young children.
While research has suggested certain and specific components and
student skills necessary for learning to read (NICHD, 2000), teachers have
demonstrated limited knowledge of such concepts over the past ten years.
Moats (1994) and others (Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001;
McCutchen et al., 2002b; Moats & Lyon, 1996; Spear-Swerling & Brucker,
2003) have attributed poor classroom instruction to a lack of teacher
knowledge needed to teach reading skills. As a result, many children do
not receive the kind of instruction necessary for them to succeed in reading,
and hence, a national literacy problem exists. One main factor is suggested
as the major cause: poor instruction due to poor teacher knowledge due to
poor teacher preparation or in other words, research is not being put into
practice. However, there is hope that when teachers receive high-quality
training in research-based reading instruction, both teacher knowledge
and classroom practice, as well as student reading achievement, will be
positively affected.
RESEARCH-BASED READING INSTRUCTION
Evidence-based reading practices are synonymous with scientifically-based

reading research (SBRR), which refer to application of rigorous, systematic,
and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading
development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties (Fletcher &
Francis, 2004). According to the Reading Excellence Act (1998), some of
31
the criteria included in SBRR are research studies that employ systematic,
empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; involve rigorous
data analyses; and have been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or have
undergone rigorous, scientific review.
The federal government created the National Reading Panel to perform a
meta-analysis that reviewed all scientifically-based reading research studies
and, in 2000, outlined the findings that had been repeatedly replicated.
According to National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000), the five essential
components of reading instruction based on scientifically-based reading
research include explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.
The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) recommends that teachers
have an explicit knowledge of such concepts for the effective teaching
of decoding skills in a direct, systematic manner to enable the successful
acquisition of early reading skills for all beginning readers. Ironically,
colleges of education may not be providing pre-service teachers with
this information (Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougan, 2012;
Greenberg, McKee, & Walsh, 2013; Joshi, Binks, Graham, Dean, Smith, &
Boulware-Gooden, 2009; Joshi, Binks, Hougen, Dahlgren, Dean, & Smith,
2009; Joshi, Binks, Hougen, Dean, Graham, & Smith, 2009; Walsh, Glaser,
and Wilcox, 2006) leaving teachers unprepared to effectively teach reading
to all students, as one cannot teach what one does not know. Moats (1999)
states this clearly,
Specifically, teachers must understand the basic psychological processes
in reading, how children develop reading skill, how good readers differ
from poor readers, how the English language is structured in spoken
and written form, and the validated principles of effective reading
instruction. The ability to design and deliver lessons to academically
diverse learners, to select validated instructional methods and materials,
and use assessments to tailor instruction are all central to effective
teaching. (p. 13)
Through scientifically-based reading research, it has been repeatedly shown
that the direct teaching of linguistic structure concepts is of great importance
to both beginning and struggling readers (Moats, 1994; Seidenberg, 2013).
Research performed with struggling readers has repeatedly found direct,
explicit, and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics
improves reading and spelling development and reduces the number of
students who experience reading difficulties (Bos et al., 2001). Adams (1990)
32
clearly demonstrated in her synthesis of research on beginning reading the

importance of teaching children explicit instruction in English orthography.
Additionally, her research demonstrated that different types of literacy
experiences are required for the development of sound reading ability,
including explicit phonics instruction, exposure to rich vocabulary, and
practice in reading varied and interesting texts. However, Adams emphasized
the key role of phonemic awareness in fostering an understanding of how
print works. In order to deliver effective instruction based upon students
needs, teachers must therefore understand the relationship between print and
speech in the English language, as most reading difficulties are based in these
basic language constructs (Fielding-Barnsley & Purdie, 2005). Furthermore,
knowledge of phonemic segmentation is critical to developing phonemic
awareness in children, which is an essential prerequisite to successful
decoding (Bos et al., 2001).
In order to then connect the sounds from phonemic awareness to the
letters and letter combinations through phonics, the teacher must be familiar
with the complex, yet mostly predictable, structure of the English language
at the sound, syllable, and morphemic (meaning) levels (Moats & Foorman,
2003). This knowledge is necessary for developing accurate, automatic
word recognition, which is needed for fluent reading. Teachers knowledge
of morphology and historical changes in English helps inform vocabulary
instruction, which requires a systematic understanding of how structural
analysis, syntax, and meaning combine together to form words, sentences,
and text (Perfetti & Harris, 2013).
THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER KNOWLEDGE IN

RESEARCH-BASED READING INSTRUCTION
Common sense and research alike tell us that well-designed instructional

programs cannot compensate for a teacher who lacks the content and
pedagogical knowledge of research-based instruction (Piasta, Connor
McDonald, Fishman, & Morrison, 2009). The key to student success lies
in the quality of implementation, rather than the program itself (Carlisle
& Berebitsky, 2011; Haager, Heimbichner, Dhar, Moulton, & McMillan,
2008; Moats, 2014). Most language-based reading disabilities are mixed
in nature, and research findings indicate the fallacy of single-solution
approaches (e.g., Adlof & Perfetti, 2014; Perfetti, 2011; Vellutino, Tunmer,
Jaccard, & Chen, 2007). Informed teaching varies in instructional time,
depth, and sequencing in the essential components of reading instruction
33
depending upon the nature of the students difficulties and the students
progress (Calhoon & Petscher, 2013; Calhoon, Sandow, & Hunter, 2010).
Accordingly, informed teaching requires an informed teacher who has an
explicit understanding of the complex structure of the English language
(Moats, 2014). Otherwise, a teacher without such knowledge may
encourage students to guess or skip unknown words, memorize words by
sight, utilize formulaic comprehension strategies, and over-rely on reading
aloud and rereading: Even if they use one of the many well-designed
and scripted intervention programs, teachers must rely on background
knowledge of their own to tailor lessons for individual students (p. 3). The
present chapter, therefore, focuses on the teacher knowledge necessary to
deliver effective, research-based reading instruction, rather than reading
curriculums or programs.
The critical features of effective teacher training programs in reading
must align with research by presenting a balance of oral language, phonemic
awareness, phonics, word identification, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension,
the assessment of all aspects of literacy leaning and managing literacy
instruction across grade levels (International Reading Association, 2003).
As the findings of Bos and colleagues suggest that teachers generally lack
the knowledge or preparation to adequately instruct students with dyslexia
and related reading problems, the authors suggest important implications for
teacher training:
Teacher preparation does not apparently include sufficient or in-depth
content training (Hill, 2000) and may seriously impact implementation
of recommendations such as those offered by the National Reading
Panel (NICHD, 2000) for the use of systematic phonics instruction.
We concur with Lyon (1999) that teacher preparation and professional
development programsmust develop preparation programs to foster
the necessary content and pedagogical expertise at both pre-service and
in-service levels. (p. 8)
As research suggests that training can increase teachers knowledge and
use of systematic instruction that will assist at-risk children with reading
development (Bos, Mather, Friedman, Narr, & Babur, 1999; McCutchen &
Berninger, 1999; OConnor, 1999) and given the great amount of research
that emphasizes the importance of teaching phonological awareness and
phonics, teacher training programs must instill teachers with the foundational
knowledge necessary for providing early systematic research-based reading
instruction.
34
In 1999, Moats prepared a paper entitled Teaching Reading Is Rocket

Science: What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able To
Do. Moats took the stance that preventing reading failure was a top priority
for education and took stock of teacher preparation in reading. She found
that the difficulty of teaching reading and complexity of the knowledge base
required for effective reading instruction had been strongly underestimated.
Moats attributed teachers under-preparation to teach reading to the reading
wars that had been fought in the previous decades, the lack or absence of
meaningful professional standards, poor quality textbooks used in reading
education courses, and uninformative classroom instructional programs.
Components of an improved curriculum for teacher preparation, as well as
in-service professional development, were outlined: (a) Knowledge of the
psychology of reading and reading development (including basic facts about
reading, the characteristics of poor and novice readers, and how reading and
spelling develop); (b) Language as the foundation for reading instruction
(including the knowledge of language structure and application to teaching
for phonetics, phonology, morphology, orthography, semantics, and syntax
and text structure); (c) Practical skills of instruction in a comprehensive
reading program (including opportunities for supervised experience and
use of validated instructional practices); and (d) Assessment of classroom
reading and writing skills.
Suggestions for the future of teacher preparation and professional
development in reading outlined by Moats (1999) include: (a) Research
should guide the profession; (b) Establish core standards, curriculum,
and entry level assessments for new teachers; (c) Align teacher education
curricula, standards for students and licensing requirements for teachers;
(d) Create professional development institutes for professors and
master teachers; (e) Press the developers of textbooks and instructional
materials to improve their products; (f) Promote high quality professional
development for teachers; and (g) Invest in teaching. Yet, in 2006, NCTQ
(Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox, 2006) analyzed the syllabi and textbooks of
72 elementary education programs and found that 15% taught all of the
components of the science of reading and 4 of the 226 texts used were
found acceptable for teaching the science of reading. Highlighting the need
for improved teacher preparation to teach reading, writing, and spelling
is done to prompt action rather than criticism. Just as children deserve
to be taught to read by their teachers, teachers deserve to be prepared
with the knowledge, skills, and supported practice that will enable them
to successfully teach reading.
35
Other researchers sought to determine links among teacher knowledge,

teacher practice, and student learning. In a study by McCutchen, Abbott,
Green, Beretvas, Cox, Potter, et al. (2002a), 44 teachers with varying degrees
of teaching experience completed surveys to assess both their linguistic
knowledge as well as general knowledge. Additionally, the teachers literacy
instruction was observed throughout the school year and coded based on
four broad categories: knowledge affordance, literacy activity, textual
context, and group context. Students of the kindergarten teachers (n=492)
were administered assessments of phonological awareness, listening
comprehension, and orthographic fluency in September, November, February,
and May. Word reading was also assessed at the end of the year. Students
of the first-grade teachers (n=287) completed assessments of phonological
awareness, reading comprehension, orthographic fluency, (spelling, and
composition in September, January, and May.
Preliminary data on teacher knowledge replicated the same findings of
Moats (1994) eight years later: Although some teachers are familiar with
some terms, teachers still do not possess an explicit understanding of English
phonology. However, 23 of the 43 teachers participated in an intensive two-
week instructional institute devoted to deepening the experimental group
teachers understanding of research about learning disabilities and effective
instruction, stressing the importance of explicit instruction in phonological
and orthographic awareness (see McCutchen & Berninger, 1999 for a
detailed description of such instruction). This experimental group of teachers
significantly deepened their phonological knowledge after receiving
instruction (McCutchen et al., 2002).
This increase in knowledge carried over to classroom practice: experimental
group kindergarten teachers spent statistically significant more time on
activities directed toward phonological awareness across the year, with an
effect size of. 82. Further, first grade experimental group teachers spent
statistically significant more time on explicit comprehension instruction (M
= 1.89 minutes), with an effect size of .72.
And this change in classroom practice carried over to student growth.
The kindergarten teachers use of phonological awareness strategies was
statistically significantly related to students growth in phonological
awareness and end-of-year word reading measures, and analyses of growth
in alphabet production showed that the effect of experimental condition
on growth was statistically significant. Further, there was no statistically
significant difference in listening comprehension scores, and thus, emphasis
on phonological and orthographic activities did not compromise the students
36
listening comprehension growth. For the first grade students, the effect
of experimental condition was statistically significantly related to growth
in phonological awareness, reading comprehension, reading vocabulary,
spelling, and composition fluency.
The findings of this study add to the mounting number of research studies
that have documented a causal relationship between explicit alphabetic
instruction and student learning (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant,
1985; Cunningham, 1990; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider,
& Mehta, 1998; Foorman, Francis, Winikates, Mehta, Schatschneider, &
Fletcher, 1997b; Lundberg et al., 1988; O'Connor, 1999; Torgesen, 1997;
Vellutino et al., 1996). By focusing on teacher knowledge, teacher-generated
instructional activities, and more advanced reading and writing skills, this
study also yielded three important findings: (a) We can deepen teachers
own knowledge of the role of phonological and orthographic information in
literacy instruction; (b) teachers can use that knowledge to change classroom
practice; and (c) changes in teacher knowledge and classroom practice can
improve student learning.
Other researchers examined the word-structure knowledge of new teachers
and evaluated the progress of children tutored by a subgroup of the teachers
(Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004). To assess teachers word-structure
knowledge, graphophonemic segmentation, classification of pseudowords
by syllable type, and classification of real words as phonetically regular or
irregular tasks were administered. Several measures of basic reading and
spelling skills were used to assess the tutored childrens progress. Results
indicated that the new teachers who received the word-structure instruction
outperformed a control group of teachers who did not receive such instruction
in knowledge of word structure at post-testing time. Furthermore, children
who received tutoring improved statistically significantly from pre-test to
post-test on all assessments. Statistically significant correlations were found
between teachers' post-test knowledge on the graphophonemic segmentation /
irregular words tasks and tutored children's progress in decoding phonetically
regular words. Error analyses also indicated links between teachers patterns
of word-structure knowledge and childrens patterns of decoding progress.
Conclusions were drawn that word-structure knowledge is indeed important
to effective teaching of word decoding, and therefore, there is a strong need
include information about English word structure in both pre-service teacher
preparation and in-service teacher training.
In this study, course instruction was consistently a more important
influence on post-test performance than was prior background (on all three
37
measures for Group 1 and on two out of three for Group 2). Furthermore,
participants in Group 1 (who supervised tutoring) scored higher on post-
tests in comparison to the scores of Group 2 (who did not supervise tutoring,
although they had statistically significant higher backgrounds). But because
these differences were not statistically significant, it cannot be concluded
that supervised tutoring experiences enhances teachers word-structure
knowledge beyond the benefits provided by course instruction. Another
interesting note is that even after six hours of course instruction in word
structure, many new teachers still performed below ceiling on the post-
test (particularly in irregular word tasks), which suggests a need for more
instruction.
Although it was not possible for the authors to obtain a control group
of untutored children for comparison, tutored children consistently showed
statistically significant progress in all specific areas of tutoring and the
teachers post-test performance patterns on the word-structure knowledge
measures (including knowledge of letter sounds, decoding and spelling of
phonetically regular words, and reading and spelling of irregular words).
Results suggest that the teacher knowledge gained as a result of the course
instruction influenced the teachers abilities to effectively teach decoding
skills.
Overall, the results yielded from this study support the belief (e.g., Brady
& Moats, 1997; McCutchen & Berninger, 1999; Moats, 1994, 2000, 2004)
that an understanding of word structure is important for effective decoding
instruction. The novice teachers in this study were beginning to acquire
some competence in teaching word-level reading skills, but results suggest
that further preparation in this area was needed for better results. Better
pre-service preparation in English word structure could allow in-service
professional development to focus on topics such as meeting individual
differences and grouping children. Notable characteristics of the tutoring
program which appeared particularly helpful in balancing the needs of the
novice teachers and tutored children include:
the use of a structured lesson plan emphasizing one or two basic techniques
for developing specific skills;
focused assessments providing clear information about skills to work on
in tutoring; and
opportunities for novice teachers to practice administering assessments, as
well as various instructional techniques, in university classroom sessions.
(p. 356)
38
The literature seems to consistently concur that the linguistic components

of the English language need to be explicitly taught to teachers of reading, as
informed teachers must understand the interdependence of these components
in effective reading instruction.
Learning vocabulary is facilitated by phonological processing (Baddeley,
Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998)
Proficiency in writing and spelling is related to proficiency in decoding
strategies (Berninger & Richards, 2002)
Such understanding of the structure of the English language will enable
teachers to analyze students errors in oral reading, written language
(spelling, syntax, and semantics), and reading comprehension. Perhaps
most importantly: Results suggest that when effective practice is in the
hands (and heads) of teachers, who work on the educational front lines, we
may begin to hope for progress in the only reading war that really matters
the one against reading and writing disability (McCutchen et al., 2002,
pp. 8182).
While much recent research has shown a general lack of teacher knowledge
in language constructs and reading components, little research has analyzed
the current knowledge level of those preparing teachers to teach early reading.
In 2012, Binks-Cantrell, Joshi, Washburn, and Hougan expanded the study of
teacher knowledge of research-based reading instruction to a new population
of teachers university instructors. The hypothesis was that one of the
reasons many of our pre-service and in-service teachers lack the knowledge
of reading research is because they are not receiving adequate preparation
at the university level and this might be due to a lack of knowledge and
understanding among those who prepare the teachers themselves (that is,
the university instructors). They found that pre-service teachers (n=173)
performed very similar to their university instructors (n=114) on the basic
language constructs survey. In fact, there were no statistically significant
differences between the performance of university instructors and their
pre-service teachers both demonstrated a lack of understanding of these
important concepts. They expanded the Peter Effect (Applegate and
Applegate, 2008), which states that one cannot give what one does not
possess, to reading education. We cannot expect our teachers to leave our
universities adequately prepared to teach beginning and/or struggling readers
when our university instructors do not possess an understanding of research-
based instruction themselves. The importance of the teacher at any level
cannot be understated.
39
The good news is that they also assessed a group of university instructors
who had participated in a bi-yearly professional development program for
at least two years and not only was their performance on the knowledge
survey statistically significantly higher than their counterparts, but their
students (the pre-service teachers) knowledge was statistically significantly
higher as well. This demonstrates that university instructors knowledge and
understanding of how to most effectively teach reading can be heightened to
a proficient level when relatively simple efforts are made to stay abreast of
current research and practices in the field and, most importantly, that this
knowledge will carry over to their students (the pre-service teachers). These
findings have strong implications for the future of teacher preparation, but
there are a few challenges that remain. At the current time, most universities
do not require their instructors to attend professional development seminars
or make other efforts to stay up-to-date with the most current research.
Teacher accountability is an issue for the university level just as much as the
K-12 level, but the concept of scholastic, or academic, freedom poses a few
barriers to holding university instructors accountable for understanding and
preparing their pre-service teaching students with an understanding of the
basic language constructs from current research.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In some ways, teacher knowledge (and the role teacher preparation programs
play in improving teacher knowledge) is starting to receive the recognition
of importance it deserves. For instance, several professional organizations
have adopted knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading,
such as the International Reading Association and the Council for Exception
Children. More recently, the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) set
forth its own list of standards in 2009 to fill in gaps of specificity, clarity, and
scientific grouping that the former sets of standards lacked (Moats, 2014).
With recognition that these standards are only truly meaningful if they are put
into practice, IDA has begun to look at the alignment of the standards with
teacher preparation programs. During the past five years, teacher preparation
programs have been able to volunteer for accreditation based upon alignment
of the programs syllabi, evaluations, assignments, practicum requirements,
and any other evidence with IDAs Knowledge and Practice Standards. To
date, 18 teacher preparation programs have been accredited, ranging from
small, private programs to large, public universities. Those with accreditation
are experiencing increases of quality applicants, and programs that did not
40
receive accreditation are offered the opportunity to work toward accreditation

with a mentor from IDA.
As mentioned in the Peter Effect study (Binks-Cantrel et al., 2012), a
professional development program for university instructors was established
through a combination of state and university funds that resulted in significant
outcomes for university instructors and pre-service teachers alike. Texass
Higher Education Collaborative (HEC) had three specific objectives: (a)
Assure that teacher educators and educational administration educators are
knowledgeable about components of SBRR and incorporate these critical
components into teacher preparation courses, (b) Provide materials based
on SBRR to teacher educators for use in preparing EC-4 teachers, and (c)
Establish a community of members who collaborate in the ongoing process
of adjusting their instruction and materials to ensure the preparation of highly
qualified teachers.
Any instructor of reading education within the state was invited to
participate in HEC, which included paid travel (gas, car rental/airfare,
hotel, and meals) to attend collaborative seminars in which research-based
practices were discussed with leaders in the field of reading and followed
by collaboration regarding how best to incorporate these practices into
their courses. Participants also received materials designed to assist with
the integration of SBRR into their courses. Additionally, collaboration
among members was enhanced through the implementation of an online
community, HEC Online, where HEC staff and participants shared research
reports, sample syllabi, Ask the Expert Q&A, and other information
online. Participants could request an HEC staff member, as well as other
HEC members, to model lessons, review syllabi, assist with course content
alignment, and make presentations for students and faculty at their respective
institutions. Rather than relying on how they were initially taught, or what
they intuitively think is effective in teaching struggling students, faculty
members of the HEC were provided with knowledge and practices validated
by SBRR. Further documentation of HECs success can be found in the
Texas Reading First Higher Education Collaborative Report (HEC, 2006).
Despite its success, unfortunately, with the conclusion of Reading First, HEC
also ended.
The study of teacher knowledge and preparation in SBRR is also expanding
beyond the U.S. In one of the first teacher knowledge studies outside of
the U.S., Fielding-Barnsley, & Purdie (2005) found that in-service teachers
often lacked the knowledge of basic language constructs and often favored
a more whole language approach to teaching reading. In 2013, Washburn,
41
Binks-Cantrell, and Joshi found that while there are some differences in
the misconceptions of teaching reading and dyslexia between American
and British pre-service teachers, both populations are largely leaving their
teacher preparation programs lacking the knowledge they need to effectively
teach reading, especially to those at-risk for reading difficulties. And
most recently, two special forums (2013, 2014) have been held on teacher
knowledge from an international perspective at the Society for the Scientific
Study of Readings annual conference highlighting patterns in knowledge
among teacher educators, in-service teachers, and pre-service teachers in
New Zealand, Canada, China, Portugal, Israel, Finland, and Zambia.
The textbooks used to prepare teachers to teach reading are also starting
to receive attention through a more critical lens. Walsh, Glasser, and Wilcox
(2006) found that the vast majority of the most popularly used reading
education textbooks neglected to provide information on all five essential
components of effective reading instruction as identified by the National
Reading Panel. In addition to lacking the quantity of information, Joshi,
Binks, Graham et al. (2009) found the same textbooks often lacked in the
quality of information provided, such as incorrect definitions of phonemic
awareness, phonics, and related terms and concepts.
Dysteachia is a term used to refer to the phenomenon of students who
exhibit dyslexic-like tendencies, not because of a neurologically-based
reading disability but because of inadequate instruction. The hope is that as
teacher knowledge and teacher preparation (including the knowledge and
professional development of teacher educators, as well as the textbooks used
in teacher preparation courses) begin to receive more attention, the quality will
increase and the rate of dysteachia will decrease. While the above initiatives
demonstrate some positive directions, many of the current educational
policies and funding priorities still target curriculum materials, school
organization, and high stakes testing results rather than the teacher, teacher
knowledge, teacher preparation, and teacher professional development that
maximizes teacher quality (Moats, 2014).
Twenty years ago, Louisa Moats conducted one of the first major
studies of teacher knowledge and preparation to teach reading (1994). She
administered a survey to regular and special education teachers and found
that very few possessed an understanding of the basic language constructs
that research has deemed fundamental to successful reading acquisition.
Since that time, numerous other researchers have assessed both in-service
and pre-service teachers with various instruments and have found similar
results. Despite the strong correlations that have been demonstrated between
42
teacher knowledge, classroom instruction, and student achievement, there

has been little to no improvement over the past twenty years in teacher
knowledge of and preparation to deliver research-based reading instruction
(Moats, 2014; Seidenberg, 2013).
Research tells us that about 40% of children will struggle with learning
how to read and continue to struggle with reading throughout their lives if
they never receive direct, explicit, and systematic instruction in phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National
Reading Panel, 2000), as well as spelling and morphology (Joshi, Treiman,
Carreker, & Moats, 2008/2009). In order to provide explicit instruction in
these concepts, teachers themselves must possess an explicit knowledge
and understanding of research-based reading instruction (Moats, 1999).
Typically, pre-service teachers take anywhere from one to five courses in
reading education prior to entering the field, depending upon their teacher
training program. But what really matters more than the quantity of their
reading education coursework, is the quality of their reading education
coursework, which can vary greatly often depending upon the professor or
instructor of the course. As almost anyone who has attended college can tell
you, and just like what we know to be true at the K-12 level (Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998), the teacher can really make all the difference.
Because we know quality classroom instruction is the best weapon against
reading failure (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), we must do a better job of
preparing and maintaining teachers who have the knowledge and ability to
deliver just that. Teacher education programs must ensure that its teachers
are provided with up-to-date information about research-based reading
instruction, both during their initial teacher preparation (e.g., in the Colleges
of Education and Alternative Certification Programs) as well as ongoing
throughout their career (e.g., professional development opportunities).
Moats likened the teaching of reading to rocket science (1999), and spending
millions of dollars on curriculum programs that are thrown out every few
years is not the answer. Producing and maintaining a more knowledgeable
and better prepared teaching force is the most important challenge for
education to undertake; our students deserve no less.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Adlof, S., & Perfetti, C. (2014). Individual differences in word learning and reading ability. In
C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and
literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 246264). New York, NY: Guilford.
43
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language
learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158173.
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten
make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading
Research Quarterly, 26, 4966.
Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press (Elsevier Imprint).
Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E., Joshi, R. M., & Hougan, M. (2012). Peter effect in the
preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 526536.
Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz,
B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and
third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444461.
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and
knowledge of pre-service and in-service educators about early reading instruction. Annals
of Dyslexia, 51, 97120.
Bos, C. S., Mather, N., Friedman Narr, R., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative
professional development in early literacy instruction: Supporting the balancing act.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 227238.
Bradley, L. L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Brady, S. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Implications from post-NRP
research. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading
(pp. 6996). London: Psychology Press.
Brady, S., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Informed instruction for reading successFoundations
for teacher preparation. (A position paper of the International Dyslexia Association).
Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.
Calhoon, M. B., & Petscher, Y. (2013). Individual and group sensitivity to remedial reading
program design: Examining reading gains across three middle school reading projects.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 565592.
Calhoon, M. B., Sandow, A., & Hunter, C. V. (2010). Reorganizing the instructional reading
components: Could there be a better way to design remedial reading programs to maximize
middle school students with reading disabilities response to treatment? Annals of Dyslexia,
60, 5785.
Carlisle, J., & Berebitsky, D. (2011). Literacy coaching as a component of professional
development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 773800.
Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of
students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331362.
Cunningham, A. (1990). Explicit vs. implicit instruction in phonological awareness. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429444.
Denton, C., Foorman, B. R., & Mathes, G. G. (2003). Schools that beat the odds: Implications
for reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 258261.
Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2005). Teachers attitude to and knowledge of
metalinguistics in the process of learning to read. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 33, 6575.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The
role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90, 3755.
44
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997a).
The case for early reading interventions. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading
acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243264). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J.
M. (1997b). Early intervention for children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 1, 255276.
Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D.
J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling
achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 129.
Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1979). Learning to read is natural. In L. B. Resnik &
P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J., McKee, A., & Walsh, K. (2013). NCTQ teacher prep review: A review of the
nations teacher preparation programs. Washington, DC: National Council for Teacher
Quality.
Haager, D., Heimbichner, C., Dhar, R., Moulton, M., & McMillan, S. (2008). The California
reading first year 6 evaluation report. Morgan Hill, CA: Educational Data Systems.
Retrieved from www.eddata.com/resourcespublications/RF_Evaluation_2007-2008
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: P. H. Brookes.
Higher Education Collaborative (HEC). (2006). Texas reading first Higher Education
Collaborative: 20052006 Annual Report. Austin, TX: Vaughn Gross Center for Reading
and Language Arts.
Hill, H. B. (2000). Literacy instruction in teacher education: A comparison of teacher
education in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, Teachers College, New York, NY.
Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY: Macmillan.
International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: An executive
summary of the National Commission on Excellence in elementary teacher preparation for
reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Graham, L., Dean, E., Smith, D., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2009).
Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to the instructional
recommendations of the national reading panel? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42,
458463.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M., Dean, E., & Smith, D. (2009). Why elementary
teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42,
392402.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E. S., Hougen, M., Dean, E. O., Graham, L., & Smith, D. (2009). The
role of teacher education programs in preparing teachers for implementing evidence-
based reading practices. In S.Rosenfield & V. Berninger (Eds.), Implementing evidence-
based academic interventions in school settings (pp. 605625). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. C. (2008/2009). How words cast their
spell: Spelling instruction focused on language, not memory, improves reading and writing.
American Educator, 32(4), 616, 4243.
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and
phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18,
201212.
45
Lyon, G. R. (1999). The NICHD research program in reading development, reading disorders,
and reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise
student achievement. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee
on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives; March 8, 2001.
MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates MacGinitie reading tests. Chicago,
IL: Riverside.
McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. (1999). Those who know, teach well: Helping teachers master
literacy-related subject-matter knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14,
215226.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., . . .
Gray, A. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice,
and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 6986.
McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E.
(2002b). Reading teachers knowledge of childrens literature and English phonology.
Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207225.
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure
of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81102.
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science. Washington, DC: American
Federation of Teachers.
Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of balanced reading instruction.
New York, NY: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Moats, L. C. (2004). Science, language, and imagination in the professional development of
reading teachers. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research
(pp. 269288). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Moats, L. C. (2014). What teachers dont know and why they arent learning it: Addressing
the need for content and pedagogy in teacher education. Australian Journal of Learning
Difficulties 19(2), 7591. doi: 10.1080/19404158.2014.941093
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers content knowledge of language
and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 2345.
Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in
Language Disorders, 16, 7386.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2005, 2013). The nations report
card: Reading. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (1999). Condition of education.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Reform.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of
the national reading panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of
the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction:
Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
OConnor, R. (1999). Teachers learning ladders to literacy. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 14, 203214.
Olson, R. K., Keenan, J. M., Byrne, B., & Samuelsson, S. (2014). Why do children differ in
their development of reading and related skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 3854.
Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2005). Genetics of dyslexia. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme
(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 453472.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
46
Perfetti, C. (2011). Phonology is critical in reading: But a phonological deficit is not the
only source of low reading skill. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining
individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 153171). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. N. (2013). Universal reading processes are modulated by language
and writing system. Language Learning and Development, 9, 296316.
Piasta, S. B., McDonald, C., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers knowledge
of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 13, 224248.
Reading Excellence Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. A, Sec. 101(f) (title VIII), 112 Stat.
2681-337, 2681-391 et. seq. United States Department of Education, 2003. The reading
excellence act.
Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language
Learning and Development, 9, 331360.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachers acquisition of knowledge about
English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 72103.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic
reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332364.
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific
associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 211229.
Torgesen, J. K. (1997). The prevention and remediation of reading disabilities: Evaluating
what we know from research. Journal of Academic Language Therapy, 1, 1147.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have
difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in
reading research (pp. 355382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial intervention for children with dyslexia.
In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521537).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Torgesen, J. K., & Bryant, B. R. (1994). Test of phonological awareness. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2013). Learning to use an alphabetic writing system. Language
Learning and Development, 9, 317330.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla,
M. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers:
Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential
deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 601638.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Toward distinguishing between
cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read:
A two-year follow-up of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers. In
B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to
scale (pp. 73120). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading
ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 332.
47
Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools arent teaching about
reading and what elementary teachers arent learning. Washington, DC: National Council
on Teacher Quality (NCTQ).
Washburn, E., Binks-Cantrell, E., & Joshi, R. M. (2013). What do pre-service teachers from
the US and UK know about dyslexia? Dyslexia, 20, 118.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Emily Binks-Cantrell
R. Malatesha Joshi
48
PART 2
SELECTED APPROACHES AND PRACTICES IN
TEACHING AND TEACHER PREPARATION
TRINA J. DAVIS, GERALD KULM, AYSE TUGBA ONER,
S. ENRICO P. INDIOGINE, DIANNE S. GOLDSBY
AND TINGTING MA
4. PRESERVICE TEACHERS PROBLEM-SOLVING

LESSON ENGAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEFS ABOUT TEACHING FOR EQUITY
Preparation for teaching for equity requires both mathematics knowledge

for teaching (Ball, Hill, & Bass, 2005; Kulm, 2008) and knowledge of
how to address the complexities of teaching all students with wide-ranging
needs (Achinstein & Athanases, 2005). Teachers need strong mathematics
knowledge for teaching (Kulm, 2008) and equity consciousness (McKenzie
& Skrla, 2011) to be effective in culturally and ethnically diverse middle
grade classrooms. Watson, Charner-Laird, Kirkpatrick, Szczesiul, and
Gordon (2006) stated that very few teacher education programs have
successfully tackled the challenging task of preparing teachers to meet the
needs of diverse populations (p. 396).
In this chapter we present findings from two studies that highlight our
work during recent semesters of a 5-year National Science Foundation
(NSF) funded project. These studies are part of a long-term research
project to develop a problem-solving course aimed at enhancing the beliefs
about and abilities of preservice mathematics teachers to address the needs
of diverse students. The interdisciplinary team of instructors, researchers
and students engaged in the Knowledge for Algebra Teaching for Equity
(KATE) Project employed several strategies to enhance middle grades
preservice teachers (PSTs) knowledge for teaching algebra problem-
solving for equity. The two studies present research findings from two
major components of the problem-solving course that the team designed
and revised over several semesters. The first component, and the most
challenging from a design and implementation perspective, was the use of
Second Life (SL) to simulate a diverse middle grade math classroom. The
second study examined the use of readings on equity consciousness and
equity-based problem-solving activities designed to develop and integrate
PSTs awareness of teaching for diversity and knowledge and ability to

T.J. DAVIS etal.
employ problem-solving heuristics. The second study compared this

approach with a section of the course that focused only on problem solving.
Together, these two studies provide insights to the specific challenges and
gains in PST preparation that are possible with the integration of teaching
for equity and learning about problem solving.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The nature of and need for improving teachers mathematics knowledge

is well established (Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences [CBMS],
2001; Huang & Kulm, 2012). A Hypothetical Learning Trajectory (HLT)
(Simon & Tsur, 2004) constructed by the project team served as the
theoretical framework to guide the design, development and instruction
for the problem-solving course. We began with the model of Lamberg and
Middleton (2009) in constructing a HLT that consisted of three conceptual
schemes for teaching for diversity. These schemes characterize effective
research-based strategies to engage and motivate diverse students in learning
algebra: (1) situated learning, (2) culturally relevant teaching, and (3) critical
pedagogy. Each scheme has the following components: (a) description
of the conceptual scheme, (b) cause and effect mechanisms that describe
the teachers knowledge, (c) cognitive interpretations of knowledge, and
(d) intermediary understandings necessary for bridging to the next level
(Lamberg & Middleton, 2009, p. 237). The following brief summaries
provide the characteristics and research bases for the HLT schemes. A more
complete description is given by Brown, Davis, and Kulm (2011).
Situated Learning Scheme

The Situated Learning scheme requires that the teacher allow students to
have concrete and hands-on experiences designed to build math learning on
realistic problems that students solve using a variety of skills, concepts, and
tools. Traditional lessons provide only limited development of conceptual
understanding (Hollar & Norwood, 1999; Karsenty, 2002; O'Callaghan,
1998). In a situated learning context, students develop math understanding
by constructing their own culturally relevant knowledge (Ladson-Billings,
2011), building from more concrete to abstract ideas (Pellegrino, Chudowsky,
& Glaser, 2001). Students move from using materials such as algebra tiles
and everyday objects, gradually transitioning to problems that are more
open-ended, allowing students to devise solution strategies.
52
PRESERVICE TEACHERS PROBLEM-SOLVING LESSON ENGAGEMENT
Culturally Relevant Teaching Scheme

The Culturally Relevant Teaching scheme relies on the teacher to identify
contexts for activities that are based in and relevant to her own students
cultures and lives. Many students do not see the relevance of math and have
low self-expectations for learning math (Ladson-Billings, 1997). Since
learning is unlikely unless students are engaged in the lesson (Thier, 2001), a
context that enhances motivation for learning math is necessary. The teacher
must adapt math activities and problems to include contexts that are relevant
and individualized to the interests of a particular class, group, or student
(Malloy & Jones, 1998).
Critical Pedagogy Scheme

The Critical Pedagogy scheme provides learning activities in which students
investigate the sources of mathematical knowledge, identify social problems
and plausible solutions, and react to social injustices. Problem-based learning
engages students in using math to address and solve problems that are drawn
directly from possible social or community issues that are likely to motivate
and engage students (Boaler, 2000; Lewis, 2009). The teacher adapts math
activities and problems to include social contexts relevant to the interests of
a particular ethnic or interest group, or individual student (Stinson, 2004).
As students become more engaged and interested in these activities, they are
more likely to build skills necessary to succeed in mathematics.
The HLTs were presented and discussed with the PSTs, along with
problem-solving activities to help the preservice teachers develop activities
and lessons that address the bridging steps necessary for their own progress
in the trajectories.
PROBLEM SOLVING COURSE
The context for the research was a mathematics problem solving course
that is required for middle grades math teachers at Texas A&M University.
The course was revised by the KATE research team over a period of five
semesters to include activities and assignments to address issues of diversity
and culture in teaching algebra. The design of the course includes four
primary, interrelated components: (1) math problem solving and problem
posing, (2) math problem equity challenges, (3) readings and discussions on
diversity, and (4) Second Life tutoring and teaching.
53
T.J. DAVIS etal.
The participants were middle grades mathematics preservice teachers

enrolled in either the spring or fall semester. Most of the participants were
juniors who had previously completed four of eight mathematics courses
required for certification. The participants were nearly all White females,
which reflects the overall demographics of preservice teachers at the
university. The spring and fall courses used the same activities but were
taught by different instructors who were members of the research team and
had served as course assistants in a previous semester.
STUDY 1
KATE team members designed a three-dimensional virtual classroom in

Second Life to plan practice teaching sessions for preservice teachers
enrolled in the mathematics problem solving course. We believe that there
are specific approaches and areas of awareness about teaching for equity
that preservice teachers must develop and practice early in their preparation
(Darling-Hammond, 2000). We assert that providing early teaching
opportunities in a simulated classroom environment offer a promising model
for practice teaching experiences. We also suggest that the use and application
of technology tools to support engagement and simulate classroom teaching
can perhaps provide a dimension that will advance preservice mathematics
teacher development.
Earlier models of laboratory classroom experiences (Berliner, 1985) can
be recast as virtual experiences through the design of well-planned and well-
executed classroom simulations. For a number of years teacher educators
have sought alternative methods for clinical or practical experiences for
preservice teachers (Berliner, 1985; Metcalf et al., 1996). The notion of
classroom laboratory settings as an alternative or complement to field-based
experiences is not a new one. In the search for alternative clinical experiences,
on-campus laboratory activities such as microteaching, simulation, or
reflective teaching were often overlooked (Cruickshank, 1984; Metcalf et
al., 1996). In recent years, emerging approaches in teacher education have
evolved to include the use of virtual technologies to design and simulate
authentic classroom teaching environments. Virtual classroom simulations
make it possible to provide preservice teachers orchestrated practice with
diverse learners (represented by avatars or agents). During simulations,
avatars can exhibit a greater variety of mathematics misconceptions and a
myriad of interests and needs, than would the more sporadic opportunities
54
that might arise during face-to-face classroom observations or other field-

based settings (Brown et al., 2011).
In this first exploratory study, preservice teachers problem-solving
lessons were examined. We examined recordings of classroom lessons
from preservice teachers enrolled in one of two consecutive problem-
solving courses to answer the research questions: What are the differences
between two groups of PSTs lesson engagement in a simulated classroom
environment related to a) student-teacher actions, and b) mathematics
instruction indicators? How do PSTs self-evaluations of their lessons differ
from evaluations by their peers and those of external evaluators?
Methods
Participants. The spring semester class consisted of 21 females and 1
male. There were 16 White females, 1 African-American female, 4 Hispanic
females, and 1 White male. The fall semester class included 28 females
and2 males. There were 24 White females, 4 Hispanic females, and 2 White
males.
Procedures. The first author co-designed a virtual middle school classroom

and additional learning spaces in Second Life. The KATE virtual classroom
and learning spaces were designed specifically for preservice teachers to
engage in tutoring and teaching exercises with middle grade student (MGS)
avatars throughout the course. The KATE virtual classroom includes tools
such as media display screens and an interactive white board. Gesture menus
were also integrated into the KATE classroom design to support active
engagement between the PSTs and MGSs (see Figure 1):
MGSs were able to select the following gesture options:
Student response gestures were also used by MGS avatars during lessons
to indicate their level of understanding. After a MGS avatar selected the
gesture options from the menu, question marks of different colors display
above the MGS avatars head.
Hand-raising gestures were used by the middle grade student avatars to
get the preservice teachers attention during lessons.
1. Red Question Mark indicates I dont get it; I am lost.
2. Yellow Question Mark indicates I think I see what you mean; Im
almost with you.
55
T.J. DAVIS etal.
3. Green Light Bulb indicates I get it.
Figure 1. Middle school classroom gesture menu
Problem-solving lesson teaching experience. Preservice teachers enrolled

in the problem-solving course developed personal teacher avatars early in the
course. Each PST prepared a 1520 minute algebra lesson to teach to the full
class of MGS avatars. PSTs spent 2 weeks to plan their lesson with the help
of feedback from the instructor. All PTSs teaching occurred during the final
3 or 4 weeks of the course. There were 4 to 5 live MGS avatars played by
math education graduate students and 15 bot MGS avatars that were pre-
programmed with specific response options. A trained research team member
controlled the actions of the 15 bot avatars during each lesson. Lesson plans
were submitted early by the PSTs. The instructor and the full team of MGS
avatars reviewed the plans and conducted detailed lesson practice sessions
where they performed dry runs with lesson slides, and discussed and
planned the kinds of actions they would each perform during the lessons.
Actions included introducing math misconceptions in the lessons, as well
as various questions that MGS avatars might ask during particular lessons.
56
Some actions challenged the PSTs to adjust their approaches. The instructor
provided feedback to the PSTs if there were issues with their lesson plans.
These detailed planning sessions occurred a week prior to the delivery of
each lesson.
Instruction for diversity was guided by a Hypothetical Learning Trajectory
(HLT) (Simon & Tsur, 2004) for teaching for equity developed by the
research team (Brown et al., 2011). The PSTs chose one of three schemes
from the HLT to guide the design of their problem-solving lessons in SL:
Situated learning scheme Provide an instructional context that allows
students to have concrete and hands-on experiences with math knowledge
and skills. Build math learning on realistic, open-ended, culturally relevant
problems that students solve using a variety of skills, concepts, and tools.
Culturally relevant teaching scheme Use contexts for activities that are
based in and relevant to students cultures and lives.
Critical pedagogy scheme Provide learning activities in which students
investigate the sources of mathematical knowledge, identify social
problems and plausible solutions, and react to social injustices.
During the algebra problem-solving lesson, the preservice teacher went to
a remote room where sh/h-e logged into Second Life as a teacher-avatar and
delivered the lesson in the virtual classroom. Within the three-dimensional
virtual space PST avatars walked into the classroom, advanced their lesson
slides that were projected on a display screen, asked questions and engaged
with MGS avatars in the classroom. PSTs used an interactive pen display (i.e.,
SmartPodium tablet) to illustrate their problem-solving work and respond
to questions posed by the MGS avatars. The working out of problems was
then displayed on a media screen in the virtual classroom in real-time (with
a few seconds delay). All of the problem-solving lessons were recorded by
research team members who were serving in avatar roles. Video recordings
were made using the Camtasia software. Camtasia allows a user to record
any on-screen activity. The recordings were then uploaded to the universitys
MediaMatrix website. The site includes a specialized database application
designed to provide access to Internet media streaming content. PSTs and
research team members were able to access the video recordings from this
secure site.
Data sources. The Mathematics-Virtual Classroom Observation Instrument

(M-VCOI) includes three sections: (a) student-teacher engagement (student
actions, 6 items; teacher actions, 6 items) (b) mathematics instruction (21
items), and (c) virtual environment and technology use (8 items), plus two
57
T.J. DAVIS etal.
open-ended questions. To complete section 1, the student-teacher engagement

portion of the instrument, evaluators were instructed to review the lesson
recordings and use tally marks to indicate each time a MGS student avatar
engaged in a particular action (e.g., asked a question, used a gesture, displayed
a math misconception). Similarly, evaluators were instructed to record each
time the teacher (PST) avatar engaged in a particular action (e.g., responded
to a student question, addressed a student misconception, gave incorrect or
inaccurate information). Figure 2 depicts the student-teacher engagement
component of the evaluation instrument.
Figure 2. M-VCOI student-teacher engagement segment
Section 2 was comprised of 21 items focused on Mathematics Instruction

indicators. For each of the 21 mathematics instruction items, evaluators
were instructed to mark if the indicator was observed at all (1), observed to
some extent (2), or observed to great extent (3). Section 3 focused on Virtual
Environment and Technology Use items and was completed last. However
data from this section were not analyzed in this study. Sample items are
provided in Table 1.
58
Table 1. Sample items from the M-VCOI

Component Number of Items Sample Items
Student-Teacher 12 Student: Responded to a question or made
Engagement a comment (number of times observed)
Teacher: Addressed a student
misconception
(number of times observed)
Mathematics 21 The teacher used purposeful questioning
Instruction to clarify students understanding (not
only Do you understand? or Do you
have questions?)
The context of the lesson was culturally
relevant and meaningful to students lives
and interests.
Virtual Environment 8 The teacher used the SmartPodium tablet
and Tech Use to work out problem(s) effectively.
Data collection. Two trained external evaluators viewed each lesson

recording and completed the full version of the M-VCOI. Both external
evaluators were advanced doctoral students in the same curriculum and
instruction department. They were not affiliated with the grant project prior
to completing the evaluations. Reviewing the lessons was their only role
with the project. The evaluators participated in an initial project orientation
meeting. Additionally, they engaged in an instrument orientation session.
After completing the first evaluation, the evaluators met with the first author
to discuss their responses and make clarifications. They participated in follow-
up sessions online as they completed M-VCOI evaluations for all lessons
given by preservice teachers during the fall and spring semester courses.
During that time they also submitted weekly updates to the observation team
leader.
Evaluators were instructed to record the total number of student and
teacher actions for the first section of the instrument. They marked indicators
(i.e., 1 to 3) for each item in the second and third sections of the instrument.
They entered the respective evaluations online as they were completed.
The SPSS statistical analysis software program was used to analyze data.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed to fully answer the
research questions.
59
T.J. DAVIS etal.
Lesson plans. Archival data were collected from all lesson plans that were
submitted by PSTs enrolled in either the spring or fall course. The lesson
plans included eight components: name of the scheme, (2) key mathematical
concepts and/or procedures, (3) rationale for the context selected, (4) statement
of the problem, (5) solution, (6) description of alternative approaches students
might have, (7) questions to probe students understanding, and (8) extension
or generalization of the problem. The third author reviewed the lesson plans
and concatenated the schemes that were used in the spring and fall courses.
Results
Student-teacherengagement.We examined student-teacher lesson
engagement data from PSTs enrolled in the spring course and for a second
group of PSTs enrolled in the fall course. Table 2 displays means, standard
deviations, and effect sizes of student and teacher actions from PSTs lessons
in each of the courses. A comparison of the student actions for the spring
and fall groups was done using t-tests to determine if there were significant
differences in the means. The Cohens d (Cohen, 1992) statistic was used
as a measure of effect size or standardized difference in means. Cohens d
indicated that the student asked a question item (d = 1.93), had a much
larger than typical effect size. There were statistically significant (p<.01)
differences between the spring and fall group means for this item. Cohens
d calculated for the student used gestures item (d =. 94) indicated a large
effect size. There were statistically significant (p<.01) differences between
the spring and fall group means for this item as well. Both students asking
questions, and using the gestures had higher means during the fall
semester course as compared to the spring semester.
A comparison of the teacher actions for the spring and fall groups was done
using t-tests. The Cohens d statistic was used as a measure of difference in
means. The items with statistically significant (p<.05) differences between
the spring and fall group means were the teacher asked a question (d =. 55)
and the teacher responded to a student question (d =. 49), both in favor of
the fall group. The Cohen d values computed were medium or typical effect
sizes. Teachers asking questions, as well as, responding to student questions,
were moderately higher during the fall course. Working on problem posing
was a key component of the course, questioning seems to be a prominent
teacher action observed in the lessons during both the spring (26.52) and
fall (31.88) courses. Additionally, a very small number of teachers ignored
student avatar questions or misconceptions during their lessons. The results
of the analyses of the measures are provided in Table 2.
60
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for

student and teacher actions
Item Spring Course Fall Course Cohens d
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Student Actions
Asked a question 12.14 (4.16) 20.13 (4.13) 1.93
Responded to question, or made 26.26 (9.12) 26.50 (9.74) 0.03
a comment
Used gesture 17.24 (5.10) 25.38 (11.90) 0.94
Gave an incorrect answer 0.20 (0.56) 0.38 (0.87) 0.25
Displayed a mathematics 0.48 (0.89) 0.59 (0.88) 0.12
misconception
Was divergent or off-task 0.57 (0.74) 0.97 (1.18) 0.42
Teacher Actions
Asked a question 26.52 (8.96) 31.88 (10.59) 0.55
Responded to a student question 13.31 (8.93) 17.25 (6.75) 0.49
Was unclear during the lesson 0.38 (0.66) 0.38 (0.66) 0.00
Gave incorrect or inaccurate 0.10 (0.37) 0.28 (0.58) 0.38
information
Addressed a student misconception 1.10 (1.28) 0.66 (0.87) -0.39
Ignored a question or misconception 1.52 (1.61) 1.09 (1.80) -0.25
Mathematics instruction indicators. Responses from the two evaluators

were averaged for each of the respective indicators. A comparison of the
mathematics instruction indicators for the spring and fall groups was done
using t-tests to determine if there were significant differences in the means.
The Cohens d (Cohen, 1992) statistic was used as a measure of effect size or
standardized difference in means. The results of the analyses of the measures
are provided in Table 3. The most notable statistically significant (p<.05)
difference between the spring and fall group means was onthe teacher
provided a summary of the lesson to remind students what they should have
learned, in favor of the fall group. The Cohens d =. 88 indicated that there
was a large effect size. The means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for
each of the items are presented in Table 3.
Preservice teachers patterns of lesson delivery were similar across both
the spring and fall courses. The majority of responses for the mathematics
61
T.J. DAVIS etal.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for mathematics instruction
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Clearly articulated the objectives of the 1.62 (0.83) 1.41 (0.67) -0.28
lesson to the students
Clearly outlined how the lesson would 1.64 (0.73) 1.56 (0.72) -0.11
proceed
Gave a rationale or justification for 1.40 (0.70) 1.62 (0.75) 0.30
learning the mathematics or solving
the problem
Presented the lesson clearly, using 2.26 (0.59) 2.63 (0.49) 0.68
appropriate math language and
materials
Worked out the mathematical content 2.29 (0.60) 2.56 (0.50) 0.48
accurately and thoroughly
Connected ideas and concepts 1.79 (0.68) 2.13 (0.71) 0.49
Used multiple representations in the 1.67 (0.65) 2.00 (0.76) 0.47

lesson or activities
Used purposeful questioning to clarify 2.00 (0.58) 2.28 (0.63) 0.46
students understanding
Provided students opportunities for 2.55 (0.63) 2.69 (0.54) 0.24
problem-solving
Answered students questions and 2.24 (0.62) 2.47 (0.51) 0.40
addressed students difficulties or
misconceptions appropriately
Ignored students questions or 1.69 (0.68) 1.47 (0.51) -0.36
misconceptions. (Reverse order)
Demonstrated confidence of students 1.83 (0.79) 1.84 (0.63) 0.01
ability (evident in teachers language)
Assisted students in generalizing 1.36 (0.53) 1.59 (0.67) 0.39
learning to other situations
problems etc.
Distributed feedback evenly 2.07 (0.34) 2.22 (0.49) 0.36
Redirected student thinking 1.83 0.62) 2.06 (0.56) 0.39

Demonstrated expectation for all 1.52 (0.74) 1.53 (0.72) 0.01
students to participate
(Continued)
62
Table 3. (Continued)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Provided a summary of the lesson to 1.07 (0.26) 1.47 (0.51) 0.88
remind students what they should have
learned
Managed the time, pace, and sequence 1.55 (0.63) 1.81 (0.74) 0.38
of the lesson effectively and efficiently
Context of the lesson was culturally 1.62 (0.54) 1.84 (0.57) 0.40
relevant and meaningful to students
lives and interests
The lesson was based on one of the 1.24 (0.43) 1.44 (0.50) 0.43
following schemes (1=situated learning
scheme, 2=culturally relevant context
scheme, 3=critical pedagogy scheme)
The lesson clearly followed the above 2.02 (0.35) 2.16 (0.37) 0.39
scheme
1=not observed at all, 2=observed to some extent, 3=observed to great extent
instruction indicators ranged from 2 (observed to some extent) to 1 (not

observed at all) for preservice teachers in both classes. Fewer mathematics
instruction indicators were observed to a great extent. Providing students
opportunities for problem-solving had the highest mean in both the spring
and fall classes, which were 2.55 and 2.69 respectively. Consistently,
preservice teachers in both classes were also stronger in three additional
areas: presenting the lesson clearly, using appropriate math language
and materials, working out the mathematical content accurately and
thoroughly, and answering students questions and addressing students
difficulties or misconceptions appropriately.
Although the providing a summary of the lesson to remind students
what they should have learned item had the highest effect size among
other items and yielded statistically significant differences between the
two groups, it had the lowest mean for both academic semesters. This item
yielded predominantly not observed at all responses during the spring and
fall semesters. A possible explanation is that the lessons generally ran 15-20
minutes and some PSTs reported that they felt rushed towards the end of
their lessons. PSTs in the spring and fall classes also didnt help middle grade
63
T.J. DAVIS etal.
student avatars to generalize learning to other situations or problems in their

lessons, to some extent or to a great extent.
Schemes. Table 4 displays the percentage of schemes that were addressed

in preservice teachers lesson plans that were submitted. During both
semester courses most PSTs followed a culturally relevant scheme for their
lessons. Spring course lessons given by PSTs predominantly followed either
a culturally relevant context scheme (68%) or a critical pedagogy scheme
(23%). There was a modest increase in the percentage of lessons that followed
a critical pedagogy scheme during the fall semester course (27%), and fewer
lessons followed the culturally relevant context scheme (63%). The situated
learning scheme was followed the least (see Table 4).
Table 4. Percentage of schemes reported by preservice teachers
Scheme Spring Course Fall Course
Situated learning scheme 2 (9%) 3 (10%)
Culturally relevant context scheme 15 (68%) 19 (63%)
Critical pedagogy scheme 5 (23%) 8 (27%)
In addition to examining the full class aggregate results for all lessons
completed by the two external evaluators that have been presented thus far,
we also examined mathematics instruction results specifically for two sample
lessons. We examined the mathematics instruction component from three
perspectives: preservice teachers self-evaluations of the two sample lessons,
full class peer evaluations of the two sample lessons, and external reviewer
evaluations of the same two sample lessons. The full class was instructed to
review the recordings of two of their peers lessons and complete a M-VCOI-
Lite evaluation of the lessons. The M-VCOI-Lite protocol does not include
the section 1 student-teacher-engagement component. It is identical to the
M-VCOI protocol in all other ways.
The two sample lessons were designed and taught by preservice teachers
enrolled in the fall semester course. According to the respective preservice
teachers, lesson 1 was designed to follow a culturally relevant scheme and
lesson 2 was based on a critical pedagogy scheme. Lesson 1 spanned 19.01
minutes, and lesson 2 spanned 24.38 minutes. Table 5 displays mathematics
instruction results for both lesson 1 (L1) and lesson 2 (L2). The evaluation
results include preservice teachers respective self-evaluation responses (S1
and S2), peer evaluation means (L1 Mean, and L2 Mean), and two external
reviewer evaluation responses (E1 and E2).
64
Table 5. Sample lessons 1 and 2 self, peer and external evaluations
Item # L1 Peer S1 E1 E2 L2 Peer S2 E1 E2

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
1 2.19 (0.62) 2 1 1 2.56 (0.70) 2 2 3
2 2.30 (0.78) 1 1 2 2.56 (0.64) 2 2 3
3 2.26 (0.76) 2 1 2 2.74 (0.45) 2 2 3
4 2.44 (0.64) 2 2 3 2.81 (0.40) 3 3 3
5 2.33 (0.73) 1 2 3 2.81 (0.40) 3 3 3
6 2.26 (0.76) 1 2 2 2.78 (0.51) 3 3 2
7 2.07 (0.78) 1 1 2 2.37 (0.69) 2 2 3
8 2.56 (0.70) 2 1 2 2.74 (0.53) 3 2 3
9 2.52 (0.70) 1 1 3 2.78 (0.51) 3 2 3
10 2.48 (0.64) 2 2 2 2.85 (0.36) 3 2 2
11 1.67 (0.78) 1 2 2 1.70 (0.91) 1 1 2
12 2.33 (0.78) 1 2 1 2.78 (0.51) 3 2 2
13 2.26 (0.71) 1 2 2 2.52 (0.64) 2 2 2
14 2.44 (0.70) 2 2 3 2.67 (0.56) 2 2 3
15 2.33 (0.68) 1 2 2 2.81 (0.40) 3 2 3
16 2.37 (0.74) 2 1 1 2.74 (0.45) 2 1 2
17 2.04 (0.76) 1 1 1 2.44 (0.70) 3 1 2
18 2.37 (0.69) 2 1 2 2.63 (0.57) 3 1 3
19 2.30 (0.82) 1 1 2 2.63 (0.63) 3 2 3
20 2.30 (0.54) 2 2 1 2.89 (0.32) 3 2 2
21 2.67 (0.48) 3 2 2 2.85 (0.36) 3 2 3
1=not observed at all, 2=observed to some extent, 3=observed to great extent
Examining the data from the three perspectives revealed several findings.
When PSTs in the class were asked to complete evaluations for two of their
classmates lessons, their evaluations were typically higher across most
mathematics instruction indicators, than the evaluations made by the external
evaluators. Despite this limitation, all three evaluator groups (self, peer, and
external) were consistent in evaluating lesson 2 higher than lesson 1 across
several mathematics indicators.
Similarly, the self-evaluations from the two preservice teachers
were typically not as high as the peer evaluation means across multiple
65
T.J. DAVIS etal.
mathematics instruction indicators. It appears that the self-evaluations were

more discriminating than the peer evaluations were as well. For sample lesson
1, the preservice teachers mathematics instruction responses predominately
ranged from, addressed to some extent to not addressed at all. We
computed percent agreement reliability measures for lesson 2 across the 21
mathematics instruction items, the self-evaluation responses matched at least
one of the external evaluators responses 81%, while the percent agreement
for lesson 1 was 62%.
Discussion
One of the overarching objectives of our broader work was to provide
preservice middle school mathematics teachers early experiences in teaching
algebra for equity. Our research and design teams went to great lengths to
design a highly engaging and immersive virtual classroom, and small-group
learning spaces that were used to structure carefully planned mathematics
teaching experiences for preservice teachers. The experiences provided
ongoing practice for preservice teachers in presenting and assessing problem-
solving activities in a virtual classroom setting with diverse middle grade
student avatars.
In summary, the student actions with statistically significant differences
between the spring and fall groups were students asking questions, and
using the gestures, the means for both items were higher for the fall
course. During both the spring and fall semester courses, the student action
that occurred the most during the problem-solving lessons was MGS avatars
responding to questions or making comments.
In terms of teacher actions, the two items with statistically significant
differences between the spring and fall groups were the teacher asked a
question and the teacher responded to a student question, the means
for both items were higher for the fall course as well. The teacher asking
questions was the action observed the most in lessons during both the spring
and fall courses, with a higher mean for the fall course. This may be due
in part to questioning and problem posing exercises being emphasized
throughout the math problem solving courses, with perhaps greater success
during the fall semester.
During both semester courses, a majority of PSTs followed a culturally
relevant scheme for the lessons, and the situated learning scheme was
followed the least. During the spring course, lessons predominantly followed
either a culturally relevant context scheme or a critical pedagogy scheme.
66
During the fall course, fewer lessons followed a culturally relevant context
scheme and there was a modest increase in lessons that followed a critical
pedagogy scheme. Seeing this very modest increase in the variety of schemes
employed during the fall semester course was promising. Perhaps some
attention can be directed at ways to better empower preservice teachers to
design lessons around the situated learning and critical pedagogy schemes in
future courses.
In addition, our examination of the lesson evaluation data from three
perspectives (self, peer, and external) revealed notable findings. PSTs
peer evaluations were typically higher across most mathematics instruction
indicators, than the evaluations made by the external evaluators. Anecdotally,
a similar inflation of peer lesson evaluations was observed during the first
semester of the project. One possible explanation is that even when PSTs
are instructed to the contrary, they think of the evaluations as grading their
classmates work and they tend to evaluate their peers more favorably. This
perhaps offers some insight on their inflated evaluation responses. This also
helps to build a case for not restricting the lesson evaluations to just peer
review. Despite this limitation, all three evaluator groups (self, peer, and
external) were consistent in evaluating sample lesson 2 higher than lesson
1 across several indicators. Similarly, the self-evaluations were typically not
as high as the peer evaluation means across multiple mathematics instruction
indicators. It appears that the self-evaluations were more discriminating than
the peer evaluations were as well.
Through the use of the M-VCOI, we were able to conduct a preliminary
examination of student and teacher actions during the problem solving
lessons, and take a closer look at PSTs mathematics instruction performance
across 21 indicators. This exploratory investigation will help to guide further
examination of the Second Life problem-solving lessons described in the
current study. Efforts are also underway to validate the M-VCOI protocol.
This was a limitation of the current study.
STUDY 2
In the second study, the objective was to compare the beliefs about teaching
for equity and the problem solving knowledge of participants in the course
developed and taught by the KATE research team (Experimental) with the
standard version of the course offered by the department (Comparison).
A key purpose of the experimental course was to develop equity
consciousness, which embodies four beliefs: 1) all children (with a few
67
T.J. DAVIS etal.
exceptions who are extremely disabled) have the capability to excel

academically; 2) all children refers to all with diverse innate, cognitive,
linguistic, socio-demographic, socioeconomic and cultural characteristics;
3) adults in school should take accountability for student learning; and 4)
practices in school should be changed to meet all childrens needs (Skrla,
McKenzie, & Scheurich, 2009). Researchers have made numerous efforts
to promote equity consciousness and adopt Critical Race Theory (CRT) in
education to achieve culturally relevant teaching (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1994,
1995, 1998, 2001, 2005). According to Ladson-Billings (1995), teachers
who adopt culturally relevant pedagogy should enable students to 1) develop
academic achievement, 2) improve cultural competence, and 3) develop
a sociopolitical consciousness. Furthermore, Delpit (2006) proposed ten
precepts regarding teachers attitudes and actions regarding teaching students
in urban environments. Teacher education standards include diversity as one
of the essential factors for teacher candidates to acknowledge and promote
(National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE],
2008). Particularly, prospective teachers are required to operationalize the
belief that all students can learn; [and] demonstrate fairness in educational
settings by meeting the educational needs of all students in a caring, non-
discriminatory, and equitable manner (NCATE, 2008, p.7). To better prepare
prospective teachers for diversity in teaching, NCATE (2008) specified
that curricula, field experiences and clinical practice should be provided
for teacher candidates to improve their knowledge, skills and professional
dispositions concerning diversity.
The main purpose of both the experimental and comparison courses was
to develop preservice teachers knowledge of problem solving methods.
Throughout the past two decades, the complex nature and significant role
of problem solving in mathematics teaching and learning has been widely
acknowledged among researchers and practitioners (Cobb, Yackel, &
Wood, 1993; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 1989;
NCTM, 2000; Schoenfeld, 1992; Silver, 1985). Recognizing the importance
for mathematics learners (especially PreK-12 students) to learn to think
mathematically and become mathematical problem solvers, researchers have
begun to show interest in preservice teachers problem solving. The shift
in focus from PreK-12 students problem solving to preservice teachers
problem solving is mainly due to an increasingly accepted notion that
teachers mathematical knowledge for teaching has a significant impact
on student achievement (e.g., Ball & Bass, 2003; National Mathematics
Advisory Panel [NMAP], 2008).
68
Along with other important knowledge such as mathematical facts and

representations, concepts, proving, reasoning, and making connections, the
ability to solve problems is an important dimension of teachers mathematical
knowledge for teaching (Ponte, 2009). Prior research has documented
evidence that preservice teachers are inadequately prepared in mathematical
knowledge for teaching in their teacher education programs (Conference
Board of Mathematical Sciences [CBMS], 2001; Ball & Bass, 2000). Concerns
regarding preservice teachers problem solving skills and strategies have also
been raised. For example, in a study of preservice teachers arithmetic and
algebra word problem-solving skills and strategies, researchers conclude that
pre-service teachers who had arrived at the end of their teacher education
still continued to demonstrate problem-solving behaviour characterized
by (some of) the problematic features of the student teachers who had just
started their teacher education. (Dooren, Verschaffel, & Onghena, 2003,
pp. 45)
The experimental course attempted to develop not only knowledge
of problem solving, but some awareness and experience in how to teach
it. Working with preservice teachers on mathematical tasks can help them
develop their mathematical knowledge for teaching arithmetic operations
(Chapman, 2007), and improve their content and pedagogical knowledge
of and attitudes towards proportional reasoning (Ben-Chaim, Keret &
Ilany, 2007). In designing the tasks, an essential issue is to allow preservice
teachers to experience doing mathematics in their own situation, through
having particularized a general strategy for themselves, rather than relying
on being given particular things to do (Watson & Mason, 2007, p. 208), so
that preservice teachers can become more aware of what their future learners
may experience. This line of research identifies problem solving as one of
the key mathematical topics that teacher education courses should focus on
to achieve effective teacher education as well as good teaching (Watson &
Mason, 2007). More importantly, a shared understanding should be achieved
about why, how and when teaching and learning the key mathematical topics
in teacher education, such as problem solving, impact prospective teachers
future pedagogy or their rejection of the topics as irrelevant to their own
teaching (Watson & Mason, 2007).
In this study, we compared an experimental and standard problem-solving
course to answer the research question: What are the differences in preservice
teachers beliefs and knowledge about (a) teaching for diversity, (b) algebra
problem-solving, and (c) teaching algebra problem-solving?
69
T.J. DAVIS etal.
Methods
The comparison group for the study was a second section of the course. The
university online registration for the two sections provided information that
one of the sections was a research project.
Participants. The experimental group of 30 participants included 28

females and 2 males. There were 23 White females, 5 Hispanic females, and
2 White males. The comparison group of 28 participants included 25 females
and 3 males. There were 24 White females, 4 Hispanic females, and 3 White
males.
Procedures. The third author, a graduate teaching assistant, was the lead
instructor for the experimental class, with guest presentations by members
of the research team. The following summaries provide brief descriptions of
the activities of the experimental class, which met once a week for 3 hours,
for a 14-week semester.
Math Problem-solving and Problem Posing. Instruction and practice with
problem-solving heuristics, using How to Solve It (Polya, 2004) as the
primary textbook. As homework, participants completed several problem
sets that applied heuristic methods, writing out complete solutions.
Math Equity Problem Challenges. Each of three assigned Equity Problem
Challenges illustrated one of the Teaching for Diversity schemes and
consisted of four components: a culturally relevant problem to solve and
adapt for middle grade students, responding to student misconceptions,
planning a problem-solving lesson, and answering mathematics and equity
questions that middle grades students might ask.
Readings and Discussions on Diversity. Assigned readings were given
from the textbook, Responding to Diversity (Ellis, 2008) and other essays
on teaching for diversity. Two guest lecturers presented and discussed
cultural diversity and cognitive engagement.
Second Life. Participants completed an orientation to SL, met and
tutored a middle grades student avatar, and planned and presented a 15-20
minute problem-solving lesson that used one of the Teaching for Diversity
schemes to a group of avatars in SL (See Study 1; Davis et al., 2012).
The fifth author, an award-winning clinical professor, was the
instructor for the comparison class. The following summary provides a
70
brief description of the activities of the comparison class, which used

a combination lecture and online format, meeting once a week for 1.25
hours and completing online assignments outside of class for the remaining
hours, for a 14-week semester.
The design of the comparison course included three primary, interrelated
components: (1) Math Problem-solving, 2) Math Problem Posing, and
3) Integration of Technology. The following summary provides brief
descriptions of the course activities.
Math Problem-solving. Instruction and practice with problem-solving
heuristics, using How to Solve It (Polya, 2004) as the primary textbook.
Students completed weekly problems that applied heuristic methods,
writing out complete solutions and presenting these solutions in class.
Presentations by groups of 35 students included the NCTM standards
addressed, Polyas four steps, an activity for class participation, and a
similar problem created by the group posed to the class.
Problem Posing. As part of the required presentation of the assigned
weekly problem, students created a similar problem and had the class
explore it. This activity was used to distinguish between different types
of problem posing.
Integration of Technology. The presentations of the problem solutions
using Polyas four steps required the integration of technology. Students
created a video to use with a problem they created for a problem-solving
lesson plan.
Data sources. Participants completed pre- and posttests of the Knowledge

for Algebra Teaching for Equity (KATE) test developed by the authors. The
experimental group took the tests the first day of class; the comparison group
members were given gift certificates to compensate their participation and
completed the test individually during the first and last two weeks outside
of class. The KATE test contained 20 Likert-type items (Strongly agree,
Agree, Disagree, Strongly disagree) adapted from the Cultural Awareness
and Beliefs Inventory (CABI) (Roberts-Walter, 2007), and 19 mathematics
problems to assess algebra knowledge, problem-solving, and teaching.
A previous factor analysis of the CABI (Indiogine, Oner & Kulm, 2014)
revealed four factors: (a) teacher efficacy, (b) teaching beliefs, (c) cultural
beliefs, and (d) racial beliefs. Table 6 provides example items for each of
these factors.
71
T.J. DAVIS etal.
Table 6. Factors and sample items from the CABI Instrument
Factor Number of items Sample items

Teacher efficacy 11 I am comfortable with people who exhibit
values or beliefs different from my own.
Teaching beliefs 4 I believe that poor teaching is the main factor
that causes the gap in math achievement
between White students and students of color.
Cultural beliefs 3 I believe students in poverty are more
difficult to teach.
Racial beliefs 2 I believe many middle school teachers engage
in biased behavior toward students of color in
the classroom.
The open-ended problems had two components: Algebra Knowledge and

Problem-solving, was made up of 12 questions that addressed understanding
and problem-solving skills in algebra, and Algebra Teaching, was comprised
of 7 questions on how to assist students who had errors or misconceptions,
and a classroom scenario in which a student used a unique strategy to correctly
solve a real world algebra problem. Table 7 shows examples of these items.
Table 7. Sample items from the KATE Algebra Test
Component Number of items Sample items

Algebra 12 A truck is loaded with boxes; assume each box
Knowledge and weighs 20 pounds. The empty truck weighs
Problem-solving 4500 pounds. Using W for the total weight
of the loaded truck and x for the number of
boxes, write a symbolic rule (or equation) that
expresses W as a function of the number of
boxes.
Algebra 7 A math class was given this problem: Simplify
Teaching 2x + 7 + 3x 9. One students response was as
follows:
2x + 7 + 3x 9 = 0
5x 2 = 0
5x = 2
x = 2/5
Is the answer correct? If you think the student
has misconceptions with respect to the
problem, how would you assist this student?
72
Results
The pretest and posttest scores on CABI, Algebra Knowledge and Problem-
solving, and Algebra Teaching measures were the dependent variables. A
comparison of the pretests for the experimental and comparison groups was
done using t-tests to determine if there were significant differences in beliefs
or algebra knowledge prior to instruction. The Cohens d (Cohen, 1992)
statistic was used as a measure of effect size to determine the effectiveness of
the treatment, using mean and standard deviation estimates of experimental
and comparison groups. The results of the analyses of the measures are
provided in Table 8.
Table 8. Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes for experiment
and comparison groups
Measure Group Pretest Posttest Cohens d

Mean SD Mean SD
CABI Experimental 56.56 4.10 58.07 4.03 0.32
Comparison 58.78 4.33 56.73 4.43
Algebra Experimental 8.72 1.49 9.00 1.46 0.38
Knowledge and
Problem-solving Comparison 8.33 1.33 8.33 1.98
Algebra Experimental 12.91 3.87 12.24 3.77 0.69
Teaching Comparison 11.25 3.93 14.38 2.24
On the pretests, the only significant (p<.05) difference between the

experimental and comparison groups was on the CABI, indicating a higher
mean score for the comparison group. For the CABI, the experimental
group means increased while the comparison group means decreased over
the course of the semester. The Cohens d indicated that the experimental
treatment had moderately positive effects on beliefs and attitudes toward
diversity.
On Algebra Knowledge and Problem-solving, the experimental group had
a small increased mean score from pretest to posttest, while the comparison
group showed no change.
On the Algebra Teaching measure, the experimental group had a slight
decrease in mean scores from pretest to posttest. The comparison group had
a significant (p<.01) increase.
73
T.J. DAVIS etal.
Discussion
The activities developed and implemented in the problem-solving course
appeared to provide a reasonably effective combination of approaches that
help improve preservice middle grade math teachers knowledge and beliefs
about teaching for equity. While the effect size was modest, it should be
noted that these attitudes and beliefs are often well-established and resistant
to change. Also, it is worth noting that the comparison group experienced
a decrease in attitudes and beliefs about diversity over the semester. Our
informal observations have been that participants often enter the course with
reasonably positive beliefs and confidence about teaching diverse students.
As they encounter the activities and assignments, they recognize their
limitations. The activities designed to develop experiences with teaching
diverse students may have helped the experimental group to become more
confident, armed with the knowledge and practice they gained.
The experimental groups performance on the algebra test was
disappointing, given the extent of the work done on problem sets and Equity
Challenge Problems in which they did well in applying Polyas heuristics in
solving a variety of challenging problems. There may have been a ceiling
effect since their performance on the pretest was equivalent to the posttest
for some previous semesters (Brown et al., 2011), leaving little room for
improvement. The performance on the algebra teaching items was especially
puzzling since the participants had extensive experience in the course planning
lessons, responding to student misconceptions, and teaching a simulated
lesson in Second Life. Perhaps the test items did not capture the extent of
the participants knowledge. In some informal follow-up analyses, it appears
that the experimental group responses to misconceptions made attempts to
engage students by asking questions, whereas the comparison group only
told the student the correct procedure. This finding is important and requires
further research. The number and demand of assignments and the challenge of
connecting problem-solving and teaching for equity may have interfered with
the experimental participants ability to integrate their knowledge. We plan to
do follow-up research after the PSTs have had student or full-time teaching
experience to determine if the course has more lasting effects.
Concluding Thoughts
The work highlighted in this chapter is another step in pursuing an emerging
research agenda. Few scholars have designed and employed virtual
classroom simulations as an experimental setting for preservice mathematics
74
teachers to apply and practice their emerging knowledge and skills in

teaching. Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that simulations in
virtual worlds can provide effective instructional settings for preservice
teachers (e.g., Cheong, 2010; Davis, Chien, Brown, & Kulm, 2012). Our
work has been reasonably successful in developing preservice teachers
beliefs and attitudes about teaching math for equity. Further research
needs to be done in finding the appropriate balance between the focus on
equity and problem solving and on helping preservice teachers connect
and integrate these ideas and skills. Finally, exploring new ways to prepare
teachers to engage all students in rich and effective learning experiences
is critical. Future investigations of virtual teaching and learning simulation
experiences, the effects of engagement, learner and course characteristics,
and the affordances of using innovative technological resources like 3-D
virtual classroom environments, can perhaps inform the design of select
mathematics teacher preparation courses.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project is funded by the National Science Foundation, grant # 1020132.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed
in these materials are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S. Z. (2005). Focusing new teachers on diversity and equity:
Toward a knowledge base for mentors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 843862.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning
to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the
teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Ball, D. L., & Bass, L. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge
for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Annual meeting of
the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 314). Edmonton, AB: CMESG/
GCEDM.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows
mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator,
29(1), 1417, 2022, 4346.
Ben-Chaim, D., Keret, Y., & Ilany, B. (2007). Designing and implementing authentic
investigative proportional reasoning tasks: The impact on pre-service mathematics
teachers content and pedagogical knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 10, 333340.
Berliner, D. C. (1985). Laboratory settings and the study of teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 36(2), 28.
75
T.J. DAVIS etal.
Boaler, J. (2000). Mathematics from another world: Traditional communities and the alienation
of learners. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(4), 379397.
Brown, I. A., Davis, T. J., & Kulm, G. (2011). Preservice teachers knowledge for teaching
algebra for equity in the middle grades: A preliminary report. Journal of Negro Education,
80, 266283.
Chapman, O. (2007). Facilitating preservice teachers development of mathematics knowledge
for teaching arithmetic operations. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10,
341349.
Cheong, D. (2010). The effects of practice teaching sessions in second life on the change in
pre-service teachers teaching efficacy. Computers & Education, 55, 868880.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E.,& Wood, T. (1993). Theoretical orientation. In T. Wood, P. Cobb,
E. Yackel, & D. Ball (Eds.), Rethinking elementary school mathematics: Insights and
issues (pp.2132). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155159.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences [CMBS] (2001). The mathematical education
of teachers (Vol. 4). Washington, DC. American Mathematical Society and Mathematical
Association of America.
Cruickshank, D. (1984). Models for the preparation of Americas teachers. Bloomington, IN:
Phi Delta Kappa.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education,
51(3), 166173.
Davis, T., Chien, C., Brown, I., & Kulm, G. (2012). Knowledge for algebra teaching for equity
(KATE) project: An examination of virtual classroom simulation approaches. National
Forum of Multicultural Issues Journal, 9(2), 6787.
Delpit, L. D. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 220231.
Dooren, W. V., Verschaffel, L., & Onghena, P. (2003). Pre-service teachers preferred
strategies for solving arithmetic and algebra word problems. Journal of Mathematics
Ellis, M. W. (Ed.). (2008). Mathematics for every student: Responding to diversity, grades
(pp.68). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hollar, J. C., & Norwood, K. (1999). The effects of a graphing-approach intermediate algebra
curriculum on students understanding of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 30(2), 220226.
Huang, R., & Kulm, G. (2012). Prospective middle grade mathematics teachers knowledge of
algebra for teaching. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(4), 417430.
Indiogine, S. E., Oner, A. T., & Kulm, G. (2014). Developing preservice math teachers
diversity awareness and knowledge. In G.T.Matney & S.M.Che (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 41st annual meeting of the research council on mathematics learning (pp. 4148). San
Antonio, TX.
Karsenty, R. (2002). What do adults remember from their high school mathematics? The case
of linear functions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 51(1/2), 117144.
Kulm, G. (2008). A theoretical framework for mathematics knowledge in teaching middle
grades. In G. Kulm (Ed.), Teacher knowledge and practice in middle grades mathematics
(pp. 318). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers for African American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
76
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant teaching. American

Educational Research Journal, 33, 465491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1997). It doesnt add up: African American students mathematics
achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 697708.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and whats it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 724.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse
classrooms. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education. Journal of
Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Is meeting the diverse needs of all students possible? Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 48(1), 1315.
Lamberg, T., & Middleton, J. A. (2009). Design research perspectives on transitioning from
individual microgenetic interviews to a whole-class teaching experiment. Educational
Researcher, 38(4), 233245.
Lewis, C. W. (2009). An educators guide to working with African American students. West
Conshohockem, PA: Infinity.
Malloy, C. E., & Jones, M. G. (1998). An investigation of African American students
mathematical problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29,
143163.
McKenzie, K. B., & Skrla, L. (2011). Using equity audits in the classroom to reach and teach
all students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Metcalf, K. K., Hammer, M. A., & Kahlich, P. A. (1996). Alternatives to field-based
experiences: The comparative effects of on-campus laboratories. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 12(3), 271283.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). NCATE Standards for
the accreditation of teacher preparation Institutions. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved on December
12, 2012 from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf
OCallaghan, B. R. (1998). Computer-intensive algebra and students conceptual knowledge
of functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 2140.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know:
The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC:National Academies
Press.
Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roberts-Walter, P. F. (2007). Determining the validity and reliability of the cultural awareness
and beliefs inventory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition,
and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334370). New York, NY: MacMillan.
77
T.J. DAVIS etal.
Silver, E. A. (Ed.). (1985). Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple
research perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simon, M., & Tzur, R. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual
learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 6, 91104.
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K., & Scheurich, J. (2009). Using equity audits to create equitable and
excellent schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Stinson, D. W. (2004). Mathematics as gate-keeper (?): Three theoretical perspectives that
aim toward empowering all children with a key to the gate. The Mathematics Educator,
14(1), 818.
Thier, R. (2001). Developing inquiry-based science materials: A guide for educators. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2007). Taken-as-shared: A review of common assumptions about
mathematical tasks in teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10,
205215.
Watson, D., Charner-Laird, M., Kirkpatrick, C., Szczesiul, S., & Gordon, P. (2006). Effective
teaching/effective urban teaching: Grappling with definitions, grappling with difference.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 395409.
Trina J. Davis
Gerald Kulm
Ayse Tugba Oner

S. Enrico P. Indiogine
78
Dianne Goldsby
Tingting Ma
79
T.J. DAVIS etal.
APPENDIX
Table 9. Mathematics instruction items in the M-VCOI survey
Number of Item Item

1 Clearly articulated the objectives of the lesson to the students
2 Clearly outlined how the lesson would proceed
3 Gave a rationale or justification for learning the mathematics or
solving the problem
4 Presented the lesson clearly, using appropriate math language
and materials
5 Worked out the mathematical content accurately and thoroughly
6 Connected ideas and concepts
7 Used multiple representations in the lesson or activities
8 Used purposeful questioning to clarify students understanding
9 Provided students opportunities for problem-solving
10 Answered students questions and addressed students
difficulties or misconceptions appropriately
11 Ignored students questions or misconceptions. (Reverse order)
12 Demonstrated confidence of students ability (evident in
teachers language)
13 Assisted students in generalizing learning to other situations
problems
14 Distributed feedback evenly
15 Redirected student thinking
16 Demonstrated expectation for all students to participate
17 Provided a summary of the lesson to remind students what they
should have learned
18 Managed the time, pace, and sequence of the lesson effectively
and efficiently
19 Context of the lesson was culturally relevant and meaningful to
students lives and interests
20 The lesson was based on one of the following schemes
(1=situated learning scheme, 2=culturally relevant context
scheme, 3=critical pedagogy scheme)
21 The lesson clearly followed the above scheme
80
ZOHREH R. ESLAMI, EDIE CASSELL AND BURCU ATES
5. CHANGING PRESERVICE TEACHERS ATTITUDES

TOWARD LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY BY INTRODUCING
A WORLD ENGLISHES PERSPECTIVE
INTRODUCTION
There is little argument that English has become the international language,
but there is a widening debate over the variety of English that is most
acceptable. Should there be only one Standard English, and if so, which
variety (from the United Kingdom, North America, or another standard)? Or,
should a number of varieties of English (Englishes) be considered legitimate
for use globally? As stated by Kubota (2001), the World Englishes (WEs)
paradigm challenges the homogenous viewpoint of English and offers a
heterogeneous perspective. World Englishes challenges the acceptance
of one Standard English variety, rather WEs embraces emerging varieties
of English used in diverse sociolinguistic contexts and includes local and
international varieties. As a paradigm shift in English language teaching, a
WEs perspective rejects the superiority and authority of speakers of standard
English and accepts the language authority and norms of diverse users of
English (Shin, Eslami, & Chen, 2011). According to Bolton (2006), WEs
is an umbrella label referring to a wide range of differing approaches to the
description and analysis of English(es) worldwide. With the spread of the
English language and the increasing number of English language users who
have acquired English as an additional language (Graddol, 1997), there has
been an increasing interest in considering the pedagogical implications of
WEs, defined inclusively to encompass not only the linguistic varieties but
also the functional varieties of English today (Matsuda & Matsuda, 2010).
The pedagogical implications apply to both spoken and written English. As
Matsuda and Matsuda (2010) suggest, while teaching the dominant codes and
conventions, teachers can also help students understand that language users
may deviate from the perceived norms to convey important social meaning.
As a nation that is becoming more diverse, educators need to adapt to
multilingualism and at the same time prepare for this transformation of
English. However, in spite of this growing diversity within the English

Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
language, both inside the U.S. and beyond its borders, varieties of English are
not being addressed in teacher education programs. If U.S. preservice teachers
are not exposed to linguistic diversity both globally and locally, especially
regarding the English language, then they may not validate varieties of
English in their teaching dispositions and teaching practice. Because English
language teaching has become a major commodity worldwide (Anchimbe,
2006), researchers and teacher educators recognize the need to consider how
varieties of English are regarded in classrooms. When educators reflect on
the impact of English varieties on English instruction overall, they cannot
forsake the sociocultural contexts of its use and its speakers.
The World Englishes paradigm challenges the deficit perspective that
monolingual English speakers may subscribe to heterogeneity of English
users. The WEs perspective offers a heterogeneous viewpoint that recognizes
the varieties of English, both within the United States and beyond. However,
as Matsuda (2009) notes, researchers need to investigate how World
Englishes can be incorporated in teacher education programs in the U.S.
and internationally. This paper focuses on one of the activities, ranked most
influential among the participants in this study, used in a WEs project aimed
at promoting awareness about local and international varieties of English
in a teacher education course in the U.S. The project exposed pre-service
teachers to activities designed to prepare them to address the varieties of
English that exist globally as well as locally (Snow, Kamhi-Stein, & Brinton,
2006). This is a pressing concern for pre-service teachers in the U.S. because
of the plethora of cultures, languages, and linguistic varieties that reside
within U.S. borders due to a high rate of immigration. Therefore, there is
a need to design teacher education courses that focus on instilling a sense
of openness to diversity in teachers as well as self-awareness of their own
attitudes and beliefs (Garmon, 2005). Among these courses there must be
curricula that specifically deal with varieties of English as the main content.
Vavrus (1991) surveyed the teacher training coursework of 12 universities in
the U.S. and found that none of them had classes specifically dedicated to
the teaching of WEs. (The study by Vavrus was conducted 24 years ago, so a
new survey is certainly needed.)
So, to improve U.S. pre-service teachers preparation, researchers need
to find models of successful curricula or specific activities that can serve
to linguistically enlighten future teachers. The current study is a sub-part of
a larger study that aimed to promote awareness and instil positive attitudes
toward linguistic diversity among preservice teachers. Six activities were
implemented in undergraduate pre-service teacher education courses at a
82
Changing Preservice Teachers Attitudes
large, land grant, Southwestern university in the U.S. in order to incorporate

a WEs perspective into the teacher education program. The activity pre-
service teachers found the most influential focused on a documentary film
entitled American Tongues, which explores American dialectical differences
and their relation to race and ethnicity. Preservice teachers were instructed
to watch the film and write a guided reflection about the issues presented in
the documentary.
A content analysis was conducted of all of the reflections of the preservice
teachers. In what follows, we will discuss the relevant literature, present
the methodology used in the present study, draw conclusions, and then will
present the findings.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The first challenge in promoting awareness of WEs in teacher preparation

programs is countering the attitudes that teachers have regarding non-
standard varieties of English. Jenkins (2009) points out that the most
respected versions of English are those of native speakers, especially from
Great Britain and North America. This includes not only the speakers of these
high-status varieties, but also the methodologies associated with them and
the curriculum materials that follow. U.S. teachers have a lack of awareness
that English has become the default language of global communication and
English users around the world are adapting English to meet their needs, to
convey specific social meaning, and to assert their identities. This lack of
knowledge about World Englishes may lead to negative attitudes toward the
varieties of English that their students will use.
As argued by Seidlhofer (2011), in its function as a global language,
English use is recognized as being context-dependent, dynamic, hybrid, and
fluid- a far cry from more traditional approaches toward language that are
concerned with grammar, rules, and standards. However, several studies
have identified a tendency among teachers in general and English language
teachers in particular to want to observe the traditional standards (e.g.,
Timmis, 2002; Tsurutani, 2012).
In fact, some researchers describe native speakers of English as being
deficient in using English in international settings. Since monolingual
speakers of English have not had the opportunities that international users
of English have had in adapting to other cultural and linguistic ways of
operating, they may very well be at a disadvantage in ELF (English as lingua
franca) settings (Jenkins, 2011). Therefore, native English speakers will not
83
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
only need training to develop sensitivity to other varieties of English but also
to become interculturally competent speakers of English.
Shifting teachers perspectives to accept varieties of English as legitimate
varieties does require a shift in thinking and predispositions. When teaching
English as an international language, teachers are required to have a mindset
and approach that is different from those traditionally used in English
language teaching (Matsuda, 2008). This change should have an effect on
what teachers understand to be good practice in their profession (Dewey,
2012). The aim is to help teachers recognize and accept linguistic diversity by
introducing them to a variety of Englishes in the Inner Circle countries (e.g.,
United Kingdom, U.S., and Australia) and beyond (Samimy & Kurihara,
2006). The term, Inner Circle countries, was coined by Braj Kachru (1992).
He conceived of the idea of three concentric circles or geographic spheres of
influence where the English language is used.The Inner Circle represents the
traditional bases of English: the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia,
New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, and some of the Caribbean territories. The
other two circles are the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle.
Kubota and Ward (2000) define the term, World Englishes, as the linguistic
diversity of English users around the world, both within Inner Circle countries
and internationally. In this study, we regard World Englishes beyond its
general description of post-colonial and institutionalized varieties of English
and define it as the linguistic diversity of English users both within Inner
Circle countries and internationally as well.
There are a number of considerations that must be taken into account
when educators reflect on how WEs have an impact on English instruction.
English is a language that is used both in local and international contexts
by both native and non-native speakers regardless of the name given to it
(Snow, Kamhi-Stein & Brinton, 2006), International English, English as
an International Language, World English, English as a World Language,
Global English, etc. (Droschel, 2011, p. 34). It is the language of
globalization, spoken by millions, with a billion more learning it. According
to Qiong (2004), it is predicted that by 2050 approximately half the world will
be proficient in English due to its globalization. Because of the large number
of people speaking English, more varieties of the language are emerging. The
two traditionally known varieties, British and American English, are now
merely two of many varieties of World Englishes. Through globalization and
spread of English, varieties emerge as the language is molded by the new
communities which adopt it; thus this global language (English) becomes
polycentric- it no longer has a single center (such as the U.K. or U.S.) which
84
influences its norm of usage, but instead has multiple centers around the
globe which individually shape its character (Seargeant, 2012). The numerous
varieties of English that have developed require teachers to be prepared to
teach students about the varieties of English spoken around the world as well
as be able to positively impact their students attitudes toward these varieties
(Matsuda, 2003; Kubota & Ward, 2000; Kubota, 2001).
Many pre-service teachers are unaware of the degree of linguistic diversity
among English language users; they regard their own cultural frame of
reference as the norm and are completely oblivious to the privilege they enjoy
through being a speaker of an Inner Circle variety of English (Kubota & Ward,
2000). Additionally, the literature emphasizes that ethnic and racial prejudice
still heavily linger in the U.S., which negatively color the attitudes of native
speakers toward varieties of English (Kubota, 2001; Lippi-Green, 1997).
As a result, many school programs have not been sensitive to students who
speak varieties other than Standard American English. Lippi-Green (1997)
identifies a pervasive idea of a hierarchical order of English varieties that
exists in the U.S. Individuals who do not speak standard English are deemed
second class English speakers (Lippi-Green, 1997) and linguistic variation is
generally seen as something that must be fixed in an individual (Lippi-Green,
1997) rather than a marker of uniqueness (Schnizter, 1995). Thus, there is
a need for researchers to further examine how pre-service teachers can be
better prepared to address the varieties of English they will encounter in their
instructional practices (Snow, Kamhi-Stein, & Brinton, 2006).
Teacher education programs need to adequately prepare teachers for a
society that is experiencing a high rate of immigration and producing more
and larger groupings of cultures, languages, and linguistic varieties in U.S.
classrooms. Since migration has led to dramatic changes in the demographic
of students, these changes require teacher preparation programs to prepare
all teachers to affirm linguistic and cultural diversity in their professional
practice. It is imperative for pre-service teachers who are from Inner Circle
countries (Kachru, 1992) to be aware of the WEs paradigm so they can
better understand and be prepared to meet the needs of English language
learners (ELLs) in their future classrooms. So, to avoid enforcing monolithic
native speaker norms or stigmatizing ELLs language in the classroom,
future teachers must develop knowledge and competency in WEs. It is our
belief that incorporating a WEs perspective into teacher education programs
supports these goals.
How can teacher educators design coursework and activities that prepare
teachers to effectively and sympathetically deal with linguistic diversity
85
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
and promote validation of cultural and linguistic differences (Kubota,

2001; Matsuda, 2009; Snow, 2006)? To improve U.S. pre-service teachers
preparation, researchers and teacher educators need to find models of a
successful curriculum or specific activities that can serve this purpose.
Having teachers reflect on their own perceptions and knowledge related to
English varieties can be instrumental in developing acceptance of linguistic
diversity. Dewey (2012) notes that for teachers to go beyond the knowledge
they gain in their training programs, reflection on their teaching experience
will be key. Therefore, teacher education programs need to motivate teachers
to make reflection a process that continues throughout their careers (Snow,
Kamhi-Stein, & Brinton, 2006).
Despite the need to address the linguistic and sociocultural diversity of
English in todays globalized world, there is a relative lack of research on
how to develop a WEs perspective in teacher education programs in the U.S.
Matsuda (2009) explored how teacher education programs in Japan have
addressed the international nature of English in their curriculum. Sharifian
and Marlina (2012) discussed the incorporation of a WEs paradigm in
their university undergraduate and graduate courses in Australia. Finally,
Brown (2005) discussed incorporating a World Englishes course into an
MA TESOL degree plan in the U.S. Although the studies cited above are
all important in enhancing awareness about WEs in teaching and teacher
education programs, it is imperative to address this issue in mainstream
teacher education programs in the U.S. and other Inner Circle countries
(Ates, Eslami, & Wright under review).
In 2001, Kubota developed a study including an eight-week unit on
WEs carried out in a U.S. high school. Kubotas study was exploratory
and conducted on a small scale. She administered a pre-test and post-
test, conducted classroom observations, and interviewed students after
the intervention. Several activities, including classroom and small group
discussions on various topics related to WEs, guest speakers representing
WEs varieties, and films related to English varieties, were used. The results
indicated that even after the series of lessons, students still held fast to their
notions of the superiority of their own variety of English and bias against
WEs. The results of this study indicate that changing students beliefs and
prejudice about linguistic diversity can be challenging and that beliefs do not
necessarily change after being exposed to a new outlook.
Understanding the global spread of English and creation of new varieties
is particularly important for teachers because the attitudes and perspectives
of teachers influence their students attitudes (Tan & Tan, 2008). The Kubota
86
(2001) study provided the impetus for this study: we examined the effect
of incorporating a WEs perspective into a mainstream pre-service teacher
education program in the U.S. using a much larger subject sample, a longer
treatment length, and a variety of activities. Through carefully planned
coursework and classroom activities, we examined the effects of our
intervention on pre-service teachers perceptions and attitudes toward WEs
and diverse English users (Ates, Eslami, & Wright, under review). Among the
six activities used in this intervention, pre-service teachers ranked watching
American Tongues as the most effective activity. In this paper, we examine
the reflections of the pre-service teachers to explore their views and opinions
in relation to linguistic diversity and also to reveal possible reasons why
this activity was considered the most effective activity by the pre-service
teachers.
METHODOLOGY
Context
A large land grant university located in southwestern region of the U.S.
was selected as the site for this study. According to fall 2011 demographics
published in the universitys statistical fact book 65.8% of students enrolled
were White, 15.2% were Hispanic, 3.4% were Black, and 8.6% were
international.
Participants
This studys participants were preservice teachers seeking a Bachelor of
Science (B.S.) degree in Interdisciplinary Studies enrolled in the College of
Education. The teacher credential program requires all preservice teachers
to take multicultural education and English as a second language (ESL)
methodology courses as part of the teacher education curriculum. A fifteen-
week semester-long ESL methodology course was selected to conduct the
large study on WEs. The study involved a total of 215 preservice teachers
from five ESL methodology course sections in spring 2011.
Activity
Six activities were used to introduce WEs to preservice teachers. The
activities consisted of four in-class sessions and two online sessions. The
first in-class activity was Introduction to World Englishes. Preservice
87
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
teachers were presented audio from two YouTube videos by speakers of

World Englishes (one of European descent- French/German, and the other
of East Asian descent- Chinese/Vietnamese). After listening to the audio,
the pre-service teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire about the
speakers they had heard, their accents, and attitudes.
In the second in-class activity, Indian English, pre-service teachers were
shown samples of Indian English from YouTube. Following the videos, a
PowerPoint about the history of Indian English was presented. Next, clips
from the TV series Outsourced were shown, followed by a short discussion.
Lastly, the following topics were introduced in a lecture format: the
dichotomy between native and nonnative English speakers, the ownership
of English, and the three concentric circles (Inner, Outer, and Expanding) of
English language users (Kachru, 1985).
The third activity, Guest Speakers, involved having guest speakers use
varieties of English in class. Twelve international graduate students who
were enrolled in the M.A. TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of
Other Languages) Education masters program were invited to give short
introductions about themselves and the status and varieties of English used
in their countries.
The fourth activity was called Miscommunications. This activity used
various YouTube video clips to show miscommunications, and their
resolutions, between interlocutors using varieties of English.
In activity five (one of two online activities), Animated Characters,
pre-service teachers were asked to choose a character who speaks with
an accent from a Disney movie or any animated film. Participants were
asked to identify the character, the movie, the accent, and discuss in one
paragraph why they believed the particular accent was chosen for the
character. In this activity samples of animated films were provided to
guide the activity.
The sixth and final activity was to view American Tongues online.
Preservice teachers watched American Tongues (1988), a one-hour, award-
winning, sociolinguistic documentary film that examines American English
regional dialects, accents, and perceptions. The objectives of this activity
were to help pre-service teachers (1) become aware of the existence of
varieties of American English, (2) examine their own perceptions about
American English, and (3) reflect on their own experiences interacting with
speakers of American English (Kubota, 2001). A series of guiding questions
were used for pre-service teachers online reflections and discussions. The
guiding questions were:
88
After watching the documentary, reflect in about one page (300 to 500
words) on the different varieties that exist in American English. Did
you know all these varieties existed in the United States of America?
Did they sound different? Would you judge someone based on their
accent, even though you know they are speaking American English
(a variety different than yours)? Were you able to understand what was
said in different varieties of American English? Did you prefer one
accent over others? Why? Were some accents more intelligible to you
than others? Why?
DATA COLLECTION
Five sections of students enrolled in the ESL methodology course provided

the data for this study. All five ESL methodology section instructors agreed
to be part of the study and included the six WE activities in their syllabi. The
data was collected through the pre-service teachers reflections to the given
prompt on the film American Tongues.
DATA ANALYSIS
A thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) was used to find common themes that
emerged from the reflection papers. The analyzed texts were divided into
segments which were paragraphs, sentences, or parts of sentences related to
a distinct concept. Each text segment was classified into a topical category
labeled with a code. Themes were formed by grouping common responses
of participants that implied the same meaning or underlying idea. These
common responses were grouped under the relevant category to which they
belonged.
More specifically, one of the researchers read through all of the reflection
papers and extrapolated common themes that emerged from the responses.
The same researcher revisited the reflections and assigned noteworthy
quotations that corresponded to the themes. To add trustworthiness to the
analysis, fifteen percent of the reflection papers were coded by another
researcher and similar themes were identified. There were seven major
themes identified in the analysis of the reflection papers.
FINDINGS
This section represents the findings of the qualitative data analysis. The
study revealed that activities such as watching the American Tongues
89
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
documentary film can help pre-service teachers become aware of linguistic

diversity which exists not only around the world but also within the U.S. As a
result of watching American Tongues, pre-service teachers commonly stated
that they learned about the many varieties that exist in the U.S. and how
people can stereotype others based on the way they speak or sound. These
new perspectives also helped the students reflect on their future teaching
experiences with English language learners. Seven themes emerged from the
analyzed data.
Table 1. New perspectives gained through watching American Tongues

# Themes revealed through analysis of pre-service teachers reflections
1 Identification of American English dialects and accents
2 Criticism of stereotyping/being judgmental of others dialects and accents
3 Recommendation to apply the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would
have others do unto you
4 Reaction to negative perceptions of Southern accents
5 Validation of dialects and accents as an expression of cultural identity
6 Appreciation of linguistic diversity as essential to American identity
7 Pledge to embrace American English dialects as future teachers
1. Identification of American English dialects and accents

One of the most common themes that emerged from the reflections was
a new awareness among the pre-service teachers of varieties in American
English. Participants stated that they previously thought of varieties in the
English language as Indian English or British English, or accents such
as a Mexican accent or a British accent. Listed below are some of the
reflections made by pre-service teachers about their new awareness (italics
added by the authors):
I had no idea that many varieties existed in American English. When
I usually think about different varieties of English I think of Indian
English or British English, not different American accents. Many of
the varieties sound similar, but overall the different regional dialects all
sound very different from each other.
After watching the video, American Tongues, it opened my eyes to the
magnitude of the different varieties of American English. I have never
thought to myself, That person speaks a different variety of English
90
than me. I usually think we all speak English, it just sounds different.
Now I can be more observant of other English speakers and how they
express the language. I have always noticed the difference in peoples
voice, but I did not realize that there were so many different varieties,
the list seems endless.
This documentary really opened my eyes to the different forms of
American accents all around our country. I was not aware of even
a slither [sic] of the plethora of accents here in our melting pot of a
country. I had heard of universally known accents, such as maybe a
Southern American accent, a British accent, or a Mexican accent, but
I had little knowledge of the hundreds of varieties which are derived
from the different countries from which immigrants travel.
Prior to watching this video I was unaware of the many different dialects
spoken in America. I always assumed there was a Southern dialect and
then in my eyes a Jersey or New York dialect. I assumed that every
other region just spoke normally. I was far from right; every region
has specific words, dialects, accents that can be associated with them.
Common phrases that were echoed by the pre-service teachers were that this
documentary opened my eyes to different varieties, I was unaware of
the varieties, I was very surprised at the numerous varieties the English
language consumed, and I learned so much that I had never heard of
before. These reflections of pre-service teachers reveal that the majority
were not familiar with the breadth of American English varieties existing
within the U.S.
2. Criticism of stereotyping/being judgmental of others dialects and accents
The next most common theme that emerged was criticism of judging
people based on the accent and dialect they use. Pre-service teachers
specifically emphasized how some people in the film were quick to make
a character judgment based on a persons accent or dialect. The participants
found this surprising and at the same time offensive. In their reflections, some
speculated that this behavior stemmed from ignorance. Relevant examples
from the reflections are listed below:
Most of the people that were interviewed stated their stereotypes when
it came to different accents across the United States. Instead of saying
that their own accent was hard to understand and follow, they would
always say that people living in other parts of the country are the ones
that are hard to understand.
91
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
I was surprised to see how strongly some people feel against certain
accents.
In the video many different American accents are presented, and I was
surprised how willing people were to admit their somewhat offensive
opinions on just the way people talk.
I think that people may be too stereotypical when it comes to dialects
and accents. I dont think people should have to feel inferior to others
based on their accents. I have family members who speak all different
dialects but I dont think some are better or worse than others.
After watching this video, I was surprised to learn about how one can
be judged about what kind of person they are just by their accent. That
was something I strongly disagreed with, as an educator especially I
would not judge a persons character through their accent.
People classify others as being dumb or smart depending on their
accent which they locate to a certain state. I think this is absurd because
you cannot judge a person just from their accent.
Dialects bring a sense of sentiment and identity with them. It was sad
to hear some of the comments in the video that discriminated against
people purely based on the sound of their voice. Hearing these people
make character judgments about others was wrong and seemed to stem
from ignorance as people acted surprised by others accents.
As shown in the reflections cited above, this documentary was effective in
making students aware of how language users are judged, stereotyped, and
even marginalized based on the accent and variety of English they use.
3. Recommendation to apply the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would
have others do unto you
Another theme that emerged is an extension of the observation about
stereotyping and being judgmental. Many pre-service teachers responded to
the negative stereotyping by suggesting that people should treat others as
they wish to be treated. Some participants even identified the practice of
valuing or placing a higher status on one dialect over another by saying that
no one has the right to say one accent is right or the other is wrong. Examples
of comments related to this theme are listed below:
This video makes me question if I have the right to say that. They might
think that my English has a strong accent. There is no one who can say
who is right or wrong. We both have our own opinions and our own
92
way of speaking. I personally enjoy the different accents. Speaking to

someone with an accent is interesting when it is a new experience. The
way we speak and the specific words we use are what make us unique
and individual.
While someone might speak in a way that is different than the way
I speak, I would never judge them. We all come from different
backgrounds and who am I to judge someone based on the way they
talk. I actually love sitting and listening to the many different ways
people talk. From the soft and slow Southern accent to the fast paced
speech of the north, everyone speaks in a unique way and I find that
very intriguing.
Because I have been the butt of jokes and discriminated against slightly
in certain situations because of my Texan accent, I always try not to do
the same to others.
I have an accent and whos to say that how I talk is not correct?
This is why I dont judge others. People come from all over the world,
and me [sic] nor the person that lives next door to me are going to talk
exactly the same. We all have some sort of an accent and I believe we
should embrace the diverse accents that are presented in the world.
Due to stereotypes, it is easy to judge someone quickly based solely on
their accent. I think it is important to remember that everyone is unique
and that everyone, including you, speaks with an accent. It really goes
back to the golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated.
These excerpts reveal that pre-service teachers questioned the judgmental
attitudes portrayed in the film which were based on accent and dialectal
differences.
4. Reaction to negative perceptions of Southern accents
Watching American Tongues led to the participants realization that their
own Southern accents were judged negatively and some even recalled
personal experiences with linguistic discrimination. In one scene in the
documentary, a woman says she broke up with her fianc when she discovered
his Southern accent because she feared she would have hillbilly babies.
Pre-service teachers could not believe the degree to which the Texan accent
was perceived by some people in the film as slow, stupid, lazy, and dumb.
Participants portrayed their reactions to hearing the negative stereotypes
about Southern accents as: saddening, offensive, surprising, shocking, and
upsetting. Below are some of the reflections on this theme:
93
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
I dont judge people based on their accents so it was eye opening to

see all of the animosity that exists throughout different regions of the
country. I was saddened by the many negative opinions people have
of Southerners. Many people think we are slow and stupid because
of our Southern drawl. I wish that people across the country (and
world for that matter) could learn to appreciate each other for their
differences.
I feel like people judge me sometimes without knowing me just because
of my accent. I feel like that [sic] movies and TV have really pushed the
stereotype that Southern people are stupid and inbred. This just is not
true and I feel offended when someone says that.
I also would not judge people that speak a different form of English than
I do like all the people in the video it was crazy that people would talk
bad about the way people from Texas/South speak. They made fun of the
way people from the South speak and I found that to be kind of offensive
because their form of English is no better than ours. People should not
judge people by the accents or words they use in their speaking because
they mostly likely learned that way of speaking from the place they
grew up.
I was really surprised to learn that there is a lot of prejudice towards the
Southern accent. People think of the Southern accent as ignorance and
racism and I never knew that before. I always thought of the Southern
accent as being friendly but maybe that is just because I am around it
all of the time.
Ive lived in Texas my whole life so actually hearing that we so obviously
do speak a lot slower than people from the North came as a shock. I also
think that people from around the nation see people from the south as
dumb or more stupid than the rest. Obviously, I disagree and think
accent has nothing to do with intelligence and it depends on the person
and their education
It is possible that the pre-service teachers in this study were better able to
identify with the negative stereotyping about Southern accents because many
of them are from the South. In addition to being taken aback at the blatant
prejudice, they strongly disagreed that peoples intelligence can be related to
their accents.
94
5. Validation of dialects and accents as an expression of cultural identity

A majority of the pre-service teachers expressed their belief that dialects
and accents represent who we are. Many identified their accents as part of
their culture and indicative of the region in which they were raised:
The accent is the culture expressing itself. People with different accents
around the country have the opportunity to express their culture, and let
it be known that they are unique and different in their own way.
I love accents and in my opinion I think its awesome because in a way
it kind of shows who you are and where you come from.
One thing I took away from this video was that dialects are culture
expressing itself in sound. I found this true of myself and others.
Several people in the video explained the identity and comfort that
comes with their personal, specific dialects.
I personally love the fact that we all have accents because to me it is
like taking a piece of home with me wherever I may be. My accent is
a part of my roots and where I grew up, which I am very proud of. I
think we should all be proud of where we came from because it made
us who we are today. Its culture, and different culture makes things
interesting. Accents can even be conversation starters and windows into
a strangers life.
Our accents and dialects are a part of who we are and another thing we
have to learn about each other!
Pre-service teachers identified the fact that people in the U.S. come from
different parts of the world and bring with them different cultures, customs,
and along with that their languages. Many participants recognized that the
way people speak is a reflection of who they are.
6. Appreciation of linguistic diversity as essential to American identity
Pre-service teachers commonly commented that every persons cultural
background is unique and that the cultural and linguistic diversity existing
in the United States is part of what makes the country rich and unique. Some
relevant reflections are listed below:
The different accents and dialects are one of the great things that make
up America. I am proud to be a Texan and to have the accent. With that
I am even more proud to be an American. I think the different accents
and dialects just highlight the idea of the melting pot that is America.
95
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
The varieties that exist in American English [sic] is exactly what makes
the language so rich and everlasting.
The documentary American Tongues opened up my eyes and made me
realize that everyone is unique and although in society we sometimes
think of that difference as a negative thing that is not always the case.
Rather we need to embrace these differences and realize that English is
a mixture of languages and varieties of accents. This is what makes our
country so strong and diverse.
We all must understand that we have different varieties, accents, and
backgrounds, and we all must value and respect those differences. I love
America and the fact that we are different. We all add to what America
is, and America wouldnt be the same without this diversity.
One of the best things about America is that it is a country where people
are free individuals and speak in diverse and unique ways according to
who they are. There is no right way to speak English. All regions have
developed a specific slang depending on their way of life. As a country,
we should accept and appreciate all of the diversity that forms America
and be free to speak in any form of English that we want to.
Pre-service teachers reflections indicated that they believe Americans take
pride in regional variations in language and culture as part of the fabric of
the overall diversity in the United States. They stated that linguistic diversity
should be celebrated and appreciated for its variety and uniqueness because
part of being American is being free to express ones own culture.
7. Pledge to embrace American English dialects as future teachers
The last of the themes that emerged from the teachers reflections was
about the impact of this activity on their future classroom teaching and on
working with English language learners:
It is important as a future teacher to not discriminate or judge any child
based on their accent.
Every person deserves to shown respect, and in an ELL classroom
this is extremely important for making our students feel comfortable and
welcomed.
As future educators, we need to be aware of our predispositions. It would
not be fair to our students to deem them as less than or greater than other
based off the accent or dialect that they speak with. It is also important to
educate students about proper English within the classroom versus in a social
context, while letting students know that the English that they use in social
96
contexts is perfectly acceptable. We should not give the impression that their
use of the English language is less than any other use.
As a future teacher I feel that I need to be open to all forms of English and
willing to accept and learn each persons background that goes along with
their accent.
I believe after watching this video that I can appreciate the variety
of Englishs that America holds, and will be able to embrace others with
different accents than mine more easily. I also think that this will help me
when I encounter a student in my classroom who may be from an entirely
different place than me, with an accent or dialect that I have never heard
before.
In general, pre-service teachers discussed their need to appreciate and
embrace the language diversity English language learners bring into the
classroom. The key point for them was to make ELLs feel welcome and not
feel discrimination because of their language, dialect, or accent.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of incorporating the American Tongues documentary film as

one of the World Englishes activities was to inform pre-service teachers
about the diversity of Englishes in the United States. The findings reveal that
pre-service teachers who participated in this activity gained a new outlook
on the variety of American English accents and dialects, became aware of
the stereotypes that exist toward English varieties, and eventually were able
to make connections between what they learned and their future classrooms
and students.
Being exposed to the documentary allowed pre-service teachers to realize
how much diversity exists even within one variety of English (American
English). As one pre-service teacher stated, I always assumed there was
a Southern dialect and then, in my eyes, a Jersey or New York dialect. I
assumed that every other region just spoke normally. I was far from
right. Through this activity, prior assumptions were transformed into
new awareness. This awareness provided the opportunity for pre-service
teachers to reflect critically and appreciate the linguistic diversity that exists
within the U.S. Dave (2013) identifies two types of accents, the foreign and
regional accent. The pre-service teachers were not cognizant of the breadth
of American regional accents. As Dave (2013) explains Although regional
dialects in the United States are distinct, such as the Southern accent or the
nasal Midwestern accent, they are embraced as an integral component of
American culture with specific regional mannerisms (p. 5). Additionally,
97
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
acknowledgment of stereotypes associated with regional accents, especially

with their own Southern accents, made these teachers aware of the negative
impact and even resentment that may result from being subjected to negative
biases and stereotypes.
One of the themes reflected on by the pre-service teachers was that ones
language represents ones culture and identity. This notion was discussed by
Lippi-Green (2012): Language, a possession all human collectives have in
common, is more than a tool for communication of facts between two or more
persons. It is the most salient way we have of establishing and advertising
our social identities. (p. 3). Dave (2013) also provided this insight on the
concept: Accent not only includes tonal qualities but also involves word
choice, arrangement of words, and cultural expressions that are rooted in
national (and regional) expressions of identity (p. 2). Through the World
Englishes activity, pre-service teachers were able to reflect on accents and
dialects at a deeper level and critically associate these characteristics in
speech and language with identity and cultural background.
Our participants indicated that the documentary promoted awareness of
the existence and validity of varieties of English within the U.S. (as well as
the varieties among the participants themselves). Their reflections show that
they acknowledge a transformation of English in the U.S. through a legacy of
immigration. These pre-service teachers do not appear to embrace an English-
deficit perspective (Ates & Eslami, 2012), but instead assert a heterogeneous
viewpoint in their discussion of the American regional varieties shown in the
documentary.
And finally, the pre-service teachers reflected on how people easily
stereotyped others based on their accents. Ironically, one of the main
stereotyped accents in the film was the Southern accent, or dialect, which
is the dialect of most of the pre-service teachers in this study. The fact that
American Tongues highlighted negative stereotypes about Southern dialects
may be one reason this activity had a powerful effect on these teachers. They
indicated disdain for being judgmental toward speakers of non-standard
varieties of English. Many of their reflections showed that this sentiment
was transferred to an appreciation of the language diversity English language
learners bring into the classroom. These pre-service teachers indicated that
they should make their future ELL students feel welcome and not feel
discrimination because of their language.
It should be noted that watching and reflecting on American Tongues was
the last of the six activities in the WEs project implemented in this study.
Therefore, the pre-service teachers reflections on this documentary may
98
also reveal the cumulative effect of all six activities on their transformed
attitudes. Even though students indicated that this was the most influential
of the six activities, we cannot separate the influence of this activity from
the cumulative effect of all the activities. In order to investigate the impact
of only this one activity, a separate study is needed. It is evident in this
study that the introduction of the World Englishes paradigm through the
intervention of this instructional activity in a teacher education course did
affect the teachers perceptions and attitudes and appeared to have helped
prepare them to affirm linguistic and cultural diversity in their professional
practice (Ates, Eslami, and Wright, under review).
Kubota and Ward (2000) define the term, World Englishes, as the
linguistic diversity of English users around the world, both within Inner
Circle countries and internationally among countries. Teachers reflections
indicate that when pre-service teachers from Inner Circle countries (Kachru,
1992) develop knowledge and competency in the WEs paradigm, they can
better understand and have the perspective to support, and thereby meet
the needs, of English language learners (ELLs) in their future classrooms.
We believe it is imperative to incorporate a WEs perspective into teacher
education programs so that teachers will be adequately prepared for diverse
learners. This means that teachers who accept the validity of a variety of
Englishes within the U.S. and throughout the world are not focused on
remedying perceived deficits in their students linguistic heritages. Instead,
these teachers can be more effective because their students gain confidence
when they are introduced to a broader world view in a classroom focused on
what each student has to contribute.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
The United States has become a highly diverse country inhabited by people
from all over the world speaking dialects of English. It is imperative that
the teaching force is able to understand and accommodate WEs, as well
as transmit that same acceptance and knowledge to all the students in
their classrooms. The responsibility lies with the U.S. educational system
to recognize and embrace the increasing diversity, which is occurring at a
rapid pace. As the English language is adopted by people from all over the
world, both within and beyond the U.S., it no longer remains as it once was
but is molded and enhanced into different forms. New varieties of English,
although sometimes vastly different, should be considered just as valid as
any Inner Circle variety, especially in the classroom. By doing so, a teacher
99
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
can bring a sense of acceptance and boost self-esteem, which is invaluable to

every student in the classroom.
Although the WEs paradigm and its implications to teaching the English
language may be familiar to TESOL professionals, professionals in other
fields (e.g., content area teachers and teacher educators), students and their
parents, and administrators, may find a WEs perspective new, radical, or
even outrageous (Matsuda, 2009). As argued by Lewis (1981), for curriculum
changes to be implemented successfully, all stake holders should be aware
of different attitudes toward English varieties and possible resistance and
take appropriate and effective actions to bring about the necessary changes.
Non-TESOL educators, administrators, and parents should be informed that
accepting WEs and varieties of English does not mean removing native or
high-status, standardized varieties from English classes or replacing them
with lower-status ones; rather, all varieties add to the students repertoire
and thus enrich the curriculum (Matsuda, 2008). Parents are more likely
to be supportive if they are better informed about the implications of the
worldwide spread of English and are convinced that a global perspective is
good for their children.
Considering how deeply belief in the validity of high-status varieties like
American and British English are ingrained in our students, pre-service,
and in-service teachers, tackling diversity at the individual level may not
be enough to cultivate appreciation of other varieties of English (cf. Kubota
2001). A concerted effort is needed in teacher education programs to introduce
cultural and linguistic diversity in all the teacher education courses and to
equip teachers to successfully prepare their students for future intercultural
communication.
It is our belief that English language learners who acknowledge the
preponderance of Englishes throughout the world as ng " which makes their
teaching more effective if you ac need to be taught the accepted high-status
variety of English (i.e. Standard American English) in order to function
in native English speaking countries such as the U.S. However, it is also
important for teachers and students to consider the differences in the ways
in which English users today use English among themselves and in their
communications with other native or non-native speakers of English. So,
we should not neglect the needs of our learners, but at the same time we
must consider the history and politics of English and validate heterogeneity
in the use of the English language as well as its users. Educators should
validate and embrace WEs varieties and respect new users of English as
these users provide English with different colors and flavors. Researchers
100
need to continue to examine different instructional activities and program

models in different contexts to find out how the WEs perspective can be
integrated into teacher education programs so that awareness and acceptance
of language varieties can be promoted.
REFERENCES
Anchimbe, E. A. (2006). The native-speaker fever in English language teaching (ELT): Pitting
pedagogical competence against historical origin. Linguistik Online, 26(1), 314.
Ates, B., & Eslami, Z. (2012). Teaching experiences of native and nonnative English speaking
graduate teaching assistants and their perceptions of preservice teachers. Journal on
Excellence in College Teaching, 23(3), 101129.
Ates, B., Eslami, Z., & Wright, K. (under review). Incorporating World Englishes into
undergraduate ESL education courses. World Englishes.
Bolton, K. (2004). World Englishes. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied
linguistics (pp. 367396). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Bolton, K. (2006). Varieties of world Englishes. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. L. Nelson
(Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 289312). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information thematic analysis and code
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, K. (2005). World Englishes: Pedagogical practices in the TESOL preparatory
sequence. In A. Burns (Ed.), Teaching English from a global perspective (pp. 1933).
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Dave, S. (2013). Indian accents: Brown voice and racial performance in American television
and film. Urban, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Dewey, M. (2012). Towards a postnormative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 141170.
Droschel, Y. (2011). Lingua Franca English: The role of simplification and transfer. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Garmon, M. A. (2005). Six key factors for changing preservice teachers attitudes/beliefs
about diversity. Educational Studies, 38(3), 275286.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? A guide to forecasting the popularity of the
English language in the 21st century. London: The British Council. Retrieved from
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(4), 926936.
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English
as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281315.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realm: The English language
in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G.Widows (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching
and learning the language and literature (pp.1130). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language
Teaching, 25, 114.
Kubota, R. (2001). Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World
English, 20(1), 4764.
101
Z. R. ESLAMIetal.
Kubota, R., & Ward, L. (2000). Exploring linguistic diversity through world Englishes.
English Journal, 89(6), 8086.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in
the United States (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in
the United States (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an international
language. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 719729.
Matsuda, A. (2008). Foreword. In S. Dogancay-Aktuna & J. Hardman (Eds.), Global English
language teaching and teacher education (Vol. vvii). Alexandria, VA: TESOL
Matsuda, A. (2009). Desirable but not necessary? The place of world Englishes and English as
an international language in English teacher preparation program in Japan. In F. Sharifian
(Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues
(pp. 169189). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Matsuda, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2010). World Englishes and teaching of writing. TESOL
Quarterly,4(2), 369374.
Qiong, H.X. (2004). Why China English should stand alongside British, American and other
World Englishes. English Today, 78, 2633.
Samimy, K.K., & Kurihari, Y. (2006). Nonnative speaker teachers. In K.Brown (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 679686). Boston,MA: Elsevier.
Schintzer, E. (1995). English as an international language: Implications for interculturalists
and language educators. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(2), 227236.
Seargeant, P. (2012). Exploring world Englishes: language in a global context. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Sharifian, F., & Marlina, R. (2012). English as an international language (EIL): An innovative
academic program. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as
an international language (pp. 140153). Bristol, CO: Multilingual Matters.
Shin, J., Eslami, Z. R., & Chen, W. (2011). Presentation of local and international culture
in current international English language teaching textbooks. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 24(3), 253268. doi:10.1080/07908318.2011.614694
Snow, M.A., Kamhi-Stein, L.D., & Brinton, D.M. (2006). Teacher training for English as a
lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 261281.
Tan, P. K. W., & Tan, D. K. H. (2008). Attitudes towards non-standard English in Singapore.
World Englishes, 27(3/4), 465479.
Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A classroom view. ELT
Journal, 56(3), 240249.
Tsurutani, C. (2012). Evaluation of speakers with foreign-accented speech in Japan: The effect
of accent produced by English native speakers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 115.
Vavrus, F. S. (1991). When paradigms clash: The role of institutionalized varieties in language
teacher education. World Englishes, 10(2), 181195.
102
Zohreh R. Eslami
Edie Cassell
Burcu Ates
Department of Language, Literacy, and Special Populations
Sam Houston State University
103
CYNTHIA BOETTCHER, JANET HAMMER AND
SUNNI SONNENBURG
6. SUBTRACTING STEREOTYPES THROUGH

STUDYING ABROAD
The World Is a Book, and Those Who Do Not Travel Read
Only One Page (St. Augustine)
INTRODUCTION
Texas A&M Universitys Vision 2020 states, among other things:

To position our students to live and compete in a global society, Texas
A&M University must produce graduates who are not only academically
prepared, but who have the capacity to understand other cultures and to
live and work outside their own cultural framework.
Since 2006, undergraduate education students from Texas A&M University
have traveled to many countries in Europe, Asia, and Central America
following intensive preparation courses in which they, prior to their travels,
study and research the literature, art, history, and culture of a particular
country and, in some cases, develop lessons to teach students who are
English as a Foreign Language Learners (EFL). These varied in length
and experiences have involved working in schools with students, tutoring
students in English, developing and developing and performing a dual
language play with the children and touring and visiting sites of historical
significance. Students are required to answer three questions in preparation
for the course and write a reflection on these three questions following their
trips regarding how these experiences have changed their stereotypes of
other cultures and helped them to be prepared to teach in diverse settings.
Luckily, we found over the past years that we had enthusiastic support from
the College of Education and Human Development and the Department of
Teaching, Learning and Culture as well as from the Texas A&M University
Study Abroad Office.

C. Boettcher etal.
WHY DEVELOP STUDY ABROAD EXPERIENCES
In todays global society, the importance of understanding stereotypes is

imperative for a generation of teachers who will teach in a community of
students whose demographic dynamics will be extremely different from
their own experiences. Taylor and Sobel (2001) note that a significant
discontinuity exists regarding the language, culture, and ethnicity of the
teaching force and the school-age children they are teaching (p. 488). Thus,
it is vital that pre-service teachers recognize, acknowledge, and address any
stereotypes that they may hold, consciously or subconsciously, regarding
students who are different from themselves (Smolcic, 2011; Brindley,
Quinn, & Morton, 2009). McKercher (2008) states, stereotypes in tourism
are both remarkably common and enduring (p. 345), and in study abroad
opportunities, students come to recognize their preconceived stereotypes,
which are eventually transformed through travel and cultural exchanges.
Research suggests that a global perspective is essential in todays world
and that in American classrooms, which are growing increasingly diverse, it
is particularly important that teachers understand and accept cultures (Bruce,
Podernski, & Anderson, 1991; Faulconer, 2003; Pence & Macgillivray,
2008; Willard-Holt, 2001). Faulconer (2003) insists that teacher perceptions
of various cultures can negatively impact their interactions with students and
a change in these perceptions should be the goal of every teacher education
institution. Designing curricula, immersion experiences, and methods that
effectively require pre-service teachers to confront their own biases and truly
see into another culture is paramount to preparing teachers who will honestly
and effectively create equitable learning environments for all children (p.
3). Similarly, Brindley, Quinn, and Morton (2009) recommend that teacher
educators expose pre-service teachers (PSTs) to field experiences that
remove PSTs from their presumptions about teaching and take them out of
their comfort zone (p.531). As Dantas (2007) notes,
Education programs with an international component are in a unique
position to engage teacher education students in firsthand exploration
of cultural and diversity understandings, promote students inert
knowledge into action, create rich spaces for dialogue, and guide
the design of culturally responsive curriculum. In particular, guided
international experiences can challenge teacher education students
to use inert knowledge to read and interpret their experiences with
diversity and understanding of self, and the interconnectedness with
their own students lives and school opportunities. (p. 76)
106
SUBTRACTING STEREOTYPES THROUGH STUDYING Abroad
Willard-Holt (2001) suggests a list of goals for educating pre-service teachers

based on her extensive research related to global education.
The qualities that pre-service teachers meeting the goals would
hopefully possess include cross-cultural knowledge (including
knowledge about cultures other than their own), motivation to teach
from a global perspective, the ability to perceive and value cultural
diversity, confidence and skill in communicating, a sense of ease in
other cultural groups, the ability to view peoples of other cultures
without the distortions of stereotype, and the perspective of seeing
themselves as part of a professional community with peers around the
world. (pp. 505506)
American educators report that when their students return from studying in
another culture, they usually have more appreciation for different cultures
and are more mature, self-aware, and independent than prior to traveling.
Hadis (2005) writes, The research literature that evaluates the impact of
study abroad on US college students coincides with these impressionistic
perceptions and find that participants in study abroad programs acquire
global-mindedness, grow intellectually, and develop personally (p. 3). He
goes on to suggest that students who study abroad are often more cognizant
of broadening their horizons concerning international issues. Various other
studies confirm the impact of study abroad and international experiences on
identity development, metacognition, interpersonal relationships, and ones
sense of global participation and citizenship (Braskamp, 2008; Pederson,
2010; Thibadoux & Helms, 1989).
Some scholars, however, have questioned the true impact of study abroad
experiences on cultural understanding, though most of these studies have
focused largely on second language acquisition during cultural immersion
(Bateman, 2002; Robinson, 1988; Wilkinson, 1998). Wilkinson (1998)
notes, deep cultural understanding cannot be guaranteed either, particularly
if participants have only their own cultural perspective with which to make
sense of actions motivated by an alternative and invisible set of rules (p.
33). Wilkinson goes on to state that such cultural interactions involving
cultural differences may promote stereotyping and denigration as opposed
to understanding and empathy (p. 33). This indicates the need for a well-
structured study abroad experience that is potentially accompanied by
classroom learning in which culture, cultural interactions, and reflection are
key components, allowing a safe space in which participants can discuss
their experiences of cultural difference in order to learn and grow from them.
107
C. Boettcher etal.
As faculty members and study abroad leaders, the authors of this chapter
believe it is imperative to prepare pre-service teachers for their international
programs before they arrive at their destinations, and Barkhuizen and Feryok
(2006) view and stress that the preparation goes well beyond the usual
advice about clothing, medications, and travel documents (p. 131).
The rewards of a successful international program for educators or future
educators are significant. Robertson and Webber (2000), in reporting the
results of their cross-cultural travel study exchange between Canadian and
New Zealand students in educational leadership, state the breaking of
boundaries between theory and practice, between university professors and
students, between two nations, and between self and others, can foster the
development of critically inquiring leaders who may not only have more
questions than answers, but, more importantly, know that there are still more
questions to ask (p. 329). In the classic Wilson study (1982), it is noted that
an intense immersion experience, in which the student moves from the level
of dabbler to participant, is the most exciting and rewarding and ends
her article, Cross-Cultural Experiential Learning for Teachers, with the
words, No one should make the claim of being educated until he or she has
learned to live in harmony with people who are different (p. 191).
The nature of study abroad programs and their impact on pre-service
teachers vary from program to program, and it clearly suggests that study
abroad experiences, even as short as one week (Willard-Holt, 2001), can
change and motivate pre-service teachers. Barkhuizen & Feryok (2006),
however, point out that just being in another country does not create an
international experience and caution against the tendency for student teachers
to limit many of their activities to their own group members, in their case
leaving little in-depth engagement with real New Zealanders (p. 132). In
fact, the authors state that this tendency was the greatest shortcoming of the
programme, and one that has continued to be the most difficult to address in
subsequent programmes (Barkhuizen & Feryok, 2006, p. 132). The authors
further suggest that innovative ways of providing more intercultural and
interlingual contact should be found for a successful international experience,
including social activities with members of the community and professional
meetings with host-country educators.
Based on the research of Willard-Holts (2001) goals for educating pre-
service teachers, the authors of this article developed three questions to
investigate with their various types of study abroad programs. The questions
were asked at the beginning of the courses before the students studied the
cultures of the country they were to visit, and again after their travels.
The students wrote in-depth reflections on these three questions so the
108
authors could determine if stereotypes were changed after traveling abroad.

Concerning stereotypes, authors asked the following three questions:
1. Do you have any preconceived notions or stereotypes of the culture you
are visiting?
2. What do you know about the international issues of the culture and country
you are going to visit?
3. What do you know about the various subcultures in the country and their
contributions?
Student comments about their understanding prior to leaving for their
study abroad programs demonstrate that these questions helped them to
frame their understanding of what they thought they knew. A common theme
that we saw with all of our study abroad programs was that students in each
program had preconceived stereotypes of the cultures they were to visit and
most held tightly to their American ideology prior to going abroad.
TWO TYPES OF STUDY ABROAD PROGRAMS
Students in the College of Education and Human Development are offered

the option to participate in various study abroad experiences which are
associated with writing-intensive, research-focused, educational courses.
The format varies from one week to a two-month experience; this variety of
formats allows pre-service teachers to participate who would otherwise not
be able to commit to a two-month program.
A Study Abroad Field Trip

The study abroad field trip commonly extends seven to ten days and includes
in the preparation the reading of several pieces of literature from authors of
the country being visited as well as research projects about the countrys
history and places that will be toured during the field trip so that each student
is an expert, who presents his/her research and can answer questions
about the place being visited during the study abroad. Since students always
bring a part of themselves into the reading of each text, it is important for
the faculty to help students examine their preconceptions and stereotypes
about the country without forcing them into a position of rejecting their own
preconceived views or the new broader ideas that the research literature can
support. Janes (2011), working with American students studying in Great
Britain, implies that he encourages students to see how their viewpoints lead
to a distinctive set of views, but at the same time begin to appreciate that
109
C. Boettcher etal.
words can mean very different things to different people at different times
(p. 66). His goal of helping students to think and reflect beyond a single answer
and American cultural definition is the model by which the authors of this
chapter mentor students in their literature reflections. The field trip includes
visits to multiple historical and cultural sites, and students are encouraged
to interact with local residents as much as limited time allows. During the
field trip, students maintain a journal and upon return from the study abroad
experience, students submit a culminating reflection paper sharing what they
have learned and experienced. Pence and Macgillivray (2008) suggest that
stepping outside of ones comfort zone and reflecting on ones reactions can
help pre-service teachers become more flexible and reflective practitioners
(p. 16). As students begin to break down their stereotypes they must learn
to interact in harmony with other people in settings outside of their own
American culture (Hammer, Wiese, & Boettcher, 2011).
As the authors analyze their students reflections from study abroad field
trips over the past eight years, the findings uncovered several strands of
demystifying stereotypes: Students demonstrated shifts in their perspectives
of a visited culture and their preconceived notions were changed following
their travels (All names are pseudonyms).
Ben wrote, as I prepare for this trip to Russia, I hope to learn about the
different lifestyles of others. I have always been taught certain things about
communism and Russia and I wonder if it is really this way. From what I
know I really dont like the communist lifestyle of this country, because I
really like the freedom and capitalism in America. My parents have always
led me to believe that America is the greatest country in the world. I really
dont like what I have learned about socialism and wouldnt want to live
likethis.
Upon returning from Russia Ben wrote, As an American growing up in a
conservative household, I bleed capitalism. However, with these beliefs came
a prejudiced outlook on socialism and other non-capitalistic viewpoints. It
was merely a biased opinion on the different forms of government, rather
than the people who were subject to them. The old clich never judge a
book by its cover is a strong parallel to my experience in Russia. I expected
Americans to be hated upon, to be cold-shouldered at every interaction with
the Russians. I had no idea that my experience was to be extremely different
from what I had anticipated. One of the greatest educations that every
student needs is that of other cultures and people. A classroom of students
can sit, talk, read, and learn about Russia. That class will learn only so much
about the people and the way they live. If this same group of students were
110
to subsequently travel to Russia, then all those bits of information would

actually mean something. They could see the sights, interact with the people,
and learn what it is like to experience in Russia for ten days. Their biases
and stereotypes would change dramatically, as mine did.
Gloria wrote about Poland and Czech Republic, I cant understand why the
Polish and Czech citizens didnt do something about the persecution of the
Jewish people. I know in America we wouldnt stand for mistreating people
like the Germans did. I am interested to learn more about why the citizens
didnt act and defend their Jewish neighbors. I also want to know why the
Jewish people didnt stand up for their rights against Hitler.
After her trip Gloria reflected, after visiting Poland and the Czech Republic,
I have a greater respect for the citizens of these two countries. Reading the
literature and visiting the sites, I now know why the people couldnt help the
Jews; they would also have be killed. It was so inspiring to me to read about
how many citizens risked their lives and did rescue many Jewish people,
especially the children. I never knew this before. Visiting Auschwitz and
Terizan made me so sad about the treatment of innocent people. On the plane
ride back to Houston, I realized that Americans also discriminate terribly.
In time of war, we would be willing to risk our own lives to rescue our own
neighbors? We are no different and shouldnt think we are better. This trip
has changed my perspective and stereotypes forever. I know I will be a better
classroom teacher because of my real life experiences.
Dave wrote, as I look forward to Ireland, the only thing I really know about
is the Potato Famine. How did this happen, and why didnt the government
help the people? I also know about the war between the religions. I wonder
why they cant get along like we do in America. Catholics and Protestants
dont fight in our country. This seems silly to me that people cant get along
over such a simple thing as religion.
In his journal, Dave wrote about his change of perspective of stereotypes he
had about Ireland. I enjoyed learning about the history of Ireland in general.
There were so many different facets of this but I felt that the religious factor
fascinated me the most. In America I feel that Christianity in general is a joint
effort and other religions get pushed to the back. In Ireland, Protestants and
Catholics are constantly in battle. This was interesting because the religions
are not all that different. There are very few differences and there shouldnt
be a spiritual war over this. What I found interesting is that the real problem
is between English rule over Ireland. Although, the religions are technically
different, the problem derived from the religion of England and the people
wanting to get away from English rule. This caused the civil war to be so
111
C. Boettcher etal.
much more brutal. Overall, it was very interesting because it made me feel
more passionate about my own history and culture and helped me break
down the stereotypes of different religions. They were very passionate and
have had to fight all their lives. It makes me feel that I cant take Irelands
past and history for granted.
Lauren writes about her study abroad field trip to Ireland, My eyes were
opened to a whole new culture both different and similar to my own. Hearing
about the day-to-day lives of everyone we met who would talk to us was so
interesting. I definitely have an altered perspective on different cultures since
I took cultural plunge for10 days in Ireland. You can never judge a book by
its cover, which is something I have always done. But at the same time, just
because you have heard A, B, and C about a certain group or culture does
not mean that they actually do or act the way you were told; my stereotypes
were shattered.
Alice wrote, throughout this experience I learned that the world is so
much bigger than you will ever be able to fully comprehend. With so many
people, and so many different customs you have to have an open mind when
meeting new people. I learned a lot about the Spanish culture. I have a better
understanding of their history, and how this unique history has shaped the
people of Spain. Their culture is completely different than my own, but I
loved seeing and being a part of these differences. Learning about these
differences made me more culturally diverse and aware. They speak a
different language, they eat different foods, and they have different modes
of transportation, and have a different living style. Together these and many
more aspects make the people of Spain beautifully unique to me as a native
Texan. Learning about these differences impacted my perceptions of Spain
greatly.
The second question we investigated: What do you know about the
international issues of the culture and country you are going to visit? We
discovered that prior to the trips abroad, students knew very little about the
geography, political structure, economy, history, literature, and the arts of the
country they were to visit.
Ella wrote prior to going on the trip, to be honest, I know very little about
Russia and this countrys international issues. I know the name of their
president, but I dont much about the people, their literature, or their history
or what they do for a living.
After traveling to Russia Ella wrote, I learned that Russian people are
very simple, but also tough. These people have been through so much from
the czar rule through communism. I never realized how horrific some of the
112
treatments were of Lenin and Stalin. Today the people consider themselves a
democracy, but there are evidences of communism everywhere we traveled.
The Russian people were so friendly. In talking to the Russian citizens
some of them prefer communism because they felt that everyone had a job
and their families daily needs were provided. Others I visited with didnt
want a communist government, and they really wanted their country to be
democratic. It was so interesting to hear the different perspectives of the
older and younger generations.
Heath wrote, I really knew what it felt to be a foreign student not knowing
what the teacher was trying to tell me or help me understand. I realized that
many countries, including Russia, have children learn English in addition to
their native language. We Americans expect for others to know our language
and because of what I had learned in this multicultural literature class, I
was able to take in that reality. Yes, English is the language of business, but
how many children that are required to learn it actually practice it every
day and are perfectly fluent in it? Sergei, our tour guide from Moscow, was
the perfect example of language acquisition; he knew five languages which
he learned himself by reading. People like Sergei came to the rescue in
Moscow and St. Petersburg when we needed help in the coat room, store, or
market. Their attitudes about language acquisition, I believe was definitely
part of their culture. To think that I could be speaking three other languages
fluently blows my mind and the fact that there are people in the world that do
that made me want to better myself and maybe even take on that challenge
pertaining to this aspect of my life.
Andrew wrote, the main thing that I learned from the study abroad was
how important it is to get out and interact with diverse types of people. I
figured out the more that I interacted with the people from the different
cultures, the more I learned about myself. I liked not knowing where I was
and having to figure how to get to where I needed to be. I loved having the
opportunity to speak to the various tour guides and townspeople to learn
more about them and their cultures. Of those conversations, my favorite was
a night in Budapest when a small group of us went to a coffee shop and we
ended up having a great conversation with our waiter who was a native
Hungarian. We had been having a difficult time finding our way around
and when we would ask people on the streets for directions, they could not
understand what we were saying. He taught us some basic Hungarian that
ended up really helping us out in the following days. Most importantly I
enjoyed visiting those countries and having the opportunity to observe their
normal daily life routines. Being stuck in the cookie cutter society that I
113
C. Boettcher etal.
have always been a part of, I easily thought that what I do and how I live
is the same for everyone; but from this experience I quickly saw that I am
only a little spec in a huge world of diversity and change. I learned firsthand
from the people we met in the coffee shop about the various things that the
Hungarians people have been through and their struggles since World War
II. I am still amazed that the people in Buda and Pest were separated from
each other for years because Hungary didnt have money to reconstruct their
connecting bridges which were bombed during WWII.
The third question we asked students prior to and after their trips was:
What do you know about the various subcultures in the country and their
contributions? Prior to the course, the students really did not even consider
that the country was multicultural.
Sarah wrote about her experience in Austria. Mauthausen. Something
you can never forget. There is nothing that can prepare you for what you
will experience as you walk through this concentration camp. As I walked
through each building, the roll call area, the execution chamber, I cannot
help but think of who has walked there before me. I see faces that have given
up hope, eyes full of terror, hearts full of anger of people that did nothing
to deserve this tragic fate. I imagine how many of those people were ready
to claim death and try to think of those who were fighting until the end.
Nothing can prepare you for the rush of emotions as you walk through the
gas chamber, see the crematorium or picture the atrocities that happened
on the dissection table. Learning about the Holocaust in school, watching
the watered down movies about the horror, and reading the firsthand
accounts of Holocaust victims still never prepares you for the harsh reality of
experiencing something like this firsthand. I have a total appreciation for the
Jewish people and the struggles they experienced. I also came to understand
why so many of the German soldiers used drugs and alcohol because not all
of them agreed with the commands that they were given. While I still struggle
with the Nazi treatment, I am at least able to understand that some of these
soldiers had different convictions than Hitler, and turned to substance abuse
to carry out their horrific duties. There deeds were still wrong, but their
convictions cannot be overlooked.
Kylie wrote, while in Russia I also learned that the people today do not
like to consider themselves as Communists. Before visiting the country I
was actually unsure whether they are a communist country. When you hear
Russia referred to in the American media, there is a negative communist
connotation still associated with the country. After studying the history and
visiting the various palaces of past czars, I realized why the starving masses
114
embraced communism as a means of improving their families lives. Although

I recognize the atrocities of Lenin and Stalin, I began to understand why their
charisma attracted so many people to follow their ideology since it appeared
to be working on behalf of the everyday people. I was finally able to view
Russian history from the perspective of the czar and from the perspective of
the poor masses and develop empathy toward both classes of people.
Jessica wrote, after going to Spain I realized that there are two different
languages and really two different groups of people in Spain. I had always
thought that everyone in Spain did bullfighting and flamingo dancing.
I always thought that the Spain people were just happy go lucky people.
Going to Spain opened my eyes to the different cultures in Spain, the way
the different groups view their very different cultures, and the hard working
ethic of the Spanish people. I am still in awe of Gaudis La Sagrada Familia
in Barcelona. I realize that the Spanish are creative persistent people who
are still working to finish a beautiful architectural masterpiece that was
started in 1882 and wont be finished until 2026. There is nothing like this
in America.
A Two-Month Study Abroad

Based on the authors realization that an extended immersion supports a
meaningful cultural exchange and that our students still need to have time
for travel and engagement with their peers at the Santa Chiara Study Center,
the authors designed a program to incorporate extensive pre-departure
preparatory work on campus for two months in order to allow for total
dedication to cultural immersion through fieldwork in Italian schools after
the arrival in Italy. Because this experience is more intense than a two week
study abroad, student interviews are part of the selection process. Preparation
for the experience begins before the semester abroad with seminars over
orientation topics.
Then, beginning in mid-March and continuing until mid-May, we travel to
Italy, where all of our students spend the entire school day, Monday through
Thursday, at local middle and elementary schools. In effect, they put their
theoretical preparatory coursework to practical use when they get to Italy;
in the schools they teach lessons they have already prepared, assist with
lessons their peers have prepared, observe Italian classes in other subjects
(where they learn what it feels like to be a language learner in math, physical
education, art, etc. classes), tutor after-school sessions with Italian students
preparing to take their Trinity English Examinations.
115
C. Boettcher etal.
In addition to the academic program, students organize rehearsals for a

highly successful bilingual production of a classic musical. Past productions
include Pinocchio, Tom Sawyer, Wizard of Oz, High School Musical and
Peter Pan. All productions are presented to the community in the historic
and beautiful town theatre and include script, songs, and dances with our pre-
service teachers speaking Italian and the Italian children speaking English.
Their Texas A&M coursework in Italy is limited to their extensive
fieldwork at the elementary and middle school, with the exception of revising
lessons and writing journal reflections reporting on their experiences in the
Italian classrooms and the implications of these experiences on their teaching
philosophies and practices for the future. In addition, our students are able to
expand their cultural knowledge through weekend trips to Rome, Florence,
Arezzo, and Cortona.
As with our ten-day study abroad field trips, we discovered the same
themes emerged in the two-month program in Italy. Again, we examined the
question: Do you have any preconceived notions or stereotypes of the culture
you are visiting?
Addie wrote, before we leave for our international learning experience
we are learning about the history, culture, and importance of Italy. We are
reading books to educate us over their past, so we can better understand how
the various stake holders in Italy view life, and how these behaviors would be
different from Americans. We are preparing lesson plans to help the Italian
children learn English. I hope that the Italian people can all speak English
so I will feel more comfortable when I tour the sites. I have always heard that
Italy is a land of wine and pasta!
Addie wrote about her experience after traveling to Italy, I've obtained
a new appreciation for people in America who don't know the English
language. I feel almost ignorant looking back at how I acted before this trip. I
was always angry that people in America did not know the English language
and I thought they should learn it. However, my opinion has drastically
changed from this experience. I finally understand how hard it is to be in
a foreign country and to try to learn the language. How embarrassing and
uncomfortable it is for natives to become frustrated with you because you
don't know their language. Coming back to the United States, I will be more
tolerant of people whose first language is not English.
Meredith wrote before going to Italy, I have been in the field for many
semesters and have taught some English as a Second Language Students. I
actually feel very prepared to work with the students in Italy. I have always
heard that the Italian students are loud and can be overbearing. However,
116
because of my classroom management class and studying of different

strategies to maintain and establish classroom rules and routines, I think I
can be successful in this new endeavor.
Meredith shared, reflecting on teaching in Italy seems like a daunting
task because I feel like a different person transformed by all that I have
experienced and learned. On our first day, I remember walking up to Dante
Middle School and all of a sudden, I didnt have the same confidence I did
before leaving for the trip. I learned very quickly that the Italian schools have
different policies for classroom management and they were very effective.
The middle schools students were not loud and overbearing but very eager
to learn and most respectful. These middle school students are just like the
middle school students in Texas schools and I have really come to admire
their hard work acceptance of evaluation in front of their peers without being
embarrassed or demeaned by their peers.
Kelly noted, teaching in Italy has taught me that language barriers are
not impenetrable. People can connect in spite of not always understanding
each other. This experience has allowed me to see what teaching English
Language Learners is like and has made me want to pursue teaching English
abroad. I feel more confident in myself as a teacher. Seeing how other people
teach and live has opened up my mind to different alternatives of teaching
students a second language. From this experience I learned that students
in the U.S. and Italy are innately curious and passionate about learning.
Educators in Italy valued the opportunity to enrich their students language
acquisition. This experience has helped me tremendously, and I wish that
everyone could have the same opportunity to be a part of a program like this
one. To not only travel abroad, but to be embedded in a community like we
had with Castiglion Fiorentino. I felt welcome and appreciated in this town.
Castiglion Fiorentino feels like a second home to me now. I have learned that
there are other ways of life.
The second question the authors explored prior to the two month trip to
Italy: What do you know about the international issues of the culture and
country you are going to visit? We discovered from their initial writings that
they didnt know about the political structure of Italy, didnt realize that Italy
had once been an Axis member during World War II, and knew nothing about
what a Constitutional Republic meant.
Lucy wrote prior to the trip, Italy was an ally of England, France and
the United States during World War II. It has always been a democratic
country and has exported Prosecco, my parents favorite wine. The Pope is
from Rome and the Christians were persecuted by the Roman soldiers in The
117
C. Boettcher etal.
Roman Coliseum. When studying America history, I know that many Italians
settled in New York. As far as I know, the Italians are friendly with all people
and are very wealthy.
Lucy wrote about her experience, during my time in Italy there was a local
and national election. I was shocked to discover that the Communist Party
was a viable part of both elections. While in Italy, I learned that the city of
Castiglion Fiorentino was actually bombed by the Allies, which I have now
discovered England and the United State were members of during World
WarII. After my experience, I now know that Italy was a socialist country and
is today a Constitutional Republic, which means they elect their officials. My
American history classes never impacted my view of the international issues
of Italy. I am embarrassed that I didnt know about the political structure of
Italy as a college student.
Don shared in his journal prior to departure, I would assume that all
people living in Italy are of Italian and Catholic descent. I feel confident that
they all speak Italian and I will not experience many other cultures. It seems
the primary influence of the Italian culture in the United States in food. The
other things that I know about Italy are from movies I have watched where I
have observed that they are very family oriented and like to get together and
eat and celebrate. It appears to me that the mother is the most influential
member of the family.
After Don spent two months in the Italian schools he learned, The Italian
schools have immigrant children who do not speak Italian and lessons must
be modified to accommodate the various the Italian language learners. I had
my eyes open to the fact that Italy has influenced more than food and they are
known throughout the world for their cultural innovations such as irrigation,
architecture, art, and the fashion industry. While the mother is revered, the
father is still considered the head of the family. From the past two months
I have recognized the influence of the Italian culture on the United States.
The final question that we posed with our two-month Italy group was:
What do you know about the various subcultures in the country and their
contributions? As with the ten-day study abroad trips, our American students
didnt realize there were so many subcultures in Italy.
Patricia wrote prior to the experience, I knew that Italy was known for
their numerous cathedrals. I also know that there are many fashion designers
in the popular magazines and Italy is known for its sense of fashion. In
addition to these two groups of people, I have always read that Italy has
many artists and architects and they are famous for their buildings and their
ancient culture.
118
After returning from abroad, Patricia reflected on her learning. I found

that each path I traveled in Italy, I took away a different lesson. The
Italians were warm and welcoming and they certainly do have a sense of
fashion. Art is embedded in their daily life and school curriculum. I was so
impressed with the knowledge that Italian children had about architectural
masterpieces on a global scale, and I realized that we as Americans dont
have the artistic knowledge that Italians schools emphasize. When I think of
all the magnificent cathedrals that I had the opportunity to visit, I am amazed
at the beauty and extraordinary ancient structures that are in the midst of
the cities. Italy is a very old country. As an American I finally realized just
what a young country we truly are, and I am a changed person having seen
these things first hand. I loved learning about the contributions of the artists,
architects, and ancient Roman Etruscans.
Judy wrote on her first day of class prior to studying about Italy, I dont
know about the subcultures of Italy. I have never really studied about
this country but only know about the fashion industry and the artists and
architecture.
Judy wrote after her trip, after visiting Venice, Rome, Siena, and Florence
I learned that Italy was really a group of city states. Each one has its own
history and unique subculture including their foods, their politics, their
religions, and their regional prejudices and dialects. I discovered people
who embrace communism are often located in the central regions, whereas
the democratic Catholics reside in the north-eastern regions which border
other countries. I wasnt expecting to see such diversity in a small country
such as Italy.
CONCLUSION
This study of pre-service teachers intercultural developments through

study abroad and their awareness of their American stereotypes highlights
how teacher education can transform the global awareness of young people
through travel. These yearly trips are powerful vehicles for preparing Texas
teachers to work with diverse students while learning to subtract from the pre-
conceived stereotypes they possessed prior to travel. The authors agree that
if the trip is a ten day field trip or a two month immersion program, students
will be forever changed. Many of these students have graduated from Texas
A&M University and are teaching. They have corresponded with us about
the influence of these trips and how it is impacting their own classrooms.
Our research is continuing with future study abroad trips and a follow-up
119
C. Boettcher etal.
investigation of our former students in the field and how they are using the
knowledge from their study abroad experiences. In conclusion, the authors
agree with Dantas (2007), that educational programs with an international
component and cultural immersion provide students opportunities to create
a better understanding of self and to subtract stereotypes of other cultures.
REFERENCES
Barkhuizen, G., & Feryok, A. (2006). Pre-service teachers perceptions of a short-term
international experience programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1),
115134.
Bateman, B. A. (2002). Promoting openness toward culture learning: Ethno-graphic interviews
for students of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 318331.
Braskamp, L. A. (2008). Developing global citizens. Journal of College & Character, 10(1),
15.
Brindley, R., Quinn, S., & Morton, M. L. (2009). Consonance and dissonance in a study abroad
program as a catalyst for professional development of pre-service teachers. Teaching and
Bruce, M.G., Podernski, R.S., & Anderson, C.M. (1991). Developing a global perspective:
Strategies for teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 2127.
Dantas, M. L. (2007). Building teacher competency to work with diverse learners in the
context of international education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(1), 7594.
Faulconer, T. (2003). These kids are so bright! Pre-service teachers insights and discoveries
during a three-week student teaching practicum in Mexico. Paper presented at the 2003
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC
document reproduction service no. ED482507.)
Hadis, B. F. (2005). Gauging the impact of study abroad: How to overcome the limitations of
a single-cell design. Assessment, 1, 319.
Hammer, J., Wiese, P., & Boettcher, C. (2011). Exploring implications, observations, and
conclusions of a cross-cultural partnership between pre-service English as a second
language (ESL) teachers and an Italian middle school. Panel Presentation and Paper,
Hawaii International Conference, Honolulu, HI.
Janes, D. (2011). Beyond ignorance: Using the cultural stereotypes of Americans studying
in the UK as a resource for learning and teaching about British culture. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 48(1), 6168.
McKercher, B. (2008). The roots of stereotypes about tourists. Society, 45, 345347.
Pederson, P. J. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long study
abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 7080.
Pence, H. M., & Macgillivray, I. K. (2008). The impact of an international field experience on
pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1425.
Robertson, J.M., & Webber, C. F. (2000). Cross-cultural leadership development. Leadership
in Education, 3(4), 315330.
Robinson, P. C. (1988). The management of language training. Language Teaching, 21,
146157.
120
Saint Augustine. Retrieved from www.brainyquote.com/quotes/s/saintaugus108132.html

Smolcic, E. (2011).Becoming a culturally responsive teacher. In K. E. Johnson & P. R.
Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education: A sociocultural
perspective on professional development (pp. 1530). New York, NY: Routledge.
Taylor, S. V., & Sobel, D. M. (2001). Addressing the discontinuity of students and teachers
diversity: A preliminary study of pre-service teachers beliefs and perceived skills.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 487503. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00008-7
Thibadoux, G. M., & Helms, M. M. (1989). Research notes: An analysis of a successful
international study abroad program. Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 564592.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). Study abroad from the participants' perspective: A challenge to common
beliefs. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 2339.
Willard-Holt, C. (2001). The impact of a short-term international experience for pre-service
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 505517.
Wilson, A. H. (1982). Cross-cultural experiential learning for teachers. Theory into Practice,
21, 184192.
Cynthia Boettcher
Janet Hammer
Sunni Sonnenburg
121
KAMALA WILLIAMS AND NORVELLA CARTER
7. PREPARING PRESERVICE TEACHERS FOR

DIVERSE URBAN CLASSROOMS1
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a demographic shift of those seeking careers
in teaching. As more of the teaching force is filled with middle class White
women, vacancies for positions in diverse urban schools increase. There
is a diminishing resource pool of teachers entering the profession with a
desire to teach in an urban setting, further exasperating the receivement
gap for diverse students in urban settings. Getting certified teachers to seek
positions in urban settings is a systemic problem, which is multiplied by
negative views of cities and city schools. While the media has sensationalized
these views, some researchers have exasperated these views by explaining
urban conditions through deficit theories and unchallenged stereotypes that
promote racism and discrimination. Yet, according to the National Center
for Education Statistics (2012), urban districts account for more than 50%
of the total school districts and teaching population in the nation; thus
teacher education institutions are responsible for preparing teachers for
urban schools. Alternative education programs have increased over the past
decade, because of the shortage of teachers being produced by traditional
college programs (National Center for Alternative Education, 2007; 2008;
Ng, 2003). Many education institutions are beginning to rethink how to
attract and prepare urban teachers. In this chapter, we offer an overview of
the historical context of urban education and preservice teachers, a revised
model of a preparation program, a description of a revised field experience
course and the preliminary findings of the dispositions of preservice teachers
that are headed for diverse classrooms. Based on current teacher education
needs, additional studies are warranted on the study of preservice teachers
for urban environments. The terms preservice and student teacher are used
interchangeable in this chapter. This school district refers to preservice
teachers as student teachers.

K. Williams & N. Carter
URBAN EDUCATION AND PRESERVICE TEACHERS: AN OVERVIEW
The historical context of urban education and preservice teachers reveals

that urban schools have existed since the development of teacher preparation
programs. However, specific issues about urban education have historically
emerged solely connected to legal mandates. Legal cases and federal acts
such as Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VI and Title VII), the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, No Child
Left Behind and now, Race to the Top have brought attention to the need
for educating all students. These actions were all critical in increasing the
concern about urban education. Most traditional teacher education programs
have focused on the preparation of teachers for mono-cultural classroom
settings with students from middle and upper socioeconomic backgrounds
(Banks & Banks, 2005; Canniff, 2008).
There are primarily three demographic variables that challenged teacher
preparation programs to prepare teachers for diverse environments: (a)
location of the school within the city, (b) demographic composition
of the school age population, and (c) the socioeconomic status of the
community (Garcia, 2001). Historically, studies have indicated that teaching
environments are different in urban schools when compared to suburban and
rural schools, based on these variables. As studies and reports became more
focused on the critical needs and issues of urban schools, researchers began
to identify characteristics that were unique to urban environments, such as
large bureaucracies, and diversity of population (Weiner, 2006). Many of
these studies began to highlight negative issues about teaching and learning
in urban schools with the use of negative labels, such as at-risk, ghetto,
marginalized, disadvantaged and poverty-stricken (Howard, 2001).
It was not until the 1970s and early 1980s that researchers began
to describe urban education and urban students in a more equitable and
positive way. For example, Edmonds (1979) reported that urban schools
can be effective when they have strong administrative leadership, when they
have a climate of high expectations for students, when there is an orderly
environment without being oppressive and basic skills are required over all
other school activities. In the 1990s, Haberman (1995), in a classic study,
identified seven characteristics of urban teachers that outweigh ability and
instructional skills in classroom teaching. He reported that urban teachers
need to 1) be persistent when seeking solutions to never-ending problems;
2) exhibit a response to authority that supports student learning regardless
of school policy; 3) have the ability to apply generalizations about learning;
4) be willing to teach all children; 5) have a professional orientation;
124
Preparing Preservice Teachers for Diverse Urban Classrooms
6)have a resistance to burn-out; and 7) recognize their own humanness and

weaknesses.
Also in the 1990s, Grant and Secada (1990) concluded that the paucity of
research on preparing teachers for diverse students was unacceptable. Since
that time, a volume of research has been conducted in this area, including
a number of large-scale syntheses (Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2003;
Grant & Secada, 1990; Haberman, 1996; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Sleeter,
2001a, 2001b; Weiner, 2000; Zeichner & Hoeft, 1996). However, 25 years
later, little on the design and structure of teacher preparation programs that
support preservice teachers learning has changed (Hollins & Guzman, 2005).
In the past few decades, the enrollment for students of color in our nations
schools has been steadily increasing. The National Center for Education
Statistics (2011) reported that in 2011-12 school year, students of color made
up approximately 43.5% percent of the nations student population. Even
though the school age population has become more diverse, the teachers of
these students are predominately female, middle class European-Americans
(Lansman & Lewis, 2006). Within their careers, most teachers will instruct
students from culturally, linguistically, ethnically, economically diverse
backgrounds (Banks, 2005). Although the numbers of students of color
are increasing, only eight percent of public school teachers are African
American and six percent represent Hispanic Americans (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2011). Therefore, a majority of teachers have been
representative of cultural backgrounds different from those of the students
they teach, resulting in a mismatch between the students school and home
cultures (Sable, Noel, & Hoffman, 2008). This concept is often called the
cultural mismatch (Irvine, 2003). This is among one of the crises that set the
context of urban schools, particularly for students of color.
By 2000, culturally responsive pedagogy was a major concept in
multicultural education. It stressed the ability of teachers to respond to their
students by incorporating elements of students culture in their teaching
(Irvine, 2001). Culturally responsive teaching was described as using the
cultural knowledge, prior experience, frames of reference, and performance
styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more
relevant. Gay (2012, p. 29) listed the following characteristics of this
culturally relevant pedagogy:
1. It acknowledges the legitimacy of the cultural heritages of different
ethnic groups, both as legacies that affect students dispositions, attitudes,
and approaches to learning as worthy content to be taught in the formal
curriculum.
125
2. It builds bridges of meaningfulness between home and school experiences

as well as between academic abstractions and lived socio-cultural realities.
3. It uses a wide variety of instructional strategies that are connected to
different learning styles.
4. It teaches students to know and praise their own and each others cultural
heritages.
5. It incorporates multicultural information, resources and materials in all the
subjects and skills routinely taught in schools.
Research promotes culturally responsive teaching as a vehicle for success
in diverse classrooms (Carter, 2003; Delpit, 1998; Irvine, 2001). Further, as
Robinson and Lewis (2011) indicated, one possible source of transformation
for urban students of color is the implementation of a process that insists
on instructional design that results in culturally relevant and responsive
pedagogy (p. 110).
Nieto (2000), reported that deficit models and thinking that are refuted,
negated and reversed have a positive impact on the academic achievement
of students. With the rising concern about how to enhance the quality of
education in urban schools, studies have begun to support the significance
of teachers behaviors and attitudes in the educational process (Webb-Hasan
& Carter, 2007). Urban teachers were found to need high levels of cultural
sensitivity, which would need to be demonstrated through their attitudes,
behaviors and instructional practices in the classroom.
Most often, literature surrounding culturally responsive pedagogy
highlighted the hidden destructive methods used by Whites that can
hinder the learning process for learners of color (Carter & Jenkins, 2013).
A widely established theme in the scholarship of culturally responsive
teaching is the importance and the necessity for White educators to adopt
culturally responsive pedagogy due to the negative impact that teachers
have, unwittingly, on marginalized students (Canniff, 2008; Vaught &
Castagno, 2008). According to Saffold and Longwell-Grice (2008), even
if White educators have good intentions, they can encounter difficulties
in the classroom if they are not familiar with their students cultures,
experiences and communities. Additionally, Hollins and Guzman (2005)
note that White teachers often carry negative and stereotypical beliefs about
students of various sociocultural backgrounds into the classroom setting.
Teacher beliefs, and their lack thereof, about their students capabilities can
also be particularly damaging for urban students (Williams, 2012). Other
issues that complicate the dynamic between White teachers and students
of color or lower socio-economic backgrounds are mismatched cultural
126
mores, misunderstandings in communication, an inability to teach students

efficiently, lower teacher expectations, teachers negative racial attitudes,
teachers beliefs about racially and socio-economically diverse students, and
low motivations of both students and teachers (Bennett, 1999; Hollins 1995;
Jenkins & Carter, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Nieto, 2000).
It is important to state here that White educators are not the only educators
that face challenges in teaching learners of diverse backgrounds. Many may
assume that anti-oppressive teaching comes to people of color naturally
because they have experienced oppression themselves. However, people
of color can also marginalize the very students they are trying to empower
(Jenkins & Carter, 2013). For instance, Stewart (2012) found that African
American teachers held negative beliefs about Latino students that impacted
their ability to teach them.
According to Jost, Whitfield, and Jost (2005, p. 15)
1. Black and White teachers lack a basic understanding of educational history
of people of color, the current inequities in education and the affirmative
action policies that impact it.
2. Most White teachers believe the system was founded in fairness, justice
and equality at the same time most Blacks may understand racism at
instinctual level, may be reserved in articulating it and may have adopted
the same beliefs as Whites concerning fairness, justice and equality.
3. Black and White teachers harbor many stereotypes about their students
and offer one-dimensional rationales concerning the achievement gap,
race issues and institutionalized racism and other social issues.
4. Teachers of both races are apprehensive of the educational system and
simultaneously distrust it.
Given that both Whites teachers and teachers of color have gaps of
understanding concerning education inequities and interracial discourse, it
is vital to examine how these factors may influence oppressive practices in
the classroom. Preservice teachers need to be prepared to become culturally
responsive and engage in anti-racist behavior. Researchers have argued
about gaps in the research based on how candidates predispositions are
related to the admission and selection process used to identify applicants
most responsive to learning to teach diverse students (Hollins & Guzman,
2005, p. 510). In our program, we examine predispositions of candidates
to learn more about the benefits of recruitment and what to look for in a
candidate.
127
Researchers have argued extensively that urban teachers need specific skills
and preservice teachers need specific experiences to develop their expertise
(Bennett, 2000). It is becoming more widely understood that preservice
teachers who aspire to become urban teachers should be provided with the
necessary experiences to enable them to be effective in diverse classrooms.
Unfortunately, faculty members at many teacher education institutions are
not unlike the profile of the preservice teachers they teach, meaning they
are comprised of primarily White, middle-class females. While the faculty
members are sympathetic to issues of cultural diversity and social justice,
they simply have had little experience working in urban schools themselves
(Singer, Catapano, & Huisman, 2010).
Therefore, the authors revisited a model previously used at a university in
the Midwest part of the country to provide educational experiences to assist
preservice teachers in learning to teach in urban environments. Additionally,
an urban specialist was assigned as the field experience supervisor and
student teaching course instructor to provide the instruction needed to be
effective.
THE NEW MODEL: URBAN STUDENT TEACHER EDUCATION

PREPARATION (USTEP)
With the rising concern about how to enhance the quality of education
in urban schools, studies began to support the significance of teachers
behaviors and attitudes in the educational process (Gollnick & Chinn 1986;
Sleeter & Grant, 1994). Urban teachers were found to need high levels of
cultural sensitivity often demonstrated through their attitudes, behaviors, and
instructional practices in the classroom (Larke, 1992; Zeichner, 1992). In
addition, teacher beliefs operate as filters through which their interpretations
and decisions are made in practice and instruction.
The traditional core experience required the students to spend a set number
of hours in the classroom before student teaching. The hours were spent in
predominantly White middleclass settings where the socioeconomic status
was similar to the university students own experience. The students were
not prepared for diverse classrooms. The preservice teachers were introduced
to an initiative designed to provide additional support for placement in
urban settings. The teacher education program at a Type I university in the
Southwestern part of the United States was reflective of a growing number
of large teacher education programs needing to redesign coursework
and experiences to prepare preservice teachers for diverse classrooms.
The initiative redesign focused on a student teaching model with equally
128
important components supporting the student teaching experience for diverse

urban classrooms (a) university administrative support through recruitment
and placement (b) district support through collaborative development, and
(c) an urban specialist as field supervisor and course instructor provided
support through revised assignments, additional readings, guest speakers
and mentoring. The urban specialist as field supervisor and student teaching
course instructor was a vital part of this newly revised program.
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT THROUGH

RECRUITMENTAND PLACEMENT
Students were introduced to the initiative in a general meeting for preservice

teachers organized by the universitys student teaching team. This
informational meeting held during the spring semester of their junior year was
designed to inform students of all necessary requirements and planning for
the upcoming Fall student teaching experience. During the meeting, students
were given a brief presentation regarding the current need for teachers in
urban schools. The presentation included data on national and state hiring
trends as well as teacher and student demographics. For example;
Over 80% of all teacher education graduates do not select large cities for
employment opportunities (USDE, 2010, TEA, 2012).
Urban school districts account for more than 50% of the total school
districts and teaching population in the nation (USDE, 2010).
The students were reminded that as a state funded institution, the
university was obligated to prepare its future teachers for all classrooms.
The presentation was designed with hopes of moving students to action by
applying for the initiative and preparing themselves for teaching in diverse
urban schools.
When students completed their student teaching applications, those who
selected USTEP the urban initiative were directed to a specific application
developed by the urban team from the colleges Urban Education Center. The
students were required to submit three letters of recommendations and have
a 2.5 grade point average in their education courses. The university student
teaching office in cooperation with the university urban education center
team reviewed all applications and requirements. Close attention was paid
to the dispositions of student teachers about city and urban schools during
the selection process. The selection team noted specific interest and previous
experiences in urban settings. Students were notified of their acceptance by
the Urban Education Center team. The university contacted a district, and
129
made student teaching arrangements for the accepted applicants. Students

were enrolled in a student teaching course designed specifically for urban
teacher preparation. The university sponsored a meeting prior to the semester
ending, where the preservice teachers were introduced to the urban specialist
assigned as the university supervisor. The university offered administrative
help with recruitment, placement, course offering and financial support for
the initiative.
District Support through Collaborative Development

The district selected was located about 100 miles from the university and was
a recent recipient of the Broad Prize, which is an award for the best urban
school district in the nation. The universitys Urban Education Center had
a long-standing relationship with the district and had previously conducted
district wide professional development on culturally responsive classroom
teaching. Prior to the student teaching experience, student teachers were
provided with information about the district, apartment locator services, and
other important information needed for transition to urban life.
Some students from the university travelled to the district to visit classrooms
and observe teachers. In collaboration with the universitys Urban Education
Center team, the district placed each of the students with cooperating
teachers who would mentor and support them during their student teaching
experience. The district demonstrated support for student teachers through
a collaborative development program. The students were invited to attend
Reach2Teach, a week long new teacher induction program prior to school
starting. An orientation session was held during the first week of school,
along with required weekly development sessions. The student teachers
were provided with a Student Teaching handbook detailing expectations,
and district policies. Included in the handbook was a schedule of required
weekly professional development sessions for all student teachers. The
district supported student teachers by scheduling speakers on topics such as:
interviewing skills and resume writing, classroom management classroom
environment, discipline, special populations and cultural diversity. Sessions
were scheduled for students to network with principals, administrators and
board members.
The district supported the student teacher initiative from its inception. The
district administrators agreed that preservice teachers who were strong in
content knowledge would benefit from an urban student teaching experience.
The district remained supportive and immediately hired all students who
130
Table 1. District development schedule

District Collaborative Development
Reach2Teach New Teacher Induction Academy
First Day of Instruction/Student Teacher Orientation
Seminar (Danielson Framework)
Seminar (Resume and job planning)
Seminar (Rigor and Relevance)
Seminar (Classroom Management)
Seminar (Diversity in the Classroom)
Seminar (Special Populations)
Seminar (Data Driven Decision Making)
Seminar (Principal Panel and Interviews)
Universitys Supervisors Meeting
applied for positions after completion of their student teaching. The district
continues to support new teachers with a new teacher induction program.
Urban Specialist Support

The urban specialist was key to the USTEP Model, providing relevant course
work, scheduling guest speakers, deconstructing experiences and serving
as a mentor to preservice teachers. This preservice experience is set apart
from others by the expertise of an urban specialist as instructor and field
supervisor. The urban specialist was selected by the university urban center
team as someone with experience in urban schools, a grounded knowledge of
culturally responsive pedagogy and familiarity with the chosen district. The
urban specialist was responsible for redesigning the student teaching course
to include additional reading, writing and reflective assignments relevant to
teaching in urban schools. Sessions were designed for the preservice teachers
to reflect on their experiences and deconstruct the assigned readings as well
as their classroom experiences. The student teachers were required to journal
daily, providing an account of their classroom experiences in relations to
their teaching and personal reflections.
Culturally responsive teaching pedagogy was the foundation for the urban
initiative student teaching course. It required that educators critically reflect
on the way in which they taught and consider the underlying messages
and assumptions in their curriculum. As part of the course, a guest speaker
131
was invited to speak to the student teachers. The discussion was organized
to address how to avoid the pitfalls of anti-racist teaching. This presenter
described ways in which educators who try to promote anti-racism in the
classroom can promote the dominant ideology that is prominent in mainstream
education by emphasizing individuality, placing too much focus on the
Other and by using teaching strategies based on deficit theory. The author
explained different ways all educators can support the dominant discourse
on race relations and offered suggestions to keep equity at the forefront of
teaching. The student teachers were encouraged to ask questions and discuss
scenarios openly in a safe environment.
The urban specialist, in the role of field supervisor completed all required
observations of the student teachers in the classroom. Shortly following the
observations, the urban specialist conferenced with the student teachers to
address their teaching practices. As part of the follow-up conference, the
student teachers were provided a chance to reflect on experiences requiring
guidance about their lessons. This gave the urban specialist an opportunity
to offer input regarding teaching practices based on culturally responsive
pedagogy. A critical part of the urban specialist responsibility was to mentor
the student teachers. As a supportive mentor, the urban specialist addressed the
immediate needs of preservice teachers by providing psychological support,
assessments, feedback on teaching and identified areas of improvement.
An essential component for creating positive preservice teaching
experiences was the scheduled share and support sessions. Psychological
support built the preservice teachers self-esteem and ability to handle stress.
The journals student teachers kept afforded the urban specialist with ideal
discussion topics. The student teachers used journaling to express their many
concerns and challenges. The process allowed the urban specialist to guide
and direct student teachers appropriately. During these scheduled sessions,
the student teachers were also able to share common experiences with one
another.
The USTEP Model illustrates the importance of collaboration and support
between the university, district and urban specialist in preparing preservice
teachers for diverse urban classroom. The relationship model displayed in
Figure I depicts an equal importance on each component with interaction
among all entities. In keeping with a tenet of culturally responsiveness, the
student teacher is at the center of the process. While each component is
equally important, this model places light on the significance of the urban
specialist. The role of the urban specialist as course instructor and field
supervisor provided the students with valuable expertise as mentor. The
132
Figure 1. The USTEP model illustrates the collaboration needed

betweenallinvolved
responsibility of course instructor for other student teachers is assigned in

the student teaching office and is not the same person as the field supervisor
who is responsible for field observations.
USTEP MODEL
This model illustrates how the university collaboratively worked with an,
urban district and an urban specialist to preservice teachers. The goals of
implementing the initiative undergirded by the fulfil the needs of USTEP
Model included:
1. promoting the confidence of the preservice teacher in diverse urban
classrooms;
2. improving effective teaching behaviors for all student teachers;
3. increasing knowledge and application of culturally responsive teaching;
and
4. increasing the numbers of prepared urban teachers for diverse urban
classrooms
133
DISPOSITIONS OF APPLICANTS
The six preservice teachers participating in the program were African

American, Latino and White middle-class students who expressed a goal of
teaching in urban schools. They elected to become a part of this experience
because of job availability in the school districts; therefore, immediate
employment was their incentive. Although students self-identified themselves
as middle or upper class, all received financial aid. The teachers ranged in
age from ? to 24, single with no children.
In the redesigned field experience course described as part to the teacher
education program, students were asked to write in their journals daily and
complete written assignments. They were provided feedback from the urban
specialist instructor. The urban specialist as field supervisor made class
observations and conference calls. In addition, follow-up conferences were
held with students who sought employment in urban schools.
The preliminary findings included four emergent themes from students
who sought urban teaching positions after their preservice experience in
urban schools. The four themes were (a) the urban school experience (b)
view of the city, (c) the urban specialist mentor, and (d) cohort support.
The Urban Experience

The preservice teachers had differing prior urban school experiences.
Preliminary findings revealed that 3 of the 6 preservice teachers did not have
prior experiences or exposure to urban schools. Although they did not have
experience in urban settings, they expressed a desire to learn more and gain
greater experience in the urban setting. This is reflected in their applications.
For example:
To be perfectly honest, I have no experience with urban schools.
I grew up in a mostly white community, going to mostly white
public elementary and junior high schools. I transferred and attended
a private high school, also mostly white. Despite my person schooling,
I am most certainly interested in teaching in an urban school and have
taken steps in that direction. As a senior in high school I applied to the
TEACH grant, which requires recipients to teach four of their first 8
years in a low socioeconomic school
My first experience in an urban school environment was a middle
school. Many of the children from low income households had
134
patterns of behavior that seemed odd to me at the time. I saw

everything from disciplinary problems, to trying to be invisible. My
parents did their best to explain to me why these children would be
acting the way they were. I was able to understand most of what they
said, but I was still confused.
Three of the six preservice teachers had previous experience in urban
schools. They had attended urban schools throughout their K-12 educational
experience. They were able to reflect on their own experience in urban
schools. The students with urban experience responded differently in the
sense that they were able to reflect on their personal experiences in urban
schools. Their application responses were illustrative:
I grew up in city and I attended city school so I know where
these kids are coming from. I witnessed students fall through
the cracks because they would not listen to a teacher who had
no idea what life outside the class was like for them.
I have always seen myself teaching in urban districts, especially
since I experienced on first hand my entire life. I grew up in (city)
and attended public schools on free or reduced lunch from
kindergarten all the way to senior year of high school.
Growing up in an area where graduating from high school
was a huge accomplishment and going to college was unheard
of, I knew at an early age that I wanted to be the change my
community needed.
These responses showed a contrast between those students with previous
experience in urban settings and those without experience and exposure.
This was important because studies indicate that perceptions and attitudes
about schools are influenced and shaped by personal knowledge (Swetnam,
1992). The annual Gallup poll taken by Phi Delta Kappa on perceptions of
public schools indicated the greater ones personal knowledge was about
the public school, the better one likes and respects the schools. According to
Swetnam (1992), people who do not have personal knowledge or experience
have a tendency to form their attitudes and perceptions based on media
representation that could be fictional. Although, there is a definite dearth
of positive information about city schools and urban areas in general, when
perservice teachers enter urban schools with limited exposure, it could leave
them vulnerable to stereotyping without additional professional and support
to help them understand what they are experiencing.
135
Urban Choice
A theme emerged that is worthy of discussion, specifically, an urban school
as a place of employment. In a classic study by Carter and Larke (1995), a
group of 45 White, middle-class preservice teachers were asked to explain
in detail why they would not accept a teaching position in an urban school.
Some of their responses were the following:
I realize I am being selfish and idealistic, but I dont want to settle for
less.
I couldnt handle being in a school where teachers spend most of
the day dealing with depressing problems.
It was a great [urban field] experience, but I would be embarrassed to
tell my friends and family that I work here
These comments were made almost 2 decades ago, but according to more
recent studies, the predispositions of these students still exist and are attached
to real feelings about their jobs as a social status symbol (Hollins & Guzman,
2005; Jenkins & Carter, 2013;Singer & Hoffman, 2008). For these preservice
teachers, the wealth and social status of the school district determined their
personal value and worth as a teacher. Larke and Carter (1995) reported
these students were steeped in their philosophical orientation toward how to
establish their own sense of worth and it was tied into their desire to teach in
affluent school districts. Some of these same students pursued an urban field
placement because it would look good on their resume or show they were
well-rounded to an employer.
In direct contrast, preservice students who applied for the USTEP initiative
were excited and eager to seek employment in an urban environment. They
actively sought opportunities to serve children in city schools and articulated
passion toward being in the city. Prepositions of preservice teachers may
have implications for recruitment and the selection process of potential
teachers for diverse classrooms.
The Urban Specialist Mentor

It is important to note that over last two decades, research on preparing
teachers for diverse populations has been conducted. These preliminary
findings add to the research by addressing the importance of the field
supervisor as urban specialist. This mentoring role was significant in the
136
experience of the preservice teachers. The preservice teachers expressed their

need for support to analyze and deconstruct their experiences in the urban
classroom. This was an important part of their student teaching experience.
They expressed that weekly opportunities to share personal experiences
helped them through some of their challenging times. This is reflected in
their journals. For example:
Having the opportunity to discuss experiences and assignments with
someone who knows what you are talking about. You cant speak on
things unless you have experienced them, you have no credibility.
Nothing is more powerful than having someone with that experience
in urban school. Urban supervisor made us think of things we had not
thought of before.
It was so important having a support system of supervisor, district and
cooperating teacher.
Having urban supervisor to help you to reflect on each assignment, what
worked, what did not and how you would change it for the next class.
Preservice teachers need support and guidance from experienced mentors.
Mentors provide psychological and instruction-related support (Gold, 1996).
Psychological support addresses the preservice teachers needs and concerns,
while instruction-related support includes learning to teach. The latter can
be achieved through formative observations and evaluations conducted by
mentors (Moon-Merchant & Carter, 2008). While a mentor was needed
to assist the preservice teacher confront problems and concerns, the goals
of mentoring advanced beyond supporting new teachers emotionally and
assisting them in developing professionally.
Cohort Support
An essential component for creating positive preservice teaching
experiences was the weekly share and support sessions. The preservice
teachers overwhelmingly expressed the importance of the cohort support.
Psychological support built the preservice teachers self-esteem and ability
to handle stress.
Being a part of a group where you could discuss your experiences and
share ideas every week was so important. Sometimes you were going
through some of the same things and you were able to share that with
others in the program.
137
Discussions with the group and support from supervisor. Just to know
the members of the cohort were experiencing some of the same highs
and lows and to have someone to help you work through those situations
was most helpful.
The opportunity to work in a cohort with other student teachers so
closely. journaling and reflecting on assignments and experiences with
your group in our weekly meeting. I knew others were having some of
the same experiences we were able to discuss and share.
Supporting emerging teachers was incorporated as a form of therapeutic
guidance. Teacher efficacy was an important element. Teacher efficacy is
the extent to which a teacher believes he/she can actually teach the children.
To build self-confidence and a high sense of teacher efficacy, discussions
and activities oriented around self-assessed needs and concerns are essential.
Peer share and support sessions were built on the founding codes of trust,
respect and confidentiality. These requirements were critical to the success
of the group meetings. Support was sustained throughout the program by
dialoguing with the preservice teacher and his or her peers. Scheduled weekly
meeting sessions allowed opportunities for them to voice their concerns, vent,
share their successes and challenges, and help one another solve problems.
These meetings assisted preservice teachers cope with problems and gave
them opportunities to reflect, learn and grow professionally.
Through sharing personal experiences, preservice teachers gained
a deeper understanding of themselves as emerging teachers. Feedback
received during this process enabled them to see that others were
experiencing the same challenges. One of the most important aspects of
these confidential group sessions was that the activity permitted teachers to
share their accomplishments and frustrations without fear of consequences.
Since the urban specialist was university-based, there was no inclination
to cast judgment. According to Rogers and Babinski (1999), peer meetings
also allow preservice teachers to feel part of a group, thus retarding
feelings of isolation. Consequently, peer support sessions reduce isolation
and provide candid and sincere dialogue from peers experiencing similar
challenges.
Danielson and McGreal (2000) reported that structured journal reflections
on practice effectively promoted professional learning. Reflection was a
means for improving classroom process and outcomes. When preservice
138
teachers closely examined their practices, they perceived patterns of

classroom events, advanced discourse with mentors and peers and recognized
that teaching is an ongoing professional growth process (Boreen, Johnson,
Niday, & Potts, 2000). Through conversations and sharing ideas during
the support sessions, entry-level teachers reflected on their own practice,
acquired new ideas from peers and gained self-confidence. Journal entries
assisted the preservice to perceive the progress of personal growth during the
student teaching experience.
CONCLUSION
Researchers have repeatedly confirmed that teachers need to know more

about the world of the children with whom they work in order to better
offer opportunities for learning success (Graybill,1997; Pransky & Bailey,
2002/2003). Improving the instructional practices and the methods used
to prepare teachers are important in improving urban education (Milner,
2012). The preliminary analysis of this program initiative indicates that
preservice teachers would be willing to complete student teaching in urban
schools districts in preparation for teaching in urban schools. The selection
of these preservice teacher applicants can be determined by analyzing their
application responses with the Five Dispositions of Advocates and Resisters
in the Multicultural Classroom Model. The model proposed by Hill-
Jackson (2007), includes cognitive complexity, worldviews, intercultural
sensitivity, and ethics. Preservice teachers with indicating high cognitive
complexity, multifocal perspectives, empathy and high moral standards
would be determined to be good candidates for the USTEP program. These
preservice teachers would require support, from the university, the school
district and an urban specialist as demonstrated in the USTEP Model. This
model of student teaching emphasizes the need for an urban specialist
equipped to help the students develop their competency in areas of cultural
responsiveness. The urban specialist in the USTEP model would also
serve as a mentor aiding the preservice teachers as they navigate through
their urban experience. As instructor for the course, the urban specialist
becomes critical for examining and deconstructing educational systems
that perpetuates inequality and maintains the status quo for many students
in urban schools. Of the 6 students who participated in the initiative, 5
pursued jobs in an urban district.
139
Recommendations
Finally, it is recommended that colleges and universities should answer
the call to provide the nations schools with adequate numbers of teacher
prepared to teach in diverse urban classrooms, a change in the preparation
of preservice teachers should be considered. Universities should recruit
and identify students that are willing to teach in urban schools. In addition,
these students should be supported by a district that provides continuous
professional development during the preservice field experience. The
district should identify cooperating teachers who want to guide, mentor
and share best practices that are grounded in culturally responsive
pedagogy. The university should provide preservice teachers interested
in teaching in an urban setting with an urban specialist as supervisor and
instructor. Preparing teachers for urban schools should be viewed as a
distinctive component of teacher education programs, rather than adhering
to the traditional standards involving general guidelines. Additionally,
new models with specialized criteria should be embraced. The use of
various components of this evolving model may be useful in identifying
existing programs that allow preservice teachers to be supported by the
university, district and an urban specialist to help in deconstructing new
experiences faced in diverse urban schools, thus negating the perpetuation
of stereotyping and discrimination.
Implications for Future Research

Over the last decade, researchers have studied university school partnerships
in preparing new teacher for urban schools (Burbank & Dynak, 2005, Cavalo,
Ferreira, & Roberts, 2005; Conway, Browning, & Burdum-Cassidy, 2007;
Miller, Duffy, Rohr, Gasparello, & Mercier, 2005). Future researchers can
further the implications for the model in suburban and rural schools. Further
study needs to be done to determine if preservice teachers hired as teachers
continued to be supported and remain in the school district. It is our desire
that gaps in the research will be filled by researchers that are interested in
pursuing the development of various models for preservice teachers.
NOTE
The present uban education model discussed in this chapter is based on the foundational
1
model introduced by Carter and Larke (1995). This model has been in used for nearly 20
years at various institutions thus a revisitation of the model is needed.
140
REFERENCES
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (2005). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives
(6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bennett, C. I. (1999). Multicultural education: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn.
Bennett, C., Cole, D., & Thompson, J.N. (2000). Preparing teachers of color at a predominantly
White university: A case study of project TEAM. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4),
445464.
Boreen, J., Johnson, M., Niday, D., & Potts, J. (2000). Mentoring beginning teachers:
Guiding, reflecting, coaching. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Burbank, M.D., & Dynak, J. (2005). Universitydistrict partnerships and the recruitment of
tomorrows teachers: A grassroots effort for preparing quality educators through a teaching
academy. The Teacher Educator, 41(1), 5469.
Canniff, J. G. (2008). A cultural memoir of schooling: Connecting history and critical
reflection to the development of culturally responsive educators. Teaching Education,
19(4), 325335.
Carter, N. P. (Ed.). (2003). Convergence or divergence: Alignment of standards, assessment
and issues of diversity. Washington, DC: AACTE & Eric Clearing House & Bacon.
Carter, N. P., & Larke, P. J. (1995). Preparing the urban teacher: Reconceptualizing the
experience. In M. OHair & S. Odell (Eds.), Teacher education yearbook II (pp. 7795).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cavallo, A. M. L., Ferreira, M. M., & Roberts, S. K. (2005). Increasing student access to
qualified science and mathematics teachers through an urban schooluniversity partnership.
School Science and Mathematics, 105(7), 363372.
Cochran-Smith, M., Davis, D., & Fries, M. K. (2003). Multicultural teacher education:
Research practice and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research
on multicultural education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conaway, B. J., Browning, L. J., & Burdum-Cassidy, B. (2007). Teacher candidates changing
perceptions of urban schools: Results of a 4-year study. Action in Teacher Education,
29(1), 2031.
Garcia, S.B., & Oritz, A. (2004). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and
linguistically responsive referral intervention. Denver, CO: National Center for Culturally
Responsive Educational Systems (Practitioner Brief Series).
Gay, G. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research & practice (2nded.). New
York,NY:Teachers College Press.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring and induction. In J. Sikula
(Ed.), Project of association of teacher education (2nd ed.). NewYork,NY: Macmillan.
Good, T., & Brophy, J. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). NewYork,NY: Longman.
Grant, C., & Secada, W. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W.R. Houston, M.
Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 403422).
New York,NY: Macmillan.
Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Haberman, M. (1996). Selecting and preparing culturally competent teachers for urban
schools. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher
education (2nd ed.,pp. 747760). New York,NY: Macmillan.
141
Haberman, M., & Sikula, J. (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.,
pp. 403422). New York,NY: Macmillan.
Hollins, E. R. (1995). Revealing the deep meaning of culture in school learning: Framing a
new paradigm for teacher preparation. Action in Teacher Education, 17(1), 7079.
Hollins, E. R., & Guzman, M. T. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse
populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education:
The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477548). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Howard, T. (2001). Powerful pedagogy for African American students: A case of four teachers.
Urban Education, 36, 179202.
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for a diverse society: Seeing with the cultural eye.
New York,NY: Teachers College Press.
Jenkins, C., & Carter, N. (2013). Avoiding the pitfalls of anti-racist teaching: Lessons for
White and Black educators. The National Journal of Urban Education and Practice, 6(4),
262274.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race
theory perspective. In A. Iran-Nejad & D. Person (Eds.), Review of research in education
(Vol. 24, pp. 211248). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Landsman, J., & Lewis, C. W. (2006). But good intentions are not enough: Theoretical and
philosophical relevance in teaching students of color. In J. Landsman & C. W. Lewis (Eds.),
White teachers, diverse classrooms: A guide to building inclusive schools. promoting high
expectations, and eliminating racism (pp. 7990). Sterling, VA: Stylus Pub.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, S., Duffy, G. G., Rohr, J., Gasparello, R., & Mercier, S. (2005). Preparing teachers for
high poverty schools. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 6265.
Milner, H. R. (2012). Challenges in teacher education for urban education. Urban Education,
47(4), 700705.
National Center for Alternative Certification. (2007). Overview of alternative teacher
certification. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.teach-now.org
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Institute of education sciences (NCES2011).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ng, J. (2003). Teacher shortages in urban schools: The role of traditional and alternative
certification routes in filling the voids. Education and Urban Society, 35, 380398.
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education.
New York, NY: Longman.
Robinson, P.A., & Lewis, C. W.(2011). The troubling context of urban education: Instructional
design as a source of transformation for students of color. Journal of Curriculum and
Pedagogy, 8(2), 109112.
Sable, J., Noel, A., & Hoffman, L. (2008). Public elementary and secondary school student
enrollment and staff from the common core of data: School year 200607 (NCES 2009-
305). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Saffold, F., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). White women preparing to teach in urban schools:
Looking for similarity and finding difference. The Urban Review, 40(2), 186209.
142
Singer, N. R., Catapano, S., & Huisman, S. (2010). The universitys role in preparing teachers
for urban schools. Teaching Education, 21(2), 119130.
Sleeter, C. (2001a). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher preparation
for historically underserved children. In W. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education
(Vol. 25, pp. 209250). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Sleeter, C. (2001b). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: The overwhelming
presence of Whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 94106.
Strizek, G.A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K.E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G.F. (2006).
Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United
States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.
Swetnam, L. (1992). Media distortion of the teacher image. Clearing House, 66(1), 3032.
U.S. Department of Education [USDOE]. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2011
(NCES2011). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education [USDOE]. (2012). The condition of education 2012
(NCES2012). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vaught S. E., & Castagno, A.E. (2008). I dont think Im a racist: Critical race theory,
teacher attitudes, and structural racism. Race Ethnicity and Education, 11 (2), 95113.
Webb-Johnson, G., & Carter, N. (2007). Culturally responsive urban school leadership:
Partnering to improve outcomes for African American learners. The National Journal of
Urban Education and Practice, 1(1),7798.
Weiner, L. (2000). Research in the 90s: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Review of
Educational Research, 70(3), 369406.
Weiner, L. (2006). Urban teaching: The essentials. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.
Williams, K. (2012). Power of a teacher: Implications for African American middle school
students. The Journal of the Texas Alliance of Black School Educators, 5(1) 526.
Zeichern, K.M., &Hoeft, K. (1996). Teacher socialization for cultural diversity. In J. Sikula,
T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.,
pp. 525547). New York,NY: Macmillan.
Kamala Williams
College of Education and Human Development,
Norvella Carter
College of Education and Human Development,
143
TRACEY S. HODGES, ERIN MCTIGUE, APRIL G. DOUGLASS,
NANCY DUBINSKI WEBER, KATHERINE LANDAU WRIGHT
ANDANNA DE LA GARZA
8. MODELING THE WRITE TEACHING PRACTICES

Instructor Influences on Preservice Teachers
INTRODUCTION
Writing is infiltrating society at a higher rate than ever before. A curiously

unintended, yet significant, consequence of the increased focus on
technology has resulted in more words written each day. Rather than using
oral language to communicate (via phone calls or face-to-face interactions),
people are relying on the written word for communication (Yancey, 2004).
An increase in the emphasis on writing in daily life would logically be
reflected by a commensurate increased emphasis in the amount of writing
that occurs within schools, or at least an increase in the writing instruction
that occurs within schools. However, current research (Cutler & Graham,
2008) indicates otherwise.
Historically, writing has been overlooked in K-12 classrooms and is not
even included as one of the five essential components of literacy education
in the No Child Left Behind legislation (i.e., Reading First), which recently
dominated educational policy (Cutler & Graham, 2008). This national
ambivalence about the importance of writing can also be seen on high-stakes
tests: only in 2005 did the SAT exam introduce a written essay component;
however, starting in 2016, the essay will become optional. The local level
has frequently mirrored national policy, as writing has consistently been an
overshadowed part of many state and school district curricula.
However, relative neglect may not only be stemming from top-down
forces, but may also be due to ground-level characteristics. While most K-12
teachers have students engage in some degree of writing, often they do not
personally enjoy writing or feel confident in their ability to teach writing
concepts (Dempsey, PytlikZillig & Bruning 2009; Morgan, 2010). Moreover,
very few school districts adopt a premade writing curriculum; instead,
the majority of teachers create their own model as well as supplementary
materials for teaching writing concepts.

T. S. HODGES et al.
The combination of teachers feeling unprepared to teach writing and

having few curricular resources to draw upon, can result in scenarios of
limited classroom writing instruction. Because teachers directly control the
type and amount of writing in schools, it is imperative to take a step back and
look at the foundations of teachers beliefs about writing specifically, their
writing instruction at the preservice level.
Previous research indicates that teachers attitudes toward writing are
frequently apathetic or, at best, mediocre (e.g., Morgan, 2010). But, from
where do these emotions originate, and what can be done to change them?
Research indicates that preservice teacher preparation programs and former
teachers are the leading sources of preservice teachers beliefs about
writing (Graham, Harris, MacArther, & Fink, 2002; Colby & Stapleton,
2006; Dempsey et al., 2009). This finding indicates the quality of writing
instruction at the preservice level can have profound and lasting effects on
teachers attitudes.
PURPOSE
The present chapter discusses the results of a program evaluation and

self-study of writing-intensive education courses at a university in the
southwestern part of the United States. Multiple sources of data are used.
Preservice teachers self-efficacy for writing tasks and their perceived ability
to teach writing is compared from the beginning to the end of the course.
Comparisons among instructors teaching practices and student behaviors
also are analyzed. Together, methods to inform teacher education programs
are discussed.
In the following sections, we provide a brief review of prior and current
research on writing instruction, and we define the major constructs
preservice teacher self-efficacy for writing, preservice teacher self-efficacy
for writing instruction, and effective teacher modeling. Additionally, we
describe writing-intensive courses and observations of these courses using
classroom observation instruments. Following these sections are the methods,
results, and discussion for our study.
State of Writing Instruction Research

Writing is a complex and multi-dimensional cognitive and social process, and
the more researchers understand about the underlying processes, the more
complex writing appears. To that effect, the constructs supporting effective
writing instruction are also multi-dimensional and complex. No single model
146
Modeling The Write Teaching practices
of writing instruction, that currently exists, fully captures these complexities

(Graham, Berninger, & Abbott, 2012). Despite the fact that writing was
included in No Child Left Behind, and the Common Core State Standards
emphasize both learning to write and writing to learn as important constructs
in literacy development (National Governors Association, 2010a; Graham et
al., 2012), writing instruction at the K-12 level does not parallel the influence
of writing in daily life.
Writing instruction is foundational to students success in the classroom
and beyond (Graham & Perin, 2007), yet there is a dearth of current research
focusing on improving writing instruction for students. Looking beyond the
public schools, there is even less research that focuses directly on teacher
education programs as vehicles for improving the self-efficacy beliefs of
preservice teachers. The majority of current research on writing instruction is
focused on inservice teachers (e.g., Cutler & Graham, 2008; Graham & Perin,
2007). Despite this lack of research, there is a strong call for studies that
focus on improving the self-efficacy of preservice literacy teachers. Current
research on self-efficacy shows that teachers who demonstrate a high sense
of efficacy are more likely to diversify their instructional strategies, utilize
multiple genres of text, and engage students in various grouping methods
to improve student achievement (Tschannen-Moran & Johnson, 2011).
However, research is needed to more clearly connect teacher self-efficacy
with writing instruction.
Preservice Teachers Self-Efficacy for Writing Instruction

Teacher educators should develop activities that allow preservice teachers
to engage in creative writing tasks that model teaching strategies they could
integrate into their own literacy lessons (Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Hall &
Grisham-Brown, 2011). For the purposes of the present study, preservice
teachers self-efficacy for writing instruction is defined as preservice teachers
belief in their abilities to effectively instruct students on writing tasks and
writing strategies to improve writing achievement. It is the teachers belief
in his or her abilities to engage students in the process of writing to produce
high-quality writing samples.
Preservice Teachers Self-Efficacy for Writing

Students beliefs about their own writing processes and competence for
writing are instrumental in their ultimate success as writers (Pajares, 2003;
Pajares & Valiante, 2006). Therefore, teachers need to be writers in order to
147
T. S. HODGES et al.
effectively teach writing (Colby & Stapleton, 2006). It is significantly more

difficult for a teacher to instruct on a skill with which he or she is not familiar
or adept. According to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), a teachers
efficacy belief is a judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and learning, even among those students
who may be difficult or unmotivated (p. 783). Moreover, teachers who
feel that they will improve student achievement are more likely to change
their beliefs regarding self-efficacy (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Through
social cognitive theory and self-efficacy for writing (Bandura, 1977, 1986),
preservice self-efficacy for writing is the preservice teachers belief that they
can effectively write for multiple purposes (e.g., communication, persuasion,
lesson planning, note-taking) and multiple audiences (e.g., parents, teachers,
self, students) with confidence.
Effective Teacher Modeling

Preservice teachers learn the skill of teaching from effective teacher models.
In fact, in their seminal work, Graham and Perin (2007) found that when
teachers did not provide effective modeling of strategies in writing instruction,
student achievement decreased (d = -.61). Effective teacher modeling is also
present in higher education when teacher educators are instructing preservice
teachers (Kaufman, 2009). Research suggests that preservice teachers often
revert to teaching in the same ways they were taught because they do not
fully grasp the connections between theory and practice from their teacher
preparation courses (Ritter, 2012). The task of making these connections is
on the teacher educators, who can enhance the effectiveness of preservice
teachers by modeling the practices suggested by theory. However, many
teachers report that they are inadequately prepared to teach writing (Kiuhara,
Graham, & Hawken, 2009).
In the present study, effective teacher modeling is operationally defined
as the demonstration of best, research-based practices related to writing
instruction in authentic classroom settings. This suggests that teacher
educators are staying up-to-date on best practices which research shows
improve student outcomes and achievement in writing and are demonstrating
these practices, including strategies and instructional approaches, to
preservice teachers. Moreover, these demonstrations are occurring in
authentic classroom settings. Preservice teachers can visualize how these
practices would translate into their own classrooms, but also provides the
preservice teachers with the opportunity to test and use the strategies and
148
instructional approaches themselves. Effective teacher modeling will be

measured through systematic classroom observations, which have been a call
for research in past and current published studies (see Graham et al., 2002).
Writing-Intensive Education Courses

Courses that allow preservice teachers opportunities to engage in writing,
examine their own thinking (metacognition) about writing, and practice
giving feedback on others writing, help develop positive beliefs about
writing. To improve the writing skills of undergraduates, many universities
have opted to restructure content area courses and designate them as writing-
intensive (Farris & Smith, 1992). These courses incorporate regular writing
tasks in ways that allow students to learn both the subject matter and ways of
thinking and writing specific to their discipline.
Although the basic requirements for writing-intensive courses can vary
by university, the conditions for a writing-intensive course in the university
studied here are as follows:
The course must require writing related to the students major.
Instructors must provide explicit instruction in writing.
Instructors must provide feedback that allows for the improvement of
writing on major assignments.
A large percentage of the final course grade must be based on writing
quality (about 25% for a 4-credit course, 33% for a 3-credit course, and
75% for a one-credit course)
Instructors must require a minimum of 2000 written words.
In the participating education department, writing-intensive courses are
predominately junior-level courses designed to prepare preservice teachers
for classroom instruction. The content of the courses varies and includes
topics such as childrens literature, multicultural childrens literature, reading
and writing instruction for middle grades, and language acquisition and
development of English Language Learners (ELLs). Likewise, the writing
assignments differ by course to include a wide range of writing assignments
including research papers, essays, timed writings, journals, low stakes in-
class writing, and assessment of others writing.
The writing process is complex and intimidating for many students and
this presents a real concern when it comes to preservice teacher preparation
in writing. The task of preparing future teachers for the classroom presents
a unique situation for those who teach writing-intensive courses to not only
149
T. S. HODGES et al.
should these courses be informative, but they should also fully prepare future
teachers for the task of teaching writing themselves. The specific goals of
these courses can differ; however, they should be designed to provide students
with specific, authentic practice in writing that both inform their knowledge
of the content and allow them to practice effective writing methods.
Measuring Effective Teacher Modeling through Systematic Classroom

Observations
The drive to link what teachers actually do in their classrooms to how their
students perform academically has created a need for classroom observation
research to examine the nuances and intricacies of the diverse and dynamic
teaching field. Simply focusing on grades and test scores does not provide a
complete picture of a specific instructors effect on student learning. Methods
like value-added modeling have emerged in an effort to estimate teacher
quality based on student improvement (Doran & Fleishman, 2005). This focus
on individual teachers combats the Widget Effect, referring to the common
assumption that teacher effectiveness is consistent across classrooms within a
particular school while neglecting to appreciate the impact of each individual
educator (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009).
Unlike casual observations, which involve simply taking in what is
going on in the immediate environment, systematic classroom observations
establish a protocol for gathering information from the environment in a
reliable, replicable way to reduce bias. Precise and explicit procedures are
established for the observations themselves as well as for the act of recording
those observations for later analysis and logic-based interpretation (Reiss,
1971). Systematic classroom observation measures have been employed for
a number of purposes, some of which include: examining teaching practices,
assessing and evaluating teachers, exploring classroom environments, and
improving educational program quality.
Teacher practice. Systematic classroom observation protocols are unique

in that they focus on the aspects of teaching that can be reliably observed
and assessed (Hamre et al., 2013) for the purpose of describing teachers
instructional practices (Hilberg, Waxman, & Tharp, 2004). The data
collected from such measures directly inform the improvement of teaching
practices (Hilberg et al., 2004; Hill & Grossman, 2013; TNTP, 2013) based
on what is determined to be effective (OLeary, 2012; Taylor & Tyler, 2012).
Classroom observation research can go beyond simple value-added protocols
to evaluate teacher effectiveness with valid and reliable measures of specific
150
teacher behaviors and strategies (Kane, Taylor, Tyler, & Wooten, 2011). The
observations can be triangulated with other data such as student achievement
scores and survey responses to identify specific teaching practices that
lead to positive student outcomes (Raphael, Pressley, & Mohan, 2008) like
engagement (Raphael et al., 2008; Ross, Smith, Alberg, & Lowther, 2004)
and achievement (Kane et al., 2011). This method increases our overall
understanding of effective teaching (Waxman, Padrn, Franco-Fuenmayor,
& Huang, 2009).
Classroom environments. Classroom observations allow researchers to

collect evidence about what goes on in classrooms (OLeary, 2012) in order
to study teaching and learning in a naturalistic setting (Hilberg et al., 2004;
Waxman et al., 2009). Not only do they allow for the description of the
classroom and the organization of learning activities (Pianta, la Paro, Payne,
Cox, & Bradley, 2002), but also they can capture and illuminate details
about the classroom environment, including the practices and interactions
that take place (Hamre et al., 2013; Pianta et al., 2002; Roberson, 1998).
By examining first-hand what is really going on in classrooms, researchers
better understand the nature of those individual classrooms and the variations
between them, allowing for identification of classrooms of quality and those
in need of support (Stuhlman & Pianta, 2009). The classroom environment
variables, like teacher/student and student/student interactions, behaviors,
climate, and organization, can be correlated with other variables to determine
what relationships exist (Pianta et al., 2002). Furthermore, researchers can
go beyond simply finding out what strategies instructors are using in the
classroom to revealing how they facilitate learning through the environments
they create and the interactions they have with students. When observations
are conducted systematically and by well-trained observers, they provide
reliable and comprehensive information (Hilberg et al., 2004) that sheds
light on what teachers do that engenders positive student outcomes, enabling
educational improvement.
METHODS
The program evaluation described in this chapter analyzed writing-intensive

education courses through two surveys and three classroom observation
instruments to determine the effectiveness of the writing-intensive courses
in improving self-efficacy beliefs about writing of the preservice teachers
and best practices for teacher education programs when teaching writing
pedagogy.
151
T. S. HODGES et al.
Participants
Two sets of participants are the focus of this evaluation. The first set of
participants consists of 233 preservice teachers enrolled in 12 sections of
face-to-face writing-intensive education courses in the spring of 2014. The
second group of participants consists of the eight instructors of the writing-
intensive courses.
As can be seen in Table 1, 84.6% of the preservice teachers are White, and
the majority (n=113) indicated that they are interested in pursuing an early
childhood (EC-6) certification. The majority (83.9%) are either sophomore
or junior classification, and 66.7% indicated they write more than three times
Table 1. Demographic information for preservice

teachers (n = 233)
n percentage
Classification 2 .9%
Freshman 61 26.1%
Sophomore 140 59.8%
Junior 29 12.4%
Senior 1 .4%
Graduate
Ethnicity 2 .9%
African American 2 .9%
Asian 26 11.1%
Hispanic 198 84.6%
White 3 1.3%
Other
Certification Area 113 48.3%
EC-6 89 38%
4-8 16 6.8%
8-12
Frequency of Writing daily 70 29.9%
3-5 per week 86 36.8%
1-2 per week 64 27.4%
less than 1 per week 10 4.3%
Never 3 1.3%
MyCompLab Grammar Module
Yes 97 41.5%
No 136 58.1%
152
per week. A small percentage (1.3%) of preservice teachers indicated that

they do not write at all during the week. Less than half (41.5%) indicated that
they have not completed the MyCompLab grammar module. MyCompLab
is an online grammar module students are required to complete during their
first writing-intensive education course. This confirms that the majority of
students were enrolled in their first writing-intensive education course.
Table 2 shows courses taught by the eight instructors. According to our
data, 87.5% of the instructors (n = 7) are White and 87.5% (n = 7) are female.
These demographics are comparable to the student sample demographics.
Letters are used to designate different sections of the same course and to
protect the identities of the participating instructors.
Instruments
Two surveys and three classroom observation instruments are the focus of
this analysis. Together, they collectively tell the story of what happens in
writing-intensive education courses and what impact these courses have on
preservice teachers who will be tasked with teaching writing.
The Preservice Teachers Self-Efficacy for Writing Inventory, Pre-Version
is divided into four major sections: (1) demographic information, (2) self-
efficacy for writing, (3) self-efficacy for writing instruction, based on the
effectiveness of the teacher preparation program, and (4) self-efficacy for
writing instruction. Section 1 asks preservice teachers to indicate the course
for which they are currently enrolled, their classification, gender, ethnicity,
certification area, the number of writing-intensive courses they have
Table 2. Writing-intensive
education course instructors
Instructor ID Course Taught
1 A
2 A
3 A
4 B
5 B
6 C
7 C
8 D
153
T. S. HODGES et al.
completed, how often the write, types of writing activities, and the status
of their completion of the MyCompLab grammar module. This information
was used to establish similarities and differences among samples. The
reliability scores for the current sample were moderately high ( = 0.892)
and fell within an acceptable range, using current research.
Sections two through four ask questions to establish the self-efficacy for
writing and writing instruction, as well as preservice teachers beliefs about
the effectiveness of their teacher education program in preparing them for
writing and writing instruction. Questions for sections two and four are rated
on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5),
while section three is rated on a 3-point scale from not at all (1) to a great
extent (3).
The Preservice Teachers Self-Efficacy for Writing Inventory, Post-
Version consists of five major sections: (1) demographic information, (2) an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the course for which the preservice teacher
is currently enrolled, (3) self-efficacy for writing, (4) self-efficacy for writing
instruction, based on the effectiveness of the teacher preparation program, and
(5) self-efficacy for writing instruction. The primary difference between the
two surveys is the addition of section two on the post-course survey, which
asks the participants to directly compare their experiences from beginning
to end of the semester. This section served as an additional comparison to
the two surveys by focusing specifically on how the preservice teachers feel
their self-efficacy for writing and writing instruction has changed throughout
the semester. Questions for sections two, three and five are rated on a 5-point
Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), while section
four is rated on a 3-point scale from not at all (1) to a great extent (3).
Overall reliability scores for this sample were high (=0.915) and reflected
current trends in current research.
Classroom observation instruments. Because self-efficacy alone is not

a comprehensive measure of assessing whether or not preservice teachers
feel prepared to teach writing, we wanted to understand what behaviors or
tasks influence this self-efficacy. To determine what is actually happening in
college writing-intensive education courses, we used three formal classroom
observation instruments to describe students and instructors behaviors,
including activities, instructional practices, and class time devoted to writing.
Instructor observation instrument. The instrument was adapted by the

authors from the Teacher Roles Observation Schedule (TROS) (Waxman &
Padrn, 2004) for the purpose of this study and consisted of behaviors and
154
characteristics in the following categories: instructional setting, interactions,

purpose of interactions, focus of instruction, writing strategies addressed,
and instructional practices. At the end of each 30-second observation cycle,
the observer checked off each detected characteristic or activity. The mean
inter-rater agreement across all observers was moderately high (83.5%) and
the reliability was also moderately high ( = 0.829).
Student observation instrument. The instrument was adapted by the

authors from the Student Behavior Observation Schedule (COS) (Waxman &
Padrn, 2004) for the purpose of this study and included characteristics and
activities in the following areas: instructional setting, on-/off-task manner,
type of engagement, interactions, focus, type of activity, and writing skills
addressed. At the end of each 30-second observation cycle, the observer
checked off each witnessed characteristic or activity. The mean inter-rater
agreement across all observers was high (91%) and the reliability was
moderate ( = 0.551).
Overall classroom reflective instrument. The instrument was adapted by the

authors from Part 4 of the Classroom Observation Measure (COM) (Ross
& Smith, 1996) for the purpose of this study and addressed instructor use
of writing instruction, student use of writing strategies, and the context of
writing implementation within the overall classroom environment. At the end
of each classroom observation, the observer rated the degree to which each
behavior and characteristic was observed. The reliability was high ( = 0.98).
Procedures
The 233 participating preservice teachers were administered the Preservice
Teacher Self-Efficacy for Writing Inventory, Pre-Version during the third week
of classes to assess their initial views on writing, the effectiveness of their
teacher preparation program, and their initial views on writing instruction.
The Preservice Teacher Self-Efficacy for Writing Inventory, Post-Version,
which was a follow-up measure, was administered during the second-to-
last week of courses. Using both instruments together, we calculated effect
sizes to determine the impact of each instructor on the self-efficacy beliefs
of students in that course.
Two classroom observations were completed for each instructor. One
observation occurred before Spring Break and focused on a day devoted to
writing instruction. The second observation occurred after Spring Break and
was specifically chosen as a more general education day in the course. We
155
T. S. HODGES et al.
wanted to analyze how the instructors specifically taught writing and observe
how much writing was present in a class day not devoted to writing instruction.
As each course is designated as writing-intensive, writing should have been
present even if the focus of the lesson was on general course content.
During the systematic observations, we utilized all three instruments, The
Instructor Observation Instrument, The Student Observation Instrument, and
The Classroom Reflective Instrument. For each observation, the researcher
selected three students who represented the demographics of the class, taking
into consideration age, ethnicity, and gender. To complete the observation,
first, the researcher observed the instructor for 30-seconds then documented
on The Instructor Observation Instrument which behaviors were observed
as well as the setting of the classroom, type of instruction, and focus of
the instruction. Next, the researcher observed each student for 30-seconds
and documented the classroom setting, writing activities, and writing skills
which were the focus of the instruction. For 50-minute courses, five rounds
of observations were completed. For 75- or 180-minute courses, ten rounds
of observations were completed. Finally, at the end of the observation, the
researcher completed The Classroom Reflective Instrument.
Statistical Analyses
The goal of the present study was to determine the impact of the writing-
intensive courses on the preservice teachers self-efficacy beliefs for writing
and writing instruction. Additionally, we wanted to explore the instructional
practices emphasizing writing within the writing-intensive courses. To
analyze these results, several statistical procedures were used.
Effect sizes. Using Cohens d, effect sizes for preservice teachers self-
efficacy for writing and preservice teachers self-efficacy for writing
instruction were calculated. For the purposes of this study, effect sizes were
calculated for each instructor. This allowed us to compare instructors and
better inform the behaviors we observed within the classrooms.
Analysis of variance. To determine differences among the instructors,

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. For all items on The Instructor
Observation Instrument and The Student Observation Instrument, differences
among the eight instructors were calculated.
Descriptive statistics. Finally, using descriptive statistics (means and

standard deviations) as well as frequencies, the instructors were divided into
156
two groups. Clear differences were seen among the instructors simply by
analyzing the percentage of time spent on different writing and pedagogical
practices. Interestingly, the two groups did not correlate with overall gains in
the preservice teachers self-efficacy scores. This indicates that the two groups
may represent different teaching styles rather than effectiveness of instruction.
RESULTS
According to social cognitive theory, which is an underlying framework

for much of the writing research, students are influenced by behavior (e.g.,
writing and writing instruction), personal factors (e.g., self-efficacy), and
environment (e.g., the classroom). Taking these three factors in unison,
this study focused on the relationships between effective teacher modeling,
preservice teacher self-efficacy for writing, and preservice teacher self-
efficacy for writing instruction.
Effect Sizes
According to Table 3, most of the instructors made modest improvements in
overall preservice teachers self-efficacy for writing. As much of the current
research indicates that beliefs cannot be altered (Woolfolk Hoy, Davis, &
Table 3. Gains in preservice teacher self-efficacy for writing and writing

instruction by instructor
Instructor Course Gender Ethnicity Overall Average Gain Overall Average Gain
ID Taught in Preservice Teacher in Preservice Teacher
Self-Efficacy for Self-Efficacy for
Writing (g) Writing Instruction (g)
1 A F W .191 -1.090
2 A F H .719 -1.254
3 A M W .219 -1.071
4 B F W .147 -.965
5 B F W .223 -1.256
6 C F W .276 -1.886
7 C F W .578 -1.024
8 D F W .237 -1.336
Overall .281 -1.286
Scores
157
T. S. HODGES et al.
Pape, 2006), this is a positive finding. The effect sizes represent changes from
The Preservice Teacher Self-Efficacy for Writing Inventory, Pre-Version and
Preservice Teacher Self-Efficacy for Writing Inventory, Pre-Version for each
instructor. Overall gains in preservice teachers self-efficacy for writing are
low to moderate and positive (d =.147.719). The mean for all the instructors
(d=.281) is low but positive.
As can be seen from Table 3, the overall average gains in preservice
teacher self-efficacy for writing instruction are negative (d=-1.886 -.965).
Additionally, the average of all the instructors was negative and low (d=
-1.286). This finding is surprising; however, it reveals important information
about the writing-intensive courses, explained later in the discussion.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Table 4 shows the results, which are significant or approaching significant,
for instructional practices by instructor. Of all the items on The Instructor
Observation Instrument, only four items showed significant, or approaching
significant, differences among instructors. As seen in Table 4, significant
differences between instructors existed on the item focus on the writing
process, indicating that several instructors focused on the writing process
while other did not. In contrast, the instructors who did not focus on the
writing process focused on course content.
Table 4. ANOVA results for instructional practices by instructor

Item Focus on the Focus on Course Modeling Self/Peer-
Writing Process Content of Writing Evaluation
Strategies Writing
% of time 90% (7)a 100% (4)a 30% (7)a 60% (6)a
observed
(Instructor ID)
83.33% (8)a 100% (1)a 16.67% (8)a 16.65% (1)a
45% (6)a 95% (2)a 10% (6)a 13.33% (8)a
33.35% (1)b 72.5% (5)a 10% (1)a 10% (7)a
30% (3)b 70% (3)a 2.5% (5)b 5% (5)b
20% (2)b 33.3% (8)b 0% (4)b 0% (4)b
0% (5)b 15% (7)b 0% (3)b 0% (3)b
0% (4)b 0% (6)b 0% (2)b 0% (2)b
P .050 .075 .053 .077
Note: a indicates instructors who are significantly different from b.
158
Secondly, approaching significant differences are shown based on the

amount of time spent modeling writing strategies for students. Originally,
we believed modeling of writing strategies would have a large impact on
instructors. While these results only show a modest impact, an impact still
exists. Some instructors modeled writing strategies more frequently than
other instructors. Finally, according to Table 4, self/peer-evaluation of
writing was approaching significance. Once again, some instructors used
self- and/or peer-evaluations and some did not.
Table 5 shows the results of the ANOVA from The Student Observation
Instruments by instructor. Only the results that are significant or approaching
significant are included in this table. First, some instructors focused on how
to assess writing while some focused on writing to learn. Several instructors
included both foci in their courses. The only significant differences in
observations for writing skills are for revising. Four instructors did not include
revision in their courses at all and significant differences existed between
these two instructors and all others. Finally, like The Instructor Observation
Instrument, self/peer-evaluation of writing is approaching significance.
For the student instrument, this item was present as a writing activity. Both
instruments showed this item as approaching significance indicating that it is
a factor separating instructors teaching styles.
Table 5. ANOVA results for student observations by instructor

Item Focus on How to Focus on Writing Writing Skills Self/Peer-
Assess Writing to Learn Revising Evaluation of
Writing
% of time 47.778% (8)a 31.667% (5)a 33.33% (8)a 54% (6)a

observed
(Instructor ID)
40% (6)a 10% (6)b 24.167% (7)a 25.714% (3)a
25.714% (3)a 10% (3)b 2.833% (1)b 20% (5)b
18.333% (4)b 6.667% (8)b 2.5% (5)b 19.433% (1)b
17.5% (5)b 4.167% (7)b 0% (6)b 15.833% (7)b
13.3% (7)b 3.33% (1)b 0% (4)b 14.44% (8)b
13.3% (2)b 1.667% (2)b 0% (3)b 0% (4)b
0% (1)b 0% (4)b 0% (2)b 0% (2)b
P .062 .059 .050 .052
Note: a indicates instructors who are significantly different from b.
159
T. S. HODGES et al.
While the results of the study, overall, are modest, the positive effect size
for preservice teachers self-efficacy for writing is impressive. Additionally,
the results of the ANOVAs show that differences among instructors do exist,
in terms of frequency of instructional or student behaviors observed. These
results are not correlated with the effects on preservice teacher self-efficacy,
but they do show differences in pedagogical and instructional practices.
DISCUSSION
This section will interpret the results of the effect sizes, ANOVA, and include
further analysis of the differences between instructors based on instructional
and pedagogical practices.
Effects on Preservice Teachers Self-Efficacy for Writing Instruction

The most alarming results are those for preservice teachers self-efficacy
for writing instruction. Unlike our expectation, the results are negative
indicating that preservice teachers feel less confident in their abilities to
teach writing after taking a writing-intensive course. While this could
be viewed as negative, we interpret this result in a different way. The
preservice teachers self-efficacy for writing instruction represents a
perception of how effectively the preservice teachers feel they will be able
to teach writing. When they entered their preservice teacher education
courses, they rated themselves more highly than at the end of the course.
However, looking at the effect size for the effectiveness of the teacher
preparation program, which focused on how well preservice teachers feel
their teacher preparation program prepared them to teach writing skills,
a higher effect size emerges (d=.289). This finding indicates that while
preservice teachers feel less confident in their abilities to teach writing,
they feel more confident in their preparation programs effectiveness of
teaching them writing skills.
Taking these two scores in unison, several themes are exposed. First,
because preservice teachers rated their teacher preparation programs highly
in their effectiveness of preparing them to teach writing, the preservice
teachers have the skills to teach writing. However, because they rated their
self-efficacy for writing instruction low, there is a concern. One explanation
for this discrepancy is that through effective teacher modeling in a writing-
intensive course, the preservice teachers developed more awareness for the
challenges of teaching writing. Second, through our observations, we noticed
that preservice teachers still did the majority of writing tasks outside of class
160
and did not have many opportunities to practice teaching writing. These two
limitations to the study could be a factor in our results.
Effects on Preservice Teachers Self-Efficacy for Writing

Overall, preservice teachers developed more favorable self-efficacy beliefs
toward writing through their writing-intensive courses. This finding is
promising and expected as the writing-intensive courses were created to
teach content alongside writing skills. In each writing-intensive course, the
students participated in online discussion boards requiring them to write
200-750 words each week, wrote a research-based or literary analysis paper
of 1500-2500 words, and engaged in low stakes writing activities during
class. Additionally, each course provided instruction on fundamental writing
skills like grammar, organization, and paper structure. Through this level
of practice and instruction, preservice teachers gained confidence and
perspective on their writing abilities.
The overall effect size for preservice teacher self-efficacy for writing
(d=.281) is especially impressive as previous research (Woolfolk Hoy et al.,
2006) indicates that knowledge and beliefs of preservice teachers cannot
be altered. However, the small, positive effects from this study show that
with focused instruction and specific purposes (e.g., focus on writing), self-
efficacy can be increased over the course of 12 weeks.
Best Practices for Implementing Writing Instruction in Preservice Teacher

Education Programs
A secondary goal of this study was to show practices that are effective in
increasing the self-efficacy of preservice teachers. Using the effect sizes and
results of the ANOVAs, Tables 6 and 7 were created. These tables reveal
the separation in instructional practices and student behaviors we observed
within the writing-intensive courses. These differences are not clear-cut by
instructor, but rather by certain items we observed. Overall, these findings
were clear differences among instructors, though not significant, in most
cases. For example, for instructional practices, we observed a difference in
that some instructors preferred whole-class instruction while others used
dyads or individual classroom settings.
Table 6 shows differences among instructors by instructional practices.
Instructors who represent Group 2 used whole-class instruction, interacted
with their students in managerial and social contexts, focused mostly on
course content, and taught students about producing graphics and visual aids.
161
T. S. HODGES et al.
In contrast, instructors who are part of Group 1 taught in dyads or individual

class settings, interacted with students more frequently in instructional
contexts, focused on writing-based products, direct instruction of writing
strategies, how to teach writing, and how to assess writing, taught students
about sentence structures and organization, and engaged students in low-
stakes writing activities. Both groups interacted equally with students in
collaborative contexts or provided feedback, focused on the writing process,
and used peer feedback during writing.
The differences shown in Table 6 relate to differences in instructional
and pedagogical styles. Looking back at the results of the ANOVA, some
of these items were significantly different among instructors, but most were
not. The lack of significant findings most likely results from engaging in
only two observations per instructor during the semester. More observations
would show more clear differences. However, general trends indicate that
instructors in Group 1 showed higher effect sizes for preservice teachers
self-efficacy for writing. This result indicates that the activities in Group 1
are more effective at altering students beliefs about writing. Logically, many
of the activities in Group 1 ask students to engage in writing, which has been
shown to increase self-efficacy.
Table 6. Differences in instructional practices by groups

Group 1 Group 2 Both Groups
Classroom Setting Dyads Whole Class

Items Individual
Type of Interaction Instructional Managerial Collaborative
Items Social Feedback
Focus on Items Writing-based Product Course Content Writing Process
Direct Instruction of
Writing Strategies
Modeling of Strategies
How to Teach Writing
How to Assess Writing
Writing Strategies Sentence Structure Production of
Items Graphics/Visuals
Organization
Instructional Low Stakes Writing Peer Feedback
Practices Item during Writing
162
Table 7. Differences in student behaviors by groups

Group 1 Group 2
Classroom Setting - Items Dyads Whole Class

Individual
Focus on Items Practicing Writing Course Content
How to Teach Writing
How to Assess Writing
Writing Skills Items Grammar
Sentence Structure
Voice
Student behaviors are another critical area to consider when interpreting

these findings. Table 7 shows differences among instructors by student
behaviors. These results were mostly consistent with the instructional
practices results summarized above. Again, instructors in Group 1 used
dyads and individual class settings, focused on practicing writing, how to
teach writing, and how to assess writing, and explicitly taught grammar,
sentence structure, and voice. In contrast, instructors in Group 2 used whole
class settings and focused on course content. No practices were equally seen
among the two groups. While these results are limited, they show the types
of environments students were taught in as well as which activities showed
differences in pedagogical styles.
Overall, our findings indicate that instructors who allowed students to
practice and engaged in writing more frequently generally had higher effect
sizes for preservice teacher self-efficacy for writing. Additionally, clear
differences between the teaching styles of instructors were observed through
the classroom observations. These findings are critical to teacher preparation
programs who want to better prepare their preservice teachers to teach
writing and who want to more effectively teach writing.
In summary, we feel the most relevant findings for teacher preparation
in regard to writing is: 1) one semester writing-intensive courses can have
a real and positive impact on improving students self-efficacy for writing;
2) practice in the craft of writing, revision, and peer feedback may not
help students feel prepared to implement writing instruction in their own
classroom; 3) structuring a writing-intensive class into small groups or dyads
may facilitate active engagement in the writing process; and 4) activities
163
T. S. HODGES et al.
which show promise include: a) direct instruction in writing strategies, b)

modeling of strategies, c) a focus on how to teach writing, and d) an emphasis
on how to assess writing and give feedback.
Limitations
Several limitations are present in this study. First, the study takes place over
one semester. Typically, beliefs are difficult to change and change over longer
periods of time. However, as we found positive effects for self-efficacy for
writing, this limitation is small. Second, because of the time constraints, we
were not able to conduct more observations of the classrooms. One course
we were observing moved online two weeks after Spring Break, which
prevented us from conducting a second observation for three sections of that
course with the same instructor. Third, due to absences, course withdrawals,
and student attitudes, we had fewer students (n=209) complete the post-
survey than completed the pre-survey (n=233). Every course and section had
fewer students engaged in the post-survey. Finally, the surveys administered
are researcher-created by the authors of this chapter. They were pilot-tested
with a small sample (n=26) the semester before this study was conducted.
Therefore, validity and reliability for the scores is being established. Despite
this fact, the reliability scores are generally high for the surveys.
CONCLUSION
Students at all levels of education are being asked to analyze, synthesize,

and evaluate content materials. If students are required to summarize the
information in a textbook chapter into just a few sentences, they must think
critically to differentiate between primary and ancillary information. It
is nearly impossible for a teacher to evaluate whether or not students are
engaging in this type of thinking without requiring them to produce written
work (Gribbin, 1991). With this insight, teachers can not only intervene
with struggling students, but also identify what aspect of the curriculum
the student is having difficulty with and specifically assist them with that
knowledge and boost retention of the content.
Despite these benefits, students continue to spend alarmingly little time
composing writing in their content-area classes. Students need to learn the
skills to write for different purposes prior to entering professional fields.
While an English teacher can provide instruction on writing conventions
and expose students to different genres, English teachers have neither the
curriculum time nor expertise to prepare students to write in all subjects.
164
Therefore, all content-area teachers must become teachers of writing. This

includes instructors at the college level who are instructing students on how
to write for specific disciplines.
Teachers across the content-areas do not feel equipped to assess student
writing. To be truly effective instructors of writing, teachers need to be
writers themselves (Colby & Stapleton, 2006). Poor self-efficacy in writing
has been noted as one of the key barriers teachers feel unable to overcome;
how can they evaluate what they feel unable to produce?
For the past decade, many university-level teacher-preparation programs
are working to address this problem through writing-intensive coursework
(Chambless & Bass, 1995). While all students will benefit by becoming
more competent writers (National Commission on Writing, 2004), students
in teacher preparation programs have additional needs. These students must
also feel confident in their writing abilities, be aware (metacognitive) of the
writing process, and believe they are capable of teaching these skills to their
future students. These facts increase the necessity of teacher preparation
programs to evaluate, assess, and strive to improve writing instruction for
preservice teachers.
Writing instruction is often overlooked in schools, and while the reasons
are not clear, one major factor is that writing instruction is overlooked in
teacher education programs. When a specific skill does not receive ample
attention, the perpetuated idea is that the skill is not important. Most research
conducted on beliefs about writing and self-efficacy for writing relate to
inservice teachers. However, the beliefs about writing and self-efficacy for
writing of preservice teachers cannot be ignored.
The present study developed instruments to measure preservice teacher
self-efficacy for writing and writing instruction. The findings from this study
can be used to inform teacher education programs about the necessities
for specific courses about writing instruction, while demonstrating the
connection between self-efficacy beliefs and practice. Teacher education
programs and leaders in the field will benefit from these results by: (1) using
the instruments to evaluate their own writing courses, and (2) using the
findings to build support for required writing courses for preservice teachers.
As literacy demands of the work force increase, the field of education must
prepare more highly qualified writing teachers to support this growth.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191215.
165
T. S. HODGES et al.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Chambless, M. S., & Bass, J. F. (1995). Effecting changes in student teachers attitudes toward
writing. Reading Research and Instruction, 35(2), 153159.
Colby, S. A., & Stapleton, J. N. (2006). Preservice teachers teach writing: Implications for
teacher educators. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(4), 353376.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907919.
Dempsey, M. S., PytlikZillig, L. M., & Bruning, R. H. (2009). Helping preservice teacher
learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a web-based environment. Assessing
Writing, 14, 3861.
Doran, H. C., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Challenges of value-added assessment. Educational
Leadership, 63(3), 8587.
Farris, C., & Smith, R. (1992). Writing-intensive courses: Tools for curricular change. In
S.H. McLeod & M. Soven (Eds.), Writing across the curriculum: A guide to developing
programs (pp. 5262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2012). Are attitudes toward writing and reading
separable constructs? A study with primary grade children. Reading and Writing Quarterly,
28, 5169.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction of adolescent students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445476.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Fink, B. (2002). Primary grade teachers theoretical
orientations concerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 147166.
Gribbin, W. (1991). Writing across the curriculum: Assignments and evaluation. The Clearing
House, 64(6), 365368.
Hall, A. H., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2011). Writing development over time: Examining
preservice teachers attitudes and beliefs about writing. Journal of Early Childhood
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., . . .
Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework
of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4),
461487.
Hilberg, R. S., Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Purposes and perspectives on
classroom observation research. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.),
Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural
and linguistic diversity (pp.120). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and
opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review,
83(2), 371401.
Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O., Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Gathering feedback
for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement
gains. Seattle, WA: Met Project.
Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A.L. (2011). Evaluating teacher effectiveness:
Can classroom observations identify practices that raise achievement? Education Next,
11(3), 111.
166
Kaufman, D. K. (2009). A teacher educator writes and shares student perceptions of a publicly
literate life. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 338350.
Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A
national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136160.
Lindemann, E. (2001). A rhetoric for writing teachers. New York,NY: Oxford University
Press.
OLeary, M. (2012). Exploring the role of lesson observation in the English education system:
A review of methods, models, and meanings. Professional Development in Education,
38(5), 791810.
Morgan, D. N. (2010). Preservice teachers as writers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49,
352365.
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work. or a ticket out. New
York,NY: College Board.
National Governors Association. (2010a). Common Core State Standards. Washington DC:
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of
the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139158.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development.
In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
158170). New York,NY: Guilford.
Pianta, R. C., la Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of
kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and
child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225238.
Raphael, L. M., Pressley, M., & Hohan, L. (2008). Engaging instruction in middle school
classrooms: An observational study of nine teachers. The Elementary School Journal,
109(1), 6181.
Reiss, A. R., Jr. (1971). Systematic observation of natural social phenomena. Sociological
Methodology, 3, 333.
Ritter, J. K. (2012). Modeling powerful social studies: Bridging theory and practice with
preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 103, 117124.
Roberson, T. J. (1998, November). Classroom observation: Issues regarding validity and
reliability. Presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-south Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Ross, S. M., & Smith L. J. (1996). Classroom observation measure observers manual.
Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., Alberg, M., & Lowther, D. (2004). Using classroom observation as
a research and formative evaluation tool in educational reform: The school observation
measure. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research
in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity
(pp.144173). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 10591069.
Stuhlman, M. W., & Pianta, R. C. (2009). Profiles of educational quality in first grade. The
Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 323342.
167
T. S. HODGES et al.
Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). Can teacher evaluation improve teaching?: Evidence of
systematic growth in the effectiveness of midcareer teachers. Education Next, 12(4), 79.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783805.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers self-efficacy
beliefs: Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 751761.
Waxman, H. C., & Padrn, Y. N. (2004). The uses of the classroom observation schedule to
improve classroom instruction. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.),
Observational research in U. S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural
and linguistic diversity (pp. 7296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Waxman, H. C., Padrn, Y. N., Franco-Fuenmayor, S. E., Huang, & S. L. (2009). Observing
classroom instruction for ELLs from student, teacher, and classroom perspectives. Texas
Association for Bilingual Education Journal, 11(1), 6395.
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Education Digest,
75(2), 3135.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In
P.Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 715737).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yancey, K. B. (2004, October). Using multiple technologies to teach writing. Educational
Leadership, 3840.
Tracey S. Hodges
Erin McTigue
April G. Douglass
Nancy Dubinski Weber

168
Katherine Landau Wright

Anna de la Garza
Department of Education Psychology
169
KATHERINE LANDAU WRIGHT, TRACEY S. HODGES,
AMANDA D. FRANKS, ERIN MCTIGUE AND APRIL G. DOUGLASS
9. MINDING THE GAP

Mentoring Undergraduate Preservice Teachers in Educational Research
INTRODUCTION
Teachers are tasked with the overwhelming responsibility of instructing a

vast range of learners while continually infusing current, research-based
principles into their daily practice. However, teachers report frequently
feeling ill-prepared and unsupported in this mission as the realities of K-12
classrooms are complex and dynamic situations. Accordingly, at times of
stress, teachers often revert back to the models of instruction most familiar
to them, rather than research new solutions (Kaufman, 2009; Ritter, 2012).
Research institutions, comprised of both educational researcher training
and preservice teacher preparation programs working in parallel, could be the
perfect setting to address the problem. Because the realities of K-12 teaching
do not often allow time for self-study and reflection, teachers need to be
intrinsically motivated to remain apprised of new ideas and research findings.
Preservice teachers are typically more open-minded to new pedagogical
ideas than established teachers. Instilling preservice teachers with an interest
in and motivation to follow educational research could help insure they
remain current with future findings as they enter the classroom as in-service
teachers. Additionally, the benefits of integrating undergraduate preservice
teachers and educational researchers extend in both directions; researchers
directly benefit from the grounding effect of working with practitioner-
oriented individuals. Furthermore, preservice teachers can help researchers
translate pedagogical ideas into the complex reality of a classroom.
Studies regarding in-service teachers have verified the need for K-12
teachers to have proven strategies to reach challenging students. Yet, research
involving special populations of students, particularly those struggling with
reading and other learning demands, has exhibited a particularly notable
fracture between researchers and practitioners (e.g., Greenwood & Abbot,
2001). In fact, McLesky and Waldron (2004) argue that the clearest example

K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
of the failure to translate research into practice has been a lack of use of these
[research-based] practices, especially those related to reading instruction
(p. 3). While Vaughn, Klingner, and Hughes (2000), note a frequent blame-
game about why this gap between research and practice continues to exist,
the current literature offers few solutions. Meanwhile, teacher preparation
programs are currently under pressure to reduce this research-practice gap
by producing highly-qualified and effective teachers (Scheeler, 2008) with
knowledge of current research findings.
In total, drawing from constructivist models of learning, if preservice
teachers are engaged with creating the latest findings in educational research,
they will take ownership in their profession. New ideas can be directly
injected into future K-12 classrooms. Research-trained teachers will have a
mindset to value research findings as they progress in their careers. Finally,
research-trained teachers may engage in informal action-research within
their classrooms.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the current chapter is to describe the results of a qualitative

research study exploring the impact of undergraduate research opportunities
on preservice teachers. In the following sections, we explore the research-
practice gap that exists in education from a socio perspective grounded by
sociocognitive and social constructivist theories. The methods for three case
studies of preservice teachers involved in research are described along with
the interview protocol for acquiring richer data. Finally, themes from the
three case studies are analyzed and applied to the field of education and
teacher preparation programs.
The Research Practice Gap

Researchers and undergraduate learners typically remain isolated from each
other. Although universities are producing both educational research and
certified teachers, classically few opportunities are present for preservice
teachers to engage in the research driving their teacher certification. One
salient reason for the research-practice gap is the separation of research and
practice communities within universities. Unfortunately, this separation
mirrors the nature of the field (Greenwood & Abbot, 2001). For example, we
often teach best practices for content-area vocabulary instruction; however,
the underlying research is often only referenced in the course materials. Rarely
are undergraduate preservice teachers expected to interact with the research in
172
Minding the Gap
a meaningful way. For instance, while we present research findings, such as

students typically need 12-14 exposures to a vocabulary word before learning it,
we tend to not ask the critical literacy questions such as How did researchers
determine that it takes 12-14 exposures to a vocabulary word before learning
it? (Flanigan & Greenwood, 2007). Often, we simply take the output, rather
than examine the process for determining the finding. In other words, research
is typically presented as a noun, not as a verb. Teacher-preparation is focused
strongly on helping preservice teachers build up their toolbox of best practices
However, the cost for only indirectly referencing research is that research
becomes extraneous and knowledge is treated statically.
A related, yet separate, theme is the lack of ongoing opportunities for
feedback to be exchanged between researchers and practitioners (Greenwood
& Abbot, 2001). If connections between researchers and practitioners are
not made during initial teacher and researcher preparation, they will likely
remain separate. It should be noted that the practice of active undergraduate
involvement in research is commonplace in science and engineering
laboratories, but not historically present within social-science research.
Mentoring Framework
As a solution to the research-practice disconnect, we present our experiences
of including undergraduate education students as research interns in
educational research projects. In particular, we have found great success in
partnering undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty in tiered-
mentoring research situations. Within this framework, multiple levels of
mentoring and collaboration are present, benefiting all involved. Figure 1
shows this tiered mentoring hierarchy, and the sections following provide
more extensive descriptions of each tier.
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Multi-Tiered Mentoring System
173
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
Faculty members. Faculty members benefit from the new perspectives

of a younger generation of learners, which helps ground research in
todays current environments. Research faculty can discuss ideas with
students who have not yet become fully indoctrinated in the teacher
world, but have the perspective of a recently K-12 student. Many faculty
members research agendas have spanned decades and are carefully built
upon previous studies. While these agendas create new knowledge and
are valued by the university, they sometimes may become disconnected
from current classroom practices.
Undergraduate students can bring fresh ideas and enthusiasm to research.
These unique perspectives allow for meaningful collaborations and new
avenues of research. To continue to push the field forward, these ideas are
instrumental.
Graduate students. When graduate students are included, they have

opportunities to mentor undergraduates in the research process. This
mentoring role hones graduate students newly acquired research skills, as
well as prepares them for a future as teacher-educators and leading research
teams in academia. Graduate students take on the role of faculty after
receiving their doctoral degree and practicing mentorship is critical to their
future success.
Faculty members who allow graduate students to engage in the mentorship
of undergraduate students pass some responsibility down the hierarchy.
By doing so, faculty have more effort to expend on building the graduate
students skills while working on other aspects of the research collaboration,
such as conference proposals, manuscripts, and data analysis.
Undergraduate students gain the additional perspectives of graduate
students. Graduate students may have different theoretical or practical
philosophies from the faculty, so undergraduate students get multiple
viewpoints. Moreover, as graduate students are students first and researchers
second, the undergraduates may find commonality with them and view them
as more approachable than faculty.
Undergraduate preservice teachers. Individual undergraduate students

benefit from a deeper understanding and appreciation for educational
research, which we hope will translate into more reflective teaching and
application of educational research during their careers as teachers. By
the double mentorship, undergraduate students learn about research, its
importance, and the contributions of research to the field of teaching. The
goal is that these students will become teachers who value research-based
174
Minding the Gap
practice and remain informed of current research trends, or possibly engage

directly as researchers in the future.
The Role of Mentors

Existing research points to several factors that help develop effective
relationships between mentors and mentees. First, not surprisingly, mentors
must be knowledgeable in the field in which they are providing support
(here, the field of research) and a mentors experience in the field of interest
can affect the mentees sense of security in asking questions or taking risks
(Douglass, Smith, & Smith, 2013). Additionally, experience gives mentors
credibility in the eyes of the students they will be mentoring (Terrion &
Leonard, 2007, p. 153). By inserting varying degrees of experience (i.e.,
faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students), an element of comfort
is added allowing participants to each have a unique set of contributions
while each having a unique responsibility to the task at hand.
Moving beyond the knowledge of the subject matter, it is essential that
mentors understand the importance of the emotional capacity they have
when working with mentees. To achieve positive transformation, both the
mentor and mentee must establish high quality relational skills that include
authenticity and emotional competent (Comstock, Hammer, Cannon,
Parsons, & Salazar, 2008; Miller & Stiver, 1997). Informal means, such as
devoting time for social conversation before meetings, can increase comfort
level for all involved and foster a mutually empathic environment. These
interpersonal connections strengthen the relationship between mentors
and mentees and contribute to an environment where mentees can feel
comfortable taking risks.
Theoretical Framework for Mentorship

To critically examine how mentoring works, it is necessary to first consider
well-founded theoretical frameworks of learning and cognition demonstrating
that academic and social interaction provided by a mentoring program
may enhance undergraduate students success in research. In the following
sections, we outline and explain the two theories guiding this research and
specifically discuss how they relate to mentorship in higher education.
Mentoring undergraduate students comes from a juncture of sociocognitive
theory and social constructivism theory. Sociocognitive theory developed
from the work of Bandura (1977, 1986) who stated that people learn from
observing others. Bandura argued that people actually learn more from others
175
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
than they do independently. Social constructivism came from the work of

Vygotsky (1978) who premised that people learn from a more knowledgeable
other (MKO). Both of these theories support social interactions and learning
through a hierarchy, passing knowledge down from higher levels to lower
levels. The primary idea from these two theories is that people learn from
social interactions with each other (Tracey & Morrow, 2012).
Sociocognitive Theory. People learn by doing. Preservice teachers learn
how to teach and understand research by participating in research. By
experiencing an activity, preservice teachers become more efficacious.
Preservice teachers also build self-efficacy for teaching and research by
observing quality models. In the three-tiered hierarchy presented in this
chapter, preservice teachers learn from faculty and graduate students. This
idea is supported by the work of Bandura, but was stated by Pajares and Valiant
(2006) as if there is one finding that is incontrovertible in educationit is
that children learn from the actions of models (p. 167). The same is true
when looking at undergraduate preservice teachers in research.
Sociocognitive theory is foundational for understanding the linkages
preservice teachers self-efficacy for teaching and research, modeling
of effective research practices, and the success of the undergraduate
students later as in-service teachers. Bandura (1997) argued that students
accomplishments could be better predicted by self-efficacy than previous
attainment. As teachers, this idea is fundamental because it supports teacher
influence in altering student perceptions.
Social constructivism. Vygotskys (1978) social learning theory ascribes

cognitive development to social interaction between a learner and a More
Knowledgeable Other (MKO) (Tracey & Morrow, 2012). According to
Vygotsky, the MKO is anyone with a higher level of understanding in a
specific domain than the novice (Forman & Cazden, 2013). For example, a
graduate student looks to his mentor as a MKO but serves as a MKO to the
undergraduate student. This complex multi-dimensional framework allows
for paralleled learning opportunities connected with leadership tasks.
Combining the theories.Taking sociocognitive theory and social

constructivism in unison, the two theories blend to support mentorship for
research in teacher education programs. First, these two theories attribute
efficacy, which helps teachers navigate the demands of the classroom, to
learning from modeling and more knowledgeable others. Secondly, the two
theories rely on social interactions which are an essential part of research and
176
Minding the Gap
collaboration. Finally, the three-tiered system of mentoring is founded upon

the principles of both of these theories in that students form perceptions of
the world based on interactions with it and become life-long learners from
continued support.
Mentoring programs in research provide an opportunity for both mentors
and mentees to reflect more deeply on the learning process. Mentors,
in particular, must be able to think about how students learn and apply
information to their interactions with mentees. In this regard, mentoring
in the field of research can be especially useful in graduate programs in
which students are preparing for a career in educational research while also
preparing future teachers for using and conducting educational research in
their classrooms (Heirdsfield, Walker, Walsh, & Wilson, 2008).
METHODS
These case studies were developed using data from participant observations
(Creswell, 2013) and semi-structured interviews. All authors of this chapter
(two faculty members and three doctoral students) worked closely with three
undergraduate students in two separate research projects and served as the
participant observers. After research was completed, all three undergraduate
students were interviewed to document their perspectives of the experiences.
The primary research focus for the current study is to examine the lived
experiences of three undergraduate research assistants and how their
experience with education research as preservice teachers helped shape their
knowledge and beliefs about teaching.
Participants. The three students, Jana, Manha, and Gabby (all names
are pseudonyms), represent diverse educational experiences and different
research experiences and were mentored through the research process by
a graduate student, a faculty member, or both. A brief description of each
student, along with their path to educational research, is described below.
Jana is a current undergraduate student, of Caucasian background, in her
fourth year of study as a preservice teacher. She first became interested in
educational research after taking an undergraduate course with Dr. McTigue
(author of this chapter). Jana heard about an opportunity for an undergraduate
research grant, and approached Dr. McTigue about sponsoring her application.
Together, Jana and Dr. McTigue decided to pursue how direct instruction
of character perspectives could impact third-grade students literary reading
comprehension.
177
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
Manha is a current undergraduate student, of South Asian descent, in her

Junior year of study as a preservice teacher. After data collection from Janas
study had been completed, Dr. McTigue received departmental funding
to pay an undergraduate student to assist in the analysis process. Manha
had recently matriculated into the College of Education from Biology,
and expressed a strong interest in pursuing research. While Dr. McTigue
oversaw the administration of Manhas position, Manha was co-supervised
and mentored by one of the graduate students.
After the success of including both Jana and Manha in research, Dr.
Douglass applied for funding to include an undergraduate student in the
beginning phases of a second research project focused on preservice teachers
writing instruction. Gabby, a current third year undergraduate student of
Hispanic descent, is a preservice teacher in the bilingual education program.
She was recommended for the research position by faculty members in the
department. Much like with Manha, Dr. Douglass was highly involved in the
project, but a graduate student directly served as Gabbys research mentor.
Procedures. When all research experiences had concluded, we conducted

semi-structured interviews with Jana, Manha, and Gabby. We used a semi-
structured interview in order to guide the conversation while allowing
students opinions and reflections to surface. These questions were developed
following a group discussion of what information would be most influential
Table 1. Interview questions for preservice teachers
1. What made you want to become involved in education research?

2. What role(s) have you played in educational research?
3. What do you feel you bring to the research team?
4. Have your ideas about teaching changed because of your experiences
with educational research? How?
5. Would you suggest to your peers that they seek opportunities to work
on educational research projects? Why?
6. Do you feel there is any disconnect between educational research and
classroom teaching practices? If so, what are they? Do you feel this is
good/bad?
7. How do you think this issue could be addressed?
8. Based on your experiences in classes and in researching, how do you
see the future of education evolving?
178
Minding the Gap
for developing strong mentoring relationships. Our goal was to understand

the experiences of the participants from their perspective on how involvement
in educational research affected their understanding of the role of research
in classroom practice. Furthermore, we compared the preservice teachers
responses with our observations to better understand how mentoring in
research has influenced their opinions about research and teaching. The
interview questions are shown in Table 1.
Informal notes were taken during the interviews, and the team met to discuss
the results. Additional reflections from team members interactions with our
undergraduate research assistants surfaced during this conversation and were
used to support the students viewpoints. Further sources of information
were obtained by assessing the work produced and tasks completed by each
undergraduate research assistant.
RESULTS
Described in the following sections are the results of the semi-structured

interviews and researcher reflections for each undergraduate research intern.
Jana
Jana collaborated in a new reading comprehension intervention study for
third grade students. She became involved in the study because her intention
after gaining classroom teaching experience is to further her education and
obtain a graduate degree. At the time, she was unsure whether she would like
to go into administration, policy, or educational research.
The previous year, Jana had worked, as a nanny, for an engineering
professor, who mentored undergraduate researchers in her laboratory. (As
noted earlier, science and engineering departments generally involve more
undergraduate students in research than education.)Through the engineering
professor, Jana learned about the option of undergraduate research at TAMU.
Jana felt a research experience would help her better understand the process
of educational research and to see if it would be of interest to her and directly
asked Dr. McTigue to mentor her. She hoped exposure would give her a better
idea about what direction she wanted to take in furthering her education.
Jana played an active role throughout the research process. In the first
semester, she was involved in reviewing relevant empirical literature,
creating lesson plans, selecting and reviewing appropriate childrens books,
preparing an IRB (institutional review board) application, and designing
an intervention plan and schedule. In the second semester, Jana organized
179
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
instructional materials, transcribed lessons, and assisted with early qualitative

analysis. Jana attended weekly meetings of the research group.
According to Jana, she brought an eagerness to learn to the group and
believed that her ideas helped get the research moving. Coordinating her
perspective with that of the research team, Janas role in initiating the project
should not be underestimated. While Dr. McTigue had the original idea for
the genesis/design of the study, she was not planning on implementing it
during the 2013-14 school year due to other time commitments. However,
after Jana had approached her and they discussed the study in detail, Janas
enthusiasm and desire to work on a project right away convinced Dr.
McTigue to undertake the study at that time. Jana explained that My ideas
have not necessarily changed about teaching, but I have grown from my
experiences with educational research. I learned how to bring out a deeper
meaning in reading.
Jana remarked that one of her greatest strengths, created through the
research process, was in developing skills for reading more deeply about
research. She indicated that through the process she read research articles
to inform the teams decisions and analyzed current childrens literature for
quality and applicability to the study. I learned how to bring out a deeper
meaning in reading, shows that the process of systematically reviewing
childrens literature and scholarly work developed critical reasoning and
thinking skills for Jana. Teachers undergo similar processes when choosing
appropriate materials for their students. Here, a direct link between preservice
teacher research experiences and classroom practices is evident.
Additionally, Jana noted that I also learned that it is important for
teachers to back their teaching methods with research. While this was not
a direct result of our specific study, clearly Jana had inferred this need from
our process. All of the decisions that were made in the intervention were
based on empirical research or theory. Whenever, as a team, we were making
a decision, such as how long the intervention last should, we would refer
back to previous research to understand the minimum amount of instruction
needed to measure impact. Therefore, Jana learned, through modeling,
about the importance of consulting empirical, validated research studies and
gained valuable insight into the processes of educational research and how
it impacts practice. In summary, Jana said that she would enthusiastically
recommend such an experience for her peers.
Jana noted that this experience helped her learn how to read empirical
research. She was more familiar with reading textbooks and other
secondary sources in her coursework; however, the experience she gained
180
Minding the Gap
in conducting research showed her how to effectively research teaching

questions using current and peer-reviewed research. Part of the disconnect
between current research and practice is that empirical literature is not
reaching the teacher-audience. Jana has recently finished her student-
teaching practicum and observed that I learned that a lot of teachers turn
to Pinterest and teacherspayteachers.com to find lesson plans. Most of these
are not research based ways to implement instruction. I think Pinterest and
teacherspayteachers.com is an engaging way to implement instruction, but I
feel that research based instruction gets through to students. She is clearly
seeing the gap between where research is published and where teachers go
to find information.
When asked directly about how preservice preparation could reduce the
gap between research findings and practical implementation. Jana noted that
Professors could teach us how to find [empirical] research to pertain to the
lesson we are planning. She felt that, although they were encouraged to use
outside sources for lesson planning, her peers in undergraduate courses (like
current teachers) did not use peer-reviewed sources. She further explained
that it is not that pre- and in-service teachers do not want to use research-
based ideas, but they likely do not have the time to do research, in addition
to planning and other paper-work. Jana is clearly applying her newfound
insight on the research process to practical implementation by demonstrating
knowledge of the importance of research-based practices.
Manha
Manha started out as a biology major whose only educational experience
was teaching religious education every Saturday for three hours in her
home town. Working with the young children made her realize that she
really wanted to pursue a career in education. Additionally, through the
Help One Student To Succeed (HOSTS) program, Manha has been able to
work with children at the university-affiliated early childhood center. These
experiences led Manha to transfer from biology to the College of Education
and Human Development. During her interview, Manha explained that
she became interested in educational research after the teaching assistant
in one of her classes, one of the authors of this chapter, shared insights
about her research. Manha was intrigued by the possibility of one day
pursuing a Ph.D., and this led to a desire to find research opportunities as an
undergraduate student.
Manha has been an active member of the research team since joining the
group in the fall of 2013. Manha played a supportive role in the Perspective
181
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
Taking project by helping transcribe recordings and providing feedback

on a conference presentation based on the project for the Southwestern
Educational Research Associations 2014 conference. Her fresh perspective
on the findings allowed the team to add more clarity to the presentation and
future disseminations. She also compiled information from existing literature
into a matrix (Garrard, 2011) that allowed all researchers on the team to
easily access the essential details of each article.
Manha suggested that her ideas about education are changing from
this experience, especially regarding policy now that she has a better
understanding of how to read academic articles. Before researching and
reading many scholarly articles, Manha said she was unaware of the reasons
for doing research and how it could impact students experiences in schools.
Furthermore, Manha suggested that students in education should seek out
opportunities to take part in educational research.
Manha reports that she now sees the connection between research and
teaching as being able to help teachers plan lessons that engage students.
She observed a focus on worksheets in math classrooms, which she feels
is boring, and was motivated to find research articles supporting ways to
incorporate technology to make lessons more engaging for students. By
already seeking research to help support her ideas about classroom activities,
Manha is proving that research experience can help bridge the gap between
researcher and educational practitioner. Rather than replicating what she sees
in her field placements, she wants to research and integrate new ideas into her
future teaching assignments. Additionally, Manha now has valuable insight
on quality research practices to guide her selection of educational articles.
Furthermore, Manhas experiences with educational research have made her
reflect on the practices within the classroom and how to develop policies that
help teachers and administrators better prepare for the changing needs of their
students. As Manha explained, before researching and coming across all of
these scholarly articles, I didnt know a lot of the areas that need work in the
education system. The connection for her is that classroom teachers and school
administrators must be clear about what is and is not working in education,
based on research. It also indicates that Manha understands that there is much
need for research which should be driven by the needs of the field.
Gabby
Gabby is a bilingual education student who joined a research team focused
on improving preservice teachers self-efficacy to teach writing. She was
182
Minding the Gap
first recruited through a recommendation from a former professor and, even

though she did not know much about research, decided to join the team.
As she has become more involved, she believes she has gained a better
perspective on what educational researchers contribute to the field.
From the beginning of the project, Gabby has taken on an active role.
The team has valued her perspective as an undergraduate student, and
she believes she brought a unique voice to the conversation. Gabby was
influential in the designing of a student-survey and felt that her opinion
was respected. She helped to analyze survey questions to ensure clarity and
avoid redundancy. Most recently, she has also begun conducting classroom
observations utilizing study-specific measures to gauge teacher strategies
and student engagement.
Gabby reports that she is always excited to come to research meetings and
contribute to the project. She believes her experiences, such as systematically
observing a classroom, will make her a better educator in the future.
Moreover, Gabby would recommend that undergraduate students seek out
similar opportunities to engage in research. Additionally, she was accepted
into a competitive university level program called Undergraduate Research
Ambassadors to share her experience and recruit other students to follow her
example. She is excited about the future of education, citing technology and
other innovations that will create effective new ways to teach.
Gabby has been able to observe many teachers and has developed
ideas about what engages students and what does not. She believes an
understanding of research makes teachers better educators and helps them to
see what strategies are best for students. Furthermore, Gabby has found that
much information she has learned from doing research is directly applicable
in completing coursework.
When reflecting upon the gap between educational practice and research,
Gabby is optimistic. She believes it is up to teachers to remain current, but
she has not witnessed practices in her field experiences that appear to be tied
directly to research. However, she believes her work as an undergraduate
researcher has provided a unique perspective on understanding and valuing
research. As she explained, simply reading a research article does not tell
the reader everything they [researchers] went through or what they actually
did, so it is not always easy to tie to classroom practices.
DISCUSSION
While these are only three case studies, the results demonstrate that involving
undergraduate students in educational research can be beneficial for
183
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
preservice teachers, graduate students and faculty members, and educational

research as a field.
Benefits for Preservice Teachers

Jana, Manha, and Gabby had vastly different experiences and became
involved in research through different means; however, several similarities
emerged from their interviews. These similarities are summarized in three
key themes, evidenced by the case studies, (1) continued optimism for linking
research and practice, (2) interest in pursuing future educational research
opportunities, and (3) desire to encourage research among peers.
Continued optimism for linking research and practice. In all three case
studies, the undergraduate research assistants made connections between the
research they were conducting and classroom practices they had observed,
both in clinical field experiences and within their teacher education courses.
The students discovered that research guides the practices seen in classrooms;
however, they also noted that research is often not at the forefront of
practitioners minds, particularly with in-service teachers. For example,
Jana noted that she has now realized the importance of educational research
but admitted that it is a time-consuming endeavor and that many practicing
teachers do not have the time to invest in learning and staying up-to-date
with the research. Teachers were not lazy or uninterested in learning about
research, but rather had other demands on their limited time. Other sources
for teaching ideas are more readily available to practitioners.
In addition to noticing the link between theory and practice and the
importance for fostering this bridge, hearing the optimism each of the students
had for research and practice was refreshing. All three students were positive
that teachers could integrate more research into their classrooms and teacher
educators could instruct preservice teachers on how to utilize research in
lesson design. Gabby was particularly optimistic about how research informs
practice and how teachers could benefit from being involved in research
projects. This optimism is encouraging for building more interest in research
among fresh generations of educators.
Interest in continuing to pursue educational research. The three participants

are exceptional students who had some interest in furthering their education
and seeking out research opportunities. All three undergraduate researchers
expressed an interest in continuing to engage in educational research as
classroom teachers and expressed an understanding of the importance of
184
Minding the Gap
remaining current on effective new ways to teach students (according to

Gabby) and emerging research practices. Manha also stated that she was
interested in pursuing research when one of her instructors, a doctoral
student, inspired her to consider an advanced degree in education. Jana
initiated contact with a faculty member to discuss research because she was
unsure of the career advancement she wanted and wished to explore multiple
opportunities. Gabby proved herself to be an outstanding student and was
brought into research through the recommendation of one of her professors;
however, through the process, she became interested in advanced academic
work in education and in conference presentations. Additionally, each
student expressed a strong desire to seek an advanced degree after gaining
some classroom experience.
While each of these students is about to embark on the beginning of her
career, it is a testament to the uniqueness and richness of their research
experiences that each expressed an interest in continuing research-based
work. The experience also transformed the rather abstract idea of research
into a more concrete and engaging experience. Numerous times, the three
students noted that they had been unaware of the processes behind the
research findings.
Additionally, the research skills each student acquired gave her increased
confidence and leadership skills. Each student already shined in her respective
coursework, but the desire to pursue advanced education is marked by
leadership, organizational, collaborative, and self-regulatory skills. Working
with a research team develops these skills as well. Although, working on a
research team with doctoral students, masters students, and faculty members
can be intimidating, none of the students had this feeling. All three remained
positive, optimistic, and confident.
Desire to encourage research among peers. The final theme that emerged
from the three interviews is that each student felt a strong desire to encourage
research among her peers. All three students saw strong benefits in working
on research and felt their peers could benefit from these experiences as well.
Each said she would recommend being part of a research team to a peer and
each felt that working on research could strengthen the skills required to be
an effective teacher.
This finding is particularly encouraging to teacher educators who want
to help raise awareness about enrollment in graduate programs, both at
the masters level and doctoral levels. In fact, our three students represent
a diverse group of students with unique backgrounds, interests, and career
185
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
ambitions. Janas focus on elementary literacy and the integration of high-

quality childrens literature is supported by recent national policies. Manha
is of Pakistani-descent and has a strong interest in science education and
international education disparities. Gabby is a bilingual student with a desire
to help Hispanic students succeed in schools. These students represent
different populations of preservice teachers and their interests serve high-
needs populations of students.
Benefits for Graduate Students and Faculty Members

After reflecting on the experiences of working with undergraduate preservice
teachers in educational research, it is clear that the benefits are not felt by
the undergraduates alone. Each team included faculty members, graduate
students, and undergraduate preservice teachers. With members at such a
variety of points in their research experience, there was much opportunity
for tiered mentoring. When we consider mentoring by a MKO, our positive
experiences with tiered mentoring begin to clearly point to a best practice.
The tiered mentoring structure, where faculty mentored graduate students
who in turn mentored undergraduate researchers, allowed all participants
to benefit from the collaboration. Faculty at research universities have a
myriad of assignments and it can be difficult to balance, teaching, service,
and research responsibilities while also developing graduate students into
future faculty members. Additionally, graduate students need to be prepared
to guide their own future students and are rarely provided opportunities to
practice these skills prior to becoming tenure track professors. On our research
teams, faculty members met regularly with the graduate students to provide
guidance on research projects as well as to oversee the undergraduates
research experiences. In turn, the graduate students directly supervised
undergraduates work and were able to develop their own mentoring skills.
The tiered mentoring environment in our research teams helped establish
a positive experience for mentors and mentees. Faculty members were
able to communicate clearly, effectively with graduate and undergraduate
students. Graduate students were given the opportunity to work closely
with mentors in a friendly working environment that made learning how
to mentor a positive experience. Furthermore, undergraduates were given
scaffolded research-related tasks that helped create a successful mentoring
experience for all. The undergraduate students also noted that they would not
have had such accessibility to graduate students and faculty in their typical
coursework sequence. Simply put, the time together built relationships in a
unique manner.
186
Minding the Gap
Benefits for the Field of Educational Research

While there were immediate benefits to team members, we believe this
experience will benefit the field of educational research as a whole. As
has been previously discussed, the gap between research and practice is
omnipresent in education. Including undergraduates in research allowed
these preservice teachers to gain a deeper understanding of the purpose and
process of educational research, and all three expressed an interest in staying
up-to-date once they became full-time teachers. Two specific practices
reading research articles and guiding students to make connections between
their course work and research demonstrated great promise to help bridge
the gap between theory and practice.
Reading research articles. Theory behind mentoring practices would

suggest that having undergraduate researchers work with graduate students
and faculty to better develop their ability to read and comprehend research
articles is a best practice. Certainly our experiences have shown that working
on authentic research projects in education is a good way to help undergraduate
students make the leap to reading and comprehending educational research.
For instance, when the perspective taking study was being developed,
Jana collected articles from previous research and created a summary of
study methods to share with the team. Manha had a similar experience and
suggested that she learned to appreciate research articles and was better able
to comprehend the statistical analyses used after having guided instruction
provided by a graduate student. She went further to explain that she was able
to take those skills and apply them to research for her course assignments.
Guiding students to make connections between course work and

research. Manhas experience with reading research articles takes the
experience a step further by creating a full circle for undergraduate students
involved in research. The ability to take skills acquired through educational
research opportunities and apply those skills to course work is certainly a
way to ensure that participants see immediate benefits to their involvement
in research.
However, this is not a one-directional path; mentors should be able to help
their undergraduate researchers see the connections from the course work
to the research also. Manha spoke to this aspect when she commented that
her experience in a content area literacy class helped her better understand
how inferences are made. Furthermore, she was able to connect an activity
of matrixing research articles from a course writing assignment to the article
187
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
matrixing for the inference-making project. Gabbys experience echoed

these findings, and she explained that learning more about teaching practices
through classroom observations has made her much more aware of her own
behavior towards students.
Recommendations for Implementation

Based on lessons learned by mentors in this study, we can begin to see
that certain characteristics are essential when developing undergraduate
mentoring programs. First, mentors must be knowledgeable in the field
in which they are providing support (here, the field of research). Previous
research also indicated that mentees feel more secure with mentors whom
have had greater experience in the field of interest (Douglass, Smith, &
Smith, 2013). In turn, the more experience and/or knowledge a mentor
has in the area of research, the more comfortable a mentee will feel in
asking questions, conducting research practices, and seeking guidance
under the mentor. However, in our experience, even though graduate
students did not have years of research experience, their research
methodology courses gave them a formal training quite unique from the
undergraduates experience. This provided the graduate students with a
vocabulary and knowledge of research tools which was more similar to
faculty than undergraduates. For example, in team meetings, Anna would
frequently ask graduate students to define statistical concepts, such as
reliability, when it was brought up in discussions. Therefore, we advocate
that mentors do not need to accrue decades of research experience before
mentoring undergraduate students.
Additionally, consistent with previous research, experience gives mentors
credibility in the eyes of the students they will be mentoring (Terrion &
Leonard, 2007, p. 153). However, as mentors we also worked to be realistic
throughout the research process and modeled a comfort, at times, with
not always knowing the right answer. Particularly, in our experience,
with including undergraduates in team meetings, they were privy to the
discussions and decision making processes behind studies. They directly
witnessed the issues surrounded in selecting or creating measurement tools.
The undergraduate researchers also saw when problems arise in studies and
how as researchers, we were forced to deviate from the original plan and the
frustrations associated with these issues.
Regarding how to support and expand opportunities for undergraduate
research we have a few recommendations:
188
Minding the Gap
Undergraduate students:
1. Financial support, such as work study funds for undergraduate research,
can allow greater access for all undergraduate students. This also helps
faculty attract undergraduate students.
2. Providing course credit opportunities/course substitutions for students
who engage in research. Similar to providing research funds, alternatively,
if students gain course credit, it allows them greater flexibility in their
schedules.
3. Creating a research certificate or honors track for students engaged
in research would formalize the process and allow students to clearly
document their learning on their resumes.
4. Highlighting the work of undergraduate students in research, such as
in college newsletters and on websites, will help make the practice more
visible for both faculty and students.
5. Annual awards for undergraduate student research both highlights
the work of student-researchers and allows students to enhance their
resumes as they prepare for the job market.
6. University level opportunities, such as Student Research Week,
provide a forum for education students to share their work with researchers
in other fields.
7. Providing funding opportunities for undergraduate students to travel
to present research at conferences.
Graduate students and/or faculty:
1. To generate interest and awareness of educational research, encourage

faculty to present their own, or others primary research findings in
undergraduate classes. Include discussions and critiques as to how the
research was conducted to attain such findings.
2. Providing professional development in the area of mentorship will help
faculty hone their mentorship models and prepare graduate students for
that aspect of academia.
3. Providing incentives, of time or money for faculty and graduate
students who engage in the mentoring of undergraduates, would elevate
the status of the work and encourage greater participation. For example,
providing a small research stipend would help balance the effort of work
4. To generate interest and awareness of educational research,
encourage faculty to present their own, or others primary research
189
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
findings in undergraduate classes. Include discussions and critiques as to

how the research was conducted to attain such findings.
5. ing with untrained researchers.
6. Annual awards for faculty who successful present or publish with
undergraduate students would also provide greater value the practice.
However, future research is also needed in this area. While we can translate
findings from mentoring in other fields, the dynamics of academics also has
unique qualities. For example, while we made efforts to not have our own
students (from that current semester) on the research teams, due to class
scheduling this may be unavoidable. In such cases, it would be critical to
separate the more informal relationship of research mentor with the more
formal relationship of instructor. It should be noted that our experience
included only female faculty, graduate students, and undergraduate students.
The interactions may have been markedly different due to teams with both
female and male participants. Additionally, the mentors on the team were all
Caucasian, the majority culture. Again, more diverse teams may operate in
different manners. Future research should explore these dynamics in deeper
and in a more systematic manner.
CONCLUSION
Currently, a mismatch exists between what is seen in classrooms, what

preservice teachers learn in their courses, and the application of theory-
based best practices into action. The thread tying these three factors together
is a strong understanding of theory and practice rooted in research. When
preservice teachers are given the opportunity to develop research skills,
they see the connections between theory and practice more clearly and can
apply them to their own experiences as classroom teachers. In the end, this
approach will not only develop more competent and prepared classroom
teachers, but will ultimately benefit the students in the classroom of those
teachers.
The gap between classroom practice and educational research has been
well documented; however, if this status quo continues, we cannot expect to
see any improvements in how children are taught. Including undergraduate
students in educational research pulls back the proverbial curtain before these
students enter the classroom, allowing them to understand where research
comes from and how decisions about research are made. This insight not only
motivates these students to incorporate research into their teaching practices,
but also may help them critically analyze and question future educational
190
Minding the Gap
trends. As the field of education becomes more empirical research-based, it

is critical to prepare our teachers for the new realities.
While this study included only three case studies, we believe the
results provide optimism for the future. When Gabby was asked about the
disconnect between educational research and classroom teaching practices
she paused for a moment, and then succinctly explained the importance
of teachers remaining on top of things and doing the newest of the new
available so that students will be well prepared for the future. In essence,
Gabby did not believe the gap between research and practice existed because
in her experience the connection was well formed. It is this attitude that
we hope to instill in our undergraduate research assistance as they become
classroom teachers.
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Comstock, D., Hammer, T., Strentzsch, J., Cannon, K., Parsons, J., & Salazar, G. (2008).
Relational-cultural theory: A framework for bridging relational, multicultural, and social
justice competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 279287.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Douglass, A., Smith, D., & Smith, L. (2013). An exploration of the characteristics of effective
undergraduate peer mentoring relationships. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 21, 219234.
Garrard, J. (2011). Health sciences literature review made easy (3rd ed.). Ontario, Canada:
Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC.
Greenwood, C. R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education.
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division
of the Council for Exceptional Children, 24(4), 276289.
Flanigan, K., & Greenwood, S. C. (2007). Effective content vocabulary instruction in the
middle: Matching students, purposes, words, and strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 51(3), 226238.
Heirdsfield, A. M., Walker, S., Walsh, K., & Wilss, L. (2008). Peer mentoring for first-year
teacher education students: The mentors experience. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership
in Learning, 16, 109124.
Kaufman, D. K. (2009). A teacher educator writes and shares student perceptions of a publicly
literate life. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 338350.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2004). Three conceptions of teacher learning: Exploring
the relationship between knowledge and the practice of teaching. Teacher Education and
Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children, 27(1), 314.
191
K. L. WRIGHT ET AL.
Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. (1997). The healing connection. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development.
In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
158170). New York, NY:Guilford.
Ritter, J. K. (2012). Modeling powerful social studies: Bridging theory and practice with
preservice elementary teachers. The Social Studies, 103, 117124.
Scheeler, M. C. (2008). Generalizing effective teaching skills: The missing link in teacher
preparation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(2), 145159.
Terrion, J. L., & Leonard, D. (2007). A taxonomy of the characteristics of student peer
mentors in higher education: Findings from a literature review. Mentoring and Tutoring,
15, 149164.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., & Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of research-based practices.
Exceptional Children, 66(2), 163171.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Katherine Landau Wright

Tracey S. Hodges
Amanda D. Franks
Erin McTigue
April G. Douglass
192
ROBIN RACKLEY AND RADHIKA VIRURU
10. TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND

PRESERVICETEACHERS
Theory and Practice
INTRODUCTION
Technology is ever-present, touching almost every part of our lives,

communities, and homes. Learning modes have changed greatly as to the
sources of information, how we exchange and interact with information
and how information shapes and informs us but schools have been slower
to change in regard to using the internet and mobile technologies in this
participatory learning (Davidson & Goldberg, 2009). The National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) provides standards for
teacher preparation and within those standards is a specific objective: to
prepare candidates who can integrate technology into instruction to enhance
student learning (NCATE, 2002, p. 4). Many schools are just beginning
to explore the true potential technology offers for teaching and learning.
Technology changes the way teachers teach, offering educators effective
ways to reach and assess learners and through multiple means. It also
enhances the relationship between teacher and student. Learning how to
integrate technology into the classroom enhances the teaching techniques of
preservice teachers and assists them in providing motivating and attractive
learning environments for their classroom (Serhan, 2009, p. 439), helping
augment their needed practical knowledge (Gomez, Sherin, Griesdorn
& Finn, 2008). According to Gomez, Sherin, Griesdorn and Finn (2008),
schools of education should use technology to strengthen the practice-theory
connection, provide more practice-centered education and reflect deeply into
the scholarship and practice of teaching.
Teachers must be able to use technology effectively in the classroom in
the 21st century as technology enhances teacher efficacy and productivity
AND contributes significantly to student learning. As Jacobsen et al. (2002)
have said, we no longer live in a world in which information is scarce, and
the teachers role is to hand deliver content to children. Overwhelmed by

R. RACKLEY & R. VIRURU
information from a wealth of sources, students desperately need the skills to

create new knowledge, not just consume the old. A stand-alone approach to
technology instruction that focuses on the use of technology rather than how
technology enhances learning can be ineffective.
In this chapter, we will define technology integration, review some of
the current research on technology integration and the need to encourage
preservice teachers to become early adopters of technology, identify some
common barriers to integration and also review critical areas of emphasis for
technology integration in todays classrooms. We will provide descriptions
of how these areas of emphasis are integrated into our undergraduate course
on technology integration, that is required for all early childhood and middle
school preservice teachers at our institution. As the research presented in this
chapter, as well as the descriptions of our classroom practices will indicate,
technology has created opportunities for learning that simply did not exist
in earlier times. Capitalizing on these opportunities is an essential part of
student-centered instruction in the 21st century.
WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION?
It is important to first define what technology integration actually means.

Seamless integration is when students are not only using technology
daily, but have access to a variety of tools that match the task at hand and
provide them the opportunity to build a deeper understanding of content.
But how we define technology integration can also depend on the kinds of
technology available, how much access one has to technology, and who is
using the technology. For instance, in a classroom with only an interactive
whiteboard and one computer, learning is likely to remain teacher-centric,
and integration will revolve around teacher needs, not necessarily student
needs. Still, there are ways to implement even an interactive whiteboard
to make it a tool for students. Technology integration is typically expected
in three broad areas within the classroom: technology for instructional
preparation, technology for instructional delivery and technology as a
learning tool (Inan & Lowther, 2010). Although students are only actively
involved in the third category, all three areas are important in creating
technology-enriched classrooms.
Preservice Teachers and Technology Integration

Although it has been intuitively supposed that preservice teachers are more
likely to become users of technology if they are exposed to the theory and
194
Technology Integration and Preservice Teachers
practice of technology instruction in their teacher preparation programs,

research has now substantiated that belief. According to Tondeur et al (2012):
Research shows that a crucial factor influencing new teachers adoption of
technology is the quantity and quality of preservice technology experiences
included in their teacher education programmes. Unfortunately, research
findings suggest that technology is significantly under-used by preservice
teachers and beginning teachers.
According to Anderson, Groulx & Manninger (2011), although most
school administrators and principals believe that integrating technology
into instruction is extremely important, less than 40% of current and future
teachers subscribe to this belief. In addition, to teachers attitudes and beliefs
(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010) their knowledge about how to enhance
instruction using technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010, Hughes,
2005), and their knowledge about how to support and manage students use
of technology (Yelleand, 2005) seem to affect the quality of technology
integration. These scholars believe that teacher preparation programs bear
the responsibility of ensuring that preservice teachers not only have the
skills but also an adequate conceptual framework to enable them to integrate
technology into their classrooms (Wright & Wilson, 2005-2006). Research
also shows that preservice teachers are more likely to use technology in their
classrooms when they feel competent in their ability to do so (Chai, 2010,
Hsu 2010). Because a teachers ability to integrate technology is so influential
upon his or her students ability to learn from technology-based instruction
(Angrist & Lavy, 2002), greater instruction in the integration of technology
in preservice training is likely to yield positive outcomes on student learning.
Does Technology Integration Have an Impact?

While the availability of technology in the classroom does not guarantee
impact on student outcomes (Dynarski et al 2007; Wenglinsky, 1998), when
used appropriately, it can help to improve students performance. (Kulik,
2003; Wenglinsky, 2006). Research indicates that specific uses of technology
can improve student outcomes. Using technology for drill and practice
generally has been found to be less effective than using technology for more
constructivist purposes such as writing, research, collaboration, analysis, and
publication (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).
In an analysis of NAEP data, Wenglinsky (2005) found that for eighth-
grade reading, use of computers for writing activities positively affected
test scores, but use of computers for grammar/punctuation, reading drills, or
tutorials negatively affected test scores. The educational uses of technology
195
also can enhance competencies that go well beyond the knowledge and skills
typically measured by these achievement tests (Bransford, Brown, Cocking,
1999; Collins & Halverson, 2009). These competencies include improved
understanding of complex concepts, connections between ideas, processes
and learning strategies, as well as the development of problem solving,
visualization, data management, communication, and collaboration skills,
which are among the skills that employers find lacking even in many college
graduates (The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families,
the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource
Management, 2006).
In the fall of 2009 the need was identified at our university for a course
on technology integration. While the majority of our undergraduate
students owned mobile devices and various other technologies, they were
not comfortable nor confident in integrating technology in their field based
practicum classrooms. During the adoption of a new degree plan a course,
EDCI 365 Using Technology in Elementary Classrooms was developed and
added to the curriculum for all students seeking Pre-K through 6 teacher
certification. This course provides an overview of technology as it relates
to the design of instruction and practices that support effective teaching and
learning. The focus is on the study of how learning theories are reflected in
and supported by technology and on current and emerging applications in
technology-delivered and supported learning environments. The enrollment
in the course consists of students from various departments including special
education and agricultural education. There is a wide variety of technology
ability and comfort within each class
Developing Technology Skills

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2009) has identified the skills and
areas of expertise that are essential for succeeding in work and life in a 21st
century global society. These include information, media, and technology
skills; learning and innovation skills; and life and career skills. As well, the
National Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010),
emphasizes the importance of enabling students to experience technology
in the ways professionals do in their fields (e.g., to conduct experiments,
organize information, and communicate) and encourages educators to create
learning experiences that mirror students daily lives and the reality of their
futures. Effectively preparing students for their future entails that districts
and schools around the country leverage digital technologies to improve
student learning experiences, move further into the digital learning age, and
196
empower students to take an active role and take ownership of their own
learning (NNPS, 2012).
Earlier studies of technology in classrooms have shown that many
educators are unprepared to integrate technology into their instruction (Efaw,
2005). Preservice teachers cannot capitalize on the educational potential of
technology if they have not had the opportunity to see how it can foster
learning and how it can be integrated into the curriculum. Its a mistake
to give teachers computers and demand that they find useful things to do
with them. Instead, we need to create opportunities for teachers to integrate
technology into the curriculum (Knobel, 2009).
WHAT IS SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION?
A key difference between information technology and technology

integration has been in the shift from passive audiences to active users.
Digital technologies permit users unprecedented control over the content
they consume and the place in and pace at which they consume it. At the
heart of effective technology integration practices, digital technologies offer
students greater opportunities to be more actively involved in the learning
experience. (Edutopia) Effective technology integration is achieved when the
use of technology is routine and transparent and when technology supports
curricular goals. For student performance to approximate student potential,
students need access to a constantly evolving array of technological tools and
activities that demand problem-solving, decision-making, teamwork, and
innovation. (Blair, 2012, p. 10) The four Cs (critical thinking, creativity,
communication, and collaboration) are at the heart of the International
Society for Technology in Educations National Educational Technology
Standards (NETS) for students. As an example, educators have found that
by implementing these standards even the youngest 21st century learners are
capable of independently creating digital storybooks, artwork, presentations,
and movies.
Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to
select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner,
analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The
technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions --
as accessible as all other classroom tools. (National Educational Technology
Standards for Students, International Society for Technology in Education)
It is no longer acceptable for students to have less access to technological
tools than the teacher, nor is it enough for any one suite of software, one
application or one device to serve as the pinnacle for technology mastery. For
197
student performance to approximate student potential, students need access to

a constantly evolving array of technological tools and activities that demand
problem solving, decision-making, teamwork, and innovation (Blair, 2012).
Seamless integration is when students are not only using technology daily,
but have access to a variety of tools that match the task at hand and provide
them the opportunity to build a deeper understanding of content. (Edutopia)
One theme that has emerged from the research to date is that simply adding
technology to K-12 environments does not necessarily improve learning.
Rather, what matters most is how students and teachers use technology to
develop knowledge and skills. Successful technology integration for learning
generally goes hand in hand with changes in teacher training, curricula,
and assessment practices (Bebell & ODwyer, 2010; Innovative Teaching
and Learning Research, 2011; Zucker & Light, 2009). The review of the
literature also finds that successful technology integration generally involves
three key principles:
1. Students playing an active role in their learning and receiving frequent,
personalized feedback.
2. Students critically analyzing and actively creating
3. Teachers connecting classroom activities to the world outside the classroom
When technology integration in the classroom is seamless and thoughtful,
students not only become more engaged, they begin to take more control
over their own learning, too. Effective tech integration changes classroom
dynamics, encouraging student-centered project-based learning.
Recent studies indicate that only 23 percent of teachers feel prepared
to integrate technology into their instruction, and when they do integrate
technology, they tend to use it to present information rather than to provide
hands-on learning for students (Moeller and Reitzes, 2011). Teachers are more
likely to use technology in ways that promote student engagement, inquiry,
and self-directed learning after receiving in-depth and sustained professional
development in technology integration (Bebell and ODwyer, 2010; Ertmer
and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Innovative Teaching and Learning Research,
2011; Law and Yuen, 2006). Professional development should be task-
embedded, linking technology usage to specific content standards and
learners in teachers classrooms, and should also provide technical support.
When professional development is sustained beyond one year and supports
active learning, technical and instructional difficulties tend to be overcome
(Gerard, Varma, Corliss, and Linn, 2011). Successful schoolwide technology
integration requires a schoolwide cultural shift in which good teaching means
198
using technology effectively (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Levin

and Wadmany, 2008).
Teacher beliefs have also been shown to be a strong predictor of
effective technology integration. Early studies of integration often found
discrepancies between teachers espoused beliefs about integration and
their actual classroom practices; however these differences were often
attributed towards inadequate infrastructure and support (Ertmer et al., 2012,
Chen 2008; Jimoyiannisa & Komisb 2007; Lim & Chai 2008; Lumpe &
Chambers 2001). However, as physical barriers to technology integration
have gradually disappeared (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006),
there has not been a consequent rise in effective integration in classrooms.
Researchers have found that successful technology integration practices are
often founded on a belief in student-centered learning (Ertmer et al, 2011,
Andrew, 2007, Hermans et al, 2008). Thus technology integration is deeply
related to teacher beliefs about teaching and learning.
Ertmer et al discuss four barriers that can negatively impact successful
technology integration in K-12 classrooms, namely:
1. hardware
2. Internet access
3. software and tool access,
4. adequate training and external support
Internet access is an issue that has mostly been resolved, as by 2005,
almost all public schools in the United States had access to the Internet
on their campuses (Wells & Lewis, 2006, Gray & Thomas, 2010). In
regards to software access, the wide availability of what are often known
as Web 2.0 tools such as social media applications, have greatly decreased
the ability of this issue to impact classroom integration. Essentially,
classrooms that have access to the Internet can often automatically gain
access to needed software tools (Brandon, 2008). Interestingly, an ASCD
report on schools that successfully integrate technology does not mention
either hardware or software access as an issue, indicating that this is an
issue that has essentially been resolved. The lack of adequate professional
development was likewise seen as a factor that negatively impacted
successful technology integration; however more recent studies show that
this too has been mostly overcome. Results from an NEA (2008) study
show that nearly 57% of teachers felt that they had been adequately trained
to integrate technology into their classrooms, with other studies indicating
even higher numbers (CDW-G, 2006). Finally administrative and technical
199
support has also been revealed as an issue of declining importance in

technology integration (Ertmer et al., 2012).
Successful technology integration thus is closer than ever to being an
attainable goal. In the next sections of the paper we would like to present
some examples of what technology integration might look like and key areas
of the classroom where it can and has been successfully used.
Preservice Teachers and Technology Integration

How are preservice teachers best prepared to integrate technology into their
future classrooms? This is a vital question currently faced by schools of
education. A national survey of 416 teacher preparation programs indicated
that formal technology coursework was not well correlated with preservice
teachers technology integration skills (Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999).
Many schools of education still require preservice teachers to enroll in a
standalone educational technology course (Hargrave & Hsu, 2000). Several
studies have demonstrated improved self-efficacy or confidence for using
technology when preservice teachers are required to take technology-
integrated methods courses (Collier et al., 2004; Halpin, 1999; Hargrave &
Hsu, 2000; Moursund & Bielefeldt, 1999; Pope et al., 2002; Ropp, 1999;
Wright& Wislon, 20052006). Albert Bandura (1994) defines self-efficacy
as peoples beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels
of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives
(p. 71). Banduras research found that individuals possessing higher levels
of confidence in their abilities tend to approach difficult tasks as challenges
instead of obstacles. According to Willis and Smith (2011), preservice
teachers often enter technology training with low levels of self-efficacy.
Preservice teachers should be offered learning opportunities that allow
technology skills to be acquired incrementally with new skills building on
prior skills. Wills and Smith conclude that the ultimate goal of this type of
instruction should be to empower preservice teachers in their own skills so
that they may confidently integrate technology into their classrooms.
In our technology course, EDCI 365, understanding the nature of sources
is one of the first assignments that we give our students. In our experience,
we have found that although many of our students are users of the Web, they
are not discriminating users, having very little grasp of the concept of Web
literacy. We introduce our students to such basic concepts of web literacy
as understanding URLs, checking the validity of the entity of the owners
of web-pages, evaluating pages for currency (such as when they were last
200
updated), the quality of the page itself (what kinds of sites it links to, and
whether those links are current), and finally checking the history of the
website itself through tools such as https://archive.org/web/ We emphasize
the need for students to try and find primary sources of good quality when
doing research of their own, and also of the real need to teach their own
classes about concepts such as web literacy. We also try to debunk myth such
as the idea that the use of the internet has generally speaking been detrimental
to student creativity and writing capabilities by exposing students to such
information as the Pew Internet use report that found that 77% of teachers of
advanced writing courses in high school thought that the internet and digital
search tools have had a positive influence on student writing (Pew Internet
and American Life Project, 2012).
AREAS FOR TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION2
Experts agree that some of the most critical areas that need to be addressed
in technology integration include giving students access to primary source
material, redesigning learning environments and integrating mobile
technologies into classrooms. Each of these areas is discussed further below.
Giving Students Access to Up-to-Date Primary Source Material

As Lindquist & Long (2011) have pointed out, digital collections have
expanded exponentially with an enormous wealth of written and recorded
primary source material now easily available. Many educators strongly
believe in the importance of giving students access to primary sources.
As Salinas, Bellows & Liaw (2011) have said, digitized history archives
(collections of primary sources or firsthand accounts) have immense
implications for how teachers can conduct historical inquiry (p. 185). At the
same time, these authors point out that simply because a resource is available
does not guarantee that it will be used at all or used properly. Thus, as with
many technologies, it is important that preservice teachers be introduced
to the how of integrating such resources as well as to what resources to
use. Digitized primary sources offer students the unique opportunity to not
only study history but in many ways experience it through multiple inputs,
such as texts, audio and video recordings where available. These resources
grant students the opportunity to link multiple sources and thus create for
themselves a more individualized understanding of historical events (Bolick,
2006; Salinas, Bellows & Liaw, 2011).
201
Reconceptualizing Learning Environments

Educators recognize that much of student research now begins with the
internet, particularly in light of the statistics given above about widespread
access to the internet in schools. Furthermore, it is estimated that in this year,
2014, over 90% of people in the US will have high speed internet access.
(Fox, Anderson, & Rainie, 2005). The nature of the internet too has changed,
from a resource controlled by a selected few, who had the power and the
access to post content on the web (commonly described as a read-only
Web 1.0 version of the internet) to a read and write Web 2.0 version of
the web that is much more collaborative and allows multiple view points
to be heard at once (Greenhow, Robelia & Hughes, 2009). Greenhow et al.
state that traditional views of education focus on the role of the student as a
receiver of information: from such a point of view, the internet functions
as a medium that augments the ability of students to retrieve and easily store
information. This is in contrast to what are often known as 21st century skills
and include competencies such as: creative and original multi- media work in
complex project-oriented teams in which the problems, tasks, players, roles,
and processes are in flux and often distributed across geographic and cultural
distances (Greenhow et al., 2009, p. 248). Such skills are better developed,
Greenhow et al. suggest, when learning environments are seen as learning
ecologies (Barron, 2006) in which learning comes from participating in
complex activity, in collaborative environments. Such unconventional
learning requires unconventional methods of collecting and recording data,
presenting information and assessment. Scholars point out too that this goes
beyond simply enhancing existing instructional practices with technological
innovations: it requires carefully planned instructional choices. Examples
include Barak and Doris (2006) study of how modeling software and internet
research can enhance learning in chemistry classrooms and van Aalst and
Chans (2007) study of the use of portfolio assessments.
In our course on technology integration, we continually impress on
students the fundamental lesson that the purpose of using technology in
any classroom is not to use technology but to enhance learning. This is the
fundamental principle upon which instructional design must be based. At
the same time, we emphasize that it is important to choose technologies that
engage students in learning in ways that connect to their own experiences,
as users of technology often since birth, and that promote 21st century skills
such as the ability to communicate across with people from around the globe
and using technology more for purposes of production than consumption.
Our classes have engaged in projects such as Skyping with classrooms in
202
multiple locations; the use of social media to discover information from

around the globe in real time, participating in digital scavenger hunts to
better understand ones own environment, creating digital stories that include
original artwork and participant voices and the use of classroom response
systems as a tool to make student thinking visible, rather than just as a tool
for assessment.
Using Mobile Devices in Learning

Mobile devices in the classroom have been occasionally been described
as the equivalent of chewing gum in schools in previous decades (Brooks-
Young, 2010): something that teachers try very hard to keep out of schools
but never succeed in accomplishing. Recent research on mobile learning
indicates, that although to some extent the chewing-gum mentality does
continue to exist in schools, many educators have come to recognize that
mobile technologies can positively impact learning in classrooms (Johnson,
Adams and Cummins, 2012). Many schools have now adopted BYOD or
Bring Your Own Device policies, in an effort to increase student access
to learning opportunities. Mobile phones in particular have come under a
great deal of scrutiny: previously seen by many teachers as a device that
only diverted students attention from learning, they are increasingly being
viewed as mini-computers that can help students access and create content,
present information, collaborate with other students, participate in classroom
decision making and take assessments (OBannon & Thomas, 2014). At
the same time, concerns persist that mobile phones can be distractions in
classrooms as students can use them to text (Campbell, 2006; Shelton, Elliott,
Lynn, & Exner, 2011; Thomas et al., in press) or sext (Lenhart et al., 2010;
Thomas et al., in press) other people, to cheat on assessments, for cyber-
bullying and to access inappropriate content (ibid). Research studies, such
as those of OBannon and Thomas, show that younger teachers (particularly
under the age of 32) tend to own more smart-phones themselves and tend
to support the idea that mobile phones can support learning. Interestingly,
however, teachers thought features such as accessing the internet, using
educational apps and using calculators, and the calendar tools were the
best ways in which to use mobile phones in the classroom and continued
to be concerned about issues such as cheating, overall potential for being
disruptive and cyber-bullying (ibid).
Mobile phones in the classroom have also been described as the equivalent
of letting the genie out of the bottle (Project Tomorrow, 2012). Research has
203
shown that despite expressed concerns, parents tend to be supportive of the

idea of mobile phone in classrooms, and that this support was widespread in
urban, suburban, rural and high-poverty areas (ibid). Research also shows
that younger children are increasingly gaining access to mobile technologies:
a recent survey shows that 52% of children under the age of 8 are easily
able to access either a smartphone or an equivalent device such as in iPod
or a tablet (Ciampa & Gallagher, 2013). In studying the use of mobile
technologies with younger children, particular attention has been paid to how
they grant easy access to multimedia resources (ibid), including podcasts,
video clips and audio-recordings (Druin, 2009). Research on multi-media
resources often draws from Paivios (1986) work on dual-coding theories,
which suggests that verbal and visual information are processed differently
and any system that incorporates both elements helps students retain, process
and transfer material.
Our course on technology integration covers many of the issues related to
integrating mobile technologies in classrooms. In recognition of the current
popularity of BYOD policies, we provide students with access to a variety of
mobile devices including Apple, Android and Windows tablets. We encourage
our students to become familiar with as many devices as possible, so that
when they have their own classrooms, they are better equipped to answer
questions about them. Furthermore we heavily encourage the use of mobile
devices in our own classes: students are encouraged to have their phones and
tablets out with them during class, as they are often called upon to use them,
whether that be to participate in a poll, look up a website, communicate
with other students or to complete a Google form needed for setting up the
classroom space for that day. We also encourage the exploration of social
media through mobile devices, and try to guide students through appropriate
usage policies (such as making sure that students are at least 13 years of
age before they create Facebook accounts and monitoring privacy settings
on social media) as well as potential pitfalls (such as indiscriminately
connecting with colleagues and people one comes into contact in a school
environment such as parents, without reflecting upon how that might dictate
what one uses social media for). We also encourage our students to look into
the potential that mobile devices have for creating audio-video content.
Feedback
We have received positive feedback from our students and the administrators
that have hired these students. During her senior methods semester one of
204
our students used her personal iTouch to differentiate instruction in the

classroom. She was placed in a 4th grade language arts classroom. The focus
of the lesson was on characterization. Not all students were reading on grade
level. She recorded a few relevant passages from the text and all students
were allowed to listen to the text followed by class discussion. This allowed
individual students to listen to the text more than once if necessary, without
others being held back or the stigma of having to ask the teacher to repeat what
was said, students not reading on grade level were still able to participate in
the class discussion and have meaningful dialog on the topic. The principal
at this school was asked by the mentor teacher to observe this particular
lesson, he was impressed by the technology skills for our student and she
was asked as a methods student to conduct a professional development
with the kindergarten team on creating digital stories as a collaboration
with the fourth grade students. Our students have also implemented the
use of technologies such as VoiceThread and podcasts into their teaching.
Administrators have told us that our students have been hired based on their
confidence in integrating technology. Many students have contacted us and
told us how valuable the skills but more importantly the confidence has been
that they gained from this course.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have reviewed some of the current research on technology

integration, identified some common barriers to integration and also reviewed
critical areas of emphasis for technology integration in todays classrooms.
We have also provided descriptions of how these areas of emphasis are
integrated into our undergraduate course on technology integration, that is
required for all early childhood and middle school preservice teachers at our
institution. At a recent conference on technology integration, hosted by our
institution (http://techconference.tamu.edu), one of our speakers drew the
analogy between proficiency in technology and second language instruction.
Our speaker suggested that for many students in todays classrooms,
technology is their first language, acquired without effort whereas for many
of todays teachers, technology is something that has to be painstakingly
learned. Bridging this gap in ways of looking at the world is essential for
todays classrooms to be successful. As the research presented in this chapter,
as well as the descriptions of our classroom practices indicate, technology has
created opportunities for learning that simply did not exist in earlier times.
Capitalizing on these opportunities is an essential part of student-centered
instruction in the 21st century.
205
REFERENCES
Anderson, S. E., Groulx, J.G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice
teachers technology related abilities, beliefs and intentions to use technology in their future
classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 321338.
Andrew, L. (2007). Comparison of teacher educators instructional methods with the
constructivist ideal. The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 157184.
Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New evidence on classroom computers and pupil learning.
Economic Journal, 112(482), 735.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
bevavior (Vol. 4, pp. 7181). New York,NY: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students chemistry understanding
through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89(1), 117139.
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning
ecologies perspective. Human Development, 49, 193224.
Bebell, D., & ODwyer, L.M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing
settings [Abstract]. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1).
Blair, N. (2012). Technology Integration for the new 21st century learner. Principal
(January/February 2012:Technology). Retrievedfromhttp://www.naesp.org/principal-
januaryfebruary-2012-technology/technology-integration-new-21st-century-learner
Bolick, C. M. (2006). Digital archives: Democratizing the doing of history. International
Journal of Social Education, 21(1), 122134.
Brandon, J. (2008). Web 2.0 definition for non-techies. Computer world. Retrieved April 18,
2011 from http://blogs.computerworld.com/web_2_0_define_2_0
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrievedfrom http://www.nap.edu/openbook.
php?record_id=6160
Campbell, S. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating,
and classroom policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280294.
CDW-G (2006). Teachers Talk Tech reveals technology access and professional development
are driving improved teacher and student performance. Retrieved March 28, 2009 from
http://newsroom.cdwg.com/news-releases/news-release-06-26-06.html
Chai, C. S. (2010). The relationship among Singaporean preservice teachers ICT com-
petencies, pedagogical beliefs and their beliefs on the espoused use of ICT. The Asia-
Pacific Educational Researcher, 19(3), 387400. Retrieved from http://69.174.53.45/
index.php?journal=TAPER&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=1596&path%5B%
5D=1685
Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 6575.
Ciampa, K., & Tiffany, L. G. (2013). Getting in touch: Use of mobile devices in the elementary
classroom. Computers in the Schools. Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and
Applied Research, 30(4), 309328
Collier, S., Weinburgh, M., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher
education program: Changes in students knowledge about and use of technology. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447468.
206
Davidson, C., & Goldberg, D. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital
age. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Report. Retrieved from
http://www.futureofthebook.org
Druin, A. (2009). Mobile technology for children: Designing for interaction and learning. San
Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L.,. . . Sussex,
W. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the
first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Efaw, J. (2005). No teacher left behind: How to teach with technology. Educause Quarterly,
25(4), 2632.
Ertmer, P.A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect (PDF). Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255284.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Saidk, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers &
Education, 59, 423435
Fox, S., Anderson, J. Q., & Rainie, L. (2005). The future of the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew
Charitable Trusts. Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/
PIP_Future_of _Internet.pdf
Gerard, L.F., Varma, K., Corliss, S.B., & Linn, M.C. (2011). Professional development for
technology-enhanced inquiry science [Abstract]. Review of Educational Research, 81(3),
408448.
Gomez, L., Sherin, M., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, l. (2008). Creating social relationships: The
role of technology in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2),
117131.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers use of educational technology in U.S.
public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship
in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom. Research: What Path Should We Take Now?
Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246259.
Halpin, R. (1999). A model of constructivist learning in practice: Computer literacy integrated
into elementary mathematics and science teacher education. Journal of Research on
Computing Education, 32(1), 5472.
Hargrave, C., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice
teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303314.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The impact of primary school
teacherseducational beliefs on the classroom use of computers. Computers & Education,
51, 14991509.
Hsu, S. (2010). The relationship between teachers technology integration ability and usage.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3), 309325. doi:10.2190/ EC.43.3.c
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experience in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2),
277302.
Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms:
a path model. Education Technology Research and Development, 58, 137154.
207
Innovative Teaching and Learning Research. (2011). Findings and Implications (PDF).
International Society for Technology in Education. (2009). NETS for students: Global
learning in a digital age. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/
NETS/ForStudents/NETS_for_Students.htm
Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration:
Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Jimoyiannisa, A., & Komisb, V. (2007). Examining teachers beliefs about ICT in education:
Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development, 11(2), 149173.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC horizon report: 2012 K12 edition.
Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Knobel, M. (2009). Schools of education must fuel a digital revolution in teaching. [Electronic
version] Edutopia: What Works in Public Education. The George Lucas Educational
Foundation.
Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary
schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI International.
Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (2006). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around
the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study series. Hong Kong: Springer Publishing.
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smartphones and texting. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-
and-smartphones.aspx
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. K. (2008). Teachers views on factors affecting effective integration
of information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233262.
Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Teachers pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct
of computer mediated classroom lesson. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5),
807828.
Lindquist, T., & Long, H. (2011). How can educational technology facilitate student
engagement with online primary sources? Library Hi Tech, 29(2), 224241.
Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers context beliefs about technology
use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93107.
Moeller, B., & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology with student-centered learning.
Quincy, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. (EDC), Nelle Mae Education
Foundation.
Moursund, D. & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in the digital
arena? Research study by the International Society for Technology in Education,
Commissioned by and in partnership with Milken Exchange on Education Technology,
Santa Monica, CA. Retrievedfromhttp://milkenexchange.org
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools
and classrooms: 19942005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education: Author.
Retrieved April 20, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional standards for
the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Education Association. (2008). Technology in schools: The ongoing challenge
of access, adequacy, and equity (Policy Brief # 19). Washington DC: NEA Policy and
Practice Department.
208
NNPS. (2012, August). BYOD guidelines for students. Newport News, VA: NNPS.
OBannon, B.W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the
classroom: Age matters! Computers & Education, 74, 1525.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. Tuscon,
AZ: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=
view&id=254&Itemid=120
Pew Internet and American Life Project. (2012). How teens do research in the digital
world. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/
Reports/2012/PIP _TeacherSurveyReportWith Methodology110112.pdf
Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2002). Technology integration: Closing the gap between
what preservice teachers are taught to do and what they can do. Journal of Technology and
Project Tomorrow and Blackboard. (2012). Learning in the 21st century: Mobile
Devices + Social Media = Personalized Learning. Irvin, CA: Author. Retrieved from
www.blackboard.com/resources/markets/k-12/collateral/project-tomorrow/K12_Prjct-
Tmrw_Mbl-Rpt_2012.pdf
Ropp, M. M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use
computers in preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 31(4), 404424.
Salinas, C., Bellows, M. E., & Liaw, H. L. (2011). Preservice social studies teachers historical
thinking and digitized primary sources: What they use and why. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 184204.
Serhan, D. (2009a). Preparing preservice teachers for computer technology integration.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(4), 439447.
Serhan, D. (2009b). Preservice teachers and computer use in the classroom. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 36(3), 331338.
Shelton, J. T., Elliott, E. M., Lynn, S. D., & Exner, A. L. (2011). The distracting effects of a
ringing cell phone: An investigation of the laboratory and the classroom setting. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 513521.
The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st
Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource Management. (2006). Are they
really ready to work? Employers perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied
skills of new entrants to the 21st century workforce. Tucson, AZ: Author. Retrievedfrom
http://www.p21.org/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF9-29-06.pdf
The George Lucas Educational Foundation. (2008). Edutopia. Marin County, CA: Author.
Retrievedfrom http://www.edutopia.org
Thomas, K., OBannon, B., & Britt, V. (in press). Standing in the school house door: Teacher
perceptions of mobile phones in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy. (2010). A EASA
blueprint for reform.Washington, DC: Author. Retrievedfromhttp://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/blueprint
Van Aalst, J., & Chan, C. K. K. (2007). Student-directed assessment of knowledge building
using electronic portfolios. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 175220.
209
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing
evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34,
179225.
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms:
19942005 (NCES 2007-020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 31, 2014 from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2007/2007020.pdf
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology
and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools. New
York,NY: Teachers College Press.
Wenglinsky, H. (2006). Teachnology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational
Leadership, 63(4), 2932.
Wright, V.H., & Wilson, E.K. (2005). From preservice to inservice teaching: A study of
technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(2), 4955.
Yelland, N. (2005). The future is now. A review of the literature on the use of computers in
early childhood education (19942004). AACE Journal, 13(3), 201232.
Zucker, A.A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students (PDF). Science, 323, 8285.
Robin Rackley
Radhika Viruru
Department of Teaching Learning and Culture
210
LYNNE MASEL WALTERS, MARTHA R. GREEN,
TIMOTHY N. WALTERS AND LIANGYAN WANG
11. THE EXAMINED LIFE

Using Digital Stories to Develop the Reflective Capabilities of Preservice
Teachers about Culture and Diversity
INTRODUCTION
The term reflection has become one of the most important vocabulary
words of teacher training (Hatton & Smith, 1995). One quality a good teacher
should possess is the ability to reflect on what, why and how things are done
and to adapt, develop and improve his or her practices within the context of
lifelong learning. Individuals construct understanding through the process of
reflection on experience (McDrury & Alterio, 2003; Schunk, 1990; Connelly
& Clandinin, 1990). Freire stated, "Within the word, we find two dimensions,
reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed- even
in part- the other immediately suffers" (1970, p. 69).
Thus, for teachers, reflecting deeply on their educational philosophy and
practice is a critical first step for taking action in the classroom. While it
may be painful to look in the mirror and consider the who, what, where,
when, why and how of what works and doesnt work in the classroom, the
unexamined teaching career can lead to becoming just a glorified babysitter,
stuck in a rut and no longer enjoying the job. Times change, perspectives
change, and [teachers] must change in order to adapt and to remain relevant
in the ever-changing world of education (Lewis, n.d.).
Because of the perceived importance of reflection on educator
performance, faculty in schools of education around the world are teaching
and researching this practice. Teacher educators are using such techniques
as journals, portfolios, fieldwork, coaching and mentoring, in-class projects
and peer collaboration to encourage their students to become reflective
teachers (Edwards, 2007). Many studies have shown that these techniques do
not work; teacher trainees reflect at a superficial level, if at all (Collier, 1999;
Bean & Stevens, 2002). Colliers (1999) study of four student teachers found
that reflective practice was typically at the lowest level of thinking, with only

L. M. Walters et al.
one student demonstrating an ability to reach the deepest level of reflection

(why and how). In a study exploring the use of "scaffolded reflection"
with student teachers, reflection was also found to remain at a superficial
level (Bean & Stevens, 2002, p. 215). However, Hatton and Smith (1995)
maintain that education students can learn the habit, despite the widespread
belief that they are slow to understand and value the benefits of reflection.
The development of reflective skills, then, remains a key component in most
teacher education curricula today.
PURPOSE
As university educators, our goal must be to prepare prospective and mid-

career students for teaching in a new world of global interconnectedness
defined by multicultural classrooms, digital technology and social justice
issues. We must provide students with the skills to develop intercultural
competence by supporting their abilities to think, create, and communicate
interculturally and by nourishing their capacity for tolerance, understanding
and appreciation of multiple perspectives. This chapter discusses digital
storytelling as a narrative structure and process through which authors
construct meaning from cultural experiences. Thorough writing, reflection,
and transforming a cultural experience into a digital artifact, education
students shape personal understanding and individual subjectivity, develop
perspective consciousness and cultural sensitivity, and learn to use digital
technology effectively for delivering curriculum.
NEED FOR REFLECTIVE THINKING
John Dewey raised the issue in his book, How We Think (1933). He defined
reflective thought as active, persistent, and careful consideration of any
belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support
it and the further conclusions to which it tends (Dewey 1933, p. 118).
Through reflective thought, individuals create new meaning that leads to
growth and the ability to take informed actions.
Dewey stressed that reflection involves communication within a social
context and world (p. 11). This definition encompasses many of the attributes
commonly associated with behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism
namely, learning as a lasting changed state (emotional, mental, physiological)
brought about as a result of experiences and interactions with content or
other people (Siemens, 2004).
212
The Examined Life
Reflection on events leads to re-evaluation of experience: seeking

relationships, finding patterns and meaning, relating new ideas to prior
knowledge, turning experience into learning (Boud, 2001, p. 14). Reflective
action is bound up with persistent and careful consideration of practice in
the light of knowledge and beliefs, showing attitudes of open-mindedness,
responsibility, and whole-heartedness (Noffke & Brennan, 1988).
Reflective skills may best be developed when education students learn
how to express their thoughts, feelings, experiences and attitudes related to
teaching. Traditionally, education students have used various written media,
including journals, essays and portfolios, to compose and reflect on their
thoughts. Reflective writing includes self-assessment and pushes the writer
to deeper self-knowledge (Davis & Waggert, 2000). These documents assist
students through the articulation of emerging thoughts, encouraging a self-
awareness of attitudes and beliefs over time (Collier, 1999). Reflective
journals are a kind of annotated chronological record or a log of
experiences and events (Wellington, 2000, p. 118). According to Francis
(1995), reflection allows educators to inform, confront and reconstruct and
to answer such questions as What do I want to do? What does this mean?
How did I come to be this way? How might I view/do things differently?
NARRATIVE AS VEHICLE FOR REFLECTION
Narratives, however, may be better vehicles for reflection than diaries or

journals. Individuals can explain, understand, and account for experience
through stories, which are constructed through the process of reflection on
experience (Blocher, 2008).
Stories have a specific syntactic structure: beginning-middle-end or
situation-transformation-situation and must contain three basic elements: a
situation that involves a conflict or predicament; an animate protagonist who
engages in the situation for a purpose; and a sequence with implied causality
during which the predicament is resolved (Scholes, 1981). Narrative
structures, in other words, provide a format into which experienced events
can be cast in the attempt to make them comprehensible, memorable, and
shareable (Olson, 1990, pp. 100101).
From the very beginning of human history, people have related and reflected
on their experiences in exactly the same way. They tell stories. First, they
convey to others a problem or set of problems; second, the steps (actions)
taken to solve them; third, the resolution (problem meets possible solution)
and, fourth, the aftermath. It is by using these four steps that the brain works
213
to make sense of the world we experience and create (Szurmak and Thuna,
2013). Through narrative, we learn from an event or encounter, by reflecting
upon it, declaring what it means, and distilling it into a symbolic form to be
expressed and remembered (Davis, 2006). The resulting knowledge becomes
ones own (Boase, 2008, 4).
The ancient narrative art of cave walls and campfires has been re-shaped by
the modern tools of technology (Lathem, 2005) into the digital story. This has
become an important teaching and learning technique in American classrooms.
Currently, we are witnessing dramatic growth in the educational use of digital
storytelling, as a convergence of affordable technologies interacts with a
contemporary agenda for todays classroom. (Robin, 2008) The combination
of powerful, yet affordable, technological hardware and software meshes
perfectly with the needs of many of todays classrooms, where the focus is
on providing students with the skills they will need to thrive in increasingly
media-varied environments (Riesland, 2005). Storytelling may mimic our
brains functions, but technology alters or rewires our brains. The tools we use
define and shape our thinking (Siemens, 2004).
DIGITAL STORYTELLING FOR EDUCATION STUDENTS
For the past several years, instructors in the Department of Teaching,

Learning and Culture at Texas A&M University have been requiring their
students to write, create and present digital stories. This type of assignment
is designed to enable education students to meaningfully use technology
in their own classrooms. Technology is to be viewed as an integral part of
teaching, an effective way to deliver curriculum, not as a separate component
(Robin, 2008). Digital storytelling is a useful approach to multi-media based
educational technology since young people already are familiar with the
YouTube-like end product. Moreover, the digital storytelling process is not
very complicated and can be learned in a relatively short time period (Lasica,
2002).
The digital storytelling technique has been used in a variety of courses,
but it has been most often assigned to students in sections of Cultural
Foundations of Education. This is a required course for the degree of
Master of Education in Curriculum and Instruction. Among the objectives of
this course are developing an understanding of the concepts and realities of
culture and recognizing how it is manifested in thought, language, behavior,
values and daily life of the student him/herself and in peoples from diverse
races, ethnicities and nationalities and from unique populations in the U.S.
214
The Examined Life
There are two types of students in this class, preservice teachers who receive
a Bachelors degree in education or a content area and enter the Masters
program, without full-time classroom experience, and in-service teachers
who are seeking a Masters degree to advance their knowledge and/or their
professional opportunities. All share a common goal, which also is the goal
for the course, that is, to enable student to teach and work effectively in a
culturally pluralistic society.
Cultural Foundations is a multimodal and interactive course. Along with
lectures, students are provided with a wealth of materials, readings from
texts, academic journals, newspapers, magazines and books. Instructors
also provide movies, videos, podcasts and PowerPoint presentations that
enable the class to examine socio-cultural forces that influence the American
educational system. Each assignment includes an online discussion, with
prompts provided by the instructor. Responses are posted and graded in
eCampus, the universitys online platform. There is feedback from the
instructor to all students, using whatever medium is most available and
appropriate.
CONSTRUCTING A DIGITAL STORY AS A NARRATIVE
A digital story is based on a meaningful personal experience. It typically

is 3-5 minutes in length and composed of a mix of images, video, music
and text, with the narrative written and spoken by the author. Unlike oral
stories that are subject to varying interpretations and emphasis, digital stories
become permanent artifacts that capture a specific moment in time, one
telling of an experience, and standing as objects for personal reflection and
critique and for sharing with an audience (Lathem, Reyes, & Qi, 2006).
Constructing a digital story requires individuals to sift through their memory
for turning points and meaningful experiences, organize information, write
and utilize technology. Most importantly, authors must reflect on experience
(Barrett, 2005). They must also select the parts of the story they believe to
be important and to sequence images that support the message of the text,
which requires critical awareness of the meaning they wish to convey. As
Hatton and Smith (1992) noted, it is not sufficient to assert that reflection
is encouraged by a procedure or technique, rather means must be specified
to demonstrate that particular kinds of reflecting are taking place. They
called for scholars to move beyond self-reports to the identification of ways
in which reflective processes can be evidenced. Research indicates that the
digital story provides such an instrument.
215
THE CULTURAL PLUNGE
In this class, students are required to take a cultural plunge, an immersion

experience that exposes them to persons or groups from a culture markedly
different from their own. Based on the assumption that students are taking
the class to increase their understanding of the impact of culture on the
educational process, this social/cultural awareness project requires each
individual to enter a new environment and participate in some activity that is
beyond the scope of his/her own culture.
The cultural plunge requires the student to step outside of his/her way of
life and experience something new, learning how others live, work, worship
or socialize and then share the findings and the feeling with others in the
class. Examples of a cultural plunge include attending a worship service of
a different religion, working for a day in a soup kitchen, attending a seven-
step meeting, or participating in a social gathering for deaf adults. The
assignment was designed to give the student the opportunity to gain insight
into the culture and characteristics of another group in a authentic and real-
world setting and to experience what it is like to be different or other.
On a personal level, it offered the participant the prospect of increasing
self-awareness and self-confidence and of gaining insight into personal
values, biases, and responses to a new and unfamiliar environment. The
purpose is to understand other groups, experience what it would be like to be
different, realize pre-existing biases and gain insights into personal attitudes,
opinions and behaviors related to culture. The expectation is that this will the
make preservice teacher more appreciative of the diversity to be found in a
future classroom.
When reflecting on his/her cultural plunge, each student was to consider
the following questions: What did you expect? What did you find? What did
you learn? How did this make you feel? Did it impact the way you view your
own culture and the culture of others? How will this experience affect how
you teach and interact with others, particularly your students and colleagues?
How do you think it will impact you as a classroom teacher?
There are two assessments related to the cultural plunge. A 7-to-10-
page paper was an original assignment, already on the syllabus when the
researcher/instructors took over their sections of the course. The students were
to answer the questions above, along with providing some background about
the culture or group into which they were plunging. Most of the students in
the course found the cultural plunge to be an excellent assignment. In course
evaluations, they called it amazing, eye-opening, transformative and
even life changing.
216
The Examined Life
Unfortunately, their claims of a new cultural awareness produced by the

plunge were not reflected in their papers, which tended to be a report of the
experience (Where did I go? Who was there with me? How did I get there?
What did I do?), with some background thrown in for context. There was
little to no reflection, no explanation of what the experience meant, which
clearly was a disappointment to the instructors.
After much consideration, the instructors decided to add a digital story to
the research paper as an assessment of the cultural plunge. Bishop asserts
that engaging in digital and multimodal design provides a compositional
space for teachers to prepare for the authoritative discourses that they will
likely encounter in schools by fostering an increased awareness of the cultural
multiplicity they bring to the design and production of texts (Bishop, 2009,
p. 32). The digital story project provides a context for sharing experiences
and an opportunity for thinking about identity, ethnicity, and culture (Weis,
Benmayor, OLeary, Eynon, 2002, p. 5).
Digital storytelling requires a structure and process through which authors
construct meaning from cultural experiences (Vigotsky, 1978). Though
writing, reflection, and sharing stories with an audience, digital authors shape
personal understanding and individual subjectivity. Meadows (2003) called
digital stories tales told from the heart" whereby individuals produce their
own meanings and develop and present their own ideas to the real world.
The blending of text, visual images, and the audio track to narrate a digital
storytelling, combine to convey a perspective, which is uniquely the creators,
and cannot be achieved by the written text alone. Digital stories derive their
power through weaving images, music, narrative and voice together, thereby
giving deep dimension and vivid color to characters, situations, and insights
(Chun, 2007).
THE DIGITAL PROJECT
The digital storytelling writing task required students in the Cultural

Foundations of Education course to compose a 200-500-word narrative in
first person present tense to answer the questions associated with the cultural
plunge. The project forced the student to be very intentional with every word
used in the script and every visual chosen to illustrate the story. The end
result, narrated by the student, is a very compact, meaningful reflection of
the authors experience.
After students completed the writing task, they recorded their stories,
with the help of a lab assistant. Most students used Audacity, a free software
program for capturing and editing audio. The recorded narrative, related
217
to the visual clips, established the framework for the digital story and
shifted narrative writing into the digital environment. Occasionally backed
by appropriate music or sound effects, personal narration added greater
authentic and emotional substance to the story. Spoken in a conversational
style, personal narration adds drama, and emphasis (Chung, 2007).
To construct the digital story, students were required to use a graphic
organizer, called a storyboard, as a tool to plan the sequence of the scenes and
the interaction of the narrative and visual components. Chung (2006, 2007)
states that the storyboard is a planning tool that helps students efficiently
organize the development or evolution of a story and keeps the story focused
in terms of timing, imagery, audio, and music. It allows the creator to
brainstorm with others, make adjustments in the pre-production phase of the
digital process, visualize and reflect on the storytelling, and focus the story
and the timing in several key frames. In other words, the storyboard is the
place to plan what media to use and how they might best work together to
depict an important, engaging, and informative story (Chung, 2007).
Students were provided with a storyboard template, or given the option to
use a digital storyboard in Microsoft Word format. A storyboard looks like a
comic strip with a series of empty rectangular boxes for the visuals and blank
lines beneath each box for dialogue that is to be spoken when the visual is
on the screen. Students were given the choice to draw images, use personal
photographs and video, or locate appropriate images on the Internet using
key word searches. Emphasis was placed on selecting images that extended
the meaning of the narrative and supported the structural development of the
story.
The primary consideration in the selection of the visuals was the meaning
of the story; students were steered away from fancy image effects or slide
transitions, designed to dazzle, rather than integrate appropriately to achieve
cohesion (Chung, 2007). Students were also provided with a rubric as a
guide to the project requirements, as shown in Appendix A. This rubric was
designed by the instructors and a graduate assistant and used to grade the
digital story projects.
Each instructor provided the students with multiple materials, including
handouts, that provided a step-by-step guide to the technical construction
process for making digital stories in the most popular software programs,
including Windows Movie Maker and I-Movie. They also showed examples
of digital stories designed by other preservice teachers, to illustrate how
recorded narrative links to visual representations to extend the meaning of
words.
218
The Examined Life
Students in a pilot project indicated that the handout served as an excellent

guide to the construction and publishing process. Based on experience from
the pilot project, however, it was determined that discussion of technology
and the digital construction process should not occur until the narrative
writing task was completed (Green, 2011). Initial showing of digital stories
and discussion of the technical construction process seemed to lead students
to imitate the examples and to focus on locating images or photographs, rather
than concentrating on effective narrative writing. The resulting projects were
slide shows, lots of interesting images running in quick succession, not well-
written stories about a meaningful personal event (Green, 2011).
After constructing their digital videos, with the help and feedback of
classmates, technical support staff, instructor and a graduate assistant, the
students in the class shared their cultural stories. Now their stories were
permanent reflective artifacts of the culture plunge, available to be viewed
and considered by the author and to serve as evidence of the impact of the
experience on cultural understanding and personal growth, enabling the
teacher to function more effectively in a multicultural classroom.
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The initial Cultural Plunge assignment required students to submit an 8-to-

10-page research paper with at least five references that focused on the
cultural group the student visited and contained a personal reflection about
how the experience impacted their cultural understanding.
The revised Cultural Plunge assignment required students to submit a
6-to-7-page research paper with at least five references that focused on the
cultural group the students visited and a digital story, a personal reflection
that focused on the students feelings about the experience and answering
questions associated with the cultural plunge. The research papers and the
digital stories were analyzed using a rubric designed by one of the researchers
(Appendix A), but only the digital stories were examined for this study.
Rubric criteria evaluated digital stories based on incorporating skills
of narrative writing, reflection, creativity and technology use into the
assignment. In addition, students were asked the following open-ended
questions in a survey: What did you expect? What did you find? What did
you learn? How did this make you feel? Did it impact the way you view your
own culture and the culture of others? How will this experience affect how
you teach and interact with others, particularly your students and colleagues?
How do you think it will impact you as a classroom teacher? How did you
feel about creating a digital story? How do you feel about sharing your
219
digital story with others? What were the differences between writing a paper
and creating a digital story about your cultural plunge?
Three of the researchers examined the open-ended questions, related to
the digital story project, submitted by the 36 students in two sections of the
Cultural Foundations of Education course in Fall, 2013, using the emergent
coding method to establish themes prevalent in the responses. The themes
fell into three categories: Raising Cultural Sensitivity, Raising Perspective
Consciousness, Education and Diversity.
RAISING CULTURAL SENSITIVITY THROUGH THE CULTURAL PLUNGE
The cultural plunge assignment evolved over several terms, each one bringing
more refinements in the available technology, learning objectives, instructor
directions, supporting materials and evaluation mechanisms. Given our
interest in cultural sensitivity, digital technology, and the process of teacher
reflection, we elected to conduct a qualitative research study to investigate
whether constructing digital stories, based on a cultural plunge, could develop
the reflective capabilities of education students about diversity. They should
be replaced with Students in the Cultural Foundations class noted that that
the experience gave them a sense of otherness young people from different
cultures must feel as they enter the classroom. Said one preservice teacher
who visited a Hindu temple:
Ive learned that I need to be more culturally sensitive in my classroom
in order for students that have come from different countries to feel
welcomed. I want to learn more about different cultures as well and
visit different countries to experience things firsthand.
Said another of her plunge as a volunteer at the Special Olympics:
I look forward to my students sharing their different cultures with one
another and making my classroom a more multicultural environment.
We can learn a lot from each other and this cultural plunge and digital
story has given me new eyes to see all of that.
RAISING PERSPECTIVE CONSCIOUNESS
Results of the study conducted by the authors indicate that transforming the
cultural plunge experience into a digital narrative increased the education
students level of perception consciousness, as they enhanced their words by
combining them with images and audio tracks and made choices about how
an audience would respond to the combination of images, words, and sounds
220
The Examined Life
(Murnen, 2007). The process of transforming a personal narrative into a

digital story, through reflection and reevaluation, led to praxis and extended
students level of perspective consciousness and global understanding.
Perspective consciousness refers to individual awareness that a persons
view of the world is not shared universally, but shaped by influences often
escaping conscious detection (Hanvey 1982). Teachers must learn to reflect
on and look at phenomena and events from different perspectives in order
to encourage respect and appreciation for beliefs, customs and values
different from their own. Realization, through reflection, that an individuals
worldview is a matter of conscious opinions and ideas, subconscious
evaluations, conceptions and unexamined assumptions is an important part
of the education process (Hanvey 1982). Research reported here shows that
digital storytelling contributes to this process. An in-service teacher in the
class took her plunge at the Turkish Silk Road festival. She revealed how
the experience created her new perspective consciousness. She said,
I am one of those people who stick to what they know and customs
that they know. Teaching children of different ethnic backgrounds is
completely different for me than to be surrounded by only people of
one background. Through this experience I learned that I have a very
blocked view of things I know nothing about. This activity has shown
me what my English Language Learners feel like when surrounded by
children of American descent; the feelings and emotions that they must
experience as they walk into my classroom for the first time wondering
what to expect and why we do the various things.
Other students noted that the digital story allowed them to reflect on and
analyze their attitudes and behaviors related to culture and the classroom,
giving the experience a deeper meaning:
I believe the act of reflection is invaluable to something so personal as
this assignment. Creating a memoir of your personal feelings to reflect
on can help remind you of what you felt and is something you can come
back to as your cultural awareness increases over the years.
One of her classmates agreed, saying:
The digital story helped because it forced me to reflect on the experience.
I had to mentally re-live the experience, analyze what happened, and
reflect on my feelings towards the experience. I do think the digital
story will impact the way I teach and relate to students. If I had not
done the digital story, I may not have gotten as much as I did from the
221
experience. I would not have reflected and analyzed my thoughts and

feelings as much.
Many scholars have noted that culture is like an iceberg because so much
of it is invisible or unobservable. The digital stories included in this study
illustrated this analogy; many students struggled to be able to discuss
culture explicitly and were challenged by trying to situate themselves in the
larger socio-cultural context. Even so, creation of digital stories increased
awareness of culture and promoted reflection on student's individual values
and beliefs, an important first step in preparing them for the challenges of
their future work as teachers in our increasingly diverse society.
Stepping into the unknown environment and using an unknown technology
to make a digital story was not an easy experience for the students in the
Cultural Foundations class. But, the successful completion of the project
gave them a sense of empowerment and increased their self-confidence.
The digital story allowed me to look back at my fear and see how it was
overcome to make me a stronger person, said one student of her video.
EDUCATION AND DIVERSITY
Many strong people will be needed to educate children in the complex, diverse,
globalized environment in which we find ourselves today. There continues
to be an ever-increasing disparity between the diverse student population in
the United State and the predominantly White teaching force (Steeley, 2003).
The number of K-12 students from culturally and linguistically diverse
backgrounds continues to increase exponentially (Major & Brock, 2003).
In fact, by 2042, the minorities are expected to the majority in the United
States. However, most students entering the field of teaching continue to be
White, monolingual, middle-class women (Ference & Bell, 2004). Female
European-American teachers will thus continue to comprise the greatest
proportion of educators for some time to come, but will be teaching students
increasingly different from themselves in terms of race, ethnicity and social
class.
For the vast majority of people in the world, direct involvement in life
beyond the local community is infrequent or non-existent. Many factors, other
than personal experience, can shape perspectives; these include ethnicity,
religion, economic and social status, views and expressed through and by the
media: television, newspaper, the Internet, and social media, among others.
Teachers must learn to reflect on and look at phenomena and events from
different perspectives in order to encourage respect and appreciation for
222
The Examined Life
beliefs, customs and values different from their own if they are to function
successfully in a diverse classroom.
Achieving such aims means that university educators must provide
the means by which these teachers can become good global citizens who
are culturally sensitive, personally reflective and conscious of planet-
wide issues. Critical, too, is the ability of teachers to examine their own
values and attitudes and to develop knowledge and skills so that they can
participate in a global community and disparate classroom (Focho, 2010).
Cross-cultural awareness aids in correcting misunderstandings and fosters
cooperation, forming culturally sensitive individuals who can face everyday
challenges of a society characterized by a culturally diverse, multilingual,
and interconnected world from multiple perspectives (Focho, 2010).
The education students whose digital stories we studied here were willing
to admit how much they needed to learn about the world and its cultures;
that they had held to stereotypes and misinformation about different peoples.
Several said they wanted to travel, learn more about current events and the
rest of the world, to become, said one, a global citizen. The preservice
teacher who attended a service at a mosque believes she is prepared to do
this. She said,
I've discovered that my perception of Muslim people in general to be
scary and suspicious was absolutely wrong. In fact, they are one of
the most gracious and peaceful people Ive met. I will tell my students
its not fair to hate every Muslim person because of the actions some
committed.
From these statements we learned that the Cultural Plunge digital story
assignment leads education students to see culture, as one said, with new
eyes. And the eyes were turned inward, as well as outward, as the students
learned about themselves and how their own culture had affected their
attitudes, values, perceptions and behaviors. As Edward T. Hall explained
in his book, The Silent Language (1959), one of the most effective ways to
learn about oneself is by taking seriously the cultures of others. It forces you
to pay attention to those details of life, which differentiate them from you.
THE VALUE OF THE CULTURAL PLUNGE
Cultural Plunge projects widen the range of modes available to students,

thus creating additional forms of access to school-valued literacy practices.
Often when students become aware of new subject matter, they become
cognitively stimulated and feel they must make sense of the new information
223
until the new information can be assimilated and accommodated. They are
in a state of cognitive disequilibrium (Gregoire, 2003). Researchers suggest
that cognitive disequilibrium facilitates further reflection and can lead to
conceptual change, but only if the students are properly motivated (Bendixen
& Rule, 2004; Schunk, 1991).
In higher education, the awareness stage of reflection and the following
cognitive stimulation stage can be encouraged when instructors present their
university students with tasks such as creating a digital story from their
Cultural Plunge assignment. Said one participant:
This assignment has already impacted my classroom by allowing me
to teach with a better understanding of the Jewish faith. Now I feel
much more confident in my delivery on the lesson as well as more
eager to learn along with my students. They have become more open
in discussing discrimination as well as the importance of not staying
silent.
Tasks, such as plunging into and reflecting upon a Shabbat service at a local
synagogue, puts education students in a state of cognitive disequilibrium,
caused by being the other and dealing with elements of a culture that is
not their own, and thus stimulating them to reach comprehension (Graesser,
McNamara, & VanLehn, 2005), while at the same time motivating them
to fully engage in the process of ideological becoming, which, according
to Bakhtin, is an intense struggle within us for hegemony among various
available verbal and ideological points of view, approaches, directions and
values (2002, p. 346). He explains further: Ones own discourse and ones
own voice, although born of another or dynamically stimulated by another,
will sooner or later begin to liberate themselves from the authority of the
others discourse (p. 348).
In addition, this project gave the participants opportunities to understand
and explore their topic through multiple media, which offered unique
angles on or ways of approaching their topic (Ranker, 2008). Evoking new
challenges, followed by new understandings, gradually the students come to
regard themselves as committed to change of behavior and of perspective.
Exposing them to new ideas, metaphors, images and technologies also can
change the way they think about the world and their place in it. This also
provides students with opportunities for ideological becoming, taking
other peoples words, concepts and visual representations and using them
to build their own arguments, themes and theses, giving them ownership of
the project (Bakhtin, 2002; Murnen, 2007). They also begin to connect the
224
The Examined Life
personal with larger public issues, to be effective as tools for political and
social activism.
Cross-cultural awareness aids in correcting misunderstandings and fosters
cooperation inside the school and across the globe, forming citizens who can
face everyday challenges of a society characterized by a culturally diverse,
multilingual, interconnected world from multiple perspectives (Focho, 2010).
The contention is that, by developing the reflective abilities needed to create a
digital story of a cultural plunge, teachers will develop the ability to function
successfully in a multicultural classroom and an interconnected world.
Education students develop planning skills, learn to understand the
relationship between words and images to convey meaning, and come to
value digital technologies as tools for thinking, learning, and sharing ideas
as they construct digital stories. Results indicated that the students valued the
digital storytelling project as a model for teaching the writing process in the
digital environment, as a method for self-expression and for sharing stories
within a community of learners, and as a strategy for integrating digital
technology in the classroom. Results also indicated that participating in the
digital storytelling project increased their understanding of the connection
between the planning process in the text-based environment and the planning
process in the digital environment and of the relationship between words and
images to convey meaning (Green, 2011).
Writing a personal narrative, thinking about a meaningful personal
experience, and sharing a digital story within a community of learners helped
students in the graduate course develop a greater sense of personal identity
and voice (Walters, Green, Wang, & Walters, 2011). The stories allowed
students to reflect on past experience and to be present as individuals within
a community of learners. A digital story project provides a context for sharing
experiences with others and an opportunity for thinking about self. Rakes
and Casey (2002) suggest that technology training in teacher education is
often thought of as skill acquisition instead of a change process that affects
the behavior of individuals and provides students with effective methods to
transfer strategies into the classroom.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Digital storytelling can play a major role in the education of todays

students because it utilizes almost all of the skills and literacies students are
expected to have in the 21st century. Through the creation of cultural stories
and the use of digital media, students will enhance their digital, global,
225
technology, visual, and information literacies. Further, students research,

writing, organization, technology, presentation, interview, interpersonal,
problem-solving, and assessment skills will be improved as well, through
the process of creating their narratives and producing their own digital story
(Meridien, n.d.).
As Kajder (2003) wrote, Focus has to be placed on learning with the
technology rather than learning from or about the technology (p. 9) and
the digital storytelling project is much more than just the acquisition
of technology skills. It is a change process that affects the behavior of
education students as they experience reflective writing and learn to
tell stories in the digital environment. The digital storytelling project
demonstrates how to teach writing and provides them with an effective
method to transfer these new strategies into the classroom. And not just in
the language arts classroom; digital storytelling can be used with all the
disciplines and, like technology itself, should be an add-in, not an add- on,
across the curriculum.
Keifer (1991), Young and Figgins (2002) and Young and Bush (2004)
emphasized the potential technology holds for teacher empowerment and
school reform when addressed as a part of teacher education. Technology
should be entwined with pedagogy and content in all education courses, not
just tacked on as a three-hour elective. Although technology alone may not
be the saving grace of education, there are important ways in which we can
use it to support and enhance our teaching practicesthe key to which is
developing a critical perspective that informs our pedagogical approach.
Technology is the future of education, said one of the individuals in the
class, and I must be there to meet my students.
And, as teacher educators, we should be able to ask: Have we authored
our own work in such a way that lives have changed for the better? Most
importantly, have we improved the lives of children, who together with the
teachers we trained in our own classrooms, are hard at work creating their
own unique educational stories.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. M. (2002). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed., Trans.), The dialogic
imagination: Four essays (pp. 259422). Austin,TX: University Texas Press.
Barrett, H. (2005). Researching and evaluating digital storytelling as a deep learning tool.
The REFLECT Initiative. Retrieved on January 2, 2007 from http://helenbarrett.com/
portfolios/ SITEStorytelling2006.pdf
Bean, T., & Stevens, L. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservice teachers.
Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205218.
226
The Examined Life
Bendixen, L., & Rule, D. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding
model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 6980.
Biddle, S. (2002). Internationalization: Rhetoric or reality. New York,NY: American Council
of Learned Societies.
Bishop, J. (2009). Preservice teacher discourses: Authoring selves through multimodal
compositions. Digital Culture & Education, 1(1), 3150. Retrieved April 1, 2014 from
http://www.digital culture andeducation.com/uncategorized/bishop-2009-html/
Blocher, M. (2008). Digital storytelling and reflective assessment. In K. McFerrin et al., (Eds.),
Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international
conference 2008 (pp. 892901). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved September 6, 2010
from http://www.editlib.org/p/27286.Boase, 2008,4
Boase, C. (2008). Digital storytelling for reflection and engagement, a review of the potential
for digital storytelling. Report produced as part of the Phase 1 of The Higher Education
Academy/JISC Higher Education e-Learning Pathfinder Program (pp. 117). Retrieved
September 10, 2010 from http://resources.glos.ac.uk/tli/lets/projects/pathfinder/index.cfm
Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 90, 918.
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education.
Educational Researcher, 22(1), 512, 18.
Chung, S. (2006). Digital storytelling in integrated arts education. The International Journal
of Arts Education. 4(1), 3350.
Chung, S. (2007). Art education technology: Digital storytelling. Art Education, 60(2), 1722.
Collier, S. (1999). Characteristics of reflective thought during the student teaching experience.
Journal of Teacher Education, 50(3), 173181.
Connelly, M., & Clandinin, J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational
Researcher, 19(5), 214.
Davis, M., & Waggett, D. (2006). Enhancing preservice teachers reflective practice
via technology competencies and e-portfolio development. Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education. Retrieved September 10, 2007 from http://www.uvm.
edu/pt3/?Page=papers. html&SM=researchsub.html
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York,NY: D. C. Heath.
Ference, R.A., & Bell, S. (2004). A cross-cultural immersion in the U.S.: Changing preservice
teachers attitudes toward Latino ESOL students. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37,
343350.
Focho, G. N. (2010). Language as tool for a global education: Bridging the gap between
the traditional and a global curriculum. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 3(1),
135148.
Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: A window to preservice teachers practical
knowledge. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3), 229241.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International
Publishing Group, Inc.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension
strategies through Point & Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist,
40(4), 225234.
Green, M. (2011). Teaching the writing process through digital storytelling in preservice
education (Doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, Texas, TX. Retrievedfrom
http//hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD -TAMU-2011-05-9416
227
Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers cognition

and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review,15(2),
147179.
Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. New York,NY: Anchor Books.
Hanvey, R. (1982). An attainable global perspective. Theory into Practice, 21(3), 162167.
Hatton, N., & Smith, A. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 3349.
Kajder, S. (2003). The tech-savvy English classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Keifer, K. (1991). Computers and teacher education in the 1990s and beyond. In G. E.
Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers and composition
studies (pp. 117131). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Computers
and Composition.
Lasica, J. (2002). Digital tools easier to grasp. USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review.
Retrieved on April 20, 2014 from http://www.ojr.org/ojr/lasica/1034121182.php
Lathem, S. (2005, March). Digital storytelling and professional development: New media
for ancient tradition. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education.
Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved on September 10, 2007 from http://www. uvm.edu/
pt3/?Page=papers. html&SM= researchsub.html
Lathem, S., Reyes, C., & Qi, J. (2006). Literacy autobiography: Digital storytelling to
capture student voice and reflection. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2006
(pp. 700704). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Leeman & Ledoux,
Lewis, B. (n.d.).The value of self-reflection: Any time of year, its important to reflect.
Retrieved, April 15, 2014, from About.com, http://k6educators.about.com/od/
professionaldevelopment/a/self_ reflection.htm
Major, E., & Brock, C. (2003). Fostering positive dispositions toward diversity: Dialogical
explorations of a moral dilemma. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(4), 727.
McDrury, J., & Alterio, M. (2003). Learning through storytelling in higher education.
London: Kogan Page.
Meadows, D. (2003). Digital storytelling: Research-based practice in new media. Visual
Communication, 2(2), 189193.
Meridien Stories: Research on Digital Storytelling: Summary of Studies from the University of
Houston. Retrieved April 18, 2014 from http://www.meridianstories.com/teachers-section/
research-on-digital-storytelling-summary-of-studies-from-the-university-of-houston
Murnen, T. J. (2007). The digital video documentary: Engaging students in ideological becoming.
American Reading Forum.org. Retrieved May 3, 2012from http://americanreadingforum.
org/yearbook/yearbooks/03_yearbook/pdf/Murnen.pdfNieto, 2006
Noffke, S., & Brennan, M. (1988, April). The dimensions of reflection: A conceptual and
contextual analysis. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
(ERIC document ED 296968). New Orleans, LA.
Olson, D. R. (1990). Thinking about narrative. In B. K. Britton & A. D. Pellegrini (Eds.),
Narrative thought and narrative language (pp. 99112). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rakes, G., & Casey, H. (2002). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional
technology. International Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1). Retrieved on April 20,
2014 from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/ijet/v3n1/rakes/index.html
Ranker, J. (2008). Making meaning on the screen: Digital video production about the
Dominican Republic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(5), 410422.
228
The Examined Life
Riesland, E. (2005). Visual literacy in the classroom. New horizons for learning. Retrieved
April 20, 2014 from http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/literacy/riesland.htm
Robin, B. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory
into Practice, 47,220228.
Roose, D. (2001). White teachers learning about diversity and otherness: The effects of
undergraduate international internships on subsequent teaching practices. Equity and
Excellence in Education, 34(1), 4349.
Scholes, K. (1981). Language, narrative, and anti-narrative. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On
narrative (pp. 200208). Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schunk, D. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York,NY: Maxwell
Macmillan International Publishing Group.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 310. Retrieved April 4, 2014
from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Steeley, S. (2003). Language minority teacher preparation: A review of alternative programs.
Action. Teacher Education, 25(3), 5968.
Szurmak, J., & Thuna, M. (2013). Tell me a story: The use of narrative as a tool for Instruction.
Indianapolis, IN, 546552. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/
ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/SzurmakThuna_
TellMe.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walters, L., Green, M., Wang, L., & Walters, T. (2011). From heads to hearts: Digital stories
as reflection artifacts of teachers international experience. Issues in Teacher Education
3752.
Weis, T., Benmayor, R., OLeary, C., & Eynon, B. (2002). Digital technologies and pedagogies.
Social Justice, 29(4), 153167
Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research: Contemporary issues and practical approaches.
New York,NY: Continuum.
Young, C. A., & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A
critical approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Young, C. A., & Figgins, M. A. (2002). The Q-folio in action: Using a web-based electronic
portfolio to reinvent traditional notions of inquiry, research, and portfolios. Contemporary
Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 2(2). Retrieved April 28,
2014 from http://www.citejournal.org /vol2/iss2/english/article1.cfm
Lynne Masel Walters

Martha R. Green
Public Partneships and Outreach, Office of the Provost
229
Timothy Walters
College of Education
Ahmad Dahlan University, Indonesia
Liangyan Wang
230
APPENDIX A
Rubric for grading cultural plunge assignment
Evaluation Advanced Proficient Basic Needs improvement

Category
Content 1 Clearly describes key Describes key features of Somewhat describes key Does not describe key features
Story Itself features of cultural plunge cultural plunge project, features of cultural plunge of cultural plunge project, less
project, clear rationale rationale for choice of project, rationale for choice rationale evident for choice
for choice of particular particular critical cultural of particular critical cultural of particular critical cultural
critical cultural plunge plunge experience, identifies plunge experience, attempts plunge experience, not clearly
experience, identifies what what initial beliefs are to identify what initial beliefs identify what initial beliefs are
initial beliefs are about the about the project, interprets are about the project, and about incident nor possible
project, interprets possible possible significance of significance of incident. significance of incident.
significance of incident. incident.
(12-15 points) (8-11 points) (4-7 points) (1-3 points)
(Continued)
231
The Examined Life
Rubric for grading cultural plunge assignment (Continued)
232
Evaluation Advanced Proficient Basic Needs improvement
Category
Content 2 The pace (rhythm and voice Reasonable evidence of Some evidence of reflection Little evidence of reflection,
Reflection punctuation) fits the story reflection and learning that that shows how the cultural does not show how the cultural
line and helps the audience shows how the cultural plunge experience impacted plunge experience impacted on
really get into the story. plunge experience impacted on their emotions, thoughts, their emotions, thoughts, beliefs
on their emotions, thoughts, beliefs and actions. Some and actions.
beliefs and actions. evidence of reflection on Little evidence of reflection
Reflects and draws on other other perspectives about on other perspectives about
perspectives about incident. incident, or consideration of incident, or consideration of
Considers cultural plunge cultural plunge experience in cultural plunge experience in
experience in different ways. different ways. different ways.

Voice Strong use of quality Occasionally speaks too fast Tries to use pacing (rhythm Little attempt to match the pace
videography, including or too slowly for the story and voice punctuation), but of the storytelling to the story
camera angles, framing, line. The pacing (rhythm it is often noticeable that line or the audience.
and lighting used to add and voice punctuation) is the pacing does not fit the
to the overall impact of relatively engaging for the story line. Audience is not
presentation. audience. consistently engaged.
Transitions, effects, audio,
and edits are appropriate to
the subject matter, add to the
flow of the video, and most
importantly, do not distract
from the video.

Videography/ Complete originality in Some elements of Very few elements of Little to no elements of
Editing composition and delivery, videography, including videography, including videography, including camera
and strong evidence of camera angles, framing, camera angles, framing, angles, framing, and lighting
critical thinking skills. and lighting used to add and lighting used to add to used to impact the overall
to the overall impact of the overall impact of the presentation.
presentation. presentation. Little to no transitions, effects,
Most transitions, effects, Some transitions, effects, audio, and edits are appropriate
audio, and edits are audio, and edits are to the subject matter, add to
appropriate to the subject appropriate to the subject the flow of the video, and most
matter, add to the flow of the matter, add to the flow of the importantly, do not distract
video, and most importantly, video, and most importantly, from the video.
do not distract from the do not distract from the
video. video.

Creativity Complete originality in Some elements are original Some elements are not Most elements are not original
composition and delivery, in composition and delivery, original in composition and in composition and delivery,
and strong evidence of and present some evidence of delivery, little evidence of no evidence of critical thinking
critical thinking skills. critical thinking skills. critical thinking skills. skills.
Total
Student UIN:
Total Score: /75
Comments:
233
The Examined Life
DIANNE S. GOLDSBY AND MARY FIGUERO-CHARLES
12. MENTORING VIEWED THROUGH AN OPEN

CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the specific experience of a mentor and mentee as

they participated in the Open Classroom program, a program designed to
encourage observations of department classrooms by faculty and graduate
students. The mentoring relationship is described and viewed from the
perspectives of both the mentor and mentee. Issues that developed during the
semester of the mentorship are explored and important insight gained into
ways to improve the effectiveness of the program for mentor, mentee and the
pre-service teachers enrolled in a mathematics methods course. The chapter
explores both the professional and personal dynamics of the relationship and
makes recommendations for improvements in the program.
MENTORING DEFINED
Mentoring is viewed as a relationship between two individuals, one of whom

provides individualized instruction and generally helps in the professional
development of the other (Bender, Yaffe, & Sechrest, 2012, p. 35). A mentor
has been defined as one who facilitates professional and personal growth in
an individual by sharing insights, providing encouragement, and opening
doors. The Open Classroom Program in the Teaching, Learning and Culture
Department in the College of Education and Human Development at Texas
A&M University provided the opportunity for an experienced faculty member
to mentor a graduate student. The open classroom approach provided
both teacher educators and graduate students alike more opportunities for
observation, sharing, and discussion of classroom instruction. Teaching
is viewed as the subject of scholarly inquiry with and through the open
classroom approach. (Open Classroom document, 2014). Critical to
participation in the Open Classroom Program was the demonstration of
desirable mentor attributes:

D. S. GOLDSBY & M. Figuero-Charles
Accessible (Holley & Caldwell, 2012)

Interested in helping (Anderson & Shannon, 1988)
Offering critical assessment (Luna &Cullen, 1995)
Encouraging, open (Holley & Caldwell, 2012)
Knowledgeable (Mansson & Myers, 2012)
Able to offer experience, wisdom and advice Healy & Welchert, 1990).
Generally the role of a mentor may be fulfilled by an advisor but this is not
necessarily the case. Usually the primary role of advisors is to offer specific
advice regarding the degree while the mentor works closely with the graduate
student to strengthen his/her knowledge and skills needed for professional
progress (Mansson & Myers, 2012). In this particular interaction within the
Open Classroom Program this non-advisor approach was taken. It is usually
defined as a nurturing process in which a more experienced or skilled person
acts as a role model, teaches, encourages, guides the less skilled or less
experienced person to enable the mentee to develop (Anderson & Shannon,
1988). The open classroom experience illustrated the idea of mentoring,
as described by Winston and Polkosnik (1984), as one determined by the
character of the relationship and its function and the context in which the
mentoring relationships are found (Bender et al., (2012). Also the definition
of mentoring by Healy and Welchert (1990) as a dynamic, reciprocal
relationship in a work environment between an advanced career incumbent
(mentor) and a beginner (protg) (p. 17) which aims at promoting the
career development of both individuals was another characteristic of the
relationship. Gray and Gray (1985) cited Clawson (1979) in the description of
the mentor, or the more experienced and established professional, as having
characteristics such as people-orientation, tolerant of ambiguity, respectful
of his/her subordinates, and preferring abstract concepts. Ehrich, Hansford
and Tennent (2004) defined a mentor as referring to a father figure who
sponsors, guides, and develops a younger person (p. 519).
The mentee is sometimes referred to as a protg who has the aspiration
and potential to learn the skills a mentor can teach (Kalbfleisch, 2000).
This less experienced or skilled individual is working toward an identity
transformation, a movement from the status of understudy to that of self-
directing colleague (Healy & Welchert, 1990, p. 17). The protg may
begin to integrate the mentors approach into his or her work. No matter the
term used to describe this individual, the emphasis is on the mentees desire
to learn from this more experienced person.
236
MENTORING VIEWED THROUGH AN OPEN CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE
MENTORING IN EDUCATION
Mentoring has been a strategy used for many years and has been used in
the school reform movement (Healy &Welchert, 1990). Mentoring was used
by the ancient Greeks, such as Odysseus as he entrusted his son to an elder
named Mentor for education and guidance. It has been implemented in the
training of nurses, psychologists, scientists, sociologists, teachers, business
leaders, and educational administrators. Mentoring has been a significant
part in the teaching, inducting and developing the skills and talents of
others (Ehrich et al., 2004, p. 519).
Gray and Gray (1985) developed a four phase formalized mentoring
program to induct beginning teachers. Their work was among the first to
study the mentoring relationship while it was developing as opposed to
after the mentoring relationship had ended. They noted the major mentor
functions or roles as situational leadership, role-model, instructor or promoter
of thinking sills, demonstrator or teacher, motivator or promoter of realistic
values, supervisor, counsellor, and promoter of indirect mentoring (learning
form others). The mentor gradually helps the mentee or protg to assume
greater responsibilities and guides him/her to ensure he/she can succeed.
Thus, the mentor fosters discovery, learning, creativity, and self-evaluation
while supporting the protgs attempts to organize new values into his or
her value system (Gray & Gray, 1985, p. 42).
Healy and Welchert (1990) in their work on mentoring contrasted
mentoring with supervising and teaching to clarify the reciprocity in
mentoring (p. 18) and to establish this mutual exchange as a sine qua non
of mentoring (p. 18). Their definition emphasized this reciprocity and noted
an identity transformation by each party as career development was an aim
of the relationship. Their work was a departure from other definitions that
frequently lack grounding in theory (p. 17).
Ehrich and others (2004) examined over 300 research-based articles in
mentoring across education, business, and medicine from the mid-1980s
to 2000 to make inferences about mentoring and its nature and outcomes.
Their structured analysis of the articles found that mentoring has enormous
potential to bring about learning, personal growth, and development for
professionals (p. 536). This was a different focus for many studies which
had focused on the value of mentoring to the mentee. They identified
critical issues for educational administrators to consider in planning and
implementing formal mentoring programs: awareness of the increasing body
237
of research literature on mentoring, the need for support at various levels, the
need for mentor training, thoughtful selection of participants, and the need
for ongoing evaluations. They supported Merriams (1983) claim that many
mentoring program evaluations were just testimonials and opinions. Only
in educational studies had mentors and mentees considered reflection as a
significant outcome. In the studies reviewed, nearly two-thirds of which were
educational studies, focused on mentoring for practice or beginning teachers.
Mentoring programs for women and people of color have become an area
of increased interest for investigation. Edwards (1995) stated the introduction
of formal mentoring programs into American organizations was to address
affirmative action legislation. Thomas (1989) noted participation by minority
populations in mentoring programs does not eliminate problems as race and
gender misunderstandings can create incompatibility between mentors and
mentees (as cited in Ehrich et al., 2004).
PURPOSE OF THE OPEN CLASSROOM PROGRAM
The Open Classroom Program provided graduate students the opportunity

to observe a faculty member in a typical class session without the planned
observation constraints placed upon the situation. The observed class in the
Open Classroom Program was to be a typical session in which another faculty
member or graduate student could visit at a time convenient to both. For graduate
students it was a required part of the graduate teaching assignment and allowed
observation of what comprised a typical class session in a course they would
teach and the appropriate strategies and techniques to implement in the course.
While mentoring doctoral students is usually working with an advisor during the
dissertation process, this experience provided personal and professional support
that extends beyond the traditional advising affiliation (Holley & Caldwell,
2012, p. 244) as the mentor was not the dissertation advisor. In addition to the
observation of the mentors classes, the mentee was to participate in Brown
Bag lunch sessions held on Fridays to discuss what he/she observed and the
issues which were of concern to him/her. Faculty members and graduate students
attended and participated. Graduate students participating in the Open Classroom
Program were required to attend 5 of the 7 Brown Bag sessions.
The Mentoring Relationship and Its Roles

In the Open Classroom Program it was important to delineate the roles of
the mentor and mentee. This relationship was to be beneficial to the mentee
238
and to the mentor. This table indicates the roles involved in the mentoring
relationship:
Mentor Roles Mentee Roles

Listen patiently Listen patiently
Build a relationship Have a positive attitude
Nurture self-sufficiency Share with your mentor reasons
Establish protected time for your decisions
together Be prepared to learn from your
Share yourself mentor
Provide introductions Actively seek advice from your
Be constructive mentor and others both in and
Dont be overbearing out of your department
Act on advice from your
mentors
Source: Advisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend. National Academy of Sciences

Press, Washington D.C.
One of the most important roles a mentor can provide for graduate students
is clear and effective communication and honest feedback (Rose, 2003). Frank
discussions of the observations of the classroom were a required portion of
the program. In the Open Classroom Program each mentor evaluated the
graduate student assigned to his/her courses after the observations and made
a recommendation to the associate department chair for graduate studies
at the end of the semester regarding the work of the mentee. After each
observation, the mentor and mentee met to discuss the observations.
CONTEXT
Faculty participating in the Open Classroom program volunteered to work

with graduate students assigned to teach undergraduate courses which the
faculty had previously taught. The mentoring experience was a required
one for the graduate student and necessitated observation of the mentors
classroom. In addition, the mentor was to observe the graduate student in the
classroom in which the graduate student was teaching. This dual observation
was to benefit both the mentor and mentee in establishing goals for the
experience and it would provide a basis for evaluation of the experience.
It was within this context that useful adjustments could be made to both
239
the content and the delivery of that content. The mentor and mentee could
discuss classroom and instructional issues if they arose and determine the
appropriate course of action.
Mentoring is usually dependent upon the context in which it occurs and
thus varies, reflecting the function it serves for the individuals involved
(Yaffe & et al., 2012, p. 35). Instead of random visits by a doctoral student into
various classrooms, each graduate student involved in the Open Classroom
Program focused on observations of an experienced faculty member. It was
hoped that the program and mentor/mentee relationship would better prepare
the graduate students to teach the courses to which they were assigned. It was
additionally hoped that the mentoring of the graduate students would enhance
their graduate program experiences as The cultivation of developmental
or mentoring relationships between graduate students and their professors
is a critical factor in determining the successful completion of graduate
programs (Davidson & Foster-Johnson, 2001, p. 549).
The particular mentoring arrangement discussed in this chapter stemmed
from the assignment of the graduate student to teach sections of the same
mathematics methods course the faculty member was teaching. In this
particular instance, the faculty member suggested the graduate student
shadow her in her sections of the course and then replicate the activities and
content in the graduate students course sections. This procedure and process
had been followed with other graduate students in previous semesters. The
graduate student would observe the class, ask questions, discuss issues, and
then mimic the lessons with his/herown take on the material with possibly
different activities. The same textbook and syllabus were used for all sections
of the course. As the current graduate student had not taught an elementary
mathematics methods course before, she considered this to be an appropriate
and helpful course to follow.
Description of Course
The mathematics methods course is one of four methods undergraduate
courses preservice teachers take as a block during the semester before
student teaching. The four courses, mathematics methods, social studies
methods, science methods, and reading methods, are taught one day a
week with 75 minutes of face-to-face instructions in each course. Each pre-
service teacher is placed in a local elementary classroom for 8 hours per
day for two days each week. Uniform policies regarding course grading
scales, some common assignments and attendance are in place. The specific
240
course discussed here focuses on instructional strategies for the teaching

and learning of mathematics in grades K-6. Preservice teachers experience
the content through two perspectives, that of the elementary student and the
teacher. The hands-on activities and discussions are specifically tailored to
facilitate the pre-service teachers understanding of the classroom teachers
perspective and the elementary school students perspective. The preservice
teachers actively participate in the instructional activities and consider the
instructional issues such as questioning, pacing, explanation, and guidance
for the students. In addition to the allotted 75 minute instructional class
time, pre-service teachers complete weekly online modules which reference
readings and selected videos intended to supplement the in-class work.
MENTOR AND MENTEE DESCRIPTION
The mentor, a clinical full professor, has been a faculty member in the
Teaching, Learning and Culture Department for 12 years, teaching sections of
the elementary mathematics methods course and middle grade mathematics
courses each year. The mentor had become the lead elementary mathematics
course instructor for the elementary methods course and as such worked
with other instructors to ensure a similar experience for all the elementary
mathematics methods sections. She was a former mathematics teacher in
middle and secondary classrooms in private and public schools, mathematics
coordinator for a preK-12 school for 10 years, and a mathematics consultant
for a school district. Her academic background and experiences provided
both mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge and skills necessary
for teaching the courses. It was a common occurrence for graduate doctoral
students to observe her courses in the semester prior to teaching sections
of the methods courses. Her goal was to help prepare the graduate students
to teach pre-service teachers in ways that would improve the learning and
understanding of mathematics in elementary classrooms.
The mentee was a middle school mathematics teacher. Unlike previous
mentees, the mentee was a classroom teacher for over 18 years. Her most
recent assignment prior to her enrolment at Texas A&M, was as an 8th Grade
mathematics teacher at a public school in a large urban area in Houston. The
mentees teaching career was extremely diverse. Before her appointment
at the middle school she was a 6th grade Gifted and Talented teacher at
an Engineering School in the same district for five years. She also taught
mathematics to 7th and 8th graders in an inner city school in Hartford,
Connecticut for three years, which according to the mentee, prepared her for
241
her experiences in Houston. She was also a paid tutor at Oakwood University
in Huntsville, AL. The mentee was a general education teacher in Trinidad
and Tobago for a few years before migrating to the United States.
VIEWS OF THE MENTORING EXPERIENCE
The Mentors View of the Mentoring Relationship

The relationship and personal connection that developed between the mentor
and mentee illustrated their commitment to professional and personal
success, a central aspect of the mentoring experience (Mansson & Myers,
2012). The mentor opened her classroom to the graduate student and spent
time explaining activities and materials to the mentee. Each week the mentee
would observe the classroom session and then she would deliver the same
material to her sections the following week. As her sections were taught
on Tuesday and the section she observed was taught on Thursdays, it was
necessary to re-arrange the course calendar to accommodate the delay in
teaching the observed concepts
The mentor found this Open Classroom experience to be different from
those with previous graduate students as it did not involve as extended a
time frame. Since this mentee had not observed the mentors classes the
semester before assuming responsibility for teaching the course, the mentor
felt the mentee was at a disadvantage. The mentor was concerned about how
the presentation of the material would be for the mentee to prepare. The
pedagogical methods for a methods course were somewhat different than for
a typical school classroom. The material was actually to be presented and
viewed from the perspectives of the elementary student and the pre-service
teachers. This dual perspective was necessary for the pre-service teachers to
have a full understanding of the pedagogical and content knowledge aspects
of the material. The mentee was also at a disadvantage because of her living
in Houston and being constrained by travel issues. This travel issue did not
allow for the flexibility necessary for scheduling needed meetings and at
times caused cancellation of scheduled meetings.
The mentor did connect with the mentee during the initial meeting and
felt comfortable sharing experiences with this teacher who understood
the dynamics of the classroom. Both the mentee and mentor had teaching
mathematics experiences in middle grade classrooms and both had entered the
doctoral program after years of teaching. Many discussions involved issues
younger or less experienced graduate students may not have understood or
may not have been able to visualize. The interactions illustrated the idea
242
expressed by Healy & Welchert (1990) that the degree of maturity that
both parties bring to the relationship influences its outcome (p. 20) and
evidenced the connection between the mentor and mentee that is central
to the mentoring experience (Mansson & Myers, 2012). The pedagogical
explorations of the material were beneficial to both the mentor and mentee.
These explorations reinforced the mentors view of the importance of
specific strategies to the teaching of concepts and the importance of the
engaged learner. The mentor understood and appreciated that the mentee, as
an older female doctoral student, would view the mentoring experience as
an opportunity to share information and develop a sense of camaraderie
(Holley & Caldwell, 2012, p. 251). Perhaps as Rose (2005) noted, women
seek acceptance and confirmation from a mentor and this made the
relationship more productive. Usually the mentees mentor is the primary
research advisor or major professor but the mentor in this instance was not
the mentees major professor. The connection and bond between the two were
their teaching of their common disciple, i.e., mathematics, the mathematics
methods courses and the passion for teaching and for mathematics. Studies
have indicated that women find mentors more helpful in providing support
and encouragement, raising confidence, and providing opportunities for
growth (Rose, 2005).
Initially in discussions the mentee viewed the methodology as artsy and
this was confusing to the mentor. The mentor viewed these activities as being
relevant, engaging, and contextual for student learning. Her experiences had
reinforced for her the need for student understanding beyond the learning of
rote procedures and rules for mathematics. Having prepared for mathematics
teaching with courses beyond those necessary to teach the content in
school mathematics and having experienced teaching at various levels, the
mentor was able to see the continuum of school mathematics and student
characteristics. Thus, the mentor felt it necessary to make the learning
environment and the materials relevant to the pre-service teachers. Rules
and procedures could be developed through exploratory activities in which
students dithered with the material and were engaged. These professional
troves are not concepts and methods from textbooks but approaches with
which the mentor applies the knowledge of the craft (Healy & Welchert,
1990, p. 18.) The necessity of clarifying these ideas and justifying them
to the mentee strengthened the mentors commitment to this approach to
the teaching and learning of mathematics by doing. Her own teaching had
changed as she, herself, had viewed others classrooms and methodologies
during her doctoral studies.
243
In observations of the mentees classroom her content knowledge was

evident in her explanations and the ability to model examples for the pre-
service teachers. Her pedagogical expertise was not as evident and created
some hesitancy in her explanations. Her lack of experience with the course
and the materials sometimes created some lack of fluidity in explanations and
led to some backtracking. The students could possibly view this negatively.
This confirmed the importance of mathematical knowledge for teaching
which extends beyond the content.
The mentor also noted, as indicated by Phillips and Pugh (2000), that the
mentee experienced some issues faced by older students: the time required
to re-adjust to the role of a student, and most importantly, the necessity of
juggling and balancing a number of family roles and responsibilities. She did
make adjustments and was cognizant that such adjustments were necessary.
At times the issues of balancing school and family issues did create some
stress for the mentee but her discussions with her mentor seemed to relieve
some of her concerns. The idea of a mentor supporting and caring for the
mentee (Mansson & Myers, 2012) was important to the mentor and mentee.
The mentor at times had difficulty in responding to the mentees inability to
be more available. The mentor understood the constraints living out-of-town
placed upon the mentee but found it to limit the benefits of the mentoring
experience. This lack of availability resulted in stress for the mentee and
in turn, stress for the mentor. The mentor was concerned the materials and
methodologies would not be as clear to the mentee and would then not be as
effectively implemented in her section of the mathematics methods course.
They were generally able to communicate by phone or email to discuss any
questions.
The Mentees View of the Mentoring Relationship

One issue of major concern was that the mentee had not observed the
teaching of the methods course the semester before and did not have any
experience with the course and its content. This lack of experience with the
framework of the course created a need for more detailed explanations about
the course, assignments, syllabus and activities. An additional aspect which
led to adjusting the schedule was the mentees lack of experience with the
pre-service teacher population which slowed her coverage of the introductory
aspects of the course, e.g., the syllabus, field placement expectations, and
methods course block requirements. After two weeks of classes, the mentor
and mentee met to adjust the schedule.
244
Another issue that developed and which was of great concern to the
mentee was her lack of familiarity with the syllabus. Even though she readily
admits that visiting her mentors class was invaluable, she would have
preferred to have more time to become familiar with the entire syllabus and
the textbook. In hindsight, the mentee commented that there was a definite
logic to the topics in the syllabus and had she a better understanding of
the whole, her delivery of the parts would have improved significantly.
Related to this, was the introduction of the new online system instituted
by the university. The mentee had been very familiar with the elearning
portal but the new system called eCampus required training which she did
not receive. She therefore began the experience not having some of the
prerequisite exposure needed to effectively evaluate assignments, and to
post feedback and comments to students. The mentee, strongly believes that
the mentoring relationship should have therefore existed well in advance of
her teaching experience.
The faculty members familiarity with the course content and methodology
sometimes was intimidating for the mentee as she had to learn some aspects
herself before she taught them to the students. In her words, she had not
thought about how one developed the concepts. In her mathematics classes
she was teaching content that built on these concepts, not the specific concepts.
The Van de Walle textbook was a perfect accompaniment to the mentors
approach. However, the mentee felt that exposure to the textbook prior to
teaching the class would have been of benefit to both the students assigned
to her and her professional development. Some extenuating circumstances
had not enabled her to interact with the mentor and the materials before the
semester began as each would have liked.
The mentee was quite comfortable with the mathematics involved but
hesitant with the methodology for teaching the content, especially with what
she referred to as the creative aspects. To create a model to show a concept
other than a drawing was not what she was used to doing. When she viewed
a course assignment to create a Math in a Container, she seemed stymied.
She stated she would not have thought of an example and gladly took the
samples to show her group. She never considered herself to be artistic. As
a math teacher she felt comfortable with this limitation because she felt
there was little need for the expression of what she called artistic ability
in Mathematics instruction. In fact, she often joked among her peers that
Math was her thing because she could not do the artsy stuff. The mentee
had a particular disdain for teachers who required that students spend
large portions of their time transcribing copious teacher notes which were
245
often devoid of mathematical relevance or application. She also regarded

many of the artsy projects done in some math classes to be busy work. It
might be important to note the mentees perspective may be the product of
the educational system in which she grew up focused on paper and pencil
assessments and rigorous testing protocols. The mentee viewed much of
the mathematical practice as engendered in the school system as lacking
in rigor and she loathed them. Additionally her particular perspective was
solidified by the consistent performance of her students, who invariably were
the highest performers at her school. Yet, as she willingly admits, the Open
Classroom experience caused her to re-evaluate her strongly held views on
good mathematics instruction. She still believes that it is possible to engage
in meaningless art related activities in math, but is now convinced that it
is possible to use creative methods to nurture and build critical thinking
skills and problem solving logic. The logical sequence between activity and
mathematical concept as demonstrated by her mentor helped the mentee to
gain a deeper appreciation for practices which she previously disregarded. It
became clearer to the mentee that mathematical understanding implies the
need to learn about what Ball (1990) refers to as mathematical ways of
knowing as well as about mathematical topics.
The mentoring relationship served to broaden the mentees understanding
of sound teaching practice. Having taught in the testing era and coming
from a cultural perspective that highly valued academic outcomes, she had
come to view mathematics as a subject which was built on rules. These
rules were assumed to be accurate, reliable and replicable and there was
no reason to attempt a visual justification of why the product of 3 and 4
was 12. An understanding of why these mathematical rules worked or how
they were derived was never assumed to be a prerequisite to success in
Mathematics. She had what she thought was a good understanding of basic
rules as evident by her possession of an associate degree in mathematics
and her first time success on the middle school math test. Additionally she
was never encouraged to investigate the relationship of these rules across
the curriculum. The mentee was very impressed with her mentors ability to
justify why things were done and how they related to higher order concepts.
But, what was of greater interest to the mentee was her mentors depth of
mathematical knowledge and her ability to translate that knowledge into
artsy activities which deepened the students understanding of the concept.
The mentee was also very comfortable with expressing to her mentor
her confusion whenever she became aware of it. It is important that the
mentor/mentee relationship be a comfortable one which allows for the free
246
expression and exchange of thoughts and feelings. In the absence of open

communication, the open classroom is likely to result in open failure.
The mentoring relationship also drove the mentee to some deep soul
searching. For years, the success of her regular students stiffened her resolve
that her methods were superior. At first, the mentee could not understand
how the methods of her mentor teacher, which were so different from her
own, would fit into the limits imposed by the curriculum. How could the
teacher explore the depths of understanding suggested by her mentor when
every week students are required to master one objective only to move
on to another the next week? The mentee was nonetheless convinced that
the methods would lead to greater understanding and better recall but
struggled with how the method would fit into the very confined demands of
schooling as it currently exists. As the mentee struggled with this thought,
she eventually came to the realization that a deeper understanding of the
whys ultimately facilitate the mastery and comprehension of higher order
skills. This pondering, referred to as reflection in action by Schon (1987),
empowered the mentee to change her perspective and her practices.
In addition to her concerns about fitting the new methods into a packed
curriculum, the mentee could not explain her deeper more profound question
as to why she had such success when her methods were obviously so far
removed from the ideal. Thankfully, the mentees independent investigations
led her to understand that there were other things that she was doing as a
classroom teacher which inspired her students to excellence. She eventually
decided, that it was more than her understanding of the content that led to her
students success, her earnest dedication to the profession and to her students
allowed her to be a source of motivation to her students.
CONCLUSIONS
The Open Classroom Program could be viewed as a successful mentoring

program as it presented clear guidelines and expectations for all participants
(Holley & Caldwell, 2011). However, in mentoring, as with any relationship,
the participants are in the best position to judge whether the relationship is
successful, based on their own criteria for what makes a successful mentor-
mentee pairing (Bender et al., 2012, p. 38). Both the mentor and mentee
viewed the experience as rewarding and recognized that situational factors
had impacted the degree of success. These interactions between the mentor
and mentee illustrated the transformational benefits of mentoring for both the
mentor and mentee (Healy & Welchert, 1990). As a result of the interaction
247
both were changed, recharged, and prepared for the challenges of another
school year. The mutual exchange of ideas and perspectives served to bolster
their mutual commitment to their profession and to the continued exploration
of methods of instruction in mathematics that foster understanding and
achievement. The benefits of participation in the program included the
sharing of insights and encouragement and as a dynamic and reciprocal
relationship as defined by Healy and Welchert (1990). Their perspectives
had been broadened through seeing each others views.
Some suggestions for the improvement of the Open Classroom Program
are given that have resulted in improvement of the experience for the mentor,
mentee and the students they serve. Extended time both before and during
the program for the mentor and mentee to interact would be and have been
beneficial since there are aspects of the curriculum that are novel even for the
experienced classroom teacher. The mentors belief that the mentee should
observe the mentor the semester before the mentee taught the course was a
point on which they both strongly agreed. Careful selection and matching of
the mentor and mentees has led to improved quality of the program. Support
for any mentoring program is necessary. This Open Classroom Program
did have departmental support and departmental leadership was open to
suggested improvements. One value of the program has been the reflection
piece as it has provided opportunities for both the mentor and mentee to
reflect on their practice, reconsider what they are doing and why, and work
toward improving their professional practice (Ehrich et al., 2004. p. 532).
Luna & Cullen (1995), in their report on mentoring, noted mentoring
needs to include plans for implementation and evaluation, which encompasses
strategies for establishment of a mentoring program, commitment for
continuation, and responsibility to monitor, improve, and enhance the
program (p. 61). Mentoring should be supported by the faculty, meaning
communication of the mentoring benefits the protg, mentor, and institution,
as well as the faculty's involvement in the creation, direction, and continuation
of a mentoring program (Luna & Cullen, 1995). The Open Classroom Program
has these characteristics and with continual faculty involvement can continue
to refine and enhance the mentoring experience for both mentors and mentees.
The Open Classroom Program has the potential to re-introduce beginning
teachers to an investigative approach to instruction, mathematics instruction
in the specific experience described here, which goes beyond the typical rote
learning approach. It is an opportunity to lead both teachers and students to
a depth of understanding previously and typically ignored by educators. It is
an effort which purposefully attempts to provide and prepare a generation of
248
educators who will through their interactions with each other and with their
instructors derive a new vision for mathematics instruction. If the mentor/
mentee relationship has managed to inspire such innovation in thought and
approach to the instruction of mathematics, then there can be no doubt that
the program was a success.
REFERENCES
Anderson, E., & Shannon, A. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of mentoring. Journal of
Ball, D. (1990). The mathematical understanding that preservice teachers bring to teacher
education. Elementary School Journal, 90,449466.
Bender, C., Yaffe, K., & Sechrest, L. (2012). What is a mentor? Council on Undergraduate
Research Quarterly, 33(2), 3439.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Policies and practices
to promise student success. Ph.D. Completion Project. Washington, DC: Council of
Graduate Schools.
Davidson, M., & Foster-Johnson, L. (2001). Mentoring in the preparation of graduate
researchers of color. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 549574.
Edwards, J. (1995). When race counts. London: Routledge.
Ehrch, L.C., Hansford, B., & Tennent, L. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education
and other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40(4), 518540.
Gray, W. S., & Gray, M. M. (1985). Synthesis of research on mentoring beginning teachers.
Educational Leadership, 43(3), 3743.
Healy, C.C., & Welchert, A. (1990). Mentoring relations: A definition to advance research
and practice. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 1721.
Holley, K., & Caldwell, W. (2011). The challenges of designing and implementing doctoral
student mentoring program. Innovations in Higher Education, 37, 243253. doi: 10.1007/
s10755-011-9203-y
Kalbfleisch,P. J. (2002) Communicating in mentoring relationships: A theory for enactment.
Communication Theory, 12, 6369. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00259.x
Luna, G., & Deborah, L. C. (1995). Empowering the faculty: Mentoring redirected and
renewed (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3). Washington, DC: The George
Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Mansson, D., & Myers, S. (2012). Using mentoring enactment theory to explore the doctoral
student-advisor mentoring relationship. Communication Education, 61(4), 309314.
doi: 10.1080/03634523.2012.708424
Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and protgs: A critical review of literature. Adult Education
Quarterly, 33, 161173.
Phillips, E.M., & Pugh, D.S. (2000). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their
supervisors (3rd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Rose, G. (2005). Group differences in graduate students concepts of the ideal mentor.
Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 5380.
249
Rose, G. L. (2003). Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Research
in Higher Education, 44, 473494.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, D. A. (1989). Mentoring and irrationality: The role of racial taboos. Human Resource
Management, 28, 279290.
Dianne S. Goldsby
Mary Figuero-Charles
250
PART 3
COMMENTARY
DOUGLAS J. PALMER
13. QUALITY TEACHING AND TEACHER

PREPARATION
Challenges, Commitment, and Innovation
INTRODUCTION
As noted by a number of chapter authors, quality teachers have been

identified as the most consequential in-school resource to support student
achievement. Acknowledging the importance of teacher quality, 2002
federal legislation established the standard that all children would be taught
in the core academic subjects by highly qualified teachers in the 2005-06
academic year (No Child Left Behind Act P.L. 107-110, 2002). Determining
the characteristics of highly qualified teachers has been an evolving
construct for policymakers. Unfortunately, quality has been determined, in
part, by availability in teaching fields where there are limited numbers of
experienced, successful teachers, definitions of highly qualified have been
expanded to allow larger numbers of minimally prepared individuals to be
certified as teachers. In 2007, parents of low-income students in California
sued the U.S. Department of Education for violating the teacher quality
provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Specifically, the Department
of Education expanded the original language of the law that requires
highly qualified teacher to have full state certification in subjects and grade
levels they are teaching to also include alternatively prepared teachers
who are making satisfactory progress toward completion of certification
requirements. The parents suit was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals, but
shortly after the ruling, Congress passed a temporary amendment codifying
the Departments regulation. A recent report by the Center on Education
Policy (2012) indicated that approximately one-fifth of all teachers are
teaching students in grades or subjects outside their preparation. Further,
students in high-poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by out-of-
field teachers when compared to students in low-poverty schools (Education
Trust, 2010). In sum, twelve years after the passage of NCLB, many children
are not being taught by qualified teachers; moreover, students in low income

D. J. Palmer
communities and with limited achievement and English skills are most likely
to have the least prepared teachers.
Within this educational and political context, a variety of concerns
also have been noted regarding the quality of university-based teacher
preparation programs and their graduates. Concerns have ranged from
academic qualifications of university teacher education applicants, utility of
pedagogical coursework, impact of accountability / accreditation initiatives
for teacher preparation programs, and student outcomes of teachers who
completed teacher preparation programs (National Research Council, 2010).
As a result, in part, of these critiques a variety of alternative certification
programs have been established. In Texas, the single largest producer of
teacher certifications is a for-profit alternative certification company, i.e., A+
Texas Teachers, and approximately half of all teachers prepared in 2013 were
from alternative programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). While
educators have expressed concern that the development and expansion of
alternative programs result in poorly prepared teachers, characterizing
differences in alternative and traditional preparation programs is difficult,
at best. There is more variation within program type than between (National
Research Council, 2010). Reviews of research evidence have concluded
that teachers knowledge of curricular tasks, their understanding of how
learners acquire knowledge in a given subject area, and opportunities to
engage in corrected practice are important in the development of effective
teachers (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2005); however, research on
characteristics of preparation programs to develop these qualities in teachers
is limited (National Research Council, 2010).
Design and implementation of programs to prepare high quality teachers
require a clear understanding of effective teaching. As noted in the chapter
by Waxman et al., differing perspectives and methodologies to the study of
effective teaching result in different and, at times, conflicting conclusions.
Moreover, the outcomes of effective teaching are varied, e.g., assessed
knowledge and skills, social-affective skills, and self-regulation skills, which
provide additional complexity to our understanding of effective teaching.
With the current focus on student outcomes as a prime marker for evaluation
of teachers and teacher preparation programs and the increasing concern by
stakeholders concerning the utility of standardized achievement instruments
to measure educational outcomes, confusion regarding quality teaching and
quality teacher preparation is to be expected.
Recognizing these multiple challenges, there is a significant need for
quality teachers to educate students from increasingly diverse backgrounds
254
Quality Teaching and Teacher Preparation
with skills that support their economic and social development in the 21st
Century. Teacher educators are called upon to prepare individuals who are
safe to practice in the instruction of K-12 students. Faculty in teacher
preparation programs are called upon to design and deliver university-based
coursework and supervise field-based practica to support the development
of future teachers. Moreover, faculty and college administrators are asked to
review and evaluate curricular initiatives and allocate fiscal and instructional
resources to support the delivery of teacher preparation programs. While
there may not be general consensus of research evidence to support specific
teacher preparation practices, instructional decisions to prepare quality
teachers are being made. The chapters in this text reflect the work of a
group of faculty who are engaged in the study and implementation of a large
undergraduate teacher education program.
TEACHER EDUCATORS AS RESEARCHERS
The systematic study of practice by practitioners has long been considered

an essential component of effective teaching and essential for program
development; many of the chapter authors engaged in the examination of
teacher preparation content and/or methodology on the knowledge, behavior,
or perceptions of preservice teachers (PST) in their university courses.
In most instances, practicing teacher educators are not able to conduct
randomized field trials in the study of their preservice teacher preparation
content or practices; however, the use of quasi-experimental, case study
and multi-method approaches used by the chapter authors can inform their
instructional decision-making and program design. Acknowledging that
the findings from individual projects may not be broadly generalizable,
nor should they be seen as a comprehensive reflection of all components
of a teacher preparation program; as a collection, they are informative and
stimulate further exploration of teacher education content and pedagogy.
TEACHING DIVERSE LEARNERS
Reflecting concern for longstanding achievement disparities and the

rapidly changing demography of the K-12 student population, a number of
the chapters focused on the development of PSTs knowledge, perception
and instructional decisions when working with students from diverse
backgrounds. The nature and complexity of the reported activities differed
significantly and revealed both innovative instructional strategies and
extended PSTs understanding of diversity.
255
D. J. Palmer
Davis et al revised a middle grades mathematics problem solving course

over a period of five semesters to include activities and assignments to
address issues of diversity and culture in teaching algebra. The design of the
course included four primary, interrelated components: (1) math problem
solving and problem posing, (2) math problem equity challenges, (3) readings
and discussions on diversity, and (4) Second Life tutoring and teaching.
Specifically, virtual classrooms were designed for PSTs to engage in tutoring
and teaching exercises with middle grade student avatars throughout the
course. The authors studied decision-making of PSTs for diverse student
avatars in virtual classrooms and compared beliefs about equity and algebra
knowledge of PSTs in courses that were systematically altered. Although
the findings for the use and impact of immersive technology on teacher
decision-making, knowledge and perceptions were modest; the study of
innovative technologies to promote development of teachers was innovative
and holds significant promise.
Reflecting on the growing number of K-12 students with different
language backgrounds who have recently immigrated to the U.S., Eslami et
al. conducted a qualitative study on PSTs reflections concerning variations
in American English oral expression. Specifically, a variety of instructional
activities were provided in an ESL methods course that addressed World
Englishes. The activities did appear to promote greater acceptance and
understanding of variations in oral English. This chapter highlights an
important area of individual difference that has been rarely addressed in
teacher education programs but very relevant to support the engagement of
students and their families.
In an effort to support PSTs development as teachers of students from
diverse cultural, linguistic and national backgrounds, the teacher education
program at Texas A&M has significantly expanded global education
opportunities. With faculty leadership and support from college resources,
there have been a variety of curricular initiatives to support the integration
of international study activities into the teacher preparation. As a result, in
the last four years, there has been ten-fold increase in the number of PSTs
that have participated in study abroad initiatives. Boettcher et al.s chapter
provides an overview of the rationale for these international activities
and, based on PSTs reflections, have highlighted the impact of these
experiences on students understanding of cultural / national stereotypes
and international issues. Consistent with extant research, select students
unstructured reflections highlight the impact of the international experiences
on their understanding of themselves and others and the implications of these
experiences for teachers and students.
256
Reflecting on a variety of research literatures and their own experience,

Walters et al. describe both the rationale and use of a structured reflection
activity, digital storytelling. This instructional tool was used to promote PSTs
cross-cultural awareness and understanding after they participate in a cultural
immersion activity associated with a foundations course. The integration of
technology, the structured storytelling reflections and the use of these tools to
develop PSTs understanding of diversity and to facilitate their instructional
effectiveness as teachers was thoughtful and highlighted promising practices
that should be studied in numerous areas of teacher education.
Addressing the need to have well prepared teachers working in urban
schools, Williams and Carter describe a collaborative urban student teacher
education preparation initiative and provide preliminary information on
a small cohort of participating PSTs. Recognizing that many PSTs have
limited confidence and experience working in urban classrooms, the
program provides a variety of directed supports for the PSTs to develop their
competence and interest in urban school placements. While the findings
are very preliminary, this paper highlights the need to have specific urban-
related preparation and supports in teacher preparation programs. University
preservice programs that do not focus on the unique contextual issues of
urban schools will fail to meet this critical educational need.
FOCUS ON INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENT, METHODOLOGY

AND TEACHER DEVELOPMENT
Bransford, Darling-Hammond and LePage (2005) argue that teachers

understanding of subject matter, curriculum goals and how to teach specific
subject matter are essential for effective instruction. Highly effective
teaching requires both significant breadth of expertise and the facile use
their knowledge and skills to support learning of their students (Stough and
Palmer, 2003). Development of this expertise will not be fully developed in
preservice education programs; however, both foundational knowledge and
instructional skills and dispositions may be supported in quality preservice
programs (Hammermess, Darling-Hammond, and Bransford with Berliner,
Cochran-Smith, McDonald, and Zeichhner, 2005). While most of the papers
in this text address content, instructional methods and teacher development,
including chapters that focus on diversity, five papers highlight efforts in
these areas in preservice teacher preparation programs.
The Binks-Cantrell and Joshi chapter is an informative review of reading
research that contends preservice or professional development activities can
deepen teachers knowledge of scientifically-based reading research (SBRR).
257
D. J. Palmer
Moreover, teachers will use SBRR knowledge to alter their instructional

practices and these changes can, in turn improve student learning. Of direct
relevance to this text, they noted that many university instructors have limited
knowledge of SBRR; however, with professional development support, the
university faculty and, subsequently, their PSTs increase their knowledge
and understanding of effective teaching of reading. This chapter is a valuable
addition to the teacher preparation literature; the paper clearly presents the
rationale and direction for implementation of teacher preparation content and
strategies that impact PSTs reading instruction and their future students
literacy.
Despite its importance, writing instruction in schools has been given
only limited attention, Hodges et al. evaluated the development of PSTs
dispositions and skills to support writing instruction in a variety of intensive-
writing education courses. While there were differences in the content and
nature of writing instruction in the courses, all courses had explicit writing
expectations and instruction in writing, all instructors provided feedback on
PSTs writing and students writing performance contributed significantly
to final course grades. With eight faculty teaching 12 courses and over 200
students participating in this instructional activity, the authors conducted a
pre-post evaluation. They found that fostered PSTs development of self-
efficacy for writing, but, interestingly not their efficacy to teach writing.
This project also noted the variability in the faculty instructional activities
to support writing and writing instruction, e.g., university faculty modeling
writing. However, there appeared to be limited impact of the different writing
instructional activities. The authors thoughtfully reflected on the findings and
generated hypotheses for the outcomes. I applaud the efforts of the authors
to evaluate both the nature and impact of instructional activities on PSTs,
it is this kind of systematic study that is essential to the development and
refinement of quality preservice preparation initiatives.
Noting that many teachers are unprepared to integrate technology into their
instruction, Rackley and Viruru provide a concise and informative overview
of the rationale, design and implementation of a technology integration course
in an undergraduate preservice teacher preparation program. Preliminary
feedback from PSTs and employers of graduates indicate the importance and
unique nature of preparation in technology integration. In light of the digital
environment that surrounds students and teachers, I contend that systematic
development and evaluation of PST preparation initiatives pertaining to
technology integration and its impact on teachers instructional practices
and student learning is both important and sorely needed.
258
Wright et al.s chapter addresses an area that has been identified as

essential to the development of teachers and the implementation of effective
instruction, the role of teachers as researchers (Darling-Hammond and
Bransford, 2005). Specifically, Wright et al.s chapter provides an overview
of a multi-tiered research mentorship model and three case studies of PSTs
engagement in research projects. It is noteworthy that undergraduate PSTs
view of research and impact on their subsequent instructional decision-
making was influenced by this experience. With competing demands and
decreasing student credit hours available for instructional content in PST
preparation programs, PSTs engagement in research activity may be
seen as a lower priority concern. This paper highlights the importance of
this oft-overlooked area and hopefully will stimulate efforts to integrate
research activity into PST programs. Moreover, the multi-tiered research
mentorship provided by both graduate students and faculty also promotes
the development of future teacher educators with background and experience
in the integration of research engagement for PSTs.
Continuing with the focus on development of future teacher educators,
Goldsby and Figuero-Charles chapter is a single case overview of the
nature and impact of faculty mentorship on the development of a doctoral
students skills in the implementation of a mathematics methods course.
Recognizing the limitations of a single-case description, this paper reinforces
the perspective that teacher educators, like PSTs, need to possess content
knowledge, pedagogical skills, experience and corrective feedback in the
implementation of these skills. Development of quality teacher educators
requires purposeful mentorship integrated into students doctoral program of
study. Again, this area is an important of future systematic study.
CONCLUSION
Reflecting the nature and challenges of teaching in K-12 schools, the

chapters in this book highlight the breadth and complexity in the design of
preservice teacher preparation programs. Further, the engagement of faculty
and doctoral students in the study and evaluation of content, skills and
experiences in teacher education programs are essential to the development
and implementation of effective programs. The chapter authors are to be
commended for their commitment to the development of high quality
teachers and for their contribution to the teacher preparation literature.
Teacher expertise has been an area of personal interest for years (Stough
and Palmer, 2003; Palmer, Stough, Burdenski, and Gonzales, 2005). Research
259
D. J. Palmer
in this area has demonstrated that expert teachers possess an extraordinary

range and depth of knowledge of their students, curricular content and
pedagogical strategies. Moreover, these teachers effectively orchestrate the
use of this expertise to support the development of their students. While
novice teachers will not possess this extensive array of knowledge having
just graduated from teacher preparation programs, high quality programs
will provide a foundation of knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to
support their development as highly effective teachers. The work of the
teacher educator authors in this book identifies design elements and practices
that hold promise to build this foundation.
REFERENCES
Almy, S., & Theokas, C. (2010). Not prepared for class: High-poverty schools continue to
have fewer in-field teachers. Washington, DC: Education Trust.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-
Hammond & J. Bransford(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 139). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Center for Education Policy. (2012). A public education primer: Basic (and sometimes
surprising) facts about the U.S. educational system. Washington, DC: Author.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M.,
McDonald, M., & Zeichhner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-
Hammond & J. Bransford(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 139). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Palmer, D., Stough, L., Burdenski, T., & Gonzales, M. (2005). Identifying teacher expertise:
An examination of researchers decision making. Educational Psychologist, 40 (1), 1325.
Stough, L. M., & Palmer, D. J. (2003). Special thinking in special settings: A qualitative
student of expert special educators. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 206222.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Preparing and credentialing the nations teachers:
The secretarys ninth report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.
Douglas J. Palmer
260
INDEX
A Binks-Cantrell, E., 2943, 257

Achinstein, B., 51 Bishop, J., 217
Adams, M. J., 30, 32, 33, 203 Blachman, B. A., 31, 37
Adlof, S., 33 Blair, N., 197
Algebra, 5153, 56, 57, 66, 69, 7174, Blocher, M., 213
256 Boaler, J., 53
Almy, S., 9 Boase, C., 214
Amrein-Beardsley, A., 19 Bolick, C. M., 201
Anchimbe, E. A., 82 Bolton, K., 81
Anderson, E., 236 Boreen, J., 139
Anderson, S. E., 195, 202 Bos, C., 3134
Andrew, L., 113, 199 Boud, D., 213
Angrist, J., 195 Boyatzis, R. E., 89
Ates, B., 81101 Boykin, A. W., 9
Attitude change, 81101 Bradley, L. L., 37
Brady, S., 31, 38
B Brandon, J., 199
Baddeley, A.D., 39 Bransford, J. D., 196
Bain, K., 4 Braskamp, L. A., 107
Bakhtin, M. M., 224 Brindley, R., 106
Ball, D., 1214, 51, 68, 69, 246 Brown, I. A., 52, 55, 57, 74, 75
Ball, E. W., 37 Brown, K., 86
Bandura, A., 148, 175, 176, 200 Bruce, M.G., 106
Banks, J. A., 124, 125 Bryk, A. S., 22
Barak, M., 202 Burbank, M.D., 140
Barkhuizen, G., 108
Barrett, H., 215 C
Barron, B., 202 Calhoon, M. B., 34
Bateman, B .A., 107 Camburn, E. M., 9, 10
Bean, T., 211, 212 Campbell, S., 203
Bebell, D., 198 Canniff, J. G., 124, 126
Ben-Chaim, D., 69 Carlisle, J., 33
Bender, C., 235, 236, 247 Carter, K., 6, , 123140, 257
Bendixen, L., 224 Carter, N. P., 6, 123140, 257
Bennett, C., 128 CDW-G, 199
Bennett, C.I., 127 Chai, C. S., 195, 199
Berliner, D. C., 22, 54, 257 Chall, J. S., 30
Berninger, V., 34, 36, 38, 39, 147 Chambless, M. S., 165
261
Index
Chapman, O., 69 Digital storytelling, 7, 212, 214, 215,

Chen, C. H., 199 217, 221, 225, 226, 257
Chen, W., 13, 18, 21, 22 Diversity, 6, 7, 5153, 57, 6870, 73,
Cheong, D., 75 74, 81101, 106, 107, 114, 119, 124,
Chetty, R., 19 128, 130, 131, 211226, 255257
Chung, S., 218 Dooren, W. V., 69
Ciampa, K., 204 Doran, H. C., 150
City, E.A., 10, 15 Douglass, A., 145165, 171191
Classroom observation, 5, 10, 1417, Droschel, Y., 84
19, 20, 55, 57, 86, 146, 149151, Druin, A., 204
153155, 163, 183, 188 Duncan, G.J., 9
Cobb, P., 68 Durlak, J.A., 20
Cochran-Smith, M., 125, 257 Dynarski, M., 195
Cohen, J., 10, 6063, 73, 156
Colby, S. A., 146148, 165 E
Collier, S., 200, 211, 213 Early, D.M., 15
Comstock, D., 175 Easton, J., 21, 22
Connelly, M., 211 Educational research, 22, 29, 171191
Content knowledge, 130, 242, 244, 259 Educational technology, 200, 214
Creswell, J. W., 177 Edwards, J., 238
Cross-cultural awareness, 223, 225 Efaw, J., 197
Cruickshank, D., 54 Ellis, M. W. (Ed.), 70
Cuban, L., 10, 21 English as an international language, 84
Cutler, L., 145, 147 Equity consciousness, 51, 67, 68
Cultural plunge, 112, 216, 217, 219, Ertmer, P. A., 195, 198200
220, 223225, 231, 232 Everson, K.C., 17
Cunningham, A., 37
F
D Farris, C., 149
Dantas, M. L., 106, 120 Faulconer, T., 106
Darling-Hammond, L., 9, 10, 1820, Ference, R.A., 222
54, 254, 257, 259 Fielding-Barnsley, R., 33, 41
Dave, S., 97, 98 Flanigan, K., 173
Davidson, C., 193 Focho, G. N., 223, 225
Davidson, M., 240 Foorman, B. R., 2931, 33, 37
Davis, M., 213, 214 Fox, S., 202
Davis, T., 5175 Francis, D., 213
Day, C., 9 Freire, P., 211
Delpit, L. D, 68
Dempsey, M. S., 145, 146 G
Denton, C., 31 Garcia, S.B., 124
Dewey, J., 212 Garmon, M. A., 82
Dewey, M., 84, 86 Garrard, J., 182
262
Index
Gay, G., 4, 125 Higher Education Collaborative (HEC),

Gerard, L.F., 198 41
Global consciousness, 7 Hilberg, R. S., 14, 150, 151
Global learning, 100 Hill, H. B., 34
Goe, L., 10 Hill, H. C., 16, 51, 150
Gold, Y., 137 Hollar, J. C., 52
Goldstein, M., 13, 14 Holley, K., 236, 238, 243, 247
Gomez, L., 22, 193 Hollins, E. R., 125127, 136
Good, T., 15 Howard, T., 124
Goodman, K., 30 Huang, R., 4, 52, 151
Goodwin, B., 30 Huey, E. B., 30
Graduate students, 5, 7, 56, 88, Hughes, J., 195
173178, 184, 186190, 235, 236, Hsu, S., 195
238242, 259
Graham, S., 32, 42, 145149 I
Graesser, A., 224 Immersion experience, 106, 108, 216
Grant, C., 125, 128 Inan, F., 194
Gray, L., 199 Indiogine, S. E., 5175
Gray, W. S., 236, 237 Instructional technology integration,
Green, M., 29, 36, 219, 225 193205, 258
Greenberg, J., 32 Integration methods, 192205
Greenhow, C., 202 Interactive classroom, 55, 194
Greenwood, C. R., 171, 172 International Society for Technology in
Gregoire, M., 224 Education, 197
Gribbin, W., 164 Innovative Teaching and Learning
Research, 198
H Irvine, J. J., , 125, 126
Haager, D., 33
Haberman M., 124, 125 J
Hadis, B. F., 107 Jacobsen, M., 193
Hall, A. H., 147 Janes, D., 109
Hall, E., 223 Jenkins, C., 126, 127, 136
Halpin, R., 200 Jenkins, J., 83
Hammer, J., 38, 105120, 175 Jerald, C.D., 9
Hamre, B. K., 16, 150, 151 Jimoyiannisa, A., 199
Hanvey, R., 221 Johnson, L., 199
Hargrave, C., 200 Joshi, R. M., 6, 2943, 257
Hart, B., 30
Hattie, J., 11 K
Hatton, N., 211, 212, 215 Kachru, B. B., 84, 85, 88, 99
Healy, C.C., 236, 237, 243, 247, 248 Kachur, D.S., 15
Heirdsfield, A. M., 177 Kaine, T., 20
Hermans, R., 199 Kajder, S., 226
263
Index
Kalbfleisch,P. J., 236 McKenzie, K. B., 51, 68

Kane, T. J., 17, 151 McKercher, B, 106
Karsenty, R., 52 Meadows, D., 217
Kaufman, D. K., 148, 171 Mentee, 175, 177, 186, 188, 235249
Keifer, K., 226 Mentor, 41, 110, 130132, 134, 136,
Kersting, N.B., 18 137, 139, 140, 174179, 186188,
Kiuhara, S., 148 190, 205, 235249
Knobel, M., 197 Mentoring, 7, 129, 136, 137, 171191,
Kubota, R., 81, 8486, 88, 99, 100 211, 235249
Kulik, J. A., 195 Merriam, S., 238
Kulm, G., 5175 Meta-analysis, 10, 32
Metcalf, K. K., 54
L Miller, J. B., 175
Ladson-Billings, G., 52, 53, 68, 125, Miller, S., 140
127 Milner, H.R., 139
Lamberg, T., 52 Moats, L.C., 2936, 38, 40, 42, 43
Lasica, J., 214 Mobile learning, 203, 204
Lathem, S., 214, 215 Moeller, B., 198
Law, N., 198 Morgan, D. N., 145, 146
Lemov, D., 12 Moursund, D., 200
Lenhart, A., 203 Multicultural schools, 139
Levin, T., 199 Murnen, T. J., 221, 224
Lewis, C. W., 53, 100, 125, 126
Li, Y., 38 N
Lim, C. P., 199 National Assessment of Educational
Lindquist, T., 201 Progress (NAEP), 30, 195
Linguistic and cultural diversity, 85, 99 National Center for Alternative
Lippi-Green, R., 85, 98 Certification, 123
Literacy, 29, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 145, National Commission on Writing, 165
147, 165, 173, 186, 187, 200, 201, National Council for Accreditation of
223, 258 Teacher Education, 68, 193
Lumpe, A. T., 199 National Council of Teachers of
Lyon, G. R., 30, 31, 34 Mathematics, 68, 71
National Institute of Child Health and
M Human Development (NICHD),
Major, E., 222 3032, 34
Malloy, C. E., 53 National Mathematics Advisory Panel,
Mansson, D., 236, 242244 68
Marzano, R.J., 11 National Research Council, 17, 31
Matsuda, A., 81, 82, 8486, 100 Ng, J., 123
McCutchen, D., 29, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39 Nieto, S., 126, 127
McDrury, J., 211 NNPS, 197
264
Index
Noffke, S., 213 Problem solving, 6, 5175, 80,

Nuthall, G., 12 196198, 226, 246, 256
Professional development, 11, 13, 20,
O 34, 35, 38, 4043, 130, 140, 189,
OBannon, B.W., 203 198, 199, 205, 235, 245, 257, 258
OCallaghan, B. R., 52 Project Tomorrow and Blackboard,
OConnor, R., 37 203
OLeary, M., 150, 151, 217
Olson, D. R., 213 Q
Olson, R. K., 31 Qiong, H.X., 84
Osborne, J., 4
R
P Rakes, G., 225
Paivio, A., 204 Ranker, J., 224
Pajares, F., 147, 176 Raphael, L. M., 151
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 196 Reading, 6, 20, 2943, 51, 53, 70,
Payne, C.M., 12 109, 111, 113, 114, 116, 129, 131,
Pedagogical content knowledge, 242 149, 171, 172, 177, 179, 180, 182,
Pederson, P. J., 107 183, 187, 195, 205, 215, 240, 241,
Peer observation, 139, 180 256258
Pellegrino, J. W., 52 Reading Excellence Act of 1998,
Pennington, B. F., 30 31
Penuel, W.R., 22 Reflective practice, 110, 211
Perfetti, C., 33 Reiss, Jr., A. R., 150
Pew Internet and American Life Research-based instruction, 6, 923,
Project, 201 2931, 33, 34, 39, 43, 181
Phillips, E.M., 244 Research-practice gap, 172, 173
Pianta, R. C., 151 Richardson, V., 4
Piasta, S. B., 29, 33 Riesland, E., 214
Polya, G., 70, 71, 74 Ritter, J. K., 148, 171
Pope, M., 200 Rivera, H.H., 9, 21
Preparing teachers for diverse students, Roberson, T. J., 151
125 Robertson, J.M., 108
Preparing teachers for urban Roberts-Walter, P. F., 71
environments, 123, 140 Robin, B., 214
Preservice teacher education, 160164 Robinson, P.A., 126
Preservice teachers, 3, 4, 68, 5175, Robinson, P. C., 107, 126
81101, 123140, 145165, 171 Roehrig, A. D., 10, 21
191, 193205, 211226, 240, 241, Ropp, M. M., 200
255, 257, 258 Rose, G., 243
Preservice teachers learning, 3, 6, 7, Ross, S. M., 151, 155
125 Rothman, R., 9, 16
265
Index
S Stereotypes, 9094, 97, 98, 105120,

Sable, J., 125 123, 127, 223, 256
Saffold, F., 126 Stigler, J. W., 4, 18
Saha, L., 4 Stinson, D. W., 53
Saint Augustine, 105120 Stokes, D.E., 22
Salinas, C., 201 Student teaching, 128131, 133, 137,
Samimy, K.K., 84 139, 240
Sartain, L., 15, 16 Study abroad, 106110, 112, 113,
Scheeler, M. C., 172 115120, 256
Scherrer, J., 18 Stuhlman, M. W., 151
Schoenfeld, A. H., 68 Swetnam, L., 135
Scholes, K., 213 Szurmak, J., 214
Schon, D. A., 247
Schunk, D., 211, 224 T
Seargeant, P., 85 Tan, P. K. W, 86
Second Life, 51, 5355, 57, 67, 70, 74, 256 Taylor, E. S., 151
Seidenberg, M. S., 32, 43 Taylor, S. V., 106
Seidlhofer, B., 83 Teacherbeliefs, 126, 128, 199
Self-efficacy, 146148, 151, 153158, Teacher education, 4, 5, 7, 35, 43, 51,
160165, 176, 182, 200 54, 68, 69, 82, 83, 8587, 99101,
Serhan, D., 193 106, 119, 123, 124, 128, 129, 134,
Sharifian, F., 86 140, 146, 147, 151, 154, 160165,
Shelton, J. T., 203 176, 184, 193, 195, 212, 225, 226,
Shin, J., 81 254259
Siemens, George, 212, 214 Teacher educator as researcher, 3, 82,
Silver, E. A. (Ed.), 4, 5, 68 86, 255
Simon, M., 52, 57 Teacher effectiveness, 10, 17, 19, 150, 151
Singer, N. R., 128, 136 Teacher evaluation, 10, 13, 1517
Skaalvik, E. M., 148 Teacher knowledge, 2943
Skrla, L., 51, 68 Teacher preparation, 38, 14, 31, 34,
Sleeter, C., 125, 128 35, 37, 4043, 75, 83, 85, 124, 125,
Smith, D.L., 15 130, 146, 148, 149, 153155, 160,
Smolcic, Elizabeth, 106 163, 165, 171173, 193, 195, 200,
Snow, C.E., 31, 43 253260
Snow, M.A., 82, 8486 Teachers attitude, 6, 68, 81101,
Social constructivism, 175, 176 146, 195
Socio-cognitive theory, 148, 157, 172, Teaching approaches, 38, 11
175, 176 Teaching at work, 38
Spear-Swerling, L., 29, 31, 37 Teaching for equity, 5175
Stallings, J.A., 14 Teaching improvement, 4
Steeley, S., 222 Teaching in diverse environments, 124
266
Index
Teaching practice, 323, 29, 82, W

132,145165, 178, 188, 190, Walsh, K., 32, 35, 42, 177
191,226, 246 Walters, L., 7, 211233, 257
Technology integration, 6, 193205, 258 Warschauer, M., 195
Terrion, J. L., 175, 188 Washburn, E., 32, 39, 41
The Conference Board, Corporate Watson, A., 69
Voices for Working Families, 196 Watson, D., 51
The New Teacher Project [TNTP], 17 Waxman, H. C., 6, 923, 150, 151, 154,
Thibadoux, G. M., 107 155, 254
Thier, R., 53 Webb-Johnson, G., 143
Thomas, D. A., 238 Wechsler, D., 48
Thomas, K., 203 Weiner, L., 124, 125
Tieredmentoring, 173, 186 Weisberg, D., 15, 150
Timmis, I., 83 Wellington, J., 213
Torgesen, J.K., 30, 31, 37 Wells, J., 199
Tough, P., 20 Wenglinsky, H., 195
Treiman, R., 43 Wilkinson, S., 107
Tschannen-Moran, M., 147, 148 Willard-Holt, C., 106108
Tsurutani, C., 83 Williams, K., 123140, 257
Wilson, A. H., 108
U Woolfolk Hoy, A., 157, 161
Urban education, 123130, 139 World Englishes, 61101, 256
U.S. Department of Education; Writing, 7, 35, 37, 39, 70, 71, 109, 116,
[USDOE], 11 117, 130, 131, 145165, 178, 182,
187, 195, 201, 212, 213, 217220,
V 225, 226, 258
Value-added models of teacher Writing instruction, 145149, 153158,
evaluation, 19 160165, 178, 258
Van Aalst, J., 202
Vaughn, S., 172 Y
Vaught S. E., 126 Yancey, K. B., 145
Vavrus, F.S., 82 Young, C. A., 203, 226
Vellutino, F, R., 30, 33, 37
Virtual classroom simulation, 54, 74, 75 Z
Vygotsky, L., 176 Zeichern, K.M., 143
267

(Advances in Teaching and Teacher Education) Yeping Li, Janet Hammer (Eds.) - Teaching at Work-SensePublishers (2015)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(Advances in Teaching and Teacher Education) Yeping Li, Janet Hammer (Eds.) - Teaching at Work-SensePublishers (2015)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Teaching at Work

ADVANCES IN TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION

Yeping Li, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA

International Advisory Board:

Miriam Ben-Peretz, University of Haifa, Israel

Advances in Teaching and Teacher Education is an international book series

For further information:

ISBN: 978-94-6300-080-2 (paperback)

Published by: Sense Publishers,

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved 2015 Sense Publishers

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

8. Modeling the Write Teaching Practices: Instructor Influences

This book is a themed collection of chapters on the important topic of

Teaching plays an important role in all of our lives and provides us

Y. Li & J. Hammer (Eds.), Teaching at Work, 38.

The first meaning, good teaching makes a difference in students learning,

approach. It is in the spirit of pursuing excellence in teaching and discussing

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

Part I: Introduction and Perspectives

of teachers knowledge in teaching. Because the quality of teaching is elusive,

Part II: Selected Approaches and Practices in Teaching and Teacher

10 (Rackley and Viruru). With the ever-increasing diverse student population

Part III: Commentary

2. RESEARCH-BASED APPROACHES FOR

Y. Li & J. Hammer (Eds.), Teaching at Work, 927.

(Darling-Hammond, 2013). As City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009)

For the past three decades, meta-analyses or quantitative research syntheses

There have been over a thousand meta-analyses conducted in education

achievement and they often ignore examining the impact of instructional

Historically, research on effective teaching typically consisted of subjective

project called TeachingWorks that focuses on 19 high-leverage practices

practice to increase positive student academic outcomes. Improving student

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION APPROACHES

Classroom observation approaches to examine effective teaching have been

allow researchers to examine the extent to which specific instructional

The most controversial approach for assessing and evaluating effective

In another study, Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff (2012) analyzed

characteristics. Hence, value-added metrics successfully disentangle

In spite of the recent attention, effective teaching practices remains a construct

3. CONNECTING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

There is evidence that a teacher is the most influential factor upon a

Y. Li & J. Hammer (Eds.), Teaching at Work, 2948.

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH-BASED

A great deal of research has rather recently been devoted to reading

RESEARCH-BASED READING INSTRUCTION

Evidence-based reading practices are synonymous with scientifically-based

clearly demonstrated in her synthesis of research on beginning reading the

THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER KNOWLEDGE IN

Common sense and research alike tell us that well-designed instructional

In 1999, Moats prepared a paper entitled Teaching Reading Is Rocket

Other researchers sought to determine links among teacher knowledge,

The literature seems to consistently concur that the linguistic components

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

receive accreditation are offered the opportunity to work toward accreditation

teacher knowledge, classroom instruction, and student achievement, there

4. PRESERVICE TEACHERS PROBLEM-SOLVING

Preparation for teaching for equity requires both mathematics knowledge

Y. Li & J. Hammer (Eds.), Teaching at Work, 5180.

employ problem-solving heuristics. The second study compared this

The nature of and need for improving teachers mathematics knowledge

Situated Learning Scheme

Culturally Relevant Teaching Scheme