The Educational Forum

ISSN: 0013-1725 (Print) 1938-8098 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Developing the Effective Teaching Skills of Teacher

Candidates During Early Field Experiences

Kelly A. Welsh & Connie Schaffer

To cite this article: Kelly A. Welsh & Connie Schaffer (2017) Developing the Effective Teaching
Skills of Teacher Candidates During Early Field Experiences, The Educational Forum, 81:3,
301-321, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2017.1314574

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2017.1314574

Published online: 22 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 44

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utef20

Download by: [Australian Catholic University] Date: 27 July 2017, At: 02:10
 The Educational Forum, 81: 301–321, 2017
Copyright © Kappa Delta Pi
ISSN: 0013-1725 print/1938-8098 online
DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2017.1314574

THE EDUCATIONAL Developing the Effective

FORUM Teaching Skills of Teacher
Candidates During Early
Field Experiences
Kelly A. Welsh
Millard North High School, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Connie Schaffer
College of Education, University of Nebraska at Omaha,
Omaha, Nebraska, USA

Abstract
This study examined the development of effective teaching skills in teacher candidates
in the context of early field experiences directly tied to a pedagogical course. Evidence
from faculty instructors, mentor teachers, and teacher candidates suggests secondary
education candidates were able to develop effective teaching skills related to instruc-
tional strategies, classroom management, and curriculum design during an early
field experience. Teacher candidates developed these skills as they shifted their identi-
ties from candidates-as-students to candidates-as-teachers.

Key words: effective teaching skills, field experiences, teacher education/certification.

“We would be willing to take your student teachers if you can guarantee they are
good.” Teacher educators have repeatedly heard P–12 administrators and teachers make
this statement or others similar to it. The concern underlying these statements is legitimate.
While good might refer to a number of attributes, strong teaching skills would be on the top
of most lists of qualifications for student teachers. In an era where P–12 school personnel
face myriad challenges, including meeting the diverse needs of students and responding
to countless accountability structures, P–12 student learning should not be compromised
in any manner or for even the briefest amount of time.

The expectation for educator preparation programs to produce student teachers who
can deliver effective instruction has never been greater and does not stem from the P–12
arena alone. Accreditation standards and accountability structures within educator prepa-
ration now require programs to provide evidence that teacher candidates have a positive

Address correspondence to Connie Schaffer, College of Education, University of

Nebraska at Omaha, Roskens 214, 6005 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE 68182, USA.
E-mail: cshaffer@unomaha.edu
Welsh and Schaffer
impact on P–12 student achievement. The expectations are well defined. Teacher candi-
dates must have well-developed teaching skills, and preparation programs must have
strong student teaching components (Sawchuk, 2013).

To strengthen teacher candidates’ skills for student teaching, it seems logical for prepa-
ration programs to intensify or increase the required coursework and field experiences that
precede student teaching. However, such plans are quickly stymied by simultaneous calls
for universities to increase 4-year graduation rates and reduce the number of credit hours
required for program completion (Shulock & Koester, 2014).

The messages to educator preparation programs seem clear. Do more. Do it earlier.

Do it in less time. Early field experiences may provide viable opportunities to meet these
demands. In fact, numerous professional organizations—including the National Council
for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2010; now merged into the Council for
the Accreditation of Educator Preparation), National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ,
2011), American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 2012), Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO, 2012), and National Education Association (NEA, 2011)—have called for field
experiences to be the centerpiece of broader reforms being demanded of educator prepara-
tion. This study seeks to investigate how early field experiences contribute to the develop-
ment of effective teaching practices for secondary teacher candidates.

Literature Review
Field Experiences
Early field experiences are the components of educator preparation programs that oc-
cur before student teaching and require teacher candidates to apply their knowledge and
skills in P–12 classrooms. These experiences are designed to advance teacher preparation
programs from an apprenticeship of observation based on the personal experiences teach-
er candidates had as P–12 students (Lortie, 1975) to preparation based on professional ped-
agogy and intentionally designed opportunities in P–12 schools. Early field experiences,
when guided by faculty within educator preparation programs, can give candidates op-
portunities to apply what they have learned and develop the effective teaching skills most
likely to impact P–12 student learning (AFT, 2012; CCSSO, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2006;
NCTQ, 2011; NEA, 2011; Singer, Catapano, & Huisman, 2010; Zeichner, 2010).

Field experiences are optimized when delivered in conjunction with coursework

and sequenced throughout an educator preparation program (Darling-Hammond &
Hammerness, 2005). When programs connect pedagogical coursework to these experienc-
es, candidates’ understanding and application of important teaching concepts are enhanced
(Darling-Hammond, 2006; Zeichner, 2010), and candidates have the opportunity “to grad-
ually assume more independent responsibilities for teaching” (Darling-Hammond, 2010,
p. 40). In other words, candidates have opportunities to assume responsibility not only for
their own learning, but also for impacting the learning of P–12 students.

Role of Faculty
Educator preparation programs should consider the role of faculty during early field
experiences and not rely solely on P–12 educators to structure and guide the experiences

302 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills
(Scherff & Singer, 2012). Several studies have suggested that the preparedness of candi-
dates is improved when faculty from educator preparation programs not only teach cor-
responding courses but also are involved with their candidates during field experiences
(Schaffer, 2012; Feldman & Moore Kent, 2006; Wyss, Siebert, & Dowling, 2012).

However, involving faculty in early field experiences can be a struggle for many edu-
cator preparation programs. Beck and Kosnik (2002) and others (AFT, 2012; CCSSO, 2012;
NCATE, 2008; Zeichner, 2010) have outlined several explanations for the lack of involve-
ment by educator preparation faculty. First, involvement requires an overwhelming time
commitment and may be perceived as a distraction from faculty research and teaching
responsibilities. Second, faculty members may underestimate the potential impact of their
involvement. Third, administrative structures within the university often undervalue and
offer few reward structures for faculty involvement (Beck & Kosnik, 2002).

Reflection
Despite these barriers, one potential avenue for faculty involvement is to have faculty
instructors assign and structure candidates’ reflections associated with field experiences.
Effective educator preparation programs require teacher candidates to continually and
systematically analyze their teaching during field experiences (Hiebert, Morris, Berk, &
Jansen, 2007). The analysis associated with field experiences often involves reflection.
This reflection should be designed to initiate a process in which candidates frame and re-
frame their past experiences as students as well as their new teaching pedagogy knowl-
edge and emerging identities as teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Scherff & Singer,
2012).

While it may seem straightforward for a faculty member to ask candidates to reflect
on their field experiences, “reflection assignments need to be structured within an explicit
framework” (Williamson, Mears, & Bustos, 2015, p. 139). According to Parsons and Ste-
phenson (2005), teacher candidate reflection can become a process of “dynamic action and
learning” that enables candidates “to develop their practice in the light of their analysis
and evaluation” (p. 97). When faculty appropriately structure reflection, the process can
assist teacher candidates in analyzing their experiences and promoting their development
of effective teaching practices.

Theoretical Framework
The research presented here was framed by Frances Fuller’s (1969) stages of concern
and Robert Marzano’s (2003) teacher-level factors as elements of effective schools and ef-
fective teachers. Fuller’s research with student teachers and Marzano’s meta-analysis of
research within P–12 schools guided this examination of an early field experience as a
means to develop the teaching skills of teacher candidates.

Stages of Concern
Fuller’s (1969) conceptualization is referenced frequently in literature related to teacher
candidate development. Fuller’s concern theory, further defined in Fuller & Bown (1975),
identified three stages of concern. At each stage, the areas of primary concern for teacher
candidates differ.

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 303

Welsh and Schaffer
During the self-concern stage, candidates focus on the relationships they establish
with faculty members and P–12 students and teachers. Teacher candidates in this stage
want to be liked by others. In the task-concern stage, candidates concentrate primarily on
two areas: instructional responsibilities and student behavior. Teacher candidates in this
stage focus on fulfilling the day-to-day responsibilities of teaching and managing a class-
room. In the impact-concern stage, candidates focus on how their teaching affects student
learning. Hiebert et al. (2007) identified this focus on student learning as a central construct
in preparing teacher candidates to learn from their own teaching.

The study described here applied the stages of concern (Fuller & Bown, 1975) as a
categorization tool. Over the past decades, many research studies have supported the
concerns-based model (Conway & Clark, 2003; Cooper & He, 2012; Pigge & Marso, 1997;
Powell, 2014, 2016; Reeves & Kazelskis, 1985; Young, 2012). However, because findings
supporting Fuller’s model as a pure linear progression have been mixed (Burn, Hagger,
Mutton, & Everton, 2000; Campbell & Thompson, 2007; Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Pilcher &
Steele, 2005; Weinstein, 1998), using the model to categorize concerns may be more appro-
priate than applying the model to sequence concerns.

Effective Teaching
Marzano’s framework was based on extensive meta-analysis of existing research and
identified school, teacher, and student factors affecting academic achievement of P–12
students. Teacher factors are “primarily a function of the decisions made by individual
teachers” (Marzano, 2003, p. 71) and include the interaction of instructional strategies,
classroom management, and curriculum design. The complexities of these factors require
teachers to have “substantial time to practice” before they are able to implement the skills
indicative of effective teaching (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001, p. 157).

Marzano identified nine effective instructional strategies that increase student achieve-
ment. According to Marzano (2003), the instructional strategies characteristic of effective
teaching include (1) identifying similarities and differences, (2) summarizing and note
taking, (3) reinforcing effort and providing recognition, (4) assigning homework and/or
practice, (5) using nonlinguistic presentations, (6) implementing cooperative learning, (7)
setting objectives and providing feedback, (8) generating and testing hypotheses, and (9)
questioning, cueing, and providing advanced organizers.

Effective classroom management practice, as outlined by Marzano (2003), involves the

convergence of four distinct actions of teachers. These include (a) establishing clear rules
and procedures that are consistently enforced, (b) following through with disciplinary
action as warranted, (c) maintaining effective teacher and student relationships, and (d)
having an appropriate frame of mind for management.

According to Marzano (2003), effective curriculum design practices consist of five

discrete components. Effective curriculum design is determined by the ability a teacher
has to (a) identify and articulate content, (b) provide multiple exposures to content, (c)
identify skills and procedures P–12 students need to master, (d) structure content in a man-
ner in which P–12 students can detect a level of sameness between tasks, and (e) engage

304 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills
P–12 students with the content in unique and complex ways. The teacher preparation pro-
gram in this study uses Marzano’s three components of effective teaching (instruction-
al strategies, classroom management, and curriculum design) as the framework for the
coursework teacher candidates complete.

Methodology
The pressures to improve educator preparation programs provide strong reason to
investigate the manner in which early field experiences contribute to the development of
effective teaching practices. This study addressed the following research question: In what
ways do teacher candidates develop effective teaching skills during an early field experi-
ence? The analysis of candidates’ teaching skills was framed by Marzano’s (2003) model of
effective teaching and Fuller’s concern model (Fuller & Bown, 1975).

Participants
The 28 participants (16 female and 12 male) were undergraduate teacher candidates
seeking initial teacher certification. The participants had been admitted into an accredit-
ed educator preparation program at a large public university in the Midwest and were
pursuing secondary (Grades 7–12) teaching certification. Participants included 18 teacher
candidates seeking certification in language arts (English, mass media, journalism, and/or
speech communication) and nine teacher candidates seeking certification in social scienc-
es (political science, psychology, sociology, economics, geography, and/or history). One
participant was seeking certification in English and history.

Participants were enrolled in a 3-credit-hour content methods course in either language

arts or social sciences. As part of their educator preparation program, participating teacher
candidates had previously completed approximately 50 hours of field experiences and five
teacher education courses. The language arts and social sciences methods courses in which
the participants were enrolled at the time of the study followed the same syllabus and had
common course assignments, assessments, and grading scales as well as common field
experience expectations and evaluations. Two tenure-track teacher educators were faculty
instructors for the methods courses.

The content methods courses required corresponding 50-hour field experiences and
were the program’s final pedagogy courses before student teaching. Field experience place-
ments were in two metropolitan public school districts. Of the participants, 12 were placed
in middle or junior high schools and 16 were placed in high schools. The participant seeking
certification in both content areas was enrolled in both courses with a field experience shared
between the two content areas (completing approximately 25 hours in each content area).

Procedures
Participants attended the methods course for the first 6 weeks of the semester (approx-
imately 18 hours of classroom instruction). They then completed a 5-week field experience
during which time the methods classes did not meet. During the field experience, par-
ticipants reported to a specifically assigned school from 7:30–9:30 a.m., Monday through
Friday, for 5 consecutive weeks. Participants were matched with secondary education
mentor teachers (classroom teachers in their content areas).

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 305

Welsh and Schaffer
During the field experience, participants were required to plan and teach a minimum
of four whole-class lessons. With guidance from the mentor teachers, participants designed
and delivered lessons based on the existing secondary language arts or social sciences cur-
ricula of the schools. Participants were required to video-record the lessons.

The lessons provided the experiences needed for participants to complete four as-
signments required in the methods courses. For each of the four assignments, participants
submitted a lesson plan, a 10–15 minute video segment of their teaching, and a two- or
three-page written reflection for each lesson. Participants were required to use an assigned
lesson plan template and follow a structured reflection outline that addressed Marzano’s
(2003) three areas of effective teaching pedagogy (instructional strategies, classroom man-
agement, and curriculum design). Participants submitted the assignments at the end of
the second, third, fourth, and fifth weeks of the field experience. Components of the as-
signments were uploaded to a web-based assessment management tool used within the
educator preparation program. Each assignment represented 7.5%, for a total of 30%, of
the overall course grade.

Faculty instructors graded the assignments using a common rubric that addressed
three areas or criteria (lesson plan, teaching performance, and written reflection). Partic-
ipants were provided copies of the rubric during the initial 6 weeks of course instruc-
tion. The rubric performance levels (proficient, developing, beginning, and not demon-
strated) followed the standard performance levels of the educator preparation program’s
course-embedded assessments.

Faculty instructors wrote the descriptors for the criteria at each performance level.
In determining the assignment grade, the teaching section of the rubric was weighted
more heavily than the other sections. The descriptors for the teaching section referenced
Marzano’s (2003) elements of effective teaching. Instructional strategies and classroom
management were specifically referenced, and curriculum design was represented by the
criteria to present content at multiple cognitive levels. (See Appendix 1 for the rubric and
performance level descriptors.)

At the conclusion of the field experience, participants, mentor teachers, and faculty
instructors assessed the overall performance of the participants using a common field ex-
perience evaluation instrument. Participants were provided copies of the field experience
evaluation prior to beginning their field experiences. The instrument included the four
standard performance levels of the program’s field experience evaluations. The highest
level of performance was a 4; the lowest performance level was a 1. The individual items
or criteria had distinct descriptors for each of the four performance levels. Prior to the
research study, a committee of program faculty and field experience staff members deter-
mined the instrument descriptors and their alignment with the Interstate Teacher Assess-
ment and Support Consortium standards (CCSSO, 2013). (See Appendix 2 for items and
performance level descriptors.)

The faculty instructors based their ratings on a review of participants’ self-assessed

ratings, the mentor teachers’ ratings, and the four video segments described above. The

306 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills
field experience evaluation represented 30% (in addition to the 30% from the four assign-
ments) of the overall course grade. After completing the experience, participants returned
to their previous methods course schedule for the remaining 5 weeks of the semester
(approximately 15 hours of classroom instruction).

Data Collection and Findings

Assignments
To substantiate findings, data were collected from a variety of sources. The first source
of data included rubric scores for the four assignments. Using the rubric criteria, faculty
instructors determined each participant’s performance level by reviewing the lesson plans,
viewing the videos, and reading the reflections.

To increase scoring consistency, prior to scoring their individual students, faculty

instructors jointly scored assignments of the participant seeking certification in both
content areas as well as assignments for two additional candidates who were not partic-
ipants in the study. Of the participants, 89.29% (n = 25) completed the first assignment,
and 100% (n = 28) completed the second, third, and fourth assignments. The percentages
of participants assessed at the various performance levels for the rubric’s three criteria,
as participants progressed through the four assignments during the course, are found in
Table 1.

Eighty percent or more of participants were scored as either proficient or developing in

each of the criteria for each of the four lessons. The highest percentages of proficient scores

Table 1. Assignment Rubric Scores

Lesson Plan
Assignment % Proficient % Developing % Beginning % Not Demonstrated
1 57.14 33.33 4.76 4.76
2 67.86 28.57 3.57 −
3 86.21 10.34 3.45 −
4 93.10 6.90 − −
Teaching
Assignment % Proficient % Developing % Beginning % Not Demonstrated
1 53.57 28.57 10.71 7.14
2 55.17 31.03 13.79 −
3 75.86 17.24 − 6.90
4 93.10 6.90 − −
Reflection
Assignment % Proficient % Developing % Beginning % Not Demonstrated
1 64.29 21.43 − 14.29
2 68.97 17.24 13.79 −
3 89.66 6.90 3.45 −
4 96.43 3.57 − −

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 307

Welsh and Schaffer

Table 2. Written Reflection Categorizations by Concern as Percentages

of Participants
Instructional Strategies by Assignment
Concern Assignment One Assignment Two Assignment Three Assignment Four
Self 72.00 42.86 32.14 21.43
Task 24.00 53.57 60.71 35.71
Impact 4.00 3.57 7.14 42.86
Classroom Management by Assignment
Concern Assignment One Assignment Two Assignment Three Assignment Four
Self 80.00 53.57 35.71 21.43
Task 20.00 46.43 53.57 46.43
Impact − − 10.71 32.14
Curriculum Design by Assignment
Concern Assignment One Assignment Two Assignment Three Assignment Four
Self 84.00 50.00 28.57 21.43
Task 16.00 50.00 60.71 42.86
Impact − − 10.71 35.71

were in the reflection. The percentage of proficient scores for all criteria increased between
Assignments 1 and 2 and continued to increase for each subsequent assignment.

Written Reflections
The second source of data was a qualitative analysis of the written reflections of the
assignments. The reflections required participants to address Marzano’s (2003) elements
of effective teaching pedagogy. Through a coding process, the researchers categorized the
reflections for each assignment as representative of one of Fuller’s (Fuller & Bown, 1975)
three types of concern. The percentages of reflections categorized as representing self, task,
and impact concerns in instructional strategies, classroom management, and curriculum
design for each of the four assignments are found in Table 2.

Self concern was most prevalent in the first two assignments, but evidenced in each
of the elements of effective instruction in all four assignments. Task concern peaked in
Assignment 3 in each of the elements. Impact concern was minimally represented in As-
signments 1 through 3 and rose substantially between Assignments 3 and 4.

Qualitative analysis was then used to identify common themes emerging from the
written reflections of the assignments. The written reflections of each assignment were
examined using the constant comparative method (Strauss, 1987). Researchers identified
emerging categories (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996) and from the initial categories refined find-
ings into consolidated themes. The stages (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) of category cod-
ing, refinement of categories, exploration of the relationships across categories, and the
development of understandings of the integrated data helped to identify themes within
the written reflections.

308 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills
Two themes emerged. The first theme, candidate-as-student, was heavily represent-
ed in the first two assignments. Within the candidate-as-student theme, participants
were ego-driven and assignment-driven. Their reflections included descriptions that
highlighted their personal performance in the field experience and focused on meeting
requirements of the assignment rather than the performance of the students they were
teaching.

For example, Bryce (all names are pseudonyms) was clearly focused on himself
when he stated, “I did a very proficient job of verbally interacting with students relat-
ed to both academics and brief casual talk. This allowed me to create a good rapport
with my students. … These positive interactions greatly benefitted me.” He went on
to state, “I was able to address each objective and transition to the next piece of my
lesson.” This statement was indicative of a focus on his ability to cover objectives and
transition rather than students meeting the objectives or smoothly transitioning to the
next activity.

Aaron’s comments were also indicative of the candidate-as-student theme. For exam-
ple, he provided a list of the many instructional strategies he used in his lesson: “In regard
to the use of instructional strategies in my lesson, I incorporated advanced organizers,
cooperative learning, discussions, and note taking.” His reflection did not include how
he implemented these strategies or the impact his actions had on his students. In terms of
classroom management, his comments also reflected the candidate-as-student theme. He
wrote, “I did a very good job of where I placed myself in the classroom and how I moved
around. … When I lectured, I stayed in the front of the classroom where all students could
see me.”

The second theme, candidate-as-teacher, emerged in the final two assignments. Within
this theme, participants were pupil-driven and achievement-driven. In their reflections,
participants provided evidence they were thinking less like college students completing
assignments and more like classroom teachers concerned about student learning. For ex-
ample, Deena described a segment from her lesson as follows:

You can see the group of students that did not get along with each other. It can’t
be seen in the video, but I had to refocus them back on task because they had started to
argue loudly. … I quickly stated that yelling is not appropriate and then asked one of the
students by name to answer the question listed on the sheet. This allowed the students to
refocus on the task at hand.

The reflection of another candidate, Kennedy, included a comment indicative of his

focus on the impact of his teaching when he wrote,

I feel that overall this final lesson was a great step forward as I improved my weak-
nesses from last time and met the ultimate goal of student learning by having students
meet their objective. The evidence to support this claim is the excellent test scores the
students received and the high level of detail and use of examples they wrote in their
homework and classroom activities.

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 309

Welsh and Schaffer
Field Experience Evaluations
Ratings of selected items from the field experience evaluations, completed at the con-
clusion of the experience, provided the third data source. The field experience evalua-
tion included a total of 15 items. For purposes of this research, only the 10 items related
to Marzano’s (2003) effective teaching pedagogy were examined. Three items reflected
instructional strategies, four reflected classroom management, and three reflected cur-
riculum design. The participant enrolled in both courses completed a field experience
evaluation for both courses and had field experience evaluations completed by both facul-
ty instructors. The field experience evaluation ratings of the participants, mentor teachers,
and faculty instructors are presented in Tables 3–5.

Self-assessed ratings were submitted by 100% of participants. Ratings were submitted

by 96.55% of the mentor teachers. Faculty instructors submitted ratings for 100% of the
participants. The vast majority of self-assessments of the participants as well as the ratings
of the mentor teachers and faculty instructors fell in the two highest performance levels.
The mean scores for all items for the three groups ranged from 3.24 to 3.90.

Participants rated themselves highest on the classroom management item related to

implementing routines and procedures. Mentor teachers provided the highest ratings
on this item as well. Faculty instructors gave their highest ratings on the classroom
management item related to demonstrating classroom awareness. Participants rated
themselves lowest on the curriculum design item related to using differing perspectives
to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving.

Table 3. Final Evaluation Ratings: Instructional Strategies Items

The teacher candidate plans instruction that supports every student in meeting
rigorous learning goals.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 67.67 33.33 − − 3.67 0.47
Mentor teachers 75.00 21.43 3.57 − 3.71 0.52
Faculty instructors 24.13 76.86 − − 3.24 0.43
The teacher candidate uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students
to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connection and to build skills
to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 81.48 18.52 − − 3.81 0.39
Mentor teachers 64.29 32.14 3.57 − 3.61 0.56
Faculty instructors 72.41 28.50 − − 3.72 0.45
The teacher candidate understands multiple methods of assessment.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 62.96 37.04 − − 3.63 0.48
Mentor teachers 67.86 28.57 3.57 − 3.70 0.46
Faculty instructors 31.03 68.97 − − 3.28 0.45

310 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills

Table 4. Final Evaluation Ratings: Classroom Management Items

The teacher candidate demonstrates classroom awareness to manage student
behaviors to promote a positive learning environment.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 74.07 22.22 3.70 − 3.70 0.53
Mentor teachers 67.86 32.14 − − 3.68 0.47
Faculty instructors 89.66 10.34 − − 3.90 0.30
The teacher candidate uses instructional transitions to manage student behaviors to
promote a positive learning environment.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 74.07 22.22 3.70 − 3.70 0.53
Mentor teachers 71.43 25.00 3.57 − 3.68 0.54
Faculty instructors 37.93 62.07 − − 3.38 0.49
The teacher candidate exhibits a teacher presence to manage student behaviors to
promote a positive learning environment.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 77.78 22.22 − − 3.78 0.42
Mentor teachers 64.29 32.14 3.57 − 3.61 0.56
Faculty instructors 79.31 20.69 − − 3.79 0.41
The teacher candidate implements routines and procedures to manage student
behaviors to promote a positive learning environment.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 85.19 14.81 − − 3.85 0.36
Mentor teachers 75.00 25.00 − − 3.75 0.43
Faculty instructors 68.97 31.03 − − 3.69 0.46

Mentor teachers gave their lowest ratings to the instructional strategies item related
to using a variety of instructional strategies, the classroom management item related
to exhibiting a teacher presence, and the curriculum design item related to creating
learning experiences that make the discipline accessible and meaningful for students.
Faculty instructors gave their lowest ratings to the instructional strategies item related
to planning.

Limitations
Several factors presented limitations to this research. First, participants self-selected
the video segments submitted for the assignments. It is possible the submitted segments
were not representative of the remainder of the lessons or the entire teaching perfor-
mance. Second, the early field experiences examined here occurred immediately prior to
student teaching. Field experiences can occur at earlier points in a preparation program
and as such may result in different outcomes than those noted in this study. Finally, par-
ticipants were limited to teacher candidates in two secondary education fields and two
content areas.

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 311

Welsh and Schaffer

Table 5. Final Evaluation Ratings: Curriculum Design Items

The teacher candidate creates learning experiences that make the discipline accessible
and meaningful for students to assure mastery of the content.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 77.78 22.22 − − 3.78 0.42
Mentor teachers 60.71 39.29 − − 3.61 0.49
Faculty instructors 72.41 28.50 − − 3.72 0.45
The teacher candidate integrates content standards and/or professional standards
within instruction.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 85.19 11.11 3.70 − 3.81 0.47
Mentor teachers 71.43 28.57 − − 3.71 0.45
Faculty instructors 37.93 62.07 − − 3.38 0.49
The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical
thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local
and global issues.
Evaluator % Level 4 % Level 3 % Level 2 % Level 1 Mean SD
Participants 51.85 44.44 3.70 − 3.48 0.57
Mentor teachers 71.43 25.00 3.57 − 3.68 0.54
Faculty instructors 66.52 34.48 − − 3.66 0.48

Discussion
Teacher candidates who participated in this study were able to develop effective teach-
ing skills during an early field experience. The findings related to this are quite strong,
given this development was noted by the mentor teachers, the faculty instructors, and the
teacher candidates.

Mentor Teacher Perspective

While there is a single data source from mentor teachers, it is significant in that it rep-
resents the evaluations of the professionals who spent the greatest amount of time working
with and observing the candidates. The final evaluation ratings given by the mentor teach-
ers provide evidence the candidates had developed teaching skills indicative of the upper
two performance levels in all three effective teaching areas. These ratings were substanti-
ated by the similar patterns in the final evaluation ratings given by the faculty instructors
and candidates.

Faculty Instructor Perspective

Based on the assignment scores, faculty instructors noted a steady improvement in
the candidates’ teaching skills in all three of Marzano’s (2003) areas of effective teaching.
The rubric criteria would suggest that as candidates moved from the lower to higher per-
formance levels, they were developing their abilities to use instructional and classroom
management strategies to engage more students and were presenting the curriculum on
higher cognitive levels.

312 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills
The consistent increase in performance levels between each assignment provides evi-
dence that candidates were developing their teaching skills throughout the entirety of the
practicum. Growth occurred between each assignment, but there was less growth between
the first and second assignments as compared to the growth between the second and third
assignments.

The field experience evaluation ratings of the faculty instructors provide additional
evidence that candidates were demonstrating effective teaching skills. Although mean
scores for all items on the final evaluation were high across the three groups of evaluators,
faculty ratings were markedly lower on the instructional strategy items related to planning
instruction to meet rigorous goals and the use of multiple methods of assessment. This
was also the case for the classroom management item related to using transitions and the
curriculum design item related to integrating standards. This may indicate that the devel-
opment of these particular teaching skills was neither as strong nor as consistent as that of
other skills.

Teacher Candidate Perspective

The perspective of the candidates offers additional evidence of the development of
teaching skills during the field experience and provides perhaps the most intriguing find-
ings. Evidence from the perspective of the candidates suggests the development of effec-
tive teaching skills within early field experiences can be described as an intersection of the
Fuller (Fuller & Bown, 1975) and Marzano (2003) models.

The candidates did more than simply accumulate additional teaching skills within an
early field experience. The analysis of the written reflections indicates candidates were deep-
ening their teaching skills, moving from candidates-as-students to candidates-as-teachers.
They were gradually assuming more responsibility for teaching and solidifying their iden-
tity as teachers as they progressed through the field experience.

As they moved through the early field experience, task and impact concerns according
to the Fuller model increased in each of Marzano’s (2003) elements of effective teaching.
The increase of task and impact concerns and the emergence of the pupil- and achieve-
ment-driven themes provide evidence that candidates deepened their teaching skills. They
did so in a manner, according to Marzano et al. (2001), likely to positively impact stu-
dent achievement as well as advance their identity as teachers. The continued presence
of self-concern throughout the experience is also notable. Continued self concern may not
necessarily equate to a lack of progression or a thwarted development of teaching skills.
Perhaps the ongoing presence of self concern signals that candidates continued to recog-
nize the importance of student–teacher relationships as they relate to effective teaching.

Given the important role relationships play in effective classroom management

(Marzano, 2003), the presence of self concern may indicate that candidates were develop-
ing the rapport and connections critical to effective teaching. For example, Chris’s reflec-
tion in his fourth assignment addressed his relationship with his students and connect-
ed it to instruction: “The students feel comfortable around me when they have questions
and are engaged in the activities I present to them.” Another candidate, Mary, explained,

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 313

Welsh and Schaffer
“Establishing a relationship with students creates trust and the students feel that they have
a responsibility to meet the objectives set by that trusted teacher.”

Implications for Further Study

The optimal length of early field experiences is an area warranting further research.
The increased assignment scores given by the faculty and the change in concerns reflected
by candidates suggest the length of early field experiences is an important factor related
to the development of the candidates’ teaching skills. This is similar to what Marzano,
Pickering, & Pollock (2001) found in extensive research of inservice teachers.

Additional investigation regarding the involvement of faculty is also needed. The some-
what limited level of involvement of faculty instructors in the field experience examined in
this study may have influenced their perspectives. As a result, their final evaluations relied
heavily on information from candidates and mentor teachers and the faculty instructors’ re-
view of lesson plans, video recordings, and reflections of the candidates. This was a narrow
view when compared to that of the teacher candidates and mentor teachers, who based their
final evaluations on firsthand observations of the entire 50 hours of the field experience.

Finally, a more thorough analysis of candidates’ self concern could offer insight regard-
ing the origins of these concerns. Do they originate, as Fuller and Bown (1975) suggested,
from an egocentric need for the candidates to be liked, or, as Marzano (2003) advocated, from
a conscious fostering of relationships as a means to improve their effectiveness as teachers?

Conclusion
Early field experiences may make it feasible for educator preparation programs to an-
swer the demands to do more, do it earlier, and do it in less time. However, implementing
early field experiences does not necessarily mean this work can be accomplished with
fewer resources. Sustaining and supporting faculty involvement in field experiences will
remain challenging for educator preparation programs and require resources to recognize
and compensate faculty for their involvement. Time, as a finite resource, also presents a
dilemma in regards to teacher candidates. When more time is allocated to field experienc-
es, there is less time for candidates to engage in other important learning activities such as
classroom instruction and research.

However, programs may be more likely to access necessary resources when equipped
with evidence outlining the potential value of early field experiences. Evidence should
highlight the opportunity for educator preparation programs to accelerate the develop-
ment of effective teaching skills in their teacher candidates. Given adequate time and sup-
port, candidates can strengthen skills related to instructional strategies, classroom man-
agement, and curriculum design during early field experiences. As a result, candidates
will be better prepared for student teaching.

References
American Federation of Teachers. (2012). Raising the bar: Aligning and elevating teacher prepa-
ration and the teaching profession. Retrieved from http://www.highered.nysed.gov/
raisingthebar2012.pdf

314 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills
Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2002). Professors and the practicum: Involvement of university
faculty in preservice practicum supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 6–19.
Burn, K., Hagger, H., Mutton, T., & Everton, T. (2000). Beyond concerns with self: The
sophisticated thinking of beginning student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching,
26(3), 259–278.
Campbell, M. R., & Thompson, L. K. (2007). Perceived concerns of preservice music ed-
ucation teachers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(2),
162–176. doi:10.1177/002242940705500206
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research
strategies. London, England: Sage.
Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A re-examination of
Fuller’s concerns-based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education,
19(5), 465–482.
Cooper, J. E., & He, Y. (2012). Journey of “becoming”: Secondary teacher candidates’ con-
cerns and struggles. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1), 89–108.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise: Transforming
educator preparation and entry into the profession. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/
Documents/2012/Our%20Responsibility%20Our%20Promise_2012.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). InTASC model core teaching standards and learning
progressions for teachers 1.0: A resource for ongoing teacher development. Retrieved from http://
www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standards_and_
Learning_Progressions_for_Teachers_10.html
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. doi:10.1177/0022487109348024
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hammerness, K. (with Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman,
L.). (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond &
J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and
be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, P., & Moore Kent, A. (2006). A collaborative effort: Bridging theory and practice
in pre-service preparation. The New Educator, 2(4), 277–288.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American
Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226.
Fuller, F. F., & Bown, O. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education:
The 74th yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education (Part 2, pp. 25–52).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gore, J. M., & Zeichner, K. M. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher
education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(2), 119–136.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 315

Welsh and Schaffer
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical
guide. London, England: Falmer Press.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for
the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.
org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher edu-
cation through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Retrieved
from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Student teaching in the United States. Retrieved
from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Student_Teaching_United_States_NCTQ_Report
National Education Association. (2011). Transforming teaching: Connecting professional
responsibility with student learning. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/
Transformingteaching2012.pdf
Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers:
Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching, 11(1), 95–116. doi:10.1080/
1354060042000337110
Pigge, F. L., & Marso, R. N. (1997). A seven-year longitudinal multi-factor assessment
of teaching concerns development through preparation and early years of teaching.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(2), 225–235.
Pilcher, L. C., & Steele, D. C. (2005). Teach For America and regularly certified teachers:
Teacher efficacy, teaching concerns, career aspirations, and teaching effectiveness. In
J. R. Dangel & E. M. Guyton (Eds.), Research on alternative and non-traditional educa-
tion: Teacher education yearbook XIII (pp. 123–141). Lanham, MD: Association of Teacher
Educators.
Powell, S. R. (2014). Examining preservice music teacher concerns in peer- and field-teaching
settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61(4), 361–378. doi:10.1177/0022429413508408
Powell, S. R. (2016). The influence of video reflection on preservice music teachers’ con-
cerns in peer- and field-teaching settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(4),
487–507. doi:10.1177/0022429415620619
Reeves, C. K., & Kazelskis, R. (1985). Concerns of preservice and inservice teachers. Journal
of Educational Research, 78(5), 267–271.
Sawchuk, S. (2013). Teacher ed. is facing higher bar. Education Week, 32(36), 2.
Scherff, L., & Singer, N. R. (2012). The preservice teachers are watching: Framing and re-
framing the field experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 263–272.
Schaffer, C. (2012). Urban immersion: Working to dispel the myths of urban schools and
preparing teachers to work with diverse and economically disadvantaged students.
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin: International Journal for Professional Educators, 78(2), 42–49.
Shulock, N., & Koester, J. (2014). Maximizing resources for student success by reducing time-
and credits-to-degree. Washington, DC: HCM Strategist, LLC.
Singer, N. R., Catapano, S., & Huisman, S. (2010). The university’s role in preparing teachers
for urban schools. Teaching Education, 21(2), 119–130.

316 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Weinstein, C. S. (1998). “I want to be nice, but I have to be mean”: Exploring prospective
teachers’ conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(2), 153–163.
Williamson, A. M., Mears, A., & Bustos, C. (2015). Reflection tools in teacher education
classes: An analysis of implementation in online, hybrid, and traditional environ-
ments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 138–143.
Wyss, V. L., Siebert, C. J., & Dowling, K. A. (2012). Structuring effective practicum experi-
ences for pre-service teachers. Education, 132(3), 600–606.
Young, S. (2012). Concerns of preservice physical education teachers participating in an
early field experience. Physical Educator, 69(2), 119–135.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experi-
ences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1–2), 89–99.

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 317

Welsh and Schaffer

Appendix A. Assignment Rubric

Proficient Developing Beginning Not Demonstrated

Lesson Contains all elements Contains all elements Missing one element Missing more than
Plan & provides detail but would require more & would require one element & would
(15 pts) needed for someone detail for someone else considerably more require considerably
else to teach class if to teach class if instructor detail for someone more detail for some-
instructor was absent. was absent. else to teach class if one else to teach class if
instructor was absent. instructor was absent.
Teaching Candidate: (a) uses Candidate: (a) uses Candidate: (a) engag- Candidate: (a) is unable
(40 pts) instructional strategies either instructional es some students & to maintain the engage-
& classroom man- strategies or classroom maintains compliance ment & compliance of
agement strategies to management strate- for most students; students; (b) misrep-
engage all students; gies to engage most (b) presents content resents or presents
(b) presents content students; (b) presents at a single cognitive inaccurate content; (c)
at more than two content at two cognitive level; (c) uses a single does not assess student
cognitive levels; (c) levels; (c) uses two formative assessment learning.
uses more than two formative assessments which aligns to the
formative assessments which each align to the objective.
which each align to objective.
the objective.
Reflection Includes: (a) multiple Includes: (a) details Includes: (a) details Includes: (a) an incom-
(20 pts) details of student & of student & teacher of either student or plete description; (b)
teacher actions; (b) actions; (b) specific teacher actions; (b) no Marzano elements;
specific evidence from evidence from the Marzano elements, (c) neither strengths or
the lesson of all three lesson of one-two but includes no a goal.
Marzano elements; (c) Marzano elements; specific evidence
strengths, a goal, & (c) strengths, a goal, & from the lesson; (c)
plan to achieve goal. plan to achieve goal. strengths & a goal.

318 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills

Appendix B. Field Experience Final Evaluation

Instructional Strategies Items

The teacher candidate plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals. The
candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Plans prior to teaching & • Plans prior to teaching • Plans prior to • Plans prior to
sequences strategies linked to & sequences strategies teaching & sequences teaching
learning objective(s) linked to learning strategies linked to
• Uses data from assessments & objective(s) learning objective(s)
student performance to inform • Uses knowledge of
planning & make adjustments students to drive
to instruction instruction
The teacher candidate uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students to develop deep under-
standing of content areas and their connection and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.
The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Poses higher-level questions to • Poses higher-level • Poses questions • Poses
elicit student thinking questions to elicit • Provides opportu- questions
• Models strategies to show how student thinking nities to practice
students can express under- • Models strategies to objective(s)
standing of concepts show how students can
• Provides opportunities to express understanding
practice objective(s) of concepts
• Monitors discussion & pro- • Provides opportunities
vides clarification/adjustment to practice objective(s)
to instruction
The teacher candidate understands multiple methods of assessment. The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Implements assessments to • Implements assess- • Implements assess- • Implements as-
measure objective(s) ments to match objec- ments that do not sessments that
• Implements assessments to tive(s) match objective(s) do not match
evaluate student learning & in- • Implements assess- • Reviews assessment objective(s)
fluence instructional decisions ments to evaluate stu- results
• Uses assessments to engage dent learning & make
students in their growth & instructional decisions
decision making
• Uses assessments to engage
students in their growth &
decision making

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 319

Welsh and Schaffer

Classroom Management Items

The teacher candidate demonstrates classroom awareness to manage student behaviors to promote a positive
learning environment. The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Demonstrates awareness of • Demonstrates awareness • Demonstrates aware- • Teaches despite
classroom environment of classroom environment ness of classroom classroom
• Uses proximity control • Uses proximity control environment environment
• Uses 4 quadrants of room • Uses some quadrants of
• Scans room & makes eye room
contact with students • Scans room & makes eye
• Uses appropriate wait time contact with students
• Addresses sources of • Uses wait time
disruption
The teacher candidate uses instructional transitions to manage student behaviors to promote a positive learn-
ing environment. The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Uses transitions to mini- • Uses transitions to • Uses transitions • Plans for tran-
mize behavioral problems & minimize behavioral • Provides introductions sitions
maximize instruction problems & maximize & closures in lessons
• Provides introductions & instruction
closures in lessons • Provides introductions &
• Effectively & efficiently uses closures in lessons
transitions • Uses transitions
The teacher candidate exhibits a teacher presence to manage student behaviors to promote a positive learning
environment. The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Maintains attention • Maintains attention • Asks for attention • Teaches without
• Uses voice variation & proj- • Teaches without attempting • Uses voice variation & attempting to
ects his/her voice to gain attention projects his/her voice gain attention
• Responses are confident, • Uses voice variation &
controlled & account for projects his/her voice
needs of individual students • Responses are confident,
• Provides verbal & non-verbal controlled & account
signals to reinforce behavior for needs of individual
students
The teacher candidate implements routines and procedures to manage student behaviors to promote a
positive learning environment. The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Communicates appropriate • Communicates appro- • Communicates task & • Communicates
task & behavior expectations priate task & behavior behavior expectations expectations
• Monitors behavior expectations
• Reinforces expectations • Monitors behavior
• Anticipates distractions & • Reinforces expectations
adjusts instruction

320 • The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017

 Developing Effective Teaching Skills

Curriculum Design Items

The teacher candidate creates learning experiences that make the discipline accessible and meaningful for
students to assure mastery of the content. The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Articulates clear & appro- • Articulates clear & ap- • Articulates vocabulary • Articulates content
priate vocabulary propriate vocabulary in general language in general language
• Models academic language • Models academic • Uses representations
& provides opportunities language & provides & explanations to
to demonstrate compre- opportunities to capture key ideas
hension demonstrate compre-
• Communicates accurate hension
concepts & answers • Communicates
• Uses multiple representa- accurate concepts &
tions answers
• Adjusts instruction • Uses multiple repre-
sentations
The teacher candidate integrates content standards and/or professional standards within instruction.
The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Plans objective(s) aligned & • Plans objective(s) • Plans objective(s) • Plans objective(s)
connected to the appropri- aligned & connected aligned & connected aligned & connect-
ate standards to appropriate to the appropriate ed to appropriate
• States and/or visually standards standards standards
displays objective(s) • States and/or visually • States and/or visually
• Refers to objective(s) displays objective(s) displays objective(s)
throughout lesson • Refers to objective(s)
• Monitors & assesses throughout lesson
learning in relation to
objective(s)
The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity and
collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues. The candidate:
4 3 2 1
• Implements learning activ- • Implements learning • Implements learning • Plans for
ities to engage students in activities to engage activities to engage collaborative
critical thinking, creativity students in critical students in collabo- learning activities
or collaborative problem thinking or collabora- ration
solving tive problem solving
• Engages students with • Introduces content
content from more than from multiple
one perspective perspectives
• Supports students in mak-
ing connections & applying
content across disciplines

The Educational Forum • Volume 81 • 2017 • 321