Shared Classroom Experiences

1. Shared Classroom Experiences 2012 NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program Conference Dr. Jeff Carpenter, Elon University Elon Noyce Scholars Program PI Coordinator of Secondary and K-12 Teacher Education Programs

2. Context • Elon – ~5000 students, private, liberal arts university in Elon, NC • Fall semester, senior year teaching methods course • EDU 424 Methods of Teaching Middle & Secondary Science • EDU 422 Methods of Teaching Middle & Secondary Math • Before: individual 50-hour field placement including teaching responsibilities (3rd field placement in sequence) • Now: • Same individual placement PLUS • Shared classroom experiences

3. Why bother? Our own questions • What happens when students are in field experiences? • How can we talk productively about field experiences in a teaching methods course? • How can we prepare teachers to effectively collaborate?

4. More why bother? External validation of our curiosity • National Research Council (2010) report – “clinical experiences” one of three most important elements of teacher prep • NCATE & AACTE (2010) concur • Research does not clearly define what particular kinds of field experiences are most beneficial (Boyd et al., 2007; Clift & Brady, 2005)

5. Some literature on classroom experiences • Teacher candidates do not always know what to look for in their clinical experiences (e.g., Sherf & Singer, 2012). • Importance of planned & guided field experiences (Clift & Brady, 2005) • Discrepancies between emphases of cooperating teachers & teacher education programs (e.g., Frykholm, 1996, 1999). • Field experiences increasingly connected to and embedded within methods courses (Clift & Brady, 2005)

6. Shared Classroom Experiences • Methods course pairs with local master teacher • Entire methods course (5-10 teacher candidates + instructor) together observes 2-3 lessons in the master teachers classroom • Semi-guided observation • Lessons debriefed with master teacher • Starts w/ master teacher, then moves to student questions

7. Shared Classroom Experiences • Teacher candidates design & implement a lesson in the same classroom • topic provided by master teacher • Lesson debriefed with master teacher • starts w/ students self-critique

8. Why this design? • Entire methods course (5-10 teacher candidates + instructor) together observes 2-3 lessons in the master teachers classroom • Lessons debriefed with master teacher • To make transparent teacher planning processes, in-lesson thinking and decision making, and reflection

9. Challenges of learning how to teach • Lortie (1975) – apprenticeship of observation – understanding of teaching based on experiences as a student • Labaree (2004) – what teachers do vs. why they do it • Wieman yesterday - Expert teacher - mental organizational framework

10. Why this design? • Teacher candidates design & implement a lesson in the same classroom • Lesson debriefed with master teacher • To make transparent teacher candidates planning processes, in-lesson thinking and decision making, and reflection • To provide guided practice in collaboration

11. Challenges of collaboration • Profession traditionally characterized by isolation (Lortie, 1975) • Failure to move beyond generalities & polite talk (e.g., Bezzina 2007; Russo & Beyerbach, 2001) • Conflict avoidance (Chokshi & Fernandez, 2004)

12. Why this design • Methods course pairs with local master teacher • Builds TEP relationship w/ more teachers • More reciprocal relationship w/ teachers • Methods course ideas validated / corroborated by “real” teachers • Hohenbrink et al. (1997) – development of appreciation for complimentary knowledge

13. Challenges of relationships w/ master teachers • Competing / contradictory beliefs and/or actions of K-12 teachers and university faculty • Fragile partnership between educators not accustomed to public self-examination, professional debate surrounding practice (Clift & Brady, 2005)

14. What has happened thus far … • Fall 2010 – Math methods course taught by Janice Richardson • Fall 2011 – Math methods courses + two additional math methods courses • Generally positive response: • Instructors: “My students learned more from this experience than they would have in a traditional method's class school placement” (Celia) • Teacher candidates: value opportunity to “get in the [teacher’s] mind” (Tim) and “talk to [the teacher] about why he planned the lesson how he did.” (John) • Master Teachers – all expressed willingness to participate again in Fall 2012

15. SCE as text • Teacher candidates connected university classroom discourse to shared classroom experiences • e.g., referencing examples of differentiation, formative assessment techniques, instructional techniques, classroom management strategies • Connections in methods courses • Connections in other courses

16. Participant Critiques Instructors • “By midterm, however, they really had moved on and I didn’t bring it up much.”   • “Heck, I’d like to do it with several different teachers as part of the class, instead of just one.” Teacher Candidates • Imperfections in the observed lessons • “There were too many teachers in the classroom … it had this cramped, vulture type feeling.”

17. Moving forward • More Fall 2012 sections • Modeling analysis of student work w/ samples generated from co-designed and taught lesson

18. References • American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2010). The clinical preparation of teachers: A policy brief. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/Research-Policy/Clinical-Preparation/the-clinical-preparation-of-teachers-a-policy-brief.html. • Bezzina, C. (2006). The road less traveled: Professional communities in secondary schools. Theory into Practice, 45(2), 159-167 • Boyd, D., Goldhaber, D., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17 (1), 45-68). • Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2004). Challenges to importing Japanese lesson study: Concerns, misconceptions, and nuances. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 520-525. • Clift, R.T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith and K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report ofthe AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. • Frykholm, J. (1999). Assessment in mathematics teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 34 (4), 244-258. • Hohenbrink, J., Johnston, M., Westhoven, L. (1997). Collaborative teaching of a social studies methods course: Intimidation and Change. Journal of Teacher Education, 48 (4), 293-300. • Labaree, D.F. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. • Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. • National Research Council (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882. • Russo, P., & Beyerbach, B. (2001). Moving from polite talk to candid conversation: Infusing foundations into a professional development project. Educational Foundations, 15(2), 71-90. • Scherff, L. & Singer, N.R. (2012). The preservice teachers are watching: Framing and reframing the field experience. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 263-272.