Appendix A Video-Blogging Resources

Blogging Tool

• 
  Blogger: http://www.blogger.com
  
• 
  LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/
  
• 
  WordPress: http://wordpress.org/
  

• 
  Microsoft Movie Maker: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/moviemaker2.mspx
  
• 
  Microsoft Photo Story: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/photostory/default.mspx
  
• 
  Apple iMovie: http://www.apple.com/ilife/imovie/
  

• 
  Freeplay Music: http://freeplaymusic.com/
  
• 
  A1 Free Sound Effects: http://www.a1freesoundeffects.com/noflash.htm
  
• 
  Absolute Sound Effects Archive: http://www.grsites.com/sounds/
  

• 
  Microsoft Clip Art Center: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/clipart/default.aspx
  
• 
  FreeFoto: http://www.freefoto.com/index.jsp
  
• 
  Pictures for Learning: http://www.pics4learning.com/
  

Hui-Yin Hsu (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is Assistant Professor of Teacher Education Program in the School of Education at New York Institute of Technology, where she coordinates the College Reading Placement Program. Hui-Yin concentrates her research interests on using new technologies to enhance language and literacy learning. Her professional interests have been in the area of reading and diversity as well as New Literacies of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Her other interests include explorations of the role of ICTs in teacher education, particularly in curriculum artistic expression. Her work has appeared in Tech Trend and International Journal of Education & Development Using ICT . She can be reached at hhsu02@nyit.edu. Her web site address is http://iris.nyit.edu/~hhsu02.

Brock University

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
This paper discusses an inquiry approach of two new faculty members in their first and second year in a preservice department. The two faculty members’ respective roles and coordination of methodology courses have shaped their understanding of the reconceptualizing of a teacher education program and the tensions each faces between their teaching, leadership, and scholarship. A collaborative self-study through writing and formal conversations captures the coparticipants’ induction experiences of teaching, leading, and engaging in scholarly practice within a learning faculty.

Introduction and Background

This paper explores the personal narrative approach that we have adopted to assist in the facilitation of our constructivist collaboration as two tenure-track assistant professors. Both new-hires to the faculty two years ago, we discovered the similarities in our respective professional backgrounds as well as the responsibilities bestowed upon us. Our respective positions are as Coordinator of Methods in elementary education (Darlene) and Coordinator of Methods in secondary education (Lorenzo) in both the concurrent (combined Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education undergraduate degree) and consecutive (one-year, post-graduate Bachelor of Education degree) preservice programs at a mid-sized university located in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Approximately 650 students were enrolled in the methods courses for 2006-2007. Our positions as coordinators of the methods courses have encouraged us to look closely at our instruction and programming. We collaborated with one another and our respective methods teams (consisting primarily of part-time instructors) in both our induction year and in the second year of our practice. As new hires we were informed that both methods courses in the consecutive programs needed updating and restructuring. As well, in the concurrent program Darlene was commissioned to design a new course and outline while Lorenzo redesigned the concurrent course in the secondary program.

The overarching goal of the preservice department in the immediate future is to further align concurrent and consecutive methods courses in order to obtain consistency within the two streams and to provide uniformity in both programs through a foundational course in methods instruction. The methods course in the consecutive program is distinguished as the faculty’s “umbrella” course since it is connected to an advisory cohort model in which all faculty and part-time instructors in the preservice department are involved. Consequently, our induction into the faculty in the first year was laden with our vision and work in restructuring the methods courses, which connected to the overall faculty program. Our journey over two years consisted of critically monitoring the progress of the implemented changes; being diligent in consulting with other instructors for their thoughts; and negotiating the various tensions inherent in managing these responsibilities to program, while remaining faithful to our engagement in and thoughtful response to research and scholarship.

We considered our responsibility earnestly and immediately looked towards one another for support and collaboration to, as Cochran-Smith (2005) suggests, “build on [the] most promising aspects [of program], and work with others to change the terms of the debate about preparing teachers” (p. 3). Thus, rather than seeing ourselves as “change agents” to the learning faculty – a faculty that places learning for both students and faculty at its center—we viewed ourselves as collaborative co-agents. As co-agents our narrative of induction to the faculty could inform not only our practice and the practices of the teams we lead. but also the practices of the learning faculty. We looked at this as reconceptualizing program. We explored the research question: how will our collaborative self-study of our induction into the learning faculty inform our teacher education practices of teaching, leading, and engaging in scholarship?

We understand that our own induction into the faculty is far from over. Throughout our correspondence we shared the distinct challenges in the way we and our colleagues responded to change and posed to one another some key questions to elicit fruitful responses as critical friends and colleagues. In the learning faculty we are both learners and teachers. Bridging these two worlds can be viewed, as Loughran (2006) aptly stated, as “a pedagogy of teacher education portrayed through the interdependent worlds of teaching about teaching and learning about teaching” (p. 174). In the world between teaching and learning, we admittedly have found ourselves in the margins of teaching and scholarship. We embraced our collaborative self-study as an example of our own scholarship on teaching, in an effort to shape our pedagogy of teacher education “which, of itself, must be dynamic, flexible and responsive to the needs, concerns, issues, and practices of participants (both students and teachers of teaching)” (Loughran, 2006, p. 174).

Methodology

Our collaborative and constructive dialogue positioned us as active participants in our induction experiences as novice professors. By comparison, we were very much like the beginning teachers we study (Knowles & Cole, 1994). As we shared our experiences both in written form and in conversational meetings, it was clear that many of the same struggles beginning teachers experience during their induction, including becoming acclimatized to school culture (Linton, Eberhard, Reinhardt-Mundragon, & Stottlemyer, 2000), functioning in survival mode (Moir, 1999; Russell & McPherson, 2001), managing sustained professional development (Johnson & Kardos, 2002), and coping with behavioral changes during the induction years (Barakett & Cleghorn, 2000), greatly resembled our own. We viewed our education in our induction year as a growth or maturity (Dewey, 1938) that informed how we co-constructed our teaching and research practice. The theoretical framework of this study is founded upon a narrative inquiry (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) approach; that is, we studied our experiences as new professors through our shared stories of induction. This collaborative self-study offers insight into our respective teaching and research positions and how we learn from the other (Beck, Freese, & Kosnik, 2004).

The method of this study consisted of a structured series of meetings and dialogues (both written and oral) between the two of us as co-agents that began in September 2005, the second month of our hiring, and which continued throughout our second year to June 2007. We met monthly to discuss course instruction and resource implementation in both methodology classes. Conversations were both constant and often sporadic and later written as field texts. Written letters were exchanged and reflected the struggles and successes in our respective courses. The letters, field notes, and meetings were subject to a systematic coding process that identified discrete concepts and their respective properties and dimensions. Codes were clustered into code phrases before being assigned labels to represent concepts. Using the constant comparison method, the various concepts were grouped to formulate categories. Codes and categories were compared for both common themes and relationships between them (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Categories were modified and revamped to reflect the emerging themes as the data were collected. Categories from our initial induction year guided our responses during the second year. Five categories emerged and are listed according to the following headings: mirror image, coordinators and collaborators in a learning faculty, critical reflection through letters and dialogue, reconceptualizing program, and collective retrospection and sustaining the link.
Discussion and Findings

Mirror Image

Our occupational histories and academic preparation are conspicuously similar. We

arrived at the doorstep of academia at precisely the same time, profited from classroom teaching and leadership positions as school administrators, assumed counseling roles for teacher candidates, were delegated teaching assignments across the concurrent and consecutive programs, and were commissioned to reconceptualize the umbrella course for the preservice education program--all of this, evidently, while actively participating in our own induction. Lorenzo wrote, in an initial correspondence, that

The consolation exists that I am not alone here – that a colleague with a mirrored professional and scholarly past has also accepted the challenge, albeit from an elementary panel perspective. (October 17, 2005)

In retrospect of our collective narrative thus far, our coterminous experiences have provided glimpses into each other’s trials, tribulations, and triumphs. More specifically, our narrative journeys have contributed to a vision of our roles as beginning professors, new advisors to teacher candidates, and young researchers that embraced the culture of scholarship espoused by the faculty of education. It is of little wonder that Lorenzo reflected,

It seems that what I need to be doing in the near future is very similar to what you have already done – that being an overhaul of sorts of the concurrent course. I believe too that your focus will be on critically examining the consecutive methods course – the process I had the pleasure of engaging in this past summer. Once again, our tasks, like our backgrounds, present themselves in a mirror image. (December 7, 2005)

We took comfort in our constructive approach to redesigning methods as a program of study with a focus on student learning and in our carving a niche as leaders of program. Darlene’s reply is especially noteworthy:

I think that by both you and me teaching the concurrent and the consecutive programs, we also have an insight that not many others have. Others can “talk” about the programs and try and understand the ones they don’t teach in; we have first-hand teaching experience in both and we have an intrinsic sense of how each program runs, how each is the same and/or different from the other. (December 8, 2005)

The discourse throughout the written exchanges and conversations pointed to a heightened sensitivity and subsequent awareness of accounting for our mirrored past and how we were exercising our strengths to make significant contributions as first-year faculty. The task was both challenging and sustaining.

Our mirrored objectives evolved from professional discussions and critical reflection to a profound understanding of our professional relationship within this common experience.

We have, as we have already established, mirrored objectives. Because of this it forces me to critically reflect on a number of levels. I list them here:

• 
  Your situation as a faculty instructor and leader of program
  
• 
  How you go about making sense of what can be conflicting and competing tensions within these roles
  
• 
  How I respond both initially and then reflectively upon your perceptions and actions given all of the above
  
• 
  Then there is my circumstance which is similar to yours
  
• 
  How I respond in reflection and action
  
• 
  How you perceive my reflections and actions in your thoughts and then written commentaries. (Lorenzo, February 21, 2006)
  

Simultaneously, as we were in the midst of reconceptualizing program, we were also introduced to the concept of the learning faculty by the Dean of Education. To begin to understand the concept of a learning faculty, the new aim was to define the characteristics of graduates in our Faculty of Education programs. This resonated with what we both were grappling with in our new positions as Methods Coordinators in the preservice department. In fact, it was suggested that, “the characteristics we wish our graduates to have must form the basis for developing future curricula” (Heap, 2005, p. 5). Darlene hinted at developing a consistency in curricula while she endeavored to make sense of our positions as co-agents:

I wonder if you felt the same, coming into your new position of how to teach your sections of methods and the autonomy that you may/may not feel you have? A more pressing question and one which I am so happy to explore further with you, is: how can our two positions as coordinators of the methods courses be a collaborative working relationship towards a comprehensive learning faculty [that] bridges the elementary and secondary panels of education? …Which also bridges the concurrent and consecutive programs...Which also informs other professors’ subject-specific courses in our faculty of theories and methods that are integrated throughout?...If we begin to look at these questions further and devise some key and common characteristics or principles of our experiences in being coordinators of the methods course, which is also the “umbrella course” of the program, I think we will begin to accumulate rich sources of information about the distinctive features of our leaning faculty and how you and I are, in actuality, “holders of the key” of what it means to be in this educational community. (Darlene, October 17, 2005)

Indeed, we began to feel that we were “holders of the key.” Yet, with the new premise of the learning faculty, we also came to understand, in our meetings and through our personal and shared writing narratives, that we were not alone in reconceptualizing program in the learning faculty. Admittedly, our collaboration led us to respect individuality, as Lorenzo responded.

While our response to our respective challenges remain our own, the process by which we arrive at certain decisions can in fact be based on constructive, engaging, professional and personal dialogue. It is an image or means of collaboration that does not force us to sacrifice our individuality…What I am discovering is this collaborative process with you [Darlene] is a means to address the paradox – that being the self-affirmation of my own capacities – and what I bring to the role in a collaborative context through genuine dialogue. The process is enlightening me to the fact that our differences are indeed what make us the same. (October 17, 2005)

It was not long before we delved further into curriculum issues to look beyond our challenging roles as coordinators of the umbrella course and to focus specifically on learning outcomes and how we were learning ourselves through this process. Lorenzo wrote

I would like to share, and possibly before Christmas, the course outlines and lecture materials for the respective courses that we have already revised. I believe that I would have a considerable amount to learn from the theoretical-based content that you have implemented.... My collaboration with you is a constant reminder that our decisions will have a direct ripple effect on other instructors and faculty. (December 7, 2005)

Darlene responded

I want to comment on your notion of the revisions we make to the ripple effect that will cause others to reframe their own work. I think you have hit the nail straight on here. This is what the matter is indeed. How do we remain true to our own notions of teacher education to what others [part-time methods instructors] deem important? We know for certain that others will not welcome all changes, but is that part of our own egos we need to put aside, and/or another learning experience in our leadership roles? (January 23, 2006)

The shift from focusing our roles as change agents to focusing on how our learning might impact the culture at our faculty took form in our continued collaboration and coordination of methods. This shift echoed what Barr and Tagg (1995) suggested is a result of powerful learning environments in a learning faculty. Thus, as Lorenzo suggested collaborating with Darlene to include theory with practice, Darlene realized that the focus on learning should not interfere with ego of teaching or leadership roles at the faculty.

The role of leadership was an ongoing theme that contributed to our coordination and collaboration in the development and understanding of what it meant to be in a learning faculty. When Darlene had a very successful methods team meeting, she wrote to Lorenzo,

I have to share with you the meeting that I had with my methods team…. Everyone seemed so willing, eager, and appreciative that they were a part of the decision-making process. I think this way of “leading” is the way to go and I have to thank all my years of experience as not only a Literacy Consultant working in leadership teams but also as my role of Vice Principal where I made it an effort to bring team leadership into my staff. I was wondering what you thought of that in our respective roles now as coordinators here? Do you think this type of team leadership exists at Brock as we have experienced it ourselves in the field and in our administrative roles? (December 8, 2005)

Lorenzo responded with an analysis of our roles and how leadership played its part:

It has been obvious to me that our collaborative efforts over the last few months have come a long way…. Having someone to bounce ideas off…really does provide a sense of liberation to what can at times feel like a rather restrictive predicament…. I am pleasantly surprised at how well your methods team meeting progressed. It is testament to distributed leadership and to the sense of professionalism that you bring to the table.... I have seen glimpses of this type of leadership in the faculty.... I find the whole concept of leadership intriguing, illusive, and quite frankly, overtaxing at times. (January 18, 2006)

Our reconceptualizing of program became multi-faceted. We critically reflected and questioned our roles, obligations, contributions, and impact on the learning faculty.
Critical Reflection Through Letters and Dialogue

I see myself as a study within a study in terms of my own induction into this professional role after studying the induction of new teachers. I am, then, both researcher and participant. A wearing of two hats, and often, at once. (Lorenzo, October17, 2005)

Lorenzo’s early letter to Darlene revealed a critical insight that was symbolic of both our dialogues and writings throughout the induction year. As we collaborated together in reconceptualizing program, we often commented on our own perceptions of ourselves in practice – a type of self-analysis that is essential in self-study of teacher education and, as Bullough and Pinnegar (2001) explained, “such study does not focus on the self per se but on the space between self and the practice engaged in” (p. 15). Thus, viewing ourselves as a study within a study became a metaphor for how we made sense of the tensions we endured in our new roles, and in how these tensions were brought to the surface through our critical engagement in writing and dialogue in relation to one another.

When Lorenzo confided in Darlene (January 18, 2006) that he noticed considerable difference in his two methods classes – one class in the concurrent program, the other in the consecutive program – Darlene responded.

Yes, teaching in both the concurrent and consecutive programs is becoming quite a dilemma with respect to programming for the whole department…. How can we keep putting our hands in both pieces of the pie?... I hear you when you describe assimilating to a new culture as new professors while at the same time being in a leadership role as coordinators of such an important umbrella course. I liken it to being a new administrator on a new staff. We still are responsible for leading, yet also have to acclimate to the environment. With time, our work will hopefully speak for itself, just as our administrative leadership did…reminding you of anything? I feel like I’m an administrator again…. What needs to remain, however, is a respect for the change process and respect for the people involved. Thus, I have been getting curious feedback as to my collaborative style and welcomed feedback from the team. (January 23, 2006)

To be sure, we were both acclimating to our culture. However, through critical reflection with the other, we came to understand that our induction to the faculty also illuminated the practice we were engaged in as co-agents. Rather than self-reflecting on our own challenges as new hires, we were able to transcend our own egos and move outward into studying ourselves in relation to our practice. Over time, our shared commitment to this process allowed for critical reflection “to gain understanding necessary to make [our] interaction increasingly educative” (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001, p. 15).

Lorenzo commented on the effect of our critical reflective practice, with respect to the service of our teaching and to our leadership roles as coordinators.

Your notions of what really is an evolution of a professional learning community is very provoking, as is your description of our having to essentially test the waters as you put it and see where our leadership efforts take us. Further, it’s obvious to me that we are both challenged for time and that the juggling between the concurrent and consecutive courses does in fact take a toll…. It seems as if we are immersing ourselves in layers of critical reflection. This is not to suggest a negative connotation to the process, but it is to admit that this process, when engaged in thoroughly and genuinely, is somehow confusing, taxing, consuming, enlightening, and provocative. (February 21, 2006)

Our “layers of critical reflection,” Lorenzo admitted, was a messy process that proved “taxing and consuming” yet also “enlightening and provocative.” Again, our study within a study helped us to understand what was meant by critical in our dual reflections; that is, we were liberated, through our collaboration, to question the complexity in our induction years, to review and redefine what we meant by reconceptualizing program, and to understand ourselves in relation to others in the learning faculty. Darlene noticed how we extrapolated these notions and responded to Lorenzo.

I appreciated your analysis of the levels of critical reflection we have been a part of over this year, in [written] dialogue and personal dialogue. It is interesting to me that, although we mirror each other’s positions on the landscape, we also offer diverse insights into the reflective process…. The difference is that we are documenting our teacher knowledge in this fashion and critically reflecting not only on our own insights but on the insights of another. (March 21, 2006)

By being mutually vulnerable to expose our challenges and tensions within the learning faculty as new hires, we critiqued our own practice in relation to others’ practices. This moved our notion of what it meant to be co-agents of change and to understand at a deeper level what it meant to accept and understand the insights of another. Both of us were able to transcend our own critical reflections from our collaborative conversations and writings and to then apply what we had learned in our respective teams. This offered promise to our continuing dialogues, not just between us, but with other key stakeholders in our learning faculty. This critical reflection through letters and dialogue, we believe, was the essence of what it means to build an authentic learning community.
Reconceptualizing Program

Our written and oral reflections, we realized, identified that the commitment to reconceptualize program affirmed our professional knowledge from the field and identified our vested commitment to the learning faculty. The conceptual force motivated us to develop a methods curriculum that was an engaging and effective program of study for prospective teachers. Further, in light of our role in the cohort advisory counseling groups (seminar groups that serve to endorse the practical application of concepts delivered in the theory-driven methods course) our contributions to reconceptualizing program included a redesign of the counseling sessions to ensure they complemented students’ critical awareness of the principles of pedagogical practice.

It was important to us throughout the process to share our thoughts and experiences and to maintain an awareness of how our inexperience and idealism were perceived by others given the norms and traditions of past practice. Darlene’s response was timely.

I feel much the same way as you, that we have been placed in a position of immeasurable responsibility while at the same time reconceptualizing program, while at the same time finding our own way in our induction year. It can make one dizzy if thought of at any length! And yet, here we are, still meeting and writing and still putting the pieces of the puzzle together. The operative word for me here – together. One of the notions that I hold very dear to education and learning is that it is truly about relationship…. I believe that professional learning communities are only authentic if there is an ethic of care involved and that staff, students, parents, and administration truly are “in relationship” with each other. When that variable is missing…well, so is the professional learning community! (January 23, 2006)

Together, thus, our resolve to reconceptualize program was strengthened. We learned with and from each other that reconceptualizing a core program of study meant engaging all team members in a professional, learning-enriched community of teacher-educators. We realized that to successfully reconceptualize program we had to foster professional dialogue within learning communities.

Sometimes I sit back and think about the teaching, marking, practicum evaluations, lesson planning, committees, service work, and lest we forget, research, and wonder how I can possibly do justice to reconceptualizing program??? Or is this why it has never been done before?? Regardless, the saving grace is being able to talk it through with someone. Thanks for that!!! (Lorenzo, February 21, 2006)

In the midst of reconceptualizing program, our narrative self-study and critical reflections have incited our curiosity and initiative. We appreciated during our work the importance of senior administration and experienced colleagues’ sincere expressions of interest and support for our cause. But it remained our cause and our mandate to redesign program. Our efforts to reconceptualize program were strengthened by the culture of professional responsibility, mutual respect, and accommodating dialogue that existed within the faculty and our methods teams. Our respective meetings were forums where instructors engaged in dialogue, posed stimulating questions, and examined their own teaching behavior and decision-making. As we reconceptualized, we often discussed the idiosyncrasies of our teams and our appreciation of their willingness to reflect upon their perceptions and epistemological paradigms.
Collective Retrospection and Sustaining the Link

As time passed we both considered that it would be fruitful to examine the broad spectrum of our contributions to program since our hire in the faculty of education. Understanding, of course, that the stakes were (and continue to be) quite high in terms of our respective roles and responsibilities, we decided to retrospectively examine our work together. On countless occasions we shared how we reclassified concepts, standardized others, and narrowed or enlarged the curriculum focus as we deemed appropriate. Darlene wrote:

We have traveled many miles my friend. I do so hope we reap the benefit of these experiences and that we will feel good in our second year…. I think we mustn’t underestimate the worth of teaching as scholarship. I hope this will continue to translate itself in the work we do together in both the elementary and secondary program. (September 1, 2006)

Especially noteworthy are Darlene’s observation at the conclusion of the letter. She stated:

I guess what I’m saying is that I actually do feel good after the work of last year was cleared and completed…. My new motto: start small and build to large. It worked this year, after all.

Lorenzo, in his response, concurred that it was important to assess the impact of what we had accomplished in order to be properly situated in accounting for what remained to be done. September, for both of us, represented both the fresh beginning to a new academic year and also an opportune time to be critically retrospective. On September 8, 2006, Lorenzo wrote:

I must say that it does feel a little more comfortable going into year 2 seeing that we have lived through the program for one calendar year. In looking back, Darlene, perhaps you said it best – ‘we have traveled many miles’ in a relatively short time.

Particularly telling in our conversations were the struggles and rewards of our efforts. On numerous occasions we shared our sense of vulnerability as scholars given the demands on our time with designing programs. At other times we shared our concerns that the part-time course instructors were able to engage in the course content and translate it into effective pedagogical practice. And still during other instances we questioned how our responsibilities were equitable in light of other novice faculty. Indeed these accounts spoke for themselves, and it was during these times that we appreciated each other’s confidence and trust. It went without saying that without these components of personal and professional integrity, the process of collaborative self-study would seem merely fabricated, superficial, and self-indulgent.

Just as significantly, however, we were sure to celebrate our achievements. We took comfort in the fact that we made a significant contribution to prospective teachers’ learning in the Faculty of Education. We discussed how the course content and complementary readings were relevant to student-teachers’ lives. In retrospect, we surmised that our coordination and integration of programs have and continue to contribute to promising practice that has advanced overall programming in our preservice department.

Further, by looking back at what was done, we inevitably anticipated the work that loomed on the horizon. In a letter written in September, Lorenzo wrote:

So the road ahead awaits us. Ideally, in terms of our roles as coordinators, I want to do more tinkering than fixing. We have established a foundation of sorts, and my approach to suggested revisions from the team [consisting of faculty and part-time instructors] will be to empower them in proposing change, and then in actually making them!

During informal discussions throughout the fall of 2006, we struggled with how to best harness the momentum resulting from the changes to the methods program. Immersed in our own induction into the organizational culture of a faculty of education that itself was (and still is) on the brink of redefining its comprehensive status, we did not have a predictable routine on which to rely. Throughout the process we were making connections with each other, various other instructors, and countless educational and theoretical paradigms that influence teaching and learning.

Our endeavor to reconceptualize program led us to a fundamental truth that we shared our experiences and worked together to understand them. Equally clear was our commitment to sustain the link between us. Fundamental to our steady growth as novice professors, was to enrich our conversations by broadening the scope of our collective observations. We noticed that we needed to be proactive and perceptive towards not only the unique nuances of the courses we designed, but to both our own practice as teachers and to our work as scholars.

This excerpt from one of Darlene’s letters is an example of our conversations:

I agree that we shared a journey last year that was made easier through our collaborative efforts. This year, I think it will be more a linking of minds through the research we do / have been doing that may be connected to our respective roles. (November 1, 2006)

Almost serendipitously our research interests have intersected. We have both pursued employing a case-based pedagogical inquiry approach into our teaching. As a result, we have engaged in conversations about how this technique afforded prospective teachers opportunities to draw representation of classroom practice into theory-based discussion. We noted, time and time again, the powerful insights of prospective teachers in terms of their feedback to the dilemma-ridden scenarios under study and how these implicate upon the Ontario College of Teachers’ professional and ethical standards for the profession (2006). Our conversations shed light on the potential of case-based inquiry to underscore student thinking as a developmental process. Darlene’s words were typical of our regular conversations and correspondence.

I want to hear more about your work with cases this year in your concurrent course as well as your work with using practicum experiences with your undergraduate students. I would like to incorporate this into my concurrent course next year. (November 1, 2006)

As time passed, Darlene’s endeavor to create a case-based textbook for the professional certification course that operates in tandem to the elementary methods program was a venture that drew Lorenzo’s interest as well. We continued to learn from each other’s practice and to move forward in our respective roles as elementary and secondary

co-coordinators to improve practice and program.

Also emerging from the data that was grounded in our communication was the mandate to sustain the link we established in terms of our gradual shift towards research. As one would assume, existing conterminously with our responsibilities to program was our passion for exercising scholarship capacities. Over the last two years we have taken a modestly robust account of defining our identity as academic. Publication is a charge of every professor. The link we shared allows us to identify and self-assess our potential as researchers. Characteristic of the thoughts we shared was this excerpt from Lorenzo’s letter (December 28, 2006):

So, in our last official correspondence you use the term, ‘a linking of minds.’ This is worthy of further thought. I do believe that links can be made in terms of our respective roles as program leaders and researchers. I have to admit, though, that when I meet with my team there are often many items that come to mind that I want to discuss with you and get your opinion.

By sustaining the link we have created we will be better able to negotiate these respective roles. Our lengthy conversations, brief exchanges, and reflective written letters brought us to the realization that through our work, our practice, and our scholarship we took ourselves to the fine edges of what it meant to hold this privileged position in teacher education.

Our written and oral conversations were not predetermined by a specific outcome. Instead, themes commonly emerged in our discussions in a number of combinations and with regards to various perspectives. We coordinated and collaborated on deliberate approaches to distribute leadership throughout our efforts. We remained committed to the responsibility of implementing the methods program and to rigorously assessing its effectiveness on student learning. We also saw the value in furthering our professional development through self-awareness.

Our collaborative self-study over these last two years has informed us as new faculty professors living in the margins of teaching and scholarship. What we have discovered is that our reflections about our co-coordinator roles in our teaching program may indeed foster future scholarship considerations about what it means to be a teacher educator in society today. Self-study has provided a key to look closely at our mirrored roles and to make progress through our shared discoveries. Given our respective positions, we have benefited from each other’s experiences. We have embraced the culture of scholarship espoused by the faculty of education rather than remain insulated in teaching and learning.

We continue on our narrative journeys towards reconceptualizing program and sustaining our identities as researchers. A focal component of our critical reflections has been and will continue to be observing the behavior, attitudes, expectations, and perceptions of not only those team members most affected by our work, but of each other’s as mirror images of our own. We may remind ourselves of the themes that emerged over the course of the last two years, but we refuse to be bound by them. By studying our own journey into a Learning Faculty, we have enacted a pedagogy of teacher education that “requires a deep understanding of practice through researching practice” (Loughran, 2007, p. 1). Our collaborative self-study has described the process of reflection during our first two years in a learning faculty. Moving forward, we have realized through this collaborative self-study, our reconceptualizing of program will also reconceptualize our practice (Martin, 2007, p. 149) of teaching and scholarship. Having lived in the margins of teaching and scholarship during our first two years as professors, we have benefited from one another’s mirror image, collaboration, critical reflection, and collective retrospection in order to sustain our link to the learning faculty. Our individual and collective awareness rests in the larger context. It is a context that includes the layers of reflexiveness already presented and those not yet discovered.

Barakett, J., & Cleghorn, A. (2000). Sociology of education. Scarborough,

ON: Prentice-Hall.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27, 13-24.

Beck, C., Freese, A., & Kosnik, C. (2004). The preservice practicum:

Learning through self-study in a professional setting. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamiliton, V. K. Laboskey, T. Russell (Eds.). International Handbook of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices. Kluwer, Kordrecht.

Bullough, R. V., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 13-21.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse?

Educational Researcher, 34(7), 3-17.

Conle, C. (1996). Resonance in preservice teacher inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 297-325.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Heap, J. (2005). The learning faculty: Characteristics of graduates. Teaching and Learning, 2(3), 4-6.

Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. (2002). Keeping new teachers in mind. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 12-16.

Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (1994). We’re just like the beginning teachers we study:

Letters and reflections on our first year as beginning professors. Curriculum Inquiry, 24(1), 27-54.

Linton, T. H., Eberhard, J., Reinhardt-Mundragon, P., & Stottlemyer, B. (2000). Strategies for new teacher retention: Creating a climate of authentic professional development for teachers with three or less years of experience. The South Texas Research and Development Center, Texas A & M University.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding

Loughran, J. (2007). Enacting a pedagogy of teacher education. In T. Russell, J. Loughran

(Eds.). Routledge.

Martin, A. (2007). Program restructuring and reconceptualizing practice: an epiphany. In

T. Russell, J. Loughran (Eds.). Enacting a pedagogy of

teacher education: Values, relationships and practices. (pp. 149-165).

Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher’s first year. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Better beginnings: Supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp.19–23). Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Olson, M. & Dhamborvorn, N. (1996). Collaborative reflections: Letter

writing as a form of collaborative self-study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 1996.

Ontario College of Teachers. (2006). Foundations of professional practice.

Toronto, ON: Author.

Russell, T., & McPherson, S. (2001). Indicators of success in teacher education.

Prepared for the 2001 Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda

Symposium, Quebec City.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Education at Brock University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Her specialty in narrative inquiry lends to her research interests in literacy teacher development; initial teacher education, and; school and educational communities. Dr. Ciuffetelli Parker currently is a principal investigator of a funded province-wide research project exploring success stories of school communities affected by poverty. The research grant is supported by the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, Canada. Email: darlene.ciuffetelli-parker@brocku.ca.

Lorenzo Cherubini, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor at Brock University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. His specialty is in beginning teacher development with a research focus on post-industrial influences on organizational leadership concepts and school culture. He holds a Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Aboriginal Development Grant for his work with prospective and new Aboriginal teachers in Ontario. He is also a collaborator on a second SSHRC funded project investigating new teachers’ understanding of assessment and evaluation practices. Email: lorenzo.cherubini@brocku.ca.
Developing a School-College Professional Learning Community

to Promote Student Engagement

Manhattanville College

Purchase, New York

Terri Thomas Klemm

George Washington Elementary School

White Plains, New York
Abstract

A school-college collaborative enabled 100 fifth-grade students to participate in a cross-curricular learning experience that involved literacy development through storytelling, science through forensic exploration, and the arts through finger-painting and poetry. Three faculty members (one biology and two literacy professors) and 30 undergraduate students implemented the project. Survey results indicated that the project increased student engagement with learning science and using storytelling and the arts to help students further develop their literacy skills. The 5 fifth-grade teachers expressed satisfaction with their students’ experiences. Planning, communication, and conflicting expectations were noted as challenges that schools and colleges should address.

Student engagement in learning is critical for student achievement (Alderman, 2004). Students who come from diverse and impoverished backgrounds are usually not as easily engaged with traditional instructional methods as those who come from mainstream and affluent backgrounds (Danforth & Smith, 2005; Nichols & Berliner, 2007). While student engagement in learning has historically been a focus of urban schools, demographic and field-based research has revealed that the student characteristics and teaching challenges once attributed largely to urban areas are now relevant to a broad range of suburban school districts (Alson, 2003; Richard, 2004) because of changes in socio-economic status, achievement, language proficiency, and race/ethnicity.

Aware of the challenges facing teachers and administrators in these suburban school districts in Westchester County, New York, Manhattanville College School of Education developed the concept of a Changing Suburbs Institute (CSI) to provide professional and program development for seven school districts in need of additional support for their changing student population, specifically targeting the growing Hispanic student population. Since the inception of CSI in 2005-2006, a consortium—comprised of school district, community, and government representatives—was formed to collaborate on attaining CSI goals. This consortium meets bimonthly. CSI also formed a parent leadership network, established substitute teaching institutes for hard-to-staff K-12 positions in the CSI districts, and sponsors an annual educational forum. A hallmark of CSI is the phased-in establishment of Professional Development Schools (PDS) in each of the CSI districts to create strong college-school district relationships that help with the professional development of teachers and college faculty to foster student achievement. To date, three PDSs have been established and developed in three different school districts. A fourth PDS has been established recently in a fourth school district.

The purpose of a PDS is to help prepare preservice teachers, provide faculty development, improve instructional practice, and enhance student learning. PDS partners blend their expertise and resources to engage in collaborative experimentation of new ideas that are put into place to enliven instruction. As McBee and Moss (2002) said, “When professors, teacher interns, and teachers come together in Professional Development Schools to improve practice, everybody learns” (p. 61).

Development of the Project

In response to a large number of English Language Learners (ELLs), this school initiated the Dual Language Academy for kindergarten students in 2007 in which the school’s curriculum is taught in both English and Spanish. The Dual Language Academy is a voluntary program to help students achieve in all subject areas and develop students’ literacy in English and Spanish.

To help her teachers adjust to the idea of forming a PDS, the principal worked collaboratively with the education dean to form a PDS Leadership Team (comprised of three teacher volunteers, the principal, the PDS liaison, two education faculty, and the education dean) that met bimonthly for a year to plan and implement small projects (e.g., the use of electronic reading pens for vocabulary development). The PDS began officially, replete with a ribbon-cutting ceremony, the following September. During the planning year, the PDS Leadership Team determined that the teachers needed to expand the curriculum beyond basic skills instruction while helping their students, especially Hispanic students, to demonstrate the necessary skills and strategies for succeeding with informal and formal assessments. The Team identified teacher education faculty with specific areas of expertise (e.g., multicultural literature) and teachers interested in working with these faculty. The Team also developed a PDS Fellows program for preservice teachers to immerse them in the school and all school-related functions over a two-year period of time. These Fellows work with students in need of additional instructional support. Additionally, the college brought to the PDS Leadership Team the idea of a cross-curricular learning experience, developed by three college faculty members, for all fifth-grade students. This project involved literacy development through storytelling, science through forensic exploration, and the arts through finger-painting and poetry so that fifth-grade students would develop oral language and thinking skills, and engage in deductive reasoning. The project, eventually funded through an external grant, was called “CSI-White Plains: Science, Literacy, and the Arts.”

To facilitate implementation of the project, a separate CSI Committee was formed. This committee—comprised of the principal, the education dean, the three college faculty responsible for the project, and the special education fifth-grade-teacher—met five times over a sixth-month period (December through May) to identify instructional needs, develop an instructional schedule, order the necessary equipment and materials, develop an assessment survey, discuss and resolve challenges that arose, and reflect on outcomes. The second meeting of this committee included all fifth-grade teachers so that they could learn more about the project’s purpose and implementation. In between meetings of the CSI Committee, the principal worked with the fifth-grade teachers to discuss the value of the project for their students and themselves, identify times and locations for the lessons, and ensure that the assessment instruments were used.

Description of the CSI-White Plains: Science, Literacy and the Arts Project

Story retelling is recognized as a way to develop oral language and comprehension, and as a way to assess student learning (Morrow & O’Connor, 1995). Fluency was also addressed; in order to learn their stories, fifth-graders willingly and energetically read and reread their stories; rereading is a key component of developing fluency (Kuhn, 2003). Also addressed was growth in vocabulary, as children were able to discuss, question, and practice vocabulary in different contexts (Blachowicz & Fisher, 2003). The art of storytelling can focus children on literacy in astounding ways (Mantione & Smead, 2003).