Transforming Teacher Preparation:
Changing Cultures Through Constructivism and Reflective Practices
Introduction
Teacher preparation programs are challenged to keep up with the demand for improved quality and quantity of teachers. High stakes exit testing looms over pre-service teacher preparation programs. Professors are crossing both discipline and academic freedom boundaries in order to improve the quality of the preparation of future teachers. This chapter highlights the work of a particular group of professors in addressing the call for improved test scores, better preparation and retention of teachers, and graduation of more students. Professors from Curriculum, Multicultural Education, Literacy and Special Education came together to develop an integrated model based on common activities, readings, technology, electronic journals, and shared epistemological values. This model not only lessened the workload on both teacher and student, but also provided for increased understanding and meaningful experiences for students and faculty alike. In describing the history, issues and experiences that led toward this initiative, the chapter will develop the journeys of transformation that led to personal and institutional change.
I was hired in 1999 into an isolated and fledgling
secondary teacher preparation program. Secondary teacher preparation courses
were independent with no overlap or interconnectedness. Along with low passing
rates on the teacher certification test, student complaint of irrelevance and
tremendous workloads caused me to begin dialogue with the group of professors
known as the “block faculty.” Students’ attitudes and assumptions mirrored the
disciplines from which they came. This was coupled with years of lived
experience based on independent academic disciplines.
I came in with twenty-five years of secondary teaching experience in low performing schools from which I had emerged transformed. The last ten years had been mired with much questioning of and reflection on the status quo schooling I had participated in. I was beginning to break away from the transmission model and concentrated on impacting student satisfaction and persistence in science courses beyond the basic requirements. The early stage of this effort was based on what little I knew about current trends in school reform. It was during the last portion of this decade that I began work on my doctorate. I was overwhelmed with professional and scholarly knowledge and practices that liberated me to move in new directions. My views were broadened and I acquired language to participate in the discourses of constructivism and critical pedagogy.
The move from the transmission model of teaching to providing learning contexts where students move to understand big concepts became the basis for transforming our secondary education program. The principles of constructivism and curriculum “backward design” guided the efforts of my colleagues and I to bridge theory and practice (Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J., 1999).
It became possible to continue the dialogue of reflection and change with
the hiring of professors who had public school teaching experience and the
desire to practice what they had learned during their doctoral studies. We
sustained an atmosphere of collegial community learning. This allowed us to
stay in touch with the guiding principle that we must allow our student to see
us “walk the talk.” We became vulnerable, yet believable, and we used student
input to assist with programmatic changes. We talked about what was essential
from each of our courses and let that guide our assignments. We had to let go of some content. We, as the
only professors from the
Rewards for us, as professors, are intrinsic in nature when we actually meet the challenge to put theory into practice. Initial workload increases give way to more positive feedback from graduates, improved certification test scores, and an increased sense of community which serve to sustain our efforts.
The
The
Historical
Background of Secondary Teacher Education
Reform efforts are cyclical and many of the aspects of the current teacher program at UTEP can be seen in the reform effort of the 70s. Nineteen seventy six was a milestone in the evolution of the teacher education program at UTEP. The focus was directed toward a field-based initiative known as the Secondary Teacher Education Program (STEP). The traditional model that included “student teaching” was replaced with cohorts where secondary pre-service teachers moved through a field-based program that called for professor collaboration and involvement in the public schools (COE, 1976a, 1976b). This era was mired in behaviorism as a theoretical foundation for education, a teacher-centered focus in curriculum and pedagogy, and academic freedom for professors to teach autonomously.
One
must ask: If it was done before and it did not work, then why try it again?
What would make it work this time around? The response is that the context for
the reform effort has changed and the new effort addresses learning theory that
did not exist during the last thrust for change. The constructivist foundation
that has been forged recently replaces the behaviorist theories that framed
teaching and learning of the past era. We now focus on learner-centered praxis
rather than on teacher-centered performance. We believe that meaningful
learning does not necessarily follow teaching. If we engage in experiences that
result in student understanding, then we have done much toward providing a
democratic educational opportunity for all students, not just those that adapted
well to a hegemonic structure. This chapter will point to why moving
toward a more collaborative perspective will be successful on this attempt.
The
Call for Change
In 1999 many of the professors who had been there during the 1976 uprising were retiring and much research on teaching and learning now appeared over the horizon. Research on the brain and learning emerged from the neurosciences, psychology, anthropology, sociology (National Research Council, 2000) informing new initiatives in a constructivist realm. Armed with new knowledge and a shift in paradigms from behaviorism to constructivism, the stage was set to revitalize the teacher preparation program. In 2000, a renewed effort by like-minded professors moved the secondary teacher preparation program toward the vision of integration and collaboration that is espoused by the more progressive educators and scholars (Beane, 1997).
Professors began meeting regularly in 2000 to share our ideas and develop a vision of what the secondary program would look like. Some resisted the changes due to unfamiliarity with the paradigm within which this initiative was taking place. Some opted out of participating, and others refused to take part. Some participated tentatively while the group worked toward sharing ideas and strategies that would support our vision. The group of professors began attending conferences and presenting our new roles. The structure began to take a less amorphous form. We now articulate a basic philosophy of education, theories that support it, and strategies that keep it alive and thriving.
From 2000 to 2003, much maneuvering took place. The group sought to include more professors that would support this integrated approach to teacher preparation and we began an intense collaboration that moved us toward our present condition. Students participating in our teacher preparation program are now called interns. As new interns register for teacher preparation, we meet with them prior to their first block at a Teacher Education Orientation day to welcome them into the program. All involved set the stage for what we think will be an enduring, successful and meaningful experience toward teacher certification.
Despite education professors collaborating to make this a meaningful time for the students, this schedule proved to be problematic in two ways. First, the four-course load for interns was tremendous. Each professor required one or two texts, several articles, a reflective journal, at least one student presentation, and a mid-term and final assessment. Each of the activities was based on constructivist principles and best practice, but the workload for students was overwhelming (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A., 1998). Second, the interns were in schools that did not align with the constructivist philosophy and practices of the university teacher preparation program. Existing school cultures were based in a tradition from which much resistance to reform emerged. The result was tremendous student resistance and confusion. As much as interns “liked” what they experienced in our classroom at the university, they did not feel they could implement these practices in places where teachers and administrators seemed to invalidate them.
In the fall of 2001, the State Board
for Educator Certification placed the teacher preparation program into
“accredited under review” status due to low Exam for Certification of Educators
in
Along with the impact from high
stakes testing, a recent study by EPISD (2000) found that 39% of new teachers
in the
College administrators moved to put a rigorous test preparation program into place while asking all professors teaching in the program to modify syllabi and course content to reflect the exit test competencies. It seemed as if we were being directed to “teach to the test” much as the public school teachers have done with their high stakes tests. We were faced with the challenge of “improving” our course, but we thought it could be done in ways that do not teach to the test. There still exists a requirement that all teacher education students attend a test preparation session weekly. Many students have voiced concern with this requirement and it highlights a potential contradiction between what we say and do. The group feels strongly about this issue and decided to develop a program based on current research and best practice.
Prior to applying to the secondary
teacher preparation program, students have attended fifteen or more years in
schools that were predominantly based in a behaviorist culture. We believe that
the socialization effect toward schooling is very much in place for these
aspiring teachers and heavily influences their incoming attitude. As students
enter the secondary teacher preparation program, they encounter a
constructivist environment based on different principles. Many students saw the
block classes as mere formalities toward certification and relied heavily on
teaching as they were taught. They found incongruence between professors’
philosophies and often questioned why one contradicted or, at least, did not
support another. In 2001, a group of students submitted a letter of concern to
the dean of the
Secondary education professors met often during these developmental times. The courses were being transformed based on the feedback obtained from students. We were determined to base their experiences on learner-centered constructivist pedagogies rather than teacher-centered behaviorist context, as was historically the case. Changes in the amount of work assigned and how it fit to support the overall theme for their preparation emerged. Our discourse led to identifying the essence of our courses and deciding if we could live with assigning less reading material so that students might process the content in more profound ways. The concept of “less is more” guided our development. We were embracing content from a “depth vs. breadth” perspective and this would eventually liberate some of us to become even more open to other progressive ideas.
The group of professors continued meeting and sharing syllabi, negotiating content and finding ways to overlap our assignments. Two texts were identified as basic to the university program rather than to one course. In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms by Brooks and Brooks (1999) was assigned during the first two weeks of classes to set the philosophical foundations of constructivism. This presented a united front for professors and has had a positive impact on our students. The second text is Joint Curriculum Design: Facilitating Learner Ownership and Active Participation in Secondary Classrooms (1997) by Patricia Gross. Although much of this text is used in the curriculum course, it is referenced in the other three courses that interns take during their preparation at UTEP.
Time and Content
The block
professors felt there was not enough time to cover all of the essentials, and
because students met with us for such a short time, what we did present was not
well processed. We looked at how reflective teaching and learning could inform
us and began to use “deliberative inquiry” based on
A Block I professor who taught
Developmental Variations introduced the rest of us to an English professor that
had developed a web-based journaling environment, The Journal Place. He
gave us a presentation and we all agreed that this might solve the journaling
issue for our program. Student pictures would be taken on the first day of
class and appear clustered at the top of their electronic journal page. We
collaboratively developed a meaningful question for each week of the semester
and posted it on the web at an appropriate time that coincided with content
from our syllabi. Quality and length parameters were set and students were
clustered in groups of three. They would respond to the question in the first
of three columns. In the second column, they were required to consider the
content of the question in terms of their field placement. The first two
columns were to be completed by the weekend so that they would have time to
read their clustermates’ responses and engage in a dialogue in the third column
by Sunday
Integrated Curriculum
Professors and students would meet during the first four class sessions as a cohort. We did not move to separate courses during this time in order to produce a sense of community and collaboration and to ensure that we would get the semester off to an integrated beginning. We created two four-hour blocks of time on Mondays and Tuesdays where all four professors were seen in the new light of facilitator rather than simply interpreters of texts and lecturers. On the first day, we took turns introducing ourselves, shared our constructivist approaches and laid the foundation for shared content, activities, journaling, assessment and grading. We spent “quality” time eliciting student input. We took their pictures and showed them how to log on to The Journal Place. We assigned the Brook and Brooks text to be read for the second week of classes.
Shared Common Experience
A modified version of the Atkin/Karplus learning cycle was used to structure a common experience for students early in the semester (1962). This lesson served as a reference for the remainder of the semester on two fronts. First, it was a method to engage the students in a way that they would experience a discovery lesson that modeled cooperative learning and integrated curriculum rather than telling them about the curriculum and pedagogy important to this lesson. Secondly, it allowed professors to interact and use this “hook” activity to tie their content to the Block I theme. Our role as facilitators would be to mingle within the groups to establish Socratic dialogues while never giving answers. Inspired by the level of enthusiasm, we proceeded to move through the other phases of the learning cycle. Each professor found opportunities to support the groups directly at this time while identifying potential connections for their content to be addressed at a later time.
Discussion and brainstorming of ideas occurred often. We brought up assessment, learning for understanding, choice, grading and rubrics which set the stage for discussing curriculum and pedagogy in our individual classes during the rest of the semester. Best practice literacy strategies and suggested modifications were embedded throughout the lesson as students applied the concepts in new settings (Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A., 1998).
We met for the third time as a
cohort during the second week of the semester to give each group the
opportunity to present their versions of the assessment phase. We used the
jigsaw and expert group strategies to “process” the Brooks and Brooks text on constructivism. Students were assigned a
writing activity based on the theme of Significant Past School Experiences (Adams, N. G., Shea, C. M., Liston,
D. D., & Deever, B., 1998). This would allow us a fourth block of time as a cohort, with all
professors present, to share part of their lived experiences in schooling and
further build community as we moved to begin meeting in shorter blocks of time
for individual courses. This activity would also serve to set up a common
mid-term activity to support the construction of the educational context within
which these students would soon begin their professional teaching practice.
Common Assessments
Aside from the 20% weight given to
journaling, the mid-term and final assessments would be collaboratively
developed and work to serve all four classes. A form of action research was set
into place with the use of Learning
to teach: A critical approach to field experiences (Adams, N. G. et al., 1998). Students were paired, given a choice of topics and then asked to go into
the schools and develop a collaborative mid-term presentation based on their
research. They were given a rubric, and when the mid-term arrived all
professors and students met for the four-hour block of time for the
presentations. Each of us, as assessors, scored the presentations and then met
in conference to establish the final scores based on dialogue and negotiation.
These scores would count 10% of the course grade for each of the courses. Doing
this eliminated the need for students to present four separate mid-terms and
allowed for us, as professors, to assess them within the context of our planned
meeting times, distributing the responsibility of scoring as well as allowing
for negotiation of grades. We each had a scoring rubric with specific
attributes that needed to be addressed in order for a particular score to be
given. This process united us and gave students a sense that they were being
scored fairly. Issues of fairness still arose, but they could be attributed to
the fact that most of the students had never experienced this type of
assessment and they feared getting a lower grade due to the low performance of
another group member. This set up the opportunity to distinguish traditional
group work with collaborative work where positive interdependence plays a
distinguishing role. We gave it a 10% weight because we knew it was possibly
their first collaboratively graded assignment. It also provided a launching
point for the more heavily weighted final.
The
final was similar to the mid-term in structure, but had more specific points
that needed to be addressed from each of the four block courses. Groups were
comprised of three students, and the work counted for 20% of the grade.
Students were required to write and submit a proposal delineating precisely how
they were going to address the assignment, and were asked to be explicit about
each participant’s responsibility. They were to acknowledge all parameters of
the assignment, including appropriate use of technology, data gathering and
assessment.
Students
experienced a 50% overlap of their grades for each of the four classes. We
combined our classes for six four hour sessions and professors seemed satisfied
to have “control” of the remaining 50% to process the block experience and to
develop specific readings and activities in their content areas. This was
occurring on two simultaneous tracks, a morning and an afternoon cohort with
only two professors common to both. In other words, there were six different
professors working together as a team, something not easily done at the university
level.
The Present Initiative
As the spring of 2003 approached, more
attention was directed towards the secondary teacher preparation program. This
held implications for the Teacher Education Department, the Education
Psychology and Special Services Department, other university departments and
the public schools where our interns would be placed. We had to be able to
convince these communities that what we considered “best practice” was based on
contemporary research and scholarly work, and that we must move on a united
front based on dialogue and trust. This is difficult because academic
structures are rigidly fixed and associated with the creators that can take
personal offense when these structures are questioned and moved for altruistic
purposes.
During
the spring 2003 semester, the structure of the secondary program was
reevaluated and divided into two blocks. Students now take two courses in each
of the two semesters rather than taking all four at once as in the previous
semesters. This alleviated some of the time constraining issues for professors
insofar as being available for the four hour cohort meetings. Classes are now
scheduled for three hours each on Monday and Tuesday mornings or afternoon. The
morning professors teaching the Block I courses can more easily arrange to meet
together, and the afternoon block can do the same. Now that students are
engaged with the four professors over two semesters, we anticipate that this
will enhance the socialization of the interns into education. Contact hours per
course have increased by approximately 30% when compared to the prior program
structure.
Recent
research has called for the institutions that prepare teachers to review their
practices. They feel that teachers must move beyond being content masters and
that they must revisit the pedagogical aspects of teaching and learning (
We
are now aligning the road to teacher preparation with input from various
departments across campus that traditionally had little communication with us,
even though their students ended their bachelor’s program in the
We
have seen professors willing to take risks and move away from academic freedom
as the reason not to collaborate. We have broken barriers across academic
disciplines and are meeting face-to-face with professors whom we had only known
by name prior to this initiative. The College of Education is no longer in
danger of losing its accreditation since our students are now passing the exit
certification tests (now known as the TExES) at a proficient level. We feel
that current learning theory should inform the practices of new and existing educators
and that an important threshold has been encountered, one that has the
potential to address teacher retention and student drop out rates as well.
I
have moved on to another university. Upon reflection of the effort described
above, it is obvious that political economic forces have already begun to
dismantle the gains accomplished over a half dozen years. Pressure to graduate
more students, generate credit hours, competition with other teacher
preparation programs, and lack of administrative understanding have all
impacted the potential for transformation. Despite the incredible time and
effort put forth by participants, less visionary administrators have regressed
this initiative to a more efficient and less threatening program. I have
described resistance from faculty and students, yet other issues such as
faculty loyalty and tenure will undoubtedly continue to impact participation.
The nature of the deep-seated traditional “model” will continue the pressure to
maintain the status quo. This initiative proved it could be done, just not
sustained in these politically troubled times. It is disappointing to see the
missed opportunity for academics to put theory into practice.
References
Adams, N. G., Shea, C. M.,
Liston,
Atkin, J. M.,
& Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention. The Science Teacher 29(2): 121-123.
Bean, J. A.
(1997). Curriculum integration: Designing
the core of democratic education.
Brooks, J.
G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search
of understanding: The case for constructivist
classrooms.
COE (1976a) Handbook for the elementary teacher
education program.
COE (1976b) Handbook for the secondary teacher education
program.
EPISD (2000).
Employee dropouts: Professional leavers
in EPISD 1996-2000. Office of Research
and Evaluation,
Gross, P. A.
(1997). Joint curriculum design:
Facilitating learner ownership and active participation
in secondary classrooms.
Henderson, J.
G. (2001). Reflective teaching:
Professional artistry through inquiry, (3rd ed.).
National
Research Council (2000). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Nolan, J.
Jr., & Meister, D. G. (2000) Teachers
and educational change: The lived experience
of secondary school restructuring.
Wiggins, G.,
& McTighe, J. (1999). Understanding
by design.
Zemelman, S.,
Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best
practice: New standards for teach and
learning in