A constructivist in the lecture hall? helping pre-service teachers claim their voice

This article was downloaded by: [University of Memphis Libraries]On: 19 November 2014, At: 09:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teacher Development: An internationaljournal of teachers' professionaldevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

A constructivist in the lecture hall? helpingpre-service teachers claim their voiceMac H. Brown a & Nancy K. Freeman aa University of South Carolina , Columbia, USAPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Mac H. Brown & Nancy K. Freeman (1998) A constructivist in the lecture hall? helpingpre-service teachers claim their voice, Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers'professional development, 2:2, 205-217, DOI: 10.1080/13664539800200045

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664539800200045

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13664539800200045

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664539800200045

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Constructivist in the Lecture Hall? Helping Pre-service Teachers Claim their Voice

MAC H. BROWN & NANCY K. FREEMANUniversity of South Carolina, Columbia, USA

ABSTRACT ‘EDUC 402: Teachers and Teaching’ and its practicum are required forall who anticipate pursuing teacher certification at the University of South Carolina.The authors describe the constructivist approach they have used to work successfullywith large sections of diverse students. Shaped around the five propositions of theNational Board for Professional Teaching Standards, the authors share power andcontrol with students actively involved in learning. Professors use lecture, guestspeakers, cooperative learning teams, reflective journals, small and large groupdiscussions, case studies and technology projects to achieve their goals. Studentscontract for grades. Portfolios are used for self-evaluation. Close ties between lectureand practicum experiences, which are conducted in Professional Development Sites,are an additional distinguishing feature of this course.

Imagine 107 Sumwalt. It is a large lecture hall in the computer sciencebuilding. It has rows of fixed seats and desks in tiers, all carefully arrangedso students can easily see and hear the lecture delivered from the front andcenter podium. This space was planned for professors who are mostcomfortable when they are poised behind the lectern, surrounded by theircarefully prepared notes, diagrams and overhead transparencies. Nowimagine this space occupied by students working in nine small groups,clustered around sheets of poster paper; some are sprawled on desk tops,others balanced on the backs of chairs, still others standing, then leaning,then gesturing, as they brainstorm possible resolutions for a thorny ethicaldilemma. The students all seem to be talking at once, with voices full ofconviction and sometimes indignation, like those we hear as Keith andSherrie try to convince their peers that their solution is the best. This is notthe kind of class activity the architect had in mind for this space. Thislecture hall was designed for a professor, in all likelihood a man recognizedas an expert in his field, to stand before the hundred-or-so rapt students, ashe delivers the ‘truth’. It was designed to efficiently transfer knowledge

CONSTRUCTIVIST TEACHER EDUCATION

205

Teacher Development, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

from teacher to student and to give the professor maximum control andpower during three-times-a-week 50-minute class periods. It was designedby someone who, in all likelihood, never heard of constructivism, had nevercontemplated the implications of feminist pedagogy, nor expected studentsto take responsibility for their own learning.

The class using this ill-fitting space is ‘EDUC 402: Teachers andTeaching’. EDUC 402 and its co-requisite practicum are part of the 18-houreducation minor at the University of South Carolina (USC). Most studentsenrolled in EDUC 402 and EDUC 402-P plan to apply for admission to thefifth-year MAT certification program at USC.

It is important to appreciate how this course fits into our University’sefforts to re-vision teacher education. USC is a member of the HolmesPartnership and the Goodlad Network, and serves as a test site for NationalBoard for Professional Teaching Standards. The University has devotedsubstantial resources to demonstrate its commitment to systematic andsystem-wide educational renewal. As USC has moved toward theimplementation of its fifth-year initial certification program, EDUC 402 has,from its inception, been perceived as an important cornerstone of theseeducational reform efforts. An appreciation for the benefits of effectiveinstitutional and individual collaboration has guided this course from thetime when it was simply a list of goals and objectives until itsimplementation in the classroom. The USC fifth-year, professionaldevelopment school model exemplifies our faculty’s efforts to tap theexpertise, experience and commitment found in professional developmentschools as a resource for its programs serving pre-service teachers. USC iscommitted to linking on-campus and off-campus experiences, and creatingcollaborative, interdependent relationships between the University and theteachers and administrators in its network of 17 professional developmentsites.

Fitting EDUC 402 into the Education Minor

The USC Undergraduate Bulletin advertises this as a course in “Teaching asreflective and ethical practice. [Topics include] professional standards,teacher leadership and school change, and various roles of professionaleducators”. EDUC 402 is taught in large 50-60-student sections. Theprofessors, who are the authors of this article, strive to create a communityof learners by shifting the responsibility for student learning and evaluationto the students themselves. The professors’ intent is to empower students; tohelp them construct useful knowledge and to prompt them to consider newperspectives and explore novel ideas. It is a class where the professorsattempt to create cognitive dissonance and a measure of chaos.

Some of our colleagues question whether 19 and 20 year-olds can beexpected to think beyond the lists and rote definitions they expect tomemorize for the test. They aren’t sure we can get them to stop asking,“How many pages does the term paper have to be?” We have set our sights

MAC H. BROWN & NANCY K. FREEMAN

206

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

on moving them beyond their preoccupation with this weekend’s ‘big game’to think critically and reflectively about the world of teaching.

Students frequently see themselves recreating the classrooms wherethey were students. They expect to teach just like their third grade teachertaught them, or they try to replicate the high school literature course theyremember with fondness. We challenge them, however, to re-vision therelationships between teachers, schools, and students. We ask them to thinkof knowledge as something created by each individual, actively constructedfrom first-hand experiences, not as simply pre-digested, easily transmittedinformation passed from teacher to student. We challenge them to envisioncreating a classroom radically different from the one they remember fromtheir own childhood.

As we worked to portray this course and the assumptions and prioritiesthat led us during its planning and implementation, however, we found ourefforts to describe its characteristics systematically were inadequate. Wekept interrupting ourselves and each other; elaborating, explaining,reflecting on why we chose activities, topics, and instructional techniquesthat helped communicate the information and develop the dispositions wehope students will take from our time together. We realized we have crafteda course that is organized in a way that fuses content and process into adifficult-to-describe experience. We found that content, process andevaluation are not clearly defined or separate, but are integrally connected.We hope that our descriptions of EDUC 402 will help the reader appreciatethe recursive relationships we recognized as we struggled to describe ourwork, and that an accurate image of the course taught in 107 Sumwalt willemerge.

Planning EDUC 402

Like most courses, this one is the product of several years’ work. Manyfaculty members, serving on various college committees, have put in longhours identifying appropriate objectives and goals, paying careful attentionto National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educators (NCATE)guidelines, various disciplines’ frameworks, and other statements of bestpractice. These established codes and statements provide an anchor, theyexpress the core values of our profession. This course is shaped around onesuch standard, What Teachers Should Know and Be Able To Do, developedby the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1994). Thesestandards ask teachers to:1. be committed to students and their learning;2. know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students;3. be responsible for managing and monitoring student learning;4. think systematically about their practice and learn from experience, and5. become members of learning communities.Other benchmarks expressing professional expectations such asDevelopmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs


207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), adopted by the National Association for theEducation of Young Children (NAEYC), frameworks created by theNational Council of Teachers of English (1996) and National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics (1991), and Theodore Sizer’s description of‘Essential Schools’ (1994), as well as our state’s curriculum frameworks,are assigned readings or discussion springboards. We stress, as well, theimportance of knowing and competently applying the National EducationAssociation (NEA) Code of Ethics (1977) as well as the NAEYC Code ofEthical Conduct (Feeney & Kipnis, 1989). We are acutely aware thatdistinguishing right from wrong is no simple matter in our increasinglydiverse society. The current climate of cultural change makes it essentialthat emerging professionals appreciate standards of practice and codes ofbehavior that articulate how we communicate our roles and responsibilitiesto the larger society. Our overriding objective is to give students manyperspectives to help them answer the question: ‘What does a good teacherknow and what is a good teacher able to do?’

Teaching EDUC 402

This course is grounded on the notions of constructivisrn and metacognition.A basic premise for our work is the realization that each learner, includingthe professor, is engaged in a personal search for understanding. We realizethat content can only have meaning as it fits into each individual’s personalconstruction of the world. Content, no matter how highly regarded withinthe profession, is accessible to the student only if she or he can connect it toher or his personal narrative, history or construction of reality. Our hope isthat students in EDUC 402 come to understand how they constructknowledge so that they, in turn, can help their students along the same path.We want them to thoughtfully consider what is worth knowing, how it isbest learned, and what is lost when learners are treated as if they are passivereceptacles who have no personal history of learning and knowing.

We suppose our colleagues and students probably expected this to be atypical ‘how to’ class; however, our objective is to make students thinkcritically about teachers and teaching. We challenge them to ask the bigquestions as they become engaged in reflections and debates about theircareers as teachers and the future of education in this country. For example,rather than just memorizing the research findings of Kounin and Gump orGood and Brophy on management and intervention, we engage students in acritical analysis of intervention techniques used in the classroom. Wechallenge them to ask, ‘when is intervention appropriate and useful for thelearner and when is it really just for the teachers’ convenience or a way forthe teacher to manipulate and control students?’

This course uses a variety of instructional techniques includingprofessor talk, guest speakers, case studies, journal writing, field trips,cooperative learning teams, small and large group discussions, peer review,reflective journals, and the utilization of on-line resources. We want todemonstrate that active teaching and learning can occur even in large 50–60


208

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

student classes like this one. Our varied teaching methods are planned tomake students responsible for their own learning, as well as to modelconstructivism.

Because we realize the importance of creating shared experiences andexpectations, readings are the basis for many class discussions. Assignmentsinclude selections introducing Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences (1983),Bruner’s analytical and narrative approaches to learning (1996) and Belenkyet al’s (1986) observations about women’s unique ways of knowing.Students also complete the Myers–Briggs Personality Inventory (1987) togain additional insights into their own relational styles, and to learn abouthow to make knowledge accessible to different kinds of learners. Ourintention was to help professors and students alike explore how we acquireknowledge, how we learn, and how we think.

The result of our efforts is a course with features which are new tomany students. We intend for them to question who has knowledge andwhere it comes from, and challenge them to rethink how they view teachersand teaching. We knew from the onset that successfully changing students’expectations about how teachers and students interact and sharing with themour vision of schools and classrooms of the future would require trust andconfidence. We have made every effort to be explicit in our expectations,and to be responsive to students’ concerns. We appreciate that effectivecommunication and a spirit of collaboration is essential if we hope to besuccessful.

Grading and Evaluation

As the semester gets under way, students are anxious about grades andwonder what kind of behavior and performance we expect. The biggestchange for most students has been the use of contracts for grading andportfolios for self and peer evaluation. We believe that typical universitygrading practices interfere with professors’ efforts to help students becomeaccountable for their own learning and fail to support students’ efforts toclaim personal autonomy. Grading with contracts, however, gives studentsthe opportunity to assume responsibility for the grade they will receive.Students who plan to earn an A, B, or C have specific criteria which theymust satisfy to receive the expected grade. Requirements are cumulative,that is to say that students who expect a B do everything required for a Cplus a number of other activities, and those who strive for an A complete therequirements for a B, adding an additional specified assignment. Studentsmay not contract for a grade of D or F, but they could receive those grades ifthey do not satisfy the minimum C requirements. The majority of studentscontract for an A, and, because the criteria for an A are explicit, they usuallyreceive the contracted grade. The professor assigns the final grade andretains administrative control, but usually the student satisfies the criteria,and the grade is no surprise.

Students can change their contract and their grade at any time. It is notuncommon for a harried student to come to the last class asking to change


209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

from an A to a B because she just didn’t have time to complete all of thework. Helen was taking a heavy course load and knew that finding time tocomplete the technology project, part of the contract for an A, would be achallenge. She waited until the last minute to begin her contribution to hergroup’s unit on space exploration. Then she went home for a party over theweekend and didn’t get back to the University in time to meet with hergroup. She chose to change her contract from an A to a B, eliminating herobligation to complete the project. It was her choice to go to a party ratherthan to meet with the group, and it was her choice to change her contract.She can clearly see that she is responsible for her choices and theconsequences. She said, “I know the professor didn’t give me a B, but that itwas my choice”. This system of power-sharing encourages self-evaluationand personal autonomy, which is a requisite for the professional behaviorwe expect from teachers.

Students come to see that we are demanding that they makeconnections in their thinking. We are looking for evidence that they areconstructing their own understandings and are engaged with the readingsand class discussions. Students quickly appreciate that these kinds ofbehaviors are difficult to test, measure and quantify using traditional means.We expect students to demonstrate in-depth analysis and reflection – wewant them to see there are no easy right answers. When a student remarkedin her journal, “How do you know what articles and exercises should gotogether and how they should be introduced? How will we learn to be ableto develop a lesson plan such as this? Everything seems to have perfecttiming!”, we had an assurance that we were getting it right.

Written Conversations

Dialogical rather than didactic communication is a cornerstone of thiscourse, and journals are a major vehicle of communication between studentsand their professor. We expect students to use their journals to articulateinformation they have assimilated, insights they have gained and reflectionsthey have generated from our readings and class discussions. Journalsrequire students to express themselves clearly and often help them clarifytheir thinking. They are also a good way to monitor students’ understandingand progress and are an effective tool to help the professor continuepersonal conversations begun in the large lecture setting. When onearticulate, interested, but frequently-tardy student questioned the professor’spractice of recording absences and tardiness if she genuinely believed whatshe said about sharing power and giving students responsibility for theirown learning, the journal proved to be the perfect forum for continuing thisdiscussion personally and in-depth. Journals that ‘meet criteria’ demonstratestudents’ grasp of content, identify connections between class readings andinclude students’ personal insights and reflections. In addition, they must belogically organized and be free from consistent grammatical and spellingerrors. Rather than evaluating the papers, the professors use the margins andspaces to pose questions, to challenge students to continue their in-depth


210

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

analysis, or to clarify their own position or opinion. Journal writing is aprocess. Professors view the journals as a vehicle for ongoing writtenconversations, rather than finished products once-read and then forgotten.

A growing body of research documents the benefits of personal on-lineemail conversations between students and professors, as well as discussionsamong students and the professor on a course listserv (Karayan & Crowe,1997). We have first-hand experiences that have convinced us of thebenefits of on-line communication. This past semester each of the twosections of 402 had a listserv. Students used this forum to share theirreactions to a report they had seen on a television news magazine aboutcensorship in schools, to analyze the President’s State of the UnionMessage, to react to class readings and class meetings, and even toencourage each other as major projects and examinations approached. Onestudent who was “new in town and didn’t have many friends yet” recounteda near-miss traffic accident, just because she needed to share her scaryexperience with someone she knew. Another used the list to thank herclassmates for making her transfer from a small campus easier: “This classhas helped me through this transition. I just want to thank you all for makingme feel so comfortable and like I am not just another number.” These arejust the kinds of interactions we had hoped for when we initiated theseforums.

We have found, however, that listservs can be the site of heateddebates, even arguments, as well as the hoped-for inquiry, support andencouragement. Those situations created dilemmas for the professors. Wehad to balance our desire to give students the opportunity to gain experiencebeing civil and respectful of varied opinions and viewpoints with our desireto add our own perspective or to chastise those whose comments wereinflammatory or overly critical. We realized that if we added our voiceprematurely we risked having our opinion become an authoritativestatement, and we might curtail students’ discussions. The balance betweenfacilitating and intervening became very difficult when one class listservwas degenerating into name-calling tirades rather than a conversation. Alevel-headed student posted his hope that “we can constructively discussthese issues in class next week”, but a guest lecture had been arrangedweeks before and could not easily be postponed. The choice between‘letting the genie out of the bottle’ when we had only a half-an-hour fordiscussion and putting the issue on hold for another week was not easy tomake. What’s more, after those volatile exchanges, students were wary ofposting on the listserv, for fear that they would raise the ire of someshort-fused classmates. The listservs made valuable contributions, but alsopresented unexpected challenges. They will continue to be an integral partof the 402 experience. We will continue to reap their benefits and accepttheir challenges.


211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cooperative Learning Teams

Cooperative learning teams are an important feature of our classes. At leastonce a week students work in their small groups to complete an activity or todiscuss issues raised in the readings or lecture. This procedure facilitateslearning in a number of ways. Students are acquiring skills they need towork effectively in groups. They are learning to think on their feet, statetheir position clearly, listen to others, and compromise graciously. Theability to work well with colleagues is an important professional asset foreducators because much of the work of educational communities is done bycommittees. Teaching requires collaboration and consensus as individualsbring skill as well as etiquette of the workplace with them into theconference room or committee meeting. Students who recognized the valueof collaborative problem solving noted, “it really helped me hear otherviews and solutions”, “I realized that as a teacher, one would benefit byinteracting with other faculty members”, and “we worked as a team, wecombined a few of our solutions to come up with a better solution”.

Watching classroom interactions while students are working in theircooperative groups made it clear that many students who shy away fromspeaking in a large group setting will speak in a small group. The authorshave noticed that whole-class discussions that have been prefaced by smallgroup interactions usually involve 25–30 students instead of just the five orsix outspoken individuals who typically dominate large-group sessions. It isas if the chance to try out their persuasive techniques with four or five peershas prepared even shy or less articulate students to speak in front of thewhole class. These kinds of encounters force students to think criticallyabout their positions, express themselves carefully and convincingly, andlisten to those who disagree with the assumptions and priorities they haveheld dear. These kinds of issues prompt lively large group debates thatusually engage even the most reserved students who have had practice andgained confidence working in their small cooperative group.

Case Method Pedagogy

From the first, we realized that case method pedagogy fits comfortablywithin our constructivist teacher education framework, our desire to developstudents’ dialogical competence, and our expectation that students would domuch of the work for this class in small cooperative groups. Case debriefingexercises require students to think beyond the memorized lists andpre-digested ideas they will find in textbooks. Cases also capitalize on theadvice offered by teacher educators who appreciate the value of narrativeand know that students learn best from situated, contextualized examples.

We have found that class discussions based on cases work well whenstudents are given a systematic way to sort through ambiguities and consideralternatives (Freeman, 1997). In short, we ask students to approach cases by


212

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

first, identifying the stakeholders, and next by identifying the issues thesestakeholders bring to the dilemma. Third, we ask them to brainstormpossible resolutions, and finally select the course of action they think theywould take.

For most of our students this was their first encounter with casemethod instruction, and they responded with the high interest and spiritedenthusiasm we had hoped for. Students enthusiastically entered small-groupdiscussions; debating, analyzing, challenging, defending, and, in most cases,reaching a consensus they were ready to share with the whole class. We sawevidence that cases helped students better appreciate the complexity ofteaching when we read, “The problem we were dealing with was much morecomplex than I originally thought”, “The problem and solution wereconsiderably more complicated than I had anticipated”, “The exercise reallydid open my eyes to the complexities of teaching”. When we asked forstudent feedback at the end of the semester we found that classes devoted todebriefing cases were many students’ favorite class activity.

We have found cases to be the perfect bridge between formal lectureand the kind of intense, personal, small group interactions that nurture thecreation of a community of learners. Cases have proven to be an effectiveway to help students assume responsibility for their own learning and forthat of their classmates while keeping them actively involved. They assumea prominent position in EDUC 402 because they contextualize the issuesand information that are at the heart of this course.

Technology in the Classroom

We are keenly aware of the important role technology will play intomorrow’s schools. We take seriously the importance of preparing studentsto bring computer skills, as well as the dispositions they will need to keeplearning about cutting edge developments, to their careers in the classroom.That is why one of our goals for the entire education minor sequence is toarticulate the word processing, desktop publishing, presentation, email, andon-line research skills we expect students to master. We found guidance inNCATE (Wise, 1995) and International Society for Technology inEducation (ISTE) guidelines (Handler & Strudler, 1996) and otherstatements of professional standards as we developed a sequence ofexperiences for all students in the minor. EDUC 402 students receive directinstruction in the computer lab and have course assignments requiring themto use email, locate information in the university library system and ERIC,evaluate educational software, and navigate the World Wide Web (WWW).Students reported their expertise in these areas at the beginning and end ofthe semester. Their self-evaluations demonstrate measurable personalgrowth, especially in their skill using on-line communication and libraryresources. In addition, we have demonstrated our commitment to integratingon-line technology in the course by putting the course syllabus, outline, andvarious forms and guidelines on a WWW homepage(http://www.ite.sc.edu/ite/courses/educ402/educ402.html), by requiring


213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

students to complete on-line exercises and by integrating the class listservinto class discussions.

We have found that the integrated thematic unit assignment, which hasreplaced the traditional term paper, helps break down some barriers betweenthe technological haves and have-nots. Students from a variety ofdisciplines, who plan to work with children of all ages, collaborate on thisproject. One student reported that this diversity proved to have benefits andalso to create obstacles: “I believe we were fortunate to have such a diversegroup because this allowed us to each contribute in a meaningful way. It wasdisheartening to have the tension ... during the planning stage. It was equallynice to see the group come together in the end”. Students’ understanding ofmultiple intelligences and various styles of learning guides their efforts asthey collect resources for teachers preparing to explore topics such as ‘theenvironment’ or ‘rain forests’ with children from pre-K (kindergarten)through grade 12. This activity gives students first-hand experience locatinginformation that is just a few keystrokes away. In addition to producing avaluable teaching resource, students find that their interest in onlineinformation has been piqued, and their appetite has been whetted. We hopethat many students continue the explorations of the Internet and WWW theybegan while they worked on this project. One student’s reflection, “Thankyou for forcing technology on me because I have learned a lot (includingthat there’s nothing to be afraid of about it) and I really would have avoidedthe internet otherwise” was all the assurance we need to continue makingthis project an important component of this course.

Portfolios Take the Place of ‘The Exam’

During the scheduled examination period students presented theirprofessional portfolios. These projects demonstrate students’ learning in thecontext of the five competencies articulated by the National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards (1994). We ask students to develop arationale and present two artifacts to demonstrate how they have grown ineach of these dimensions. Both fellow students and the professor apply thegrading rubric, and determine whether the evidence offered in the portfoliomeets criteria and whether it is an accurate demonstration of the student’swork. As one student noted as he finished his portfolio, “I feel like I’ve gotone good thing for each of the five, and the second piece of evidence is notas good. But, it is early in my career, so maybe it’s an unrealisticexpectation to have [ten] stellar pieces of evidence”. He appreciates that thisearly effort to show his teaching expertise is a work in progress.

The creation and evaluation of these portfolios are additional ways theprofessors share power and control with students. The expectations andcriteria used to evaluate the portfolio are explicit, and students know exactlywhat they have to do to meet criteria and earn full credit. Students createdprojects they can continue to refine and develop throughout their careers.Portfolio evaluation was neither a power play nor a mystery, but was insteada normative, constructive process.


214

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

EDUC 402-P

Like pre-service programs in many colleges of education, we require a1-hour practicum as a co-requisite for our lecture course on Teachers andTeaching. What is unique about this course, however, is the role played bythe Practicum Instructors (PIs) who work with our EDUC 402-P studentsand the classroom mentors.

The collaborative University/school relationship that is at the heart ofthis course is facilitated and enriched by the fact that all of the schools andteachers involved are part of the Professional Development Site (PDS)network. The faculty at each PDS school has participated in an in-depthself-study, and each teacher is asked to consider how his or her classroomcan be a laboratory for pre-service teachers during different stages of theirprofessional development. In addition, the PDS partnership betweencommunity schools and the University brings faculty from the Universityinto children’s classrooms, and regularly invites classroom teachers to sharetheir knowledge and expertise with classes of pre-service teachers. One ofthe most popular and effective class meetings of the lecture section istypically the one that features Mrs Markham, a high school English teacherand 402-P Practicum Instructor. She shares her insights and advice aboutmotivation and classroom management with our students. No one who hasever seen Mrs Markham begin her presentation about the potentially-boringtopic of classroom motivation by introducing her large Curious George dolland book will ever forget her message.

Meshing students’ practical experiences in EDUC 402-P with thosethey bring from the lecture hall where they take EDUC 402 has been one ofour primary goals for this course. We appreciate the fact that our success inthese efforts depends in large measure on how well students’ schoolexperiences are coordinated with what they read, hear, see and do oncampus. We realized from the start that the input of the school-basedPracticum Instructors (PIs) was absolutely essential if we were toaccomplish our goals. That is why we met with the PIs regularly as weplanned this course, and why we continue to touch base regularly during thesemester. We asked for their feedback as we worked through several draftsof the course outline, examined our expectations for students and classroomteachers, developed evaluation rubrics, and considered carefully howstudents’ weekly directed observation assignments fit into their schoolsettings and routines. These materials have worked well, but, as expected,undergo constant fine tuning. As the second semester came to an end, one PInoted that she thought, “We need to add technology back into the weeklyobservations”. Her ownership of the assignments was just what we hadhoped to see, and you can be sure next semester’s assignments will reflecther advice.

University students, PIs and mentor teachers appreciate how importantit is that pre-service teachers learn first-hand about day-to-day life in theclassroom. Classroom experiences help students appreciate complexities


215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

that had not been apparent when they were sitting on the ‘student’ side ofthe desk. They realize that teaching is more demanding and involved than itappears to be. One student reported: “This course gave me abehind-the-scenes look at the hard work, planning, and commitment ofteachers”. Another noted that “It helped me realize that teachers do morethan just teach. They play the role of parents, [doctors, counselors,referees]”. And a third observed that this course “allowed me to see whereand what the passion for teaching comes from. I see how much time, effortand drive is required for teaching”. Students’ responses showed that thepracticum experiences successfully made the link between theory andpractice as we hoped they would: “It gave me insights into the classroomand how everything we have learned is used in real life”. “The PI bringseverything together”, they “have their fingers on the pulse of the school”,they “unify the experience”. Many students report that observations andshort, focused, seminar meetings in the schools were the unique features ofthis class. When we read, “I gained a great deal of valuable information thatwill help me as I pursue a career in teaching” we knew our plans hadachieved some of our primary objectives.

Summary

If we were to revisit 107 Sumwalt at the end of the semester we wouldobserve students who were accustomed to breaking down the barrierscreated by the building’s architecture. This place that was planned for apedagogy that transfers knowledge has been transformed into a setting thatinvites students to interact with each other and ideas. We have evidence thatintentional, planned, explicit connections between the ivory tower of theUniversity and the front lines in the classrooms serve all students well.Successful University/school collaboration has the potential for creatingcommunities of learners linking our students with their college professors,classroom teachers, school administrators, and today’s and tomorrow’schildren. We envision this course as an important step in theseuniversity-wide and across-the-profession efforts of educational renewal.Students who are actively engaged in thinking and rethinking what it means‘to teach’ give us hope for the schools, classrooms, teachers and children oftomorrow.

Correspondence

Professor Mac H. Brown, College of Education, University of SouthCarolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA ([email protected]).

ReferencesBelenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R. & Tarule, J.M. (1986) Women’s Ways of

Knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind . New York: Basic Books.


216

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in EarlyChildhood Programs, revised edn. Washington: National Association for the Educationof Young Children.

Briggs, K.C. & Myers, I.B. (1987) Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Feeney, S. & Kipnis, K. (1989) Code of ethical conduct and statement of commitment, Young

Children, 45, pp. 24-29.Freeman, N.K. (1997) Mama taught me right from wrong, isn’t that enough? Young Children,

52(6), 64-67.Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.Handler, M.G. & Strudler, N. (1996) The ISTE foundation standards: issues of

implementation, Journal of Computing in Teaching , 13, pp. 16-23.Karayan, S.S. & Crowe, J.A. (1997) Student perceptions of electronic discussion groups, THE

Journal, 24(9), pp. 69-71.National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1994) What Teachers Should Know and

Be Able To Do. Washington: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.National Council of Teachers of English (1996) Standards for the English Arts . Urbana:

National Council of Teachers of English.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991) Professional Standards for Teaching

Mathematics. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.National Education Association (1977) Code of Ethics of the Education Profession .

Washington: National Education Association.Sizer, T.R. (1994) Coalition of Essential Schools. Providence: Brown University, Education

Department.Wise, A.E. (1995) Raising expectations for technology in teacher education, NCATE Quality

Teaching, 5, pp. 1-3.


217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

emph

is L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

32 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

A constructivist in the lecture hall? helping pre-service teachers claim their voice