The University of ToledoThe University of Toledo Digital Repository

Theses and Dissertations

2008

Instructional strategies in early childhood teachereducation : a comparison of two approachesAmy E. AllenThe University of Toledo

Follow this and additional works at: http://utdr.utoledo.edu/theses-dissertations

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The University of Toledo Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Thesesand Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The University of Toledo Digital Repository. For more information, please see the repository'sAbout page.

Recommended CitationAllen, Amy E., "Instructional strategies in early childhood teacher education : a comparison of two approaches" (2008). Theses andDissertations. 1158.http://utdr.utoledo.edu/theses-dissertations/1158

A Dissertation

Entitled

Instructional Strategies in Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Comparison of Two Approaches

By

Amy E. Allen

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Foundations of Education: Educational Psychology

______________________________ Advisor: William M. Gray

______________________________ Sally Atkins-Burnett

______________________________ John R. Cryan ______________________________ Ruslan Slutsky ______________________________ Judith Herb College of Education

______________________________ College of Graduate Studies

The University of Toledo

August 2008

ii

Copyright © 2008

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document

may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.

iii

An Abstract of

Instructional Strategies in Undergraduate Teacher Education:

A Comparison of Two Approaches.

Amy E. Allen

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for

The Doctor of Philosophy in Foundations of Education: Educational Psychology

The University of Toledo

August 2008

In an effort to identify the impact of teacher education on P-12 classroom

practices, and ultimately on P-12 student learning, this study investigates the differences

between two instructional environments in an undergraduate early childhood teacher

education program. Data in this qualitative study were collected from students in two

methods courses. Content for each course was identical. However, one instructor taught

in a center-based instructional environment while the other instructor taught in a non

center-based instructional environment. The data show that students in the center-based

environment perceived more opportunities to develop autonomy and intrinsic motivation

compared to students in the non center-based environment.

iv

Dedication

This study is dedicated to children.

It will be a wonderful day when ALL children are blessed with quality teachers who know how best to help them learn. This study will play a small role in the quest to make that happen.

v

Acknowledgements There are many to acknowledge for helping me along this journey:

• My husband, Lloyd for always believing in me and encouraging me.

• My children, Liam, Evan, and Bridget who give me inspiration and keep me fueled with reasons to make schools great places for kids.

• My parents for teaching me how to work hard and persevere, even when things

are difficult.

• My colleagues at Dorr Elementary who taught me about what good teachers do and do not do.

• My colleagues in the Early Childhood Department with whom I shared many

conversations about quality teaching. Those conversations ultimately resulted in this study.

• My committee members, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Bob Cryan, and Ruslan Slutsky

who gave honest feedback and constant encouragement.

• My dissertation chair, Bill Gray who stepped in at a difficult time and worked with me diligently to get things done.

vi

Table of Contents Copyright Page…………………………………………………………………………....ii

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..iii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………….......... iv

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..v

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….vii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...viii

List of Appendices……………………………………………………………………….ix

Instructional strategies in undergraduate teacher education: A comparison of two

approaches

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………1

Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………….....11

Chapter 3: Method……………………………………………………………….34

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………..56

Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………72

References……………………………………………………………………………….85

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………...102

vii

List of Tables Table 1 Approaches to Instruction……………………………………….28 Table 2 Participant Demographics……………………………………….38 Table 3 Weekly Schedule………………………………………………...45 Table 4 Focus Group 1 Questions………………………………………..50 Table 5 Focus Group 2 Questions………………………………………..51 Table 6 Summary of Data Codes………………………………………...58 Table 7 Criteria for Categorization of Data……………………………...59 Table 8 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role…………………………61 Table 9 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate……………………...63 Table 10 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIa: Student Instructional Role…………………………..65 Table 11 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers……………………………66 Table 12 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning…………..67 Table 13 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preferences………………………....70 Table 14 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class…………………..71

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1 A Theoretical Look at Examining the Effects of Teacher Education on P-12 Programs…………………………...18 Figure 2 Flow Chart of Data Analysis Process…………………………....52

ix

List of Appendices Appendix A Account of Personal Experiences with Center-Based Environments……………………………102 Appendix B Course Syllabus………………………………………...109 Appendix C Sample center-based activities…………………………118 Appendix D Module 1 Course Content………………………………124 Appendix E Module 2 Course Content………………………………126 Appendix F Module 3 Course Content………………………………128 Appendix G Module 4 Course Content………………………………130 Appendix H Data for Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role……….132 Appendix I Data for Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate…...136 Appendix J Data for Theme IIa: Student Role in the Instructional Process……………………………………138 Appendix K Data for Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers…………140 Appendix L Data for Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning……………………………………….142 Appendix M Data for Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preference………..145 Appendix N Data for Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class……………………………………………147

1

Chapter One: Introduction

The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.

- William Arthur Ward

Knowing how to produce one of those “great” teachers is the question that lingers

in the minds of most teacher educators. Teaching potential teachers to tell, explain, or

demonstrate appears to be a relatively simple task. However, teaching future teachers to

inspire, and even more importantly, to ensure that their students’ learning takes place, is a

task that proves to be much more challenging. To date, no magic formula has been found.

However, one thing appears to be true: what happens inside the teacher education

classroom does make a difference in how those future teachers will educate their future

students (Goodlad, 1994; Holmes, 1995; National Commission on Teaching & America’s

Future, 1996; National Research Council, 2005). How and why it makes a difference is a

topic of debate.

Rationale

Call for Research

In 2005, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, president of the American Educational

Research Association (AERA), in her presidential address, noted the need for convincing

evidence regarding teacher education programs: “In particular, we need more and better

2

research on the outcomes of teacher education” (Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 2). Since about

1990, it appears that there has not been adequate, convincing evidence about teacher

education programs to inform policy makers. The evidence that does exist is questioned

often by different members of the education field, as it is subject to multiple

interpretations (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Grant &

Secada, 1990; National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996; National

Research Council, 2005). Although there are multiple studies addressing a variety of

issues such as technology (Angeli & Valanides, 2005; Overbaugh & ShinYi, 2006;

Stanford & Reeves, 2007), program structure (Sim, 2006), curriculum (Clark & Rust,

2006; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Morey & Bezuk, 1997; Null & Bohan,

2005), and field placements (Hayes, 2002), there are very few empirical studies that

identify specific advantages of one instructional strategy in teacher education programs

over other strategies. According to Cochran-Smith, if we are to make effective changes to

teacher education programs, this hole in the educational literature must be filled.

Cochran-Smith’s call for convincing evidence about teacher education programs

is not new or unique as evidenced by similar concerns raised by Grant and Secada (1990),

as they called for more evidence about effective practices in teacher education programs.

Unfortunately, we still know little about which strategies are effective in helping teacher

education candidates learn the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required of teacher

education candidates (see NCATE, 2007, for information on these important

characteristics of teacher education candidates).

Many factors contribute to teacher education candidates’ success in their teacher

education program classroom and, eventually, in their own classrooms. In an effort to

3

identify the impact of these factors on teacher education programs, many teacher

education programs have been examined. Such studies have looked at (a) program

structure (Sim, 2006), (b) curriculum (Clark & Rust, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2005;

Morey & Bezuk, 1997; Null & Bohan, 2005), and (c) field placements (Hayes, 2002).

However, there does not appear to be adequate documentation of the actual instructional

strategies that promote learning and encourage critical thinking in teacher education

programs.

Obviously, there are many different ways that university instructors facilitate

learning with teacher education students. However, little research has been conducted to

identify which strategies are effective in early childhood teacher education programs.

Further, this small body of research (Brown, 2001; Fanghanel, 2004; Huang, 2006;

Livingston, 2003; Ryan & Grieshaber, 2005; Starnes & Bohach, 1995) skirts the issue of

the effectiveness of instructional strategies, by addressing outcomes and making

comparisons between groups without linking each group to a specific instructional

strategy. Although addressing the outcomes and comparing groups is helpful, it does not

provide insight into the actual teaching and learning processes. The heart of teaching and

learning rests within the interactions between the instructor and students, among students,

and between students and curricular materials. Instructional strategies facilitate these

interactions. An examination of current literature on instructional strategies in teacher

education programs revealed little research to document the effectiveness of one

instructional strategy over another in an early childhood teacher education program. This

extensive examination included looking at instructional strategies in undergraduate

education, teacher preparation models, instructional strategies in early childhood teacher

4

education classrooms, and effective instruction. Although multiple studies were found,

which documented the effectiveness of a particular strategy (Huang, 2006; Jinsong &

Walls, 2006; Smith & Ayers, 2006; Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004), virtually none were found

that made direct comparisons between students experiencing two different instructional

environments in the same course.

Personal Experiences

At the same time that Cochran-Smith made her call for research to address the

link between teacher education candidate learning and P-12 student learning, our

university was exploring new ways to meet the changing preferences of students in our

undergraduate teacher education programs. In an effort to bring about change in the

teacher education programs, the college of education began to examine its vision. This

examination was also prompted by a desire and need to align the college with the state of

Ohio teacher licensure standards, as well as with the National Council for Accreditation

of Teacher Education (NCATE) credentialing standards. After much discussion and

research, the college adopted the following vision statement:

Individuals at the center of their own learning within a rich intellectual environment, characterized by choice

Individuals at the center of their own learning implies that students are not

passive recipients in the teaching/learning process. Rather, students are active participants

and take a lead role in making sense of the information presented and in constructing

their own understandings of that information (Popper, 1979). From a Dewyan

perspective, it means simply that in order for learning to occur, the teaching and learning

process is grounded in students’ interests and experiences (Dewey, 1916).

5

within a rich intellectual environment suggests that the environment in which

students learn must provide opportunities for learning to occur. Those environments are,

in part, designed by instructors. Important considerations of this “rich intellectual

environment” are understanding the (a) logical structure of the knowledge base (Bruner,

1965; Gardner, 2000), (b) importance of inquiry-based learning, (c) importance of

accepting individual perceptions (Snauwaert, 1992), and (d) the importance of

experiences outside of the college classroom (such as field experiences and service

learning projects). Thus, a “rich intellectual environment” includes more than the typical

college classroom environment.

characterized by choice offers students and instructors an opportunity to examine

the options that are available in different aspects of their education. “How the students

navigate the intellectual landscape is based upon choice, but … structured by the logic of

the disciplines [knowledge base] and the nature of the problems and interests that define

the disciplines” (Snauwaert, 1992, p. 21). Such choice is an important component of any

program, and includes choice in degree options, course options, assignment options, and

fieldwork options. As no two students are alike, the ways in which information offered to

students may not be necessarily alike. Choice offers instructors and students the

opportunity to tailor the teaching/learning process in order to build from students’ prior

knowledge and assist them as they move toward more complex levels of thinking.

In examining the college’s vision statement, it became clear that it was not

difficult to accept it as the college’s vision. However, what did become difficult was

identifying what it would look like to implement this vision in a practical way. As is

typical of many ideas, the theory sounds good, but the implementation of such theory is

6

often fuzzy. In other words, it became very clear that finding a way to meet the demands

of this vision statement and deliver an education to students that included each

component would be challenging.

In an effort to try to put the pieces of this puzzle together, a colleague

implemented a specific teaching strategy. Specifically, she designed an instructional

environment where students worked in centers. For each course module (content, etc. --

whatever their focus), students were given six different center activities, with each center

activity focused on one topic. Students worked at their own paces and completed the

centers in a variety of ways. At the conclusion of each module, students shared their work

with others and the instructor used this sharing period as a catalyst for conversations to

enhance the levels of thinking of the students about the course content. After her initial

endeavor, she saw some significant benefits, such as increased intrinsic motivation and

greater student autonomy. She shared her experiences with other faculty in our

department. Given her positive experiences, a few other colleagues and I decided to try

her ideas for one semester. A narrative summary of my experiences during that semester

is presented in Appendix A.

At the conclusion of that semester, all of the instructors who had participated in

the center-based instruction met to discuss their experiences. It was not long before we all

decided that this was a powerful instructional strategy. We, too, noticed differences in

student autonomy and type of motivation. At that point, we decided that we needed some

data to document its effectiveness beyond our perceptions and feelings. As I was

beginning to search for a meaningful dissertation topic, it seemed only natural to explore

this idea further. This dissertation is a direct result of that one semester experience using

7

a center-based instructional strategy. Because of what was experienced, and because of

my belief that this strategy is inherently different from traditional teacher-centered

instructional strategies and their effects on students, I set out to gather data to document

the differences in teacher candidate learning in a center-based instructional environment

compared to students in the same course taught in a more teacher-directed manner.

In reflecting back to Cochran-Smith’s call for research (2005), these initial

experiences caused me to further examine her position. A closer look at her appeal for

research revealed her call to document evidence to support three important links. These

links focus on the relations between the education and practice of P-12 teachers.

• Teacher preparation programs and teacher candidate learning

• Teacher candidate learning and their classroom practices

• Teacher classroom practices and what their P-12 students learn (Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 3)

Cochran-Smith’s appeal coupled with a lack of convincing data on the

effectiveness of various instructional strategies in teacher education programs suggest

that the first link must be investigated before the other two links are addressed. In

addition, it is important to address this link first because to understand the complexities

of how teachers in P-12 classrooms teach, we must “back track” to the beginning of their

teacher preparation programs. This “back tracking” is necessary because the interactions

between teacher education candidates, curricular materials, and instruction are key

components in shaping the types of teachers that teacher candidates will become (Bruner,

1965; Gagné, 1962; Kent, 2005; Outlaw, Clement, & Outlaw, 2007).

Beginning with the first link, the potential to address the remaining two links is

also provided. By working with the same groups of students over the next few years,

8

longitudinal data can be collected that may provide evidence to investigate the links

between teacher education candidates’ learning and their P-12 classroom practice, as well

as the link between P-12 instructional strategies and P-12 students’ learning. Clearly, this

is difficult. However, groundwork for these future studies is formed by beginning with an

examination of what is happening in the context of a teacher education program.

Information acquired from this examination can provide a basis for examining how

students learn in one type of teacher education environment compared to how students

learn in a different type of teacher education environment. Once that link is addressed,

then P-12 student learning can be examined in light of how the P-12 teachers teach.

Through this complicated process, it is possible to begin to answer the question that

Cochran-Smith posed: Do teacher education programs have a “direct” impact on P-12

students’ learning? Moreover, if the answer is “yes,” do different teacher education

programs have a different, “direct” impact on P-12 students’ learning?

In looking at exactly how a center-based instructional strategy is different from

other instructional strategies, a number of learning outcomes can be considered. The first

learning outcome that can be considered is the amount of learning in terms of content.

Current data regarding teacher candidate learning show that most teacher education

candidates, at this point in the teacher education program, from this specific university,

meet the academic criteria for obtaining a license to teach in the state of Ohio. Students in

this university are required to take and pass a minimum of two Praxis II examinations

(i.e., the appropriate Principles of Teaching and Learning exam and one or more

examinations in their “content” specialty) in order to be recommended for a teaching

license in the State of Ohio. The most recent data showed 99% of students who took the

9

early childhood specialty area test, passed it successfully

(http://www.ode.state.oh.us/teaching_profession/PDF/teacher_quality/current). This

suggests that the majority of the students in the program, regardless of the instructional

strategies used in the classroom, learn the material necessary to pass the Praxis II Early

Childhood Specialty Area test. For this reason, examining the amount of content learned

did not appear to be an outcome to examine in order to identify whether outcomes

associated with a center-based instructional strategy differed from a more teacher-

directed strategy. What the Praxis II examination does not reveal is the motivational

orientation or the level of autonomy students have. Although learning content is an

obvious desired outcome, motivation and autonomy are equally as important to examine,

as they both have ramifications for long-term retention and application of the content that

was learned (Jalongo, 2007; Katz & Assor, 2007; Ruban & Reis, 2006; Rudy, Sheldon,

Awong, & Tan, 2007; van Grinsven & Tillema, 2006).

The second outcome that can be considered is motivation. Based on the one

semester of using a center-based approach to teaching, a difference in motivation was

noted. Students in the center-based classroom appeared to be self-motivated and intent on

learning the material at their own rates and in their own time. Additionally, the learning

strategies students used to solve problems and construct understandings appeared to be

different from those observed in previous semesters (i.e., teacher-directed classrooms).

Further, students appeared to reflect on their own learning, both formally and informally,

in a much different way than previously observed (e.g., student conversations about

concepts were reflective in nature, written assignments included a reflective component).

10

These observations and Cochran–Smith’s call for evidence to document the effectiveness

of teacher education programs led to the focus of the dissertation.

Research Question

One key question was investigated: Do teacher education candidates who are in a

center-based instructional environment perceive differences in the environment compared

to teacher education candidates in a non center-based instructional environment?

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review

In order to place the purpose and the results into an appropriate context, an

investigation of the literature about (a) teacher education, (b) learning, (c) instruction, and

(d) center-based instructional environments was conducted

Teacher Education

The knowledge base for pre-service teacher education of early childhood

educators is typically thought to be inextricably linked with the concepts of child

development, pedagogy, and assessment. In fact, the authors of guidelines for preparing

early childhood educators often discuss preparation of teachers in terms of these types of

concepts. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), in

its 1996 guidelines, listed the following key components of teacher education programs:

• Ensure that teacher education candidates demonstrate verbal and written abilities to communicate

• Provide teacher education candidates with opportunities for reflection • Ensure that progress is assessed regularly • Faculty inform teacher education candidates in writing regarding this

assessment • Faculty assess teacher education candidates’ mastery of the program’s exit

criteria • Ensure that teacher education candidates abide by professional ethics NAEYC (1996)

12

However, the problem with using these as guiding principles for quality teacher

preparation programs is that these suggestions are actually activities or events that should

occur in a program and do not present a conceptual framework from which to work. They

simply tell what should happen within the programs. They do not provide any empirical

evidence to demonstrate why these particular suggestions should be put into place nor do

they give guidance as to how to implement them.

Chickering and Gamson (1987) present another way to look at what should be

taking place in teacher preparation programs. They offer seven principles of good

practice for college classrooms. Good practice

1. encourages student-faculty contact. 2. encourages cooperation among student 3. encourages active learning. 4. gives prompt feedback. 5. emphasizes time on-task . 6. communicates high expectations. 7. respects diverse talents and ways of knowing.

(Chickering & Gamson (1987)

Once again, these principles present only ideas that should be put into place in quality

teacher education programs. They offer no background information or theoretical

frameworks as the foundation or suggestions about how to implement them.

Other researchers have offered apparent solutions for enhancing teacher education

and making sure that students learn. Ryan and Grieshaber (2005) presented three

pedagogies designed to move toward a postmodern teacher education program. These

13

three pedagogies are situating knowledge, multiple readings, and engaging with images.

Although each of these pedagogies is solid and grounded in literature, Ryan and

Grieshaber did not specifically look at the benefits of each pedagogy. They gave ample

subjective evidence as to why these pedagogies should be effective, but did not provide

any data to support their ideas.

Similarly, Grainger and Barnes (2004) offered suggestions for embedding creative

teaching into a teacher education program. Again, they provided a sound rationale, but

did not offer any data to support their ideas. Brownlee (2004) attempted to develop

teachers who utilize constructivist models by building on their epistemological beliefs.

Once again, this is an idea that certainly “makes sense” and holds promise, but there is no

empirical evidence to support this approach.

Although all of these suggestions point to what is believed to be important

components of any teacher preparation program, none recognizes that the knowledge

base in pre-service education is grounded in the characteristics of the learner (i.e., the

university student). Child development, pedagogy, assessment, and the like are actually

the content of any program, or what is taught within a program. The knowledge base for

how to teach that content to teacher education candidates is grounded in the

developmental needs of the university student who is preparing to become a teacher. As

noted by Cochran-Smith, “In particular, we need more and better research on the

outcomes of teacher education” (2005, p. 2). If we are to make effective changes to

teacher education programs, this hole in the educational literature must be filled.

specifically, three links must be examined:

14

However, it is my belief that the links specified by Cochran-Smith (i.e., teacher

preparation programs and teacher candidate learning, teacher candidate learning and

classroom practices, and graduates’ practices and what their students learn) are more

complex than she proposes (Cochran-Smith, 2005). In order to fully understand the

outcomes associated with P-12 education, we must first consider the characteristics of the

university instructors, undergraduate students, university classroom, teacher education

curriculum, and interactions among and within all of these entities. Dunkin and Biddle

(1974) presented a model for studying teacher education that, combined with Cochran’s

proposed links (2005), create a promising way to examine the effects of teacher education

programs on P-12 learning.

Figure 1 embeds the three links presented by Cochran-Smith with the model

presented by Dunkin and Biddle (1974). Dunkin and Biddle designed the model using the

following components: presage variables, context variables, process variable, and product

variables. There are several different components of figure 1 that need further

explanation. First, Dunkin and Biddle present the idea of presage variables. These

variables “concern the characteristics of teachers that may be examined for their effects

on the teaching process -- thus, teacher formative experiences, teacher-training

experiences, and teacher properties” (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974, p. 39).

Examining the context variables in the first portion of the diagram provides

insight into a variety of other components of the teaching and learning process. Context

variables concern the physical environment where the teaching and learning process

occurs, formative experiences of the students, pupil properties, classroom contexts, and

curriculum (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). All of these clearly influence the process of

15

teaching and learning and have the potential to provide unique challenges to any learning

environment.

The process variables in the large grey box on Figure 1“concern the actual

activities of classroom teaching -- what teachers and pupils do in the classroom” (Dunkin

& Biddle, 1974, p. 44). These variables include the activities that take place within the

classroom, teacher classroom behavior, and student classroom behavior. These variables

are, perhaps, the most difficult to understand because of the complexity of the

interactions among them. For example,

The final variables that Dunkin and Biddle (1974) present are product variables

located at the end of the first cycle. These variables concern the outcomes of teaching --

those changes that come about in pupils because of their involvement in classroom

activities with teachers and other pupils. In the first portion of Figure 1, these products

involve the outcomes for students in the teacher education program. It is important to

note that these products come in the form of both short- and long-term outcomes and that

the long-term outcomes are the ones that will have a direct impact on the teaching and

learning process in the teacher education student’s future classrooms.

Similar to the model proposed by Dunkin and Biddle (1974), this study purports

that this cycle is repetitive, especially when it pertains to teacher education programs. In

other words, once the product variables of teacher education students have been

identified, the cycle does not end. It actually begins again, with a new set of presage

variables (the former teacher education student as the teacher), a new set of context

variables (the setting in which the new teacher works), new process variables (the

interactions between the teacher and the children in his/her classroom), and new product

16

variables (the outcomes of the children’s learning). Presumably, the cycle quite possibly

continues endlessly, as the outcomes associated with the children’s learning will shape

them as either future teachers or learners who bring their own sets of characteristics to

any teaching and learning environment they may be a part of throughout their lives.

Infused into Dunkin and Biddle’s model (1974) are the three important links

presented by

Cochran-Smith (2005). These links represent the three bodies of research that Cochran-

Smith believes are needed in the area of teacher preparation programs. Because of the

lack of empirical data to support the ideas represented in the links (Cochran-Smith, 2005;

Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Grant & Secada, 1990; National Commission on

Teaching & America’s Future, 1996; National Research Council, 2005), these links have

been identified by Cochran-Smith as areas where research must be conducted before any

conclusions can be made about the impact of teacher education programs.

The first link between teacher preparation programs and teacher candidate

learning is represented in Figure 1 as a yellow star containing the number one. This link

involves the outcomes of student learning because of the process variables and

interactions taking place within the teacher education classrooms. Once again, these

products can be either short- or long-term products, depending upon the information

needed. In order to address Cochran-Smith’s other two links; however, the long-term

outcomes are the ones that need to be examined.

The second link between teacher candidate learning and classroom practices is

represented in the diagram as a yellow star containing the number two. This link involves

the process variables in the future classrooms of the teacher education candidate. This is

17

an appropriate link to consider, as clearly the product of the teacher candidate’s learning

impacts the presage variables of that future teacher, which directly impacts the classroom

behaviors and interactions that he/she engages in within his/her future classroom.

The third and final link between graduates’ practices and what their students learn

is represented in Figure 1 as a yellow star containing the number three. This link is

perhaps the ultimate link, as the purpose of any teacher education program is to produce

teachers who are able to teach children in ways that are appropriate, and that cause

children to reach levels of competence that are set before them.

This study provided an opportunity to connect the first link. An analysis of what

students learn (including knowledge, skills, and dispositions) was facilitated by

identifying specific strategies used in teacher education programs and comparing those

strategies to others.

18

Figure 1: A Theoretical Look at Examining the Effects of Teacher Education on P-12 Programs

Link #1: teacher preparation programs and teacher candidate learning Link #2: teacher candidate learning and classroom practices Link #3: graduates’ practices and what their students learn

(Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 3)

Adapted from Dunkin & Biddle (1974) and Cochran-Smith (2005)

Pressage Variables University instructor characteristics

Context Variables University student characteristics Curriculum Setting

Process Variables Teacher behavior changes in student Student behavior

Product Variable short term long term

Pressage Variables Classroom teacher characteristics

Context Variables Student characteristics Curriculum Setting

Process Variables Teacher behavior changes in student Student behavior

Product Variable

short term long term

#1

#2

#3

19

Learning

Learning Theory

The knowledge base on learning is vast, including (a) behaviorist perspectives,

such as Skinner’s operant conditioning (1966), Thorndike’s connectionism (1911), and

Watson’s behaviorism (1925); (b) interactionist perspectives, such as Gagné’s conditions

of learning,(1962) and Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1969); (c) developmental-

interactionist perspectives, such as Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory (1978); and (d)

cognitive perspectives, such as Gestalt theory (Koffka, 1935; Lewin, 1936; Tolman,

1932; Wertheimer, 1938) and information processing theory (Broadbent, 1958; Martin,

1993; Ng & Bereiter, 1991; Shulman, 1986).1 Each of these differing perspectives of

learning provides a different set of issues to examine. The present research is grounded in

social interactions and developmental theories. In order to fully understand learning in

this context, an examination of the roles of motivation and autonomy is needed.

Motivation

Learning requires, at some level, that students have a particular motivation to

learn the content (Covington, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Tolman, 1932). Depending

on the types of motivation students have, learning can be enhanced or impeded, and they

will have a direct impact on the learning that occurs whether within a center-based

environment or a non center-based environment. (Ames, 1992; Atkinson, 1957; Dweck &

Leggett, 1988; Elliott & McGregor, 2001; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Nicholls, 1984;

Pintrick & Schunk, 2002).

Expectancy-value theory. The beliefs that students have about their own

capabilities (expectancies) and the beliefs that students have about why they would

20

engage in specific tasks (values) influence their learning and achievement. This approach

to motivation has its roots in the field of educational psychology (Covington, 1992;

Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefe, 1998; Tolman, 1932; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). However,

the current view of expectancy/value theory has a strong social cognitive component

(Heckhausen, 1997; Pekrun, 1993; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). “This social cognitive

model focuses on the role of students’ expectancies for academic success and their

perceived value for academic tasks and springs from a general organismic perspective

based in personality, social, and developmental psychology” (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p.

60). That is, an understanding of the value students place on a task, as well as what

students expect to achieve from that task, have implications for the learning that will take

place. Further support for this notion comes from the work of Eccles (1983) and Wigfield

(1994). Their view is based on Atkinson (1957) and involves both an expectancy and a

value component. The probability for success (expectancy) implies that students ask,

“Am I able to do this?” The incentive (value) suggests that students ask, “Why should I

do this?” Answers to both of these questions have implications for learning.

We know that learning is fostered when students are engaged in a task within their

expected success range and which has value to them, and if students view a task as

valuable and find that task to be within their own zone of proximal development, they are

more likely to learn the information being presented (Vygotsky, 1978). In center-based

environments, this is the case. Because the activities provided to students are open-ended,

the students have the opportunity to approach the activities in ways that are congruent

with their prior knowledge, and because the activities are done concurrently with field

placements, students have opportunities to connect the tasks to their own experiences in

1 Classifications adapted from Gredler (2001, p. 18)

21

the classroom. In addition, Eccles and Wigfield concluded that when students hold high

expectancies for success, they are more likely to have high levels of achievement (Eccles,

1983; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).

Combined, these studies provide support for the idea that the value students place

on a task has a direct relationship with the expectancy for success on that task. As these

two entities appear to be reciprocal, we can conclude that they both affect learning in the

classroom. In center-based learning, the tasks presented to students are relevant to their

learning) and connected to their field placement. Because of this, we can surmise that the

tasks have more value to students than if they were activities unconnected to practice in a

P-12 classroom.

Attribution theory. Another way to examine the impact of motivation on learning

is to examine the concept of attribution. Attribution theory attempts to answer the

question, “to what do students attribute success or failure on a task?” Attribution theory is

important to examine because students’ attributions often are the basis for their

expectancy (Weiner, 1986).

Achievement attributions have been widely studied. The data agree that

achievement attributions are common across cultures, and include ability, effort, luck,

and task and/or learner characteristics such as difficulty, intrinsic motivation, teacher

competence, and mood. There is ample evidence that whether students fail or succeed at a

specific task, they attribute their success/failure to one of the above-mentioned

explanations (Bandura, 1993; Kinlaw & Kurtz-Costes, 2007; Rotter, 1966; Schweinle,

Meyer, & Turner, 2006; Self-Brown & Matthews, 2003; Weiner, 1986). In addition,

Weiner (1986) determined that students’ attributions are affected by three additional

22

considerations: (a) locus of the cause, (b) stability of the cause, and (c) controllability of

the cause. Locus of the cause can be considered as either external or internal. For

example, students may perceive the cause of their success to be internal (such as

intelligence or effort), or external (such as luck or teacher competence). Clearly, the type

of attribution they hold will affect their expectancy of success. If they feel that they are

capable and are putting forth effort, the likelihood that they will succeed is increased

(Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). In the case of center-based environments, locus of the cause

is internal by design. The teacher creates activities that are open-ended so that students

are able to approach the activities in ways that meets their own preferences. Additionally,

the amount of effort put forth by students has a direct impact on the success of the

activity.

Stability of a cause provides an equally important way to examine attributions.

Students may consider the cause of their success/failure to be either stable or unstable.

For example, if students attribute their success/failure to luck, that would be considered

unstable, as luck surely changes regularly. On the other hand, students may consider the

cause of their success/failure to be their ability, which is much more stable than luck.

Students may all attribute their success/failure to characteristics that are either

controllable or uncontrollable. For example, if students attribute their success/failure to

task characteristics, it is likely that they have no control over the task, thus making their

success/failure more or less out of their power. On the other hand, students may attribute

success/failure to a controllable characteristic, such as effort in the amount of studying.

Goal orientation. Goal orientation is another motivational theory that has

ramifications for learning. Compared to goal content theory or goal setting theory, goal

23

orientation theory focuses on the purpose(s) individuals have for engaging in

achievement behavior. Additionally, goal orientation theory assumes some type of

standard that individuals use to measure success. Although goal orientation theory has

been defined in various ways, (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott &

McGregor, 2001; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Nicholls, 1984), Ames’ concepts of goal

mastery goals and performance goals were judged most appropriate for this study (Ames

1992). Mastery goals are those associated with a focus on learning and mastering the

task. They involve attempting a challenge in an effort to learn something new or gain

additional insight. Performance goals involve demonstrating competence or ability

compared to the performance of others. Both types of goals have been further broken

down into approach or avoidance goals (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). The basic

distinction is that approach goals employ a focus on mastering tasks or trying to best

others in an attempt to meet some standards (either self-set or normative). Avoidance

goals, however, focus on avoiding misunderstanding or avoiding looking stupid or dumb

compared to others.

Of mastery and performance goals, mastery goals have been linked to higher

levels of learning. Pintrich (2000) found that when students employ multiple goals,

mastery goals appear to be the most adaptive, and this study indicates that “the

implication that students should be encouraged to adopt a mastery goal orientation and

that classrooms should be structured to facilitate and foster a general mastery orientation

is still a valid conclusion” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 553). Additional support for this argument

comes from the work of Ames and Archer (1988), who found that the use of cognitive

strategies and mastery goals were highly correlated. In other words, students who

24

employed mastery goals were more likely to use a larger number of cognitive strategies.

Clearly, using a variety of cognitive strategies is conducive to learning. Finally, Graham

and Golan (1991), in a study of word recall, found that having task-involved goals (which

are focused on mastering a task) and ego-involved goals (which are focused on ability

compared to others) resulted in students having poorer recall at complex processing

levels. Again, mastery goals (or in this case, task-involved goals) appear to be more

conducive to classroom learning, especially when complex processing is necessary.

Thus, there is ample evidence that motivation influences learning. When students

adopt a mastery goal orientation, value tasks for their potential for learning, and have

attributions that are stable, internal, and controllable, that students are more likely to

succeed. While there are certainly situations in any classroom that may defy these

findings, the empirical evidence supports the idea that students who adopt certain types of

motivation are more likely to succeed in the classroom than those who do not adopt those

types of goals.

Autonomy

Also referred to as self-regulation (Winne, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000), autonomy is

an important consideration when looking at how learning occurs in a given setting.

Autonomy is typically presented as an adolescent (ages 11- 21) issue (Guisinger & Blatt,

1994; Steinberg, 1990). For this reason, the concept of autonomy is particularly

interesting, as undergraduate students fall into this age range. Steinberg (1999) suggests

three types of autonomy: emotional, behavioral, and value. The concepts of value

autonomy and behavioral autonomy have specific connections to the process of teaching

and learning.

25

In terms of behavioral autonomy, undergraduate students are moving towards

making independent decisions (Chiou, 2008; Steinberg, 1999) understanding multiple

points of view, comparing ideas, and thinking ahead (Steinberg, 1999). All of these skills

are important to develop in the context of teacher education. Perhaps the most difficult is

the understanding of multiple viewpoints. Because students tend to see their own

experiences as the “right” way, it becomes difficult for them to understand that there are

multiple ways of thinking and seeing the world. Interestingly, Piaget would consider this

preoperational egocentrism (1970), even though these students are not of the age

typically associated with egocentric behaviors.

In terms of value autonomy, undergraduate students are engaging in more abstract

thinking, exploring their own values (Chiou, 2008; Ullah & Wilson, 2008), and

developing prosocial skills that will enable them to be successful teachers (Lamborn,

Fischer, & Pipp, 1994). These skills are paramount for classroom teachers, as they will

enable students to develop their own sets of beliefs and values about teaching and

learning, and help them to remain faithful to their beliefs in the face of differing opinions

or ideas.

Teachers who encourage autonomy in the classroom have students who

demonstrate high levels of intrinsic motivation (Leroy, Bressoux, Sarrazin, & Trouilloud,

2007). As noted above, this type of motivation results in students who have high levels of

achievement. For this reason, it is important that undergraduate education be focused on

helping students to develop autonomy and become self-reliant.

26

Instruction

Although it is difficult to separate the processes of teaching and learning, it is

crucial that the idea of instruction is examined. Because of the variety of instructional

strategies available (Jonassen, 1999; Reigeluth, 1999), instructors often find themselves

wondering which strategies to use. For this reason, a discussion of instructional theory is

included. Quality instruction begins with quality instructional design.

Instructional Theory

Examining the premise of instructional theory provides insight into the teaching

and learning process. Instead of choosing an instructional strategy based on an

instructor’s instincts, instructional theory provides educators with knowledge of the entire

process, which allows them to choose instructional strategies based on what is most

appropriate for their students. The current research is grounded in the idea that in order to

choose appropriate instructional strategies, one must know the (a) learners; (b)

curriculum; (c) desired outcomes; and (d) multiple instructional strategies that are

available.

When defining a term as complex as “center-based learning,” it is important to

keep in mind that the actual strategy is a method chosen based on a specific instructional

design theory. Center-based learning, depending on its instructional design, can take

many forms. Many have used centered learning, or center-based learning (Bottini &

Grossman, 2005; Clark & Rust, 2006; DiGiorgio, 2004; Hubbard, 2002; King-Sears,

2007; Movitz & Holmes, 2007; Perin, 2004). However, each of these authors use the term

“center-based” differently and give it their own sets of characteristics.

27

In order to eliminate any confusion about center-based learning, a discussion

about the instructional-design theory behind the strategy is crucial. According to

Reigeluth (1999), instructional-design theories have four important components. They (a)

are design-oriented as opposed to reactive; (b) identify methods of instruction; (c) these

can be broken down into more detailed methods; (d) are probabilistic as opposed to

deterministic. The premise behind center-based learning is grounded in each of these

components.

Design-Oriented as Opposed to Reactive

Theories that support centered learning are many (Bandura’s (1977) social

cognitive learning theory), Vygotsky’s (1929/1977) cultural historic theory, Weiner’s

(1994) attribution theory, Jonassen’s (1999) theory of designing constructivist learning

environments, Teaching for Understanding (Perkins & Unger, 1999), and Fostering a

Community of Learners (Brown & Campione, 1996). Each theory brings its own unique

characteristics to the overall instructional design for center-based learning. Parts of each

theory combine with others to create a theory that is designed to facilitate learning in

teacher education candidates. Center-based environments, in this sense, are designed to

help students (a) engage in complex examination of subject matter, (b) be active

constructors of their own knowledge, (c) develop an intrinsic motivation for learning, (d)

engage in transformative experiences, and (e) develop a range of cognitive and affective

skills.

Identify Methods of Instruction

Examining the theories of center-based learning provides educators with a basis

from which to develop other methods of instruction that will produce the outcomes

28

desired. Rather than viewing center-based learning as strategy in and of itself, looking at

a variety of theories allows others to view center-based learning holistically, choosing

multiple methods of instruction as avenues to learning. Keeping in mind that instruction

can take multiple forms, Olson, Dorsey, and Regieluth (1988) compiled a list of different

approaches to instruction (see Table 1). The list is quite comprehensive and illustrates the

multiple ways in which instructors and students can participate in the learning process.

Table 1 provides a list of the reported approaches.

Table 1: Approaches to Instruction

1. Apprenticeship 2. Debate 3. Demonstration 4. Field trip 5. Game 6. Group discussion, guided 7. Group discussion, free/open 8. Ancient symposium 9. Interview 10. Guided laboratory 11. Lecture/Speech 12. Lecture, guided discovery

13. Panel Discussion 14. Project 15. Team Project 16. Seminar 17. Quiet Meeting 18. Simulation 19. Case study 20. Role play 21. Think tank/brainstorm 22. Tutorial, programmed 23. Tutorial, conversational 24. Socratic dialogue

Olson, Dorsey, & Reigeluth, (1988)

Can be Broken Down into More Detailed Methods

Methods in any instructional theory can, and should be, broken down into

specific, detailed methods that allow learners to fully understand each step of the

intended learning process. Setting goals for students, monitoring process toward those

goals, and linking new concepts to old concepts are three important ways that this can be

accomplished (Reigeluth, 1999). In order to be fully engulfed in the concepts and skills

29

presented, students must understand that the methods have been clarified sufficiently to

support their own individual learning.

Probabilistic as Opposed to Deterministic

The methods in any designed instruction are not created as a way to ensure that

students attain goals. Rather, they are designed to increase the likelihood that students

will attain goals (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 7). Because there are so many factors to consider

when designing instruction for a specific group of students, designed instruction cannot

possible ensure the success of each student in the same way. Rather, instruction is

designed to create an environment that allows students to attain their individual goals,

and the goals set forth by the instructor, not that all students would attain all of the goals.

Center-Based Environments

Center-based learning environments espouse a wide range of intended outcomes.

Students in center-based classrooms are exposed to processes and lessons that allow them

to develop an understanding of subject matter, be active constructors of their own

knowledge, develop an intrinsic motivation for learning, engage in transformative

experiences, and develop a range of cognitive and affective skills.

A primary goal of center-based learning environments is to move students beyond

parroting information presented to them -- to understanding information. Understanding,

as defined by Perkins and Unger (1999), is being able to think and act creatively and

competently with what one knows about the topic. A key to understanding is critical

thinking, which includes the abilities to screen useful information, ponder possible

ramifications of a problem solution, and pull apart ideas in order to see and evaluate their

building blocks. Center-based learning concurs with Nelson’s (1999) theory that the

30

development of critical thinking may be accomplished through learning by participation

in multiple stages of the learning process.

The move from parroting back information to constructor of knowledge requires

students to become active constructors of knowledge, a crucial goal for center-based

learning environments. These environments are focused on enabling students to become

critical thinkers who ponder and reflect on what they know, and assist them in seeing that

they can be creators of knowledge as opposed to being recipients of knowledge. As noted

by Gagné (1962), learning occurs when an individual develops a particular capability to

do something the individual could not do previously. This idea is embedded in the

methods of center-based learning.

Maehr and Midgley (1991) discussed the idea of achievement motivation as a

means for helping students perceive themselves as origins rather than as pawns in the

teaching-learning process. They believe motivation is vested in the meaning of a situation

to the individual, especially in the perception of personal causation. In center-based

classrooms students’ roles as equal participants help to facilitate their perceptions of

personal causation. This creates a foundation of the self as being responsible for, and

capable of, creating knowledge.

Along with attempting to instill achievement motivation, center-based

environments attempt to provide an opportunity for students to have transformative

experiences in their learning processes. Transformative experiences, as defined by Pugh

(2002), are experiences that take place because of engagement with a concept. This

engagement can lead to the expansion of students’ perception and values. Transformative

31

experiences initially require active use of a concept, which is a goal of center-based

learning.

The goals of center-based learning environments include some skill acquisition as

well. Cognitive skills that are fostered in center-based classrooms include, but are not

limited to, communication, leadership, trust building, alternative conflict resolution, self-

motivated study, and topic investigation skills (such as identifying where to research,

who are experts to contact, and what are the available sources for consultation).

Affective skills are also emphasized in center-based environments. There is an

assumed focus on empathy, caring, kindness, and overall concern for another’s well-

being. Unfortunately, cognition is often the focus, with only a small amount of attention

given to the affective development of the learner. In center-based classrooms, structure is

provided to enable students to identify their own feelings and values about course topics

and explore how these personal interpretations impact their abilities to provide services.

Understanding the roles that emotions play in learning enables overall understanding and

increases the ability to apply information. Instruction in center-based environments

focuses on learning, feeling, and doing.

Ultimately, the intended outcome is to produce teachers who are able to

implement a variety of instructional strategies with the children they will teach. As with

any teacher education program, the ultimate outcome is measured not by evaluating the

pre-service teachers, but by evaluating the learning that takes place in their future

classrooms. However, there are outcomes that must be measured prior to this ultimate

goal. These outcomes are those that increase the likelihood that preservice teacher

education candidates will be effective practitioners once they leave the university setting.

32

A final intended outcome of center-based environments is that teacher education

candidates will be more likely to use appropriate practices in their own classrooms. This

requires collection of longitudinal data and is the subject of future work. In essence, it is

the end of the cycle: the children with whom these teacher education candidates will

work will benefit the most from the teacher’s skills and knowledge.

In order for center-based learning environments to be successfully implemented,

the instructor must hold some important beliefs about teaching and learning. As opposed

to the long-established approach of lecturing to university students, center-based

instructors must hold a view of themselves not as givers of knowledge, but as facilitators

of knowledge. Doing this requires them to think of themselves as “guides on the side”

rather than “sages on a stage.” To do this, instructors must give up a fair amount of

control over the instructional process and allow the learners to assert control over their

own learning. Center-based instructors must believe that students are ultimately

responsible for their own learning (Brown & Campione, 1996; Jonassen, 1999; Perkins &

Unger, 1994).

Likewise, students in center-based classrooms must also hold some beliefs. If the

instructor encourages students to be responsible for their own learning, students must be

willing to accept that responsibility. Additionally, students in center-based classrooms

must assume new roles in their learning. They must understand that they need to be self-

directed and intrinsically motivated to accomplish tasks and solve problems. Further, the

students must agree to work collaboratively with other students and the instructor. In

order for students to experience success in a center-based classroom, they must be willing

to accept these new and challenging standards.

33

Summary

Teaching and learning are complex ideas that require an in-depth examination

before embarking upon any new teaching and/or learning activity. Many new ideas that

pass through the educational door are based on what feels right or what appears to be a

promising idea. However, unless those new ideas are grounded in what is known,

empirically, about teaching and learning, they stand little chance of surviving the test of

time and becoming an effective way to engage students. Center based environments, as

proposed in this study, are strongly supported by the literature surrounding both teaching

and learning. In addition, this type of learning environment is also supported by the

literature about effective instruction. Because there is literature to support the underlying

principles of this strategy, it is advantageous to examine whether or not this strategy

proves to be effective as compared to other strategies.

34

Chapter Three: Methodology

Two different pedagogical approaches to teaching an undergraduate, early

childhood, preschool and primary methods course in a large metropolitan university in

the Midwest were investigated. One classroom was taught in a center-based instructional

environment, which incorporated high learner choice, whereas the other was taught using

a more traditional lecture and small group approach.

Research Design

An action research model was used and the data were analyzed qualitatively.

Although not as formative as some action research, the attempt was to identify important

components of the teaching and learning processes within two specific undergraduate

classrooms. An action research approach was used because it offered an opportunity to

examine a significant classroom dilemma: that of choosing an appropriate instructional

strategy (Stringer, 2004). Although the intent was not to solve a problem, such as social

dilemmas or day-to-day planning dilemmas, evidence of specific characteristics of the

teaching and learning process in two different teacher education environments was

sought.

Collection of qualitative data was chosen because “qualitative researchers study

things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in

terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 3). In this

35

study, students’ thoughts, perspectives, and approaches to learning were studied in two

university classrooms. Clearly, this was a natural setting.

Classroom action research is typically conducted by teachers as a way to improve

their own practices (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) by focusing on their self-

understanding and judgments. Although typical sites for this type of research are

classrooms of children in P-12 school settings, this approach in the university classroom

is becoming more popular as a way to inform the teaching practice of university

instructors (Gordon & Debus, 2002; Siberry & Kearns, 2005; Smith & Sela, 2005). As

opposed to identifying an idealistic approach that may adequately illustrate a theory,

classroom action research provides opportunities to merge theory and practice in a way

that is both practical and educationally sound.

This study is also aligned with Shaw’s definition of a case study, which states that

a case study “concentrate[s] attention on the way particular groups of people confront

specific problems, taking a holistic view of the situation” (Shaw & Reeve, 1978, p. 2).

Because an attempt was made to identify how two different groups of students and two

different instructors approached the teacher and learning process, it is reasonable to call

the approach a case study. In fact, Merriam (1998) noted that case studies are particularly

useful in looking at educational innovations because they provide for examining multiple

components of a given setting, which was done by comparing a center-based teacher

education environment with a non center-based environment.

In determining the best way to answer the research question, multiple types of

case studies were considered (Olson, 1982; Stake, 1995). After reviewing various

36

approaches, a descriptive perspective, as presented by Olson, was determined to be most

appropriate. According to Olson (1982), a descriptive case study can

• Illustrate the complexities of a situation -- the fact that not one but many factors contributed to it;

• Have the advantage of hindsight, yet can be relevant in the present; • Show the influence of personalities on the issues; • Show the influence of the passage of time on the issue -- deadlines, change of

legislators, cessation of funding, and so on; • Include vivid material -- quotations, interviews, newspaper articles, etc.; • Obtain information from a wide variety of sources; • Cover many years and describe how the preceding decades led to a situation; • Spell out differences of opinion on the issue and suggest how these

differences have influenced the result; • Present information in a wide variety of ways … and from the viewpoints of

different groups.

Participants

Each group of students was part of a cohort of students who began their

professional education experiences at the same time and continued their education as a

group through the completion of their programs. Prior to the collection of data, each

group of students was together for one complete semester, taking all of their courses

together. Each group also spent that first cohort semester with their respective instructor

in the study. Although students did not know which method each instructor would use, it

is important to note that before the students embarked upon this cohort system had the

opportunity to choose the instructor with whom they would spend the remainder of their

37

professional program. This arrangement allowed students to build relationships with each

other and with the instructors. Because each group of students had already spent one

semester as a cohort, relationships among students and between the students and their

respective instructors had already begun to form. These relationships had an impact on

the responses submitted during the data collection processes.

Another important characteristic of the participants was that each group of

students was at the same point in their undergraduate studies, having taken the same

number of credit hours and many of the same courses. This sample or convenience was

chosen because they were enrolled in the course in which the center-based environment

was being implemented. Demographic data for each group are presented in Table 2.

The instructors had similar teaching styles and theoretical points of view. Both

had taught the class multiple times. The instructor in the non center-based environment

taught the class six times prior to the study (5 times in a non center-based environment,

and 1 time in a center-based environment), and the instructor in the center-based taught

the class four times prior to the study (3 times in a non center-based environment and 1

time in a center-based environment). Both instructors were recipients of the college

outstanding teacher award within the past two years, suggesting that both of them have

high teaching ratings from both students and faculty. Both instructors were white females

working with classes in which the majority of the students were white females.

The non center-based instructor also conducted the study, and was an active

participant in the study. This was necessary because of the three instructors assigned to

this course, only she and the other participating instructor had experience in teaching the

course in both center-based and non center-based environments. The third instructor was

38

new to teaching the course, and was not familiar with the curriculum or any teaching

strategies for the course.

Course Design

The course syllabus is found in Appendix B. It is important to recognize that both

instructors used the same syllabus, text, and course objectives. The only differences on

the course syllabus were the instructors’ names and contact information in section D on

Table 2: Participant Demographics

Non Center-Based Group

n = 22

Center-Based Group n = 17

Gender:

Male

Female

1

21

0

17

Ethnicity:

White

Black/Afro-American

Other

19

1

2

16

1

0

Age:

18-22

23-27

28-32

33-37

38 and above

13

4

1

3

1

14

2

0

1

0

Hours per week worked:

0

1-10

11-20

21-30

7

3

3

3

8

1

5

1

39

the first page of the syllabus. Course objectives were based on the state licensure

requirements, as well as the National Association for the Education of Young Children

guidelines (1996).

In addition to the syllabus, other important components of the course warrant

explanations. Specifically, the course goals in terms of cognitive, affective, and social

development and the environments in which students worked need examination

Cognitive Development

Cognitively, both of the instructors embraced an approach to teaching and

learning grounded in Piagetian and Vygotskian principles. From a Piagetian point of view

(Piaget, 1970), both instructors acknowledged that students both assimilate new

information into their own experiences while they also accommodate their own

experiences based on new information to form new understandings. Because both

instructors believed assimilation and accommodation to be crucial components of the

learning process, they actively built upon students’ prior experiences when introducing

new concepts.

From a Vygotskian perspective (Vygotsky, 1962), both instructors had an

awareness that student knowledge is not static, but that it is a constantly changing

phenomenon that occurs within a sociocultural context. Thus, both also used Vygostky’s

concept of the Zone of Proximal Development: learning occurs through a carefully

orchestrated system of assistance and independent performance. This was implemented

by having instructors model and assist students as they moved to new understandings of

course concepts and ideas.

40

Affective Development

One course goal was to facilitate affective development (e.g., develop self-

awareness, manage emotions, motivate towards goal accomplishment, recognize

emotions in others, and handle relationships with others). Because it is difficult to

explicitly teach these skills and dispositions (Noyes, 2008; Swick, 2001; Winsor, Butt, &

Reeves, 1999), it was important to examine if, and how, they develop in the context of

one instructional strategy or another. By examining student reflections and focus group

content, it was possible to identify ways in which dispositions were indirectly fostered

and encouraged, and whether certain students are more likely to embrace these

dispositions in one type of environment, whereas others may develop them best through a

different environment.

Social Development

Undergraduate students are very social, and .there is ample evidence to suggest

that students’ social competence has a direct impact on their academic achievement

(Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Britton & Pellegrini, 1990). For this reason, it is not possible to

separate this social aspect from classroom interactions and/or the teaching and learning

process. In fact, Vygotsky (1978) based many of his ideas on the idea that cognitive skills

have a social origin and that they must first be performed with other competent

individuals before becoming internalized. For this reason, both classrooms allowed for,

and encouraged, interactions among students, as well as interactions between students

and instructor. As expected, the interactions were different in each setting. After

identifying these differences, their complexities were examined in order to determine if

one environment was more conducive to different types of interactions than another.

41

Center-Based Environment

The center-based instructional environment took place during the 16 week fall

semester, 2005. The semester was divided into three modules, each focusing on specific

readings and course concepts as detailed by the syllabus (see Appendix B). In this

approach, the instructor planned six learning centers for each module. A learning center

was defined as a topic or subject of study that provided information and instructions for a

learning activity. Each module had a center for the following categories: child

development, assessment, planning instruction, curriculum, developmentally appropriate

practices, and other (depending upon the module). For example, during module two,

several activities dealt with the development of play behaviors. One of those activities

was placed in ‘developmentally practices’ and the other fell into the ‘other’ category.

These centers took a variety of forms and included multiple ways of learning and

presenting information including, but not limited to, paper-and-pencil tasks, charts and

diagrams, research, collaboration, interacting with materials, audio and video recordings,

and technology. Students had the opportunity to work independently, with a partner, or in

a group, depending upon the nature of each center. A sampling of center activities that

were used is in Appendix C.

At the onset of each module, the instructor spent one to three hours presenting

background information that would help the students be successful with the module’s

activities. This information was based upon the assigned readings and course content.

Following that initial meeting, students were given approximately ten hours of class time

over three weeks to complete each of the centers. Centers were completed in no specific

42

order. Amount of time spent on specific centers was determined by the students rather

than prescribed by the instructor.

During the time when students were working on centers, the instructor performed

multiple tasks that were designed to compliment the learning process. One task was to

circulate through the room and check with groups of students. Doing this allowed the

instructor to spend time with small groups of students discussing course content,

challenging misconceptions, and helping to clarify their understanding of the content.

The instructor also acted as a resource for students. Finally, the instructor spent time

grading lesson plans or doing other work that was required of instructors of the course

instructors, such as organizing information, preparing lessons, and/or gathering data.

Although there were guidelines for the beginning and ending of each module, the

amount of time spent on each module was flexible as a way to meet the preferences of

students. This flexibility allowed students to engage in learning without a strict time

stipulation, which provided an opportunity for students to get into the ‘flow’ of learning

(Dewey, 1938). Because of coursework in other classes and because it was not possible to

predict how long it would take to fully understand the content of each center, the ending

date was flexible, and was based on feedback received from students. Once all centers for

a module were completed, student work was submitted per the instructor’s directions.

After all work from a module had been submitted, the instructor led the class in a

discussion of each module and its intended learning outcomes. Although discussions

ensued throughout the entire module, this large group instruction served as a way to

summarize and clarify course goals and course content. Students discussed their work

and the instructor had an opportunity to analyze student understanding of the concepts

43

represented in each of the module’s centers. At this time, the instructor had an

opportunity to provide additional information to students to guide them toward an

understanding of concepts that was accurate. This discussion lasted approximately two

hours and was flexible in terms of time and content discussed, as determined by the

instructor’s analysis of student learning. In addition to evaluating student learning

through the discussions, the instructor evaluated the center work of each student and gave

written feedback. Upon completion of each module, students also completed a module

reflection in which they described their learning and their understanding of course

concepts presented during that module.

Non Center-Based Environment

A second group of students had the course content presented to them in a non

center-based learning environment. This method was also used throughout the same 16-

week semester. The course was also divided into four modules, using the same reading

assignments and course content as the center-based model. Both instructors followed the

same syllabus and used the same readings and course concepts (see Appendix B). Course

goals and objectives were the same as in the center-based environment.

Within this environment, the instructor began each module with a lecture and/or

discussion about the content of the module. Information was presented to the whole class

verbally. Videos and/or personal experiences were also used to help students fully

understand the concepts. Although some of the videos were available for the instructor in

the center-based environment as well, they were used differently. In the non center-based

environment, the instructor had students watch the videos as a whole class; in the center-

based environment, the instructor had students watch the videos as part of a center

44

activity. Once a specific concept had been explained and discussed, students in the non

center-based environment were assigned a small group activity to complete.

These small group activities took place at a time assigned by the instructor,

usually immediately following a lecture or discussion. Students did not have a choice

about when to complete the small group activity; it was determined by the instructor.

Activities were presented as set activities during a specific time, not choices to be

completed at the students’ discretion. Students completed these activities in small groups.

Once each group completed the activity, groups shared and discussed with the larger

group. Those discussions allowed the instructor to analyze the groups’ understanding of

the concepts.

Within each module, the cycle of lecture and discussion followed by a small

group activity happened multiple times. The beginning and ending of each module was

flexible to ensure that the instructor had enough time to help students learn the content of

each module. Upon completion of each module, students also completed a module

reflection in which they described their learning and their understanding of course

concepts presented during that module.

Course Schedule

Both classes met on campus from 9:00-12:00 on Mondays, and from 9:00-11:00

on Fridays, for a total of five hours each week. Course content was the same for each

group of students. The only difference was the way the course content was presented: in a

center-based environment, or in a non center-based environment. Table 3 provides a

visual representation of course content and instructional strategies used for each group.

45

Table 3: Weekly Schedule

Center-Based Non Center-Based

Week1: Monday

Course overview Course overview

Week 1: Friday

Introduction to Module 1

Introduction to Module 1

Week 2: Monday

Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 2: Friday

Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work

Video Week 3: Monday

Work in centers

2Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 3: Friday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 4: Monday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Video Week 4: Friday

Work in centers Sharing

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 5: Monday

Introduction to Module 2

Introduction to Module 2

Week 5: Friday

Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 6: Monday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Guest Speaker Week 6: Friday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 7: Monday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 7: Friday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Video Week 8: Monday

No class Fall Break

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 8: Friday

Reflection #1

Reflection #1

Week 9: Monday

Work in centers Sharing

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 9: Friday

Introduction to Module 3Work in centers

Introduction to Module 33

46

Week 10: Monday

Work in centers Focus Group #1

Teacher led discussion Small group work Focus Group #1

Week 10: Friday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 11: Monday

Work incenters Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 11: Friday

Work in centers Field Trip

Week 12: Monday

Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 12: Friday

Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work

Video Week 13: Monday

Work in centers Sharing

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 13: Friday

Introduction to Module 4Work in centers

Introduction to Module 44

Week 14: Monday

Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 14: Friday

Reflection #2 Reflection #2

Week 15: Monday

Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work

Week 15: Friday

Work in centers

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Video Week 16: Monday

Work in centers Focus Group #2

Teacher led discussion Small group work Focus Group #2

Week 16: Friday

Work in centers Sharing

Teacher led discussion Small group work

Analyses

Thus, there were two data sources. Data sources included (1) participants’

reflections about the course, and (2) focus group conversations. The initial intent was to

include instructors’ field notes as a data source. However, these field notes were small in

number and did provide information to support any student-perceived differences.

Participants responded to reflective prompts twice throughout the semester. Each group

47

responded to the same two prompts on the same day. Focus groups took place twice

throughout the semester (see Table 3). Again, each group responded to the same set of

questions on the same day. Instructors kept field notes throughout the entire semester.

Additionally, instructors met regularly after each class period to briefly describe the

events of the class. This served as a way to ensure that each instructor maintained her

assigned environment per the research design.

Reflections

Because the teaching-learning process is so complex, teachers need to have a way

to deal with the complexities of every day interactions, as well as a way to examine their

own responses to those complexities. Reflective practice is one way of examining the

complexities and it has been identified as one aspect of the highest professional

competence (Cole & Knowles, 2000; Jay, 2003; Larrivee, 2000; Osterman & Kottkamp,

2004; Valli, 1997; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Montie, 2001; Zeichner & Liston,

1996).

In order to develop teachers who are able to reflect about their classroom

practices, it is important to teach in a way that encourages teacher education students to

reflect on their own learning. Reflecting in a productive way is not something that

teachers often do. Instead, it must be encouraged in the teacher education classroom and

recognized by instructors and students alike as a valuable tool to analyze one’s own

learning.

Dewey (1910/1933, 1938) introduced the concept of reflective practice, making

the distinction between actions that are routine and actions that are reflective (Larrivee,

2000). When teachers engage in actions that are routine without reflecting on them, they

48

run the risks of misunderstanding their (a) students, (b) own actions, and (c) results of

their actions. On the other hand, when teachers engage in reflective practice, they are

more likely to accept uncertainty and to recognize the complexity of students, their own

actions, and the results of their actions (Kelsey, 1993; King & Kitchner, 1994; Osterman

& Kottkamp, 2004).

In the teacher education classroom, learning how to be a reflective practitioner

can take many forms. Instructors can teach this skill explicitly or implicitly through

conversations and assignments. What is important is that students develop the ability to

• pause, slow down, allow for higher level thinking processes • take an open-minded stance, recognizing that there are many ways to view a

particular circumstance, situation, or event • be receptive to changing viewpoints and letting go of needing to be right • be in a mindful state, conscious of both thought and action • acknowledge that doubt, perplexity, and tentativeness are part of the process

(Larrivee, 2000)

Larrivee offers four different types of reflection, as opposed to the three levels of

reflection that are often noted in the literature (Dey, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Handal &

Lauvas, 1987; Jay & Johnson, 2002, Van Manen, 1977): (a) surface reflection (reflection

about the general state of the experience; initial thoughts about what occurred), (b)

pedagogical reflection, (reflection about the teaching that occurred; thoughts about how

the teacher interacted with children and presented curriculum, (c) critical reflection,

(reflection about the learning that occurred; thoughts about how and what students

learned and if learning outcomes were met), and (d) self-reflection (reflection about own

thoughts and feelings during the teaching-learning process; thoughts about your own role

49

in the classroom). Students were asked to use both critical and self-reflection throughout

the semester.

Students were asked to reflect regularly throughout the semester on course

content and specific activities. In addition, students were asked to formally reflect two

times throughout the semester based on open-ended prompts. These formal reflections

were completed during class time and were as follows:

1. Reflect on yourself as a learner. How do you prefer to learn? How is this class helping you to learn in the way that is best for you?

2. Think about yourself in this class (NOT in your field). Describe what the role of

the instructor is. Describe what your role is. Describe the interactions between the students and the instructor.

Each instructor administered the prompt in her own classroom, during class time.

No instructions were given other than the written prompt. The first reflection occurred in

the seventh week of the term on Friday, and the second reflection occurred during the

fourteenth week on Friday.

Focus groups

Focus groups were used as part of a multi-method data collection process. Focus

group data were examined as a way to examine the complex nature of learning and

students’ perceptions of the learning process in each of the different types of classrooms.

Focus groups were held twice throughout the semester with each of the groups.

Participants were chosen randomly for focus groups by assigning each student a number

and randomly selecting six numbers from each group. Students assigned to the numbers

selected were asked to participate in a focus group during class time. For the first focus

group, all chosen participants from each group agreed to participate. Thus, no

replacement was necessary. However, for the second focus group, two students from the

50

center-based group declined participation, which led to replacement of the students. The

next two students chosen agreed to participate. Focus groups were led by a faculty

member who was not one of the course instructors. Focus group questions for the first

focus group are reported in Table 4.

_____________________________________________________________________ Table 4: Focus Group One Questions

1. Is it important for you to do well in this class? Why?

2. How has the structure of this class helped you as a learner?

3. What role do your peers play in your learning in this class?

4. What do you do in this class to help you learn the material?

5. How often do you reflect on the information you learn in this class? How

do you reflect?

6. Would you say the instructor is focused on teaching you the material? Or on you learning the material?

Upon completion of the focus groups, a member check was conducted to ensure that

each participant’s responses were accurate (Stringer, 2004). Questions and responses

from the audio tape-recorded focus groups were transcribed and then presented to each

participant in the group. Participants were asked to verify all of the information contained

in the transcription for its accuracy, and they were permitted to add or delete information

as needed. No students requested changes to be made from either group.

Questions for the second focus group were designed after the first focus group data

had been examined. The intention was to identify issues and ideas that needed further

clarification. Frey and Fontana (1991) describe this as tapping into intersubjective

meaning with depth and diversity. By examining the initial focus group data, holes in the

51

existing data were identified and questions were created to obtain data to fill the holes.

For example, student responses from reflection two (during the 14th week) indicated that

students were spending time doing different types of activities, depending on the type of

environment they were in. In order to understand this and obtain more detailed

information about how students spent their time, a question was added to focus group two

that provided students the opportunity to talk about how they spent their time.

Additionally, some issues or ideas were not fully explained in the first focus group and

needed to be examined by asking questions that are more specific. Questions for focus

group two are reported in Table 5.

_____________________________________________________________________ Table 5: Focus Group Two Questions

1. Can you talk about your experiences in this class?

2. Think about how you spend most of your time in this course. What stands out and why?

3. How was your time spent?

4. Describe the interactions between the instructor and the students in this course.

5. What do you see as the strengths and drawbacks of the structure of this

class? 6. Suppose you were asked to implement a center-based strategy in a

primary classroom. Would you know what to do?

Data Analysis

Data was obtained from focus groups with students, and student reflections. Data

were coordinated in order to obtain a complete picture of the inner workings of each

52

group (Denzin, 1978; Janesick, 1994; Stake, 1995). This coordination of data provided

for multiple comparisons of the data.

The data analysis process was cyclical, following a cycle similar to one suggested

by Stringer (2004): Collecting data, reviewing data sets, categorizing data, organizing a

category system, re-examining data, clarifying the category system, and coding the

categories. The process required revisiting category system, coding the categories, and re-

examining phases often before any findings could be accurately communicated. Figure 2

provides a flow chart of the analysis process.

Figure 2: Flow Chart of Data Analysis Process

Reviewing Data Sets

“The purpose of reviewing data sets is to familiarize researchers with the data,

and allow them to take an overall view of the information so that links between items and

elements begin to emerge” (Stringer, 2004, p. 113). This initial reviewing of data was

crucial in the analysis, as it provided an opportunity to see overall themes and patterns

emerge.

Collect Data Review Data Sets

Categorize Data Organize Category System

Re-examine Data Clarify Category system

Code Categories

53

Categorizing the Data

A componential analysis (Bernard, 1994; Spradley, 1979) was used to divide the

data into separate units of meaning. A componential analysis is based on the logical

relationships within the data. One the initial categorization was completed, some of the

data needed to be further broken down into sub-categories that represented different

phenomena within each category. Student responses from reflections and/or focus groups

were placed within specific categories or subcategories according to their attributes

(Stringer, 2004).

Coding the Categories

Each category was assigned a term or phrase to identify it as a separate category.

This term could be called a code (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Creswell, 2002) or a cover

term (Spradley, 1979). For simplicity, these terms were called codes.

Constant Comparison

Once the data were categorized and coded, a constant comparative method was

used to identify any student perceived differences between the center-based and non

center-based environments (Silverman, 2000). Using this method provided an

opportunity to continually revisit data during the analysis. Thus, different data sets were

reviewed multiple times and examined from different perspectives, depending upon the

specific categories that emerged. Because the two environments (center-based vs. non

center-based) were being compared, using a constant comparison methodology provided

a framework for looking at the data from both groups simultaneously, thus providing the

opportunity to identify any student perceived differences between the center-based and

non center-based groups.

54

Trustworthiness

Because qualitative methods are most often subjective in nature, it was paramount

that the trustworthiness of the methods be addressed. Doing this provided added

assurance that the data were presented accurately and that reasonable interpretations,

which could be supported by the data, were reached. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested

that establishing trustworthiness requires evidence of credibility, transferability, and

confirmability.

Credibility

All researchers enter a study with their own perspectives, and those biases result

in the specific orientation of the research study. Thus, some procedures were included

that decreased the likelihood that my perspectives would create obstacles to

understanding the data.

First, two data sources were used in an effort to clarify any differing ideas and

different ways that concepts were being interpreted (Denzin, 1978; Janesick, 1994; Stake,

1995). Data were collected from students twice through reflections as well as twice

through focus groups. This collection of multiple data sets provided multiple perspectives

from multiple people on multiple occasions.

A second way that credibility was preserved was by conducting member checks,

which involves verifying data with participants to ensure accuracy (Janesick, 1998;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The most prominent place where this occurred was following the

focus groups. After each focus group session was transcribed, the transcription was

distributed to each member of the group to review for its perceived accuracy. The

transcription was given to the group exactly one week after the focus group took place.

55

At that time, participants had the opportunity to add and/or delete information as

appropriate. If participants wanted to add or delete information, they could submit a

change request. No students submitted a change request, nor did they indicate that a

change was necessary.

Transferability

Although the results are not transferable to all teacher education environments,

the results may be transferable to environments similar to the ones described. By

providing a detailed description of the participants, instructors, curriculum, and

instructional environments, other teacher educators have the potential to take the data and

use them to make decisions about their own similar situations. The data for the obtained

items are presented in appendices H – N.

56

Chapter Four: Results

The results are based on the feedback from students in both of the focus groups,

as well as from the reflections. In order to determine whether there were student

perceived differences between the center-based environment and the non center-based

environment, each data set was reviewed individually. In addition, the data sets were

constantly compared during the data analysis in order to determine where differences

existed.

Data were reviewed initially through multiple readings of student comments.

While reading, students’ thoughts and ideas were noted, and similar thoughts and ideas

were recorded. These readings revealed three specific themes: the (a) roles of the

instructor, (b) roles of the students, and (c) learning styles and preferred instructional

strategies. Upon identification of each theme, another reading of the data occurred. This

time, student comments were color-coded based on which theme the comments

represented. This color-coded data set provided a visual representation of each theme.

Once the data were color-coded, the comments were entered into a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet. Using a spreadsheet to represent the data provided an opportunity to code

the data according to multiple categories. Once the data were coded, sub-categories for

the themes were identified as a way to look at the data more specifically. The specific

themes and subcategories are illustrated below:

57

Theme I: Roles of the Instructor

a. instructional role

b. instructional climate

Theme II: Roles of the Student

a. role in the instructional process

b. work with peers

c. responsibility for own learning

Theme III: Learning Styles and Preferred Instructional Strategies

a. learning style preferences

b. specific strategies used in class

Codes used in representing the data are found in Table 6. Group name was denoted

as CB (center-based) or N-CB (non center-based). Data source was coded twice: First,

each category was coded as either R (reflection) or F (focus group), and the second

category was coded as either 1 or 2, denoting the specific reflection or focus group.

Student identification was the next code. For reflections, student last names were

recorded as a way to document which student and how many specific students

commented in each category. For focus groups, student responses were coded as student

a – student f. Because it was not possible to identify which student said what from the

audio recording, students were identified by their voice. The comments were recorded

into the spreadsheet verbatim. The final seven categories on the spreadsheet were Ia:

Instructor instructional role, Ib: Instructor instructional climate, IIa: Student role in

instructional process, IIb: Student work with peers, IIc: Student responsibility for own

learning, IIIa: learning style preference, IIIb: specific strategies used in class. After

58

comments were recorded, an ‘x’ was placed under the category of the theme represented

by the comment. In some cases, one comment could meet the requirements of more than

one theme.

Table 6: Summary of data codes

Group Source First or Second

ID Comment Ia Ib IIa IIb IIc IIIa IIIb

CB (center-based) OR N-CB (non center-based)

R (reflection) OR F (focus group)

1 OR 2

Student name OR a-f

Comments from data

An ‘x’ placed in the column representing the theme the comment illustrates

Criteria for choosing comments and placing them in categories are included in

Table 7. For the first theme, Instructor Instructional Role, the criteria were: Any comment

containing the word ‘instructor’ or any other word referring to instructor, coupled with a

verb describing what the instructor did. For the second theme, Instructor Instructional

role, the criteria were: Any comment mentioning the physical environment,

any comment illustrating how the instructor made students feel, or any comment

illustrating how the instructor addressed non-academic issues. For the third theme,

Student Role in the Instructional Process, the criteria were: Any comment containing the

word ‘student’, or ‘I’, or any other word referring to the student, coupled with a verb

describing what the student did. For the fourth theme, Student Work with Peers, the

criteria were: Any comment mentioning the word ‘group’, any comment mentioning the

59

word ‘peers’, or any comment mentioning the word ‘collaborate’. For the fifth theme,

Student Responsibility for own Learning, the criteria were: Any comment containing the

word ‘responsible’, any comment that illustrates a student’s ability to control the

learning, or any comment mentioning ‘choice’. For the sixth theme, Learning Style

Preference, the criteria were: Any comment containing specific learning styles, coupled

with a preference term such as ‘prefer’ or ‘like’. For the seventh theme, Specific

Strategies Used in Class, the criteria were: Any comment referring to any specific

learning activity or strategy used during the study.

Table 7: Criteria for Categorization of Data

Ia: Instructor Instructional Role -Any comment containing the word ‘instructor’ or any other word referring to instructor, coupled with a verb describing what the instructor did

IIb: Instructor Instructional Climate -Any comment mentioning the physical environment

-Any comment illustrating how the instructor made students feel -Any comment illustrating how the instructor addressed non-academic issues

IIa: Student role in the instructional process -Any comment containing the word ‘student,’ or ‘I,’ or any other word referring to the student, coupled with a verb describing what the student did

IIb: Student work with peers -Any comment mentioning the word ‘group’

-Any comment mentioning the word

60

‘peers’ -Any comment mentioning the word ‘collaborate’

IIc: Student responsibility for own learning -Any comment containing the word ‘responsible’

-Any comment that illustrates a student’s ability to control the learning -Any comment mentioning ‘choice’

IIIa: Learning style preferences -Any comment containing specific learning styles, coupled with a preference term such as ‘prefer’ or ‘like’

IIIb: Specific strategies used in class -Any comment referring to any specific learning activity or strategy used during the study

Theme I: Roles of the Instructor

The roles of the instructor in any learning environment are a key factor in how

and what students learn. Although the role of each instructor was to instruct or teach the

definition of instruct or teach was different by design: one instructor utilized a center-

based environment, whereas the other taught in a non center-based environment. At the

surface level, it would appear that, by definition, the roles of the two instructors differed.

In fact, that theme emerged often in the data. However, a more detailed examination

revealed that the students’ perceived differences in the roles of the instructor were quite

complex, suggesting two sub-categories: (a) instructional role and (b) instructional

climate. Data for Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role can be found in Appendix H,

and for theme 1b: Instructor Instructional Climate in Appendix I.

Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Roles

61

Comments meeting the criteria for this theme came from both groups from

Reflection 2 and Focus Group 1. Table 8 documents the number of students from each

group who contributed to these comments.

Table 8: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Them Ia: Instructor Instructional Role

Group Source Percentage

CB Reflection 2

82% (14/17)

CB Focus Group 1 100% (6/6)

N-CB Reflection 2

54% (12/22)

N-CB Focus Group 1 67% (4/6)

In reading at the responses from students, perceived differences were initially

difficult to identify. However, a few differences did emerge. For example, some of the

responses from students in the N-CB group suggested that the instructor took on a more

directive role (“she really tried to explain things,” “explaining what it means”), whereas

some students from the CB group noted that “[She] is teaching us how to learn.” These

different remarks suggest that the N-CB instructor did more of the talking and explaining

and actual ‘giving of knowledge’ to students. In contrast, CB instructor encouraged

students to find ways to engage in their own directed learning processes.

Another perceived difference was that students in the N-CB group implied often

that the instructor was “in charge.” Comments such as “She gives good examples,” “She

always applies what she’s teaching to something that will be happening,” or “She has a

62

way of twisting it so it means something to everyone” suggest that the teacher was at the

center of the learning process. In the CB group, however, there were no comments that

depicted the teacher as a “giver of knowledge.”

As reported by students in Reflection 2, the role of the instructor in the N-CB

group appeared to be one of teaching the course content in an appropriate way and

meeting the preferences of the learners. Verbs used regularly in this reflection were

facilitate, present, determine, challenge, give, guide, teach, provide, know, ask, and

instruct. These verbs were used by students in their reflections of how the instructor met

the preferences of students throughout the semester. It was clear that students felt that

their preferences were met adequately, and that the instructor succeeded in conveying the

content and helping students learn the knowledge and skills required in the course.

In comparison, CB student responses from Reflection 2 contained a much larger

number of roles. As reported by students, a different set of verbs was used including

guide, encourage, define, consult, support, explain, facilitate, promote, ask, introduce,

monitor, prepare, provide, suggest, assist, organize, inform, plan, and assess. These

verbs were used by students in their discussion of how the instructor met the learning

preferences of students throughout the semester. It was apparent that students felt that

their learning preferences were met adequately, and that the instructor succeeded in

conveying the content and helping students learn the knowledge and skills required of

this course. However, in contrast to the responses from the N-CB group, the students

reported that the instructor supported them in their learning, and found ways to encourage

individual growth and development.

63

Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate

Data collected for examination of the instructional climate showed no student

perceived differences between the CB students and the N-CB students. The data are

found in Appendix I. Table 9 shows the number of students from each group whose

responses were coded into this category. In looking at the table, it appears as if more

responses from the CB group were recorded. However, based on the similarities of the

responses (“There is a high comfort level” N-CB; “I never really dreaded coming to

class” CB), it was concluded that there were no notable differences in this theme.

Students in both groups reported feeling comfortable within the learning

environment. They also reported that the instructor was sensitive to their personal and

educational preferences. This evidence suggests that both instructors provided students

with support and guidance throughout the learning process. This is important because

students’ perception of the learning environment can have an impact on their responses to

the reflections and focus groups. In this case, both groups of students appeared to be

comfortable in the learning environment and felt that the instructors were understanding

of students and their learning.

Table 9: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate

Group Source Percentage

CB Reflection 2

< 1% (1/17)

CB Focus Group 1 83% (5/6)

N-CB Focus Group 2 33% (2/6)

64

Theme 2: Roles of the Student

The roles of the student in the learning process can range from simple to complex.

For the present study, reflection prompts and focus group questions were intended to

encourage students to delve deeper into what they do that constitutes learning. Three

distinct sub-categories of the roles of students emerged: (a) role in the instructional

process, (b) work with peers, and (c) responsibility for own learning.

Theme IIa: Student Role in the Instructional Process

Instruction is intended to bring about change within the individuals to whom the

instruction is given. However, these individuals are a key component within any teaching

and learning model. In both the CB and the N-CB groups, students responded that they

had a role in the instructional process. The data for this theme can be found in Appendix

J. A summary of the data is found in Table 10.

Students in the N-CB group responded with a variety of basic comments such as

“to participate in class,” “to engage in activities,” “to ask questions,” and the like. These

responses were all somewhat vague, but did suggest that the learners felt that they had a

role within the instructional process. Students in the CB group also had some vague

responses such as “to complete the assignments and learn from them,” and “to do the

work required of us.” Data representing this theme both demonstrate student perceived

differences as well as demonstrate student perceive similarities. The data do confirm that

there are some subtle differences, as some students in the CB group noted that the student

has an active role in his learning, whereas no students in the N-CB group alluded to that.

However, the evidence shows that many students seem to understand that they had a

critical role within the teaching and learning process.

65

Table 10: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme IIa: Student Role in Instructional Process

Group Source Percentage

CB Reflection 2

47% (8/17)

CB Focus Group 2 17% (1/6)

N-CB Reflection 1

< 1% (1/22)

N-CB Focus Group 2 33% (2/6)

Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers

Students in both groups reported that they worked often with peers in small

groups. Students benefit immensely from working with peers in the learning process.

Both instructors were able to find ways to incorporate group work into their courses

regardless of whether or not the class was center-based or non center-based. Data for this

theme can be found in Appendix K.

There were, however, some examples of responses that indicate student perceived

differences in work with peers between the CB and N-CB groups. For example, one

student in the N-CB group noted that “she gives us mini assignments and then she’ll say

‘feel free to work in groups if you want.’” Another N-CB student noted that “we discuss

topics, then go off into groups, and actually do what we were talking about.” Both of

these responses indicate that the instructor led a conversation with students and then

required students to work in groups on follow up activities. On the other hand, some

66

students in the CB group reported on work with peers in a much more unstructured way.

One student said, “Even if it’s an activity you’re supposed to do by yourself, you can still

collaborate with your peers.” This comment suggested that work with peers in this setting

was always an option, but was not always directed by the instructor. Rather, students

utilized their peers when they felt it appropriate. It was one of the choices given to

students.

Table 11 presents the percentage of students who contributed to this theme.

Again, the evidence suggests that students in the CB group had more comments to report

regarding work with peers than did students in the N-CB group. Although students in the

N-CB group did report opportunities to work with peers, they did it less often, and they

cited it in different ways than did students in the CB group.

Table 11: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers

Group Source Percentage

CB Reflection 2

29% (5/17)

CB Reflection 1

12%

(2/17)

CB Focus Group 1 83% (5/6)

N-CB Focus Group 1 17% (1/6)

N-CB Reflection 1

18% (4/22)

N-CB Focus Group 2 < 1%

(1/17)

67

Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning

Within the theme of Roles of the Student, the concept of being responsible for

one’s own learning surfaced repeatedly in the CB group. Students in the N-CB group also

reported a bit of control over their own learning, but they did not use the same terms that

students in the CB group utilized. For example, terms like ‘own pace,’ ‘choice,’ and

‘power’ emerged multiple times throughout the study for the CB group. This was,

perhaps, the most glaring evidence in the Roles of Students category. Students in the CB

group reported that they were empowered and challenged by having choice within the

learning process. Students in the N-CB group did not comment on anything remotely

similar to the concepts of choice, power, or pace. Data for this theme can be found in

Appendix L, and Table 12 shows a summary of the percentage of students whose

comments represented this theme.

Table 12: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Work

Group Source Percentage

CB Reflection 2

41% (7/17)

CB Reflection 1 65% (11/17)

CB Focus Group 1 100% (6/6)

68

Theme III: Learning Styles and Preferred Instructional Strategies

During week eight of the study, students were asked to report on their own

learning styles. This question was asked specifically in Reflection 1. However, responses

from both groups that focused on learning preferences surfaced throughout the study. In

addition to acknowledging specific learning styles, many students referenced specific

learning activities that took place throughout the semester. This theme was divided into

two distinct categories: (a) learning style preference, and (b) specific strategies used in

class.

Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preference

The majority of the statements placed in this category came from Reflection 2,

which asked students to discuss the type of learner they were. Interestingly, students from

the N-CB group looked at the reflection questions literally and listed a variety of different

learning styles that one would expect to find on a learning style inventory (i.e., auditory,

visual, hands-on). Students from the CB group discussed more of the types of learning

they preferred within the center-based system in which they were working. This was

noteworthy, as it indicated that the students in the N-CB group saw themselves simply as

learners with different learning styles, whereas students in the CB group saw themselves

as learners within a particular environment, while still acknowledging their personal

preferences. Table 13 shows these differences. Interestingly, the initial responses from

students in the CB group that represent this theme were coded into theme IIa: Student

Role in the Instructional Process. After revisiting the data in an effort to clarify this

theme, these responses were coded into this category. This provides additional support to

69

the idea that these students saw themselves as learners in a holistic way, and not just

learners in one particular environment. Data for this theme can be found in Appendix M.

Regardless of how the students responded to the prompt, it was clear that within

each learning environment, there were a variety of learning styles preferred. Because

there are inevitably multiple learning styles in any given classroom, this piece of data is

especially important. This data set gives credence to the idea that center-based

environments may be a more appropriate way to meet the learning preferences of a

diverse group of learners, as it is possible to have a variety of different learning activities

occurring at one time, thus, giving students with a variety of learning styles an

opportunity to succeed.

Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class

In this theme, a key difference emerged. Students from the N-CB group reported a

large number of specific strategies used in the class and cited them in their discussion of

how they best learn. Data for this theme can be found in Appendix N. Table 14 shows

that 27% of N-CB students noted specific strategies in Reflection 1, and 50% of CB

students cited them during Focus Group 2. Instead of discussing their own personal

learning preferences, these students cited activities that they found to be enjoyable and/or

educational. Although this is not necessarily a bad thing, it does indicate that these

students saw themselves as learners in an environment that was controlled by the

instructor, because they attributed their learning to a teacher-directed activity.

On the other hand, students from the CB group rarely referenced specific learning

activities that occurred in the classroom. Table 14 shows that only 3 students made

reference to specific activities during focus group two, and none were cited in reflection

70

Table 13: Summary Student Comments for Theme IIIa: Learning Style

___________________________________

Non Center-Based Environment

___________________________________

Center-Based Environment

Learning Style Reported

Number of Responses

Hands – On 8

Group Work 8

Visual 7

Videos 2

Real Life Applications

5

Auditory 2

Lecture 1

Language Based Learning

1

Reflecting 1

Learning Style Reported

Number of Responses

Hands – On 3

Group Work 5

Being involved 2

Working in my own time

6

Having choices 6

Freedom of Expression

3

Social Interactions

3

one. Instead, they focused heavily on the second half of the Reflection 2 prompt: How is

this class helping you to learn in the way that is best for you? This is an important

difference because it reveals a particular mind set of the students in the CB group. The

responses that support this idea are found in the results from theme IIa: Student Role in

the Instructional Process. These students appeared to see themselves as a learner in a

larger context than just inside the classroom. Their comments alluded to the fact that they

recognize the roles of choice, power, pace, and social interactions as important

component of the learning process in any context.

71

Table 14: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments for Theme IIIb: Specific Instructional Strategy

Group Source Percentage of Individuals Contributing

N-CB Reflection 1

27% (6/22)

CB Focus Group 2 50% (3/6)

N-CB Focus Group 2 67% (4/6)

Summary

The themes that emerged suggest differences in perceptions between students

from the CB environment and the N-CB environment. Based on the findings, the

following differences were identified between groups and within themes:

• Role of the instructor in the instructional process

• Student work with peers

• Student responsibility for their own learning

• Ways in which students see themselves as learners

These differences suggest a variety of implications for both teaching and learning, as

there are multiple interpretations and conclusions that can be drawn from each difference.

Further, these differences provide evidence that center-based environments provided

more opportunities for developing behavioral autonomy, value autonomy, and intrinsic

motivation than non center-based environments.

72

Chapter Five: Discussion

Do teacher education candidates who are in a center-based instructional

environment perceive differences in the environment compared to teacher education

candidates in a non center-based instructional environment? The answer is yes. The data

show that there are distinct differences in perceptions between the students in the center-

based environment and the students in the non center-based environment. These

perceived differences about both teaching and learning have the potential to shed some

light on the classic question in education: What is the best environment for teaching and

learning? Specifically, the data have implications for how college instructors design

learning environments, utilize peers in the learning process, develop students’ autonomy,

and students’ intrinsic motivation.

Design of Learning Environments

Before engaging in any teaching activity, instructors must fully understand the

context of their teaching: students’ characteristics, course goals, environment, and

curriculum (Reigeluth, 1999). When this is accomplished, instructors can design a

teaching environment that will facilitate learning in students.

Instructors must consider individual student preferences when planning lessons in

order to ensure that each student has an opportunity to learn the course content. Students’

learning styles are varied and complex. Creating an environment where students can have

their learning styles met in the context of a lesson is challenging at best. However, it is

73

paramount that instructors strive to design teaching environments where students’

cognitive, social, and emotional preferred styles are considered. If not, there would

certainly be students who would have less of an opportunity to learn. The data suggest

that students in the CB environment were given more opportunities to work within their

own zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Because of the use of words like

choice and pace, it is reasonable to suggest that these students were able to work at levels

appropriate for their own learning. Because a variety of activities were available to

students and because the activities often included options (hence, the word choice used

often by CB students), the likelihood that students were able to work within their own

zones of proximal development was increased. This is critical, as students who find a task

to be within their own zone of proximal development are more likely to learn the

information being presented (Smith & Sela, 2005; Vygotsky, 1933/1967, Wilson, 2005).

In addition to increasing the likelihood that learning occurs, working within a

zone of proximal development also increases the likelihood that students will develop

autonomous behaviors. Autonomy develops by being given opportunities to engage in

autonomy-building activities (Ford, 1987; Killen & Nucci, 1995). When instructors tell

students what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, it is not as necessary for students to

be autonomous in their behaviors in order to be successful. Although students learn to

meet deadlines and satisfy given requirements, they do not learn how to self-regulate and

make decisions based on their own beliefs.

However, when instructors allow students flexibility in assignments and give

them choices about how to engage in learning, students have an opportunity to become

more autonomous. They are required to make their own decisions and to think ahead

74

about what is needed, based on their own perceptions. This is not to say that the instructor

should not be a part of that process, but the instructor should take a guiding role in

helping the students determine how best to learn the course content. Students with high

levels of autonomy are more able to make important decisions about their own learning,

and, more importantly, about the teaching and learning in the classrooms they will

someday have.

Peers in the Learning Process

Designing instructional environments where students have opportunities to work

with peers may seem like an easy task. Group discussions, group projects, and group

presentations are quite common. However, this study identified students’ perceived

differences between using peers as part of the teaching methodology, and using peers as

part of the learning that occurs. This distinction is important, as understanding the

differences between teaching and learning is paramount in the educational process. Using

peers as part of the teaching occurs often -- instructors plan for peer work and tell

students when and how to work together to meet an instructional objective. This is

indicative of a teacher directed environment where the teacher is making the majority of

the decisions about how learning takes place.

On the other hand, when instructors view peer work as part of the learning

process, the idea takes on a new dimension. Peer work as a vehicle for learning is much

different from peer work as a vehicle for instruction. Students who rely on each other to

help them understand and learn course concepts do so at their own discretion. Instead of

having an instructor dictate how and when peer work should occur, students intent on

learning utilize peers how and when they choose -- as part of their own learning process.

75

Using peers in this way encourages the development of autonomy in the classroom

because is provides students the opportunity to decide for themselves if assistance is

needed and, if assistance is needed, to choose the assistance they deem most appropriate.

As noted by Leroy, Bressoux, et al. (2007), teachers who encourage autonomy in the

classroom have students who demonstrate high levels of intrinsic motivation, which, in

turn, results in students who have high levels of achievement (Eccles, Wigfield et al.,

1998; Heckhausen, 1997; Pekrun, 1993).

The data support the idea that the CB instructor encouraged autonomy by how she

designed the use of peers in the learning process (Chiou, 2008). The CB environment

provided students with multiple opportunities to make decisions about their assignments,

as exemplified by students in the CB environment referring to this often by using the

term choice in their responses. This suggests that these students saw choice in learning as

important, which also suggests there were moving toward making autonomous decisions.

CB students also used the word pace in their responses, which suggests that the

opportunity to work at their own pace, or speed, was important to them. The emphasis on

choice and pace suggests that autonomy in learning was important to them. Although N-

CB students may have, in fact, been given opportunities be autonomous, they did not

reference those opportunities in their reflections or focus group conversations.

The data also support the idea that students in the CB environment were given

different opportunities to develop autonomy than students in the N-CB environment.

There were references to how students worked with peers from students in both

environments. In fact, students in the CB environment noted that working with peers

comprised the majority of their time in learning. However, students in the N-CB

76

environment discussed the work they did with peers in the context of the larger class

structure, and that their work with peers was dictated or directed by the instructor. This

difference is important to note, as there are a number of ways to utilize peers in the

learning process. In this study, each instructor used them in different ways, and this

difference was noted by the students.

Development of Autonomy

When looking at the role of the instructor in the N-CB environment, students

continually noted that the instructor acted as a provider of knowledge. Although they did

report that the instructor often connected the information to personal stories or events,

they still reported often that the instructor was the one who gave information.

On the other hand, students in the CB environment reported that the instructor

took on a different set of roles. These students saw the instructor as one who set-up the

learning environment so that students could engage in activities where they would both

learn the material, and utilize it for other purposes. This exemplifies the importance of

instruction that is designed with an understanding of goals, performances, and assessment

(Reigeluth, 1999). The instructor in the center-based environment provided an

environment where students could do all of these at any given time during the teaching

and learning process.

Students in the CB environment continually referred to feeling empowered by the

ability to work at their own pace and have some choices within their work, whereas those

in the N-CB environment did not reference this phenomenon at all. When students are

able to have some flexibility in how and when to learn, they are able to recognize that

77

they can discover new knowledge when the environment and materials provided to them

are appropriate (Brown & Campione, 1996; Jonassen, 1999; Perkins & Unger, 1994).

Evidence of this became clear when students made comments such as “we were able to

figure it out on our own,” or “she didn’t really tell us, she just guided us.” Both of these

quotes from CB students illustrate the concept of students creating knowledge and

beginning to internalize that knowledge. This exemplifies empowerment as students who

are in charge of their own learning feel an internal locus of control. This perceived

internal control results in achievement and a feeling of self-satisfaction (Wigfield &

Eccles, 1992).

The data also support the idea that the CB students perceived more opportunities

to develop self-regulatory behaviors than did N-CB students. Jonassen’s (1999)

constructivist theory supports the idea that students’ ability to self-regulate is an

important part of the teaching-learning process. According to Jonassen, in order to be

successful in a constructivist learning environment, students need to have some initial

ability to self-regulate (Jonassen, 1999). CB students appeared to be able to do this easily,

as is evidenced by their references to the teacher as a resource person. In comparison, N-

CB students continued to reference the teacher as the head of the class, and sought

guidance from her throughout the semester. This clearly suggests that CB students

perceived that they were given more opportunities to self-regulate, providing further

support for the suggestion that CB students displayed more autonomy than N-CB

students did.

78

Development of Intrinsic Motivation

Students who attribute their success to controllable characteristics, and who adopt

mastery goals as opposed to performance goals, are more likely to succeed in the

classroom. (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr & Midgley, 1991;Weiner,

1986; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Responses from CB students suggest that these students

adopted an internal locus of control. Although N-CB students did not have similar

responses, this does necessarily mean that the N-CB students did not adopt an internal

locus of control. It simply means that this idea did not surface in their reflections or focus

group conversations. Because CB students referenced choice and power in their

responses, it is reasonable to assume that their locus of control was internal. Their

successes and/or failures could be attributed to controllable characteristics such as effort,

which was within their control. Further, CB students’ use of the terms power and choice

suggest that they viewed their control of their successes and/or failures to be stable, or

based on their ability, not on luck. Again, this type of motivation is associated with high

levels of success (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).

CB student responses also suggested that they adopted mastery learning goals.

They spoke often about the instructor’s role as a guide and of the instructor helping them.

These types of responses suggest that they recognized their own role in the teaching-

learning process and embraced their own goals for learning. Because mastery goals are

associated with higher levels of learning than performance goals (Pintrich, 2000), it is

important to note that the CB students alluded to this idea often. Because of this, it is

reasonable to suggest that CB students perceived more opportunities to be successful, as

they seemed to adopt a mastery orientation to learning.

79

On the other hand, N-CB students did not use the same terms when describing the

instructor’s roles. Instead, they talked about more teacher-directed instruction, and gave

more examples of how the teacher was in charge of the learning environment. Although

their responses did not explicitly state the adoption of performance goals, it would be

reasonable to assume that if the teacher was requiring activities to be done, and if the

teacher was in charge of the learning, then the students may have adopted performance

goals as opposed to mastery goals. It follows, then, that these students may not have had

the same opportunities to be successful, as performance goals are not associated with

success, as are mastery goals (Pintrich, 2000).

Limitations

Although the data are clearly suggestive of the more opportunities for CB students

to become autonomous and internally motivated, there are some issues that temper the

results and interpretation of the data..Those issues are the researcher as a participant,

small sample size, use of a convenience sample, and the demographics of the instructors

and students.

Researcher as Participant

The researcher was a participant, in that she was the instructor of the students in

the N-CB environment. Although every effort was made to keep biases out of the data, it

is likely that because of the researcher’s involvement, some of the interpretations may

have been skewed by the researcher’s perceptions. For example, because the instructor

had already taught in a CB environment, her enthusiasm for this instructional

environment posed a potential bias in the interpretation of the data and the development

of focus group questions.

80

Sample Limitations

Sample size was another limiting factor. Because of the small number of

participants, the results are not necessarily generalizable to the general population of

undergraduate teacher education candidates.

The use of a convenience sample was also a limiting factor. The samples were

used because the students were enrolled in the course in which the center-based

environment was being investigated. For this reason, the students were involved in the

study not by choice, but because they were enrolled in the course. Additionally, students

were not assigned randomly to either environment. Students did, of course, have the

option not to participate, but the study was designed around the course not the students,

and the students were required to take the course.

Further limitations concerning the sample are derived from the fact that the

students in each group had been together for one year prior to the study. Two semesters

prior to the study, students had self-selected an instructor to “follow” them through the

remainder of their programs. The reasons for selecting one instructor rather than the other

are not known, but they could have affected the data. For example, if students chose one

instructor based on rumors that she was utilizing a center-based instructional strategy,

then they might have had preconceived notions about the course, and may have expected

to experience a CB environment. If they discovered that they would actually be in a

N-CB environment, that difference in their expectations could have the potential to affect

the data.

As mentioned previously, the students in each group were part of a cohort system

and had been together as a group for one year prior to the study. Students had

81

opportunities to build personal and professional relationships with each other and the

instructor before the study began. This could have affected their perceptions, as students

who have bonded as a group may be more likely to share similar thoughts and ideas, thus

resulting in data that were homogeneous from each group (Gabelnick, MacGregor,

Matthews, & Smith, 1990). However, the data about learning communities suggests that

students who have formed bonds with each other are more comfortable in sharing

multiple points of view manageable (Hill, 1982; Gabelnick, MacGregor, et al., 1990;

Smith & Hunter, 1988). Looking at this limitation through this multiple viewpoints

perspective provides evidence that both the CB and N-CB students may have actually

shared larger variety of responses to reflective prompts and/or focus group conversations.

Demographics

In looking at students’ demographic data, it is clear that the majority were white

females of similar ages. Further, both instructors were white females. This presents a

limitation, as differing cultural views did not surface. It may be that students from

differing cultures might not perceive the same types of differences in the two groups, and

they may have different reactions to the CB or N-CB environments than the white

females in the present study. Because of the lack of diversity in age, gender, and

ethnicity, it is necessary to explore this environment in other settings that include a more

diverse population before it can be assumed that the center-based environment would

have the same effect on others.

82

Suggestions for Further Research

Because students did perceive differences in teaching and learning in center-based

environments compared to teaching and learning in N-CB environments, there are

additional questions that can be raised:

• Can this strategy be altered to yield similar results in other methods courses?

(See Cochran-Smith’s first link, p. 7)

The data clearly suggest that students did perceive differences in the two environments.

Although those differences are true for this study, it is necessary if to determine if

similar results can be obtained when comparing similar environments in other methods

courses. Optimally, this study should be replicated in order to ensure that the results are

reliable. If this is done, and if and similar results are obtained, the results will become

more generalizable to teacher education.

• Are students who experience a CB instructional environment more likely to

implement a similar strategy in their own early childhood classrooms?

(See Cochran-Smith’s second link, p. 7)

If we determine, as was done in this study, that students perceive differences between CB

and N-CB environments, then the next question is whether students in the CB

environment will implement a similar strategy in their own P-12 classrooms. Will CB

students be more likely to use CB environments in their own classrooms than N-CB

students? That question must be addressed before making the leap to Cochran-Smith’s

third link.

• Do teacher education students who experienced this strategy have young children

in their classrooms that show academic differences in achievement compared to

83

the young children whose teachers did not experience the center-based

environment in their teacher education programs? (See Cochran-Smith’s third

link, p. 7)

The ultimate question has to do with P-12 student learning. If, as determined here, there

are differences in perceptions between students in the CB environment and the N-CB

environment, and if we can document which group of students is more likely to use CB

environments in their own P-12 classrooms, then we can begin to determine how P-12

student learning is affected by this cycle.

Summary

There were definite differences in perceptions between the students who learned

in a CB instructional environment and those who learned in a N-CB instructional

environment. Compared to N-CB students, CB students perceived that they were given

more and different opportunities to develop autonomy and to adopt motivation

orientations that are associated with achievement. In looking at Figure 1, it appears as if

the CB students developed a differing set of presage variables than N-CB students. That

is, the knowledge, skills, motivation, and degree of autonomy that the CB students

perceived appear to be inherently different from those of the N-CB students. Figure 1

suggests that these presage variables have a direct impact on what occurs in the teaching-

learning process. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that students who participated in

the CB environment will likely have a different set of presage variables when they are in

their own classrooms compared to N-CB students. Whether those differences are good or

bad remains to be seen. However, what we know is that students who participate in a CB

environment perceive differences in their development of autonomy and motivation that

84

N-CB students did not perceive. We also know that the motivation and autonomy

displayed by CB students are desirable, according to current research. Thus, it is

reasonable to suggest that CB students are more likely to be successful in the teacher

education classroom than N-CB students are. It follows, then, that the CB students may

be more likely to use a similar strategy to encourage appropriate motivation and

autonomy in P-12 students. This is the key question (Cochran-Smith’s third link), and

one that should be the focus of future research studies.

85

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning

strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and

communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model

based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of

Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 292-302.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological

Review, 64, 359-372.

Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin

(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213-262). Chicago:

Rand McNally.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review 84,119-215.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for

undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-14.

Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

86

Berndt, T., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school.

Child Development, 66, 1312-1329.

Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bottini, M., & Grossman, S. (2005). Childhood education. Annual Theme, 81, 274-277.

Britton, A. D., & Pellegrini, B. K. (Eds.). (1990). Narrative thought and narrative

language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.

Brown, A. L.,& Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of learning

environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R.

Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-

325), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, J. C. (2001). Constructivist teaching strategies: Projects in teacher education.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Brownlee, J. (2004). Teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs. Research in

Education, 72, 1-17.

Bruner, J. (1965). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven

principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 80, 75-82.

Chiou, W. (2008). College students’ role models, learning style preferences, and

academic achievement in collaborative teaching: Absolute versus relativistic.

Adolescence, 43, 129-142.

87

Clark, C. M., & Rust, F. (2006). Learning-centered assessment in teacher education.

Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 73-81.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to

know. Journal Of Teacher Education, 56, 301-306.

Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher

development through reflective inquiry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and

school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Cruickshank, D. R., & Applegate, J. H. (1981). International inequality, competing

approaches. New York : St. Martin's Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing

world: Report of the Committee on Teacher Education of the National Academy

of Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological

methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. W. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the

educative process. Lexington, MA: Heath. (Original work published in 1910).

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York: Macmillan.

88

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists.

London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

DiGiorgio, A. (2004). Learning centers provide global access to effective teaching tools.

THE Journal, 31 (10), 10-11.

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

and Winston.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L., (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),

Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality

development (5th ed., pp. 1017-1095). New York: John Wiley.

Elkind, D. (1982). The hurried child. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Elliott, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

Fanhangel, J. (2004). Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environments.

Studies in Higher Education, 29, 575-592.

Farrell, T. S. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflective breaks for busy teachers.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

89

Feather, N. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role personal

values within an expectancy-value framework. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80, 381-391.

Ford, M. 91987). Processes contributing to adolescent social competence. In M. Ford

and D. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing living systems. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. Social Science

Journal, 28, 175-187.

Fay, C. (1987). Research-based decisions. New York: Random House.

Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Smith, B. L. (1990). Learning

Communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. In

R. E. Young (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning (number 41). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gagné, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69, 355-365.

Gardner, H. (2000). The disciplined mind. New York: Penguin.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goleman, D. (1966). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey Bass.

Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing learning approaches and personal teaching

efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 72, 483-497.

90

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement,

ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 83, 187-194.

Grainger, T., & Barnes, J. (2004). A creative cocktail: Creative teaching in initial teacher

education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30, 243-253.

Grant, C., & Secada, W. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W. R. Houston, M.

Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.

403-422). New York: Macmillan.

Gredler, M. E. (2001). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Columbus, OH:

Merrill Prentice Hall.

Greenman, J. (1998). Caring spaces, learning places: Environments that work. Redman,

WA: Exchange Press.

Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a

fundamental dialectic. American Psychologist, 49, 104-111.

Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflecting teaching. Milton Keynes, UK:

Open University Press.

Hayes, M. T. (2002). Assessment of a field-based teacher education program:

Implications for practice. Education, 122, 700-705.

Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs: A cognitive model.

Motivation and Emotion, 1, 283-329.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical

issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.

Hill, P. J. (1982). Communities of learners: Curriculum as the infrastructure of

91

academic communities. In J W. Hall (Ed.), In opposition to core curriculum:

Alternative models for undergraduate education (pp. 107-134). Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Holmes, G. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing,

MI: The Holmes Group.

Huang, G. (2006). Informal forum: Fostering active learning in a teacher preparation

program. Education, 27, 31-38.

Hubbard, B. (2002). Centres [sic] to be set up to make science exciting. Education, 84,

3-5.

Janesick, V. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks : Sage

Publications.

Jalongo, M. (2007). Beyond benchmarks and scores: Reasserting the role of motivation

and interest in children's academic achievement. Childhood Education,

International Focus Issue, 83, 395-407.

Jay, J. K. (2003). Quality teaching : Reflection as the heart of practice. Lanham, MD:

Scarecrow Press.

Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective

practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85.

Jinsong, Z., & Walls, R. T. (2006). Instructors’ self-perceived pedagogical principle

implementation in the online environment. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 7, 413-426.

92

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth

(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional

theory (pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kahn, R., & Cannell, C. F. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing. New York: John Wiley.

Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational

Psychology Review, 19, 429-442.

Kelsey, J. G. (1993). Learning from teaching: Problems, problem-formulation and the

enhancement of problem-solving capability. In P. Hallinger, K. A. Leithwood, &

J. Murphy (Eds.), A cognitive perspective on educational administration (pp. 231-

252). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong,

Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Kent, A. (2005). Acknowledging the need facing teacher preparation programs:

Responding to make a difference. Education, 125, 343-348.

Killen, M., & Nucci, L. (1995). Morality, autonomy, and social conflict. In M. Killen &

D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: A developmental perspective (pp. 52-

86). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

King-Sears, M. E. (2007). Designing and delivering learning center instruction.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 42, 137-147.

King, P. M., & Kitchner, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

93

Kinlaw, C. R., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2007). Children’s theories of intelligence: Beliefs,

goals, and motivation in the elementary years. Journal of General Psychology,

134, 295-311.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive development

approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New York:

Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Lamborn, S., Fischer, K., & Pipp, S. (1994). Constructive criticism and social lies: A

developmental sequence for understanding honesty and kindness in social

interactions. Developmental Psychology, 30, 495-508.

Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective

teacher. Reflective Practice, 1, 293-307.

Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’

implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy

supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 529-545.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Livingston, D. (2003, November). Reclaiming early childhood teacher education: A

critical constructivist approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators, Savannah, GA.

Maehr M., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school wide

approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-437.

94

Martin, J. (1993). Episodic memory: A neglected phenomenon in the psychology of

education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 169-183.

Maxwell, L. E. (2000). A safe and welcoming school: What students, teachers, and

parents think. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17, 271-282.

McClure, J. & Spector, L. (2005). Plus/minus grading and motivation: An empirical

study of student choice and performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, 30, 571-579.

McTaggart, R. (1991). Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education

Quarterly, 4, 168-187.

Merriam, B. (1998). To find a voice: Art therapy in a women’s prison. Women &

Therapy, 21, 157-172.

Morey, A. I., Bezuk, N. (1997). Preservice teacher preparation in the United States.

Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 4-24.

Movitz, A. P., & Holmes, K. P. (2007). How learning centers evolved in a secondary

student-centered classroom. English Journal, 96, 68-73.

National Association for the Education of Young Children, (1996). Guidelines for

preparation of early childhood professionals. Washington, DC: Author.

National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, (1996). What matters most:

Teaching for America’s Future. New York, NY: Teachers College,

Columbia University.

NCATE. (2007). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation

institutions. Retrieved from: http://ncate.org/public/standards.asp

95

National Research Council, (2005). Teacher preparation programs in the United States.

Retrieved January 28, 2007, from

http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/5c50571a75df494485256a95007a091e/49ecf395d

0deaba85257098004884c6?OpenDocument

Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory

(pp. 241-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ng, E., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Three levels of goal orientation in learning. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 3/4, 243-273.

Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective

experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Noyes, A. (2008). Choosing teachers: Exploring agency and structure in the distribution

of newly qualified teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education (24), 674-683.

Null, J. W., & Bohan, C. (2005). Teacher education curriculum. Curriculum & Teaching

Dialogue, 7(1/2).

Olson, J.K. (1982). Innovation in the science curriculum. New York: Nichols Publishing.

Olson, J., Dorsey, L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1988). Instructional theory for mid-level

strategies. Unpublished manuscript.

Osterman, K. P., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Improving

schooling through professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Outlaw, F., Clement, M., & Outlaw, M. (2007). Then and now: Developing highly

qualified teachers. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(4), 26-39.

96

Overbaugh, R.C., & ShinYi, L. (2006). Student characteristics, sense of community, and

cognitive achievement in web-based and lab-based learning environments.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 205-223.

Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents' academic motivation: A longitudinal

expectancy-value approach. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in

motivation and achievement: Motivation in adolescence (Vol. 8, pp. 139-189).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Perin, D. (2004). Remediation beyond developmental education: The use of learning

assistance centers to increase academic preparedness in community colleges.

Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 28, 559-582.

Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1994). A new look in representations for mathematics and

science learning. Instructional Science, 22, 1-37.

Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory

(pp. 91-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of

children psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 703-732). New York: John Wiley.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in

learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and

applications. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, England:

Oxford University Press.

97

Pugh, K. (2002). Teaching for transformative experiences in science: An investigation of

the effectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record 104,

1101-1137.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of

instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609-620.

Ruban, L., & Reis, S. M. (2006). Patterns of self-regulatory strategy use among low-

achieving and high-achieving university students. Roeper Review, 28, 148-156.

Rudy, D., Sheldon, K. M., Awong, T., & Tan, H. H. (2007). Autonomy, culture, and

well-being: The benefits of inclusive autonomy. Journal of Research in

Personality, 41, 983-1007.

Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to postmodern practices

in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 34-51.

Schweinle, A., Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Striking the right balance: Students’

motivation and affect in elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational

Research, 99, 271-293.

Self-Brown, S. R., & Mathews, S. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student

achievement goal orientation. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 106-111.

Shaw, D. M., & Reeve, J. M. (1978). Design education for the middle years: A teacher’s

guide. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

98

Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A

contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teaching (pp. 1-36). New York: Macmillan.

Siberry, L., & Kearns, H. (2005). An intercultural approach to challenging issues in

Northern Ireland teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28,

259-266.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professional experiences: Incorporating pre-service

teachers as ‘communities of practice’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 77.

Skinner, B. F. (1966). Contingencies of reinforcement in the design of a culture.

Behavioral Science, 11, 159-166.

Smith, D. R., & Ayers, D. F. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online learning:

Implications for the globalized community college. Community College Journal

of Research & Practice, 30, 401-415.

Smith, B. L., & Hunter, M. R. (1988). Learning communities: A paradigm for

educational revitalization. Community College Review, 15, 45-51.

Smith, K., & Sela, O. (2005). Action research as a bridge between preservice teacher

education and inservice professional development for students and teacher

educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 293-310.

Snauwaert, D. (1992). Reclaiming the lost treasure: Deliberation and strong democratic

education. Educational Theory, 42, 351-367.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

99

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Stanford, P., & Reeves, S. (2007). Access, consider, teach: ACT in your classroom.

Clearing House, 80, 133-136.

Starnes, L., & Bohach, B. (1995, November). Jumping off the edge: Learner centered

early childhood teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of

the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators. Washington,

DC.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S.

Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.

255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stringer, E. (2004). Action research in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Swick, K. J. (2001). Nurturing decency through caring and serving during the early

childhood years. Early Childhood Education Journal (29), 131-137.

Tegano, D. (1996). Designing classroom spaces: Making the most of time. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 23, 135-144.

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.

Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Apppleton-

Century-Crofts.

Ullah, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2007). Students’ academic success and its association to

student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers.

College Student Journal, 41, 1192-1202.

Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the

United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 67-68.

100

van Grinsven, L., & Tillema, H. (2006). Learning opportunities to support student self-

regulation: comparing different instructional formats. Educational Research, 48,

77-91.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.

Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of

Genetic Psychology, 36, 415-434.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child.

Soviet Psychology. 5(3), 6-18.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). The development of higher psychological functions. Soviet

Psychology, 16, 60-73. (Original work published in 1929).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watson, J. B. (1925). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1994). Ability versus effort revisited: The moral determinates of achievement

evaluation and achievement as a moral system. Educational Psychologist, 29,

163-172.

Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. Ellis (Ed.), A

source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71-88). New York: Harcourt Brace.

Whipp, J., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study.

Educational Technology Research & Development 52, 5-22.

101

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A

developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A

theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Wilson, E. (2005). Powerful pedagogical strategies in initial teacher education. Teachers

and Teaching, 11, 359-378.

Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information

processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning

and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153-189).

Winsor, P, J., Butt, R. L., & Reeves, H. (1999). Portraying professional development in

preservice teacher education: Can portfolios do the job? Teachers & Teaching (5),

9-32.

York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghereng., S., & Montie, J. (2001). Reflective practice to

improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.

Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research, and

applications (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

102

Appendix A

Account of Personal Experiences with Center-Based Environments

103

A colleague of mine had used the center-based model in her methods class a bit and

shared it with me. As I thought about it, I decided to try it in my own methods course

and build upon what my colleague had already tried. I spoke with two other colleagues

who would be teaching the same methods course in that semester and they seemed

excited to try it as well.

I decided to divide the class into modules, based on the readings that were assigned

throughout the semester. I also decided that there would be six centers: red, green,

yellow, orange, blue, and purple. I thought having them color-coded would make it

easier to plan, implement, and assess. Based on my previous experience with students of

all ages, I fully realized the importance of having an organizational strategy for any

approach.

My colleagues and I decided to meet regularly to plan the centers. We did not plan

very far in advance, as this was a new venture and we needed to leave the future open to

change and modification. We planned approximately two weeks for each module and

tried to meet the learning preferences of the students. Our initial plan was to have four

modules, each lasting two weeks. We would use all six color-coded centers during each

module.

As we discussed the activities for the modules, it became clear that there would

have to be some time set aside for lecture or explanation of concepts and theories, as

well as large group time for debriefing and sharing the products of the learning during

centers. Although we recognized the importance of center-based learning, we also

acknowledged that learning occurs in all sorts of ways for all sorts of learners. Our

classes met on Mondays from 9-12 and on Fridays from 9-11. The original plan for each

module looked like this:

Monday lecture (large group)

Friday centers

Monday centers

Friday debrief (large group)

We began to plan with this model in mind.

104

Thinking about the individual centers, we decided that it might be helpful to make

each colored center representative of a major theme throughout the entire course, as

using colors to organize represents one way that students create graphic organizers of

the information being learned. There are some threads of early childhood education that

cut across all readings, all ideas, and that must be revisited often. We decided that the

themes for each colored center would be:

Red planning

Green child development

Orange assessment

Yellow theory into practice

Blue DAP

Purple open to include any topic

After the themes were determined, we looked at the readings that had been

previously decided for the course. We began to group the readings into four groups,

creating the four modules that we planned to do. This was important, as although we

were altering the instructional strategies, we were also still accountable for the course

content and teaching and learning standards connected with the course.

Looking at the readings, and looking at the chosen themes for each center, we

planned activities for each center for the first module. We brainstormed ideas and

decided upon one activity for each center. As we planned, we

• made sure to include small group activities as well as individual activities, as a

way to accommodate all types of learners

• purposefully planned the incorporation of technology into each module, which

was a main focus of the department at the time

• chose at least one activity that needed to be completed within the context of

the field placement, in an effort to connect theory to practice

• gave enough direction to get students going, while leaving the activities open

ended enough to encourage critical thinking and problem solving

105

As I began the first module, I spent a lot of time preparing the actual center boards:

large tri-fold boards decorated with borders to coincide with the color assigned to each

center. I recall being very concerned with how it looked -- making sure that there were

no questions about what to do, how to do it, and what timeline was expected. I also

remember spending a lot of time explaining the center process to students.

Watching the students during their first center encounter was interesting. I

remember that most wanted to start at the “beginning” and wanted to know which one to

do first. Of course, there was no required starting point -- the only requirement was that

they completed all of the center work by the second Friday. This seemed to be a hard

concept for them to grasp. I remember one student asking how long she should spend on

the orange center. I responded, “as long as it takes for you to understand the material.”

The look on her face! I believe she really wanted a definitive time frame…because that

was what she was used to. It was not long before I found everyone busy at work.

During the first module, I spent a lot of time wandering around the classroom,

checking on groups as they worked. I joined conversations, answered questions, and

helped to guide learning in many ways. I offered suggestions and ideas, and helped

students to put their thoughts into words and/or pictures, where appropriate. By module

two, I was able to help a bit, and to grade lesson plans during center time, making

myself available when needed, but also performing another important task in my job as

instructor. The most exciting part of module one for me was the Friday debriefing

session. Seeing the work that students had done and listening to them share their new

ideas was very rewarding. As I listened and discussed with the large group, I was able to

see how all of the ‘pieces’ fit together and help students look at each activity in light of

the larger picture. The conversations were powerful and I believe (although I have no

tangible evidence) that students were already putting it all together and building a

deeper knowledge than I had witnessed in prior semesters of teaching this course. As I

reflect about this process, it seems that it is a good way to foster both whole to part

learning and part to whole learning.

My colleagues and I had lunch after that first module, and we talked, and talked,

and talked about the powerful nature of the learning we witnessed. It propelled us into

planning for module two. I have never been so excited about planning activities for pre-

106

service students! Something about the experience of module one, coupled with the

energy that my colleagues brought to the table made me so ready to keep planning!

One thing we added after module one was a recording sheet. During each module,

students would record what they did for each center, noting what they learned. This

served as a reflective piece for students as well as a record keeping method for me. It

was tedious, but I knew it was important. I remember feeling a bit uneasy about it, but

passing it out anyway, because of the need for accountability.

Somewhere in the midst of module two, the three instructors all agreed that two

weeks was not necessarily enough time to complete all assignments. Some modules may

take more time, some less. Given the vacation days and the chosen center activities, we

decided to re-design modules three and four into one module, leaving us with only three

modules. This made things a little less hectic, and the students seemed to agree that

eliminating the stringent time restrictions made things less stressful. This provided

additional evidence that planning ahead for the semester is not fruitful. The needs of

both students and instructors change often, which means instruction must change as

well.

As the planning and implementing continued, the enthusiasm continued to grow as

well. My colleagues and I met weekly to discuss progress, ideas, and to plan. Each time

our stories and experiences pushed us to keep going. Collectively, we all agreed that this

was the type of learning we had been trying to inspire for a long time. We were

definitely seeing the difference between teacher-centered and student-centered learning.

As I reflect upon it, it is interesting that I always used this approach with the children I

taught in grades K-2. It was just how I did things. I never, ever considered another way

– and it worked. But, when I came to the university setting, and in my quest to do things

the way the department desired, I somehow lost sight of that strategy and fell into more

directive strategies. Although I never lectured exclusively, I did not really cause

students to engage in student-centered learning. I was always telling and explaining

what to do…instead of making students figure things out for themselves.

Planning for centers the next semester took on a completely new form. I had the

centers and the ideas that I had used the previous semester. However, I now had two

new partners and was armed with new ideas. Two new colleagues (including the

107

instructor who inspired me initially to do this) and I spoke about how we would use

centers for our methods courses. I shared what had transpired the previous semester.

One colleague had some good insight into some changes and the other colleague, who

had never implemented centers before, had many questions.

One thing that I really wanted to change was the accountability piece. A colleague

offered some great insight about learning for the sake of learning, and whether or not

accountability was necessary. We decided that more importantly, reflection was

necessary. We changed the recording sheet to include a reflection about the module.

This proved to be very useful for students and for me. Rather than marking off who did

what, these reflections allowed me to listen to students reflect on their own learning and

share some of their thoughts and ideas about the activities.

Another change that I made that semester was to eliminate a set finish day on the

centers. For each module, I began by lecturing. After that, I sent students out to centers,

telling them that I would monitor them and let them know which day would be the last. I

learned that I could not predict the amount of time that each module would take…that it

would take different amounts of time during any given semester with any number of

students. Theoretically, I know that learning cannot have a time cap. Practically, I tried

to cap it any way. I learned that it didn’t work! As it turned out, each module did end up

taking between 2 to 2 ½ weeks. Because of this, planning each consecutive module was

not as scheduled either. I found my own calendar to be less structured as I waited to

ensure that students were learning. At first, students did not welcome this uncertainty.

However, as time continued and they began to trust both the system and me, they

accepted some ambiguity and recognized it as part of the process.

Because all of the center activities from the previous semester had been saved, and

because my two new colleagues had new and different ideas for activities, we began to

develop a ‘bank’ of center activities for each colored center. By the end of the semester,

I found myself looking through this collection of activities to find ones that were a)

appropriate for the readings assigned and b) appropriate for my individual students.

Instead of all doing the same things, we began to recognize that each group had its own

needs, and that each group had to be planned for individually. Although it took away

108

from the collaboration a bit, it did allow me to plan activities that would ultimately be

more effective for my students.”

109

Appendix B

Course Syllabus

110

THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

College of Education

Department of Early Childhood, Special, and Physical Education

A. Course Title Effective Teaching Practices: Pre-K to 3rd Grade B. Course Alpha & Number CIEC 4/5070 C. Semester Credit Hours 5 credit hours

D. Instructor Name

Instructor Office Location, Telephone(s), e-mail Address, FAX Instructor Office Hours

Amy Allen Visiting Faculty SM 3300 Office: 419-530-4046 Fax: 419-530-7261 Aallen2@utnet.utoledo.edu

E. Catalog Description This course is designed to apply characteristics of best practice to curriculum development and implementation with adherence to the national and state curriculum standards as they apply to children, age 3 to 8, with diverse educational needs. Undergraduate pre-requisites: Admission to professional standing, TSOC 3000, CIEC 3350, CIEC 3430, CIEC 3390, CI 4510, CI 3430, CI 3460. Co-requisite: SPED 4080, CIEC 4490, CIEC 4480.

F. This course will focus on the following Conceptual Framework Themes

Pedagogical content knowledge, Reflection, Self-assessment, Professional practice, Diversity, Student learning.

G. This course will focus on the following Ohio Performance-Based Teacher

111

Licensure Standards: (List standard(s) and specific indicators) 1. Subject Matter: The teacher has a thorough understanding and knowledge of

subject matter and uses such knowledge to create effective learning experiences for students.

1K1 The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/eh teaches.

2. Student Learning: The teacher understands how students learn and develop,

and creates opportunities for each student’s academic development. 2K2 The teacher understands that students’ physical, social, emotional, moral and

cognitive development influence learning and knows how to address these factors when making instructional decisions.

4. Planning Instruction: The teacher plans instruction based on knowledge of

subject matter of students, and of curriculum goals and models. 4K1 The teacher understands learning theory, subject matter, curriculum

development and student development and knows how to use this knowledge in planning instruction to meet curriculum goals.

5. Instructional Strategies: The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies

that encourage each student to develop critical-thinking and problem-solving skills.

5K2 The teacher understands principles and techniques, along with advantages and limitations, associated with various instructional strategies (e.g. cooperative learning, direct instruction, discovery learning, whole group discussion, independent study, interdisciplinary instruction).

6. Learning Environment: The teacher creates a learning environment that encourage active learning and peer interaction.

6K4 The teacher understands the principles of effective classroom management and can use a range of strategies to promote positive relationships, cooperation, and purposeful learning in the classroom.

8. Assessment: The teacher effectively uses formal and informal assessment

strategies to evaluate student progress. 8D1 The teacher values ongoing assessment as essential to the instructional process

and recognizes that many different assessment strategies accurately and systematically used, are necessary for monitoring and promoting student learning.

10. Student Support: The teacher works with parents/family members, school colleagues, and community members to support student learning and development.

10K2 The teacher understands how factors in the students’ environment outside of school (e.g. family circumstances, community environments, health and economic conditions) may influence students’ life and learning.

112

H. This course will focus on the following Professional/National Standards:

Students will follow the national and state standards for all subject areas in the creation and teaching of lesson plans.

I. In addition, the following concepts (ideas, goals, topics) will also be discussed:

There will be a focus on pedagogical learning strategies in science and social studies. Additionally, this course will require graduate students to inquire, communicate, increase social and historical consciousness, understand and use mathematical and quantitative concepts, utilize scientific inquiry, and acquire and use information in order to inform their practice.

J. Course Materials – Required

Bickart, T., Jablon, J., and Trister Dodge, D., (1999). Building the primary classroom: A complete guide to teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Trister Dodge, D., Colker, L., & Heroman, C. (2002). The creative curriculum for preschool. Washington, D.C.: Teaching Strategies, Inc.

K. The following Critical Performances are required in this course: Critical Performance #8 – Unit Plan L. The following Student Assessments are also part of this course (* Does not include reading assignments) For ALL students: 3 reflections/assessments These will be written assessments that will focus on the work we do in class. The purpose of these assessments is twofold: 1) to determine whether or not students are grasping the concepts and ideas learned in class, and 2) to prepare students for the written portion of the Praxis II exam.

Lesson Plans Lesson plans will be written for both the preschool and the primary classes. A total of

113

24 lesson plans will be submitted, as noted below.

Additional requirements for GRADUATE students:

A COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT TEACHING METHODOLOGIES

Students will be required to research two distinctly different teaching strategies (i.e. direct instruction and constructivism) and prepare an in-depth analysis of the two different approaches.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Student will choose one of the following subject areas: Math, Literacy, Discovery, and Play.

Students will read a minimum of 10 scholarly articles pertaining to preschool and/or primary

education and the particular subject area they have chosen. An annotated bibliography will

be prepared which summarizes each article.

M. Grading Formula, Breakdown, Weighting

Assignment Preschool Points Primary Points

Total Points

The following assignments are required of ALL students:

Classroom participation Students are expected to participate in all classroom activities. Much of the work we do will be done in small groups and centers and will require that students take an active role in those groups. In addition, participation depends upon evidence that the reading assignments have been completed.

20

20

40

3 essay assessments These will be written assessments that will focus on the work we do in class.

114

The purpose of these assessments is twofold: 1) to determine whether or not students are grasping the concepts and ideas learned in class, and 2) to prepare students for the written portion of the Praxis II exam.

30

30

60

Lesson Plans

Lesson plans will be written for both the preschool and the primary classes, as noted. Each plan will be approved by the classroom teacher before it is submitted to the instructor. Each week, three plans will be submitted on or before Thursday, and will be returned on Tuesday of the following week. No electronic copies of lesson plans will be accepted, as each plan needs to have the teacher’s signature on it.

2 literacy plans 2 math plans 2 science plans 2 motor plans 1 dramatic play kit 3 art Each plan will be worth 10 points

120

3 language arts plans 3 math plans 3 science plans 3 social studies plans Each plan will be worth 10 points

120

240

Critical Performance #8 Unit Plan- directions for this assignment will be distributed in class

20

Attendance

Attendance for this course is important. If a student needs to be absent from class, he/she must contact the instructor prior to the absence to determine if it will be excused or unexcused. Each unexcused absences will result in a loss of 3 attendance points.

10

10

20

115

The following assignments are required of GRADUATE students only: A COMPARISON OF TWO

DIFFERENT TEACHING

METHODOLOGIES

Students will be required to research two distinctly different teaching strategies (i.e. direct instruction and constructivism) and prepare an in-depth analysis of the two different approaches.

30

30

ANNOTATED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Student will choose one of the following subject areas: Math, Literacy, Discovery, and Play. Students will read a minimum of 10 scholarly articles pertaining to preschool and/or primary education and the particular subject area they have chosen. An annotated bibliography will be prepared which summarizes each article.

20

20

TOTAL

UNDERGRADUATE POINTS

200 180 380

TOTAL GRADUATE

POINTS

250 180 430

116

THE FOLLOWING GRADING SCALE WILL BE USED:

A 94+

A- 90-93 B+ 87-89 B 83-86

B- 80-82

C+ 77-79 C 73-76 C- 70-72

D+ 67-69 D 63-66 D- 60-62 F Below 60

Course Outline or Class Schedule

Primary Week 1 Introductions

course syllabus review Knowing the children you teach Ch.1 of Building the Primary Classroom

Week 2 Building a classroom community Ch. 2 of Building the Primary Classroom

Week 3 Establishing a structure for the classroom Guiding children’s learning Ch.3 and 4 of Building the Primary Classroom

Week 4 Assessing children’s learning Ch. 5 of Building the Primary Classroom

Week 5 Assessing children’s learning Ch. 7 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

Week 6 Building a partnership with families Ch. 6 of Building the Primary Classroom Ch. 8 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

Week 7 Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

Week 8 Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

Preschool Week 9 Preschool course overview

Theoretical foundations of ECE Characteristics of children ages 2-5 Ch. 1 of Creative Curriculum

Week 10 Setting up appropriate EC environments (physical, emotional) Lesson planning

117

Integrated curriculum The project approach Ch. 2 of Creative Curriculum

Week 11 What children learn in Preschool Ch. 3 of Creative Curriculum

Week 12 The importance of dramatic play Ch. 7 of Creative Curriculum

Week 13 Blocks, table toys, and games with rules Ch. 6 and 8 of Creative Curriculum

Week 14 Art experiences for young children Ch. 9 of Creative Curriculum

Week 15 Sensory experiences for young children; sand and water; cooking Ch. 14 and 16 of Creative Curriculum

Week 16 Music and movement for young children Gross motor development Ch. 13 and 16 of Creative Curriculum

O. Other The requirements are subject to change and adaptation at the discretion of the professor. The lecture course grade will be arrived at separately from the field experience grade. Please contact the professor if you need special arrangements for note taking, special print, or other considerations that may help you more effectively learn or demonstrate learning. Attendance – Your participation in class activities and discussions is important not only for your own learning but also for the learning of others. Attendance is very important. All absences must be reported before they occur or in the case of emergencies on the day they occur. Unreported absences will result in lowering of your grade level.

118

Appendix C

Sample Center-Based Activities

119

Preschool Module 1 Centers

RED

Theorists

Knowing how young children ages 3-8 develop and learn is the critical starting point for every teacher. There are many persons who have made significant contributions to our understandings of how children develop and learn. These theorists/researchers represent a broad spectrum of explanations. Some are similar and compatible. Others are in some ways diametric opposites. Each, however, has something to offer of value to the competent teacher.

1. In a group of no more than four, randomly choose two different theorists from the envelope (see me for the envelope)

2. Create a visual representation to represent how both theorists are • similar or different • alike or not alike • compatible or not compatible

in terms of their thinking about how children develop and learn. You may use words, pictures, or both.

3. Post your representation on the course discussion board.

BLUE Social Emotional Development

1. In a small group, watch the video: It’s the Little Things. 2. Using a graphic organizer, share the highlights of the video. Be sure to include the

important points. 3. Post your representation on the course website on the discussion board.

GREEN

Environment

On page 63 of the Creative Curriculum, there is a picture of a possible classroom environment in a preschool classroom. Chapter 5 in the DAP book offers additional ideas for planning space and environment.

1. Use the picture on page 63 2. Using information from chapter 5 of DAP, write a rationale for each of the

numbered spaces in the picture. 3. Use your own words, please! 4. Post your rationales in the correct space on the course discussion board. Each

numbered area will have its own space. YELLOW:

Developmental Domains

120

Do this activity in a group of 3 or 4 Step 1: Choose an age and a developmental domain. Step 2: Place your names on a post-it note and then place the post-it note onto the grid to mark the age and domain you have chosen. Step 3: Using your text, prior experiences, and any other resources, determine the characteristics of children of that age within the developmental domain you have chosen Step 4: Prepare a ‘Top 10’ list of the most important issues or characteristics for that age and domain. Step 5: Post your “top 10’ list on chart paper and hang it near the center. Be sure to label it with the age and domain you addressed.

ORANGE: Planning Effective Group Times

With a partner, choose a particular group time (see me for choices)

Write a lesson plan for the children in your assigned placement for that type of group time. (see chapter 4 in your DAP book for more info) You may focus on any subject matter, as long as you use the type of group you are given. Post your lesson plan on the course discussion board.

PURPLE Social and Emotional Development

Fostering positive social and emotional development in young children is perhaps the most important thing we can do as early childhood educators. In this center, you will examine the social and emotional environment of your classroom.

1. Complete the CSEFEL inventory (found on the course website). 2. Once completed, prepare a one paragraph summary statement for each of the 10

areas. You should include comments about the strengths and weaknesses associated with each area.

3. Submit the actual inventory along with the summary statements to the instructor.

121

Red: Prepare to Share

Prepare to share!

1. Choose your favorite Preschool lesson plan 2. Choose your favorite primary lesson plan. 3. Write a half-page summary of each (one at top, and one at bottom

of page) 4. Make enough copies to share with each of your classmates. (32) 5. Put your name on it…..it’s your plan!

Peer Evaluation

/10

1. In what ways did the teachers accommodate the different ways in which students learn?

2. How did the teacher respond to the students’ questions?

3. What issues were the students struggling with?

4. How did the teacher support the social and emotional needs of students during

this lesson? 5. What changes would you make if you were teaching this lesson?

Video-taped Lesson

Self Reflection /20

• Did you implement the lesson/activity as you had planned? • What changes did you make, and why did you make them? • Describe what you learned about your personal teaching style by watching your

videotape. • Do you think the lesson was successful? Why or why not? • Reflect on the comments from the peer evaluation.

122

PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

• Cooperating • Sharing • Expressing Feelings • Resolving Conflict • Managing Anger • Empathizing with Others • Learning Social Skills • Developing Strong Identity • Valuing Friends

(More information about these behaviors can be found on page 378 in your DAP book)

1. Observe the children in your classroom for signs of prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Tally the incidents of each.

2. Create a representation of your data. Your representation should include:

• some type of graph or picture that shows how often you observed both types of behavior

• lists of specific antisocial and prosocial behaviors observed

• suggestions for increasing the amount of prosocial behavior

• suggestions for eliminating the amount of antisocial behavior

Blue: Collecting Data

1. Using the strategies beginning on page 190 of your DAP book, decide upon two ways to collect and present data.

2. Go out into the college environment and collect data about something (anything you choose!)

3. On chart paper, prepare a representation of your findings. 4. You should present what you learned in two different ways – using the

information on page 190-192 as a guide. 5. In class, we will discuss what each different type of data collection process

gives us in terms of facts, inferences, and opinions. We will also discuss why different types of assessment provide us with different types of information about children – and when it is good to use or not use a particular system.

123

Purple: Social Studies Curriculum

1. With a partner, choose a Social Studies lesson that you already implemented, or plan to implement. (each of you will choose a lesson – 2 total)

2. For each plan, do the following:

Determine which component of Social Studies you addressed (see list on page

348 of Building the Primary Classroom for help).

Provide evidence of how each lesson addressed/did not address the following

considerations:

• Developmental Consideration • Children’s Interests and Experiences • Relying on the Immediate Environment (see pages 358-361 in Building the Primary Classroom for assistance)

124

Appendix D

Module 1

125

Content of Module 1

Introductions course syllabus review Knowing the children you teach Ch.1 of Building the Primary Classroom

Building a classroom community Ch. 2 of Building the Primary Classroom

Establishing a structure for the classroom Guiding children’s learning Ch.3 and 4 of Building the Primary Classroom

Assessing children’s learning Ch. 5 of Building the Primary Classroom

126

Appendix E

Module 2

127

Content of Module 2

Assessing children’s learning Ch. 7 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

Building a partnership with families Ch. 6 of Building the Primary Classroom Ch. 8 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum

128

Appendix F

Module 3

129

Content of Module 3

Preschool course overview Theoretical foundations of ECE Characteristics of children ages 2-5 Ch. 1 of Creative Curriculum

Setting up appropriate EC environments (physical, emotional) Lesson planning Integrated curriculum The project approach Ch. 2 of Creative Curriculum

What children learn in Preschool Ch. 3 of Creative Curriculum

The importance of dramatic play

Ch. 7 of Creative Curriculum

130

Appendix G

Module 4

131

Content of Module 4

Blocks, table toys, and games with rules Ch. 6 and 8 of Creative Curriculum

Art experiences for young children Ch. 9 of Creative Curriculum

Sensory experiences for young children; sand and water; cooking Ch. 14 and 16 of Creative Curriculum

Music and movement for young children Gross motor development Ch. 13 and 16 of Creative Curriculum

132

Appendix H

Data for Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role

133

Group Source Number Student Comment

I a: Instructional role

CB R 2 Fabis The instructor encourages individual and group participation a CB F 1 a she can work with one on one more and you don't have to waste time x CB F 1 b she has set up these themed projects for us x CB F 1 c she is teaching us how to learn and she's teaching you what to learn x

CB F 1 b she gives an agenda for the day x CB F 1 d she encouraged the students' ideas by asking open-ended questions x CB F 1 c she can work with one on one more and you don't have to waste time x

CB F 2 e she took a secondary teaching role and we took the primary teaching role for ourselves x

CB R 2 Bush she introduced the content, but it was the students' responsibility to learn the content and process the information x

CB R 2 Fabis

the instructor has prepared the students to be successful by clearly defining tasks, how to work in centers, what goals are to be met, when tasks are to be completed, what learning actually took place, and what will occur in the future x

CB R 2 Fabis at all times the instructor was available for consultation through her presence in class, email, phone, or by appointment x

CB R 2 Halker the instructor facilitates involvement by making suggestions in order to stimulate learning x

CB R 2 Lenarcic the instructor organized our student learning by allowing us to work on assignments and projects at our own pace x

CB R 2 Miller the instructor provides all the needed materials to complete the assignment x

CB R 2 Newman the instructor prepares the environment/curriculum so that it provides stimulating, challenging activities for students to engage in x

CB R 2 Obrovac the instructor's role in this class was to act as a facilitator of learning and a resource person x

134

CB R 2 Obrovac the teacher was there to promote the education and development of the students in class x

CB R 2 Obrovac by asking open ended questions to encourage student thinking x

CB R 2 Owens the instructor is required to plan, set up, and organize centers that will support student growth x

CB R 2 Owens

the instructor must assess students to see where they are at, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and what can be done to move them to the next level x

CB R 2 Smajdek, J the instructor assisted the learning by being available to answer questions or give explanations x

CB R 2 Smajdek, K

the instructor monitored learning by giving feedback and helping students clarify and reflect upon their own ideas x

CB R 2 Witucki the instructor's role in this class is to provide support and offer help to the students when needed x

CB R 2 Witucki the instructor has done an excellent job of explaining the modules and centers throughout the year. She keeps explaining until all students understand x

CB R 2 Zakrajsek the professor is to inform the students what they will be doing in the semester. The professor informs the students of important dates, and meetings x

CB R 2 Owens the instructor's role changes based on the students' needs x CB R 2 Bowman the instructor's role was more of a silent role x CB R 2 Bowman the role of the instructor was one of ease, but of hard work x CB R 2 Bowman the role of the instructor was one of support and background knowledge x CB R 2 Scherger the instructor was there for support x N-CB F 1 a she really tries to explain things to us x N-CB F 1 b explaining what it means x

N-CB F 1 a she has a way of twisting it so it means something to everyone and she is willing to answer questions to make sure that everyone knows x

N-CB F 1 b she also plays on our experiences x N-CB F 1 c she gives good examples x N-CB F 1 d if there's some really good learning going on, she'll make sure it continues x N-CB F 1 a she tried to group us with similarities x

135

N-CB F 1 e she always applies what she's teaching to something that will be happening or her personal experiences x

N-CB F 1 a

she is more focused to make sure that we understand the main points. She teaches us the material, but she's more focused on us learning because if we don't learn, what's the point of teaching? x

N-CB F 1 f she made sure we get rich experiences so that we can learn x N-CB F 2 b it's more of a conversation with the whole group than just one person lecturing x N-CB F 2 a we discussed as a group, with (instructor) at the head x N-CB F 2 b she gives information and we contribute x N-CB F 2 d if we don't understand it, she'll go over it again and make sure we do x N-CB F 2 e she gives you a task and then gives you feedback to make sure you get it x

N-CB R 2 Ashley the role of the instructor is to facilitate learning that will be beneficial to our experiences x

N-CB R 2 Katafias the instructor is a facilitator of the information x N-CB R 2 Carr to present situations, objectives, etc. to us x N-CB R 2 Dooley the topics we discuss in class should be determined by the instructor x N-CB R 2 Johnson our professor has challenged us to go beyond our comfort zone x

N-CB R 2 Lodge the role of the instructor was basically to give us the information we need to help prepare us for the field x

N-CB R 2 Reacallah the instructor gives examples on how to handle situations x N-CB R 2 Trumbull the role of the instructor is to be an instructional guide x N-CB R 2 Mohamed the role of the instructor is to teach x

N-CB R 2 Scott the instructor's role is to provide us with learning opportunities that allow us to grow and become better prepared to be teachers x

N-CB R 2 Robey the instructor should be knowledgeable in the many methods of teaching x

N-CB R 2 Westhoventhe instructor is to be knowledgeable in the proper format of writing lesson plans x

N-CB R 2 Stecz the instructor asks questions to get us thinking x N-CB R 2 Swan the instructor's role, in an extremely generalized sense, is to teach x

136

Appendix I

Data for Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate

137

Group Source Number Student Comment I a: Instructional role

I b: Instructional climate

CB F 1 c

and so, if I'm really interested in one thing, I can do that first, and something I really don't want to do, I can save that for last

CB F 1 c she can work with one on one more and you don't have to waste time x x

CB F 1 d it's beneficial to learn at our own pace, but we also learn with our peers x

CB F 1 e you get it done at your own pace x

CB F 1 a professors don't take into consideration how students learn x

CB F 1 b I never really dreaded coming to class x CB R 2 Miller my role is to also interact with classmates x

N-CB F 2 c she calls it housekeeping. If anyone has issues they need help on, she lets us do that x

N-CB F 2 f there is a high comfort level x

138

Appendix J

Data for Theme IIa: Student Role in the Instructional Process

139

GROUP CB

SOURCE

F

NUMBER 2

STUDENT e

COMMENT she took a secondary teaching role and we took the primary teaching role for ourselves

IIa: Student Instructional Process x x

CB R 2 Fabis my role requires the ability to work individually, within a small group, and as a member of a large group x

CB R 2 Obrovac my role was that I was responsible for my own learning x CB R 2 Fisher my role is to soak up all the knowledge I can x

CB R 2 Newman I am responsible for carrying out the activities and investigating for answers that are needed x

CB R 2 Bush it required me to control my own learning and to manage my time with getting the assignments done x

CB R 2 Halker my role has been to find myself as a learner and have a responsibility to complete my work x

CB R 2 Owens the student has an active role in his learning x CB R 2 Owens the student's role is do direct his own learning x CB R 2 Bowman my role varied depending on what was going on each day x CB R 2 Bowman my role was to be at the center of my own learning x

N-CB F 2 b it's more of a conversation with the whole group than just one person lecturing x x

N-CB F 2 a we discussed as a group, with (instructor) at the head x x N-CB F 2 b she gives information and we contribute x x

N-CB R 1 Stecz I feel I received a lot of the information I learn through peer interactions x

140

Appendix K

Data for Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers

141

Group Source Number Student Comment I a: II a: II b

CB F 1 d it's beneficial to learn at our own pace, but we also learn with our peers x x

CB F 1 a

even if it's an activity you're supposed to do by yourself, you can still collaborate with your peers to make sure you are doing what you are supposed to be doing x

CB F 1 b because we post it on the website, you can see what your classmates are coming up with x

CB F 1 c I collaborate with my peers x

CB F 1 c it's all right in front of you like what needs to be done. You know what you're supposed to do x

CB F 1 a 1) you get to choose the people you work with and 2) you feel you can learn from peers` x

CB R 1 Zakrajsek it allows your to work together as a team x CB R 1 Yoh you have the choice to work in groups or alone x

CB R 2 Fabis

my role requires the ability to work individually, within a small group, and as a member of a large group x x

CB R 2 Miller my role is to also interact with classmates x x

CB R 2 Obrovac my classmates and I worked together to maximize each other's learning x

CB R 2 Owens the setting allows for more interactions x CB R 2 Scherger I collaborate with my peers x N-CB R 1 Westhoven I enjoy that we do a lot of group work x

N-CB R 1 Stecz I feel I received a lot of the information I learn through peer interactions x x

N-CB F 1 a she tried to group us with similarities x x N-CB R 1 Josephson when we get into groups with one another x N-CB R 1 Mohamed we do group work and reflect with peers x N-CB F 2 a we do a lot of group work x

142

Appendix L

Data for Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning

143

Group Source Number Student Comment II b II c CB F 1 d it's beneficial to learn at our own pace, but we also learn with our peers x x

CB F 1 c it's all right in front of you like what needs to be done. You know what you're supposed to do x x

CB F 1 a 1) you get to choose the people you work with and 2) you feel you can learn from peers` x x

CB F 1 c

and so, if I'm really interested in one thing, I can do that first, and something I really don't want to do, I can save that for last x

CB F 1 e you get it done at your own pace x CB F 1 b so, we're talking about choice x CB F 1 d it's your choice to expand on it x

CB F 1 e I think also, because we post it on the website, you can see what your classmates are coming up with x

CB F 2 c you feel more ownership over your assignments and your work x CB F 2 e she took a secondary teaching role and we took the primary teaching role for ourselves x

CB F 2 a it requires me to control my own learning to manage my time with getting the assignment done x

CB F 2 b I feel like I had power x

CB F 2 f I think a sense of power means that you play an important role in the class. Your input is worth something and it means something x

CB F 2 d If it's overwhelming, you break it down to fit you x CB F 2 b we learn at our own pace x CB F 2 f you have to do it on your own x CB R 1 Yoh you have the choice to work in groups or alone x x CB R 1 Zambrano The most exciting part was being able to choose what I wanted to do x

CB R 1 Puhl I like being able to have freedom to choose in which order you complete the assigned tasks x

CB R 1 Zakrajsek allowing students to choose what activities they want to complete first shows them they have power x

CB R 1 Amonette it allows students to learn at their own pace x

144

CB R 1 Lewis There is much room for choice and freedom of expression x CB R 1 Badman I realize I have to compromise within the group x x CB R 1 Murphy you have more independence to work on at your own pace x

CB R 1 Smajdek, J you can work at your own pace x

CB R 1 Smajdek, K you are responsible for your own learning x

CB R 1 Biggert we had the freedom to work at our own pace x CB R 2 Obrovac my role was that I was responsible for my own learning x

CB R 2 Newman I am responsible for carrying out the activities and investigating for answers that are needed x

CB R 2 Bush it required me to control my own learning and to manage my time with getting the assignments done x

CB R 2 Halker my role has been to find myself as a learner and have a responsibility to complete my work x

CB R 2 Owens the student's role is do direct his own learning x CB R 2 Bowman my role was to be at the center of my own learning x CB R 2 Lenz it is my duty and responsibility to carry out my task x

145

Appendix M

Data for Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preferences

146

Group Source Number Student Comment II a: II b II c III a N-CB R 1 Appleton I am a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Scott I have always been a hands on learner x N-CB R 1 Scott I have always been a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Scott I prefer videos as opposed to readings x

N-CB R 1 Trumbull I learn best by tying what we are being taught to real life situations x

N-CB R 1 Ashley I prefer to learn using visuals x N-CB R 1 Carr I learn best through the hands on approach x N-CB R 1 Smith I am a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Smith anything with charts or graphs x N-CB R 1 Johnson I am a hands on learner x N-CB R 1 Moran I tend to be an auditory learner x N-CB R 1 Westhoven I am mostly a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Swan I would undoubtedly assert myself as a language learner X N-CB R 1 Rezcallah the best way for me to learn is to have some visual parts included x N-CB R 1 Josephson I do best when it's hands on x N-CB R 1 Dooley I learn best by reflecting x N-CB R 1 Mohamed I need to be hands on and auditory x N-CB R 1 Streck I am a visual learner x

147

Appendix N

Data for Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class

148

Group Source Number Student Comment III a III b

CB F 2 b completing the conservation tasks helped me to realize the importance of visuals for preschool children x

CB F 2 a by watching the video 'The Whole Child' I learned ways to help a child become creative and enjoy creative play x

CB F 2 e when making the power point on Maria Montessori x N-CB F 2 c we took a field trip to this scrap book place x N-CB F 2 e we bring in pictures and we put them on a board x N-CB F 2 d yeah - we did a rubric and she let us figure it out x

N-CB F 2 a I think like when we did the block play. We talked about the different stages of block play and I would have never thought about it before x

N-CB R 1 Scott I prefer videos as opposed to readings x x N-CB R 1 Smith anything with charts or graphs x x

N-CB R 1 Josephson taking digital pictures of what children are doing and bringing them into class x

N-CB R 1 Carr I like when we categorized toys a few weeks ago x N-CB R 1 Robey we talked about rubrics today and then we had to create our own x N-CB R 1 Westhoven we often make posters or write on the board x

1