This article was downloaded by: [UAA/APU Consortium Library]On: 15 October 2014, At: 12:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Taking Action: Assessing the Impact ofPreservice Teaching on LearningRita Moore aa University of Montana-Western , USAPublished online: 03 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Rita Moore (2006) Taking Action: Assessing the Impact of Preservice Teaching onLearning, Action in Teacher Education, 28:3, 53-60, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2006.10463419

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2006.10463419

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

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

Taking Action: Assessing the Impact of

Preserwice Teaching on Learning Rita Moore University of Montana-Westem

ABSTRACT This writing is an investigation into the use of action research methods and tools as a means for preparing 26 preservice teachers to effectively link assessment to instruction. Two concepts emerged from the data: the importance of developmentally appropriate practice and documenting and validating student learning. This study suggests the power of action re- search as a teaching and learning tool in teacher preparation programs.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of action research by 26 preservice teachers to assess the impact of their teaching on student learning. The projects were conducted during the final 3 weeks of a 13-week field experience in a professional development school (PDS) setting. Preservice teachers selected student learning outcomes to assess through strategies and activities. They reflected on the outcomes of each assessment to guide their instruction. The use of action research by preservice teach- ers provided a method for systematically reflect- ing on assessment and instructional decision making-concepts that are difficult to authen- tically demonstrate and teach in the university classroom.

Rationale and Conceptual Framework

Action research presents a simple reliable re- search process that can be used to focus teach- ing questions as well as organize and interpret the multiple classroom data sources that reflect student learning (Calhoun, 2002; Moore, 2004). During the process of conducting action

research, the teacher learns from four phases: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting (Zuber-Skerrit, 1993). Within this framework, action research is a powerful form of assessment in which the teacher breaks from the image of teacher as technician. In the newer tradition, instructional decisions are grounded in examin- ing the events and outcomes of the classroom, rather than being driven by external forces such as standardized test scores (Arhar, Holly, & Kas- ten, 2001; Leland & Kasten, 2002).

The history of action research in education is not as distinct as many educational move- ments. Its presence is newly developed and sub- tle; however, it is rapidly becoming a recognized and powerful source of professional develop- ment (Levine, 2002; Moore, 2004). Action re- search emerged as a methodology for classroom research in the early 1940s with the work of Kurt Lewin, who urged researchers and practi- tioners to collaboratively address classroom is- sues and problems. Lewin, a psychologist, pro- posed that teachers investigate the interpersonal communication gaps that keep them from understanding their own biases (Arhar et al., 2001).

Address correspondence to Rita Moore, University of Montana-Western, Dillon, MT 59723. E-mail: r-mooreOumwestern .edu.

Action in Teacher Education Vol. 28, NO. 3 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4

54 RITAMOORE

With the work of Stephen Corey, action research grew increasingly popular in educa- tion up to the late 1950s with studies con- ducted by outside researchers with the cooper- ation of teachers (Masters, 1995). Today, action research is defined within the realm of reflective teaching (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Hubbard 6 Power, 1999) wherein the focus for teacher preparation has shifted from valuing teaching to valuing learning. The im- pact of preservice teachers on student learning represents a useful means through which teacher preparation programs may assess their effectiveness in preparing future teachers (Levine, 2002; Shoyer & Yahnke, 2001).

Preservice Teachers’ Action Research Projects

This study of action research was derived from an assignment designed to help preservice teachers understand how assessment informs instruction. The assignment was to conduct action research as a part of teaching a 3-week thematic unit. To gather data for their indi-

vidual action research projects, preservice teachers regularly assessed, documented, and reflected on student learning. The preservice teachers’ data contributed to the data in my study of action research. Following are the steps taken in this research project.

First, the preservice teachers received in- struction in the steps of action research, begin- ning with writing research questions. They wrote two or three research questions to focus areas of student learning during a thematic unit they would later teach. The preservice teachers’ action research questions differed from the learning goals of the thematic unit in that the action research questions were designed to broadly assess the impact of teaching on student learning. As a part of their instruction, the pre- service teachers learned to write student learn- ing goals for the unit and to develop assessment benchmarks relative to their expectations of what students were to learn. Their action re- search questions were designed to generate data showing how effective their teaching strategies were and how student attitudes or learning had changed as a result of their participation in the thematic unit (see Table 1).

Table 1. Studies I Language Arts Unit

Data source Findings

Sample Questions, Data Sources, and Summarized Findings: Assessing a Literature-Based Social

Question 7: What conceptions about aft and story do students hold about Native American culture?

Preassessment: KWL sheets

Assessment 2: Narrative essay

Assessment 3: Student interviews

50% of the students knew at least 3 things about Native American art

100% of the students successfully completed criteria on rubric for

Many students were having difficulty graphing timelines about Native

and culture.

developing a narrative essay about Native American art.

American art and culture so, after interviews, we looked at another strategy.

Many students were interested in Native American art so we developed deeper inquiry questions into this. Their responses were rich and interesting.

Assessment 4: Final project

Question 2: What teaching strategies in this unit were most effective and least effective? ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~

Student evaluations of my teaching Reflective journal

Interviewlconversation with

Conversation with university professor

Several of the children really liked the Venn diagram. I was surprised. I think I need to get better at setting up a framework for asking and

answering questions. My mentor teacher gave me some good feedback today-see p. 23

of my reflective journal. Feedback on my observation sheet got me thinking about the way I

interact with the children during literature circles. I was largely a participant in the groups.

mentor teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessing the Impact of Preservice Teaching on Learning 55

Second, the preservice teachers created a data-gathering schedule and constructed a list of at least two potential data sources for each research question. These included student in- terviews; classroom assignments; observation guides; interviews with teachers; reflective journals; and unit activities linked to multiple forms of expression, such as art, writing, dra- matic play, oral presentations, video or audio projects, and web-based student research. As- sessment results from students were docu- mented on checklists, rubrics, and observation of learning guide sheets. For additional data, the preservice teachers were required to write in a reflective journal after each teaching day describing what they were observing, learning, and questioning about teaching and learning. The intent of this writing was to keep the re- search focused on the relationship between teaching and learning. Linking teaching to learning goals was continually examined in the written reflections.

Third, the preservice teachers were in- structed in basic data-coding strategies (Bog- dan & Biklen, 1992). Each question was des- ignated a color, and as data responses were read, those that were relevant to a research question were highlighted in the question’s designated color. For example, a reflective journal response might be highlighted in green because it is germane to one of the questions.

Following the training, each preservice teacher began to conduct an action research project to assess the impact of their themed unit on the achievement of the students in their field classrooms. Each taught a unit for 3 weeks under the supervision of a classroom mentor teacher. For example, one preservice teacher created a third-grade unit about fairy tales. The learning goals of the unit were for students to identify and understand literary el- ements common to fairy tales. Group and in- dividual projects, writing, quizzes, and other assessment checkpoints served as data sources for the research questions. The preservice teachers began color-coding student learning outcomes, monitored through various assess- ment activities, to their research questions during the first week of instruction. In addi-

tion, they read their reflective journals daily, coding their written reflections to their action research questions.

Following the completion of their themed unit, the preservice teachers reread their coded data sources, scrutinizing for accuracy and noting the instructional changes they made as a result of consistent coding and re- flection. To verify their coding accuracy, the preservice teachers reviewed their coded data with two of their classmates upon completion of teaching the themed unit. In addition, they regularly received input on their coding from the mentor teachers, over half of whom were enrolled in a graduate course in action re- search.

The preservice teachers then summarized their findings under each question and used those findings to reflect on the implications of their research on their own teaching and learning in a final written report (Table 1 is an abbreviated example). Near the end of the methods courses, they presented the results of their projects to the methods classes, other in- terested students, and faculty.

Overview of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of action research by preservice teach- ers in elementary school field settings who, through various assessment strategies, exam- ined the impact of their instruction on student learning.

Participants and Setting

The participants of the study were 26 preser- vice teachers enrolled as senior elementary (K-8) education majors in a block of lan- guage arts and reading methods courses one semester before student teaching. The sam- ple comprised 8 males and 18 females. Four public elementary schools served as PDS sites. These schools had middle-to-high so- cioeconomic levels and less than 5% minor- ity populations. I served as principal investi- gator for the study as well as one of the PDS professors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4

56 RITAMOORE

Research Questions and Data Sources

The research questions were as follows:

1.

2.

In what ways did assessment inform the instructional practices of the preservice teachers? What images of teaching and learning emerged from the action research stud- ies of the preservice teachers?

Data were collected at the end of the 16-week semester. Data sources for Question 1 included the reflective journals in which the preservice teachers wrote daily responses to what they were learning about assessment and instruction, the Results and Implications sections of the final re- search reports, and my field notes. Data sources for Question 2 included the daily reflective jour- nal entries, the implications section of the final research reports, and my field notes.

Procedures

The preservice teachers were assigned to one of four K-6 elementary schools, with a classroom and mentor teacher designated during the first week of the university semester. They alter- nated attendance between the university class- room and their assigned elementary school classrooms. After 6 weeks of observation and single-lesson instruction, the preservice teach- ers began whole-class instruction in a 3-week themed unit. Before teaching the themed unit, the preservice teachers developed (a) an action research plan to determine what they wished to assess during the unit and (b) the assessment tools and processes they would use. Near the end of the methods courses, the preservice teachers wrote a final report, which included their questions; data sources for each question; results of their study, particularly, how they used assessment to consistently evaluate and inform their instruction; and the implications of the study to their own teaching and learn- ing. Copies of these reports, as well as their re- flective journals, were collected during the 16th week of the semester. As their professor, I regularly visited the classrooms to which the

preservice teachers were assigned. During the final 3 weeks during which they conducted the action research projects, I wrote field notes during each visit.

Data Analysis

At the close of the semester, I sorted the data by color-coding relevant responses to my re- search questions. I color-coded the responses from the preservice teachers’ reflective jour- nals, my field notes, and the findings and im- plications from their action research project reports to the questions. I then reread the data a second time, with the intent to develop clar- ifying concepts within each question. To ar- rive at these concepts, I noted whether at least eight responses from three data sources alluded to the general concept of the category (Lin- coln & Guba, 1985). I then reread the data, marking categorization changes as needed. Next, I presented the data to a peer reviewer, a PDS mentor teacher with experience in ac- tion research, to verify the coding and inter- pretation of findings. After some discussion and negotiation of meaning, minimal adjust- ments were made involving interpretation of responses. The study was validated through careful triangulation of data in which at least three data sources cross-checked the findings for each question. To be considered significant to the question, a similar response from each data source had to be sorted to a question at least five times (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results

The results of the study are grouped as follows, according to the research questions. They are examined through concepts that consistently emerged under each question.

Question 1

In what ways did assessment inform the insnuc- tional practices of the preservice teachers? Two concepts were particularly strong in the data responses coded to this question: one, the im- portance of developmentally appropriate prac-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessing the Impact of Preservice Teaching on Learning 57

tice and, two, documenting and validating stu- dent learning.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice

As a teacher educator, I know that preservice teachers are usually interested in “what works” in the classroomeager to skip the theory and get to the practice. Rarely do preservice teachers seamlessly make the link between developmen- tally appropriate practice and learning. Interest- ingly, however, 20 of the participants expressed in the Implications section of their final action research reports new insight into choosing de- velopmentally appropriate instruction based on the assessment information they were analyzing through their ongoing action research.

For example, one preservice teacher de- scribed in her reflective journal what she no- ticed during the data-coding process:

Review of the students’ evaluations of the unit lessons gave me insight into the sub- ject integration that they observed taking place. I don’t think I would have noticed they were capable of this had I not been coding their responses to my research questions.

Another preservice teacher discovered the value of student connections to text emerg- ing from her assessment data. She com- mented that students’ work and enthusiasm improved dramatically when they made per- sonal connections to the unit of study. She wrote in the Results section of her final ac- tion research report,

As the unit progressed, many students made connections between their own cul- tural ancestry and Native Americans. This was a great accomplishment because it contributed to my goal of ridding stu- dents of bias or prejudice toward the Na- tive people and culture.

Documenting and Validating Student Learning

Assessment is a learning process, not a label- ing process (Strickland & Strickland, 2000).

When properly documented and validated, as- sessment has powerful potential for informing instruction on a daily basis. Based on the num- ber of color-coded responses, over half of the preservice teachers (n = 16) grasped this con- cept quickly, and all 26 alluded to the process in their final written reports. For example, one created a rubric for continually assessing de- veloping phonemic awareness during a kinder- garten unit on animal habitats. The unit in- cluded a great deal of sound blending and word play, during which the preservice teacher documented individual progress and learning needs, followed by her own instructional ad- justments. Another preservice teacher created comprehension checklists from goals set dur- ing reading conferences with second-grade children. Her reflective journal entries indi- cated her careful instructional response to the data from the checklists. Upon examining her entries, she realized that several students were unaware that narrative is often organized around specific elements of story, which, of course, led to comprehension confusion. She immediately developed minilessons and prac- tice activities on elements of story with help from her mentor teacher. Another preservice teacher explained in her final report what she had learned about the implications of validat- ing student response and identity to better as- sess the meaning they were trying to convey. The students recently finished the chapter book Sarah, Plain and Tall (MacLachlan, 1985).

One student was having a really hard time with this writing assignment-stuck on the title. He told me that he wasn’t tall like Sarah, but he wasn’t short either, he was just average. I had him tell me what he liked to do or was interested in. He said he played baseball and football and liked to draw. I told him, ccso wouldn’t that make you athletic and artistic?” He replied, “Yeah that would be a good title, Dillon, Athletic and Artistic!”

Question 2

What images of teaching and learning emerged in the results and implications of the action research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4

58 RITAMOORE

projects! Data coded to this question focused the image of teacher as learner. The concepts for this question included learning how to document and explicate assessment results, being fair and impartial, and assessment as teaching.

Documentation and Explication of Assessment Results

To address documentation and explication of student learning outcomes, I compared each of the preservice teachers’ data on student learn- ing performance (Results section) with their perceptions of, and reflections on, their effec- tiveness as teachers (Implications section). For part of their final report, I asked the pre- service teachers to convert to percentages the numerical scores they had from rubrics and checklists so that we could explore the overall effectiveness of their teaching across the four sites. Of the 26 studies, the average success rate for the children’s mastery of the objectives that the preservice teachers chose to teach was 85%. Although this procedure was not highly empirical, it did validate for the preservice teachers the effectiveness of the action re- search process in helping them view overall student learning in the areas they chose to as- sess. I t also taught them how to assess student learning through multiple measures and how to translate that information into quantitative documentation.

Fairness and Impartiality

The Implications sections of the action re- search reports indicated that the preservice teachers had learned an important lesson about themselves as human beings. Twenty- two suggested that it was impossible to ignore personal biases and be completely impartial to all students. They learned to develop strategies such as covering names on papers when grad- ing, listening to the kinds of questions they asked and the many times they answered their own questions, monitoring their verbal and nonverbal responses to student comments and questions, and recognizing their reactions to

the social identities of children they found dif- ficult to understand. One preservice teacher shared her honesty with the class during her fi- nal research presentation with a quotation from her reflective journal: “My initial thoughts were that I treated and graded every- one equally, but when it came down to it, I found that the name on the paper changed the way I viewed the student’s work.”

Listening does not present an obvious as- sessment strategy to most preservice teachers. The preservice teachers began to make con- nections between teaching, learning, listen- ing, and language. One preservice teacher wrote in his reflective journal, ‘‘I discovered a divide between the individual student and the student as a member of the group. Listening to what students said in their groups really helped me know the students.”

Assessment as Teaching

The data indicated that not all of the preser- vice teachers were as equally engaged in the image of assessment as teaching; however, each one alluded to the concept in the Implications section of the final action research report, with at least one positive example from one’s teach- ing. Based on the 25 examples coded to this concept from my field notes, this characteristic may be attributed to more time spent with mentor teachers who consistently reinforced the idea that teachers learn the most about teaching by reflecting on their practice. In fact, at least half of the mentor teachers made this an explicit expectation. They discussed learn- ing outcomes with the preservice teachers, then required them to reteach lessons in which the children had demonstrated confusion. One particularly revealing comment from a preser- vice teacher’s reflective journal highlights a teaching discovery:

I know how to approach assessment as teaching. . . . My students went from only 46% being able to list ways buffalo were used by indigenous peoples for survival to a whopping 98%! Using many kinds of projects and assignments for assessment really helped me see the big picture.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Assessing the lmpact of Preserwice Teaching on Learning 59

Sometimes, both closer reflection on stu- dents’ learning and careful attention to their individual data helped preservice teachers re- alize successes. One preservice teacher ini- tially wrote of disappointment in the lack of descriptive words used by the children during a poetry lesson; then she realized that she had not actually taught the concept of descriptive words! The goals of the lesson were to identify and use nouns and verbs, not adjectives. Based on the student scoring rubrics, the use of the skills that were taught and practiced were well represented in the poems.

Discussion

The depth and breadth of a preservice teacher’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions are measured by their impact on the students they teach (Lefever-Davis, 2002; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Fu- ture, 1996). Action research today is recog- nized as an important tool in teacher prepara- tion programs in which the potential and effectiveness of future teachers may be mea- sured by their ability to consistently assess and act on the effect of teaching on student learn- ing (Moore, 2004; Shoyer & Yahnke, 2001; Wyatt, Meditz, Reeves, & Carr, 1999).This process of classroom research informs growth and development of teachers, in tandem with the growth and development of learners.

The purpose of this study was to investi- gate the use of action research by preservice teachers as a tool for student assessment and instructional decision making. Based on the Results and Implications sections from the 26 final written action research reports, the re- flective journals, and my field notes, the out- comes of the individual studies influenced the thinking of each one of the preservice teach- ers. The data from the Implications sections of the written projects strongly suggest that the action research experience led the preservice teachers toward formulating and investigating questions about the effectiveness of their teaching on student learning that went be- yond their action research questions.

For over 8 years, I have required preservice teachers enrolled in the language arts and reading methods courses that I teach to con- duct action research projects either in a tradi- tional field practicum or a PDS setting. This study brought about a change in my own teaching and learning. Before this investiga- tion, I directed the preservice teachers to base their research focus on their individual place- ments and pedagogical interests. The results of this study gave me insight into the value of choosing a research framework that linked as- sessment to instruction, from which emerged authentic scenarios examining the relation- ship between assessment and instruction.

Assessment is too often deemed synony- mous with grading or scoring student work. Assessment represents ongoing data gathering and instructional decision making-a process quite different from assigning a score or grade. When assessment is based on meaningful cri- teria linked to performance goals, teachers be- gin to realize the varying performance levels, abilities, and needs of their students. Only then is it more feasible to assume that fairness and impartiality will occur and that letter grades and scores will reflect a more honest measure of student learning.

The content and focus of the data from the journals and final research reports of the pre- service teachers of this study clearly and consis- tently compared student learning to teaching, thus suggesting that they had begun to view in- quiry into their teaching actions as part of their continuing professional development (Auger & Wideman, 2000). Echoing perspectives about collective rationality, or shared human knowledge (Geertz, 1973), the preservice teachers strengthened the professional devel- opment of the group when they formally shared with their classmates the information they had documented, thus adding to the body of knowledge from which the group benefited as individuals and as representatives of the pro- fession. There was a sense of discovery that, in- deed, they had acted as real teacher researchers and that their findings were relevant to their professional development and, often, the pro- fessional development of their peers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4

60 RITAMOORE

During field experiences and student teaching, preservice teachers tend to become bogged down in procedural issues and daily classroom routines (Moore, 2002). Action re- search projects situated in authentic classroom settings provide preservice teachers with a venue for consistently and systematically ex- ploring the effects of their teaching on student learning. Linking assessment to instruction is critical to effective teaching, but preservice teachers rarely realize the concept until they are actually teaching and have a reason to monitor their own instruction. The preservice teachers of this study were afforded the oppor- tunity to explore their effectiveness as novice teachers. This process created for them a method for analyzing and controlling their be- havior as teachers-behavior that ultimately affected every child whom they taught.

Acknowledgment

This article was a draft paper for the 1992 Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia conference, University of Queensland. I

References

Arhar, J., Holly, M., & Kasten, W. (2001). Action research for teachers: Traveling the yelloev bnck road. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

Auger, W., & Wideman, R. (2000). Using action research to open the door to life-long profes- sional learning. Education, 121 ( l ) , 120-127.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative re- search for education: An introduction to theory and method. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Calhoun, E. (2002). Action research for school improvement. Educational Ledenhip, 59( 8), 18-25.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993) Insidelout- side: Teacher research and knwkdge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). Local knowledge. New York: Ba- sic Books.

Hubbard, R., & Power, B. (1999). The art of class- room inquiry: A handbook for teacher-researchers. Portland. ME: Stenhouse.

Lefever-Davis, S. (2002). Trends in teacher certifi- cation and literacy. Reading Teacher, 56(2), 196- 197.

Leland, C., & Kasten, W. (2002). Literacy educa- tion for the 21st century: It’s time to close the factory. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18( l), 5-15.

Levine, M. (2002). Why invest in professional de- velopment schools? Educational Leadership, 59(8), 65-68.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.

MacLachlan, P. (1985). Sarah, plain and tall. New York: HarperCollins.

Masters, J. (1995). The history of action research. In I. Hughes (Ed.), Action research ekctronic reader. Sidney, Australia: University of Sydney. Re- trieved September 2 1, 2006, from http://www .scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arr/arow/rmasters .html

Moore, R. (2002). Re-examining the role of prac- tica in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 54( l) , 31-42.

Moore, R. (2004). Classroom research for teachers: A practical guide. Norwood, MA: Christopher- Gordon.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teachingfor America’s future. New York: Author.

Shoyer, G., & Yahnke, S. (2001, September). Pro- fessional dewebpment schools and student achiewe- ment: Do we make a difference! Paper presented to the annual Kansas Coalition Conference, Olathe, KS.

Strickland, K., & Strickland, J. (2000). Making as- sessment elementary. Portsmouth, NH: Heine- mann.

Wyatt, F., Meditz, N., Reeves, M., & Carr, M. (1999). A cohort model for supervision of pre- service teachers developed by mentor teachers. Teaching and Chnge , 6(3), 315-328.

Zuber-Skerrit, 0. (1993). Improving learning and teaching through action learning and action research. Higher Education Research and Devel- opment, 12(1), 45-58.

9 9 9

Rita Moore is an associate professor of educa- tion (literacy) at the University of Mon- tana-Westem (Dillon), where she teaches courses in literacy education and professional teacher education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UA

A/A

PU C

onso

rtiu

m L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:10

15

Oct

ober

201

4