From the Editor

Beyond Pennsylvania Chapter 354:

Supervising Urban Elementary Pre-Service Teachers

Patricia S. Scheffler

Grove City College

Abstract

This investigation was conducted using a case study analysis of four Elementary Education pre-service teachers. The participants were all placed in urban school settings, and represented two different graduate-level certification programs. All four of the participants were evaluated for certification, according to the PDE 430 checklist, as required by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). This study was grounded in Danielson’s Framework for Professional Practice (1996) and evaluated using the Pennsylvania Department of Education or PDE 430 form. Three specific teacher behaviors were analyzed. They included student centered planning, student engagement, and reflective practice. As the University Supervisor of the participants, ethnographic methods were used to determine the extent to which they demonstrated these best practices. As a result of a review of related research and an analysis of data generated, it was concluded that pre-service teachers in this study implemented these best practices at below or at basic levels when assessed within a constructivist framework, while they earned scores above basic levels when state and local measures were used.

Albert Einstein said that they awakened the “joy in creative expression and knowledge.” Elbert Hubbard believed that they could make “two ideas grow where only one grew before.” Gail Goodwin summed up that they characteristically are “one fourth preparation and three-fourths theater.” Ralph Waldo Emerson described them as those who could “make hard things easy.” Of course, all of these great intellectual contributors were describing the attributes of the teacher (Sadker & Sadker, 2003).

Many have attempted to identify the teacher attributes that are most closely associated with student achievement. Brody (1976) identified characteristics that contribute towards achievement in students. He cited attributes such as high efficacy, self-control, and the ability to problem solve with resoluteness when first attempts fail. Additionally, he presented the variables that correlated most strongly and consistently with achievement. Primarily, he suggested maximizing student engagement in academic actions while minimizing the time spent during transitions or dealing with classroom behaviors. Brophy and Good (Brophy & Good, 1986), concluded that teachers do make a difference in student achievement through various instructional processes.

In the past, college and university supervisors, who devote themselves to the preparation and evaluation of teacher candidates, used local evaluation criteria to determine a pre-service teacher’s competency. Recent top down state reforms have led to a standardization of the final evaluation process, requiring the teacher candidate to perform at and meet standards that purportedly identify high quality. In the year 2000, the state legislature of Pennsylvania enacted Chapter 354, charging to the college or university supervisor, the task of the final evaluation required for licensure.

Prior to the enactment of Chapter 354 in 2000, college and university supervisors of student teachers had no role to play in a candidate’s licensure. Chapter 354 changed all that. This state mandate required the college or university supervisor to utilize and submit the Pennsylvania Department of Education summative evaluation form, or the PDE 430, to demonstrate whether or not the teacher candidate met the criteria for successful exit from the teacher education program. The university supervisor now is the final determiner or gatekeeper who ensures that exit criteria are met in regard to student teacher competencies.

Regardless of the policy forces impacting teacher education and certification, studies clearly show that a good teacher effects the educational improvement of the child (Chauncey, 2005). This ethnographic case study focused on the teacher behaviors included in Danielson’s framework (Danielson, 1996) yet omitted from the PDE 430. Specifically examined were four elementary education candidates, in the practicum phase of their preparation. They represented two distinctly different fifth year certification programs. Each fifth year program utilized various local evaluative measures and assessment tools. However, each program also used the state mandated evaluation, referred to earlier as the PDE 430. This checklist was adapted from Danielson’s Model (Danielson, 1996).

The present study compared the differences between the state summative assessment evaluation and constructivist best practices, to see if these were exhibited by the pre-service teachers during their student teaching placements. This was determined by analyzing student created documents, formative assessments and program summative assessments. These scores were compared to the ratings each pre-service teacher achieved on the state summative assessment or the PDE 430 form.

No Child Left Behind, PA Chapter 354, and the PDE 430 Summative Assessment

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandated that by the year 2005-2006, there must be a highly qualified teacher in every classroom in the United States public education system. The ‘highly qualified’ component of NCLB mandated that states define the requirements of the preparation practices. The U.S. Department of Education required as a minimum, that teachers be fully licensed or certified by the state without any certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis (Chauncey, 2005; Hill, 2002).

A report, Meeting the Highly Qualified Teacher Challenge, was released on June 13, 2002. In summary, the report stated, “teacher preparation programs are failing” (Solmon & Schiff, 2004). The Secretary of Education called for the abolishment of professional education and traditional teacher education programs because they were “not producing the kind of teachers the nation requires” (p. 163). The report further stated, “states will need to streamline their certification system to focus on the few things that really matter: verbal ability, content knowledge, and, as a safety precaution, a background check of new teachers.” (Ed., 2002)

As a result of sweeping reforms over the past decade, many changes and innovations were initiated in teacher education programs. Among the resulting innovations were fifth year teacher education programs that focus exclusively on the task of preparing pre-service teachers to teach, integrated with coursework while practicing in the field (L. Darling-Hammond, 2005). The students in this study were all enrolled in such fifth year teacher education programs.

Further reforms under NCLB and the Higher Education Act of 1998 mandated that state governments were charged with the task of reviewing, revising, and redirecting state policies on teacher education, induction, and certification (Wang, 2003; Chauncey, 2005). In Pennsylvania, the state legislature passed Chapter 354 in the spring of 2001. This Act clarified the role that higher education institutions have as gatekeepers in the preparation and certification process. Standards for both students entering into colleges of education and pre-service teachers seeking licensure were raised considerably.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) adopted Chapter 354, General Standards for the Preparation of Professional Educators. It set forth the basic rules for institutions (colleges and universities) that prepare professional educators in the Commonwealth. The PDE awarded certification to students who met all the requirements of the approved preparation program, the qualifying scores on the appropriate Praxis tests, and other requirements established by the State Board of Education.

One of those requirements for elementary education majors was the demonstration of proficiency in verbal ability by meeting cut scores on the Praxis I, Pre-Professional Skills Tests in reading, writing, and math. Pre-service teachers demonstrate the requirements of content knowledge attainment via the Praxis II, Fundamental Subjects Content Knowledge Tests and the subject area test known as Elementary Education Curriculum and Instruction Test. According to the University programs under investigation, passage of both batteries of tests was required before the pre-service teacher could commence the practicum phase of the teacher preparation program.

Further, the Higher Education Act of 1998, required that today’s prospective teachers, graduating from most programs with majors in content areas, meet the state licensure requirements and are specialists in the subjects they are teaching. According to the document, Certification of Professional Educators for the Public Schools of Pennsylvania, pre-service teachers were placed in one of the five-year major program approval cycles, with Cycle I beginning with the 2001-2002 school year. The culminating field experience mandated by Chapter 354 was identified as the student teaching placement. It mandated a minimum of twelve (12) weeks in a placement aligned with the candidate’s area of certification while being supervised by a teacher education trained and state certified cooperating teacher with at least three years of experience. It also included monitoring by qualified program faculty at the university level. Without a satisfactory rating from the university supervisor, the pre-service teacher cannot be certified in Pennsylvania.

Though it was not specifically addressed in the guidelines or standards, as a result of the passage of Chapter 354, teacher candidates must provide evidence for the successful completion of the four domains of the PDE 430 checklist (Intern Teaching Handbook, 2005). To clarify, formative assessments are used for enhancing the professional growth of teachers, whereas, summative assessments are used for the purpose of making substantial decisions (Danielson, 2000). The PDE 430 is used primarily as a summative assessment device. Purportedly, the four domains on this document were directly linked to the four domains identified by Charlotte Danielson.

One of the major purposes of evaluation is to serve as a tool to improve the quality of teaching. Earlier in this document, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was cited as mandating that there must be a highly qualified teacher in every classroom in the United States public education system by the academic year 2005-2006. The passage of Chapter 354 and the Higher Education Act of 1998, at the state level, and the passage of NCLB of 2001 at the federal level were measures taken to increase standards, uniformity, and accountability.

Context

In this study, each pre-service teacher did their final semester practicum in an urban public school. According to Danielson, it is important to help [all] students learn. She cited Fasko and Grubb (1995), who found that learner-centered and active learning practices were utilized by effective teachers. An improvement in teacher education programs should result in an improvement in student achievement during the elementary years. Pre-service teachers in both of the certification programs within this study were taught in their coursework that focusing on low-level knowledge is insufficient for students in any setting.

The context for this study, as stated earlier, was in urban settings, which was identified by some with low achievement and low quality teaching (Anyon, 2005). Others have characterized the urban setting as a stimulating and challenging environment for teachers. According to Chester & Beaudin (1996), effective teachers accept that students from minority groups and lower socio-economic face circumstances that the teacher can impact in a positive way. Additionally, Turner (2005) through her case study of literacy lessons in urban settings, cited student centered planning, high student engagement and teacher quality as the most important elements in closing the achievement gap for populations of children who were economically disadvantaged or socially marginalized.

This study was conducted within the urban context of the two urban public school districts. Within this context, the pre-service teachers were studied based on their instruction in the area of literacy. According to the PA State Standards, literacy instruction incorporates reading, writing, listening, and speaking (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2005).

Further, within this context, there was a high concentration of minority African American students. Murrell’s book “African-Centered Pedagogy,” (Murrell Jr., 2002), described a necessary teacher attribute in this setting to be “one who develops the contextualized knowledge of culture, community and identity of the children and families as the core of their teaching practice” (p. 170). This links to the thesis of this study regarding the value of constructivist practices, such as knowledge of students and student engagement, as being essential elements of achievement for all children. The more time pre-service teachers have in the same setting, then there will be more opportunities to solve teaching problems, to experience constructive feedback and refine their teaching craft (Richardson, 1997). One advantage of the two certification programs included in this study is that all participants were in 5^th year programs.

The Master’s of Arts in Teaching (MAT) interns in this study began and completed their first placements in the fall of 2005. They began a new placement in the spring of 2006 and completed the placement at the end of the school year. The Professional Year (PY) student teachers began their placements four weeks into the spring semester and concluded it at the end of the school year. This was their one and only placement. The PY student teachers remained in this placement for 12 weeks.

All of the schools involved in this study were classified by PDE (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2005) as urban schools. Additionally, the school district where the MAT interns are placed by the School of Education placement office, have a 95-99% minority population. The school district where the Professional Year teachers were placed had approximately a 50 % ratio of minority and majority populations.

Theoretical Framework for Teaching Practice

Before constructivism came to the forefront, teacher education was characterized by the transmission, traditional, or systematic approach, where knowledge passive learners stored facts deposited by the teacher (Tatto, 1997). In the constructivist approach, teachers view students as creators of meaning. Learning to teach occurs in context as the pre-service teacher reflects and challenges “the teacher role, learners’ role, subject matter and pedagogy (p. 220).”

The constructivist model became a major orienting framework for teacher education beginning in the 1980’s (Richardson, 1997). Many teacher education programs claim that their pedagogy is informed by the constructivist approach to learning. Research studies showed mixed results in demonstrating that pre-service teachers’ beliefs and practices underwent drastic conceptual change and acquired new constructivist beliefs due to their exposure to a constructivist teacher education program (Richardson, 1997). One of the challenges that the constructivist college educator must address is that many pre-service students bring strongly held, traditional, and systematic views into teacher education programs from prior experiences. McDiarmid reported that when elementary pre-service teachers who held to traditional approaches to teaching mathematics had to teach in a more constructivist approach, some refused to go along with the new approach and held to their prior notions (McDiarmid, 1990). Some researchers have questioned the possibility of changing a teacher’s prior conceptual framework through program interventions (Richardson, 1997).

Educators have typically advanced either the traditional or the constructivist approach to content and pedagogy. The constructivist approach is child centered, discovery oriented, and progressive (Richardson, 1997). The content emerges from the child’s interests and experiences. Whereas, the traditional or didactic approach is more instrumental, behavioral, or teacher directed. The student takes on a passive role, learning is superficial focused on details and facts, and the student is highly dependent on the teacher (Richardson, 1997). According to Rainforth (2003), “the teacher or state predetermines curriculum content,” in the traditional approach.

In both of the fifth year certification programs in question the constructivist approach was presented as preferred over the traditional approach. This was true with regard to both pre-service teachers and the supervision faculty.

One challenge that pre-service teachers face, is integrating the constructivist practices they learned in their coursework while working as practitioners in a variety of local settings where more behaviorist or traditional approaches to teaching are utilized (Rainforth & Kugelmass, 2003). In the real world of teaching, the pre-service teacher who desires to implement constructivist approaches must manage both the “conventional social expectations and individual understanding, even though the two may often be in conflict” (Richardson, 1997). Pre-service teachers can understand and utilize the currently preferred constructivist approaches in their classroom practice even if the environment of the traditional approach is securely in place.

Danielson’s framework for teaching (C. Danielson, 1996), was grounded in the constructivist approach. It would be an understatement to say that her framework merely informed her lesson design. She stated that “the primary goal of education is to engage students in constructing important knowledge and that it is each teacher’s responsibility, using the resources at hand, to accomplish that goal” (p. 25).

As stated earlier, the criterion and evidence described in the PDE 430 is not the only evaluation model used to evaluate the pre-service teacher’s performance. Each college and university has its own in-house program-specific standards and criteria that serve as evaluative measures of desirable teacher behaviors. The university that trained and oversaw the supervision of the Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) interns and Professional Year (PY) student teachers in this study used standard forms for evaluating the pre-service teachers’ personal attributes and professional competence.

Danielson (1996) created a framework aligned with constructivist practices to evaluate teachers. In her book, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (1996), Danielson provided a structure with four categories and 22 components to evaluate the key areas of teaching responsibility. The four categories were referred to as “domains” and were:

Domain 1 – planning and preparation

Domain 2 - classroom environment

Domain 3 – instruction

Domain 4 – professionalism.

The criteria under each domain may be applied to student teachers, novice and experienced practitioners. The procedures she recommended were identical without regard to the teacher’s stage of professional growth. The standards of performance used in Danielson’s framework were, progressively, unsatisfactory, basic, proficient and distinguished. This researcher received permission from Danielson to add the numeric designations in the range of 0-3 to coincide with the unsatisfactory to distinguished levels. Similarly, the PDE 430 performance levels range from unsatisfactory, satisfactory, superior, and exemplary and include numeric values of 0-3.

Problem Statement

What evidence is there that pre-service teachers, in the urban setting, perform beyond the mandates of Chapter 354 when teaching elementary literacy lessons?

Research Questions for the Case Study

All of the data were collected and analyzed with the the goal of answering the following research questions:

What were the evidences that the pre-service teacher self-initiated designing lessons that were highly relevant to students, highly engaged students in learning and self reflected on teaching ?
What were the evidences from formative evaluations that the pre-service teacher designed lessons that were highly relevant to students?
What were the evidences from summative assessments that the pre-service teacher designed lessons that were highly relevant to students?
What were the evidences from formative evaluations that the pre-service teacher highly engaged students in learning?
What were the evidences from summative evaluations that the pre-service teacher highly engaged students in learning?
What were the evidences from formative evaluations that the pre-service teacher reflected on teaching with thoughtful and accurate assessments?
What were the evidences from summative evaluations that the pre-service teacher reflected on on teaching with thoughtful and accurate assessments?

Rationale

During the academic semester under investigation, the researcher served in the dual roles of a doctoral student at a Research I University and a teaching assistant as a supervisor of pre-service teachers. The case study approach was utilized as the researcher investigated, evaluated and qualified pre-service teachers representing each of the two fifth year practicum programs. The two different programs represented Masters’ of Teaching (MAT) interns and two Professional year (PY) student teachers. Bothe of these programs were 5^th year teacher education programs. As stated earlier, whether the pre-service teacher is a MAT intern or a PY student teacher, each one had to be evaluated using the PDE 430 form for certification purposes.

As stated earlier, the PDE 430 form purportedly corresponded to Danielson’s constructivist model (C. Danielson, 1996) that consisted of four domains which include planning and preparation, environment, instruction and professionalism. In the researcher’s opinion, the Danielson framework reflected a more constructivist or student centered approach, whereas, the PDE 430 reflected a transmission or teacher directed approach. The transmission approach neither promotes interaction between prior knowledge nor included the dialogue necessary for understanding of new knowledge (Richardson, 1997).

Specifically, the two frameworks were very similar except that the PDE 430 omitted or minimized some key criteria included in the Danielson framework. Those elements missing were student-centered planning, highly engaging the students in learning, and reflective practice. This study investigated to what extent, if any, pre-service teachers were incorporating these practices into their teaching. The alignment of the local university standards and the Danielson Framework was analyzed, as well as, the PDE 430 and the Danielson framework. This provided an additional source of evidence, used to determine if pre-service teachers were implementing constructivist and reflective practices in K-6 classrooms.

Procedures

The case study approach holds the narrative that will be recounted for each participant in their respective teacher education program. During the gathering of data, pre-service teachers were investigated, evaluated, and qualified based on all of the methodologies available. The pre-service teachers were supervised and evaluated to determine if there was evidence that they were integrating constructivist and reflective practices into their instruction.

The constructivist and reflective practices were monitored throughout the spring semester during the pre-service teachers’ practicum using the Pre-Service Teacher’s Evidence of Constructivist/Reflective Practice Rating Form. The three teacher behaviors under investigation and their descriptive performance indicators included in Danielson’s Framework (C. Danielson, 1996) were deemphasized or omitted from the PDE 430. These effective teacher behaviors and their performance indicators were (C. Danielson, 1996):

1) Demonstrating knowledge of students.

a) Lesson design demonstrates knowledge of the characteristics of the age group.

b) Lesson design demonstrates knowledge of students’ varied approaches to learning.

c) Lesson design demonstrates knowledge of students’ skills and knowledge.

d) Lesson design demonstrates knowledge of students’ interests and cultural heritage.

2) Demonstrating engaging students actively in learning.

a) Connects new content to students’ knowledge, interests, and a school’s

culture.

b) Selects activities and assignments that emphasize problem-based learning, permitting student choice and initiative, encourage depth rather than breadth, require student thinking and designed to be relevant and authentic.

c) Highly engages students with productive instructional groups

d) Uses instructional materials and resources that assist students in engaging with content.

e) Creates structured lessons with a beginning, middle and end, with a clear introduction and closure while pacing the lesson within the constraints of allotted time.

3) Demonstrating professionalism through use of reflective practice.

a) Demonstrates extensive reflection on teaching with thoughtful and accurate assessments of lessons taught.

b) Demonstrates exceptional reflection on teaching by considering and offering strategies for improvement

In addition to the local formal observation forms completed, Danielson’s Framework for Professional Practice (1996) rubrics were also utilized. These rubrics were revised by the researcher and formally renamed, Pre-Service Teacher’s Evidence of Constructivist/Reflective Practice Rating Form or abbreviated as the Researcher Rating Form. The Framework was derived from extensive research conducted by the Educational Testing Service and validated in the monograph by Carol Dwyer (Dwyer, 1994). There were four levels of performance indicated by Danielson (1996). Those included unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished. The spectrum of levels range from the description of teachers who have not mastered the fundamentals of teaching (unsatisfactory), to teachers who are highly accomplished and able to mentor other teachers’ professional growth. These levels of performance were very useful to the supervisor and researcher gathering data during observations of pre-service teachers’ lessons.

Danielson (1996) clarified the criteria indicative of each level of performance. The rating of unsatisfactory described the teacher who shows no evidence of understanding of the concepts that underlay the component. The researcher assigned the ordinal ‘0’ to this rating. The basic rating was indicative of the teacher who was minimally competent. The teacher attempted to implement the elements yet was sporadic, intermittent, or not consistent in performance. The researcher assigned the ordinal ‘1’ to this rating. The proficient rating was indicative of the teacher who understood and implemented the concepts foundational to the component under investigation. Typically experienced, competent teachers are regarded as performing at this level. The researcher assigned the ordinal ‘2’ to this rating. Finally, the distinguished rating would be descriptive of master teachers that make a contribution to the profession within and outside of their local school contexts. Danielson described their classrooms as operating “at a qualitatively different level, consisting of a community of learners, with students highly motivated and engaged and assuming considerable responsibility for their own learning” (1996, p. 37). The researcher assigned the ordinal ‘3’ to this rating.

Danielson’s “Constructivist/Reflective Practice Rating Forms (Danielson, 1996) was altered for research purposes. First of all, an identifier line was added to include the pre-service teacher’s name, date, grade level and lesson topic. Additionally, a note column was used to describe the lesson event that aligned with the element described. The rating of “unsatisfactory” was replaced with “no evidence.” The adapted form was retitled, “Pre-Service Teacher’s Evidence of Constructivist/Reflective Practice Rating Form” and abbreviated as the Researcher Rating Form.

During or immediately following pre-service visitations, the forms were completed with notes describing what evidence was found during these formative assessments, based on the criteria described earlier. Accompanying the tested rubric of pertinent information was a narrative description and rationale for the ratings. These were under the appropriate research questions.

Subjects

Four pre-service teachers, two Professional Year student teachers and two from the MAT intern program were selected to participate in the case study. The participants were selected because they were because they equally represented interns and student teachers, and because they were the only four pre-service teachers in urban settings for the spring 2006 semester that were under the principal researcher’s supervision. All the participants were elementary education majors. The data collection sources included observations, completed Researcher Rating Forms, pre-service teachers’ reflections, lesson plans, internal summative evaluations, PDE 430 form, and the PDE 430-A Sources of Evidence template.

The MAT Intern is a person with a baccalaureate degree enrolled in an approved intern certification program who has taken and passed the Praxis I Pre-Professional Skills Tests in Reading, Writing and Mathematics, the appropriate Specialty Area tests of the Praxis II Series of the National Teacher Examination, holds an Intern Certificate from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has been offered an internship in a public school site. The Intern Certificate, granted by the state of Pennsylvania, is valid for three years and is nonrenewable. The intern is present at the school site for a full school year. For MAT interns working at the elementary school level, one subject or class preparation might involve teaching a series of math or reading lessons to the clinical instructor’s class. By the twelfth week, the intern’s duties are expanded to include a second subject or preparation (i.e., in a second subject field for elementary interns and in a separate course or grade level for secondary interns).

The intern continues with at least two teaching assignments through the end of the eighteenth week (end of the first half of the year). By the start of the second half of the year, the intern assumes full responsibility for one half of the clinical instructor’s daily teaching schedule. Regardless of where the intern is assigned, this half-time teaching arrangement continues for the remainder of the school year. However, for limited periods of time the intern may assume responsibility for a full instructional schedule.

A Student Teacher in this study, is defined as “a person enrolled in an accredited student teaching program who completes an in-depth clinical laboratory experience in a school setting for no less than twelve weeks” (Shih, 2004). The professional development of student teachers occurs in stages, through a gradual assumption of more and more complex duties in the classroom. This developmental process begins with a period of observation and participation in the first semester of the professional year (i.e., term before student teaching), continues with increased classroom participation and responsibility in the early weeks of student teaching, and concludes over a period of time when the student teacher assumes full responsibility for planning, conducting, managing, and evaluating classroom instruction. The amount of time spent observing, assisting, and assuming full responsibility, as well as the order of these activities varies from school to school. As the student teacher develops confidence and poise, additional duties and subject areas are assigned each week until he/she has full responsibility for the classroom. However, it is usually at the discretion of the mentor teacher to determine the timing and type of activity undertaken by the student teacher.

Elementary student teachers begin with one lesson preparation for the first week of the term. By the seventh week the student teacher is responsible for at least three different content areas. The student teacher continues to add time and/or content areas—whichever applies—until approximately the twelfth week. For a period of time during and/or after the twelfth week the student teacher is responsible for the entire school day.

Observations

The Clinical Supervision model as described by Garman and Haggerson (Garman & Haggerson, 1993), is promoted in the university intern and student teacher handbook (A Guide to Student Teaching - A Professional Field Experience Handbook, Fall 2005; Intern Teaching Handbook, Fall 2005). This model was utilized for every formal visit made to observe classroom instruction and included a pre-observation conference by the university supervisor and the pre-service teacher, followed by the observation of teaching.

The pre-observation conference encouraged the pre-service teacher to identify instructional strengths and weaknesses from their perspective of the lesson taught. This method of supervision enabled the mentors to describe, evaluate and suggest improvements in the intern/student teacher’s performance. They also identified the focus of subsequent observations. This was always facilitated by the university supervisor and, when possible, was attended by the mentor or cooperating classroom teacher.

After every formal conference, a post conference was held where the university supervisor completed a formative assessment of the lesson. The student teacher/intern fills out the Reflection Form. This form under both titles includes supportive and corrective feedback from the university supervisor, including goals for future development. The completed Reflection Forms were initialed by the university supervisor who is the researcher in this study.

Additionally, following videotaped lessons where the post-conference was delayed by a week or two, pre-service teachers were required to complete the Reflection Form on their own and bring it to the post-conference meeting. During the post-conference meeting, the pre-service teacher was given opportunity to identify the strengths of the lesson and any corrective action that needed to take place. Additionally, the supervisor provided positive and constructive feedback to the student teacher. This provided data that was rated under the category of “reflective practice” from the Researcher Rating Form.

Researcher Rating Forms

In addition to the formal observation forms completed, Danielson’s Framework was utilized using the Researcher Rating Forms. The performance of pre-service teachers was evaluated based on the criteria indicative of each level of performance. To review the ratings from the Procedures section of this document, the unsatisfactory (0) rating described the teacher who showed no evidence of understanding of the concepts that underlay the component. For research purposes, the unsatisfactory designation was changed to “no evidence.” The basic (1) rating was indicative of the teacher who was minimally competent. The teacher attempted to implement the elements yet was sporadic, intermittent, or not consistent in performance. The proficient (2) rating was indicative of the teacher who understood and consistently implemented the concepts foundational to the component under investigation. Finally, the distinguished (3) rating would be descriptive of master teachers that make a contribution to the profession within and outside of their local school contexts.

Pre-service Teachers’ Reflections

The University handbook, neither specifically nor generally, referred to reflective practice as a goal for the student teachers (A Guide to Student Teaching - A Professional Field Experience Handbook, Fall 2005). However, the Intern Teaching Handbook did state as a goal, “To provide the intern with opportunities to engage in reflective self-analysis of their own teaching performance, as well as to use constructive feedback form others to refine their teaching skills.” (Intern Teaching Handbook, Fall 2005). Though the university program identified reflective practice as a goal, there was no evaluative measure in place to hold pre-service teachers accountable for demonstrating this behavior.

Pre-service teachers were encouraged to communicate via email on the off-weeks when they were not visited at their placement site for a formal observation by the university supervisor. The researcher was careful not to prescribe reflective practice, in order to find out if the pre-service teachers were integrating reflective practice on their own.

Lesson Plans

Interns and student teachers are required to prepare written lesson plans. The format of the plan depended upon the subject, grade level and learner population being taught. Generally, a complete lesson plan required the intern/student teacher to make decisions about:

(a) objectives tied to Pennsylvania Chapter 4 Academic Standards

(b) content coverage

(d) instructional materials

(e) organization, management

(f) evaluation criteria and procedures.

Interns and student teachers are responsible for submitting lesson plans to both clinical instructors by a mutually agreed upon deadline prior to each teaching assignment. For the purpose of this study, pre-service teachers’ lesson plans were reviewed to see if they were designing coherent instruction that was student-centered and engaging.

Elementary Summative Evaluation Forms

Each college and university has their own in-house program-specific standards and criteria that serve as evaluative measures of desirable teacher behaviors. From this local summative assessment, the pre-service teacher earns a grade. The university grade options for interns and student teachers ranges from Honors (H); Satisfactory (S); to Unsatisfactory (U). The rating is based on the attributes listed under each of the six categories of personal and interpersonal characteristics, professional qualities, professional preparation, planning for instruction, teaching skills, and behavior management. The mentor and university supervisor rate and average the total for each section for the mid-term and final grade for the pre-service teacher. Through the use of the case study approach, the study sought to discover how the formative assessments utilized by the individual teacher education programs linked to the summative assessments required by Act 354.

Formal midterm and final evaluations took place during the spring semester for the MAT Interns and PY student teachers. The participants in the evaluation process included the university supervisor, the mentor teacher and the student teacher/intern in a three-way conference. The researcher used the elementary education evaluation for pre-service teachers, from prescribed by the university in this study.

PDE 430- State Summative Evaluation Form

As stated earlier, since the passage of Act 354 by the state legislature of Pennsylvania in the year 2001, all teacher education programs accredited by the state are required the use of the Pennsylvania Department of Education summative evaluation form, the PDE 430, to determine whether the teacher candidate had met the criteria for exit from the teacher education program. The university supervisor must complete the form to accompany the pre-service teacher’s certification application. As required by the state, this form was used as a summative assessment of teacher behaviors of planning and preparation, environment, instructional delivery and professionalism.

PDE 430-A: Sources of Evidence Form

Both MAT Interns and student teachers are required to create and maintain a portfolio. This portfolio provided the necessary documentation of sources of evidence that accompanied the PDE 430 form. During the spring 2006 semester, the University teacher education program distributed to university supervisors a list of possible artifacts that could be included in the Sources of Evidence Portfolio. It reflected the four categories from the PDE 430 form of planning, environment, instruction and professionalism. This document was provided to each pre-service teacher including those serving as participants in this study.

For supervision purposes, the PDE 430A template was utilized. This template was obtained from the PDE Website (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2005). Student teachers and interns had this document available through the university CourseWeb or Blackboard Release 6 maintained by the researcher. This enabled the pre-service teachers to download the document and type in the sources of evidence under each performance indicator. This authentic assessment became a reliable measure of what the pre-service teacher had produced and provided evidence of competency in planning, classroom environment, instruction and professionalism.

In conclusion, through the process of triangulation, various tools were utilized that included observations, Researcher Rating Forms, pre-service teachers’ reflections, lesson plans, program specific summative evaluations and the PDE 430-A, Sources of Evidence completed template, to collect data to provide a mixed method for analysis.

Data Analysis

As a researcher pursuing qualitative data through the case study approach, the focus was constructing knowledge within the context of urban pre-service teachers during elementary literacy instruction. After experiencing the process, Dyson and Genishi (2005) summarize well the experience, “everyday teaching and learning are complex social happenings, and understanding them as such is the grand purpose of qualitative case studies” (p. 9). The aim of this study was not to establish and analyze the relationship between two variables, such as constructivist practices and urban settings. Rather, it was to analyze the meaning of the phenomenon of constructivist and reflective practices as they were socially displayed in the relationship between the supervisor and the pre-service teacher.

Embedded in the array of data collection devices was a comprehensive measure of the pre-service teacher’s constructivist and reflective practice level attainment. These included the pre-service teachers’ reflections, lesson plans, classroom observations, program specific summative evaluations, the PDE 430 form and the PDE 430-A Sources of Evidence completed template and the Researcher Rating Forms. These descriptions were synthesized into participant profiles to construct the case study (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003).

Summary of Pre-Service Teachers’ Constructivist/Reflective Practice

As in the case of most case studies, the researcher’s purpose was not merely to organize and analyze the data collected, but to attempt to understand how the information gathered matters for participants and policy makers. The questions asked in the research statement call for interpretation of what was learned through intensive analysis. Dana and Yendil-Silva summarized the researcher’s experience well when they stated, “While you may never be able to marvel at a perfected, polished, definitive set of findings based on the data analysis from one particular inquiry, you can marvel at the enormity of what you have learned through engaging in the process and the power it holds for transforming both your identity as a teacher as well as your teaching practice.” (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003). This researcher can testify that this statement held true throughout the data collection process. The learning by the researcher occurred in the social context of a relationship between the pre-service teacher and the supervisor. Let the results of the findings for each participant be heard.

Candace – MAT Intern, first and fourth grades

Candace completed her Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Internship in Elementary Education, during the 2005-2006 academic year at an urban public school. The researcher served as her university supervisor for the duration of her 1^st and 4^th grade placements. Overall, Candace demonstrated that she utilized constructivist and reflective practice at the basic level or one point out of three, according to the Danielson framework (1996). However, according to the local and state evaluations her planning, teaching and professional practice were rated at the highest levels and described as Honors and Exemplary.

Helen – MAT Intern, second grade

Helen completed her Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Internship in Elementary Education, during the 2005-2006 academic year. The researcher served as her university supervisor for the duration of her 4^thand 2^nd grade placements. In each of the categories of performance using the state and local evaluation forms, she far exceeded expectations. However, Helen demonstrated that she utilized constructivist and reflective practice only at the basic level according to the Danielson framework (1996). This was clearly demonstrated in her communications on her own and in the formative evaluations. There was some evidence in the summative evaluation identified as the PDE 430-A Sources of Evidence Template. Nonetheless, according to the local and state evaluations her planning, teaching and professional practice were rated at the highest levels and described as Honors and Exemplary.

Marie – Professional Year Student Teacher, third grade

Marie student taught in third grade in the spring of 2006 at an urban public school. The researcher had the privilege of being her university supervisor during her twelve week placement in the field of Elementary Education from January 30- April 27, 2006. In each of the categories of performance evaluated using the local and state evaluation forms, she was exceptional. In contrast, Marie demonstrated no evidence of constructivist or reflective practice in her self-initiated communications. She evidenced no lesson design that was highly relevant to students, student engagement nor reflective practice, through any of the formative evaluations. She demonstrated no evidence or just below basic evidence of student engagement and reflective practice in the same portfolio summative assessment. To her credit, she did provide evidence in her portfolio summative assessment of planning with knowledge of students. This minimal evidence of constructivist/reflective practice stands in sharp contrast to her local and state evaluation ratings which were identified as Honors and exemplary, or the highest ratings possible.

John – Professional Year Student Teacher, fourth grade

John student taught fourth grade in the spring of 2006 at an urban public school. The researcher had the privilege of being his university supervisor during the twelve week placement in the field of Elementary Education from January 30- April 27, 2006. In each of the categories of performance he was satisfactory. Again, John demonstrated no evidence of constructivist or reflective practice in his self-initiated communications. He evidenced no lesson design that was highly relevant to students, student engagement nor reflective practice, through the formative evaluations. He demonstrated no evidence of student centered planning, student engagement and reflective practice in the same portfolio summative assessment during Elementary literacy instruction. This minimal evidence of constructivist/reflective practice stands somewhat in contrast to his local and state evaluation ratings which were identified as Satisfactory, or the required rating for certification.

Conclusions

When all the self-initiated, formative and summative ratings were tallied, there was a slight difference between the scores of the MAT Interns and Professional Year student teachers. Helen, a MAT Intern, scored overall at the basic level in her planning, engaging and reflecting. Candace, also a MAT Intern, scored at the basic level in the formative assessments in her planning, engaging and reflecting but just below in these behaviors on her own and through the summative assessments. However, both MAT Interns scored the highest rating possible, or “Honors,” using the Internal Program Evaluation or Local assessments. According to the rating description, “none or very few areas of needed improvement...” (Schermer, 2005). They also scored the highest rating possible, or “exemplary” on the State evaluation form or the PDE 430 evaluation. An “exemplary” rating was described as “consistently and thoroughly demonstrate indicator of performance.”

Both Marie and John, Professional Year Student Teachers, showed no evidence of constructivist/reflective practice. However, Marie scored the highest rating possible, or “Honors,” using the Internal Program Evaluation or Local assessments, as well as the PDE 430 evaluation. John scored in the competent range, or “Satisfactory,” using the Internal Program Evaluation. According to the rating description, “some areas of needed improvement…” (Schermer 2005). He also scored a “superior” rating on the PDE 430 evaluation which is described as “usually and extensively demonstrates indicators of performance.”

The original question, “What evidence is there that pre-service teachers in the urban setting perform beyond the mandates of Chapter 354 when teaching elementary literacy lessons?” was answered. There was some evidence that the MAT interns performed beyond the mandates of Chapter 354, or demonstrated constructivist/reflective practices. However, there was little to no evidence that Professional Year Student Teachers did.

The obvious question remains, why did the pre-service teachers perform so well in the categories of planning, instruction and professionalism on the local and state evaluations, but score barely or below basic in the constructivist/reflective practices using the Danielson framework? My conclusion was that since the local and state checklists did not require university supervisors or mentors to hold students accountable for these behaviors, they did not get the attention they deserved. Indeed, as described in the literature, the purpose of mentoring is to enhance teacher performance and student learning (Rowley, 1999). If the University had embedded these practices in the lesson plan format, observation forms, reflection sheets, and internal program evaluation forms then the novice teachers would have been mentored and shown growth over time in these areas. Additionally, if reflective practices were included in the PDE 430 evaluation, pre-service teachers would have deliberately included artifacts that demonstrated Sources of Evidence in these areas.

The researcher identified the “bicycle effect” as the term that best described the interpretations of the study’s findings. Remember what it was like learning to ride a bike? All the focus was on steering to stay on the path, balancing so as not to fall, and braking to stop at will. However, once the fundamentals are secured then bike riders can ride at their own pace, enjoy the scenery, and try out their skills on various terrains. Then there are the elite cyclists whose routes are described as Stage 3 and routes can be 154 km. (Ward, 2005). The “bicycle effect” provides a great word picture of the results of this study. Using the above analogy, since the MAT interns had three semesters to develop these skills it made sense that they were able to demonstrate them even though not held accountable. Conversely, the Professional Year Student Teachers were concentrated on the basics of teaching that it was unlikely these unaccountable behaviors would develop in twelve short weeks.

On the other hand, MAT interns performed beyond the mandates of Chapter 354 primarily at the basic level. According to Danielson (2006), this is appropriate for a pre-service teacher and the proficient and distinguished ratings would be indicative of an experienced teacher rather than a novice. Additionally, the professional year student teachers showed little or no evidence of constructivist or reflective practice. The “bicycle effect” described above was attributed as a reasonable explanation.

Implications

The implications for policy and practice are that as it was established that the three teacher behaviors minimized on the PDE 430 turned out to be the most important for securing teacher quality in the urban setting (Turner, 2005). Turner, through her case study of literacy lessons in urban settings, cited student centered planning, high student engagement and teacher quality as the most important elements in closing the achievement gap for populations of children who are economically disadvantaged or socially marginalized.

Through the process of this case study, it was discovered that when pre-service teachers are not are not held accountable, they will not receive feedback or needed mentorship to grow and develop in those particular areas. This research could aid in the upcoming revision of the Elementary Education Internal Program evaluation revisions. This will include the observation forms, student teacher reflection forms, mid-term and final evaluation forms. It should also include a revision of the lesson plan format.

Another possible implication relates to the variable introduced in this study of the academic freedom exercised by the university supervisor. Haskell places academic freedom in it’s judicial context by stating, “legally, it assures faculty the right to pursue any line of inquiry in the course of their teaching or research without being censored, penalized or fired by university administrators” (Haskell, 1997, p. 2). Since academic freedom is afforded the university supervisor, this professional could hold students accountable for the best practices cited as critical for student achievement in urban settings but deemphasized in the state and local evaluation measures, outside of these entities.

Additionally, since the PDE 430 was found lacking, certain teacher behaviors identified as best practice by Danielson (1996), perhaps future revisions of this form, at the state level, should include sub-category descriptions of planning with knowledge of students and engagement of students while pacing. Definitely, the PDE 430 should include demonstration of reflective practices in order that pre-service teachers are held accountable for thoughtfully and accurately consider the overall success of a lesson and reflect on strategies for improvement.

References

Anyon, J. (2005). What "counts" as educational policy? Notes toward a new paradigm. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1), 65-88.

Chauncey, C. (Ed.). (2005). Recruiting, retaining, and supporting highly qualified teachers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Chester, M. D., & Beaudin, B. Q. (1996). Efficacy Beliefs of Newly Hired Teachers in Urban Schools, American Educational Research Journal.

Christensen, L. B. (2001). Experimental Methodology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The Reflective Educator's Guide to Classroom Research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Danielson, C. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum.

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement. Alexandria,Va: Association for Supervision and curriculum Development.

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: changes in licensing, certification and assessment. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (fifth edition ed., pp. 751-776). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: lessons on teacher preparation and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 237-240.

Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for the PRAXIS III: Classroom Performance Assessments Assessment Criteria. Princeton, N.J.: E.T.S.

Ed., U. S. D. o. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teacher challenge: the secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fasko, D., & Grubb, D. J. (1995). The use of learner-centered principles test battery in preservice educational programs and in the school setting: Implication for teacher roles and professional development experiences. (Vol. No. ED 339 045): ERIC Document Reproduction Service.

Garman, N. B., & Haggerson, N. L. (1993). Philosophic considerations in the practice of clinical supervision. In Clinical supervision coaching for higher performance: Technomic Publishing company.

A Guide to Student Teaching - A Professional Field Experience Handbook. (Fall 2005).). Pittsburgh, PA: School of Education - University of Pittsburgh.

Haskell, R.E. (1997). Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Student Evaluation of Faculty: Galloping Polls In The 21st Century. Education Policy Analysis Archives.

Hill, T. L. (2002). Teaching Quality, No Child Left Behind Policy Brief (Reports-Evaluative/Feasibility). Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.

Intern Teaching Handbook. (2005).). Pittsburgh: School of Education - University of Pittsburgh.

Intern Teaching Handbook. (Fall 2005).). Pittsburgh: School of Education - University of Pittsburgh.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers during early field experiences: A quixotic undertaking? Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 12-20.

Murrell Jr., P. C. (2002). African Centered Pedagogy: Developing Schools of Achievement for African American Children. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2005). Retrieved 1/2/2006, 2006

Rainforth, B., & Kugelmass, J. W. (2003). Curriculum & Instruction for All Learners (First ed.). New York: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1997). Constructivist Teacher Education: Building New Understandings. Washington, D.C.: The Falmer Press.

Rowley, J. B. (1999). The Good Mentor. Educational Leadership, 56(8).

Sadker, D. M., & Sadker, M. P. (2003). Teachers, Schools and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Solmon, L. C., & Schiff, T. W. (Eds.). (2004). Talented Teachers - The essential force for improving student achievement. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Tatto, M. T. (1997). Limits and Constraints to effective teacher education. In W. K. M. Cummings, N.F. (Ed.), International Handbook of Education and Development: Preparing Schools, Students, and Nations for the Twenty-First Century. Great Britain: BPC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter.

Turner, J. D. (2005). Orchestrating Success for African American Readers: The Case of an Effective Third-Grade Teacher. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(4), 27-48.

Wang, A. T., A; Mifsud,V. (2003). Analyzing state policies and programs for beginning teacher induction: a comprehensive framework. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Ward, N. (2005, November 20, 2005). Life's cycle; the world's top bike rides. Nationwide News Pty Limited, Sunday Mail (South Australia).