Instructional I to Instructional II Teacher Performance Assessment Pa. Department of Education.
Instructional strategies in early childhood teacher …...A Dissertation Entitled Instructional...
Transcript of Instructional strategies in early childhood teacher …...A Dissertation Entitled Instructional...
The University of ToledoThe University of Toledo Digital Repository
Theses and Dissertations
2008
Instructional strategies in early childhood teachereducation : a comparison of two approachesAmy E. AllenThe University of Toledo
Follow this and additional works at: http://utdr.utoledo.edu/theses-dissertations
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The University of Toledo Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Thesesand Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The University of Toledo Digital Repository. For more information, please see the repository'sAbout page.
Recommended CitationAllen, Amy E., "Instructional strategies in early childhood teacher education : a comparison of two approaches" (2008). Theses andDissertations. 1158.http://utdr.utoledo.edu/theses-dissertations/1158
A Dissertation
Entitled
Instructional Strategies in Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Comparison of Two Approaches
By
Amy E. Allen
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Foundations of Education: Educational Psychology
______________________________ Advisor: William M. Gray
______________________________ Sally Atkins-Burnett
______________________________ John R. Cryan ______________________________ Ruslan Slutsky ______________________________ Judith Herb College of Education
______________________________ College of Graduate Studies
The University of Toledo
August 2008
ii
Copyright © 2008
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document
may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author.
iii
An Abstract of
Instructional Strategies in Undergraduate Teacher Education:
A Comparison of Two Approaches.
Amy E. Allen
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
The Doctor of Philosophy in Foundations of Education: Educational Psychology
The University of Toledo
August 2008
In an effort to identify the impact of teacher education on P-12 classroom
practices, and ultimately on P-12 student learning, this study investigates the differences
between two instructional environments in an undergraduate early childhood teacher
education program. Data in this qualitative study were collected from students in two
methods courses. Content for each course was identical. However, one instructor taught
in a center-based instructional environment while the other instructor taught in a non
center-based instructional environment. The data show that students in the center-based
environment perceived more opportunities to develop autonomy and intrinsic motivation
compared to students in the non center-based environment.
iv
Dedication
This study is dedicated to children.
It will be a wonderful day when ALL children are blessed with quality teachers who know how best to help them learn. This study will play a small role in the quest to make that happen.
v
Acknowledgements There are many to acknowledge for helping me along this journey:
• My husband, Lloyd for always believing in me and encouraging me.
• My children, Liam, Evan, and Bridget who give me inspiration and keep me fueled with reasons to make schools great places for kids.
• My parents for teaching me how to work hard and persevere, even when things
are difficult.
• My colleagues at Dorr Elementary who taught me about what good teachers do and do not do.
• My colleagues in the Early Childhood Department with whom I shared many
conversations about quality teaching. Those conversations ultimately resulted in this study.
• My committee members, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Bob Cryan, and Ruslan Slutsky
who gave honest feedback and constant encouragement.
• My dissertation chair, Bill Gray who stepped in at a difficult time and worked with me diligently to get things done.
vi
Table of Contents Copyright Page…………………………………………………………………………....ii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..iii
Dedication………………………………………………………………………….......... iv
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..v
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….vii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...viii
List of Appendices……………………………………………………………………….ix
Instructional strategies in undergraduate teacher education: A comparison of two
approaches
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………1
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………….....11
Chapter 3: Method……………………………………………………………….34
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………..56
Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………72
References……………………………………………………………………………….85
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………...102
vii
List of Tables Table 1 Approaches to Instruction……………………………………….28 Table 2 Participant Demographics……………………………………….38 Table 3 Weekly Schedule………………………………………………...45 Table 4 Focus Group 1 Questions………………………………………..50 Table 5 Focus Group 2 Questions………………………………………..51 Table 6 Summary of Data Codes………………………………………...58 Table 7 Criteria for Categorization of Data……………………………...59 Table 8 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role…………………………61 Table 9 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate……………………...63 Table 10 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIa: Student Instructional Role…………………………..65 Table 11 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers……………………………66 Table 12 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning…………..67 Table 13 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preferences………………………....70 Table 14 Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class…………………..71
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1 A Theoretical Look at Examining the Effects of Teacher Education on P-12 Programs…………………………...18 Figure 2 Flow Chart of Data Analysis Process…………………………....52
ix
List of Appendices Appendix A Account of Personal Experiences with Center-Based Environments……………………………102 Appendix B Course Syllabus………………………………………...109 Appendix C Sample center-based activities…………………………118 Appendix D Module 1 Course Content………………………………124 Appendix E Module 2 Course Content………………………………126 Appendix F Module 3 Course Content………………………………128 Appendix G Module 4 Course Content………………………………130 Appendix H Data for Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role……….132 Appendix I Data for Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate…...136 Appendix J Data for Theme IIa: Student Role in the Instructional Process……………………………………138 Appendix K Data for Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers…………140 Appendix L Data for Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning……………………………………….142 Appendix M Data for Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preference………..145 Appendix N Data for Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class……………………………………………147
1
Chapter One: Introduction
The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.
- William Arthur Ward
Knowing how to produce one of those “great” teachers is the question that lingers
in the minds of most teacher educators. Teaching potential teachers to tell, explain, or
demonstrate appears to be a relatively simple task. However, teaching future teachers to
inspire, and even more importantly, to ensure that their students’ learning takes place, is a
task that proves to be much more challenging. To date, no magic formula has been found.
However, one thing appears to be true: what happens inside the teacher education
classroom does make a difference in how those future teachers will educate their future
students (Goodlad, 1994; Holmes, 1995; National Commission on Teaching & America’s
Future, 1996; National Research Council, 2005). How and why it makes a difference is a
topic of debate.
Rationale
Call for Research
In 2005, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, president of the American Educational
Research Association (AERA), in her presidential address, noted the need for convincing
evidence regarding teacher education programs: “In particular, we need more and better
2
research on the outcomes of teacher education” (Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 2). Since about
1990, it appears that there has not been adequate, convincing evidence about teacher
education programs to inform policy makers. The evidence that does exist is questioned
often by different members of the education field, as it is subject to multiple
interpretations (Cochran-Smith, 2005; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Grant &
Secada, 1990; National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996; National
Research Council, 2005). Although there are multiple studies addressing a variety of
issues such as technology (Angeli & Valanides, 2005; Overbaugh & ShinYi, 2006;
Stanford & Reeves, 2007), program structure (Sim, 2006), curriculum (Clark & Rust,
2006; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Morey & Bezuk, 1997; Null & Bohan,
2005), and field placements (Hayes, 2002), there are very few empirical studies that
identify specific advantages of one instructional strategy in teacher education programs
over other strategies. According to Cochran-Smith, if we are to make effective changes to
teacher education programs, this hole in the educational literature must be filled.
Cochran-Smith’s call for convincing evidence about teacher education programs
is not new or unique as evidenced by similar concerns raised by Grant and Secada (1990),
as they called for more evidence about effective practices in teacher education programs.
Unfortunately, we still know little about which strategies are effective in helping teacher
education candidates learn the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required of teacher
education candidates (see NCATE, 2007, for information on these important
characteristics of teacher education candidates).
Many factors contribute to teacher education candidates’ success in their teacher
education program classroom and, eventually, in their own classrooms. In an effort to
3
identify the impact of these factors on teacher education programs, many teacher
education programs have been examined. Such studies have looked at (a) program
structure (Sim, 2006), (b) curriculum (Clark & Rust, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2005;
Morey & Bezuk, 1997; Null & Bohan, 2005), and (c) field placements (Hayes, 2002).
However, there does not appear to be adequate documentation of the actual instructional
strategies that promote learning and encourage critical thinking in teacher education
programs.
Obviously, there are many different ways that university instructors facilitate
learning with teacher education students. However, little research has been conducted to
identify which strategies are effective in early childhood teacher education programs.
Further, this small body of research (Brown, 2001; Fanghanel, 2004; Huang, 2006;
Livingston, 2003; Ryan & Grieshaber, 2005; Starnes & Bohach, 1995) skirts the issue of
the effectiveness of instructional strategies, by addressing outcomes and making
comparisons between groups without linking each group to a specific instructional
strategy. Although addressing the outcomes and comparing groups is helpful, it does not
provide insight into the actual teaching and learning processes. The heart of teaching and
learning rests within the interactions between the instructor and students, among students,
and between students and curricular materials. Instructional strategies facilitate these
interactions. An examination of current literature on instructional strategies in teacher
education programs revealed little research to document the effectiveness of one
instructional strategy over another in an early childhood teacher education program. This
extensive examination included looking at instructional strategies in undergraduate
education, teacher preparation models, instructional strategies in early childhood teacher
4
education classrooms, and effective instruction. Although multiple studies were found,
which documented the effectiveness of a particular strategy (Huang, 2006; Jinsong &
Walls, 2006; Smith & Ayers, 2006; Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004), virtually none were found
that made direct comparisons between students experiencing two different instructional
environments in the same course.
Personal Experiences
At the same time that Cochran-Smith made her call for research to address the
link between teacher education candidate learning and P-12 student learning, our
university was exploring new ways to meet the changing preferences of students in our
undergraduate teacher education programs. In an effort to bring about change in the
teacher education programs, the college of education began to examine its vision. This
examination was also prompted by a desire and need to align the college with the state of
Ohio teacher licensure standards, as well as with the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education (NCATE) credentialing standards. After much discussion and
research, the college adopted the following vision statement:
Individuals at the center of their own learning within a rich intellectual environment, characterized by choice
Individuals at the center of their own learning implies that students are not
passive recipients in the teaching/learning process. Rather, students are active participants
and take a lead role in making sense of the information presented and in constructing
their own understandings of that information (Popper, 1979). From a Dewyan
perspective, it means simply that in order for learning to occur, the teaching and learning
process is grounded in students’ interests and experiences (Dewey, 1916).
5
within a rich intellectual environment suggests that the environment in which
students learn must provide opportunities for learning to occur. Those environments are,
in part, designed by instructors. Important considerations of this “rich intellectual
environment” are understanding the (a) logical structure of the knowledge base (Bruner,
1965; Gardner, 2000), (b) importance of inquiry-based learning, (c) importance of
accepting individual perceptions (Snauwaert, 1992), and (d) the importance of
experiences outside of the college classroom (such as field experiences and service
learning projects). Thus, a “rich intellectual environment” includes more than the typical
college classroom environment.
characterized by choice offers students and instructors an opportunity to examine
the options that are available in different aspects of their education. “How the students
navigate the intellectual landscape is based upon choice, but … structured by the logic of
the disciplines [knowledge base] and the nature of the problems and interests that define
the disciplines” (Snauwaert, 1992, p. 21). Such choice is an important component of any
program, and includes choice in degree options, course options, assignment options, and
fieldwork options. As no two students are alike, the ways in which information offered to
students may not be necessarily alike. Choice offers instructors and students the
opportunity to tailor the teaching/learning process in order to build from students’ prior
knowledge and assist them as they move toward more complex levels of thinking.
In examining the college’s vision statement, it became clear that it was not
difficult to accept it as the college’s vision. However, what did become difficult was
identifying what it would look like to implement this vision in a practical way. As is
typical of many ideas, the theory sounds good, but the implementation of such theory is
6
often fuzzy. In other words, it became very clear that finding a way to meet the demands
of this vision statement and deliver an education to students that included each
component would be challenging.
In an effort to try to put the pieces of this puzzle together, a colleague
implemented a specific teaching strategy. Specifically, she designed an instructional
environment where students worked in centers. For each course module (content, etc. --
whatever their focus), students were given six different center activities, with each center
activity focused on one topic. Students worked at their own paces and completed the
centers in a variety of ways. At the conclusion of each module, students shared their work
with others and the instructor used this sharing period as a catalyst for conversations to
enhance the levels of thinking of the students about the course content. After her initial
endeavor, she saw some significant benefits, such as increased intrinsic motivation and
greater student autonomy. She shared her experiences with other faculty in our
department. Given her positive experiences, a few other colleagues and I decided to try
her ideas for one semester. A narrative summary of my experiences during that semester
is presented in Appendix A.
At the conclusion of that semester, all of the instructors who had participated in
the center-based instruction met to discuss their experiences. It was not long before we all
decided that this was a powerful instructional strategy. We, too, noticed differences in
student autonomy and type of motivation. At that point, we decided that we needed some
data to document its effectiveness beyond our perceptions and feelings. As I was
beginning to search for a meaningful dissertation topic, it seemed only natural to explore
this idea further. This dissertation is a direct result of that one semester experience using
7
a center-based instructional strategy. Because of what was experienced, and because of
my belief that this strategy is inherently different from traditional teacher-centered
instructional strategies and their effects on students, I set out to gather data to document
the differences in teacher candidate learning in a center-based instructional environment
compared to students in the same course taught in a more teacher-directed manner.
In reflecting back to Cochran-Smith’s call for research (2005), these initial
experiences caused me to further examine her position. A closer look at her appeal for
research revealed her call to document evidence to support three important links. These
links focus on the relations between the education and practice of P-12 teachers.
• Teacher preparation programs and teacher candidate learning
• Teacher candidate learning and their classroom practices
• Teacher classroom practices and what their P-12 students learn (Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 3)
Cochran-Smith’s appeal coupled with a lack of convincing data on the
effectiveness of various instructional strategies in teacher education programs suggest
that the first link must be investigated before the other two links are addressed. In
addition, it is important to address this link first because to understand the complexities
of how teachers in P-12 classrooms teach, we must “back track” to the beginning of their
teacher preparation programs. This “back tracking” is necessary because the interactions
between teacher education candidates, curricular materials, and instruction are key
components in shaping the types of teachers that teacher candidates will become (Bruner,
1965; Gagné, 1962; Kent, 2005; Outlaw, Clement, & Outlaw, 2007).
Beginning with the first link, the potential to address the remaining two links is
also provided. By working with the same groups of students over the next few years,
8
longitudinal data can be collected that may provide evidence to investigate the links
between teacher education candidates’ learning and their P-12 classroom practice, as well
as the link between P-12 instructional strategies and P-12 students’ learning. Clearly, this
is difficult. However, groundwork for these future studies is formed by beginning with an
examination of what is happening in the context of a teacher education program.
Information acquired from this examination can provide a basis for examining how
students learn in one type of teacher education environment compared to how students
learn in a different type of teacher education environment. Once that link is addressed,
then P-12 student learning can be examined in light of how the P-12 teachers teach.
Through this complicated process, it is possible to begin to answer the question that
Cochran-Smith posed: Do teacher education programs have a “direct” impact on P-12
students’ learning? Moreover, if the answer is “yes,” do different teacher education
programs have a different, “direct” impact on P-12 students’ learning?
In looking at exactly how a center-based instructional strategy is different from
other instructional strategies, a number of learning outcomes can be considered. The first
learning outcome that can be considered is the amount of learning in terms of content.
Current data regarding teacher candidate learning show that most teacher education
candidates, at this point in the teacher education program, from this specific university,
meet the academic criteria for obtaining a license to teach in the state of Ohio. Students in
this university are required to take and pass a minimum of two Praxis II examinations
(i.e., the appropriate Principles of Teaching and Learning exam and one or more
examinations in their “content” specialty) in order to be recommended for a teaching
license in the State of Ohio. The most recent data showed 99% of students who took the
9
early childhood specialty area test, passed it successfully
(http://www.ode.state.oh.us/teaching_profession/PDF/teacher_quality/current). This
suggests that the majority of the students in the program, regardless of the instructional
strategies used in the classroom, learn the material necessary to pass the Praxis II Early
Childhood Specialty Area test. For this reason, examining the amount of content learned
did not appear to be an outcome to examine in order to identify whether outcomes
associated with a center-based instructional strategy differed from a more teacher-
directed strategy. What the Praxis II examination does not reveal is the motivational
orientation or the level of autonomy students have. Although learning content is an
obvious desired outcome, motivation and autonomy are equally as important to examine,
as they both have ramifications for long-term retention and application of the content that
was learned (Jalongo, 2007; Katz & Assor, 2007; Ruban & Reis, 2006; Rudy, Sheldon,
Awong, & Tan, 2007; van Grinsven & Tillema, 2006).
The second outcome that can be considered is motivation. Based on the one
semester of using a center-based approach to teaching, a difference in motivation was
noted. Students in the center-based classroom appeared to be self-motivated and intent on
learning the material at their own rates and in their own time. Additionally, the learning
strategies students used to solve problems and construct understandings appeared to be
different from those observed in previous semesters (i.e., teacher-directed classrooms).
Further, students appeared to reflect on their own learning, both formally and informally,
in a much different way than previously observed (e.g., student conversations about
concepts were reflective in nature, written assignments included a reflective component).
10
These observations and Cochran–Smith’s call for evidence to document the effectiveness
of teacher education programs led to the focus of the dissertation.
Research Question
One key question was investigated: Do teacher education candidates who are in a
center-based instructional environment perceive differences in the environment compared
to teacher education candidates in a non center-based instructional environment?
11
Chapter Two: Literature Review
In order to place the purpose and the results into an appropriate context, an
investigation of the literature about (a) teacher education, (b) learning, (c) instruction, and
(d) center-based instructional environments was conducted
Teacher Education
The knowledge base for pre-service teacher education of early childhood
educators is typically thought to be inextricably linked with the concepts of child
development, pedagogy, and assessment. In fact, the authors of guidelines for preparing
early childhood educators often discuss preparation of teachers in terms of these types of
concepts. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), in
its 1996 guidelines, listed the following key components of teacher education programs:
• Ensure that teacher education candidates demonstrate verbal and written abilities to communicate
• Provide teacher education candidates with opportunities for reflection • Ensure that progress is assessed regularly • Faculty inform teacher education candidates in writing regarding this
assessment • Faculty assess teacher education candidates’ mastery of the program’s exit
criteria • Ensure that teacher education candidates abide by professional ethics NAEYC (1996)
12
However, the problem with using these as guiding principles for quality teacher
preparation programs is that these suggestions are actually activities or events that should
occur in a program and do not present a conceptual framework from which to work. They
simply tell what should happen within the programs. They do not provide any empirical
evidence to demonstrate why these particular suggestions should be put into place nor do
they give guidance as to how to implement them.
Chickering and Gamson (1987) present another way to look at what should be
taking place in teacher preparation programs. They offer seven principles of good
practice for college classrooms. Good practice
1. encourages student-faculty contact. 2. encourages cooperation among student 3. encourages active learning. 4. gives prompt feedback. 5. emphasizes time on-task . 6. communicates high expectations. 7. respects diverse talents and ways of knowing.
(Chickering & Gamson (1987)
Once again, these principles present only ideas that should be put into place in quality
teacher education programs. They offer no background information or theoretical
frameworks as the foundation or suggestions about how to implement them.
Other researchers have offered apparent solutions for enhancing teacher education
and making sure that students learn. Ryan and Grieshaber (2005) presented three
pedagogies designed to move toward a postmodern teacher education program. These
13
three pedagogies are situating knowledge, multiple readings, and engaging with images.
Although each of these pedagogies is solid and grounded in literature, Ryan and
Grieshaber did not specifically look at the benefits of each pedagogy. They gave ample
subjective evidence as to why these pedagogies should be effective, but did not provide
any data to support their ideas.
Similarly, Grainger and Barnes (2004) offered suggestions for embedding creative
teaching into a teacher education program. Again, they provided a sound rationale, but
did not offer any data to support their ideas. Brownlee (2004) attempted to develop
teachers who utilize constructivist models by building on their epistemological beliefs.
Once again, this is an idea that certainly “makes sense” and holds promise, but there is no
empirical evidence to support this approach.
Although all of these suggestions point to what is believed to be important
components of any teacher preparation program, none recognizes that the knowledge
base in pre-service education is grounded in the characteristics of the learner (i.e., the
university student). Child development, pedagogy, assessment, and the like are actually
the content of any program, or what is taught within a program. The knowledge base for
how to teach that content to teacher education candidates is grounded in the
developmental needs of the university student who is preparing to become a teacher. As
noted by Cochran-Smith, “In particular, we need more and better research on the
outcomes of teacher education” (2005, p. 2). If we are to make effective changes to
teacher education programs, this hole in the educational literature must be filled.
specifically, three links must be examined:
14
However, it is my belief that the links specified by Cochran-Smith (i.e., teacher
preparation programs and teacher candidate learning, teacher candidate learning and
classroom practices, and graduates’ practices and what their students learn) are more
complex than she proposes (Cochran-Smith, 2005). In order to fully understand the
outcomes associated with P-12 education, we must first consider the characteristics of the
university instructors, undergraduate students, university classroom, teacher education
curriculum, and interactions among and within all of these entities. Dunkin and Biddle
(1974) presented a model for studying teacher education that, combined with Cochran’s
proposed links (2005), create a promising way to examine the effects of teacher education
programs on P-12 learning.
Figure 1 embeds the three links presented by Cochran-Smith with the model
presented by Dunkin and Biddle (1974). Dunkin and Biddle designed the model using the
following components: presage variables, context variables, process variable, and product
variables. There are several different components of figure 1 that need further
explanation. First, Dunkin and Biddle present the idea of presage variables. These
variables “concern the characteristics of teachers that may be examined for their effects
on the teaching process -- thus, teacher formative experiences, teacher-training
experiences, and teacher properties” (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974, p. 39).
Examining the context variables in the first portion of the diagram provides
insight into a variety of other components of the teaching and learning process. Context
variables concern the physical environment where the teaching and learning process
occurs, formative experiences of the students, pupil properties, classroom contexts, and
curriculum (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). All of these clearly influence the process of
15
teaching and learning and have the potential to provide unique challenges to any learning
environment.
The process variables in the large grey box on Figure 1“concern the actual
activities of classroom teaching -- what teachers and pupils do in the classroom” (Dunkin
& Biddle, 1974, p. 44). These variables include the activities that take place within the
classroom, teacher classroom behavior, and student classroom behavior. These variables
are, perhaps, the most difficult to understand because of the complexity of the
interactions among them. For example,
The final variables that Dunkin and Biddle (1974) present are product variables
located at the end of the first cycle. These variables concern the outcomes of teaching --
those changes that come about in pupils because of their involvement in classroom
activities with teachers and other pupils. In the first portion of Figure 1, these products
involve the outcomes for students in the teacher education program. It is important to
note that these products come in the form of both short- and long-term outcomes and that
the long-term outcomes are the ones that will have a direct impact on the teaching and
learning process in the teacher education student’s future classrooms.
Similar to the model proposed by Dunkin and Biddle (1974), this study purports
that this cycle is repetitive, especially when it pertains to teacher education programs. In
other words, once the product variables of teacher education students have been
identified, the cycle does not end. It actually begins again, with a new set of presage
variables (the former teacher education student as the teacher), a new set of context
variables (the setting in which the new teacher works), new process variables (the
interactions between the teacher and the children in his/her classroom), and new product
16
variables (the outcomes of the children’s learning). Presumably, the cycle quite possibly
continues endlessly, as the outcomes associated with the children’s learning will shape
them as either future teachers or learners who bring their own sets of characteristics to
any teaching and learning environment they may be a part of throughout their lives.
Infused into Dunkin and Biddle’s model (1974) are the three important links
presented by
Cochran-Smith (2005). These links represent the three bodies of research that Cochran-
Smith believes are needed in the area of teacher preparation programs. Because of the
lack of empirical data to support the ideas represented in the links (Cochran-Smith, 2005;
Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Grant & Secada, 1990; National Commission on
Teaching & America’s Future, 1996; National Research Council, 2005), these links have
been identified by Cochran-Smith as areas where research must be conducted before any
conclusions can be made about the impact of teacher education programs.
The first link between teacher preparation programs and teacher candidate
learning is represented in Figure 1 as a yellow star containing the number one. This link
involves the outcomes of student learning because of the process variables and
interactions taking place within the teacher education classrooms. Once again, these
products can be either short- or long-term products, depending upon the information
needed. In order to address Cochran-Smith’s other two links; however, the long-term
outcomes are the ones that need to be examined.
The second link between teacher candidate learning and classroom practices is
represented in the diagram as a yellow star containing the number two. This link involves
the process variables in the future classrooms of the teacher education candidate. This is
17
an appropriate link to consider, as clearly the product of the teacher candidate’s learning
impacts the presage variables of that future teacher, which directly impacts the classroom
behaviors and interactions that he/she engages in within his/her future classroom.
The third and final link between graduates’ practices and what their students learn
is represented in Figure 1 as a yellow star containing the number three. This link is
perhaps the ultimate link, as the purpose of any teacher education program is to produce
teachers who are able to teach children in ways that are appropriate, and that cause
children to reach levels of competence that are set before them.
This study provided an opportunity to connect the first link. An analysis of what
students learn (including knowledge, skills, and dispositions) was facilitated by
identifying specific strategies used in teacher education programs and comparing those
strategies to others.
18
Figure 1: A Theoretical Look at Examining the Effects of Teacher Education on P-12 Programs
Link #1: teacher preparation programs and teacher candidate learning Link #2: teacher candidate learning and classroom practices Link #3: graduates’ practices and what their students learn
(Cochran-Smith, 2005, p. 3)
Adapted from Dunkin & Biddle (1974) and Cochran-Smith (2005)
Pressage Variables University instructor characteristics
Context Variables University student characteristics Curriculum Setting
Process Variables Teacher behavior changes in student Student behavior
Product Variable short term long term
Pressage Variables Classroom teacher characteristics
Context Variables Student characteristics Curriculum Setting
Process Variables Teacher behavior changes in student Student behavior
Product Variable
short term long term
#1
#2
#3
19
Learning
Learning Theory
The knowledge base on learning is vast, including (a) behaviorist perspectives,
such as Skinner’s operant conditioning (1966), Thorndike’s connectionism (1911), and
Watson’s behaviorism (1925); (b) interactionist perspectives, such as Gagné’s conditions
of learning,(1962) and Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1969); (c) developmental-
interactionist perspectives, such as Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory (1978); and (d)
cognitive perspectives, such as Gestalt theory (Koffka, 1935; Lewin, 1936; Tolman,
1932; Wertheimer, 1938) and information processing theory (Broadbent, 1958; Martin,
1993; Ng & Bereiter, 1991; Shulman, 1986).1 Each of these differing perspectives of
learning provides a different set of issues to examine. The present research is grounded in
social interactions and developmental theories. In order to fully understand learning in
this context, an examination of the roles of motivation and autonomy is needed.
Motivation
Learning requires, at some level, that students have a particular motivation to
learn the content (Covington, 1992; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Tolman, 1932). Depending
on the types of motivation students have, learning can be enhanced or impeded, and they
will have a direct impact on the learning that occurs whether within a center-based
environment or a non center-based environment. (Ames, 1992; Atkinson, 1957; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Elliott & McGregor, 2001; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Nicholls, 1984;
Pintrick & Schunk, 2002).
Expectancy-value theory. The beliefs that students have about their own
capabilities (expectancies) and the beliefs that students have about why they would
20
engage in specific tasks (values) influence their learning and achievement. This approach
to motivation has its roots in the field of educational psychology (Covington, 1992;
Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefe, 1998; Tolman, 1932; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). However,
the current view of expectancy/value theory has a strong social cognitive component
(Heckhausen, 1997; Pekrun, 1993; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). “This social cognitive
model focuses on the role of students’ expectancies for academic success and their
perceived value for academic tasks and springs from a general organismic perspective
based in personality, social, and developmental psychology” (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002, p.
60). That is, an understanding of the value students place on a task, as well as what
students expect to achieve from that task, have implications for the learning that will take
place. Further support for this notion comes from the work of Eccles (1983) and Wigfield
(1994). Their view is based on Atkinson (1957) and involves both an expectancy and a
value component. The probability for success (expectancy) implies that students ask,
“Am I able to do this?” The incentive (value) suggests that students ask, “Why should I
do this?” Answers to both of these questions have implications for learning.
We know that learning is fostered when students are engaged in a task within their
expected success range and which has value to them, and if students view a task as
valuable and find that task to be within their own zone of proximal development, they are
more likely to learn the information being presented (Vygotsky, 1978). In center-based
environments, this is the case. Because the activities provided to students are open-ended,
the students have the opportunity to approach the activities in ways that are congruent
with their prior knowledge, and because the activities are done concurrently with field
placements, students have opportunities to connect the tasks to their own experiences in
1 Classifications adapted from Gredler (2001, p. 18)
21
the classroom. In addition, Eccles and Wigfield concluded that when students hold high
expectancies for success, they are more likely to have high levels of achievement (Eccles,
1983; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
Combined, these studies provide support for the idea that the value students place
on a task has a direct relationship with the expectancy for success on that task. As these
two entities appear to be reciprocal, we can conclude that they both affect learning in the
classroom. In center-based learning, the tasks presented to students are relevant to their
learning) and connected to their field placement. Because of this, we can surmise that the
tasks have more value to students than if they were activities unconnected to practice in a
P-12 classroom.
Attribution theory. Another way to examine the impact of motivation on learning
is to examine the concept of attribution. Attribution theory attempts to answer the
question, “to what do students attribute success or failure on a task?” Attribution theory is
important to examine because students’ attributions often are the basis for their
expectancy (Weiner, 1986).
Achievement attributions have been widely studied. The data agree that
achievement attributions are common across cultures, and include ability, effort, luck,
and task and/or learner characteristics such as difficulty, intrinsic motivation, teacher
competence, and mood. There is ample evidence that whether students fail or succeed at a
specific task, they attribute their success/failure to one of the above-mentioned
explanations (Bandura, 1993; Kinlaw & Kurtz-Costes, 2007; Rotter, 1966; Schweinle,
Meyer, & Turner, 2006; Self-Brown & Matthews, 2003; Weiner, 1986). In addition,
Weiner (1986) determined that students’ attributions are affected by three additional
22
considerations: (a) locus of the cause, (b) stability of the cause, and (c) controllability of
the cause. Locus of the cause can be considered as either external or internal. For
example, students may perceive the cause of their success to be internal (such as
intelligence or effort), or external (such as luck or teacher competence). Clearly, the type
of attribution they hold will affect their expectancy of success. If they feel that they are
capable and are putting forth effort, the likelihood that they will succeed is increased
(Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). In the case of center-based environments, locus of the cause
is internal by design. The teacher creates activities that are open-ended so that students
are able to approach the activities in ways that meets their own preferences. Additionally,
the amount of effort put forth by students has a direct impact on the success of the
activity.
Stability of a cause provides an equally important way to examine attributions.
Students may consider the cause of their success/failure to be either stable or unstable.
For example, if students attribute their success/failure to luck, that would be considered
unstable, as luck surely changes regularly. On the other hand, students may consider the
cause of their success/failure to be their ability, which is much more stable than luck.
Students may all attribute their success/failure to characteristics that are either
controllable or uncontrollable. For example, if students attribute their success/failure to
task characteristics, it is likely that they have no control over the task, thus making their
success/failure more or less out of their power. On the other hand, students may attribute
success/failure to a controllable characteristic, such as effort in the amount of studying.
Goal orientation. Goal orientation is another motivational theory that has
ramifications for learning. Compared to goal content theory or goal setting theory, goal
23
orientation theory focuses on the purpose(s) individuals have for engaging in
achievement behavior. Additionally, goal orientation theory assumes some type of
standard that individuals use to measure success. Although goal orientation theory has
been defined in various ways, (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott &
McGregor, 2001; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Nicholls, 1984), Ames’ concepts of goal
mastery goals and performance goals were judged most appropriate for this study (Ames
1992). Mastery goals are those associated with a focus on learning and mastering the
task. They involve attempting a challenge in an effort to learn something new or gain
additional insight. Performance goals involve demonstrating competence or ability
compared to the performance of others. Both types of goals have been further broken
down into approach or avoidance goals (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). The basic
distinction is that approach goals employ a focus on mastering tasks or trying to best
others in an attempt to meet some standards (either self-set or normative). Avoidance
goals, however, focus on avoiding misunderstanding or avoiding looking stupid or dumb
compared to others.
Of mastery and performance goals, mastery goals have been linked to higher
levels of learning. Pintrich (2000) found that when students employ multiple goals,
mastery goals appear to be the most adaptive, and this study indicates that “the
implication that students should be encouraged to adopt a mastery goal orientation and
that classrooms should be structured to facilitate and foster a general mastery orientation
is still a valid conclusion” (Pintrich, 2000, p. 553). Additional support for this argument
comes from the work of Ames and Archer (1988), who found that the use of cognitive
strategies and mastery goals were highly correlated. In other words, students who
24
employed mastery goals were more likely to use a larger number of cognitive strategies.
Clearly, using a variety of cognitive strategies is conducive to learning. Finally, Graham
and Golan (1991), in a study of word recall, found that having task-involved goals (which
are focused on mastering a task) and ego-involved goals (which are focused on ability
compared to others) resulted in students having poorer recall at complex processing
levels. Again, mastery goals (or in this case, task-involved goals) appear to be more
conducive to classroom learning, especially when complex processing is necessary.
Thus, there is ample evidence that motivation influences learning. When students
adopt a mastery goal orientation, value tasks for their potential for learning, and have
attributions that are stable, internal, and controllable, that students are more likely to
succeed. While there are certainly situations in any classroom that may defy these
findings, the empirical evidence supports the idea that students who adopt certain types of
motivation are more likely to succeed in the classroom than those who do not adopt those
types of goals.
Autonomy
Also referred to as self-regulation (Winne, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000), autonomy is
an important consideration when looking at how learning occurs in a given setting.
Autonomy is typically presented as an adolescent (ages 11- 21) issue (Guisinger & Blatt,
1994; Steinberg, 1990). For this reason, the concept of autonomy is particularly
interesting, as undergraduate students fall into this age range. Steinberg (1999) suggests
three types of autonomy: emotional, behavioral, and value. The concepts of value
autonomy and behavioral autonomy have specific connections to the process of teaching
and learning.
25
In terms of behavioral autonomy, undergraduate students are moving towards
making independent decisions (Chiou, 2008; Steinberg, 1999) understanding multiple
points of view, comparing ideas, and thinking ahead (Steinberg, 1999). All of these skills
are important to develop in the context of teacher education. Perhaps the most difficult is
the understanding of multiple viewpoints. Because students tend to see their own
experiences as the “right” way, it becomes difficult for them to understand that there are
multiple ways of thinking and seeing the world. Interestingly, Piaget would consider this
preoperational egocentrism (1970), even though these students are not of the age
typically associated with egocentric behaviors.
In terms of value autonomy, undergraduate students are engaging in more abstract
thinking, exploring their own values (Chiou, 2008; Ullah & Wilson, 2008), and
developing prosocial skills that will enable them to be successful teachers (Lamborn,
Fischer, & Pipp, 1994). These skills are paramount for classroom teachers, as they will
enable students to develop their own sets of beliefs and values about teaching and
learning, and help them to remain faithful to their beliefs in the face of differing opinions
or ideas.
Teachers who encourage autonomy in the classroom have students who
demonstrate high levels of intrinsic motivation (Leroy, Bressoux, Sarrazin, & Trouilloud,
2007). As noted above, this type of motivation results in students who have high levels of
achievement. For this reason, it is important that undergraduate education be focused on
helping students to develop autonomy and become self-reliant.
26
Instruction
Although it is difficult to separate the processes of teaching and learning, it is
crucial that the idea of instruction is examined. Because of the variety of instructional
strategies available (Jonassen, 1999; Reigeluth, 1999), instructors often find themselves
wondering which strategies to use. For this reason, a discussion of instructional theory is
included. Quality instruction begins with quality instructional design.
Instructional Theory
Examining the premise of instructional theory provides insight into the teaching
and learning process. Instead of choosing an instructional strategy based on an
instructor’s instincts, instructional theory provides educators with knowledge of the entire
process, which allows them to choose instructional strategies based on what is most
appropriate for their students. The current research is grounded in the idea that in order to
choose appropriate instructional strategies, one must know the (a) learners; (b)
curriculum; (c) desired outcomes; and (d) multiple instructional strategies that are
available.
When defining a term as complex as “center-based learning,” it is important to
keep in mind that the actual strategy is a method chosen based on a specific instructional
design theory. Center-based learning, depending on its instructional design, can take
many forms. Many have used centered learning, or center-based learning (Bottini &
Grossman, 2005; Clark & Rust, 2006; DiGiorgio, 2004; Hubbard, 2002; King-Sears,
2007; Movitz & Holmes, 2007; Perin, 2004). However, each of these authors use the term
“center-based” differently and give it their own sets of characteristics.
27
In order to eliminate any confusion about center-based learning, a discussion
about the instructional-design theory behind the strategy is crucial. According to
Reigeluth (1999), instructional-design theories have four important components. They (a)
are design-oriented as opposed to reactive; (b) identify methods of instruction; (c) these
can be broken down into more detailed methods; (d) are probabilistic as opposed to
deterministic. The premise behind center-based learning is grounded in each of these
components.
Design-Oriented as Opposed to Reactive
Theories that support centered learning are many (Bandura’s (1977) social
cognitive learning theory), Vygotsky’s (1929/1977) cultural historic theory, Weiner’s
(1994) attribution theory, Jonassen’s (1999) theory of designing constructivist learning
environments, Teaching for Understanding (Perkins & Unger, 1999), and Fostering a
Community of Learners (Brown & Campione, 1996). Each theory brings its own unique
characteristics to the overall instructional design for center-based learning. Parts of each
theory combine with others to create a theory that is designed to facilitate learning in
teacher education candidates. Center-based environments, in this sense, are designed to
help students (a) engage in complex examination of subject matter, (b) be active
constructors of their own knowledge, (c) develop an intrinsic motivation for learning, (d)
engage in transformative experiences, and (e) develop a range of cognitive and affective
skills.
Identify Methods of Instruction
Examining the theories of center-based learning provides educators with a basis
from which to develop other methods of instruction that will produce the outcomes
28
desired. Rather than viewing center-based learning as strategy in and of itself, looking at
a variety of theories allows others to view center-based learning holistically, choosing
multiple methods of instruction as avenues to learning. Keeping in mind that instruction
can take multiple forms, Olson, Dorsey, and Regieluth (1988) compiled a list of different
approaches to instruction (see Table 1). The list is quite comprehensive and illustrates the
multiple ways in which instructors and students can participate in the learning process.
Table 1 provides a list of the reported approaches.
Table 1: Approaches to Instruction
1. Apprenticeship 2. Debate 3. Demonstration 4. Field trip 5. Game 6. Group discussion, guided 7. Group discussion, free/open 8. Ancient symposium 9. Interview 10. Guided laboratory 11. Lecture/Speech 12. Lecture, guided discovery
13. Panel Discussion 14. Project 15. Team Project 16. Seminar 17. Quiet Meeting 18. Simulation 19. Case study 20. Role play 21. Think tank/brainstorm 22. Tutorial, programmed 23. Tutorial, conversational 24. Socratic dialogue
Olson, Dorsey, & Reigeluth, (1988)
Can be Broken Down into More Detailed Methods
Methods in any instructional theory can, and should be, broken down into
specific, detailed methods that allow learners to fully understand each step of the
intended learning process. Setting goals for students, monitoring process toward those
goals, and linking new concepts to old concepts are three important ways that this can be
accomplished (Reigeluth, 1999). In order to be fully engulfed in the concepts and skills
29
presented, students must understand that the methods have been clarified sufficiently to
support their own individual learning.
Probabilistic as Opposed to Deterministic
The methods in any designed instruction are not created as a way to ensure that
students attain goals. Rather, they are designed to increase the likelihood that students
will attain goals (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 7). Because there are so many factors to consider
when designing instruction for a specific group of students, designed instruction cannot
possible ensure the success of each student in the same way. Rather, instruction is
designed to create an environment that allows students to attain their individual goals,
and the goals set forth by the instructor, not that all students would attain all of the goals.
Center-Based Environments
Center-based learning environments espouse a wide range of intended outcomes.
Students in center-based classrooms are exposed to processes and lessons that allow them
to develop an understanding of subject matter, be active constructors of their own
knowledge, develop an intrinsic motivation for learning, engage in transformative
experiences, and develop a range of cognitive and affective skills.
A primary goal of center-based learning environments is to move students beyond
parroting information presented to them -- to understanding information. Understanding,
as defined by Perkins and Unger (1999), is being able to think and act creatively and
competently with what one knows about the topic. A key to understanding is critical
thinking, which includes the abilities to screen useful information, ponder possible
ramifications of a problem solution, and pull apart ideas in order to see and evaluate their
building blocks. Center-based learning concurs with Nelson’s (1999) theory that the
30
development of critical thinking may be accomplished through learning by participation
in multiple stages of the learning process.
The move from parroting back information to constructor of knowledge requires
students to become active constructors of knowledge, a crucial goal for center-based
learning environments. These environments are focused on enabling students to become
critical thinkers who ponder and reflect on what they know, and assist them in seeing that
they can be creators of knowledge as opposed to being recipients of knowledge. As noted
by Gagné (1962), learning occurs when an individual develops a particular capability to
do something the individual could not do previously. This idea is embedded in the
methods of center-based learning.
Maehr and Midgley (1991) discussed the idea of achievement motivation as a
means for helping students perceive themselves as origins rather than as pawns in the
teaching-learning process. They believe motivation is vested in the meaning of a situation
to the individual, especially in the perception of personal causation. In center-based
classrooms students’ roles as equal participants help to facilitate their perceptions of
personal causation. This creates a foundation of the self as being responsible for, and
capable of, creating knowledge.
Along with attempting to instill achievement motivation, center-based
environments attempt to provide an opportunity for students to have transformative
experiences in their learning processes. Transformative experiences, as defined by Pugh
(2002), are experiences that take place because of engagement with a concept. This
engagement can lead to the expansion of students’ perception and values. Transformative
31
experiences initially require active use of a concept, which is a goal of center-based
learning.
The goals of center-based learning environments include some skill acquisition as
well. Cognitive skills that are fostered in center-based classrooms include, but are not
limited to, communication, leadership, trust building, alternative conflict resolution, self-
motivated study, and topic investigation skills (such as identifying where to research,
who are experts to contact, and what are the available sources for consultation).
Affective skills are also emphasized in center-based environments. There is an
assumed focus on empathy, caring, kindness, and overall concern for another’s well-
being. Unfortunately, cognition is often the focus, with only a small amount of attention
given to the affective development of the learner. In center-based classrooms, structure is
provided to enable students to identify their own feelings and values about course topics
and explore how these personal interpretations impact their abilities to provide services.
Understanding the roles that emotions play in learning enables overall understanding and
increases the ability to apply information. Instruction in center-based environments
focuses on learning, feeling, and doing.
Ultimately, the intended outcome is to produce teachers who are able to
implement a variety of instructional strategies with the children they will teach. As with
any teacher education program, the ultimate outcome is measured not by evaluating the
pre-service teachers, but by evaluating the learning that takes place in their future
classrooms. However, there are outcomes that must be measured prior to this ultimate
goal. These outcomes are those that increase the likelihood that preservice teacher
education candidates will be effective practitioners once they leave the university setting.
32
A final intended outcome of center-based environments is that teacher education
candidates will be more likely to use appropriate practices in their own classrooms. This
requires collection of longitudinal data and is the subject of future work. In essence, it is
the end of the cycle: the children with whom these teacher education candidates will
work will benefit the most from the teacher’s skills and knowledge.
In order for center-based learning environments to be successfully implemented,
the instructor must hold some important beliefs about teaching and learning. As opposed
to the long-established approach of lecturing to university students, center-based
instructors must hold a view of themselves not as givers of knowledge, but as facilitators
of knowledge. Doing this requires them to think of themselves as “guides on the side”
rather than “sages on a stage.” To do this, instructors must give up a fair amount of
control over the instructional process and allow the learners to assert control over their
own learning. Center-based instructors must believe that students are ultimately
responsible for their own learning (Brown & Campione, 1996; Jonassen, 1999; Perkins &
Unger, 1994).
Likewise, students in center-based classrooms must also hold some beliefs. If the
instructor encourages students to be responsible for their own learning, students must be
willing to accept that responsibility. Additionally, students in center-based classrooms
must assume new roles in their learning. They must understand that they need to be self-
directed and intrinsically motivated to accomplish tasks and solve problems. Further, the
students must agree to work collaboratively with other students and the instructor. In
order for students to experience success in a center-based classroom, they must be willing
to accept these new and challenging standards.
33
Summary
Teaching and learning are complex ideas that require an in-depth examination
before embarking upon any new teaching and/or learning activity. Many new ideas that
pass through the educational door are based on what feels right or what appears to be a
promising idea. However, unless those new ideas are grounded in what is known,
empirically, about teaching and learning, they stand little chance of surviving the test of
time and becoming an effective way to engage students. Center based environments, as
proposed in this study, are strongly supported by the literature surrounding both teaching
and learning. In addition, this type of learning environment is also supported by the
literature about effective instruction. Because there is literature to support the underlying
principles of this strategy, it is advantageous to examine whether or not this strategy
proves to be effective as compared to other strategies.
34
Chapter Three: Methodology
Two different pedagogical approaches to teaching an undergraduate, early
childhood, preschool and primary methods course in a large metropolitan university in
the Midwest were investigated. One classroom was taught in a center-based instructional
environment, which incorporated high learner choice, whereas the other was taught using
a more traditional lecture and small group approach.
Research Design
An action research model was used and the data were analyzed qualitatively.
Although not as formative as some action research, the attempt was to identify important
components of the teaching and learning processes within two specific undergraduate
classrooms. An action research approach was used because it offered an opportunity to
examine a significant classroom dilemma: that of choosing an appropriate instructional
strategy (Stringer, 2004). Although the intent was not to solve a problem, such as social
dilemmas or day-to-day planning dilemmas, evidence of specific characteristics of the
teaching and learning process in two different teacher education environments was
sought.
Collection of qualitative data was chosen because “qualitative researchers study
things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or to interpret, phenomena in
terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 3). In this
35
study, students’ thoughts, perspectives, and approaches to learning were studied in two
university classrooms. Clearly, this was a natural setting.
Classroom action research is typically conducted by teachers as a way to improve
their own practices (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) by focusing on their self-
understanding and judgments. Although typical sites for this type of research are
classrooms of children in P-12 school settings, this approach in the university classroom
is becoming more popular as a way to inform the teaching practice of university
instructors (Gordon & Debus, 2002; Siberry & Kearns, 2005; Smith & Sela, 2005). As
opposed to identifying an idealistic approach that may adequately illustrate a theory,
classroom action research provides opportunities to merge theory and practice in a way
that is both practical and educationally sound.
This study is also aligned with Shaw’s definition of a case study, which states that
a case study “concentrate[s] attention on the way particular groups of people confront
specific problems, taking a holistic view of the situation” (Shaw & Reeve, 1978, p. 2).
Because an attempt was made to identify how two different groups of students and two
different instructors approached the teacher and learning process, it is reasonable to call
the approach a case study. In fact, Merriam (1998) noted that case studies are particularly
useful in looking at educational innovations because they provide for examining multiple
components of a given setting, which was done by comparing a center-based teacher
education environment with a non center-based environment.
In determining the best way to answer the research question, multiple types of
case studies were considered (Olson, 1982; Stake, 1995). After reviewing various
36
approaches, a descriptive perspective, as presented by Olson, was determined to be most
appropriate. According to Olson (1982), a descriptive case study can
• Illustrate the complexities of a situation -- the fact that not one but many factors contributed to it;
• Have the advantage of hindsight, yet can be relevant in the present; • Show the influence of personalities on the issues; • Show the influence of the passage of time on the issue -- deadlines, change of
legislators, cessation of funding, and so on; • Include vivid material -- quotations, interviews, newspaper articles, etc.; • Obtain information from a wide variety of sources; • Cover many years and describe how the preceding decades led to a situation; • Spell out differences of opinion on the issue and suggest how these
differences have influenced the result; • Present information in a wide variety of ways … and from the viewpoints of
different groups.
Participants
Each group of students was part of a cohort of students who began their
professional education experiences at the same time and continued their education as a
group through the completion of their programs. Prior to the collection of data, each
group of students was together for one complete semester, taking all of their courses
together. Each group also spent that first cohort semester with their respective instructor
in the study. Although students did not know which method each instructor would use, it
is important to note that before the students embarked upon this cohort system had the
opportunity to choose the instructor with whom they would spend the remainder of their
37
professional program. This arrangement allowed students to build relationships with each
other and with the instructors. Because each group of students had already spent one
semester as a cohort, relationships among students and between the students and their
respective instructors had already begun to form. These relationships had an impact on
the responses submitted during the data collection processes.
Another important characteristic of the participants was that each group of
students was at the same point in their undergraduate studies, having taken the same
number of credit hours and many of the same courses. This sample or convenience was
chosen because they were enrolled in the course in which the center-based environment
was being implemented. Demographic data for each group are presented in Table 2.
The instructors had similar teaching styles and theoretical points of view. Both
had taught the class multiple times. The instructor in the non center-based environment
taught the class six times prior to the study (5 times in a non center-based environment,
and 1 time in a center-based environment), and the instructor in the center-based taught
the class four times prior to the study (3 times in a non center-based environment and 1
time in a center-based environment). Both instructors were recipients of the college
outstanding teacher award within the past two years, suggesting that both of them have
high teaching ratings from both students and faculty. Both instructors were white females
working with classes in which the majority of the students were white females.
The non center-based instructor also conducted the study, and was an active
participant in the study. This was necessary because of the three instructors assigned to
this course, only she and the other participating instructor had experience in teaching the
course in both center-based and non center-based environments. The third instructor was
38
new to teaching the course, and was not familiar with the curriculum or any teaching
strategies for the course.
Course Design
The course syllabus is found in Appendix B. It is important to recognize that both
instructors used the same syllabus, text, and course objectives. The only differences on
the course syllabus were the instructors’ names and contact information in section D on
Table 2: Participant Demographics
Non Center-Based Group
n = 22
Center-Based Group n = 17
Gender:
Male
Female
1
21
0
17
Ethnicity:
White
Black/Afro-American
Other
19
1
2
16
1
0
Age:
18-22
23-27
28-32
33-37
38 and above
13
4
1
3
1
14
2
0
1
0
Hours per week worked:
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
7
3
3
3
8
1
5
1
39
the first page of the syllabus. Course objectives were based on the state licensure
requirements, as well as the National Association for the Education of Young Children
guidelines (1996).
In addition to the syllabus, other important components of the course warrant
explanations. Specifically, the course goals in terms of cognitive, affective, and social
development and the environments in which students worked need examination
Cognitive Development
Cognitively, both of the instructors embraced an approach to teaching and
learning grounded in Piagetian and Vygotskian principles. From a Piagetian point of view
(Piaget, 1970), both instructors acknowledged that students both assimilate new
information into their own experiences while they also accommodate their own
experiences based on new information to form new understandings. Because both
instructors believed assimilation and accommodation to be crucial components of the
learning process, they actively built upon students’ prior experiences when introducing
new concepts.
From a Vygotskian perspective (Vygotsky, 1962), both instructors had an
awareness that student knowledge is not static, but that it is a constantly changing
phenomenon that occurs within a sociocultural context. Thus, both also used Vygostky’s
concept of the Zone of Proximal Development: learning occurs through a carefully
orchestrated system of assistance and independent performance. This was implemented
by having instructors model and assist students as they moved to new understandings of
course concepts and ideas.
40
Affective Development
One course goal was to facilitate affective development (e.g., develop self-
awareness, manage emotions, motivate towards goal accomplishment, recognize
emotions in others, and handle relationships with others). Because it is difficult to
explicitly teach these skills and dispositions (Noyes, 2008; Swick, 2001; Winsor, Butt, &
Reeves, 1999), it was important to examine if, and how, they develop in the context of
one instructional strategy or another. By examining student reflections and focus group
content, it was possible to identify ways in which dispositions were indirectly fostered
and encouraged, and whether certain students are more likely to embrace these
dispositions in one type of environment, whereas others may develop them best through a
different environment.
Social Development
Undergraduate students are very social, and .there is ample evidence to suggest
that students’ social competence has a direct impact on their academic achievement
(Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Britton & Pellegrini, 1990). For this reason, it is not possible to
separate this social aspect from classroom interactions and/or the teaching and learning
process. In fact, Vygotsky (1978) based many of his ideas on the idea that cognitive skills
have a social origin and that they must first be performed with other competent
individuals before becoming internalized. For this reason, both classrooms allowed for,
and encouraged, interactions among students, as well as interactions between students
and instructor. As expected, the interactions were different in each setting. After
identifying these differences, their complexities were examined in order to determine if
one environment was more conducive to different types of interactions than another.
41
Center-Based Environment
The center-based instructional environment took place during the 16 week fall
semester, 2005. The semester was divided into three modules, each focusing on specific
readings and course concepts as detailed by the syllabus (see Appendix B). In this
approach, the instructor planned six learning centers for each module. A learning center
was defined as a topic or subject of study that provided information and instructions for a
learning activity. Each module had a center for the following categories: child
development, assessment, planning instruction, curriculum, developmentally appropriate
practices, and other (depending upon the module). For example, during module two,
several activities dealt with the development of play behaviors. One of those activities
was placed in ‘developmentally practices’ and the other fell into the ‘other’ category.
These centers took a variety of forms and included multiple ways of learning and
presenting information including, but not limited to, paper-and-pencil tasks, charts and
diagrams, research, collaboration, interacting with materials, audio and video recordings,
and technology. Students had the opportunity to work independently, with a partner, or in
a group, depending upon the nature of each center. A sampling of center activities that
were used is in Appendix C.
At the onset of each module, the instructor spent one to three hours presenting
background information that would help the students be successful with the module’s
activities. This information was based upon the assigned readings and course content.
Following that initial meeting, students were given approximately ten hours of class time
over three weeks to complete each of the centers. Centers were completed in no specific
42
order. Amount of time spent on specific centers was determined by the students rather
than prescribed by the instructor.
During the time when students were working on centers, the instructor performed
multiple tasks that were designed to compliment the learning process. One task was to
circulate through the room and check with groups of students. Doing this allowed the
instructor to spend time with small groups of students discussing course content,
challenging misconceptions, and helping to clarify their understanding of the content.
The instructor also acted as a resource for students. Finally, the instructor spent time
grading lesson plans or doing other work that was required of instructors of the course
instructors, such as organizing information, preparing lessons, and/or gathering data.
Although there were guidelines for the beginning and ending of each module, the
amount of time spent on each module was flexible as a way to meet the preferences of
students. This flexibility allowed students to engage in learning without a strict time
stipulation, which provided an opportunity for students to get into the ‘flow’ of learning
(Dewey, 1938). Because of coursework in other classes and because it was not possible to
predict how long it would take to fully understand the content of each center, the ending
date was flexible, and was based on feedback received from students. Once all centers for
a module were completed, student work was submitted per the instructor’s directions.
After all work from a module had been submitted, the instructor led the class in a
discussion of each module and its intended learning outcomes. Although discussions
ensued throughout the entire module, this large group instruction served as a way to
summarize and clarify course goals and course content. Students discussed their work
and the instructor had an opportunity to analyze student understanding of the concepts
43
represented in each of the module’s centers. At this time, the instructor had an
opportunity to provide additional information to students to guide them toward an
understanding of concepts that was accurate. This discussion lasted approximately two
hours and was flexible in terms of time and content discussed, as determined by the
instructor’s analysis of student learning. In addition to evaluating student learning
through the discussions, the instructor evaluated the center work of each student and gave
written feedback. Upon completion of each module, students also completed a module
reflection in which they described their learning and their understanding of course
concepts presented during that module.
Non Center-Based Environment
A second group of students had the course content presented to them in a non
center-based learning environment. This method was also used throughout the same 16-
week semester. The course was also divided into four modules, using the same reading
assignments and course content as the center-based model. Both instructors followed the
same syllabus and used the same readings and course concepts (see Appendix B). Course
goals and objectives were the same as in the center-based environment.
Within this environment, the instructor began each module with a lecture and/or
discussion about the content of the module. Information was presented to the whole class
verbally. Videos and/or personal experiences were also used to help students fully
understand the concepts. Although some of the videos were available for the instructor in
the center-based environment as well, they were used differently. In the non center-based
environment, the instructor had students watch the videos as a whole class; in the center-
based environment, the instructor had students watch the videos as part of a center
44
activity. Once a specific concept had been explained and discussed, students in the non
center-based environment were assigned a small group activity to complete.
These small group activities took place at a time assigned by the instructor,
usually immediately following a lecture or discussion. Students did not have a choice
about when to complete the small group activity; it was determined by the instructor.
Activities were presented as set activities during a specific time, not choices to be
completed at the students’ discretion. Students completed these activities in small groups.
Once each group completed the activity, groups shared and discussed with the larger
group. Those discussions allowed the instructor to analyze the groups’ understanding of
the concepts.
Within each module, the cycle of lecture and discussion followed by a small
group activity happened multiple times. The beginning and ending of each module was
flexible to ensure that the instructor had enough time to help students learn the content of
each module. Upon completion of each module, students also completed a module
reflection in which they described their learning and their understanding of course
concepts presented during that module.
Course Schedule
Both classes met on campus from 9:00-12:00 on Mondays, and from 9:00-11:00
on Fridays, for a total of five hours each week. Course content was the same for each
group of students. The only difference was the way the course content was presented: in a
center-based environment, or in a non center-based environment. Table 3 provides a
visual representation of course content and instructional strategies used for each group.
45
Table 3: Weekly Schedule
Center-Based Non Center-Based
Week1: Monday
Course overview Course overview
Week 1: Friday
Introduction to Module 1
Introduction to Module 1
Week 2: Monday
Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 2: Friday
Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work
Video Week 3: Monday
Work in centers
2Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 3: Friday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 4: Monday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Video Week 4: Friday
Work in centers Sharing
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 5: Monday
Introduction to Module 2
Introduction to Module 2
Week 5: Friday
Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 6: Monday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Guest Speaker Week 6: Friday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 7: Monday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 7: Friday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Video Week 8: Monday
No class Fall Break
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 8: Friday
Reflection #1
Reflection #1
Week 9: Monday
Work in centers Sharing
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 9: Friday
Introduction to Module 3Work in centers
Introduction to Module 33
46
Week 10: Monday
Work in centers Focus Group #1
Teacher led discussion Small group work Focus Group #1
Week 10: Friday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 11: Monday
Work incenters Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 11: Friday
Work in centers Field Trip
Week 12: Monday
Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 12: Friday
Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work
Video Week 13: Monday
Work in centers Sharing
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 13: Friday
Introduction to Module 4Work in centers
Introduction to Module 44
Week 14: Monday
Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 14: Friday
Reflection #2 Reflection #2
Week 15: Monday
Work in centers Teacher led discussion Small group work
Week 15: Friday
Work in centers
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Video Week 16: Monday
Work in centers Focus Group #2
Teacher led discussion Small group work Focus Group #2
Week 16: Friday
Work in centers Sharing
Teacher led discussion Small group work
Analyses
Thus, there were two data sources. Data sources included (1) participants’
reflections about the course, and (2) focus group conversations. The initial intent was to
include instructors’ field notes as a data source. However, these field notes were small in
number and did provide information to support any student-perceived differences.
Participants responded to reflective prompts twice throughout the semester. Each group
47
responded to the same two prompts on the same day. Focus groups took place twice
throughout the semester (see Table 3). Again, each group responded to the same set of
questions on the same day. Instructors kept field notes throughout the entire semester.
Additionally, instructors met regularly after each class period to briefly describe the
events of the class. This served as a way to ensure that each instructor maintained her
assigned environment per the research design.
Reflections
Because the teaching-learning process is so complex, teachers need to have a way
to deal with the complexities of every day interactions, as well as a way to examine their
own responses to those complexities. Reflective practice is one way of examining the
complexities and it has been identified as one aspect of the highest professional
competence (Cole & Knowles, 2000; Jay, 2003; Larrivee, 2000; Osterman & Kottkamp,
2004; Valli, 1997; York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, & Montie, 2001; Zeichner & Liston,
1996).
In order to develop teachers who are able to reflect about their classroom
practices, it is important to teach in a way that encourages teacher education students to
reflect on their own learning. Reflecting in a productive way is not something that
teachers often do. Instead, it must be encouraged in the teacher education classroom and
recognized by instructors and students alike as a valuable tool to analyze one’s own
learning.
Dewey (1910/1933, 1938) introduced the concept of reflective practice, making
the distinction between actions that are routine and actions that are reflective (Larrivee,
2000). When teachers engage in actions that are routine without reflecting on them, they
48
run the risks of misunderstanding their (a) students, (b) own actions, and (c) results of
their actions. On the other hand, when teachers engage in reflective practice, they are
more likely to accept uncertainty and to recognize the complexity of students, their own
actions, and the results of their actions (Kelsey, 1993; King & Kitchner, 1994; Osterman
& Kottkamp, 2004).
In the teacher education classroom, learning how to be a reflective practitioner
can take many forms. Instructors can teach this skill explicitly or implicitly through
conversations and assignments. What is important is that students develop the ability to
• pause, slow down, allow for higher level thinking processes • take an open-minded stance, recognizing that there are many ways to view a
particular circumstance, situation, or event • be receptive to changing viewpoints and letting go of needing to be right • be in a mindful state, conscious of both thought and action • acknowledge that doubt, perplexity, and tentativeness are part of the process
(Larrivee, 2000)
Larrivee offers four different types of reflection, as opposed to the three levels of
reflection that are often noted in the literature (Dey, 1993; Farrell, 2004; Handal &
Lauvas, 1987; Jay & Johnson, 2002, Van Manen, 1977): (a) surface reflection (reflection
about the general state of the experience; initial thoughts about what occurred), (b)
pedagogical reflection, (reflection about the teaching that occurred; thoughts about how
the teacher interacted with children and presented curriculum, (c) critical reflection,
(reflection about the learning that occurred; thoughts about how and what students
learned and if learning outcomes were met), and (d) self-reflection (reflection about own
thoughts and feelings during the teaching-learning process; thoughts about your own role
49
in the classroom). Students were asked to use both critical and self-reflection throughout
the semester.
Students were asked to reflect regularly throughout the semester on course
content and specific activities. In addition, students were asked to formally reflect two
times throughout the semester based on open-ended prompts. These formal reflections
were completed during class time and were as follows:
1. Reflect on yourself as a learner. How do you prefer to learn? How is this class helping you to learn in the way that is best for you?
2. Think about yourself in this class (NOT in your field). Describe what the role of
the instructor is. Describe what your role is. Describe the interactions between the students and the instructor.
Each instructor administered the prompt in her own classroom, during class time.
No instructions were given other than the written prompt. The first reflection occurred in
the seventh week of the term on Friday, and the second reflection occurred during the
fourteenth week on Friday.
Focus groups
Focus groups were used as part of a multi-method data collection process. Focus
group data were examined as a way to examine the complex nature of learning and
students’ perceptions of the learning process in each of the different types of classrooms.
Focus groups were held twice throughout the semester with each of the groups.
Participants were chosen randomly for focus groups by assigning each student a number
and randomly selecting six numbers from each group. Students assigned to the numbers
selected were asked to participate in a focus group during class time. For the first focus
group, all chosen participants from each group agreed to participate. Thus, no
replacement was necessary. However, for the second focus group, two students from the
50
center-based group declined participation, which led to replacement of the students. The
next two students chosen agreed to participate. Focus groups were led by a faculty
member who was not one of the course instructors. Focus group questions for the first
focus group are reported in Table 4.
_____________________________________________________________________ Table 4: Focus Group One Questions
1. Is it important for you to do well in this class? Why?
2. How has the structure of this class helped you as a learner?
3. What role do your peers play in your learning in this class?
4. What do you do in this class to help you learn the material?
5. How often do you reflect on the information you learn in this class? How
do you reflect?
6. Would you say the instructor is focused on teaching you the material? Or on you learning the material?
Upon completion of the focus groups, a member check was conducted to ensure that
each participant’s responses were accurate (Stringer, 2004). Questions and responses
from the audio tape-recorded focus groups were transcribed and then presented to each
participant in the group. Participants were asked to verify all of the information contained
in the transcription for its accuracy, and they were permitted to add or delete information
as needed. No students requested changes to be made from either group.
Questions for the second focus group were designed after the first focus group data
had been examined. The intention was to identify issues and ideas that needed further
clarification. Frey and Fontana (1991) describe this as tapping into intersubjective
meaning with depth and diversity. By examining the initial focus group data, holes in the
51
existing data were identified and questions were created to obtain data to fill the holes.
For example, student responses from reflection two (during the 14th week) indicated that
students were spending time doing different types of activities, depending on the type of
environment they were in. In order to understand this and obtain more detailed
information about how students spent their time, a question was added to focus group two
that provided students the opportunity to talk about how they spent their time.
Additionally, some issues or ideas were not fully explained in the first focus group and
needed to be examined by asking questions that are more specific. Questions for focus
group two are reported in Table 5.
_____________________________________________________________________ Table 5: Focus Group Two Questions
1. Can you talk about your experiences in this class?
2. Think about how you spend most of your time in this course. What stands out and why?
3. How was your time spent?
4. Describe the interactions between the instructor and the students in this course.
5. What do you see as the strengths and drawbacks of the structure of this
class? 6. Suppose you were asked to implement a center-based strategy in a
primary classroom. Would you know what to do?
Data Analysis
Data was obtained from focus groups with students, and student reflections. Data
were coordinated in order to obtain a complete picture of the inner workings of each
52
group (Denzin, 1978; Janesick, 1994; Stake, 1995). This coordination of data provided
for multiple comparisons of the data.
The data analysis process was cyclical, following a cycle similar to one suggested
by Stringer (2004): Collecting data, reviewing data sets, categorizing data, organizing a
category system, re-examining data, clarifying the category system, and coding the
categories. The process required revisiting category system, coding the categories, and re-
examining phases often before any findings could be accurately communicated. Figure 2
provides a flow chart of the analysis process.
Figure 2: Flow Chart of Data Analysis Process
Reviewing Data Sets
“The purpose of reviewing data sets is to familiarize researchers with the data,
and allow them to take an overall view of the information so that links between items and
elements begin to emerge” (Stringer, 2004, p. 113). This initial reviewing of data was
crucial in the analysis, as it provided an opportunity to see overall themes and patterns
emerge.
Collect Data Review Data Sets
Categorize Data Organize Category System
Re-examine Data Clarify Category system
Code Categories
53
Categorizing the Data
A componential analysis (Bernard, 1994; Spradley, 1979) was used to divide the
data into separate units of meaning. A componential analysis is based on the logical
relationships within the data. One the initial categorization was completed, some of the
data needed to be further broken down into sub-categories that represented different
phenomena within each category. Student responses from reflections and/or focus groups
were placed within specific categories or subcategories according to their attributes
(Stringer, 2004).
Coding the Categories
Each category was assigned a term or phrase to identify it as a separate category.
This term could be called a code (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Creswell, 2002) or a cover
term (Spradley, 1979). For simplicity, these terms were called codes.
Constant Comparison
Once the data were categorized and coded, a constant comparative method was
used to identify any student perceived differences between the center-based and non
center-based environments (Silverman, 2000). Using this method provided an
opportunity to continually revisit data during the analysis. Thus, different data sets were
reviewed multiple times and examined from different perspectives, depending upon the
specific categories that emerged. Because the two environments (center-based vs. non
center-based) were being compared, using a constant comparison methodology provided
a framework for looking at the data from both groups simultaneously, thus providing the
opportunity to identify any student perceived differences between the center-based and
non center-based groups.
54
Trustworthiness
Because qualitative methods are most often subjective in nature, it was paramount
that the trustworthiness of the methods be addressed. Doing this provided added
assurance that the data were presented accurately and that reasonable interpretations,
which could be supported by the data, were reached. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested
that establishing trustworthiness requires evidence of credibility, transferability, and
confirmability.
Credibility
All researchers enter a study with their own perspectives, and those biases result
in the specific orientation of the research study. Thus, some procedures were included
that decreased the likelihood that my perspectives would create obstacles to
understanding the data.
First, two data sources were used in an effort to clarify any differing ideas and
different ways that concepts were being interpreted (Denzin, 1978; Janesick, 1994; Stake,
1995). Data were collected from students twice through reflections as well as twice
through focus groups. This collection of multiple data sets provided multiple perspectives
from multiple people on multiple occasions.
A second way that credibility was preserved was by conducting member checks,
which involves verifying data with participants to ensure accuracy (Janesick, 1998;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The most prominent place where this occurred was following the
focus groups. After each focus group session was transcribed, the transcription was
distributed to each member of the group to review for its perceived accuracy. The
transcription was given to the group exactly one week after the focus group took place.
55
At that time, participants had the opportunity to add and/or delete information as
appropriate. If participants wanted to add or delete information, they could submit a
change request. No students submitted a change request, nor did they indicate that a
change was necessary.
Transferability
Although the results are not transferable to all teacher education environments,
the results may be transferable to environments similar to the ones described. By
providing a detailed description of the participants, instructors, curriculum, and
instructional environments, other teacher educators have the potential to take the data and
use them to make decisions about their own similar situations. The data for the obtained
items are presented in appendices H – N.
56
Chapter Four: Results
The results are based on the feedback from students in both of the focus groups,
as well as from the reflections. In order to determine whether there were student
perceived differences between the center-based environment and the non center-based
environment, each data set was reviewed individually. In addition, the data sets were
constantly compared during the data analysis in order to determine where differences
existed.
Data were reviewed initially through multiple readings of student comments.
While reading, students’ thoughts and ideas were noted, and similar thoughts and ideas
were recorded. These readings revealed three specific themes: the (a) roles of the
instructor, (b) roles of the students, and (c) learning styles and preferred instructional
strategies. Upon identification of each theme, another reading of the data occurred. This
time, student comments were color-coded based on which theme the comments
represented. This color-coded data set provided a visual representation of each theme.
Once the data were color-coded, the comments were entered into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet. Using a spreadsheet to represent the data provided an opportunity to code
the data according to multiple categories. Once the data were coded, sub-categories for
the themes were identified as a way to look at the data more specifically. The specific
themes and subcategories are illustrated below:
57
Theme I: Roles of the Instructor
a. instructional role
b. instructional climate
Theme II: Roles of the Student
a. role in the instructional process
b. work with peers
c. responsibility for own learning
Theme III: Learning Styles and Preferred Instructional Strategies
a. learning style preferences
b. specific strategies used in class
Codes used in representing the data are found in Table 6. Group name was denoted
as CB (center-based) or N-CB (non center-based). Data source was coded twice: First,
each category was coded as either R (reflection) or F (focus group), and the second
category was coded as either 1 or 2, denoting the specific reflection or focus group.
Student identification was the next code. For reflections, student last names were
recorded as a way to document which student and how many specific students
commented in each category. For focus groups, student responses were coded as student
a – student f. Because it was not possible to identify which student said what from the
audio recording, students were identified by their voice. The comments were recorded
into the spreadsheet verbatim. The final seven categories on the spreadsheet were Ia:
Instructor instructional role, Ib: Instructor instructional climate, IIa: Student role in
instructional process, IIb: Student work with peers, IIc: Student responsibility for own
learning, IIIa: learning style preference, IIIb: specific strategies used in class. After
58
comments were recorded, an ‘x’ was placed under the category of the theme represented
by the comment. In some cases, one comment could meet the requirements of more than
one theme.
Table 6: Summary of data codes
Group Source First or Second
ID Comment Ia Ib IIa IIb IIc IIIa IIIb
CB (center-based) OR N-CB (non center-based)
R (reflection) OR F (focus group)
1 OR 2
Student name OR a-f
Comments from data
An ‘x’ placed in the column representing the theme the comment illustrates
Criteria for choosing comments and placing them in categories are included in
Table 7. For the first theme, Instructor Instructional Role, the criteria were: Any comment
containing the word ‘instructor’ or any other word referring to instructor, coupled with a
verb describing what the instructor did. For the second theme, Instructor Instructional
role, the criteria were: Any comment mentioning the physical environment,
any comment illustrating how the instructor made students feel, or any comment
illustrating how the instructor addressed non-academic issues. For the third theme,
Student Role in the Instructional Process, the criteria were: Any comment containing the
word ‘student’, or ‘I’, or any other word referring to the student, coupled with a verb
describing what the student did. For the fourth theme, Student Work with Peers, the
criteria were: Any comment mentioning the word ‘group’, any comment mentioning the
59
word ‘peers’, or any comment mentioning the word ‘collaborate’. For the fifth theme,
Student Responsibility for own Learning, the criteria were: Any comment containing the
word ‘responsible’, any comment that illustrates a student’s ability to control the
learning, or any comment mentioning ‘choice’. For the sixth theme, Learning Style
Preference, the criteria were: Any comment containing specific learning styles, coupled
with a preference term such as ‘prefer’ or ‘like’. For the seventh theme, Specific
Strategies Used in Class, the criteria were: Any comment referring to any specific
learning activity or strategy used during the study.
Table 7: Criteria for Categorization of Data
Ia: Instructor Instructional Role -Any comment containing the word ‘instructor’ or any other word referring to instructor, coupled with a verb describing what the instructor did
IIb: Instructor Instructional Climate -Any comment mentioning the physical environment
-Any comment illustrating how the instructor made students feel -Any comment illustrating how the instructor addressed non-academic issues
IIa: Student role in the instructional process -Any comment containing the word ‘student,’ or ‘I,’ or any other word referring to the student, coupled with a verb describing what the student did
IIb: Student work with peers -Any comment mentioning the word ‘group’
-Any comment mentioning the word
60
‘peers’ -Any comment mentioning the word ‘collaborate’
IIc: Student responsibility for own learning -Any comment containing the word ‘responsible’
-Any comment that illustrates a student’s ability to control the learning -Any comment mentioning ‘choice’
IIIa: Learning style preferences -Any comment containing specific learning styles, coupled with a preference term such as ‘prefer’ or ‘like’
IIIb: Specific strategies used in class -Any comment referring to any specific learning activity or strategy used during the study
Theme I: Roles of the Instructor
The roles of the instructor in any learning environment are a key factor in how
and what students learn. Although the role of each instructor was to instruct or teach the
definition of instruct or teach was different by design: one instructor utilized a center-
based environment, whereas the other taught in a non center-based environment. At the
surface level, it would appear that, by definition, the roles of the two instructors differed.
In fact, that theme emerged often in the data. However, a more detailed examination
revealed that the students’ perceived differences in the roles of the instructor were quite
complex, suggesting two sub-categories: (a) instructional role and (b) instructional
climate. Data for Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role can be found in Appendix H,
and for theme 1b: Instructor Instructional Climate in Appendix I.
Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Roles
61
Comments meeting the criteria for this theme came from both groups from
Reflection 2 and Focus Group 1. Table 8 documents the number of students from each
group who contributed to these comments.
Table 8: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments Representing Them Ia: Instructor Instructional Role
Group Source Percentage
CB Reflection 2
82% (14/17)
CB Focus Group 1 100% (6/6)
N-CB Reflection 2
54% (12/22)
N-CB Focus Group 1 67% (4/6)
In reading at the responses from students, perceived differences were initially
difficult to identify. However, a few differences did emerge. For example, some of the
responses from students in the N-CB group suggested that the instructor took on a more
directive role (“she really tried to explain things,” “explaining what it means”), whereas
some students from the CB group noted that “[She] is teaching us how to learn.” These
different remarks suggest that the N-CB instructor did more of the talking and explaining
and actual ‘giving of knowledge’ to students. In contrast, CB instructor encouraged
students to find ways to engage in their own directed learning processes.
Another perceived difference was that students in the N-CB group implied often
that the instructor was “in charge.” Comments such as “She gives good examples,” “She
always applies what she’s teaching to something that will be happening,” or “She has a
62
way of twisting it so it means something to everyone” suggest that the teacher was at the
center of the learning process. In the CB group, however, there were no comments that
depicted the teacher as a “giver of knowledge.”
As reported by students in Reflection 2, the role of the instructor in the N-CB
group appeared to be one of teaching the course content in an appropriate way and
meeting the preferences of the learners. Verbs used regularly in this reflection were
facilitate, present, determine, challenge, give, guide, teach, provide, know, ask, and
instruct. These verbs were used by students in their reflections of how the instructor met
the preferences of students throughout the semester. It was clear that students felt that
their preferences were met adequately, and that the instructor succeeded in conveying the
content and helping students learn the knowledge and skills required in the course.
In comparison, CB student responses from Reflection 2 contained a much larger
number of roles. As reported by students, a different set of verbs was used including
guide, encourage, define, consult, support, explain, facilitate, promote, ask, introduce,
monitor, prepare, provide, suggest, assist, organize, inform, plan, and assess. These
verbs were used by students in their discussion of how the instructor met the learning
preferences of students throughout the semester. It was apparent that students felt that
their learning preferences were met adequately, and that the instructor succeeded in
conveying the content and helping students learn the knowledge and skills required of
this course. However, in contrast to the responses from the N-CB group, the students
reported that the instructor supported them in their learning, and found ways to encourage
individual growth and development.
63
Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate
Data collected for examination of the instructional climate showed no student
perceived differences between the CB students and the N-CB students. The data are
found in Appendix I. Table 9 shows the number of students from each group whose
responses were coded into this category. In looking at the table, it appears as if more
responses from the CB group were recorded. However, based on the similarities of the
responses (“There is a high comfort level” N-CB; “I never really dreaded coming to
class” CB), it was concluded that there were no notable differences in this theme.
Students in both groups reported feeling comfortable within the learning
environment. They also reported that the instructor was sensitive to their personal and
educational preferences. This evidence suggests that both instructors provided students
with support and guidance throughout the learning process. This is important because
students’ perception of the learning environment can have an impact on their responses to
the reflections and focus groups. In this case, both groups of students appeared to be
comfortable in the learning environment and felt that the instructors were understanding
of students and their learning.
Table 9: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate
Group Source Percentage
CB Reflection 2
< 1% (1/17)
CB Focus Group 1 83% (5/6)
N-CB Focus Group 2 33% (2/6)
64
Theme 2: Roles of the Student
The roles of the student in the learning process can range from simple to complex.
For the present study, reflection prompts and focus group questions were intended to
encourage students to delve deeper into what they do that constitutes learning. Three
distinct sub-categories of the roles of students emerged: (a) role in the instructional
process, (b) work with peers, and (c) responsibility for own learning.
Theme IIa: Student Role in the Instructional Process
Instruction is intended to bring about change within the individuals to whom the
instruction is given. However, these individuals are a key component within any teaching
and learning model. In both the CB and the N-CB groups, students responded that they
had a role in the instructional process. The data for this theme can be found in Appendix
J. A summary of the data is found in Table 10.
Students in the N-CB group responded with a variety of basic comments such as
“to participate in class,” “to engage in activities,” “to ask questions,” and the like. These
responses were all somewhat vague, but did suggest that the learners felt that they had a
role within the instructional process. Students in the CB group also had some vague
responses such as “to complete the assignments and learn from them,” and “to do the
work required of us.” Data representing this theme both demonstrate student perceived
differences as well as demonstrate student perceive similarities. The data do confirm that
there are some subtle differences, as some students in the CB group noted that the student
has an active role in his learning, whereas no students in the N-CB group alluded to that.
However, the evidence shows that many students seem to understand that they had a
critical role within the teaching and learning process.
65
Table 10: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme IIa: Student Role in Instructional Process
Group Source Percentage
CB Reflection 2
47% (8/17)
CB Focus Group 2 17% (1/6)
N-CB Reflection 1
< 1% (1/22)
N-CB Focus Group 2 33% (2/6)
Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers
Students in both groups reported that they worked often with peers in small
groups. Students benefit immensely from working with peers in the learning process.
Both instructors were able to find ways to incorporate group work into their courses
regardless of whether or not the class was center-based or non center-based. Data for this
theme can be found in Appendix K.
There were, however, some examples of responses that indicate student perceived
differences in work with peers between the CB and N-CB groups. For example, one
student in the N-CB group noted that “she gives us mini assignments and then she’ll say
‘feel free to work in groups if you want.’” Another N-CB student noted that “we discuss
topics, then go off into groups, and actually do what we were talking about.” Both of
these responses indicate that the instructor led a conversation with students and then
required students to work in groups on follow up activities. On the other hand, some
66
students in the CB group reported on work with peers in a much more unstructured way.
One student said, “Even if it’s an activity you’re supposed to do by yourself, you can still
collaborate with your peers.” This comment suggested that work with peers in this setting
was always an option, but was not always directed by the instructor. Rather, students
utilized their peers when they felt it appropriate. It was one of the choices given to
students.
Table 11 presents the percentage of students who contributed to this theme.
Again, the evidence suggests that students in the CB group had more comments to report
regarding work with peers than did students in the N-CB group. Although students in the
N-CB group did report opportunities to work with peers, they did it less often, and they
cited it in different ways than did students in the CB group.
Table 11: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers
Group Source Percentage
CB Reflection 2
29% (5/17)
CB Reflection 1
12%
(2/17)
CB Focus Group 1 83% (5/6)
N-CB Focus Group 1 17% (1/6)
N-CB Reflection 1
18% (4/22)
N-CB Focus Group 2 < 1%
(1/17)
67
Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning
Within the theme of Roles of the Student, the concept of being responsible for
one’s own learning surfaced repeatedly in the CB group. Students in the N-CB group also
reported a bit of control over their own learning, but they did not use the same terms that
students in the CB group utilized. For example, terms like ‘own pace,’ ‘choice,’ and
‘power’ emerged multiple times throughout the study for the CB group. This was,
perhaps, the most glaring evidence in the Roles of Students category. Students in the CB
group reported that they were empowered and challenged by having choice within the
learning process. Students in the N-CB group did not comment on anything remotely
similar to the concepts of choice, power, or pace. Data for this theme can be found in
Appendix L, and Table 12 shows a summary of the percentage of students whose
comments represented this theme.
Table 12: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments to Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Work
Group Source Percentage
CB Reflection 2
41% (7/17)
CB Reflection 1 65% (11/17)
CB Focus Group 1 100% (6/6)
68
Theme III: Learning Styles and Preferred Instructional Strategies
During week eight of the study, students were asked to report on their own
learning styles. This question was asked specifically in Reflection 1. However, responses
from both groups that focused on learning preferences surfaced throughout the study. In
addition to acknowledging specific learning styles, many students referenced specific
learning activities that took place throughout the semester. This theme was divided into
two distinct categories: (a) learning style preference, and (b) specific strategies used in
class.
Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preference
The majority of the statements placed in this category came from Reflection 2,
which asked students to discuss the type of learner they were. Interestingly, students from
the N-CB group looked at the reflection questions literally and listed a variety of different
learning styles that one would expect to find on a learning style inventory (i.e., auditory,
visual, hands-on). Students from the CB group discussed more of the types of learning
they preferred within the center-based system in which they were working. This was
noteworthy, as it indicated that the students in the N-CB group saw themselves simply as
learners with different learning styles, whereas students in the CB group saw themselves
as learners within a particular environment, while still acknowledging their personal
preferences. Table 13 shows these differences. Interestingly, the initial responses from
students in the CB group that represent this theme were coded into theme IIa: Student
Role in the Instructional Process. After revisiting the data in an effort to clarify this
theme, these responses were coded into this category. This provides additional support to
69
the idea that these students saw themselves as learners in a holistic way, and not just
learners in one particular environment. Data for this theme can be found in Appendix M.
Regardless of how the students responded to the prompt, it was clear that within
each learning environment, there were a variety of learning styles preferred. Because
there are inevitably multiple learning styles in any given classroom, this piece of data is
especially important. This data set gives credence to the idea that center-based
environments may be a more appropriate way to meet the learning preferences of a
diverse group of learners, as it is possible to have a variety of different learning activities
occurring at one time, thus, giving students with a variety of learning styles an
opportunity to succeed.
Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class
In this theme, a key difference emerged. Students from the N-CB group reported a
large number of specific strategies used in the class and cited them in their discussion of
how they best learn. Data for this theme can be found in Appendix N. Table 14 shows
that 27% of N-CB students noted specific strategies in Reflection 1, and 50% of CB
students cited them during Focus Group 2. Instead of discussing their own personal
learning preferences, these students cited activities that they found to be enjoyable and/or
educational. Although this is not necessarily a bad thing, it does indicate that these
students saw themselves as learners in an environment that was controlled by the
instructor, because they attributed their learning to a teacher-directed activity.
On the other hand, students from the CB group rarely referenced specific learning
activities that occurred in the classroom. Table 14 shows that only 3 students made
reference to specific activities during focus group two, and none were cited in reflection
70
Table 13: Summary Student Comments for Theme IIIa: Learning Style
___________________________________
Non Center-Based Environment
___________________________________
Center-Based Environment
Learning Style Reported
Number of Responses
Hands – On 8
Group Work 8
Visual 7
Videos 2
Real Life Applications
5
Auditory 2
Lecture 1
Language Based Learning
1
Reflecting 1
Learning Style Reported
Number of Responses
Hands – On 3
Group Work 5
Being involved 2
Working in my own time
6
Having choices 6
Freedom of Expression
3
Social Interactions
3
one. Instead, they focused heavily on the second half of the Reflection 2 prompt: How is
this class helping you to learn in the way that is best for you? This is an important
difference because it reveals a particular mind set of the students in the CB group. The
responses that support this idea are found in the results from theme IIa: Student Role in
the Instructional Process. These students appeared to see themselves as a learner in a
larger context than just inside the classroom. Their comments alluded to the fact that they
recognize the roles of choice, power, pace, and social interactions as important
component of the learning process in any context.
71
Table 14: Percentage of Students Contributing Comments for Theme IIIb: Specific Instructional Strategy
Group Source Percentage of Individuals Contributing
N-CB Reflection 1
27% (6/22)
CB Focus Group 2 50% (3/6)
N-CB Focus Group 2 67% (4/6)
Summary
The themes that emerged suggest differences in perceptions between students
from the CB environment and the N-CB environment. Based on the findings, the
following differences were identified between groups and within themes:
• Role of the instructor in the instructional process
• Student work with peers
• Student responsibility for their own learning
• Ways in which students see themselves as learners
These differences suggest a variety of implications for both teaching and learning, as
there are multiple interpretations and conclusions that can be drawn from each difference.
Further, these differences provide evidence that center-based environments provided
more opportunities for developing behavioral autonomy, value autonomy, and intrinsic
motivation than non center-based environments.
72
Chapter Five: Discussion
Do teacher education candidates who are in a center-based instructional
environment perceive differences in the environment compared to teacher education
candidates in a non center-based instructional environment? The answer is yes. The data
show that there are distinct differences in perceptions between the students in the center-
based environment and the students in the non center-based environment. These
perceived differences about both teaching and learning have the potential to shed some
light on the classic question in education: What is the best environment for teaching and
learning? Specifically, the data have implications for how college instructors design
learning environments, utilize peers in the learning process, develop students’ autonomy,
and students’ intrinsic motivation.
Design of Learning Environments
Before engaging in any teaching activity, instructors must fully understand the
context of their teaching: students’ characteristics, course goals, environment, and
curriculum (Reigeluth, 1999). When this is accomplished, instructors can design a
teaching environment that will facilitate learning in students.
Instructors must consider individual student preferences when planning lessons in
order to ensure that each student has an opportunity to learn the course content. Students’
learning styles are varied and complex. Creating an environment where students can have
their learning styles met in the context of a lesson is challenging at best. However, it is
73
paramount that instructors strive to design teaching environments where students’
cognitive, social, and emotional preferred styles are considered. If not, there would
certainly be students who would have less of an opportunity to learn. The data suggest
that students in the CB environment were given more opportunities to work within their
own zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Because of the use of words like
choice and pace, it is reasonable to suggest that these students were able to work at levels
appropriate for their own learning. Because a variety of activities were available to
students and because the activities often included options (hence, the word choice used
often by CB students), the likelihood that students were able to work within their own
zones of proximal development was increased. This is critical, as students who find a task
to be within their own zone of proximal development are more likely to learn the
information being presented (Smith & Sela, 2005; Vygotsky, 1933/1967, Wilson, 2005).
In addition to increasing the likelihood that learning occurs, working within a
zone of proximal development also increases the likelihood that students will develop
autonomous behaviors. Autonomy develops by being given opportunities to engage in
autonomy-building activities (Ford, 1987; Killen & Nucci, 1995). When instructors tell
students what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, it is not as necessary for students to
be autonomous in their behaviors in order to be successful. Although students learn to
meet deadlines and satisfy given requirements, they do not learn how to self-regulate and
make decisions based on their own beliefs.
However, when instructors allow students flexibility in assignments and give
them choices about how to engage in learning, students have an opportunity to become
more autonomous. They are required to make their own decisions and to think ahead
74
about what is needed, based on their own perceptions. This is not to say that the instructor
should not be a part of that process, but the instructor should take a guiding role in
helping the students determine how best to learn the course content. Students with high
levels of autonomy are more able to make important decisions about their own learning,
and, more importantly, about the teaching and learning in the classrooms they will
someday have.
Peers in the Learning Process
Designing instructional environments where students have opportunities to work
with peers may seem like an easy task. Group discussions, group projects, and group
presentations are quite common. However, this study identified students’ perceived
differences between using peers as part of the teaching methodology, and using peers as
part of the learning that occurs. This distinction is important, as understanding the
differences between teaching and learning is paramount in the educational process. Using
peers as part of the teaching occurs often -- instructors plan for peer work and tell
students when and how to work together to meet an instructional objective. This is
indicative of a teacher directed environment where the teacher is making the majority of
the decisions about how learning takes place.
On the other hand, when instructors view peer work as part of the learning
process, the idea takes on a new dimension. Peer work as a vehicle for learning is much
different from peer work as a vehicle for instruction. Students who rely on each other to
help them understand and learn course concepts do so at their own discretion. Instead of
having an instructor dictate how and when peer work should occur, students intent on
learning utilize peers how and when they choose -- as part of their own learning process.
75
Using peers in this way encourages the development of autonomy in the classroom
because is provides students the opportunity to decide for themselves if assistance is
needed and, if assistance is needed, to choose the assistance they deem most appropriate.
As noted by Leroy, Bressoux, et al. (2007), teachers who encourage autonomy in the
classroom have students who demonstrate high levels of intrinsic motivation, which, in
turn, results in students who have high levels of achievement (Eccles, Wigfield et al.,
1998; Heckhausen, 1997; Pekrun, 1993).
The data support the idea that the CB instructor encouraged autonomy by how she
designed the use of peers in the learning process (Chiou, 2008). The CB environment
provided students with multiple opportunities to make decisions about their assignments,
as exemplified by students in the CB environment referring to this often by using the
term choice in their responses. This suggests that these students saw choice in learning as
important, which also suggests there were moving toward making autonomous decisions.
CB students also used the word pace in their responses, which suggests that the
opportunity to work at their own pace, or speed, was important to them. The emphasis on
choice and pace suggests that autonomy in learning was important to them. Although N-
CB students may have, in fact, been given opportunities be autonomous, they did not
reference those opportunities in their reflections or focus group conversations.
The data also support the idea that students in the CB environment were given
different opportunities to develop autonomy than students in the N-CB environment.
There were references to how students worked with peers from students in both
environments. In fact, students in the CB environment noted that working with peers
comprised the majority of their time in learning. However, students in the N-CB
76
environment discussed the work they did with peers in the context of the larger class
structure, and that their work with peers was dictated or directed by the instructor. This
difference is important to note, as there are a number of ways to utilize peers in the
learning process. In this study, each instructor used them in different ways, and this
difference was noted by the students.
Development of Autonomy
When looking at the role of the instructor in the N-CB environment, students
continually noted that the instructor acted as a provider of knowledge. Although they did
report that the instructor often connected the information to personal stories or events,
they still reported often that the instructor was the one who gave information.
On the other hand, students in the CB environment reported that the instructor
took on a different set of roles. These students saw the instructor as one who set-up the
learning environment so that students could engage in activities where they would both
learn the material, and utilize it for other purposes. This exemplifies the importance of
instruction that is designed with an understanding of goals, performances, and assessment
(Reigeluth, 1999). The instructor in the center-based environment provided an
environment where students could do all of these at any given time during the teaching
and learning process.
Students in the CB environment continually referred to feeling empowered by the
ability to work at their own pace and have some choices within their work, whereas those
in the N-CB environment did not reference this phenomenon at all. When students are
able to have some flexibility in how and when to learn, they are able to recognize that
77
they can discover new knowledge when the environment and materials provided to them
are appropriate (Brown & Campione, 1996; Jonassen, 1999; Perkins & Unger, 1994).
Evidence of this became clear when students made comments such as “we were able to
figure it out on our own,” or “she didn’t really tell us, she just guided us.” Both of these
quotes from CB students illustrate the concept of students creating knowledge and
beginning to internalize that knowledge. This exemplifies empowerment as students who
are in charge of their own learning feel an internal locus of control. This perceived
internal control results in achievement and a feeling of self-satisfaction (Wigfield &
Eccles, 1992).
The data also support the idea that the CB students perceived more opportunities
to develop self-regulatory behaviors than did N-CB students. Jonassen’s (1999)
constructivist theory supports the idea that students’ ability to self-regulate is an
important part of the teaching-learning process. According to Jonassen, in order to be
successful in a constructivist learning environment, students need to have some initial
ability to self-regulate (Jonassen, 1999). CB students appeared to be able to do this easily,
as is evidenced by their references to the teacher as a resource person. In comparison, N-
CB students continued to reference the teacher as the head of the class, and sought
guidance from her throughout the semester. This clearly suggests that CB students
perceived that they were given more opportunities to self-regulate, providing further
support for the suggestion that CB students displayed more autonomy than N-CB
students did.
78
Development of Intrinsic Motivation
Students who attribute their success to controllable characteristics, and who adopt
mastery goals as opposed to performance goals, are more likely to succeed in the
classroom. (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr & Midgley, 1991;Weiner,
1986; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Responses from CB students suggest that these students
adopted an internal locus of control. Although N-CB students did not have similar
responses, this does necessarily mean that the N-CB students did not adopt an internal
locus of control. It simply means that this idea did not surface in their reflections or focus
group conversations. Because CB students referenced choice and power in their
responses, it is reasonable to assume that their locus of control was internal. Their
successes and/or failures could be attributed to controllable characteristics such as effort,
which was within their control. Further, CB students’ use of the terms power and choice
suggest that they viewed their control of their successes and/or failures to be stable, or
based on their ability, not on luck. Again, this type of motivation is associated with high
levels of success (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
CB student responses also suggested that they adopted mastery learning goals.
They spoke often about the instructor’s role as a guide and of the instructor helping them.
These types of responses suggest that they recognized their own role in the teaching-
learning process and embraced their own goals for learning. Because mastery goals are
associated with higher levels of learning than performance goals (Pintrich, 2000), it is
important to note that the CB students alluded to this idea often. Because of this, it is
reasonable to suggest that CB students perceived more opportunities to be successful, as
they seemed to adopt a mastery orientation to learning.
79
On the other hand, N-CB students did not use the same terms when describing the
instructor’s roles. Instead, they talked about more teacher-directed instruction, and gave
more examples of how the teacher was in charge of the learning environment. Although
their responses did not explicitly state the adoption of performance goals, it would be
reasonable to assume that if the teacher was requiring activities to be done, and if the
teacher was in charge of the learning, then the students may have adopted performance
goals as opposed to mastery goals. It follows, then, that these students may not have had
the same opportunities to be successful, as performance goals are not associated with
success, as are mastery goals (Pintrich, 2000).
Limitations
Although the data are clearly suggestive of the more opportunities for CB students
to become autonomous and internally motivated, there are some issues that temper the
results and interpretation of the data..Those issues are the researcher as a participant,
small sample size, use of a convenience sample, and the demographics of the instructors
and students.
Researcher as Participant
The researcher was a participant, in that she was the instructor of the students in
the N-CB environment. Although every effort was made to keep biases out of the data, it
is likely that because of the researcher’s involvement, some of the interpretations may
have been skewed by the researcher’s perceptions. For example, because the instructor
had already taught in a CB environment, her enthusiasm for this instructional
environment posed a potential bias in the interpretation of the data and the development
of focus group questions.
80
Sample Limitations
Sample size was another limiting factor. Because of the small number of
participants, the results are not necessarily generalizable to the general population of
undergraduate teacher education candidates.
The use of a convenience sample was also a limiting factor. The samples were
used because the students were enrolled in the course in which the center-based
environment was being investigated. For this reason, the students were involved in the
study not by choice, but because they were enrolled in the course. Additionally, students
were not assigned randomly to either environment. Students did, of course, have the
option not to participate, but the study was designed around the course not the students,
and the students were required to take the course.
Further limitations concerning the sample are derived from the fact that the
students in each group had been together for one year prior to the study. Two semesters
prior to the study, students had self-selected an instructor to “follow” them through the
remainder of their programs. The reasons for selecting one instructor rather than the other
are not known, but they could have affected the data. For example, if students chose one
instructor based on rumors that she was utilizing a center-based instructional strategy,
then they might have had preconceived notions about the course, and may have expected
to experience a CB environment. If they discovered that they would actually be in a
N-CB environment, that difference in their expectations could have the potential to affect
the data.
As mentioned previously, the students in each group were part of a cohort system
and had been together as a group for one year prior to the study. Students had
81
opportunities to build personal and professional relationships with each other and the
instructor before the study began. This could have affected their perceptions, as students
who have bonded as a group may be more likely to share similar thoughts and ideas, thus
resulting in data that were homogeneous from each group (Gabelnick, MacGregor,
Matthews, & Smith, 1990). However, the data about learning communities suggests that
students who have formed bonds with each other are more comfortable in sharing
multiple points of view manageable (Hill, 1982; Gabelnick, MacGregor, et al., 1990;
Smith & Hunter, 1988). Looking at this limitation through this multiple viewpoints
perspective provides evidence that both the CB and N-CB students may have actually
shared larger variety of responses to reflective prompts and/or focus group conversations.
Demographics
In looking at students’ demographic data, it is clear that the majority were white
females of similar ages. Further, both instructors were white females. This presents a
limitation, as differing cultural views did not surface. It may be that students from
differing cultures might not perceive the same types of differences in the two groups, and
they may have different reactions to the CB or N-CB environments than the white
females in the present study. Because of the lack of diversity in age, gender, and
ethnicity, it is necessary to explore this environment in other settings that include a more
diverse population before it can be assumed that the center-based environment would
have the same effect on others.
82
Suggestions for Further Research
Because students did perceive differences in teaching and learning in center-based
environments compared to teaching and learning in N-CB environments, there are
additional questions that can be raised:
• Can this strategy be altered to yield similar results in other methods courses?
(See Cochran-Smith’s first link, p. 7)
The data clearly suggest that students did perceive differences in the two environments.
Although those differences are true for this study, it is necessary if to determine if
similar results can be obtained when comparing similar environments in other methods
courses. Optimally, this study should be replicated in order to ensure that the results are
reliable. If this is done, and if and similar results are obtained, the results will become
more generalizable to teacher education.
• Are students who experience a CB instructional environment more likely to
implement a similar strategy in their own early childhood classrooms?
(See Cochran-Smith’s second link, p. 7)
If we determine, as was done in this study, that students perceive differences between CB
and N-CB environments, then the next question is whether students in the CB
environment will implement a similar strategy in their own P-12 classrooms. Will CB
students be more likely to use CB environments in their own classrooms than N-CB
students? That question must be addressed before making the leap to Cochran-Smith’s
third link.
• Do teacher education students who experienced this strategy have young children
in their classrooms that show academic differences in achievement compared to
83
the young children whose teachers did not experience the center-based
environment in their teacher education programs? (See Cochran-Smith’s third
link, p. 7)
The ultimate question has to do with P-12 student learning. If, as determined here, there
are differences in perceptions between students in the CB environment and the N-CB
environment, and if we can document which group of students is more likely to use CB
environments in their own P-12 classrooms, then we can begin to determine how P-12
student learning is affected by this cycle.
Summary
There were definite differences in perceptions between the students who learned
in a CB instructional environment and those who learned in a N-CB instructional
environment. Compared to N-CB students, CB students perceived that they were given
more and different opportunities to develop autonomy and to adopt motivation
orientations that are associated with achievement. In looking at Figure 1, it appears as if
the CB students developed a differing set of presage variables than N-CB students. That
is, the knowledge, skills, motivation, and degree of autonomy that the CB students
perceived appear to be inherently different from those of the N-CB students. Figure 1
suggests that these presage variables have a direct impact on what occurs in the teaching-
learning process. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that students who participated in
the CB environment will likely have a different set of presage variables when they are in
their own classrooms compared to N-CB students. Whether those differences are good or
bad remains to be seen. However, what we know is that students who participate in a CB
environment perceive differences in their development of autonomy and motivation that
84
N-CB students did not perceive. We also know that the motivation and autonomy
displayed by CB students are desirable, according to current research. Thus, it is
reasonable to suggest that CB students are more likely to be successful in the teacher
education classroom than N-CB students are. It follows, then, that the CB students may
be more likely to use a similar strategy to encourage appropriate motivation and
autonomy in P-12 students. This is the key question (Cochran-Smith’s third link), and
one that should be the focus of future research studies.
85
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning
strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and
communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model
based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 292-302.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64, 359-372.
Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin
(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213-262). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review 84,119-215.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-14.
Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
86
Berndt, T., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school.
Child Development, 66, 1312-1329.
Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bottini, M., & Grossman, S. (2005). Childhood education. Annual Theme, 81, 274-277.
Britton, A. D., & Pellegrini, B. K. (Eds.). (1990). Narrative thought and narrative
language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
Brown, A. L.,& Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of learning
environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R.
Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-
325), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, J. C. (2001). Constructivist teaching strategies: Projects in teacher education.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Brownlee, J. (2004). Teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs. Research in
Education, 72, 1-17.
Bruner, J. (1965). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1999). Development and adaptations of the seven
principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 80, 75-82.
Chiou, W. (2008). College students’ role models, learning style preferences, and
academic achievement in collaborative teaching: Absolute versus relativistic.
Adolescence, 43, 129-142.
87
Clark, C. M., & Rust, F. (2006). Learning-centered assessment in teacher education.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 73-81.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Studying teacher education: What we know and need to
know. Journal Of Teacher Education, 56, 301-306.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2000). Researching teaching: Exploring teacher
development through reflective inquiry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and
school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Cruickshank, D. R., & Applegate, J. H. (1981). International inequality, competing
approaches. New York : St. Martin's Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing
world: Report of the Committee on Teacher Education of the National Academy
of Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. W. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Lexington, MA: Heath. (Original work published in 1910).
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of
education. New York: Macmillan.
88
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Troy, MO: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
DiGiorgio, A. (2004). Learning centers provide global access to effective teaching tools.
THE Journal, 31 (10), 10-11.
Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L., (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality
development (5th ed., pp. 1017-1095). New York: John Wiley.
Elkind, D. (1982). The hurried child. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Elliott, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
Fanhangel, J. (2004). Capturing dissonance in university teacher education environments.
Studies in Higher Education, 29, 575-592.
Farrell, T. S. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflective breaks for busy teachers.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
89
Feather, N. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role personal
values within an expectancy-value framework. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 381-391.
Ford, M. 91987). Processes contributing to adolescent social competence. In M. Ford
and D. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing living systems. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. Social Science
Journal, 28, 175-187.
Fay, C. (1987). Research-based decisions. New York: Random House.
Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R. S., & Smith, B. L. (1990). Learning
Communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. In
R. E. Young (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning (number 41). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gagné, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69, 355-365.
Gardner, H. (2000). The disciplined mind. New York: Penguin.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goleman, D. (1966). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.
Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing learning approaches and personal teaching
efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72, 483-497.
90
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement,
ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 187-194.
Grainger, T., & Barnes, J. (2004). A creative cocktail: Creative teaching in initial teacher
education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30, 243-253.
Grant, C., & Secada, W. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W. R. Houston, M.
Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.
403-422). New York: Macmillan.
Gredler, M. E. (2001). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice. Columbus, OH:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Greenman, J. (1998). Caring spaces, learning places: Environments that work. Redman,
WA: Exchange Press.
Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a
fundamental dialectic. American Psychologist, 49, 104-111.
Handal, G., & Lauvas, P. (1987). Promoting reflecting teaching. Milton Keynes, UK:
Open University Press.
Hayes, M. T. (2002). Assessment of a field-based teacher education program:
Implications for practice. Education, 122, 700-705.
Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs: A cognitive model.
Motivation and Emotion, 1, 283-329.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical
issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.
Hill, P. J. (1982). Communities of learners: Curriculum as the infrastructure of
91
academic communities. In J W. Hall (Ed.), In opposition to core curriculum:
Alternative models for undergraduate education (pp. 107-134). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Holmes, G. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing,
MI: The Holmes Group.
Huang, G. (2006). Informal forum: Fostering active learning in a teacher preparation
program. Education, 27, 31-38.
Hubbard, B. (2002). Centres [sic] to be set up to make science exciting. Education, 84,
3-5.
Janesick, V. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks : Sage
Publications.
Jalongo, M. (2007). Beyond benchmarks and scores: Reasserting the role of motivation
and interest in children's academic achievement. Childhood Education,
International Focus Issue, 83, 395-407.
Jay, J. K. (2003). Quality teaching : Reflection as the heart of practice. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective
practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85.
Jinsong, Z., & Walls, R. T. (2006). Instructors’ self-perceived pedagogical principle
implementation in the online environment. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 7, 413-426.
92
Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional
theory (pp. 215-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kahn, R., & Cannell, C. F. (1957). The dynamics of interviewing. New York: John Wiley.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 429-442.
Kelsey, J. G. (1993). Learning from teaching: Problems, problem-formulation and the
enhancement of problem-solving capability. In P. Hallinger, K. A. Leithwood, &
J. Murphy (Eds.), A cognitive perspective on educational administration (pp. 231-
252). New York: Teachers College Press.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong,
Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kent, A. (2005). Acknowledging the need facing teacher preparation programs:
Responding to make a difference. Education, 125, 343-348.
Killen, M., & Nucci, L. (1995). Morality, autonomy, and social conflict. In M. Killen &
D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: A developmental perspective (pp. 52-
86). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
King-Sears, M. E. (2007). Designing and delivering learning center instruction.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 42, 137-147.
King, P. M., & Kitchner, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
93
Kinlaw, C. R., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2007). Children’s theories of intelligence: Beliefs,
goals, and motivation in the elementary years. Journal of General Psychology,
134, 295-311.
Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive development
approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Lamborn, S., Fischer, K., & Pipp, S. (1994). Constructive criticism and social lies: A
developmental sequence for understanding honesty and kindness in social
interactions. Developmental Psychology, 30, 495-508.
Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective
teacher. Reflective Practice, 1, 293-307.
Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’
implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy
supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 529-545.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Livingston, D. (2003, November). Reclaiming early childhood teacher education: A
critical constructivist approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators, Savannah, GA.
Maehr M., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school wide
approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-437.
94
Martin, J. (1993). Episodic memory: A neglected phenomenon in the psychology of
education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 169-183.
Maxwell, L. E. (2000). A safe and welcoming school: What students, teachers, and
parents think. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17, 271-282.
McClure, J. & Spector, L. (2005). Plus/minus grading and motivation: An empirical
study of student choice and performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 30, 571-579.
McTaggart, R. (1991). Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education
Quarterly, 4, 168-187.
Merriam, B. (1998). To find a voice: Art therapy in a women’s prison. Women &
Therapy, 21, 157-172.
Morey, A. I., Bezuk, N. (1997). Preservice teacher preparation in the United States.
Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 4-24.
Movitz, A. P., & Holmes, K. P. (2007). How learning centers evolved in a secondary
student-centered classroom. English Journal, 96, 68-73.
National Association for the Education of Young Children, (1996). Guidelines for
preparation of early childhood professionals. Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s Future. New York, NY: Teachers College,
Columbia University.
NCATE. (2007). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation
institutions. Retrieved from: http://ncate.org/public/standards.asp
95
National Research Council, (2005). Teacher preparation programs in the United States.
Retrieved January 28, 2007, from
http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/5c50571a75df494485256a95007a091e/49ecf395d
0deaba85257098004884c6?OpenDocument
Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory
(pp. 241-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ng, E., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Three levels of goal orientation in learning. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 3/4, 243-273.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
Noyes, A. (2008). Choosing teachers: Exploring agency and structure in the distribution
of newly qualified teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education (24), 674-683.
Null, J. W., & Bohan, C. (2005). Teacher education curriculum. Curriculum & Teaching
Dialogue, 7(1/2).
Olson, J.K. (1982). Innovation in the science curriculum. New York: Nichols Publishing.
Olson, J., Dorsey, L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1988). Instructional theory for mid-level
strategies. Unpublished manuscript.
Osterman, K. P., & Kottkamp, R. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Improving
schooling through professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Outlaw, F., Clement, M., & Outlaw, M. (2007). Then and now: Developing highly
qualified teachers. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 73(4), 26-39.
96
Overbaugh, R.C., & ShinYi, L. (2006). Student characteristics, sense of community, and
cognitive achievement in web-based and lab-based learning environments.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 205-223.
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents' academic motivation: A longitudinal
expectancy-value approach. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in
motivation and achievement: Motivation in adolescence (Vol. 8, pp. 139-189).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Perin, D. (2004). Remediation beyond developmental education: The use of learning
assistance centers to increase academic preparedness in community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 28, 559-582.
Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1994). A new look in representations for mathematics and
science learning. Instructional Science, 22, 1-37.
Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory
(pp. 91-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of
children psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 703-732). New York: John Wiley.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in
learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
97
Pugh, K. (2002). Teaching for transformative experiences in science: An investigation of
the effectiveness of two instructional elements. Teachers College Record 104,
1101-1137.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609-620.
Ruban, L., & Reis, S. M. (2006). Patterns of self-regulatory strategy use among low-
achieving and high-achieving university students. Roeper Review, 28, 148-156.
Rudy, D., Sheldon, K. M., Awong, T., & Tan, H. H. (2007). Autonomy, culture, and
well-being: The benefits of inclusive autonomy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 983-1007.
Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to postmodern practices
in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 34-51.
Schweinle, A., Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2006). Striking the right balance: Students’
motivation and affect in elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational
Research, 99, 271-293.
Self-Brown, S. R., & Mathews, S. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student
achievement goal orientation. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 106-111.
Shaw, D. M., & Reeve, J. M. (1978). Design education for the middle years: A teacher’s
guide. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
98
Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A
contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (pp. 1-36). New York: Macmillan.
Siberry, L., & Kearns, H. (2005). An intercultural approach to challenging issues in
Northern Ireland teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28,
259-266.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.
Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professional experiences: Incorporating pre-service
teachers as ‘communities of practice’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 77.
Skinner, B. F. (1966). Contingencies of reinforcement in the design of a culture.
Behavioral Science, 11, 159-166.
Smith, D. R., & Ayers, D. F. (2006). Culturally responsive pedagogy and online learning:
Implications for the globalized community college. Community College Journal
of Research & Practice, 30, 401-415.
Smith, B. L., & Hunter, M. R. (1988). Learning communities: A paradigm for
educational revitalization. Community College Review, 15, 45-51.
Smith, K., & Sela, O. (2005). Action research as a bridge between preservice teacher
education and inservice professional development for students and teacher
educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 293-310.
Snauwaert, D. (1992). Reclaiming the lost treasure: Deliberation and strong democratic
education. Educational Theory, 42, 351-367.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
99
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Stanford, P., & Reeves, S. (2007). Access, consider, teach: ACT in your classroom.
Clearing House, 80, 133-136.
Starnes, L., & Bohach, B. (1995, November). Jumping off the edge: Learner centered
early childhood teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators. Washington,
DC.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S.
Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.
255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stringer, E. (2004). Action research in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Swick, K. J. (2001). Nurturing decency through caring and serving during the early
childhood years. Early Childhood Education Journal (29), 131-137.
Tegano, D. (1996). Designing classroom spaces: Making the most of time. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 23, 135-144.
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Apppleton-
Century-Crofts.
Ullah, H., & Wilson, M. A. (2007). Students’ academic success and its association to
student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers.
College Student Journal, 41, 1192-1202.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the
United States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 67-68.
100
van Grinsven, L., & Tillema, H. (2006). Learning opportunities to support student self-
regulation: comparing different instructional formats. Educational Research, 48,
77-91.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.
Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 36, 415-434.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child.
Soviet Psychology. 5(3), 6-18.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). The development of higher psychological functions. Soviet
Psychology, 16, 60-73. (Original work published in 1929).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watson, J. B. (1925). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (1994). Ability versus effort revisited: The moral determinates of achievement
evaluation and achievement as a moral system. Educational Psychologist, 29,
163-172.
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. Ellis (Ed.), A
source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71-88). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Whipp, J., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study.
Educational Technology Research & Development 52, 5-22.
101
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A
developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.
Wilson, E. (2005). Powerful pedagogical strategies in initial teacher education. Teachers
and Teaching, 11, 359-378.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information
processing. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning
and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 153-189).
Winsor, P, J., Butt, R. L., & Reeves, H. (1999). Portraying professional development in
preservice teacher education: Can portfolios do the job? Teachers & Teaching (5),
9-32.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghereng., S., & Montie, J. (2001). Reflective practice to
improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
102
Appendix A
Account of Personal Experiences with Center-Based Environments
103
A colleague of mine had used the center-based model in her methods class a bit and
shared it with me. As I thought about it, I decided to try it in my own methods course
and build upon what my colleague had already tried. I spoke with two other colleagues
who would be teaching the same methods course in that semester and they seemed
excited to try it as well.
I decided to divide the class into modules, based on the readings that were assigned
throughout the semester. I also decided that there would be six centers: red, green,
yellow, orange, blue, and purple. I thought having them color-coded would make it
easier to plan, implement, and assess. Based on my previous experience with students of
all ages, I fully realized the importance of having an organizational strategy for any
approach.
My colleagues and I decided to meet regularly to plan the centers. We did not plan
very far in advance, as this was a new venture and we needed to leave the future open to
change and modification. We planned approximately two weeks for each module and
tried to meet the learning preferences of the students. Our initial plan was to have four
modules, each lasting two weeks. We would use all six color-coded centers during each
module.
As we discussed the activities for the modules, it became clear that there would
have to be some time set aside for lecture or explanation of concepts and theories, as
well as large group time for debriefing and sharing the products of the learning during
centers. Although we recognized the importance of center-based learning, we also
acknowledged that learning occurs in all sorts of ways for all sorts of learners. Our
classes met on Mondays from 9-12 and on Fridays from 9-11. The original plan for each
module looked like this:
Monday lecture (large group)
Friday centers
Monday centers
Friday debrief (large group)
We began to plan with this model in mind.
104
Thinking about the individual centers, we decided that it might be helpful to make
each colored center representative of a major theme throughout the entire course, as
using colors to organize represents one way that students create graphic organizers of
the information being learned. There are some threads of early childhood education that
cut across all readings, all ideas, and that must be revisited often. We decided that the
themes for each colored center would be:
Red planning
Green child development
Orange assessment
Yellow theory into practice
Blue DAP
Purple open to include any topic
After the themes were determined, we looked at the readings that had been
previously decided for the course. We began to group the readings into four groups,
creating the four modules that we planned to do. This was important, as although we
were altering the instructional strategies, we were also still accountable for the course
content and teaching and learning standards connected with the course.
Looking at the readings, and looking at the chosen themes for each center, we
planned activities for each center for the first module. We brainstormed ideas and
decided upon one activity for each center. As we planned, we
• made sure to include small group activities as well as individual activities, as a
way to accommodate all types of learners
• purposefully planned the incorporation of technology into each module, which
was a main focus of the department at the time
• chose at least one activity that needed to be completed within the context of
the field placement, in an effort to connect theory to practice
• gave enough direction to get students going, while leaving the activities open
ended enough to encourage critical thinking and problem solving
105
As I began the first module, I spent a lot of time preparing the actual center boards:
large tri-fold boards decorated with borders to coincide with the color assigned to each
center. I recall being very concerned with how it looked -- making sure that there were
no questions about what to do, how to do it, and what timeline was expected. I also
remember spending a lot of time explaining the center process to students.
Watching the students during their first center encounter was interesting. I
remember that most wanted to start at the “beginning” and wanted to know which one to
do first. Of course, there was no required starting point -- the only requirement was that
they completed all of the center work by the second Friday. This seemed to be a hard
concept for them to grasp. I remember one student asking how long she should spend on
the orange center. I responded, “as long as it takes for you to understand the material.”
The look on her face! I believe she really wanted a definitive time frame…because that
was what she was used to. It was not long before I found everyone busy at work.
During the first module, I spent a lot of time wandering around the classroom,
checking on groups as they worked. I joined conversations, answered questions, and
helped to guide learning in many ways. I offered suggestions and ideas, and helped
students to put their thoughts into words and/or pictures, where appropriate. By module
two, I was able to help a bit, and to grade lesson plans during center time, making
myself available when needed, but also performing another important task in my job as
instructor. The most exciting part of module one for me was the Friday debriefing
session. Seeing the work that students had done and listening to them share their new
ideas was very rewarding. As I listened and discussed with the large group, I was able to
see how all of the ‘pieces’ fit together and help students look at each activity in light of
the larger picture. The conversations were powerful and I believe (although I have no
tangible evidence) that students were already putting it all together and building a
deeper knowledge than I had witnessed in prior semesters of teaching this course. As I
reflect about this process, it seems that it is a good way to foster both whole to part
learning and part to whole learning.
My colleagues and I had lunch after that first module, and we talked, and talked,
and talked about the powerful nature of the learning we witnessed. It propelled us into
planning for module two. I have never been so excited about planning activities for pre-
106
service students! Something about the experience of module one, coupled with the
energy that my colleagues brought to the table made me so ready to keep planning!
One thing we added after module one was a recording sheet. During each module,
students would record what they did for each center, noting what they learned. This
served as a reflective piece for students as well as a record keeping method for me. It
was tedious, but I knew it was important. I remember feeling a bit uneasy about it, but
passing it out anyway, because of the need for accountability.
Somewhere in the midst of module two, the three instructors all agreed that two
weeks was not necessarily enough time to complete all assignments. Some modules may
take more time, some less. Given the vacation days and the chosen center activities, we
decided to re-design modules three and four into one module, leaving us with only three
modules. This made things a little less hectic, and the students seemed to agree that
eliminating the stringent time restrictions made things less stressful. This provided
additional evidence that planning ahead for the semester is not fruitful. The needs of
both students and instructors change often, which means instruction must change as
well.
As the planning and implementing continued, the enthusiasm continued to grow as
well. My colleagues and I met weekly to discuss progress, ideas, and to plan. Each time
our stories and experiences pushed us to keep going. Collectively, we all agreed that this
was the type of learning we had been trying to inspire for a long time. We were
definitely seeing the difference between teacher-centered and student-centered learning.
As I reflect upon it, it is interesting that I always used this approach with the children I
taught in grades K-2. It was just how I did things. I never, ever considered another way
– and it worked. But, when I came to the university setting, and in my quest to do things
the way the department desired, I somehow lost sight of that strategy and fell into more
directive strategies. Although I never lectured exclusively, I did not really cause
students to engage in student-centered learning. I was always telling and explaining
what to do…instead of making students figure things out for themselves.
Planning for centers the next semester took on a completely new form. I had the
centers and the ideas that I had used the previous semester. However, I now had two
new partners and was armed with new ideas. Two new colleagues (including the
107
instructor who inspired me initially to do this) and I spoke about how we would use
centers for our methods courses. I shared what had transpired the previous semester.
One colleague had some good insight into some changes and the other colleague, who
had never implemented centers before, had many questions.
One thing that I really wanted to change was the accountability piece. A colleague
offered some great insight about learning for the sake of learning, and whether or not
accountability was necessary. We decided that more importantly, reflection was
necessary. We changed the recording sheet to include a reflection about the module.
This proved to be very useful for students and for me. Rather than marking off who did
what, these reflections allowed me to listen to students reflect on their own learning and
share some of their thoughts and ideas about the activities.
Another change that I made that semester was to eliminate a set finish day on the
centers. For each module, I began by lecturing. After that, I sent students out to centers,
telling them that I would monitor them and let them know which day would be the last. I
learned that I could not predict the amount of time that each module would take…that it
would take different amounts of time during any given semester with any number of
students. Theoretically, I know that learning cannot have a time cap. Practically, I tried
to cap it any way. I learned that it didn’t work! As it turned out, each module did end up
taking between 2 to 2 ½ weeks. Because of this, planning each consecutive module was
not as scheduled either. I found my own calendar to be less structured as I waited to
ensure that students were learning. At first, students did not welcome this uncertainty.
However, as time continued and they began to trust both the system and me, they
accepted some ambiguity and recognized it as part of the process.
Because all of the center activities from the previous semester had been saved, and
because my two new colleagues had new and different ideas for activities, we began to
develop a ‘bank’ of center activities for each colored center. By the end of the semester,
I found myself looking through this collection of activities to find ones that were a)
appropriate for the readings assigned and b) appropriate for my individual students.
Instead of all doing the same things, we began to recognize that each group had its own
needs, and that each group had to be planned for individually. Although it took away
108
from the collaboration a bit, it did allow me to plan activities that would ultimately be
more effective for my students.”
109
Appendix B
Course Syllabus
110
THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO
College of Education
Department of Early Childhood, Special, and Physical Education
A. Course Title Effective Teaching Practices: Pre-K to 3rd Grade B. Course Alpha & Number CIEC 4/5070 C. Semester Credit Hours 5 credit hours
D. Instructor Name
Instructor Office Location, Telephone(s), e-mail Address, FAX Instructor Office Hours
Amy Allen Visiting Faculty SM 3300 Office: 419-530-4046 Fax: 419-530-7261 [email protected]
E. Catalog Description This course is designed to apply characteristics of best practice to curriculum development and implementation with adherence to the national and state curriculum standards as they apply to children, age 3 to 8, with diverse educational needs. Undergraduate pre-requisites: Admission to professional standing, TSOC 3000, CIEC 3350, CIEC 3430, CIEC 3390, CI 4510, CI 3430, CI 3460. Co-requisite: SPED 4080, CIEC 4490, CIEC 4480.
F. This course will focus on the following Conceptual Framework Themes
Pedagogical content knowledge, Reflection, Self-assessment, Professional practice, Diversity, Student learning.
G. This course will focus on the following Ohio Performance-Based Teacher
111
Licensure Standards: (List standard(s) and specific indicators) 1. Subject Matter: The teacher has a thorough understanding and knowledge of
subject matter and uses such knowledge to create effective learning experiences for students.
1K1 The teacher understands major concepts, assumptions, debates, processes of inquiry, and ways of knowing that are central to the discipline(s) s/eh teaches.
2. Student Learning: The teacher understands how students learn and develop,
and creates opportunities for each student’s academic development. 2K2 The teacher understands that students’ physical, social, emotional, moral and
cognitive development influence learning and knows how to address these factors when making instructional decisions.
4. Planning Instruction: The teacher plans instruction based on knowledge of
subject matter of students, and of curriculum goals and models. 4K1 The teacher understands learning theory, subject matter, curriculum
development and student development and knows how to use this knowledge in planning instruction to meet curriculum goals.
5. Instructional Strategies: The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies
that encourage each student to develop critical-thinking and problem-solving skills.
5K2 The teacher understands principles and techniques, along with advantages and limitations, associated with various instructional strategies (e.g. cooperative learning, direct instruction, discovery learning, whole group discussion, independent study, interdisciplinary instruction).
6. Learning Environment: The teacher creates a learning environment that encourage active learning and peer interaction.
6K4 The teacher understands the principles of effective classroom management and can use a range of strategies to promote positive relationships, cooperation, and purposeful learning in the classroom.
8. Assessment: The teacher effectively uses formal and informal assessment
strategies to evaluate student progress. 8D1 The teacher values ongoing assessment as essential to the instructional process
and recognizes that many different assessment strategies accurately and systematically used, are necessary for monitoring and promoting student learning.
10. Student Support: The teacher works with parents/family members, school colleagues, and community members to support student learning and development.
10K2 The teacher understands how factors in the students’ environment outside of school (e.g. family circumstances, community environments, health and economic conditions) may influence students’ life and learning.
112
H. This course will focus on the following Professional/National Standards:
Students will follow the national and state standards for all subject areas in the creation and teaching of lesson plans.
I. In addition, the following concepts (ideas, goals, topics) will also be discussed:
There will be a focus on pedagogical learning strategies in science and social studies. Additionally, this course will require graduate students to inquire, communicate, increase social and historical consciousness, understand and use mathematical and quantitative concepts, utilize scientific inquiry, and acquire and use information in order to inform their practice.
J. Course Materials – Required
Bickart, T., Jablon, J., and Trister Dodge, D., (1999). Building the primary classroom: A complete guide to teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Trister Dodge, D., Colker, L., & Heroman, C. (2002). The creative curriculum for preschool. Washington, D.C.: Teaching Strategies, Inc.
K. The following Critical Performances are required in this course: Critical Performance #8 – Unit Plan L. The following Student Assessments are also part of this course (* Does not include reading assignments) For ALL students: 3 reflections/assessments These will be written assessments that will focus on the work we do in class. The purpose of these assessments is twofold: 1) to determine whether or not students are grasping the concepts and ideas learned in class, and 2) to prepare students for the written portion of the Praxis II exam.
Lesson Plans Lesson plans will be written for both the preschool and the primary classes. A total of
113
24 lesson plans will be submitted, as noted below.
Additional requirements for GRADUATE students:
A COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT TEACHING METHODOLOGIES
Students will be required to research two distinctly different teaching strategies (i.e. direct instruction and constructivism) and prepare an in-depth analysis of the two different approaches.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Student will choose one of the following subject areas: Math, Literacy, Discovery, and Play.
Students will read a minimum of 10 scholarly articles pertaining to preschool and/or primary
education and the particular subject area they have chosen. An annotated bibliography will
be prepared which summarizes each article.
M. Grading Formula, Breakdown, Weighting
Assignment Preschool Points Primary Points
Total Points
The following assignments are required of ALL students:
Classroom participation Students are expected to participate in all classroom activities. Much of the work we do will be done in small groups and centers and will require that students take an active role in those groups. In addition, participation depends upon evidence that the reading assignments have been completed.
20
20
40
3 essay assessments These will be written assessments that will focus on the work we do in class.
114
The purpose of these assessments is twofold: 1) to determine whether or not students are grasping the concepts and ideas learned in class, and 2) to prepare students for the written portion of the Praxis II exam.
30
30
60
Lesson Plans
Lesson plans will be written for both the preschool and the primary classes, as noted. Each plan will be approved by the classroom teacher before it is submitted to the instructor. Each week, three plans will be submitted on or before Thursday, and will be returned on Tuesday of the following week. No electronic copies of lesson plans will be accepted, as each plan needs to have the teacher’s signature on it.
2 literacy plans 2 math plans 2 science plans 2 motor plans 1 dramatic play kit 3 art Each plan will be worth 10 points
120
3 language arts plans 3 math plans 3 science plans 3 social studies plans Each plan will be worth 10 points
120
240
Critical Performance #8 Unit Plan- directions for this assignment will be distributed in class
20
Attendance
Attendance for this course is important. If a student needs to be absent from class, he/she must contact the instructor prior to the absence to determine if it will be excused or unexcused. Each unexcused absences will result in a loss of 3 attendance points.
10
10
20
115
The following assignments are required of GRADUATE students only: A COMPARISON OF TWO
DIFFERENT TEACHING
METHODOLOGIES
Students will be required to research two distinctly different teaching strategies (i.e. direct instruction and constructivism) and prepare an in-depth analysis of the two different approaches.
30
30
ANNOTATED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Student will choose one of the following subject areas: Math, Literacy, Discovery, and Play. Students will read a minimum of 10 scholarly articles pertaining to preschool and/or primary education and the particular subject area they have chosen. An annotated bibliography will be prepared which summarizes each article.
20
20
TOTAL
UNDERGRADUATE POINTS
200 180 380
TOTAL GRADUATE
POINTS
250 180 430
116
THE FOLLOWING GRADING SCALE WILL BE USED:
A 94+
A- 90-93 B+ 87-89 B 83-86
B- 80-82
C+ 77-79 C 73-76 C- 70-72
D+ 67-69 D 63-66 D- 60-62 F Below 60
Course Outline or Class Schedule
Primary Week 1 Introductions
course syllabus review Knowing the children you teach Ch.1 of Building the Primary Classroom
Week 2 Building a classroom community Ch. 2 of Building the Primary Classroom
Week 3 Establishing a structure for the classroom Guiding children’s learning Ch.3 and 4 of Building the Primary Classroom
Week 4 Assessing children’s learning Ch. 5 of Building the Primary Classroom
Week 5 Assessing children’s learning Ch. 7 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
Week 6 Building a partnership with families Ch. 6 of Building the Primary Classroom Ch. 8 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
Week 7 Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
Week 8 Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
Preschool Week 9 Preschool course overview
Theoretical foundations of ECE Characteristics of children ages 2-5 Ch. 1 of Creative Curriculum
Week 10 Setting up appropriate EC environments (physical, emotional) Lesson planning
117
Integrated curriculum The project approach Ch. 2 of Creative Curriculum
Week 11 What children learn in Preschool Ch. 3 of Creative Curriculum
Week 12 The importance of dramatic play Ch. 7 of Creative Curriculum
Week 13 Blocks, table toys, and games with rules Ch. 6 and 8 of Creative Curriculum
Week 14 Art experiences for young children Ch. 9 of Creative Curriculum
Week 15 Sensory experiences for young children; sand and water; cooking Ch. 14 and 16 of Creative Curriculum
Week 16 Music and movement for young children Gross motor development Ch. 13 and 16 of Creative Curriculum
O. Other The requirements are subject to change and adaptation at the discretion of the professor. The lecture course grade will be arrived at separately from the field experience grade. Please contact the professor if you need special arrangements for note taking, special print, or other considerations that may help you more effectively learn or demonstrate learning. Attendance – Your participation in class activities and discussions is important not only for your own learning but also for the learning of others. Attendance is very important. All absences must be reported before they occur or in the case of emergencies on the day they occur. Unreported absences will result in lowering of your grade level.
118
Appendix C
Sample Center-Based Activities
119
Preschool Module 1 Centers
RED
Theorists
Knowing how young children ages 3-8 develop and learn is the critical starting point for every teacher. There are many persons who have made significant contributions to our understandings of how children develop and learn. These theorists/researchers represent a broad spectrum of explanations. Some are similar and compatible. Others are in some ways diametric opposites. Each, however, has something to offer of value to the competent teacher.
1. In a group of no more than four, randomly choose two different theorists from the envelope (see me for the envelope)
2. Create a visual representation to represent how both theorists are • similar or different • alike or not alike • compatible or not compatible
in terms of their thinking about how children develop and learn. You may use words, pictures, or both.
3. Post your representation on the course discussion board.
BLUE Social Emotional Development
1. In a small group, watch the video: It’s the Little Things. 2. Using a graphic organizer, share the highlights of the video. Be sure to include the
important points. 3. Post your representation on the course website on the discussion board.
GREEN
Environment
On page 63 of the Creative Curriculum, there is a picture of a possible classroom environment in a preschool classroom. Chapter 5 in the DAP book offers additional ideas for planning space and environment.
1. Use the picture on page 63 2. Using information from chapter 5 of DAP, write a rationale for each of the
numbered spaces in the picture. 3. Use your own words, please! 4. Post your rationales in the correct space on the course discussion board. Each
numbered area will have its own space. YELLOW:
Developmental Domains
120
Do this activity in a group of 3 or 4 Step 1: Choose an age and a developmental domain. Step 2: Place your names on a post-it note and then place the post-it note onto the grid to mark the age and domain you have chosen. Step 3: Using your text, prior experiences, and any other resources, determine the characteristics of children of that age within the developmental domain you have chosen Step 4: Prepare a ‘Top 10’ list of the most important issues or characteristics for that age and domain. Step 5: Post your “top 10’ list on chart paper and hang it near the center. Be sure to label it with the age and domain you addressed.
ORANGE: Planning Effective Group Times
With a partner, choose a particular group time (see me for choices)
Write a lesson plan for the children in your assigned placement for that type of group time. (see chapter 4 in your DAP book for more info) You may focus on any subject matter, as long as you use the type of group you are given. Post your lesson plan on the course discussion board.
PURPLE Social and Emotional Development
Fostering positive social and emotional development in young children is perhaps the most important thing we can do as early childhood educators. In this center, you will examine the social and emotional environment of your classroom.
1. Complete the CSEFEL inventory (found on the course website). 2. Once completed, prepare a one paragraph summary statement for each of the 10
areas. You should include comments about the strengths and weaknesses associated with each area.
3. Submit the actual inventory along with the summary statements to the instructor.
121
Red: Prepare to Share
Prepare to share!
1. Choose your favorite Preschool lesson plan 2. Choose your favorite primary lesson plan. 3. Write a half-page summary of each (one at top, and one at bottom
of page) 4. Make enough copies to share with each of your classmates. (32) 5. Put your name on it…..it’s your plan!
Peer Evaluation
/10
1. In what ways did the teachers accommodate the different ways in which students learn?
2. How did the teacher respond to the students’ questions?
3. What issues were the students struggling with?
4. How did the teacher support the social and emotional needs of students during
this lesson? 5. What changes would you make if you were teaching this lesson?
Video-taped Lesson
Self Reflection /20
• Did you implement the lesson/activity as you had planned? • What changes did you make, and why did you make them? • Describe what you learned about your personal teaching style by watching your
videotape. • Do you think the lesson was successful? Why or why not? • Reflect on the comments from the peer evaluation.
122
PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
• Cooperating • Sharing • Expressing Feelings • Resolving Conflict • Managing Anger • Empathizing with Others • Learning Social Skills • Developing Strong Identity • Valuing Friends
(More information about these behaviors can be found on page 378 in your DAP book)
1. Observe the children in your classroom for signs of prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Tally the incidents of each.
2. Create a representation of your data. Your representation should include:
• some type of graph or picture that shows how often you observed both types of behavior
• lists of specific antisocial and prosocial behaviors observed
• suggestions for increasing the amount of prosocial behavior
• suggestions for eliminating the amount of antisocial behavior
Blue: Collecting Data
1. Using the strategies beginning on page 190 of your DAP book, decide upon two ways to collect and present data.
2. Go out into the college environment and collect data about something (anything you choose!)
3. On chart paper, prepare a representation of your findings. 4. You should present what you learned in two different ways – using the
information on page 190-192 as a guide. 5. In class, we will discuss what each different type of data collection process
gives us in terms of facts, inferences, and opinions. We will also discuss why different types of assessment provide us with different types of information about children – and when it is good to use or not use a particular system.
123
Purple: Social Studies Curriculum
1. With a partner, choose a Social Studies lesson that you already implemented, or plan to implement. (each of you will choose a lesson – 2 total)
2. For each plan, do the following:
Determine which component of Social Studies you addressed (see list on page
348 of Building the Primary Classroom for help).
Provide evidence of how each lesson addressed/did not address the following
considerations:
• Developmental Consideration • Children’s Interests and Experiences • Relying on the Immediate Environment (see pages 358-361 in Building the Primary Classroom for assistance)
124
Appendix D
Module 1
125
Content of Module 1
Introductions course syllabus review Knowing the children you teach Ch.1 of Building the Primary Classroom
Building a classroom community Ch. 2 of Building the Primary Classroom
Establishing a structure for the classroom Guiding children’s learning Ch.3 and 4 of Building the Primary Classroom
Assessing children’s learning Ch. 5 of Building the Primary Classroom
126
Appendix E
Module 2
127
Content of Module 2
Assessing children’s learning Ch. 7 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
Building a partnership with families Ch. 6 of Building the Primary Classroom Ch. 8 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
Integrated Curriculum Ch. 15 and 16 of Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum
128
Appendix F
Module 3
129
Content of Module 3
Preschool course overview Theoretical foundations of ECE Characteristics of children ages 2-5 Ch. 1 of Creative Curriculum
Setting up appropriate EC environments (physical, emotional) Lesson planning Integrated curriculum The project approach Ch. 2 of Creative Curriculum
What children learn in Preschool Ch. 3 of Creative Curriculum
The importance of dramatic play
Ch. 7 of Creative Curriculum
130
Appendix G
Module 4
131
Content of Module 4
Blocks, table toys, and games with rules Ch. 6 and 8 of Creative Curriculum
Art experiences for young children Ch. 9 of Creative Curriculum
Sensory experiences for young children; sand and water; cooking Ch. 14 and 16 of Creative Curriculum
Music and movement for young children Gross motor development Ch. 13 and 16 of Creative Curriculum
132
Appendix H
Data for Theme Ia: Instructor Instructional Role
133
Group Source Number Student Comment
I a: Instructional role
CB R 2 Fabis The instructor encourages individual and group participation a CB F 1 a she can work with one on one more and you don't have to waste time x CB F 1 b she has set up these themed projects for us x CB F 1 c she is teaching us how to learn and she's teaching you what to learn x
CB F 1 b she gives an agenda for the day x CB F 1 d she encouraged the students' ideas by asking open-ended questions x CB F 1 c she can work with one on one more and you don't have to waste time x
CB F 2 e she took a secondary teaching role and we took the primary teaching role for ourselves x
CB R 2 Bush she introduced the content, but it was the students' responsibility to learn the content and process the information x
CB R 2 Fabis
the instructor has prepared the students to be successful by clearly defining tasks, how to work in centers, what goals are to be met, when tasks are to be completed, what learning actually took place, and what will occur in the future x
CB R 2 Fabis at all times the instructor was available for consultation through her presence in class, email, phone, or by appointment x
CB R 2 Halker the instructor facilitates involvement by making suggestions in order to stimulate learning x
CB R 2 Lenarcic the instructor organized our student learning by allowing us to work on assignments and projects at our own pace x
CB R 2 Miller the instructor provides all the needed materials to complete the assignment x
CB R 2 Newman the instructor prepares the environment/curriculum so that it provides stimulating, challenging activities for students to engage in x
CB R 2 Obrovac the instructor's role in this class was to act as a facilitator of learning and a resource person x
134
CB R 2 Obrovac the teacher was there to promote the education and development of the students in class x
CB R 2 Obrovac by asking open ended questions to encourage student thinking x
CB R 2 Owens the instructor is required to plan, set up, and organize centers that will support student growth x
CB R 2 Owens
the instructor must assess students to see where they are at, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and what can be done to move them to the next level x
CB R 2 Smajdek, J the instructor assisted the learning by being available to answer questions or give explanations x
CB R 2 Smajdek, K
the instructor monitored learning by giving feedback and helping students clarify and reflect upon their own ideas x
CB R 2 Witucki the instructor's role in this class is to provide support and offer help to the students when needed x
CB R 2 Witucki the instructor has done an excellent job of explaining the modules and centers throughout the year. She keeps explaining until all students understand x
CB R 2 Zakrajsek the professor is to inform the students what they will be doing in the semester. The professor informs the students of important dates, and meetings x
CB R 2 Owens the instructor's role changes based on the students' needs x CB R 2 Bowman the instructor's role was more of a silent role x CB R 2 Bowman the role of the instructor was one of ease, but of hard work x CB R 2 Bowman the role of the instructor was one of support and background knowledge x CB R 2 Scherger the instructor was there for support x N-CB F 1 a she really tries to explain things to us x N-CB F 1 b explaining what it means x
N-CB F 1 a she has a way of twisting it so it means something to everyone and she is willing to answer questions to make sure that everyone knows x
N-CB F 1 b she also plays on our experiences x N-CB F 1 c she gives good examples x N-CB F 1 d if there's some really good learning going on, she'll make sure it continues x N-CB F 1 a she tried to group us with similarities x
135
N-CB F 1 e she always applies what she's teaching to something that will be happening or her personal experiences x
N-CB F 1 a
she is more focused to make sure that we understand the main points. She teaches us the material, but she's more focused on us learning because if we don't learn, what's the point of teaching? x
N-CB F 1 f she made sure we get rich experiences so that we can learn x N-CB F 2 b it's more of a conversation with the whole group than just one person lecturing x N-CB F 2 a we discussed as a group, with (instructor) at the head x N-CB F 2 b she gives information and we contribute x N-CB F 2 d if we don't understand it, she'll go over it again and make sure we do x N-CB F 2 e she gives you a task and then gives you feedback to make sure you get it x
N-CB R 2 Ashley the role of the instructor is to facilitate learning that will be beneficial to our experiences x
N-CB R 2 Katafias the instructor is a facilitator of the information x N-CB R 2 Carr to present situations, objectives, etc. to us x N-CB R 2 Dooley the topics we discuss in class should be determined by the instructor x N-CB R 2 Johnson our professor has challenged us to go beyond our comfort zone x
N-CB R 2 Lodge the role of the instructor was basically to give us the information we need to help prepare us for the field x
N-CB R 2 Reacallah the instructor gives examples on how to handle situations x N-CB R 2 Trumbull the role of the instructor is to be an instructional guide x N-CB R 2 Mohamed the role of the instructor is to teach x
N-CB R 2 Scott the instructor's role is to provide us with learning opportunities that allow us to grow and become better prepared to be teachers x
N-CB R 2 Robey the instructor should be knowledgeable in the many methods of teaching x
N-CB R 2 Westhoventhe instructor is to be knowledgeable in the proper format of writing lesson plans x
N-CB R 2 Stecz the instructor asks questions to get us thinking x N-CB R 2 Swan the instructor's role, in an extremely generalized sense, is to teach x
136
Appendix I
Data for Theme Ib: Instructor Instructional Climate
137
Group Source Number Student Comment I a: Instructional role
I b: Instructional climate
CB F 1 c
and so, if I'm really interested in one thing, I can do that first, and something I really don't want to do, I can save that for last
CB F 1 c she can work with one on one more and you don't have to waste time x x
CB F 1 d it's beneficial to learn at our own pace, but we also learn with our peers x
CB F 1 e you get it done at your own pace x
CB F 1 a professors don't take into consideration how students learn x
CB F 1 b I never really dreaded coming to class x CB R 2 Miller my role is to also interact with classmates x
N-CB F 2 c she calls it housekeeping. If anyone has issues they need help on, she lets us do that x
N-CB F 2 f there is a high comfort level x
138
Appendix J
Data for Theme IIa: Student Role in the Instructional Process
139
GROUP CB
SOURCE
F
NUMBER 2
STUDENT e
COMMENT she took a secondary teaching role and we took the primary teaching role for ourselves
IIa: Student Instructional Process x x
CB R 2 Fabis my role requires the ability to work individually, within a small group, and as a member of a large group x
CB R 2 Obrovac my role was that I was responsible for my own learning x CB R 2 Fisher my role is to soak up all the knowledge I can x
CB R 2 Newman I am responsible for carrying out the activities and investigating for answers that are needed x
CB R 2 Bush it required me to control my own learning and to manage my time with getting the assignments done x
CB R 2 Halker my role has been to find myself as a learner and have a responsibility to complete my work x
CB R 2 Owens the student has an active role in his learning x CB R 2 Owens the student's role is do direct his own learning x CB R 2 Bowman my role varied depending on what was going on each day x CB R 2 Bowman my role was to be at the center of my own learning x
N-CB F 2 b it's more of a conversation with the whole group than just one person lecturing x x
N-CB F 2 a we discussed as a group, with (instructor) at the head x x N-CB F 2 b she gives information and we contribute x x
N-CB R 1 Stecz I feel I received a lot of the information I learn through peer interactions x
140
Appendix K
Data for Theme IIb: Student Work with Peers
141
Group Source Number Student Comment I a: II a: II b
CB F 1 d it's beneficial to learn at our own pace, but we also learn with our peers x x
CB F 1 a
even if it's an activity you're supposed to do by yourself, you can still collaborate with your peers to make sure you are doing what you are supposed to be doing x
CB F 1 b because we post it on the website, you can see what your classmates are coming up with x
CB F 1 c I collaborate with my peers x
CB F 1 c it's all right in front of you like what needs to be done. You know what you're supposed to do x
CB F 1 a 1) you get to choose the people you work with and 2) you feel you can learn from peers` x
CB R 1 Zakrajsek it allows your to work together as a team x CB R 1 Yoh you have the choice to work in groups or alone x
CB R 2 Fabis
my role requires the ability to work individually, within a small group, and as a member of a large group x x
CB R 2 Miller my role is to also interact with classmates x x
CB R 2 Obrovac my classmates and I worked together to maximize each other's learning x
CB R 2 Owens the setting allows for more interactions x CB R 2 Scherger I collaborate with my peers x N-CB R 1 Westhoven I enjoy that we do a lot of group work x
N-CB R 1 Stecz I feel I received a lot of the information I learn through peer interactions x x
N-CB F 1 a she tried to group us with similarities x x N-CB R 1 Josephson when we get into groups with one another x N-CB R 1 Mohamed we do group work and reflect with peers x N-CB F 2 a we do a lot of group work x
142
Appendix L
Data for Theme IIc: Student Responsibility for Own Learning
143
Group Source Number Student Comment II b II c CB F 1 d it's beneficial to learn at our own pace, but we also learn with our peers x x
CB F 1 c it's all right in front of you like what needs to be done. You know what you're supposed to do x x
CB F 1 a 1) you get to choose the people you work with and 2) you feel you can learn from peers` x x
CB F 1 c
and so, if I'm really interested in one thing, I can do that first, and something I really don't want to do, I can save that for last x
CB F 1 e you get it done at your own pace x CB F 1 b so, we're talking about choice x CB F 1 d it's your choice to expand on it x
CB F 1 e I think also, because we post it on the website, you can see what your classmates are coming up with x
CB F 2 c you feel more ownership over your assignments and your work x CB F 2 e she took a secondary teaching role and we took the primary teaching role for ourselves x
CB F 2 a it requires me to control my own learning to manage my time with getting the assignment done x
CB F 2 b I feel like I had power x
CB F 2 f I think a sense of power means that you play an important role in the class. Your input is worth something and it means something x
CB F 2 d If it's overwhelming, you break it down to fit you x CB F 2 b we learn at our own pace x CB F 2 f you have to do it on your own x CB R 1 Yoh you have the choice to work in groups or alone x x CB R 1 Zambrano The most exciting part was being able to choose what I wanted to do x
CB R 1 Puhl I like being able to have freedom to choose in which order you complete the assigned tasks x
CB R 1 Zakrajsek allowing students to choose what activities they want to complete first shows them they have power x
CB R 1 Amonette it allows students to learn at their own pace x
144
CB R 1 Lewis There is much room for choice and freedom of expression x CB R 1 Badman I realize I have to compromise within the group x x CB R 1 Murphy you have more independence to work on at your own pace x
CB R 1 Smajdek, J you can work at your own pace x
CB R 1 Smajdek, K you are responsible for your own learning x
CB R 1 Biggert we had the freedom to work at our own pace x CB R 2 Obrovac my role was that I was responsible for my own learning x
CB R 2 Newman I am responsible for carrying out the activities and investigating for answers that are needed x
CB R 2 Bush it required me to control my own learning and to manage my time with getting the assignments done x
CB R 2 Halker my role has been to find myself as a learner and have a responsibility to complete my work x
CB R 2 Owens the student's role is do direct his own learning x CB R 2 Bowman my role was to be at the center of my own learning x CB R 2 Lenz it is my duty and responsibility to carry out my task x
145
Appendix M
Data for Theme IIIa: Learning Style Preferences
146
Group Source Number Student Comment II a: II b II c III a N-CB R 1 Appleton I am a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Scott I have always been a hands on learner x N-CB R 1 Scott I have always been a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Scott I prefer videos as opposed to readings x
N-CB R 1 Trumbull I learn best by tying what we are being taught to real life situations x
N-CB R 1 Ashley I prefer to learn using visuals x N-CB R 1 Carr I learn best through the hands on approach x N-CB R 1 Smith I am a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Smith anything with charts or graphs x N-CB R 1 Johnson I am a hands on learner x N-CB R 1 Moran I tend to be an auditory learner x N-CB R 1 Westhoven I am mostly a visual learner x N-CB R 1 Swan I would undoubtedly assert myself as a language learner X N-CB R 1 Rezcallah the best way for me to learn is to have some visual parts included x N-CB R 1 Josephson I do best when it's hands on x N-CB R 1 Dooley I learn best by reflecting x N-CB R 1 Mohamed I need to be hands on and auditory x N-CB R 1 Streck I am a visual learner x
147
Appendix N
Data for Theme IIIb: Specific Strategies Used in Class
148
Group Source Number Student Comment III a III b
CB F 2 b completing the conservation tasks helped me to realize the importance of visuals for preschool children x
CB F 2 a by watching the video 'The Whole Child' I learned ways to help a child become creative and enjoy creative play x
CB F 2 e when making the power point on Maria Montessori x N-CB F 2 c we took a field trip to this scrap book place x N-CB F 2 e we bring in pictures and we put them on a board x N-CB F 2 d yeah - we did a rubric and she let us figure it out x
N-CB F 2 a I think like when we did the block play. We talked about the different stages of block play and I would have never thought about it before x
N-CB R 1 Scott I prefer videos as opposed to readings x x N-CB R 1 Smith anything with charts or graphs x x
N-CB R 1 Josephson taking digital pictures of what children are doing and bringing them into class x
N-CB R 1 Carr I like when we categorized toys a few weeks ago x N-CB R 1 Robey we talked about rubrics today and then we had to create our own x N-CB R 1 Westhoven we often make posters or write on the board x
1