This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]On: 09 October 2014, At: 22:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

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

Reflectivity and Effectiveness ofPreservice Teachers in a Unique FieldExperienceColleen Willard-Holt a & Diane Bottomley ba Penn State Capital College , USAb Ball State University , USAPublished online: 06 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Colleen Willard-Holt & Diane Bottomley (2000) Reflectivity and Effectivenessof Preservice Teachers in a Unique Field Experience, Action in Teacher Education, 22:2, 76-89, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2000.10463007

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2000.10463007

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

Reflectivity and Effectiveness of Preservice Teachers In a Unique Field Experience

Colleen Willard-Holt Penn State Capital College

Diane Bottomley Ball State University

Abstract

This study investigated the differences in refections of preservice teachers ' teaching effectiveness during a unique field experience called Kids' College. This field experience provided selected preservice teachers with complete ownership of the conceptual development, planning, preparation, implementation, and evaluation of their teaching. Preservice teachers team-taught interdisciplinary units involving higher order thinking skills and active involvement on the part of culturally diverse elementary-age learners. Data sources included preservice teachers' reflective journals, group and individual interviews, and professor observations. Results indicated a clear difference in refections of preservice teachers related to their effectiveness. Systematic, guided instruction in reflectivity and instructional problem solving in field settings may be crucial to the development of teaching effectiveness.

Introduction

It is widely recognized that extensive experience with elementary-age children is crucial to the success of the developing teacher (e.g., Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). Typically, these experiences involve brief practica in elementary classrooms leading up to a culminating student teaching experience. In such cases, the preservice teacher conforms to the existing classroom organization, management, and curriculum. These classrooms may or may not exemplify theories and practices recommended in their college preservice program. Despite the widespread popularity of field experiences, these experiences may have a negative effect on the development of those competencies and attitudes which teacher educators wish to instill (Doyle, 1990). Goodman (1986) found that field experiences may help preservice teachers to "fit in" to established patterns rather than to become more experimental and reflective. In this sense, the role of field experience runs counter to the university's emphasis on trends and innovations not yet widely practiced in the field.

Current research suggests a number of educational practices to enhance the learning process: interdisciplinary instruction (Jacobs, 1989); higher order thinking skills (Beyer, 1987; Ennis, 1987; Marzano, 199 1); cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1984; Slavin, 1990); active learning experiences (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Dewey, 1974; Piaget, 1954; Resnick, 1987); team teaching (Bair & Woodward, 1964); and multi-age grouping (Banks, 1995). Although all of these practices are espoused in many education programs, preservice teachers may have little opportunity to apply their knowledge in practical settings. The research in these areas suggests that learning to imple- ment the above practices will lead to an enriched growth experience for preservice teachers and ultimately to improved instruction for children.

Another current recommendation is to prepare preservice teachers to be reflective practitioners. For the purpose of this article, "reflectivity" was defined as "a way of thinking about educational matters that involves the ability to make rational choices and to assume responsibility for those choices" (Ross, 1989, p. 22). Field experiences with guided reflection have been found to promote greater reflection (Grinberg, 1989) and to help preservice teachers to process information about teaching and children's learning more similarly to the processing of expert teachers (Gormley, Hammer, McDermott, & Rothenberg, 1993; Lampert & Clark, 1990). According to Ferguson (1 989), "Well-structured practicum experiences can effectively help methods students take a more

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

reflective approach to the translation of theory into practice" (p. 40). Wedman and Martin (1986) found that student teachers who have developed and practiced reflective skills through journal writing may be better able to transcend the negative effects often associated with field experiences.

Other researchers (e.g., Grimmett, Erickson, MacKinnon, & Riecken, 1990; Ross, 1989; Van Manen, 1977) have posited levels of reflectivity, ranging from the more technical orientation of Cruickshank (1985) to the critical orientation of Goodman (1986). Tama and Peterson (1991) suggested that in developing reflectivity, teachers may move from technical understanding to comprehending the big picture. At a first level, teachers may use knowledge gained from research on effective teaching to direct practice, basing their actions on research results. At a second level, teachers may deliberate among competing views of teaching, basing their actions on the context. Here research informs action to benefit student learning. At a third level, knowledge is used in a critical sense to transform action (Grimmett et al., 1990). However, are different levels of proficiency in reflection related to differences in teaching effectiveness?

As early as 1968, Jackson warned that reflectivity may impede efficiency, paralyzing one from action and thereby possibly damaging the learning environment. Canning (1991) stated that the effective teaching research diminishes the importance of teachers' voices and experiences as a basis for decision making. To resolve the apparent contradiction between reflectivity and effectiveness, Noordhoff and Kleinfeld (1 990) recommended interweaving reflection and teaching performance to prepare effective and reflective teachers, pointing out the concern that teacher education programs too often separate the two. Posner (1996) and Cruickshank and Metcalf (1993) advocated integrating reflective activities with field experience. Freiberg and Waxman (1990) also supported building reflection into the development of technical competence. Cruickshank (1985) developed a model of reflective practice synthesizing reflection with the effective teaching research. Schon (1987) suggested that the way to develop skill in reflection-in-action is through coaching and practice in carefully crafted practicum settings; it is not effective to attempt to teach it directly.

Finally, the relationship between reflection and effectiveness may be symbiotic. Hanna (1986) found that teaching effectiveness may help teachers to develop reflectivity, and Ferguson (1989) suggested that field experiences can have a modest impact on ability to reflect. For the purpose of this study, "effectiveness" was defined according to the principles set forth by Borko, Widman, and Lalik (1984) dealing with the following categories: organization of instruction, introduction to the lesson, presentation of the lesson, student practice, and classroom management. Additional aspects of effectiveness in this particular study involved the extent to which the preservice teachers implemented the following innovations: interdisciplinary content, higher order thinking, team teaching, cooperative grouping, and active learning.

This study investigated the relationship between preservice teachers' reflectivity and effectiveness in a unique field experience known as Kids' College. Kids' College provided a supportive forum in which preservice teachers could implement the above innovations in a multi-age environment. The preservice teachers' ownership of this field experience allowed them to internalize the lessons learned through reflection and immediately act upon the insights derived.

Method

Participants

This study was conducted at an upper-level college within a major land-grant university system in the eastern United States. Preservice teachers enter the college as juniors and move through the two-year teacher education program in cohorts. Preservice teachers selected for this project were twelve elementary education majors at the end of their junior year. Selected preservice teachers were invited to teach the interdisciplinary units they had developed as a class assignment on the basis of quality of the unit, observed teaching ability, and general scholastic achievement. All

77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

but one pair of selected preservice teachers chose their own teammates from among the twelve participants; the assigned pairing was based on units on the same topic.

Prior to the study, participants had completed courses in general instructional methods; children's literature; higher order thinking; classroom management; educational foundations (with an emphasis on multicultural education); computer literacy; language arts, reading, and math methods; and either art or science methods. Systematic development of reflectivity through instructor modeling, classroom discussions of different levels of reflection, and feedback on written reflection papers were major components of the coursework. Each preservice teacher had participated in a traditional three-week field placement in an elementary classroom during the previous spring semester as a component of their methods courses.

Procedures

Preservice teachers proposed their own camps based on their interdisciplinary units for multi-age groups (either grades 1-3 or 4-6). These primary and intermediate-level units incorporated best practices based on current research and trends: interdisciplinary content, higher order thinking skills, active learning, cooperative grouping, and team teaching. Selected preservice teachers worked with the two supervising professors (the authors of this article) to modify their units as needed to fit the time frame and to meet the needs of culturally diverse multi-age classes. The units were implemented in a summer enrichment camp called Kids' College.

Kids' College consisted of a variety of one-week summer enrichment camps for students ranging from first to sixth grades. Each camp was scheduled to run three hours per day, five days per week, allowing students to participate in one or two camps each day. Most students elected to attend two camps per day. In addition to students whose parents paid tuition for the camps, a nearby city council provided scholarships for urban students, thereby increasing the cultural diversity of the program.

Of the twelve camps proposed by the selected preservice teachers, nine had sufficient enrollment (a minimum of six students) to run without incurring financial loss. The topics of the camps included the following: the future, space (two camps: primary and intermediate), the five senses, oceans, whales, Native Americans, American music history, and the Civil War.

The critical difference between Kids' College and the typical field practicum pertained to the complete ownership of the educational experience by the preservice teachers in the Kids' College setting. Preservice teachers were responsible for requesting or making their own instructional materials, setting up a classroom management system, planning and implementing instruction, and assessing student learning.

Data Sources

Reflective journals, At the end of the semester preceding Kids' College, participants wrote paragraphs detailing what they expected to learn from the experience. This group, along with the two supervising professors, wrote daily reflections and a final summative reflection describing what they learned from this field experience. The reflective journals were intended to provide information to the professors about the ways in which preservice teachers think about teaching and their development as teachers, as well as to provide the preservice teachers with a vehicle for systematic reflection on their actions in the classroom. Preservice teachers reconstructed and interpreted their experiences and understandings, and in this process, it was hoped that new perceptions would emerge.

Professor obser vations, The two supervising professors provided continuous instructional support and supervision throughout the week of Kids' College. The two professors observed, took

78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

field-notes and videotaped portions of class sessions. These observations provided opportunities to document patterns and critical incidents in classroom instruction. Likert-type observation forms developed by the researchers prior to the study and based on effective teaching research were utilized as observation guides. These forms were based on current student teacher evaluation forms, and contained items in four categories: communication skills; management skills; planning; delivering and evaluating instruction; and personal qualities (See Appendix A). Additional items which addressed interdisciplinary content, higher order thinking, team teaching, cooperative grouping, and active learning were included.

The two professors independently completed the forms on each preservice teacher following a minimum of five classroom visits. The forms were compared for inter-rater reliability, which was 100% after discussions in which a few discrepancies were resolved. Discrepancies were, without exception, the result of one professor observing a behavior, such as the resolution of a particular management problem, which had not been observed by the other professor. In these cases, the situation was discussed and based on the discussion the professors agreed on a rating. Preservice teachers' total scores on these forms constituted the measure of their effectiveness.

At the end of each session, one of the professors debriefed with each preservice teacher, guiding their reflection about the following: the success of the day's activities, possible changes for the next day, reasons that certain activities did not work out as planned, the reasons behind the choices the preservice teachers made in content and method, and the messages those choices communicated (intentionally or not) to their students.

Interviews. A group debriefing session and individual interviews with participants were held after Kid's College. These sessions were tape recorded. Questions focused on areas such as the impact of the experience and the role of reflection. These activities were intended to provide preservice teachers with an opportunity to examine the perceptions of the impact of Kids' College.

The analysis of qualitative data began with analytic induction (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Reflective journals were read repeatedly by both authors until themes began to emerge. Interview tapes were listened to multiple times as notes were taken and continually augmented. Salient sections of interview tapes were transcribed and analyzed.

Comments of the experimental preservice teachers began to cluster into categories. In addition, the responses formed patterns related to their reflectivity and effectiveness as teachers. The authors determined levels of reflectivity using the categories developed by Ross (1989). Level one consists of simple descriptions of classroom events:

Students then got up and walked around acting like robots. It was neat to see their impression of how a robot would act. (Suzanne, day 3 journal)

Level two would include comments critiquing a practice unidimensionally but not accounting for other intervening factors:

Today I noticed how the attention-getting students seem to always have my attention and that I overlook the students who are quiet .... I really tried today to talk to the quiet students and give them the attention they need as well. I found myself saying to the attention seekers to wait a minute until I can get to you. By the end of the morning, I noticed how the attention seekers seem to tone down and were a little more patient. (Rachel, day 3 journal)

Level three involves examination of multiple perspectives of events and the pervasive impact of teacher actions:

79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

I am thrilled at the way the class has unified to become a true class. The students work together well and have recognized their assets and those of their classmates so that the 15 students are a well-functioning and productive group. This is as important as the material covered. Proper, productive, and responsible human beings are as important a lesson as any history, geography,or mathematical fact. (Arthur, day 4 journal)

The level of each preservice teacher's reflectivity was determined by each author ranking pages of each preservice teacher's journal according to Ross' schema. An independent rater also rated a page of each journal. The pages ranked by the three raters were randomly chosen by each rater; thus, the pages read by the raters were not necessarily the same. On these rankings, 78% agreement was reached (i.e., 8 of 11 journals). On the three remaining journals, the raters disagreed by no more than one level of reflectivity.

Based on the qualitative data, it was possible to place the preservice teachers along continua of levels of reflectivity and effectiveness. All but one of the preservice teachers fell within the same level of proficiency on both scales (e.g., teachers low in reflectivity were also low in effectiveness, etc.) Next, data from preservice teachers, at both ends and near the midpoint of the superimposed continua, were examined with respect to the categories which had emerged. The categories were dimensionalized (i.e., elucidating the properties of each category along several dimensions; Strauss, 1987) and the dimensions were substantiated by segments of data. Data for preservice teachers who were similarly placed on the continua were compared to each other and to the dimensions of the categories. The dimensions of the categories clustered into cohesive character sketches, and vignettes were prepared which represented preservice teachers along the continua. Diagrams of interrelationships among certain categories were made and revised until they accurately represented the data.

Results

Preservice teachers' scores for effectiveness and reflectivity are presented in Table 1. Categories emerging from the qualitative data along with their properties are depicted in Table 2.

Table 1. Scores for Effectiveness and Reflectivity

Proficiency Preservice Effectiveness Reflectivity levela teacher scorec score d b

High Steve(A) Jack(A) Arthur

HigWmedium Amy (B 1 Medium Rachel( C)

Raymond(D) Becky(B) Paul(C) Casey(D)

Ellie(E) Penelope

Low Suzanne(E)

211 207 200 182 173 171 170 168 166 116 112 84

3 3 3 3 2 2

2 2 1 1 1

Not ratede

80

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

&&. aProficiency levels relate to those in Table 2. bLetters following names refer to the teaching teams; preservice teachers with the same letter were teammates. Arthur and Penelope worked alone. ‘Effectiveness score based on checklist in Appendix A; total possible is 225 points. dReflectivity score based on Ross (1989); three-point scale with 1 being low, 2 medium, and 3 high. eBecky did not submit a reflective journal to be rated.

Table 2. Continua of Reflectivity and Effectiveness

AN% Least reflective Moderately Reflective Most Reflective

Goal

Planning

Instructional Problem Solving

Multi-age Culturally Diverse Class

Team Teaching

FOCUS

Self- assessment

Survival-“to get by”

Superficial planning, somewhat rigidly implemented; often under-planned

Out of touch with reality; unable to identifylpinpoint problems; very long response time to problems; ineffective attempts to address problems

Class composition seen as obstacle, something to blame for failure

Teammate as a crutch implying less planning and responsibility for each partner; turn-taking

Self

Relieved week was over

To implement unit

Planned instruction but not management; some flexibility-able to change plans for next day

Recognized strengths and weaknesses; able to identify problems, but not foresee them; long response time to problems; mixed success in addressing problems; thought time frame too short to solve problems Open to learning from children, but not able to get up to speed to meet needs Much individual planning but little team planning, leading to stylistic conflicts; turn-taking

The “class” or individual students

Satisfied with week

To learn and to have children learn more Deep, over-planning of all aspects; great flexibility, often changing plans to address student needs Insight into problems and their causes; quick spontaneous response to problems; effectively addressed problems by trying various solutions

Class composition seen as opportunity to observe differences and learn from children Extensive team planning; each partner’s strengths use to complement team and benefit students Dynamic of the classroom as a whole

Sorry to see week end, self-critical

Least Effective Most Effective

Preservice Penelope, Suzanne, Ellie Casey, Becky, Raymond, Steve, Jack, Arthur teachersa Paul, Rachel, Amy

W. names of the preservice teachers are pseudonyms.

81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

As stated previously, the least effective preservice teachers also were rated as being the least reflective. Least, medium, and most effectiveheflective preservice teachers were each characterized by clusters of traits, as represented by the columns of Table 2. In the following sections, excerpts from the preservice teachers' reflective journals and interviews, identified by pseudonyms, will be presented to support each of the categories.

Planning. Preservice teachers on the low end of the continua commonly found themselves short of activities for the allotted time, as illustrated here by excerpts from the journals of teammates Suzanne and Ellie:

More things should have been planned instead of me coming up with an idea on the spur of the moment. I guess that's life and at least everything worked out .... I wasn't prepared as I should have been and I made a mistake, but I think I covered it up nicely. (Suzanne, day 3 journal)

I planned today out and then after getting to the classroom realized what I had planned would probably take an hour and a half at best.. . . We got through with some last minute thoughts and planning. (Ellie, day 4 journal)

Note that even after realizing that not enough had been planned for day 3, (acknowledged also in Ellie's journal), Suzanne and Ellie made the same mistake on day 4. These excerpts also illustrate this team's modus operandi for the week: to get through and "cover up" inadequacies. This is in contrast with the over-planning of instruction by both middle and high effectivenessheflectivity groups, who continually ran out of time:

The best preparation is being over-prepared. (Paul, final reflection) We not only had a Plan A, but we also had Plans B, C, D, E, and F, just in case. Fortunately we only had to move to Plan B once, and that was anticipated three days before it happened. (Steve, final reflection) It's just impossible to go through all the material in such a short time. (Jack, day 3 journal)

Some of the preservice teachers in the middle range planned instruction carefully and

Although Becky and I had carefully planned our lessons and daily schedules, we never planned on how to handle class management and solve discipline. (Amy, day 1 journal)

thoroughly, but failed to consider classroom management:

Over-planning allowed the more effective preservice teachers to have more flexibility in meeting the needs of the students. Jack mentioned that he made decisions in action depending on how his students were reacting. However, Jack and his partner Steve had planned alternatives in the event that activities did not go as planned. This preparedness is quite different from Suzanne, who also said that she implemented activities "on the spur of the moment." Her subsequent activities had not been planned, and she was simply keeping the students busy with no forethought or constructive purpose in mind.

Instructional Droblem solving. The deep planning by the more effective preservice teachers allowed them to be more flexible in solving instructional problems in action (Schon, 1983). The least effective preservice teachers failed to even recognize problems, as demonstrated by Penelope's midweek remark, "I thought everything was fine," while surrounded by chaos. Penelope also avoided dealing directly with problems:

a2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

If this were a normal classroom situation I would have to find a more manageable way to deal with the problems. (Penelope, day 1 journal)

Since it was "only a summer camp," she felt that it was not necessary to make the effort to have a well-run, functional classroom.

The middle range of preservice teachers recognized the problems, but, as Becky said, found it difficult to make "split second'' changes (interview). This group reflected on difficulties and revised what they would do the next day, or for the next teaching situation:

I planned and tried to do it the best I could, analyzed it and then knew what to do the next time .... I'm not sure I solved problems in the best way possible. Now I think I should have done this or that. I learned something that would help later on. (Becky, interview) The most valuable lesson I learned is about being flexibility [sic]. Not only do I mean about not having the proper equipment for lessons, but being able to adapt lessons according to time left in the three hours, as well as the students' prior knowledge about the subject matter. (Casey, final reflection)

I have to think about what I am going to do for K. He seems to be lost. I asked him if he is having fun and learning something. His reply was that he was enjoying himself, but his frown and monotone answer told me that there is more to the story .... I will have to work to make him comfortable with the others and me. (Raymond, day 2 journal)

Becky also recognized that they were not meeting the needs of the various ability levels, but neither she nor Raymond was able to implement a solution over the course of the five days.

Others did some problem solving on individual needs:

The more effective preservice teachers made immediate and spontaneous changes, drawing

My lesson for those with lesser attention spans will be more active and less complex. (Paul, day 2, journal) I've come to realize that teaching is filled with constant decision making. What is working and what isn't? What other activities can we do? (Jack, day 2 journal)

from their extensive planning and based on the responses of the children:

This group was also very analytical, seeking the reasons behind the problems, as in Amy's case when she noticed the improvement in some students' behavior after the morning snack. She reasoned that they came without breakfast and their hunger was causing their misbehavior; she provided breakfast one day and found their behavior improved (Amy, day 5 journal).

Focus. The instructional problem solving in which the preservice teachers engaged was related to their focus. The least effective preservice teachers focused on themselves and judged success on whether the students completed all the activities that had been planned. These preservice teachers were caught up in their own actions and feelings. They evidenced no understanding of the dynamic nature of lessons. The middle group, by contrast, was able to focus on the class, to analyze the responsesheeds of the group and individual students and the actions taken to remediate problems:

By the end of the week 1 was able to read each student in how they might behave and what activities appealed to them. (Rachel, final reflection)

There was effort by some of the members of this middle group to address the needs of individual students. The highest group was able to focus on the interaction between the lesson, their own actions, and the responses of the students in the class:

83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The classroom is a dynamic thing, it's always changing. Something may look good on paper but you may have to change up a bit. (Jack, interview)

This focus outside of themselves and the desire to improve, opened these more sophisticated preservice teachers to learning the lessons the children had to teach them. These differences in focus are reminiscent of the levels of concerns of student teachers described by Fuller and Bown (1975).

Hetero- e roupa . The more effective preservice teachers also viewed the diversity of the classroom as a great learning experience:

Kids probably have more to teach me than I can ever teach them in a lifetime. (Steve, interview) By contrast, the less effective preservice teachers viewed the diversity as an obstacle and a scape- goat for their own failings:

It is very difficult to find a happy medium between all the learning levels in our class. (Suzanne, day 1 journal) I do realize that it is impossible, even the attempt must be made [sic], to reach everyone in the class. (Raymond, day 4 journal)

With respect to cultural diversity, some preservice teachers, such as Ellie in an interview, experi- enced some breaking down of her own preconceptions regarding "inner city" kids. Others, such as Rachel and Arthur, noted some differences in interactions among the students:

At times I felt the students from the inner city felt like they were different, just from the actions of the other students. I really do not know why. I did not feel like I treated anyone special. (Rachel, day 4 journal)

I learned more about the differences between the poor and middle-class children, in terms of having their needs met and the degree of skills that are being taught and learned. However, I learned there are no class differences when it comes to wanting to have fun while learning, wanting attention, friends, and being silly or breaking rules. (Amy, final reflection)

All of these observations were made in the context of the preservice teachers' first experience with culturally diverse classes. It should be reemphasized that the more effective preservice teachers viewed the diversity as a learning opportunity, while the less effective ones saw diversity as an obstacle and a scapegoat for their own inadequacies.

Amy reflected upon the types of differences she observed:

Teamteachine. The more effective preservice teachers found that team teaching was more

Our Sunday meetings in restaurants, parking lots, and libraries ended up paying dividends many times over.... We made conscious decisions about who would teach what depending on our strengths and weaknesses. (Steve, final reflection)

However, the less effective preservice teachers used their partner as a crutch and a way for themselves to avoid planning:

labor-intensive than was solo teaching:

For the most part my planning days are finished. I had the first two days and Ellie has the next two. (Suzanne, day 2 journal)

The more effective preservice teachers consciously exploited the strengths of team-teaching to benefit the students:

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

I am also realizing the benefits of team teaching. It allows for easier group work as well as an extra pair of hands. It seems as if we're both constantly busy and always relying on each other to get things done. My only concern would be that as a team you must function together. (Paul, day 2 journal)

Neither teammate of this pair was ever in an assisting role, and as Rachel observed in her interview, partners complemented each other's strengths and weaknesses. However, in the case of the less effective teams, one partner (usually the same partner) was in the leading role, with the other assuming the role of teacher's aide. Some chafed at the lack of control:

Discipline is difficult with so many people in the room. They try to play the teachers against each other and manipulate their way. One thing that would bother me would not bother Casey ... and vice versa. (Raymond, day 4 journal)

This comment also indicates some lack of planning, at least in the classroom management area.

Self-assess-. All of the preservice teachers felt that they had learned from the experience. The least effective group stated that they were pleased with how the camps had gone, but failed to resolve some inconsistencies:

I ended up feeling very good about the planning and work that went into [our camp] .... The only thing that disappointed me about the camp was that sometimes the kids seem [&I to want to fall asleep. (Ellie, day 5 journal)

In conversation, they also mentioned that they were relieved that the week was over since it had been a great deal of work:

The moderately effective group seemed satisfied and proud that they had actually implemented their units: The week went extremely well .... I had a great week, learned so much about teaching and myself, and I found a teacher inside of me. (Paul, day 5 journal) This is a project that I have been working on since Christmas and there were plenty of times where I did not think I was going to be able to pull it off. It was so encouraging knowing that I was able to come up with a unit that really worked. (Rachel, day 5 journal)

The most effectiveheflective group was the most eager for feedback, and the most disappointed to see the week end:

The end of the week brought happiness and relief, but also sadness and disappointment .... I was also sad to see the experience of teaching come to an end, knowing all too well that it will be a little while until I get back into the classroom. (Steve, final reflection) I learned that to be a successful teacher, you must be able to make adjustments to your lessons. You have to have a feel of the classroom atmosphere. Is this working? Can I make an adjustment that will improve the learning environment? (Jack, final reflection)

This group was also the most self-critical and the most demanding of themselves. In response to his perceived error in a management situation, Arthur commented:

I should have handled the situation differently .... It was not a good example and not to the standard I would call professional. (day 5 journal)

As one can see from the quotes used to support the categories, the categories themselves are highly interrelated, as shown here by the interaction between self-assessment and instructional problem solving.

Discussion "Study without reflection is a waste of time; reflection without study is dangerous."

-- Confucius

85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Kids' College appeared to be a worthwhile experience for both preservice teachers and elementary students. It provided the opportunity for the preservice teachers to establish their own classrooms and teach a curriculum unit they had created, an extent of ownership which is significantly different than that in a typical field experience. Without exception, the preservice teachers felt that they had learned a great deal from the experience. In fact, several preservice teachers commented that they learned more from this one-week experience than they had from a three-week field placement in an elementary classroom during the spring semester:

During the three-week field, I only had to teach a few lessons and didn't have to worry about the control of the classroom. During Kids' College I didn't have the security of a cooperating teacher. (Raymond, interview)

Greater ownership of curriculum and instructional decision making appears to increase the benefits for preservice teachers during field experience.

However, the benefits derived appeared to be related to the amount and quality of reflection in which the preservice teachers engaged throughout the week. The most reflective preservice teachers were also the most effective, and appeared to welcome the opportunities for growth afforded by this experience-they sought feedback, problem-solved difficulties, tried out potential solutions, and learned from the children more effectively than did the less reflective groups. They focused on the dynamic life of the classroom and worked on many of its aspects in order to engender success, whereas the least effective preservice teachers focused on themselves only and cast blame on those aspects of the task which impeded "their" success.

The quality of reflection in which the preservice teachers engaged was related to their effectiveness; this trend indicates that systematic, guided instruction in reflectivity and instructional problem solving in field settings may be crucial to the development of teaching effectiveness. In order for education professors to prepare new teachers in ways that will make them more effective and reflective, professors need more information about the factors involved in effective teaching and ways to promote reflection in concert with effectiveness (Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1990). Future research might focus on what cumculum and field experiences are most likely to enhance both qualities.

Conclusion

In order for field experiences to have the greatest positive impact on preservice teachers, the connection between coursework and the field experience must be clear. Preservice teachers often have to contend with contradictions between university recommendations and outmoded practices observed in some field placement classrooms. The preservice teachers' ownership of planning and implementing the strategies and practices discussed in their coursework was instrumental in the success of this endeavor. In Kids' College, the preservice teachers were empowered to implement trends supported by current research and espoused in their university courses, and were challenged to reflect upon their success or lack thereof in order to improve their practice. Here, reflectivity and effectiveness had a symbiotic relationship. Providing field experiences such as this in which reflection, innovation, and ownership are combined may enhance the likelihood of producing effective, up-to-date teachers who habitually reflect in order to improve the learning environment for children.

Colleen Willard-Holt is Assistant Professor of Education at Penn State Capital College. Her specialties are educational psychology, assessment, and gifted education. Current research interests include developing teacher reflectivity.

Diane Bottomley is Assistant Professor in Elementary Education at Ball State University. She has taught in elementary and special education classrooms and currently teaches literacy methods courses.

86

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

References

Bair, M., & Woodward, R. G. (1964). Team teaching in action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Banks, J. C. (1995). Creating the multi-age classroom. Edmonds, VA: CATS Publications. Beyer, B. K. (1987). Practical strategies for the teaching of thinking. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Borko, H., Widman, T., & Lalik, R. (1984, April). Designing a classroom observation system:

Accountability for principles rather than behaviors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Canning, C. (1991). What teachers say about reflection. Educational Leadership, 446). 18-21. Cruickshank, D.R. (1985). Reflective teaching as a strategy for teacher growth.

Phi Delta Kappan, 66( lo), 704-706. Cruickshank, D., & Metcalf, K. (1993). Improving preservice teacher assessment through

on-campus laboratory experiences. Theory into Practice, 32(2), 86-92. Dewey, J. (1974). The child and the curriculum. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey

on education (pp. 339-358). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook

of research on teacher education @p. 3-24). New York: Macmillan. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Baron &

R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York: Freeman.

Ferguson, P. (1989). A reflective approach to the methods practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 36-41.

Freiberg, H.J., & Waxman, H.C. (1990). Reflection and the acquisition of technical teaching skills. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues andprograms (pp. 119-138). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fuller, F., & Bown, 0. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education (The seventy-fourth NSSE yearbook). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY Aldine de Gruyter.

Goodman, J. (1986). Making early field experience meaningful: A critical approach. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(2), 109-25.

Gormley, K., Hammer, J., McDermott, P., & Rothenberg, J. (1993, October). An investigation into the influence of classroom practica experiences on student teachers' thoughts about teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 559)

Grimmett, P.P., Erickson, G.L., MacKinnon, A.M., & Riecken, T.J. (1990). Reflective practice in teacher education. In R.T. Clift, W.R. Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and program (pp. 20-38). New York: Teachers College Press.

master's thesis, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI.

W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 5 14-534). New York: Macmillan.

Action in Teacher Education, 8(3), 51-56.

Grinberg, J.G. (1 989). Reflective pedagogical thinking in teacher education. Unpublished

Guyton, E., & Mclntyre, D. J. (1 990). Student teaching and school experiences. In

Hanna, B. (1986). Improving student teaching effectiveness through action research projects.

87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Jacobs, H. (1 989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Lampert, M. & Clark, C.M. (1990). Expert knowledge and expert thinking in teaching: A

response to Floden and Klinzing. Educational Researcher; 19(4), 21 -23. Marzano, R. J. (1991). Fostering thinking across the curriculum through knowledge

restructuring. Journal of Reading, 34(7), 5 18-525. Noordhoff, K. & Kleinfeld, J. (1990). Shaping the rhetoric of reflection. In R.T. Clift,

W.R. Houston, & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs (pp. 163-185). New York: Teachers College Press.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality and the child. New York: Basic Books. Posner, G., (1996). Field experience: A guide to reflective thinking. White Plains, NY Longman. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. Ross, D. D. (1989). First steps in developing a reflective approach.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schon, D. (1 987). Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning theory, research and practice.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.

Tama, M.C. & Peterson, K. (1991). Achieving reflectivity through literature.

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.

Wedman, J.M., & Martin, M.W. (1986). Exploring the development of reflective thinking

Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 22-30.

Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Educational Leadership, 48(6), 22-24.

Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 205-228.

through journal writing. Reading Improvement, 23( l), 68-7 1.

88

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4

APPENDIX A - Self-Rating Scale

Using this scale, rate yourself in comparison to an expert teacher.

1 2 3 4 5 Weak Fair Good Very Good Excellent

1. using effective oral language 2. using appropriate written language 3. developing a rapport with students 4. establishing a positive classroom climate 5. utilizing positive reinforcement techniques 6. handling behavior problems fairly and with consistency 7. establishing and maintaining classroom rules and procedures 8. incorporating a variety of motivational techniques 9. developing thematic units

10. writing clear, appropriate lesson plans 11. organizing materials for lesson 12. using a variety of appropriate techniques to measure objectives 13. developing evaluation instruments 14. providing prompt feedback to students 15. implementing thematic units 16. teaching multi-age groups 17. stimulating higher-level thinking 18. structuring learning experiences so that the students express themselves in a

19. team teaching 20. reflecting on your teaching for the purpose of improving instruction 21. making the objective of the lesson clear to students 22. introducing a lesson 23. closing a lesson 24. pacing lessons effectively 25. demonstrating knowledge of subject matter 26. monitoring students’ learning 27. adapting instruction to meet students’ needs 28. utilizing effective questioning techniques 29. utilizing a variety of teaching aids, techniques, and methods 30. providing clear directions 3 1. providing meaningful independent work 32. maintain students’ interest and involvement 33. ability to accept constructive criticism 34. judgment 35. industriousness 36. efficiency 37. cooperation 38. professionalism 39. initiative 40. flexibility 4 1. self-confidence

43. creativity

45. sensitivity

creative manner

- 42. enthusiasm

- 44. self-growth

89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 2

2:02

09

Oct

ober

201

4