university and urban school district collaboration: preschoolers and preservice teachers gain...

16
This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University] On: 22 November 2014, At: 07:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Reading Research and Instruction Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19 University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills Susan A. Young a & Lynn Romeo a a Monmouth University Published online: 28 Jan 2010. To cite this article: Susan A. Young & Lynn Romeo (1998) University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills, Reading Research and Instruction, 38:2, 101-114, DOI: 10.1080/19388079909558281 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558281 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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Upload: lynn

Post on 27-Mar-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 22 November 2014, At: 07:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

University and urban schooldistrict collaboration:Preschoolers and preserviceteachers gain literacy skillsSusan A. Young a & Lynn Romeo aa Monmouth UniversityPublished online: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Susan A. Young & Lynn Romeo (1998) University andurban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachersgain literacy skills, Reading Research and Instruction, 38:2, 101-114, DOI:10.1080/19388079909558281

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079909558281

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Page 2: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

Reading Research and InstructionWinter 1999, 38 (2) 101-114

University and urban school districtcollaboration: Preschoolers and preservice

teachers gain literacy skills

Susan A. YoungLynn Romeo

Monmouth University

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the impact of a University-public school partner-ship involving at-risk preschoolers and undergraduate and graduate edu-cation students. The goal for the preservice teachers was to enhance theirunderstanding of the emergent literacy process by merging an authenticfield placement with an on-campus literacy course, thus allowing the inte-gration of theory and practice. Results indicated that the preservice teach-ers believed that their participation in a literacy rich preschool aided theirunderstanding of the emergent literacy process. The amount of time spenton-site and their degree of involvement in the teaching process had a pos-itive impact on the students' views.

It has become increasingly more apparent that university-community schoolpartnerships are a valuable model for promoting effective school improvement(Richmond, 1996). University-public school collaboration must use the strengthsand resources of both partners to benefit the university students as well as thepublic school children receiving the services. Based on the literature regardingsuccessful collaborations, shared ownership as well as overlapping self-interestsform the basis for any thriving partnership (Shive, 1984; Wangemann, Ingram &Muse, 1989). A third essential component necessary for successful collaborationis commitment among all partners to the belief that the potential gains are worththe inevitable sacrifices involved in a close unity of this type (Kirschner, Dickin-son, & Blosser, 1996; Boccia, 1995; Hickey, 1993; Wangemann, Ingram, & Muse,1989).

These collaborative endeavors have often provided assistance to diverse stu-dents from racially mixed low-income families (Noffke, Clark, Palmeri-Santiago,Sadler & Shujaa, 1996). Historically, partnerships have focused on young chil-dren as well as students who are transitioning from the secondary schools intotwo or four-year college programs. Some of the collaborations centered onassisting pre-college age students directly, while others aimed to improve teach-ing, curriculum, and university research methods (Ascher, 1989). The partnership

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

102 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 1999 Vol.38 No. 2

taken up in this article involved preschoolers served by university undergraduateand graduate students who were also expected to benefit from the collaboration.(Allen, 1993).

The goal for the preservice teachers was to increase their understanding ofinstructional methodology by allowing them an opportunity to practice whatthey had learned in the university classroom in an authentic field placement.This project evolved from the belief that teacher education could be strength-ened if the university students joined the network of community volunteers asparticipants in preschool experiences (Mosenthal, 1996; Darling, 1995).

The collaboration between Monmouth University and the Long Branch PublicSchools began when the school superintendent wanted to provide free preschoolexperience to three, four and five-year-old pupils. In the past, sixty percent ofthe incoming kindergartners in this urban school district had no preschool expe-riences due to financial restrictions of many of the parents. These students his-torically had impoverished oral language experiences and little or no prior expo-sure to print rich activities, such as story reading and identifying common logos,often referred to as environmental print. A program was needed to provideenriching preschool activities without incurring additional financial stress to theurban community.

In October of 1994, Joseph Ferraina, the Superintendent of Schools in LongBranch, New Jersey issued a challenge for concerned citizens to join together tomeet the needs of the preschool population. Seeing an opportunity to reach outto the community and offer classroom experience to our undergraduate andgraduate students, we began to attend monthly planning meetings to develop aliteracy-based preschool that would be staffed by university students. The steer-ing committee was comprised of the authors of this article as representatives ofMonmouth University, the school district's central office administrators, princi-pals, teachers, parents, members of the community and the Board of Education.

The steering committee recommended a pilot program that was conductedfor five weeks in the summer of 1995. The pilot program was staffed by LongBranch Public School teachers, Monmouth University graduate students, andvolunteers from the Delta Kappa Gamma Educational Honor Society.

Preschoolers attended classes for two hours daily. In order to promote familyliteracy, workshops were held weekly for parents. Topics were gleaned from thesocial, emotional, motor, and language development areas. In addition, there was amajor emphasis on how the parents could foster literacy acquisition in the homeenvironment. Local kindergarten teachers also discussed what the instruction inkindergarten would stress.

The tremendous success of the pilot program led to the 1995 opening of theReady Set Go Preschool, which operated three mornings a week. Two classes,comprised of three, four, and five-year-olds were instructed for two hours daily,Tuesday through Thursday. In total, there were twenty-five sessions. This wasincreased to thirty-six sessions in the Spring of 1996.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

University and urban school district collaboration 103

We provided the preschool with preservice teachers to serve as teachers andteaching assistants. These students were concurrently registered in literacycourses requiring them to work with preschoolers using techniques that theylearned in the courses. The students were taught in their courses that preschoolyoungsters should enjoy interacting with print in a relaxed atmosphere filledwith caring adults. Since enriching the play environment with literacy propsgreatly increases the amount of time the children engage in literate behaviorsduring free-play periods, (Morrow & Rand, 1991; Strickland & Morrow, 1990),state of the art Literacy Play Centers were designed by the graduate students toallow preschoolers an opportunity to experiment with print on their own terms.One classroom environment reported in this article was enriched with a veteri-narian's office, a travel agency, and a grocery store. The play centers in a secondpreschool class considered here included the Star Cafe, an office, and The ReadySet Go Bank.

This particular study focused on the collaboration component which involvedthe preservice teachers' interaction in the preschool. We specifically wanted todetermine if the field placement enhanced their understanding of the emergingliteracy process. In addition, we wanted to investigate the varying roles of the pre-service teachers and the effect the roles had on their knowledge of preschoolers.

METHODOLOGY

ParticipantsTwenty-six graduate and undergraduate preservice teachers participated in

this university-community preschool partnership. The preservice teachers wereinvolved in teaching or assisting in the teaching of three-, four- and five-year-oldchildren. Five students served as the teachers throughout the semester. Theteachers were responsible for the planning and implementation of all lessons.Twenty-one students served as teaching assistants who provided support duringwhole and small group activities. Eleven of these assistants were on-site one dayper week and the remaining ten students were on-site one day, every other week.

Twenty-eight preschoolers (fourteen three-year-olds; eleven four-year-olds;three five-year-olds) participated in the two classrooms of this preschool. Thesample included sixteen boys and twelve girls. The racial make-up of the groupincluded six Caucasians, twelve African Americans, and ten Hispanics.

ProceduresThis study was conducted in the spring of 1996 in the two Ready Set Go

Preschool classrooms in Long Branch, New Jersey.We designed a classroom schedule of activities that would enhance the liter-

acy acquisition of young at-risk children. For the first fifteen minutes, thepreschoolers had a choice of playing in the literacy play centers, browsing in thereading corner, working in the writing center, or using manipulatives. This wasfollowed by whole group instruction which focused on the calendar, the weather,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

104 Reading Resemvh and Instruction Winter 1999 Vol. 38 No. 2

the helper chart, the morning message and the hello song. During this phase ofthe program, students had to identify their names in print. Opening exerciseswere followed by the shared book experience, using a big book. The teachersengaged the preschoolers in schema building through think-alouds and predic-tion making activities. Book conventions and retellings were also addressed.Following the shared book experience, the children again were given a choice ofexploring one of the literacy play centers, engaging in literacy in the readingcorner, crafting a piece of writing in the writing center, or building with manipu-latives. The literacy play centers were restricted by number. A maximum of threechildren were allowed in each center at one time. The destination of the childrenwas planned and written with one of the assistants on special paper provided forthis purpose. The assistants tried to engage the preschoolers in pretend readingand writing during the time the children were in the literacy play centers. Duringsnack time, assistants engaged the students in conversation and helped them torecap the activity that took place while in the various centers. The assistantswrote down and read back what the preschoolers dictated. The finger pointingtechnique was used to ensure that the preschoolers were conceptualizing theone-to-one speech to print connection. After snack, the children were reassem-bled in a large group for a read aloud. The day ended with movement and musicexercises to enhance motor development.

InstrumentsA questionnaire was given to the preservice teachers at the end of the semester

to determine their perceptions of the experience. Twenty-three items were ratedon the following scale:

1 not at all2 somewhat3 pretty much4 a lot5 very much

One item assessed the participants' overall enjoyment in the project (I enjoyedparticipating in the Long Branch preschool project during this semester.). Othermore specific aspects of this collaborative venture were explored. Three ques-tions were posed about their participation in the shared book experience (I feltthat my participation in the preschool project gave me experience with theshared book reading. I enjoyed reading the children's literature that was utilizedin the preschool.). Six questions focused on attitudes involving the Literacy PlayCenters (Participating in the Literacy Play Centers gave me insight into the nat-ural and pretend play of three-, four- and five-year-olds. It was a valuable expe-rience to participate in a Literacy Play Center rather than to read about one.).Additional questions were designed to ascertain if the preservice teachers observeddeveloping language patterns, motor skill acquisition, and early attempts at read-ing and writing (I felt that participating in the Long Branch project gave me a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

University and urban school district collaboration 105

first hand glimpse at early literacy development. I felt that my participation inthe preschool project gave me exposure to the developing language patterns ofpreschoolers. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me exposureto the developing motor skill patterns of preschoolers; cutting, pasting, coloring.).

Two open-ended questions were also posed regarding the aspects of the pro-ject that were viewed as most advantageous for their professional growth as pre-service teachers. Their perceptions on the strengths and weaknesses of thepreschool program were assessed as well as their comments regarding futureprogram improvement. Open coding was utilized to analyze this data (Strauss &Corbin, 1990). The complete questionnaire appears in Appendix A.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A one-way analysis of variance was used to compare the responses to eachitem on the questionnaire between the three types of respondents (teacher, everyweek assistants and every other week assistants). Significant results were fol-lowed up with post hoc analyses using the Tukey HSD test.

Three interpretable clusters of results were revealed by the analyses. Thefirst cluster of results involved questions that concerned the respondents' evalua-tion of the overall field placement as well as their familiarity and ease with theshared book experience. The teachers had mean scores ranging from 4.8 to 5.0for questions in this group. The assistants who attended the preschool everyweek had mean scores ranging from 4.4 to 4.6. The assistants who only attendedevery other week had mean scores that ranged from 3.12 to 3.64 for the samequestions. The three types of respondents significantly differed in their feelingson the school based project, F (2,23)= 11.44, p < .001. Every other week respon-dents enjoyed participating less than the every week (p < .05) and teacher (p <.05) respondents. The same was true when respondents were asked whether theyfelt participation gave them experience with shared book reading, F (2, 23) =6.82, p < .05. Every other week respondents agreed with this statement less thanthe every week (p < .05) and teacher (p < .05) respondents. Differences in enjoy-ment of reading the children's literature, F (2, 23) = 5.02, p < .02, showed thatthe every other week participants enjoyed reading the literature less than theevery week (p < .05) and teacher (p < .05) respondents. Finally, when asked ifthe respondent would recommend this project to other preservice teachers, therewas a significant difference between the types of respondents, F (2, 23) = 7.76, p< .004. Again, every other week respondents were less likely to endorse recom-mending the project to others than every week respondents (p < .05) and teacherrespondents (p < .05). These findings appear to lend support to the concept thatincreased preschool contact time on the part of the University students resultedin more positive student evaluations of the field-based experience.

The second cluster of results involved questions concerning gained insightsinto the period of emergent literacy development by the respondents. In general,the mean responses of the teachers were again at the more positive end of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

106 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 1999 Vol.38 No. 2

Table 1

Means and standard deviations for the three groups of respondents

Cluster #1QlQ9Q21Q23

Cluster #2Q2Q3Q4Q6Q14Q16Q17

Cluster #3Ql lQ15

Teachers

N=5

5.00 (0.00)4.80 (0.48)4.80 (0.48)5.00 (0.00)

4.80 (0.45)5.00 (0.00)5.00 (0.00)5.00 (0.00)4.60 (0.89)4.80 (0.45)4.80 (0.45)

5.00 (0.00)4.80 (0.45)

Every WeekAssistants

N=ll

4.40 (0.52)4.60 (0.52)4.60 (0.52)4.60 (0.52)

4.30 (0.82)4.30(0.81)4.20 (0.79)4.40 (0.70)3.50(1.43)4.00 (0.82)3.40 (0.84)

3.50 (0.97)2.70 (1.34)

Every OtherWeek Assistants

N=10

3.12(1.08)3.45 (1.13)3.63(1.12)3.64 (1.03)

3.36(1.12)3.64(1.06)3.36(1.12)3.82(1.08)2.64(1.21)3.55 (0.93)3.64(1.12)

3.00 (0.89)3.27 (0.90)

scale. The range of scores from the teachers' surveys was 4.6 to 5.0. The everyweek assistants had scores that ranged from 3.4 to 4.4. In contrast, the meanscores for the assistants in the every other week group ranged from 2.6 to 3.8.Overall, there was a difference among the three groups concerning whether par-ticipation gave one practical experience, F (2, 23) = 5.10, p < .02. Post hocanalyses revealed that teachers felt participating gave them more practical expe-rience than every other week respondents (p < .05). The three groups differedwhen asked whether participation gave one a first hand glimpse at early literacydevelopment, F (2, 23) = 4.66 p < .03. Teachers agreed with this statement sig-nificantly more than every other week respondents. There was also differencesin agreement between the three groups when asked about whether participationgave one exposure to developing language patterns (F (2, 23) = 6.25, p < .01) aswell as exposure to early attempts at writing (F (2, 23) = 3.64, p < .05). In bothcases, Tukey HSD tests revealed that teachers agreed with these statements sig-nificantly more than every other week respondents (p < .05). Respondents also

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

University and urban school district collaboration 107

differed in their perceptions of whether the children's pretend reading and writ-ing increased during the semester, F (2, 23) = 4.33, p < .03. Again, teachers weremore likely to feel that pretend reading and writing had increased as comparedto the every other week respondents, post hoc analyses (p < .05). Finally, thethree groups of respondents differed in the level of enjoyment of being able toactively participate in the early literacy activities and strategies, F (2,23) = 4.02,p < .04. Teachers enjoyed this active participation significantly more than theevery other week respondents (p < .05). Overall, this group of results suggeststhat being involved in the project as teachers may have allowed these respon-dents to gain a better insight into emergent literacy development. Every otherweek respondents who were the least involved in the project did not appear togain this insight.

The third cluster of results involved feelings about the Literacy Play Centersthemselves. Although this cluster only contained two questions, the same patternseems to have emerged. The teachers had mean scores ranging from 4.8 to 5.0,every week participants had mean scores ranging from 2.7 to 3.5, and every otherweek assistants had mean scores ranging from 3.0 to 3.2. The respondents differedin their enjoyment of using Literacy Play Centers, F (2, 23) = 9.65, p < .001.Teacher respondents enjoyed the play centers significantly more than the everyweek respondents (p < .05), as well as the every other week respondents (p <.05). The three groups also differed when asked whether assisting in the comple-tion of center activity sheets gave them additional insight about the children'semergent literacy development, F (2, 23) = 6.79, p < .005. Again, teachers feltthis activity gave them significantly more insight as compared to the every weekrespondents (p < .05), as well as the every other week respondents (p < .05).

In conclusion, the amount of involvement on the part of the respondentsinfluenced their attitudes concerning the value of the Literacy Play Centers in apreschool setting. Respondents who were more actively involved (i.e., in therole of the teacher) were more likely to see the value of the play centers in theoverall emergent literacy development of the children.

When the open-ended questions were coded, four categories clearly emergedthat depicted strengths of the program. The students were very positive aboutbeing able to view growth in early literacy development. They also enjoyed theopportunity of an authentic field experience that merged theory with practice. Inaddition, the participants gained knowledge regarding the Shared Book Experi-ence and the use of Literacy Play Centers to enhance emerging literacy develop-ment in a preschool setting.

Further analysis of the groups' responses revealed that the participants againvaried in their viewpoints. The teachers felt that the most beneficial part of thepreschool project was being able to view the progress that was made by theyoungsters in both emergent reading and writing. The group of assistants whovolunteered every week felt that the most beneficial part of the program was theexperience that they gained in using the shared book approach. The group ofassistants that were on-site every other week felt that the most advantageous part

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

108 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 1999 Vol. 38 No. 2

of the program was being able to view the preschoolers' growth in fine and grossmotor skills. They also felt that they gained insight in the social interaction ofthe preschoolers. It is interesting to note that the two benefits cited by this everyother week group had no relationship to our main objectives which were provid-ing literacy rich experiences to urban preschool children and exposing pre-ser-vice teachers to a literate environment.

When asked about the specific strengths of the program, the teachersresponded that they felt that the collaboration was a great idea. They especiallyliked having Literacy Play Centers created for their classrooms by the graduatestudents. They also believed that the use of a morning message was very impor-tant for the development of emergent literacy skills. The assistants who were on-site every week felt that they major strength of the program was the knowledgethat they had acquired about preschool children. The answers given by the everyother week assistants showed no patterns of similarities at all.

The following comments made by the respondents were representative ofthe four categories that emerged from the open ended-questions.

1. Viewing growth in early literacy development"The most beneficial part of the preschool project was seeing the progress

made by the children. It was an absolutely rewarding experience.""Communicating and playing with the preschoolers every week and watch-

ing them change was very beneficial. There were some students who didn'tspeak at the beginning of the program who were transformed into outgoing chil-dren by the end of the project."

"I am happy to have had this valuable opportunity to be a small, but what Ithink to be an important part of these children's lives."2. Authentic field experience

"The most beneficial part of the project was being able to see what welearned in class applied in a preschool environment."

"I really enjoyed being so involved in an actual classroom instead of justreading about it. I feel more prepared and confident now in becoming a teacher."

"This project was a valuable learning experience. I got to see everythingthat we talk about in class in a real classroom. It was a tremendous help when itcame time to study because I had a visual image to guide me."3. Shared book experience

"I enjoyed the Shared Book Experience because the children really enjoyedlistening to the stories while following a line of print."

"I feel much more confident now executing a shared book lesson withyoung children. I truly believe that the more opportunities that you have to prac-tice techniques and strategies, the more prepared you will be as a teacher."4. Use of literacy play centers

"I believe that the children's interactions with other children and the assis-tants in the play centers helped them to be emerged in literacy through their play.The children were actively writing menus, receipts, orders, checks, letters, etc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 11: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

University and urban school district collaboration 109

In addition, they were beginning to recognize the words and letters that wereposted in each play center."

"I think that the most beneficial part was observing the children attemptingto read and write in the Literacy Play Centers. Through watching some of thechildren engage in print, I was able to see the various levels of written languagedevelopment. Today two children actively engaged themselves in check writingin the bank. They wrote the amount, date, and who the check was for."

Although the coding revealed no patterns of discernible weaknesses, theteachers reported that the library centers needed new books. They also felt thatthe program should involve more visits from community helpers. The assistantswho attended every week believed that a weakness was the lack of a structuredbehavior management program. The every other week assistants felt that theyneeded to be on-site every week for continuity and enhancement of their literacypre-service training.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS

This study explored the effects of a field placement on students who wereconcurrently enrolled in a literacy course. Measures were used to assess theimpact of this placement on the students' understanding of the emergent literacyprocess. Overall, it appears that the preservice teachers believed they gleanedpertinent information about preschoolers' literacy development from their authenticfield experience. In addition, the amount of time spent on-site had a definiteimpact on the students' views. The teachers who spent the greatest amount oftime volunteering felt they had gotten the most out of all components of the pro-ject. This would tend to support the findings of Pape and Smith (1991) whichindicated that even an entire semester of field placement is probably not enoughtime for students to meld theory and practice through reflection and inquiry. Werealized that every other week attendance should be eliminated from the preschoolin future semesters.

Further, Shen's findings (1995) pointed out that in addition to employing auniversity-public school partnership model, much thought and attention mustalso be concurrently given to the content and experiences of the field placement.We modeled techniques and strategies in our literacy courses, but should haveconsidered additional methods to promote reflection such as dialogue journals orteacher educator/student interaction via e-mail (Stahlhut & Hawkes, 1996). Weeklyon-site meetings of cohort groups (Roebuck, Green, McMahan & Buck, 1994)would also be a means to provide opportunities that could enhance students'understanding of emergent literacy.

There is a need for continued research in the area of teacher training in termsof preparing students to deal with a constellation of societal problems (Harris &Harris, 1993) and learning how to provide quality literacy instruction to a diversepopulation of learners. As Barrel and Young have pointed out, "collaborations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 12: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

110 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 1999 Vol. 38 No. 2

between public schools and universities offer a powerful, more creative meansfor effecting change" (Bartel & Young, 1993, p. 85).

REFERENCES

Allen, K. W. (1993). Cultural diversity and collaboration: Educating teachers for the future.Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 640.

Ascher, C. (1989). School-college collaborations: a strategy for helping low-income minori-ties. The Urban Review, 21, 181-91.

Bartel, V., & Young, B. (1993). Redesigning teacher education: lessons from a school-university collaboration. Education, 114, 85-91.

Boccia, J. A. (1995). Partners in educational change: a school-university model that works.Teaching Education, 7, 75-83.

Darling, L., & Ward, A. (1995). Understanding the school community: a field-based experi-ence in teacher education. Teaching Education, 7, 85-93.

Harris, R. C., & Harris, M. F. (1993). Renewing teacher education & public schooling viauniversity/school collaboration: A decade-long case study. Contemporary Education,64, No. 4.

Hickey, D. R., & Andrews, D. B. (1993). Creating successful partnerships. EducationalRecord, 40-45.

Kirschner, B. W., Dickinson, R., & Blosser, C. (1996). From cooperation to collaboration:The changing culture of a school/university partnership. Theory Into Practice, 35(3),205-213.

Morrow, L. M., & Rand, M. (1991). Preparing the classroom environment to promote liter-acy during play. In James F. Christie (Ed.), Play and early literacy development, (pp.141-163). New York: Albany State University of New York Press.

Mosenthal, J. (1996). Situated learning and methods coursework in the teaching of liter-acy. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 379-404.

Noffke, S. E., Clark, B. G., Palmeri-Santiago, J., Sadler, J., & Shujaa, M. (1996). Conflictlearning, and change in a school/university partnership: Different worlds of sharing.Theory Into Practice, 35(3), 165-172.

Pape, S. L., & Smith, L. C. (1991). Classroom to classroom: Restructuring to meet fieldexperience needs. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher Edu-cators, New Orleans, LA.

Richmond, G. (1996). University/school partnerships: Bridging the culture gap. Theory IntoPractice, 35(3), 214-218.

Roebuck, J. L., Green, C., McMahan, T., & Buck, S. (1994). Cohort placement of teacherinterns in public schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the AACTE/ATE.

Shanklin, N. L., & Rhodes, L. K. (1989). Transforming literacy instruction (university-school collaboration). Educational Leadership, 46, 59-63.

Shen, J. (1995). Student teaching in the context of a school-university partnership: Anethnography of a student teacher. Paper presented at the meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association.

Shive, J. (1984). School and university partnerships: Meeting common needs. ImprovingCollege & University Teaching, 119-22.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 13: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

University and urban school district collaboration 111

Stahlhut, R. G., & Hawkes, R. R. (1996). Classroom teacher cadres: A partnership betweenagencies that is designed to inspire and model "best teaching/learning practices" forstudent teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher Edu-cators.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory proceduresand techniques. New Bury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Strickland, D. S., & Morrow, L. M. (1990). A child plays: Two teachers learn. The ReadingTeacher, 44, 342-344.

Tomlin, M. E., & Koltin, W. (1994). Collaborative teacher education: University academicdivestiture equals public school empowerment. Eric Document Reproduction Ser-vice No. ED 378 158.

Wangemann, P., Ingram, C., & Muse, I. D. (1989). A successful university-public schoolcollaboration: the union of theory and practice. Teacher Education and Special Edu-cation, 12, 61-64.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 14: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

112 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 1999 Vol. 38 No. 2

APPENDIX A

Assistants' Questionnaire

Name:

Date:

Preschool teacher:

For each sentence, circle the number that best matches how you feel about the time youdevoted to the Long Branch preschool project during the semester.

1not

at all

2somewhat

3pretty much

4a lot

5verymuch

1. I enjoyed participating in the Long Branch Pre-School project during this semester

1 2 3 4 5

2. I felt that my participation in the Long Branch preschool project gave me practicalclassroom experience.

1 2 3 4 5

3. I felt that participating in the Long Branch project gave me a first hand glimpse atearly literacy development.

1 2 3 4 5

4. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me exposure to thedeveloping language patterns of preschoolers.

1 2 3 4 5

5. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me exposure to thedeveloping motor skill patterns of preschoolers (cutting, pasting, coloring).

1 2 3 4 5

6. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me exposure to thepreschoolers' early attempts at writing.

1 2 3 4 5

7. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me exosure to thepreschoolers' early attempts at reading.

1 2 3 4 5

8. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me experience withmanaging preschoolers' behavior.

1 2 3 4 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 15: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

University and urban school district collaboration 113

9. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me experience with theshared book reading.1 2 3 4 5

10. I felt that my participation in the preschool project gave me an increasedunderstanding of multiculturalism.

1 2 3 4 5

11. I enjoyed using the literacy play centers with the preschoolers during the LongBranch preschool sessions.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Participating the literacy play centers gave me insight into the natural pretend playof three, four and five year olds.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I felt that the children engaged in pretend reading and writing while in the literacyplay centers.

1 2 3 4 5

14. I felt that the children's pretend reading and writing increased during the semester.

1 2 3 4 5

15. I felt that I gained additional insight about the children's emergent literacydevelopment by assisting them to complete the center sheets that summarized theiractivities while in the literacy play centers.

1 2 3 4 5

16. I enjoyed getting to actively participate in early literacy activities and strategies.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I felt that participation in the Long Branch project gave me an opportunity to workindividually with at risk pupils.

1 2 3 4 5

18. I feel that my future literacy teaching will be affected by my observation of earlyliteracy development.

1 2 3 4 5

19. I feel that my future classroom environment will be affected by my observation ofa print rich classroom.

1 2 3 4 5

20. It was a valuable experience to participate in a literacy play center rather than toread about one.

1 2 3 4 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 16: University and urban school district collaboration: Preschoolers and preservice teachers gain literacy skills

114 Reading Research and Instruction Winter 1999 Vol. 38 No. 2

21. I enjoyed reading the children's literature that was utilized in the preschool.

1 2 3 4 5

22. My knowledge of early children's literature increased during time I spent in thepreschool.

1 2 3 4 5

23. I would recommend this project to other preservice teachers.

1 2 3 4 5

24. Please indicate and then comment about what you think was the most beneficialpart of the preschool project.

25. Please comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the program as well as makesuggestions for the fall session.

Additional comments:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:05

22

Nov

embe

r 20

14