aacte paper - pugetsound.edu dev… · web viewan intentional partnership, by contrast, extends...

Rehearsing Professional Roles

REHEARSING PROFESSIONAL ROLES IN COMMUNITY:

TEACHER IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT IN A SCHOOL-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP

Introduction

In this paper, we document a school-university partnership effort developed

within the current American context for teacher education – in particular, where federal

and state education policies have given school districts strong incentives for focusing

teachers on pre-packaged curricula designed to raise scores on standardized tests – and

where universities are under increasing pressure to prepare teaching candidates who can

implement such curricula successfully. We describe and provide evidence about what we

call an “intentional partnership”—a school-university relationship which emphasizes

systematic dialogue in relation to the internship experiences of pre-service teachers. This

partnership aims for beginning teacher development in a collaborative context, where

various forces affecting experienced teachers, teacher educators, and pre-service teachers

are made visible and discussed openly with both generosity and skepticism. In particular,

we are interested in how such partnerships might influence beginning teachers’ identity

development, in a time when “dominant discourses position teachers as passive recipients

of others’ expert knowledge, rather than as knowers in [their] own right” (Luna, et al,

2004, p.69). The following question guides our work: In what ways might an intentional

partnership structure influence beginning teachers’ professional identity development,

especially their sense of agency in relation to school curricula?

We organize our paper into four parts. First, we define our intentional partnership

model and provide a rationale for our emphasis on teacher identity development. Second,

we describe our meeting practices and how we’ve collected evidence on the partnership.


Third, we provide evidence of the various ways we see teachers taking on identity

positions in the partnership. Fourth, we consider implications for teacher identity

development and evolving partnership practices.

Conceptual Framework: Intentional Partnerships and Teacher Identity

Comparing Partnership Models

We describe our partnership model in relation to two other approaches to school-

university collaboration: informal partnerships and professional development schools.

We position an intentional partnership between these two models, although it draws

elements from both (Hamel & Ryken, 2006). Table 1 compares the three models, their

purposes, structure, and central practices.

[Insert Table 1 here]

From our own experience with local schools, we identify an “informal

partnership” as a school site where we have created successful internships (observation

and student teaching experiences) with mentor teachers and principals for several years,

often mediated through one-on-one relationships between specific individuals. Informal

partnerships exist where principals consistently agree to work with our students, where a

handful of mentors know our program well, and where our pre-service students

consistently report positive internship experiences. Our program has a strong reputation

at such schools, and relationships between mentors and university supervisors have

matured over time. Informal partnership sites may shift over time with teacher mobility

and attrition, but this is precisely the wisdom of the informal model. Both school and

university can step back from the relationship, if needed.

1


An intentional partnership, by contrast, extends an informal partnership by

intentionally fostering and structuring dialogue among educational professionals invested

in a single internship site – pre-service teachers, mentors, supervisors, professors, and

principal. Cochran-Smith (2005) notes that “many goals of teacher preparation are best

met in the intersections of universities, schools, and communities” (p. 13). Here, the

metaphor of “intersection” frames the school-university relationship as a meeting place of

multiple, competing interests – locations where professionals from distinct contexts will

hold mutual investment and many differences. The primary focus of an intentional

partnership, in our view, is on developing intersection spaces where such different

interests and investment come into view.

An intentional partnership, like a professional development school (PDS), is a

programmatic, capacity-building structure, rather than a set of informal or idiosyncratic

relationships between a few individuals across institutions. However, unlike an

intentional partnership, PDS’s emphasize system-building across educational institutions.

According to the National Association for the Development of Professional Development

Schools, professional development schools share philosophical commitments to

advancing equity, reflective practice, active engagement in the school and broader

community, and public communication about teaching practice. While an intentional

partnership shares such goals, PDS’s hold, in addition, four logistical requirements 1)

“An articulation agreement developed by the respective participants delineating the roles

and responsibilities of all involved,” 2) “A structure that allows all participants a forum

for ongoing governance, reflection, and collaboration,” 3) “Work by college/university

faculty and P–12 faculty in formal roles across and institutional settings,” and 4)

2


“Dedicated and shared resources and formal rewards and recognition structures,”

(Executive Council, 2008, p. 3). In this sense, the ultimate aim of a PDS involves the

achievement of such elements as “common vision” and “joint work” (NCATE, 2001).

By contrast, the intentional partnership model focuses specifically on cultivating

dialogue and hearing different points of view. While professional development schools

certainly embrace dialogue and perspective-taking, the central aim of our intentional

partnership is to cultivate substantive communication events – productive dialogue

between individuals who are positioned very differently in relation to pre-service teacher

growth. The primary goal, in the words of Cochran-Smith (2000), is to “help make

visible and accessible everyday events and practices and the ways they are differently

understood by different stakeholders in the educational process” (p.167). We are

particularly interested in how the intentional crossing of voices makes visible various

forces, interests, and pressures that shape conceptions of teaching and learning across

institutions.

Goodlad (1988) indeed argues that school-university partnerships hinge most

essentially on substantive interaction. He writes of the difficulty of maintaining rich

communication across institutions:

The most significant [partnership] elements, such as collaborative inquiry,

are also the most difficult to achieve and, simultaneously, the most

deceptively subtle in their mature functioning. Consequently, they usually

are the ones least likely to be diligently cultivated and most likely to be

sacrificed to ‘packages’ or quick-fix panaceas (p.20).

3


Given the difficulty in achieving such “mature functioning,” we have focused our efforts

on how mentor teachers, principals, teacher educators, and pre-service teachers might

have powerful conversations together around shared questions that cross institutions.

Such dialogue provides beginning and experienced teachers with a forum within which to

articulate how varied forces are shaping their work and to hear alternative points of view.

Identity Development in Partnership

Underlying our conception of partnership is the notion that learning to teach is

centrally about identity development (Alsup, 2006; Costello, 2005; Olsen, 2008), not

merely about instructional tools, knowledge, skill sets, behaviors, or even dispositions.

Alsup (2006) highlights that identity development for teachers is complex, that

“establishing…a rich multi-faceted identity…requires the acceptance of ambiguity,

multiple subjectivities, shifting contexts, and uncomfortable tension among ideological

perspectives” (p.192). Acknowledging and grappling with the fundamental tensions of

becoming a teacher necessarily involves attention to the ways in which individuals move

within and between diverse spaces, in particular, university and school contexts, as well

as to one’s agency in relation to school curricula. Pre-service teachers entering school

sites, for example, despite the progressive practices they have experienced in methods

courses, can quickly adopt default identities that assume teaching to be an isolated act,

teachers as “implementers” of curriculum, and school as real-world vs. university as

idealized theory. Thus, our partnership work aims to address how pre-service teachers

see themselves as professionals – i.e. whether or not they have a voice in their

professional community, whether they are authorized to experiment and question,

whether they feel they have to choose sides between university and school or between

4


theory and practice. Intentional partnerships likewise encourage teacher educators and

mentor teachers to co-inhabit the spaces where such tensions are experienced and to share

their own tensions with those new to our profession.

Students in professional schools face distinct challenges as they work to take on a

new professional identity—in our case, the identity of teacher. Costello (2005) suggests

that students in professional schools are often “preoccupied with questions such as Who

am I? What are my ideals? and What are my priorities?” (p. 26). She notes that,

While a professional student may be “converted” to a new view of

himself,

this occurs only after the student “rehearses” and “portrays” the

professional role to others, “realizing” a professional identity by

“mastering performance situations.” Thus, professional identity is not

necessarily a self concept but a representation of the self to others.

Professional identity is “asserted,” “claimed,” and “secured” (p. 31).

From this perspective, partnership meetings aim to provide an important space for pre-

service teachers to try on identity positions and to rehearse such roles by talking about

teaching and learning in the company of mentor teachers and professors. Rehearsals in

this context allow teachers to take on or appropriate various forms of talk and action that

may shape how they envision their role and voice in schools. During partnership

meetings, this could look like teachers asking critical questions about the adopted

curriculum, identifying and reframing assumptions, or wondering about the broader

purpose of teaching a particular subject.

5


Costello also emphasizes how physical space, role models, and discourse

powerfully impact the socialization process in professional schools. In her research she

found that professors in a school of law controlled conversation, spoke with authority,

and devalued displays of emotion, thus enacting the identity of lawyer as one who is

competitive, articulate, and tough. By contrast, students in a school of social welfare

were socialized to see their role as one of dilemma management that involved

collaboration and omni-directional power relations. Our partnership meetings strive to

open up possibilities for identity development – specifically by socializing students

toward teacher collaboration in the consideration of teaching dilemmas. We believe this

best occurs in a school setting but with multiple teacher education stakeholders present.

In other words, we strive to provide pre-service teachers, mentors, and teacher educators

opportunities to rehearse in a public school setting (rather than a university classroom)

the process of raising questions about their own practice, commenting on gaps and

overlaps between school and university expectations, and generating questions about both

school-based curricula and university-sanctioned practices.

Meeting Practices

The central practice of the intentional partnership is discussion of specific

dilemmas of teaching by analyzing student, teacher, and/or curriculum artifacts.

Meetings typically follow a five part agenda: 1) welcome and review of previous

meetings, 2) introduction of a teaching dilemma, 3) small group discussion, 4) whole

group discussion, and 5) feedback. During the academic year, we aim to meet as a group

in six one-hour meetings, three in the fall semester and three in the spring. Table 2

6


summarizes the meeting topics, discussion questions posed, and the artifacts shared in

2006-2007.


As seen in Table 2, meetings typically involve 15-20 individuals with a roughly

equal balance of pre-service teachers, mentor teachers, and university faculty. To

intentionally support the crossing of multiple voices and perspectives, we have developed

a triad planning structure. A pre-service teacher, his or her mentor, and a university

teacher educator gather before each partnership meeting to decide what artifacts will be

shared and to generate discussion questions. The pre-service teacher is given a lead role

in selecting student learning artifacts and in facilitating the partnership meeting. Table 2

shows that partnership meeting discussions are focused on pre-service teacher questions

and that topics range from discussion of curriculum to broad topics such as classroom

routines or assessment standards. Artifacts shared in meetings range from student work

to descriptions of classroom practice to role plays.

Sirotnik (1988) emphasizes “the obligation to leave empirical and critical records

of organizational activity” (p. 180); thus we have developed a systematic method to

document stakeholder perspectives by seeking feedback and creating transcripts. We

seek feedback from all participants at the end of each meeting; participants respond to the

writing prompt, “What do you take away from today’s partnership meeting?” on index

cards. These responses are typed up and organized into a table by stakeholder group

(pre-service teacher, elementary school, university) to make patterns in perspectives

visible. Meeting transcripts are created by two university professors who have taken

written notes during the meeting. After each meeting, one professor types up a complete

7


transcript and writes reflective commentary. The second professor reviews the transcript,

adding detail and writing additional reflective commentary.

To better understand the nature of interaction during partnership meetings and to

explore our questions about identity development, we have examined meeting talk as

well as the feedback cards. We have examined meeting data in three different ways

following Miles and Huberman’s (1994) recommendation for data reduction, display, and

verification. First, we examined turn-taking and types of talk that individuals used at

meetings. An analysis of turn-taking relates directly to our concern that pre-service

teachers have the opportunity to rehearse a professional role in the company of others.

We began our analysis using a grounded method to identify types of talk and to record

who was talking and how often. A “turn” was defined as a T-unit (Hunt, 1965),

essentially a “meaning unit” composed of a main clause along with the subordinate

clauses that go with it. As part of this process, we identified two important types of

discourse, what we call “informative” and “exploratory” talk.

With the feedback cards, we conducted a content analysis of the participants’

comments. The two researchers independently coded the feedback cards using a

grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and then met and developed a shared

coding scheme through “inter-subjective consensus” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 11).

Using the shared coding scheme the feedback cards were re-coded. This analysis helped

us reconsider the impacts of partnership meetings on teacher identity development. For

example, we noted that when reflecting on partnership meetings, all participants

emphasized three facets of teacher identity—teacher as learner, teacher as curriculum

theorist, and teacher as member of a learning community.

8


Teacher Identity Rehearsal: Searching for Evidence

Costello’s (2005) emphasis on “realizing” a professional identity by “mastering

performance situations” (p. 31) challenges us to carefully consider the opportunities pre-

service teachers have to rehearse various kinds of teaching stances and teacher talk within

a school site and in the company of a range of professionals. We have specifically

examined the ways in which discourse opportunities shape the kinds of agency beginning

teachers might take on amidst district or state curricular demands.

Two Types of Discourse

Two general kinds of discourse occur in our partnership meetings—informative

and exploratory. Informative discourse involves one-directional sharing of information

amongst experts or from expert to novice. For example, our first meeting focused on

“Walk to Read,” a grouping system which involves moving students from their home

classroom into teaching groups in different rooms aimed at each student’s instructional

level. At this meeting, the school principal made a clarification to pre-service students:

“There are 5-6 different elements that you work into that 90 minute reading block. Most

of you don’t see reading [during observation] and you need to know this stuff.” In this

comment, the principal shared information and stated what was important information to

know. At this early time in the school year, our teaching candidates were observing one

classroom, and thus some had not yet observed the reading curriculum. From a

university perspective, partnership meetings have helped make visible the kinds of

discourse that teaching candidates experience during their placement – in this case how

direct information about an adopted reading program is offered and the urgency with

which such information is shared. Later, in this same meeting, a pre-service teacher

9


asked, while examining an assessment artifact, “On decoding in the ‘tricky word’ section,

do you just write the word there?” She sought direct information from a mentor teacher

about how to complete an assessment form documenting student reading skills.

In contrast, exploratory discourse involves questions, challenges, probes,

proposals, or re-framing. Such discourse offers opportunity for beginning teachers to

rehearse a professional identity as questioner and problem-poser in a school setting. For

example, at the end of our discussion about reading, a mentor teacher wondered aloud, “I

know we are teaching kids to read, but are we creating readers?” The mentor teacher was

posing a question to the group contrasting two purposes of reading instruction. Similarly,

as mentor teachers presented pages of reading scores, a new pre-service teacher

repeatedly asked, “What are your goals for the Read Well program? I’m trying to figure

out your goals.” Here the pre-service teacher was re-framing the discourse from a focus

on “data” to the larger purposes of learning to read with a particular program.

Table 3 shows the distribution of informative and exploratory discourse over the

course of six partnership meetings. Turns listed as “other discourse” typically reflect

introductory directions, background information, or positive affirmations of other

members.


This analysis reveals a shift in balance of exploratory and informative talk after

implementation of planning triad meetings (which began after the first meeting in

September). In the first September meeting, planned by the school principal and three

mentor teachers, nearly two-thirds of the discourse was informative, the one way sharing

of information, about reading instruction at this elementary school. Subsequent meetings

10


show more of a balance of these two forms of talk, although the balance varies across

meetings – sometimes favoring one kind of talk over another. However, the planning

triad structure, embedding the intersection of three different voices (pre-service, mentor,

university faculty) into the planning process, seems to foster a different kind of

professional discourse, namely, greater balance of exploratory and informative talk. In

addition, using focused student learning artifacts – for example, a 3rd grader’s written

responses to mathematical problems – and having a pre-service teacher pose a question

about student work, has generated more exploratory talk. We have found that such

balance is important given the sometimes differing aims of stakeholders – when, as

Goodlad (1988) says, the inquiry-oriented culture of the university meets the practice-

oriented culture of the school. This analysis has helped us realize the power and

prevalence of informative discourse in this partnership school, especially as teachers

make sense of curriculum mandates, and that creating space for exploratory discourse

requires intentionality. In addition, we have come to value the role of both informative

and exploratory talk in the school setting, rather than meetings that dramatically favor

one over the other. We see here the need for beginning teachers to have diverse rehearsal

spaces, where they can try on different kinds of language with professional peers and

become conscious of different forms of teacher talk.

The nature of talk is important to identity development. The shifting balance of

exploratory and informative talk, for example, is consistent with Alsup’s (2006) focus on

identity development involving tensions among multiple perspectives. For example, the

pre-service teacher who raised questions about “purposes” of the school reading program

can be seen as working to negotiate between simply “implementing” and “having

11


agency” as a professional – or between tinkering with state mandates and having an

expanded sense of a teacher as curriculum theorist. Costello (2005) highlights how role

models can powerfully impact such identity development work. Using exploratory and

informative talk, mentor teachers and university teacher educators model for pre-service

teachers and each other how to problem-pose and re-frame issues – as well as how to

share information. As with Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of legitimate peripheral

participation, beginning teachers become novice participants within a particular culture,

both observing and “trying on” the diverse discourse practices of the more experienced

members of the community. The nature of this rehearsal space, we argue, can strongly

shape the identities and discourses that beginning teachers learn to enact professionally.

Turn-Taking

Turn-taking patterns help us examine the issue of speaking rights (Cazden 2001)

among participants, that is, who feels authorized to talk during partnership meetings and,

by inference, how authority to speak might be constructed among professionals in

schools. While we believe that listening to dialogue is an important form of legitimate

peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991), our goal is to create meeting contexts

where multiple voices and stakeholders are heard and where pre-service teachers

participate actively. This is a challenging goal, but one that we believe affects a

beginning teacher’s professional identity – i.e. whether or not a beginning teacher

believes teaching fundamentally involves collaborative dialogue, whether a beginning

teacher can have a professional voice among experienced teaching professionals, or

whether critical questioning might be a possible value, even an expectation, among

colleagues. Navigating turn-taking in partnership meetings, new teachers may gain a

12


heightened sense of how to enter a professional conversation as a novice, when to remain

silent, and when to insert a new voice or question even in contexts where that voice is

undervalued.

Table 4 shows the turn-taking patterns among pre-service teachers, school-based

and university-based participants at each meeting.


Such data helps us think about the resources and questions that help to elicit productive,

multi-vocal teacher talk. For example, our fifth meeting focused on classroom routines.

Two artifacts were shared—the pre-service teacher and mentor teacher role-played a

student turning in math homework, and the mentor teacher shared a two page single-

spaced typed account of every classroom procedure for the first hour of class. At this

meeting, school-based participants (mentor teachers and principal) took 65% of speaking

turns, whereas pre-service teachers took a listening stance with only 13% of speaking

turns. Our second meeting, which focused on a change in the district math curriculum,

school-based participants took 54% of the speaking turns compared to university-based

participants taking only 22% of the turns. At our third meeting, where the two pre-

service teachers linked their questions about classroom discussion to Cazden’s (2001)

views of nontraditional discourse, university-based participants took 40% of the speaking

turns, compared to 26% turns by school-based participants.

We are thus considering the degree to which meeting topics and the nature of the

artifacts impact the balance of turn-taking. It appears that conversations focused

specifically on curriculum initiatives of the school, or more generalized issues

(“assessment,” “classroom routines”) rather than experiences specific to one classroom,

13


invite the input of school-based participants. In addition, we are now more aware of how

different artifacts shape speaking rights. Focused artifacts of student work seem to invite

the participation of pre-service teachers and to strike a balance of talk, perhaps because

they are a text that can be held in one’s hand in the way that a description of classroom

practice or role play cannot, or perhaps because analyzing them does not require judging

the events, and teacher, in one classroom.

[insert Figure 1 here]

In this way, successful artifacts allow the voices and thinking of school children to

become present during meetings, but perhaps more importantly they simultaneously

create a “third point” (Lipton & Wellman, 2003, pp. 30-31) – that is, a reference point

which mediates substantive communication between different parties without putting

those parties at substantive risk. Such artifacts in combination with a focused pre-service

question have tended to invite pre-service participation and engender greater balance in

turn-taking during meetings. Less successful have been artifacts that hold too much data

(too many artifacts or too much data on any one artifact). This year we have had a

generous view of what constitutes an artifact, next year we may focus on student work

specifically to better support the participation of pre-service teachers.

Participant Feedback

Our content analysis of participant feedback reveals important trends in teacher

identity development for all participants—pre-service teachers, mentor teachers, and

university teacher educators. The goal in partnership meetings is to intentionally support

the intersection of multiple voices, and to view pre-service learning as embedded within a

wider circle of professionals engaged in ongoing development and growth. Thus we

14


share participants’ written reflections as evidence of how a multi-vocal dialogue can

impact teacher identity development for a range of educators.

In their reactions to meetings, pre-service teachers often write about a tension

between their desire for answers and the realization that teaching involves numerous,

ongoing dilemmas. They claim a deeper sense of agency toward their teaching practice,

even as the answers they seek are not always forthcoming in partnership discussions.

The written reflections reveal how pre-service teachers come to see themselves as

teacher-learners in professional dialogue with others.

(pre-service teacher A): Hearing so many voices in the room agree that the sense-making continues is both reassuring and daunting, but at least I don’t feel so much anxiety about how far I have to come in 10 months.

(pre-service teacher B): I came without so many questions expecting some answers or advice, and I believe I got some really good advice. But it was nice to see in the discussion that people who have been doing this forever still don’t have all the answers. Even though we are teachers we will always be learners. It was also nice to be in a place with superiors in more of a peer way.

In both comments, students highlight the importance of claiming a sense of teaching that

goes beyond “finding the answers,” and in which students find a sense of collegiality

among experienced professionals.

Mentor teachers write about their struggles to make sense of curricular realities

and practices, often taking an inquiry orientation by expressing a desire to understand the

issues they face. Like pre-service teachers, they explicitly recognize the ongoing growth

and development involved in learning to teach. Mentor teachers’ consistent use of the

words “deep” and “deeper” suggest that partnership meetings create a context that allows

15


them to explore questions and tensions that might not come to the forefront amidst the

daily demands of teaching.

(mentor A): I think it feels good to have time to discuss meaningfully the deep issues about math materials. We’re as confused about the process as the MAT students are, and they need to see that we too struggle to make sense out of what and how we’re teaching kids. I think it was important to hear that you are always growing and learning no matter how long you’ve been teaching.

(mentor B): it is good for the student teachers to hear and be involved in “deeper” discussions about what we teach. We have to be involved at the district leveling choosing programs and not just sit back and wait for programs to be given to us to use.

University professors and supervisors typically comment on pre-service teacher

participation and growth, acknowledge increased awareness regarding student work and

variation across classroom and school sites, and recognize how their assumptions differ

from curriculum enacted in school sites.

(university faculty A): My previously clear understanding of the differences between “drill” and “practice” became muddied when I looked at samples of work. I’m concerned about the outcome of using Saxon and Investigations with no guidance—with every school, and sometimes with a school-every classroom, doing something different.

(university faculty B): I’m struck by vast differences between my own literacy assumptions and the assessment practices and structures of Walk to Read.

As teacher educators participating in the partnership we identify our own

assumptions and have those assumptions and our perspectives challenged. We become

more aware of the “deceptively subtle functioning” of our intentional partnership

(Goodlad, 1988) and also become sensitized to shifts in pre-service teacher identity as

well as in our own. As one university professor wrote about a pre-service teacher’s

pointed comment during a meeting:

16


I took away the power of Rob’s rejoinder today—his insistence that we do not lose the spirit of the partnership by too much talk between mentors and professors. By voicing this concern aloud … he enacted something mentioned early in the meeting—i.e. the importance of taking on the role of “professional in conversation”—rather than just polite novice.

Although Alsup (2006) and Costello (2005) emphasize identity development for new

professionals, the feedback cards make visible to us the ongoing nature of identity

development among all partnership members. We see how teachers with varying

experience are shaped through implicit questions at work in the partnership, such as

“What are others’ experiencing?” “What kinds of discourse are allowed in this setting?”

“What kinds of certainty must I portray about my practice?” and “What might my

teaching look like in the future?”

Implications

Identity in Community

A fundamental shift in our thinking has been to conceive of identity development

as central to the purposes of partnership. In particular, we are concerned with how pre-

service teachers conceive of themselves in relation to broader institutions—the public

schools and university—both of which directly attempt to shape their pedagogical

thinking. We believe their teacher identities are shaped by whether and how school and

university talk and work together, how we regard each other, and how we listen to one

another. We have learned the importance of intentionally fostering multi-vocal dialogue

– in a few designated partner schools – which helps make visible our various

intersections, differences, and mutual investments. Such conversations not only re-cast

the borders between institutions but also provide beginning teachers with an image of the

possible, giving them experience with an “alternative, extended professional

17


community,” which may be essential in reducing the sense of isolation which renders

teacher agency a risky prospect (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006, p. 58). Such talk, we assert,

has the potential to shift how pre-service teachers see themselves as professionals.

Costello’s (2005) focus on rehearsal space and claiming a professional identity

has been especially helpful as we conceptualize what it means to take on the identity of a

teacher. We have come to see our partnership meetings not only as locations where pre-

service teachers acquire skills and knowledge, but as locations where they negotiate who

they are and might become as teachers. Partnership meetings provide a rehearsal space to

engage questions about the status of one’s professional voice and to pose questions based

on ongoing teaching dilemmas. Such interaction provides opportunity to experience how

one claims a position and voice within a school community and in relation to the

demands of outside institutions and authorities. Participants gain a heightened sense of

how to enter a professional conversation as a novice and when to assert exploratory

voices even in contexts where such discourse may be undervalued. Perhaps most

important, novices participate with experienced teachers, school leaders, and professors,

who enact such practices in a community. Our research reminds us that teacher identity

development is a life-long process – but also one that is shaped powerfully during early

apprenticeship experiences – and that early career teachers seldom experience contexts

where multi-vocal dialogue (university professor, mentor teacher, field supervisor,

principal, pre-service teacher) is active.

Partnership Practices

Our partnership practices shift and evolve as we have more experiences working

with partner schools. Yet, a few core features stand out. Of central importance to

18


creating multi-vocal dialogue is the triad planning structure, which both supports pre-

service teachers to take a lead role by presenting a dilemma from their practice, and also

situates three perspectives in the planning process (pre-service, mentor, and university

teacher educator).

In addition, student artifacts that are both accessible and complex are essential.

Specifically, we have learned to ask pre-service teachers to locate a “provocative pairing”

of artifacts, that is, two student artifacts from the same learning task that differ in a way

that raises questions or is intriguing. We have found that a beginning teacher’s authentic,

classroom-based question combined with a provocative pairing of artifacts can produce

powerful dialogue across experience levels – dialogue that is specific to classroom

practice and elicits connection to conceptual views, pedagogical theories, and political

realities.

Finally, the questions below guide us specifically in planning and assessing

partnership meetings:

Are meeting conversations multi-vocal? Who is talking and how often?

What is the balance of informative and exploratory talk? What impacts this

balance?

What kinds of artifacts, topics, and planning structures support multi-vocal

dialogue?

To what degree are pre-service teacher questions central to the discussion?

To what extent do meetings help us, as teacher educators, better understand

the experiences of our pre-service students and their mentors -- and envision

program change or growth?

19


Conclusion

Our intentional partnership model brings pre-service teachers, mentor teachers,

and teacher educators into a shared acculturation process in the context of series of

purposeful meetings. In this setting, educators investigate curriculum and pedagogy,

express uncertainties, and verbalize the many tensions faced in teaching. Like Luna et

al’s (2004) group of educators engaged in a critical literacy teacher inquiry group, we

have realized that

Within the dominant discourse of professional development, support for teachers

is typically conceptualized as having access to expert advice, resource materials,

and funding. Although we agree that all of these elements are important for

teachers’ professional growth, support in our group had more to do with being

listened to, challenged, and validated . . . (p. 79).

As noted earlier, Costello (2005) suggests that students in professional schools struggle to

take on professional identities. For teachers, part of this includes negotiating ways of

relating to curriculum. By reviewing student discourse during meetings, we see pre-

service teachers rehearsing the professional role of teacher and explicitly stating their

ideals and priorities in the company of a range of teacher educators and mentors. They

are affirmed in active curricular thinking and are being heard within a larger, diverse

group. We are reminded that identity never develops outside of a social world – that the

construction of that social world matters, and that the responses that others give in that

world help us to know who we are and the limits of what might be possible.

20


References

Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R.T. (2006). (In)Fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers

reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies.

Harvard Educational Review, 76 (1), 30-63.

Alsup, J. (2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional

spaces. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning, 5th

Edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). The new teacher education: For better or for worse?

Educational Researcher, 34 (7), 3-17.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racism in teacher education.

Harvard Educational Review, 70 (2), 157-190.

Costello, C.Y. (2005). Professional identity crisis: Race, class, gender, and success at

professional schools. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Executive Council & Board of Directors of the National Association for Professional

Development Schools (2008). What it means to be a professional

development

school. Columbia, SC: Author. Retrieved on January 14, 2010 from

http://www.napds.org/9%20Essentials/statement.pdf.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Goodlad, J.I. (1988). School-university partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale

and concepts. In K.A. Sirotnik & J.I. Goodlad (Eds.), School-university

21


partnerships in action: Concepts, cases and concerns (pp.3-31). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Hamel, F.L. & Ryken, A.E., with M. Kokich, J. King, & O. Lay (2006). Intentional

partnerships: Generating learning within and across institutional contexts.

AILACTE Journal (Association of Independent Liberal Arts Colleges of Teacher

Education) 3 (1): 41-59.

Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE

Research report #3. Champaign, IL: NCTE, 1965a. ED 113 735.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lipton, L. & Wellman, B. (2003). Mentoring matters: A practical guide to learning-

focused relationships. 2nd Edition. Sherman, CT. MiraVia.

Luna, C., Botelho, M. J., Fontaine, D., French, K., Iverson, K., & Matos, N. (2004).

Making the road by waling and talking: Critical literacy and/as professional

development in a teacher inquiry group. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31 (1), 67-

80.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data

analysis, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

NCATE. (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Retrieved May 1,

2007,

from NCATE Web site http://www.ncate.org/documents/pdsStandards.pdf.

Olsen, B. (2008). Teaching what they learn, learning what they live: How teachers’

personal histories shape their professional development. Boulder, CO: Paradigm

22


Publishers.

Sirotnik, K.A. (1988). The meaning and conduct of inquiry in school-university

partnerships. In Kenneth A. Sirotnik & John I. Goodlad (Eds.) School-university

partnership in action. (pp. 169-190). New York: Teachers College Press.

23

aacte paper - pugetsound.edu dev… · web viewan intentional partnership, by contrast, extends...

Documents