excelsior - nyactenew york state colleges and universities preparing teachers and other prof...

ExcelsiorLeadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 2 Spring / Summer 2011

Message from the President by Kate DaBoll-LavoiePage VII

Notes from the Editor by Cindy LassondePage VIII

Update from The New York State Education Department

Clinical Preparation of TeachersJoseph P. Frey

From the Conference

Collins AddressDr. David Steiner, Commissioner, Describes What Matters Most in TeachingReported by Cindy Lassonde

Page 3

Accreditation Update: E pluribus unumMark LaCelle-Peters

Page 5

Recognition of Service: About Richard GervaisJulius Gregg Adams, Kate DaBoll-Lavoie, and Richard Gervais

Page 7

New York State Teacher of the Year 2010: My Philosophy of TeachingJeffrey Peneston

Page 9

Charles C. Mackey, Jr., Excellence in Service Leadership Award: 2010 RecipientMadeline Berry

Page 11

Reports of Research

Parallel Journeys: Teacher Educators and Teacher Candidates Learn TogetherLorrei DiCamillo and Nancy M. Bailey

Page 15

Directed Peer Response in Differentiated Approaches to the Video Analysis of TeachingLaura H. Baecher and Jennifer Tuten

Page 30

Sharing Perspectives

The Good, The Bad, the Ugly…and the Downright Perplexing: An essay review of DougLemov’s Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to CollegePaul Vermette

Page 44

Nota Bene

Book Review of The Power of One: How You Can Help or Harm African-AmericanStudentsReviewed by Helene S. Napolitano

Page 55

Book Review of Inside Teaching: How Classroom Life Undermines ReformReviewed by David A. Gorlewski

Page 58

Book Review of The Well-Balanced Teacher: How to Work Smarter and Stay Sane Insidethe Classroom and OutReviewed by Julie Shea

Page 61

Documentary Review: The Corporation and the Demands of Social JusticeReviewed by J.C. Blokhuis

Page 63

Call for ManuscriptsPage 67

President Vice President/President Elect Kate DaBoll-Lavoie Paul Vermette Nazareth College Niagara University

Immediate Past President Executive Secretary Lois Fisch Craig Hill Utica College Nazareth College

Treasurer Annjanet Woodburn Pace University

Board of DirectorsJoanne M. Curran Nancy Low-HoganSUNY College at Oneonta Long Island University

Christine Givner Jerrold RossSUNY Fredonia St. John’s University

Mark LaCelle-Peterson Paul VermetteHoughton College Niagara University

Journal Editor WebmasterCindy Lassonde Ed TeallSUNY College at Oneonta Mount Saint Mary College

National Editorial BoardDominic Belmonte, Golden Apple FoundationMary E. Diez, Alverno CollegeLaura Dorow, Utica CollegeJoanne Kilgour Dowdy, Kent State UniversityLois Fisch, Utica CollegeAlthier M. Lazar, St. Joseph’s UniversityCarol Merz-Frankel, University of Puget Sound

Helene Napolitano, Marymount Manhattan College, EmeritusRobert J. Nistler, University of St. ThomasSusan Polirstok, Kean UniversitySandra Stacki, Hofstra UniversityRobert J. Starratt, Boston College

NEW YORK ASSOCIATION OFCOLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

NYACTE

Brian D. Beitzel, SUNY College at OneontaFred J. Brandt, Lesley UniversityKathleen M. Brown, Niagara UniversityMelissa Jarvis Cedeno, Brighter Choice Charter SchoolCynthia C. Choi, Le Moyne CollegeCarolyn F. Chryst, SUNY College at OneontaJoanne M. Curran, SUNY College at OneontaMargo DelliCarpini, Lehman College, CUNYJanet R. DeSimone, Lehman College, CUNYBernadette Donovan, Molloy CollegePatricia A. Dunn, SUNY Stony BrookBrian Evans, Pace UniversityJoanne M. Falinski, Editorial ConsultantMinaz B. Fazal, New York Institute of TechnologyJoAnne Ferrara, Manhattanville CollegeBarbara Garii, SUNY College at OswegoVicky Giouroukakis, Molloy CollegeDavid A. Gorlewski, D’Youville CollegeJean Hallagan, SUNY College at OswegoPatrice W. Hallock, Utica CollegeDon Halquist, SUNY College at BrockportCharles F. Howlett, Molloy CollegeBarbara Ann Iannarelli, Niagara UniversityRoberto Joseph, Hofstra UniversityLaurence Krute, Manhattanville CollegeDiane E. Lang, Manhattanville CollegeJennifer Lauria, Wagner CollegeElaine Lawrence, SUNY College at OneontaAnita C. Levine, Kent State University, StarkKenneth Lindblom, SUNY Stony BrookAndrew Livanis, Long Island University, BrooklynJoAnn M. Looney, Nyack CollegeLawrence J. Maheady, SUNY College at FredoniaJill G. Marshall, SUNY College at Fredonia

Margaret Cain McCarthy, Canisius College

Sonia E. Murrow, Brooklyn College, CUNY

Deniz Palak, North Carolina Central University

Roy R. Pellicano, St. Joseph’s College,

Suffolk Campus

Davenport “Mike” Plumer, New York Institute

of Technology

Gerald Porter, SUNY College at Cortland

Linda Pratt, Elmira College

Penny Prince, Lehman College, CUNY

Heather Meyer Reynolds, SUNY

Empire State College

Kathleen Rockwood, Manhattanville College

Anne L. Rothstein, Lehman College, CUNY

Sini Prosper Sanou, SUNY Stony Brook

Ellen Durrigan Santora, University

of Rochester

Susan S. Shenker, Long Island University,

C. W. Post Campus

Bruce A. Shields, Daemen College

Raymond Siegrist, SUNY College at Oneonta

Joye Smith, Lehman College, CUNY

Karen Stearns, SUNY College at Cortland

Edward J. Sullivan, SUNY College

at New Paltz

Marilyn Tallerico, Binghamton University

Cecelia E. Traugh, Long Island University,

Brooklyn Campus

Steven L. Turner, Kent State University

Jennifer Tuten, Hunter College

Kjersti Van Slyke-Briggs, SUNY College

at Oneonta

Robin Voetterl, Siena College

Roberta Wiener, Pace University

Stacy A. S. Williams, SUNY University

at Albany

Annjanet Woodburn, Pace University

Rene Wroblewski, St. Bonaventure University

Editorial Review Board

The New York State Association ofTeacher Education

and theNew York Association of Colleges

for Teacher Educationinvite you to participate in the

2011 annual conference.

October 20-21, 2011

Preconference EventOctober 19, 2011

Theme to be announced at a later date.

Gideon Putnam Resort and SpaSaratoga Springs, NY

(www.gideonputnam.com)

Visit www.NYACTE.org and www.NYS-ATE.org

for more information.

Call for Nominations for NYACTE’s AnnualCHARLES C. MACKEY, JR.,

EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE LEADERSHIP AWARD

Complete nominations must be postmarked by July 1, 2011.

The Charles C. Mackey, Jr., Excellence in Service Leadership Award honors aneducator in New York State who has demonstrated personal and professional qualitiesthat exemplify the highest standards of service leadership in teacher education. Anexcellent servant leader is one who, through personal knowledge, wisdom, ethicalpractice, and courage, models effective practice and thus enables others to reachindividual, institutional, and communal goals.

The Charles C. Mackey, Jr., Excellence in Service Leadership Award recognizes anindividual who represents teacher education in his or her respective institution of highereducation in New York State. The individual exemplifies service leadership within his orher institutional setting and within the broader New York State professional communitythrough engagement, initiative, and personal qualities that reflect relevant highstandards for teacher education accountability as defined by the American Association ofColleges of Teacher Education:

1. Serve first and foremost as an advocate for P-12 students, especially inpromoting the growth and development of all students;

2. Promote diversity in teacher education faculty, preservice teachers, curriculum,and programs;

3. Be accountable to prospective teachers for their preparation to meet statelicensure expectations (including knowledge of subject matter and of thestudents to whom those subjects are taught);

4. Be informed by the best practice and most current research on teaching andlearning theory and practice, including the commitment to active scholarshipby teacher education faculty;

5. Operate in collaboration with professional agencies responsible for qualityassurance in the teaching profession.

Past recipients of the award:Charles C. Mackey, Jr., Doris T. Garner,

James Shuman, Linda Beimer,Jan McDonald, Suzanne Miller, Joseph Frey,

Sister Miriam Honora Corr, and Madeline Berry

For more information on requirements and to access thenomination form, go to www.NYACTE.org

or contact Joanne Curran at [email protected].

Message from the President

NYACTE is an organization comprised of professionals from public or privateNew York State colleges and universities preparing teachers and other professionalschool personnel. Members work together as a professional organization to examineideas and develop best practices for teacher and professional education to informpolicy. Welcome to Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, a publication of theNew York Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (NYACTE).

As I read this issue of Excelsior within the context of the continual raging debateabout our profession, I am struck by the juxtaposition of opposing forces and ideas.As I write this, my email is filled with queries about the U.S. News and World ReportNational Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) ratings project. This project purports to“rate” teacher education programs, but there are significant questions being raisedregarding its methodological underpinnings including the reliability and validity of itsdata sources, its research base, and its relationship to national standards and accreditationexpectations. In addition, Doug Lemov’s writing has garnered increasing attention fromthe media and policy makers as he winnows the complex profession of teaching down to“49 techniques.” Yet we know that these perspectives are not illustrative of themultidimensionality of our profession and the transformative work in which many of ushave been involved.

In this issue of Excelsior, our eyes are opened to the perplexities of Lemov’s work inPaul Vermette’s insightful critique. Lorrei DiCamillo and Nancy Bailey disseminate theirresearch findings about how to develop and support collaborative, interdisciplinary teachingof teacher candidates and teacher education faculty. Joe Frey shares his thinking about thepossibilities and challenges for our profession as we strengthen and deepen the clinicalaspects of our teacher education programs in collaboration with our public schoolcolleagues. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who made this issue pos-sible, thereby giving us a forum for the continual sharing of research and thought-provoking commentary.

Kate DaBoll-LavoiePresident, NYACTENazareth College

Notes from the EditorThis issue of Excelsior was edited with the help of Suzanne Black, Assistant Professor

from the English Department at SUNY College at Oneonta and the students in hercopy-editing course, LING 215 Introduction to Editing and Publishing. The students inLING 215 are introduced to the principles of copy-editing, proofreading, andsubstantive content editing. The course also includes an overview of the publishingindustry and discussion of careers within it. In the final part of the class, studentspeer-review and edit each others’ writing to produce an issue of a journal in either printor online format.

I am pleased to acknowledge and thank Dr. Black and her students, whose namesappear below, for their exceptional work. This issue is an example of cross-campuscollaboration and authentic instruction and learning.

Cindy Lassonde, Editor

The Students of LING 215

Amanda AllarGabrielle ArgoCaitlin BakerStephanie BaltisMeg BeditzMarianna CaparelliAshley ChildeSara ChristoffKorin DitulliGeorgianna DoepperJames EarlyCourtney EhrenhoflerKatherine FinnStephen FlockEmily GreenbergMark HaywardChristy JaromackMark JirakAbbey LachanskiKenneth LimbachMichael LoSchiavoAmanda Lowe

Diana MollerKatelyn NapolitanoKathleen PurickLauren ReynoldsMary Anne RojasZach RothDenise SmithKerry SmithJackie StockerBridget StokesAlexandria TodorovHeather ValyouSam VoncinaCora WaterfieldBrooke WheelerSamantha Eden Williams

Update from

The New York State Education Department

Clinical Preparation of Teachers

Joseph P. FreyDeputy CommissionerOffice of Higher Education

It is no secret that the clinical preparation of teachers is taking center stage in boththe state and national scene. In New York State, our Race to the Top funding providespilot programs for the clinical preparation of teachers at the graduate and undergraduatelevels. In addition, we are currently revising the performance assessment for the initialteaching certificate. We are moving away from paper-and-pencil tests of pedagogicalknowledge to a more authentic demonstration of the student-teacher’s ability totransform theory into effective practice and skills related to key elements of our newlydeveloped teaching standards. As a result this new assessment could have a significantimpact on how teachers are prepared in our colleges and universities, with a focus on thepractice of teaching in the clinical setting.

On the national level, NCATE’s Blue Ribbon Panel on the clinical preparation ofpartnerships released its report in November 2010. It calls for a transformation of teacherpreparation with more focus on clinically based preparation. This Blue Ribbon Panel wasco-chaired by SUNY’s Chancellor Nancy Zimpher and provides a strong blueprint forcritical changes that must take place to strengthen the preparation of our teachers toensure all students receive a high-quality education.

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 2 Spring/Summer 2011 1

Author Biography

When this article was written, Joseph Frey was the Deputy Commissioner inthe Office of Higher Education for the New York State Education Department.Mr. Frey was with the State Education Department for 30 years. He served in variousleadership positions and worked extensively with the New York State Board ofRegents on teacher- and leader-preparation initiatives. He recently retired from theNew York State Education Department.

There is no doubt New York State has many fine teacher preparation programs thatalready employ a clinical focus. I know of many professional development schools inwhich teacher-preparation candidates are embedded in the P-12 classrooms throughoutmuch of their preparation. Currently a popular topic of discussion is whether we shouldsystematically change the way in which we prepare teachers by changing the requirements forteacher preparation in New York State. However, before this issue can be confronted,there are a number of challenging issues we need not only address, but address effectively.

First, if we are to be successful with clinical preparation, we need to develop strongP-16 partnerships. A number of teacher preparation institutions have told us they havedifficulty getting appropriate placements for their student teachers in our public schools.Will the placement of student teachers become more difficult in the long term as teachersare held more accountable for student achievement? What incentives need to be put intoplace to create strong P-16 partnerships? How can we better reward clinical faculty forthe work they do with teacher education candidates in P-12 schools? All of these ques-tions, and the answers, are impacted by resources; we need to examine whether schoolsof education are indeed provided with appropriate resources given their mission and thenumber of students they serve. These points are made in the national Blue Ribbon report,and they are important ones that we need to address before we can move the systemcompletely to a clinically based approach.

These issues have been with us for some time. The system for providing appropriaterewards to faculty who work in the clinical setting preparing teachers was first questioned bythe Board of Regents in their 1998 policy paper “Teaching to Higher Standards: NewYork’s Commitment.” Over that period, we have not been able to significantly change theway colleges and universities reward faculty through tenure and promotion for their workin the P-12 clinical setting. Again, this question must be revisited, and it is important thatall teacher preparation campuses begin to recognize and reward the real value added byclinical faculty in preparing our next generation of teachers.

As the new system of teacher preparation evolves, your input is very important.I have asked our testing vendor, Pearson Education, to continue to seek the advice ofboth deans and faculty of teacher preparation programs as we develop performanceassessments for initial teacher certification. I am committed to having real-time feedbackfrom faculty who are preparing teacher candidates to meet these new expectations.

New York State is one of eight states committed to participating with NCATE inrolling out the clinically based approach for teacher preparation. I expect that over thenext few months, and indeed years, we will work collaboratively to strengthen theclinical approach to teacher preparation in our state, and lead this nation in continuallyimproving teacher preparation to ensure that all our teacher candidates are well preparedand positively affect student learning.

Frey2

From the ConferenceCollins Address:Dr. David Steiner, Commissioner, Describes What Matters Most in Teaching

Reported by Cindy LassondeSUNY College at Oneonta

New York State’s Commissioner of Education David Steiner delivered the openingspeech on Thursday, October 22, at the 2010 NYACTE/NYSATE/TFQIS annualconference in Saratoga Springs. He spoke for an hour to a full room of over twohundred teacher educators.

Commissioner Steiner began his speech by saying that teachers change lives and bythanking the teacher educators in the audience for all they do. He then posed the question“What should teacher preparation be about?” He suggested, “Before we get toaccreditation or certification issues, we might start with a conversation about what greatteaching is, and why it may be that our students have such unequal access to theopportunity to be taught by a great teacher.”

The Commissioner suggested that as we think about great teaching and greatteachers, we embrace both our instinct that great teachers are passionate communicatorsabout their subject matter and a willingness to use strategies and practices that researchshows can make critical differences in the classroom. He argued that the works of DougLemov and Dean Pianta at the University of Virginia are part of a vital research basebecause they identify critical practices that make a world of difference in the classroom.At the same time, we cannot stop there. Steiner reported that when teachers in Europeare asked why they teach, they say because they love math or literature, or whatever theircontent area may be. However, when American teachers are asked the same question,they say they teach because they love children. There is of course nothing wrong withteaching because we care about children, but we mustn’t short-change a passion for oursubject. If we love a subject enough, we want to teach it. Together with our liberal artscolleges, we need to ensure that future teachers see teaching as an enterprise thatcelebrates its content. This can be done through exposure to teachers who themselvescare deeply about the beauty of their subjects. When we educate the next generation, wehave to take responsibility for teaching what is most compelling about our subject matter.

After this discussion of great teaching, the Commissioner then turned to issues ofcurriculum. He noted that at the state level, the Board of Regents was taking the lead indirecting the State Department of Education to work across the state to rebuild curriculafirst in English Language Arts and mathematics, and then other content areas.The material we teach has to be worth learning and has to represent a trajectory ofever-increasing intellectual development.


The Commissioner stated that when New York State builds the team that will buildthe curriculum, it will need teacher educators at the table. He added that if the curriculumis “a mile wide and an inch deep,” it won’t do any good. The new Common CoreStandards, supplemented by material developed by our state, will anchor the newcurriculum, but that curriculum will need to be content specific, while offering enoughflexibility to be attractive to teachers. For example, the English Language Artscurriculum might actually list a selection of books ninth-graders should read. If theyaren’t reading the suggested books, teachers should require others of equal rigor. Steinerbelieves assessments should assess how students comprehend these books. The currentassessments based on comprehending and interpreting short reading passages tell us toolittle about real content mastery.

Following his speech, the Commissioner answered several questions. The first wasrelated to family involvement. Citing John Dewey, the Commissioner suggested webreak down the walls between school and home. He added that involving parents inschool conversations takes expertise, and our teachers need to be well prepared to talkwith parents. There is often fear or apprehension on both sides. Steiner feels we need tobuild helpful models and role-play with candidates on how to do this.

The second question was about the special education generalist certificate. Steinerstated it was a certification created to attract teachers to high-school teaching, in responseto a critical shortage in that domain.

When a third audience member asked if he was in a position to do what needs to bedone, the Commissioner confirmed that this was a very fair question and that obviouslyhe cannot do any of this alone. Nor, he said, will we get good reform unless we cantranscend our differences and work together. But we have a real chance just as we havereal challenges. For example, this is the first time in many years that we have theopportunity to build a curriculum–but it will not be easy. For example, an industry isembedded in the idea that knowledge is neutral and that what book you read doesn’tmatter as long as students can get the main idea.

The vocabulary gap and literacy rate were subjects of the last question. Steinerproposed that the vocabulary gap becomes the achievement gap. The problem later is thebackground knowledge that isn’t there. The Common Core Standards make animportant start in addressing this issue by insisting that literacy must be taught acrosscontent areas.

Finally, the Commissioner ended his participation in the conference by saying ateacher’s primary role is to teach, not to be a sociologist. He argued that worrying abouteverything but effective, passionate communication about knowledge may come betweenteachers and their goal–to enable all children to learn to their best capacity.

Lassonde 4

Accreditation Update: E pluribus unum

Mark LaCelle-PetersonTeacher Education Accreditation Council

The world of teacher education gained a new acronym in October when the boardsof NCATE and TEAC approved the recommendation of their Joint Design Team to jointogether as a unified education accreditor under the auspices of CAEP—the Council forthe Accreditation of Educator Preparation. The Boards’ action, taken as they met inBethesda, Maryland on October 22, 2010, capped a two-year consultation and designprocess undertaken by the fourteen-member Design Team, and it set in motion a two-year transition period during which time the administrative functions of the two nationalaccreditors will be brought together and new structures set in place.

The new agency will retain the accreditation pathways of NCATE (which currentlyoffers continuous improvement and transformative initiative options) and TEAC (whichwill continue to base its work on the Inquiry Brief and academic audit options).The new, larger accrediting agency will structure its work through two commissions, onecontinuing the work of NCATE, the other continuing the work of TEAC. By combiningtheir efforts, the two agencies anticipate overall administrative savings. In addition tomaintaining the current accreditation efforts of its two predecessors, CAEP aims to be aunifying body in the field and to support the continued strengthening of educatorpreparation.

For institutions in New York State, the roll-out of CAEP will have minimal impactinitially. During the two-year transition period before the eventual consolidation ofNCATE and TEAC into CAEP, the existing accreditors will continue to function as theydo now, with only ongoing changes and refinements to their existing systems. In thetransition period, New York State, along with every other state, will be invited to developa new state partnership agreement that will guide the accreditors’ work. Each statepartnership agreement will provide for institutional choice among accreditation pathwaysand will specify the type or types of specialty program review that will accompanyaccreditation. The CAEP framework delineates three options for program-level review:a streamlined version of the current SPA review process (option 1), a bundled orclustered review process (option 2, details of which are being finalized as this is written),and an independent state review process. States will be encouraged to involveinstitutions in developing the new partnership agreements.

Upon consolidation of TEAC and NCATE into CAEP, the face of accreditationacross the country will look very similar to the current situation in New York: institutionswill have a choice of pathways to accreditation. In fact, the success of the New Yorkmodel (which is also in place in Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio) was noted by theDesign Team in support of maintaining choice as a fundamental principle in the neworganization.

Commitment to choice notwithstanding, there will be commonalities within the neworganization. During the transition period, the Interim CAEP Board will charge astandards committee with reviewing the initial draft of CAEP standards to suggest any


changes or refinements. Those initial standards, which can be found among thedocuments posted on the CAEP website (CAEPsite.org), harmonize TEAC’s QualityPrinciples with NCATE’s Standards. On a more pragmatic note, a common fee structurewill also be developed. The fee structure will be independent of membership in AACTEand will be based on program size. The initial model prepared for the Boards projects nochange in fees for many members, reduction in fees for some small institutions, andincreases in fees for a very small number of larger institutions.

In light of the acrimony that existed around accreditation and accreditors in therecent past, the cooperation and creativity represented in the creation of CAEP isheartening. CAEP will be committed to evidence-based accreditation and to theongoing improvement of the field of educator preparation. New York’s decision to insiston multiple pathways to accreditation helped to set the stage for this welcomedevelopment, a development that should benefit the field at the national level.

Author BiographyMark LaCelle-Peterson, Ed.D., is Vice President of the Teacher EducationAccreditation Council in Washington, DC. His research interests includedemocratic education and assessment and accreditation in teacher education.Email: [email protected].

LaCelle-Peterson6

Recognition of Service

At the 2010 conference, NYSATE and NYACTE recognized Richard Gervais,Supervisor of Teacher Education from the New York State Education Department(NYSED), for his years of service to the field of education. Rich recently retired fromNYSED. Following are a brief biography of Rich’s education experiences written by thePresidents of NYSATE and NYACTE and a note from Rich responding to ourorganizations’ recognition of his contributions to the field.

About Richard Gervaisby Julius Gregg Adams and Kate DaBoll-Lavoie

Richard Gervais was born, raised, and educated in New York State. He completedhis undergraduate teacher preparation program in Biology 7-12 at SUNY Plattsburgh in1972 and began his teaching career in a private girls’ school. His Master’s degree wasearned at the College of St. Rose in 1978. During his 13-year teaching career, he taughtAP biology, tenth-grade biology, fifth- through eighth-grade science, earth science,chemistry, eighth-grade math, and algebra. He was twice named distinguished visitingalumnus at SUNY Plattsburgh, using this honor as an opportunity to speak to studentsand faculty about his passion for teaching, leadership, and learning for all children.

Rich began working in the New York State Education Department (NYSED) in theOffice of Teaching Initiatives and was the Supervisor of the BOCES Regional Offices forsix years. In November of 1999, upon the Board of Regents’ adoption of the new teachereducation program regulations, NYSED moved him to the Teacher Education Team tounify the activities of the Office of Teaching and the Office of College and UniversityEvaluation. This transfer also included a nomination to the Board of Examiners for theNational Council of Accreditation for Teacher Education and service as the PartnershipCoordinator, a Board of Education member, and site visit chair for 11 years. Rich wasintegral in the initial review process for Teacher Education Accreditation Council(TEAC) accreditation and became the NYSED TEAC coordinator as well. He was partof the team that wrote the Regents Accreditation for Teacher Education (RATE) accredi-tation standards and the related Regents Rules and coordinated that RATE process forfive years. Overall, through his partnership and advocacy, higher education in New YorkState has been able to collaborate with the NYSED on programmatic changes, programregistration, national accreditation, and the preparation of quality leaders in the state.


A Note from Rich

To My Friends and Colleagues in NYSATE and NYACTE,

Over the past 10 years working in the New York State Education Department’sOffice of College and University Evaluation, I have met many particularly dedicated andhelpful educators throughout the United States and New York State. Of all the collegialrelationships I have been fortunate enough to develop, there are none more meaningfulthan those I have developed with my colleagues in the many education professionalpreparation colleges throughout the state. For this, I thank all of you.

Each educator I have met in New York State has inspired me in my work to makeeducator preparation even stronger. I have seen, first hand, the fantastic dedication andhard work that have gone into improving programs and ensuring high standards in thepreparation of the educators currently working to improve teaching and learning inNew York State as well as those future educators that will follow. In my three years asSupervisor of Teacher Education, I benefited from your willingness to participate inmany work groups and committees, and to serve as ready resources for assistance andguidance. Thank you for your cooperation, support, willingness to help me and myDepartment colleagues, and for the wonderful tribute I received during the Thursdaylunch at the fall 2010 conference.

I certainly hope we will all have opportunities in the future to work together.My retirement is a retirement from the NYSED, not a retirement from education. I havealready worked as an accreditation consultant with some colleagues, and I look forwardto crossing paths with many more in other educational opportunities.

With sincere thanks,Rich Gervais

Gervais8

Honoring Our New York State Teacher of the Year

At the 2010 conference, our New York State Teacher of the Year was honored.He spoke to a room of conference attendees about his work as an educator. In hopes itwill help inform practicing and future educators, Mr. Peneston has agreed to allow us topublish the philosophy of teaching he wrote as part of his application for the award. Itappears below.

My Philosophy of Teaching

Jeffry PenestonLiverpool High School

Teachers are often asked, “So what do you teach?” The expected, simple answerpertains to a subject, content area, or age level. However, after training thousands offifteen-year-olds to pass the Earth Science Regents Exam, my favorite personal responseto that question is “I teach young people; I help them to grow.” Teaching Earth Sciencecontent and concepts is exciting to me, but my real mission is helping my studentsbecome curious, confident problem solvers. I use the structure and content of highschool lessons to help them mature towards their life goals, long after the end oftests and school.

Each summer, as I transform into the Program Director of a non-profit children’scamp, we design our educational programs to support the Camp Fire USA missionstatement. We ask, “Does the camp activity help the children to become caring, confidentyouth and future leaders?” Helping a child to grow into a happy, productive adult is ourover-arching goal. Learning to swim, build a fire, identify igneous rocks, appreciateShakespeare, master a graphing calculator, graduate from high school and go to collegeare the challenges and tools that schools and summer camps use to guide the studentsalong their life’s journey.

An outstanding teacher is one who creates lessons that feel like authentic, adultproblem solving. Outstanding teachers are comfortable experimenting with newpedagogical approaches. They incorporate current events and technology into lessonsthat are both interesting and interactive. My professional role models are curious,adventurous, problem solving teachers who are also passionate, life-long students themselves.


I teach people, not just science.

My philosophy is put into action in the Expedition Earth Science Program, in whichmy classroom expands to outdoor environments at various field locations. My studentschoose scientific questions which interest them, and then they organize themselves intoteams to solve authentic scientific problems using current technology to make their ownobservations. These expeditions also require the student teams to synthesize their data,observations and experiences into products and presentations that communicate theirwork to others. For example, two years ago, a student team used recycled plumbingparts to engineer and construct an extension pole and attached an underwater videocamera to the end of it. I took the students’ device to Antarctica, used it to collect videoimages from under the sea ice, and then posted them on a blog for use in classroomsaround the country. The students also created a documentary video of their innovativework that showed how they created and tested their device. I was able to share their storythrough my PolarTREC blog and class webpage, and it inspired a polar scientist at theUniversity of Georgia to pose a similar challenge to three more of my students lastspring. When I can help create these kinds of authentic, group problem solving experi-ences for young people, it changes their lives in profound and enduring ways.

I strive to make students active participants and team members who share in theleadership of their educational adventures. Live or virtual participation in novel scientificadventures invites students to tap into their own sense of curiosity and wonder regardingthe natural world and to consider adventurous careers. For example, my live webcastsfrom the ship while in Antarctica reached thousands of students who shared in mymagical PolarTREC trip. In another example of innovation, I lead groups of students ontrips to explore the coral reefs and terrestrial ecology of the Virgin Islands National Park.We camp in a tropical paradise, and the biggest reward for me is watching the students’faces through their facemasks on their first hour of snorkeling. By the end of the week,our group hikes miles of park trails, explores several reefs, and volunteers on a serviceproject for the National Park. The most recent projects allowed the students to help builda wheelchair-accessible nature trail and exposed the ruins of 18th-century sugar plantationslave quarters. Everyone is changed by these experiences. I love helping people to grow,and I never tire of planning adventures where I can witness their love of learning.

Peneston10

Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award: 2010 Recipient

Madeline BerrySUNY College at Oneonta

Madeline Berry (left) being introduced by Joanne Curran

I am most honored and privileged to receive the New York Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education Charles C. Mackey, Jr. Excellence in Service Leadership Award.NYACTE and NYSATE are organizations I have held dear to my heart for over 30 years.

I remember Charlie’s warm and friendly manner. He was firm in how he believedthis organization could make a difference and in what we needed to do in order to invokechange. I also remember when Charlie came to individual campuses to speak with theProfessional Studies Division at least once a year.

In addition, some of us will recall that Charlie always thought of NYSATE/NYACTE as the place to turn in order to influence teacher education in the State ofNew York. It was considered the most prestigious and influential body of educators toturn to. NYSATE/NYACTE was the forerunner of futuristic moves, and if you didn’tbelong to NYSATE/NYACTE, you felt left out.

Although I have been an active leader in many ways (i.e., as a demonstration teacherin the campus school, a professor for a number of years, the initiator and director of aNew York State Migrant Child Care Program at the College at Oneonta, and the facultyadvisor for ODK and KDP) my passion has always been for integrating service learninginto the methods courses I teach.

As a direct result of my work with and for migrant families, I learned throughPhil Kellerman, then an ESCORT project specialist, that he was establishing anon-profit foundation called the Harvest of Hope Foundation to meet the emergency


12

needs of migrant farm workers. Phil and I partnered 13 years ago to offer methodscandidates the opportunity to perform service learning for this foundation.Coincidentally, we presented our model at the NYSATE/NYACTE conference in themid 1990’s, when we sat at a table for lunch with Dina Sevayega, herself a migrantand Associate in College and University Evaluation and now a board member of thefoundation.

Through the years we have reflected continually and learned much about how toimplement model service learning. Research, based on the candidates we are currentlyeducating, shows a dire need for implementation. NCATE recently identified servicelearning as a program at the highest level of proficiency in terms of design andimplementation of evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice.

Of 754 members of AACTE, 59% reported including service learning in theirprograms. The climate is right for greater implementation. Just this past year ServiceLearning Standards for Quality were established for implementation by K-12 schools.It appears many more schools will be highly encouraged to offer service learning.Last May I disseminated a questionnaire to my students from the past five years.Responses indicated that service learning projects

• Increased candidates’ self-esteem,• Helped candidates develop a sense of community and real accomplishment,• Enhanced their leadership ability and social skills, and• Enhanced their understanding of the New York State Standards.

Furthermore, all 25 respondents felt that in working together they were all treatedequally and that by working together they were all equal. If one person didn’t performhis or her role, someone else had to step in or the whole group suffered. Candidates feltthey would be more familiar with at-risk populations they might see in their methodsschools or on a bus ride they might take in their school community. Candidates weremuch more adept in planning, organization, collaboration, advocacy, and leadershipability.

An area in need of further exploration will be that of assessment; however, here iswhat one candidate had to say based on current criteria:

After completing our service learning project I feel a sense of accomplishment.I believe we have done a great job at working together as a Block and ofputting the cause in the forefront. As a Block we worked very democratically.We all voted on what fundraising activity we most wanted to do, including itslocation, advertisement and distribution, collecting donations from local businesses, andof course putting on what I feel to be a very successful pancake breakfast. I seemedto have my hand in multiple pots. I helped to create the flyer as well as distributeit to local businesses including the Daily Star. I donated multiple baskets and raffleitems. I helped to donate personal funds to purchase the goods necessary to puton the breakfast. I was in charge of taking and counting the money for admittance tothe pancake breakfast. I also made sure to help around the Legion by cleaning,restocking and greeting guests. I think that it was a group effort and willingness to

Berry

give that made our pancake breakfast a success. I believe we all acceptedresponsibility to the cause, by donating time, money, and resources.There is no way the breakfast could have been done without the group, includingmyself, accepting responsibility. I believe that everything ran smoothly, and wewere all willing to lend a hand wherever one was needed. We had 117 people attendour breakfast, and raised 700 dollars; that to me is a success.

I think it is very important for us as teachers to accept responsibility for thewelfare of not only our students but of our world. We are examples to students, andwe must show them how to be responsible in their civic duties. Through servicelearning, students can personally connect to others around the country. Servicelearning helps students to recognize the needs of their community and thus helpsthem to better understand their community and the global community. Throughservice learning students can gain knowledge of different cultures, situations,ideals, and beliefs. Service learning enables the teacher to open new doors tostudents’ learning; for instance, prior to our service learning I knew little aboutmigrant farm workers and their families. As a member of our nation communityI feel compelled to help the workers and their families, and as a teacher I feel itnecessary to understand their situation and devise ways to teach and protect thechildren. The fact that young children are by their parents’ side in the fields doingmanual labor is bad enough. These same children are taken out of school, formonths as a time, or shuffled from school to school which is detrimental to theirlearning and understanding. For most of these children’s families education is thelast thing on their mind; they worry about putting food on the table or making itacross the country safely. The workers make pennies on the dollar and the workingconditions are often awful; the fact that children are working as well just shows howlax the government is on this area of labor. The migrant workers and their familieslive as nomads traveling with the seasonal crops. They do work that most Americanswould never do, and they do it for little money.

It is very possible that I may have children from migrant families and I really dofeel that this experience has opened my eyes to their struggles and culture. I think itis invaluable for students to learn to give of themselves for the betterment of others.It is more than a civic responsibility; it’s about community and brotherhood.I definitely plan on implementing service learning projects for my students for theirbenefit as well as the community’s.

Rebecca Kemp, Block 25 Service Learning Reflection

Another past candidate responded to these questions with the following:

Question: Do you agree that through your Service Learning in Social Studies andthe Arts you generated interest in continuing to foster Service Learning in children?

Absolutely. My experience with the Service Learning during Block wasinspiring and motivating to incorporate this type of learning in my classroom.Students felt empowered and proud of themselves when working on these projects.It is the kind of teaching/learning that is overlooked by state standards but, in myopinion, is one of the most valuable. This was also a great way for me to connectwith my classmates and discover unique qualities about each person as they let theirpassion show in their dedication and hard work. I saw this discovery happen withinmy own class as well as through conversations and cooperative learning.

Berry 13

Question: If Service Learning was implemented, what do you feel your childrenshould have learned from doing this?

I think my students learned the value of helping others. They realized that whenthere is a problem, whether it be a personal issue or a world-wide crisis, they arecapable of making change and working toward a better tomorrow. My students wereeager to begin a new service learning project after each one was completed and thiswas very encouraging. I think this was also helpful in getting my students to thinkabout people and issues that are outside of their “world” – they had to put theirpersonal worries aside to focus on serving others. A lot of my students came torealize that their “big problems” really weren’t so big at all. I try to teach that lessona lot (especially in social studies with current events) but the message is much morepowerful and meaningful when you have your students engage in a service learningproject that allows them to prove how dedicated they are to helping create a better world.

Caitlin Rogers, Third-Grade Teacher,Pinewood Intermediate School,Mohonasen Central School District

It has been such a rewarding journey—a true passion—to connect service and learning.You must have passion for what you do. Through passion you are led to vision, whichleads you to success. Use your successes in life to empower you to take risks, especiallywhen it comes to things you are passionate about.

Finally, those who set high standards tend to lead a purpose-driven life. I encourageyou always to set high standards for yourself and your students in all that you do. Ibelieve in the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change that you want to see inthe world.”

I would like to close by sharing what I feel NYSATE and NYACTE have done forme. They have been great networking and collaborative tools. I have had opportunitiesto make and attend many presentations; I have met many people who share similarproblems and successes. The collegiality has been great. It has been a place to share mypassion for teaching and my zest for learning, teaching, and scholarship.

My special thanks to all who made this award a reality. There are many to thank:My family for their occasional sacrifices;The NYACTE Board that chose me for this prestigious award;My Dean and Chair who always have stood by me and supported my ideas and

passion for teaching;Phil Kellerman, President of Harvest of Hope Foundation and Senior Project

Specialist of ESCORT;Dina Sevayega, herself a migrant, Associate in the Office of College and University

Evaluation and a Harvest of Hope Foundation board member; andAll my colleagues with whom I have worked at the College of Oneonta and other

institutions.

Thank you.

Berry14

Reports of Research

Parallel Journeys: Teacher Educators and Teacher Candidates Learn Together

Lorrei DiCamillo and Nancy M. BaileyCanisius College

AbstractThis paper describes how the authors, two teacher educators at the same institution,

collaborated to assist teacher candidates’ learning about collaborative teaching. Bycombining their respective English and social studies methods classes to complete aninterdisciplinary lesson plan assignment, the authors found that teacher candidatesdeveloped positive dispositions toward collaborative, interdisciplinary teaching. Theyalso found that as they worked together to study the teacher candidates’ learning, theirown practice benefitted in ways that were similar to the growth of their students.Qualitative findings discussed in this article illustrate the parallel journeys that theteacher educators and teacher candidates made during three years of implementing theinterdisciplinary assignment.

Although research during the last two decades in constructivist teaching methods hasresulted in a general increase in collaborative and social learning among Americanschool children and youth (Langer, 2001; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Vermette & Foote,2001), far too many teachers still work in relative isolation with little or no opportunity tolearn collaboratively with colleagues—either in their own areas of expertise or acrosscurricular boundaries (Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008). Recent studies show studentsbenefit when teachers learn and work together in communities of learners andinterdisciplinary teams (Erb, 2001; Kain, 2001). Some of these studies have shown notonly that teachers’ collaboration is a key factor in their professional growth (Coburn,2001; Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Little, 2002), but also that theirstudents benefit as well from their working together (Jackson & Davis, 2000; Kuntz,2005).

It occurred to us, two teacher educators, that if we want to see the pre-serviceteachers that we train in our program eventually collaborate across disciplines in theirprofessional work, we need to teach them how. In other words, we must explicitly teachour students to develop an appreciation for and knowledge about creating collaborative,interdisciplinary curricula. The classes that we teach to pre-service teachers in Englishand social studies methods, respectively, can be excellent venues for introducing teachersto the kind of planning necessary for interdisciplinary lessons, but in our variousexperiences with classes that teach methods, students are scheduled in disciplinarygroups. So while we can teach pre-service teachers to plan disciplinary lessons and evencontent area curricula cooperatively, it is difficult for them to see that collaboration withcolleagues outside of their disciplines can develop into avenues of depth and breadth forthe learning of their future students.


From “Neat Idea” to Parallel JourneysWe became interested in teaching our students about collaborative, interdisciplinary

lessons when we realized that we taught methods classes in our respective disciplines atthe same hour and could easily put together students in our classes to work asinterdisciplinary partners. We both came from backgrounds shaped by interdisciplinaryideas, and we have always valued integrative thinking. We were, moreover, influenced bythe fact that New York State standards as well as the policies of our professionalorganizations (e.g., NCSS 1994; NCTE 2007) call for interdisciplinary collaboration byteachers “which draws from the knowledge and processes of multiple disciplines” inorder to make students “active learners equipped with the analytical, interpretative, andevaluative skills needed to solve real-life problems” (NCTE, 1995). We readily believedthat learning more about interdisciplinarity could strengthen our students’ disciplinaryknowledge (Nowacek, 2007) and improve their lesson planning.

An unexpected but additional benefit of our interdisciplinary lesson planning projectis that, as we work collaboratively to plan and study this aspect of teacher education, wetoo are learning a great deal about how to teach our preservice teachers to be effectiveteachers of English or social studies. In fact, our analyses show two important thingsabout our teaching. First, we are apparently teaching interdisciplinary lesson planningbetter and better as we revise the way we teach this project each semester. Our findings,discussed below, show that the interdisciplinary lessons that students from our respectiveclasses create by working together have been more integrated and substantive eachsemester that we have taught them to create these lessons. Second, we present otherfindings indicating that our students who have worked together on these interdisciplinaryprojects believe they have learned something important about teaching after designinginterdisciplinary lessons with colleagues from another content area. After analyzing thesefindings, we realize that we are learning many of the same things about teachingcollaboratively that our students report learning, and our own teaching of teachers hasbenefitted as a result. For example, we and many of our students now realize that givingup a little control of time and content in our classes to collaborate with a colleague canincrease the effectiveness of our teaching, not diminish it. More detailed findingsdiscussed below will show the parallel journeys that we have been making with ourstudents during the past three years as we have all worked together to figure out how tomake the most of interdisciplinary teaching.

Review of LiteratureA review of literature helped us to form some basic assumptions about interdis-

ciplinary instruction that have guided this research study. The most important ofthese is the overarching assumption that interdisciplinary instruction producessignificant benefits for students and teachers, such as more opportunities to usehigher order thinking in both teaching and learning (Combs & White, 2000;Spalding & Wilson, 2006). A corollary to this assumption might be that teachingpreservice teachers to create and use interdisciplinary lessons and units is a worth-while and important goal for methods classes in a teacher education programbecause it helps preservice teachers begin to adopt the norms and practices of aprofessional community (Levine, 2010). The following literature supports theseassumptions and has guided our inquiry.

Interdisciplinary Methods and Teacher EducationWe found very few reported attempts to include collaborative, interdisciplinary

pedagogy in the preparation of secondary teachers, and some that we did locate offered

16 DiCamillo and Bailey

few findings that were useful to us. Two reports of teaching preservice secondaryteachers about interdisciplinary teaching indicate promising approaches toward trueintegration of disciplinary teaching methods. Spalding (2002a, 2002b) describes attemptsto study interdisciplinary teaching projects that were created and implemented by cohortsof preservice teachers who interned in high schools that partnered with the universityteacher education program. Though Spalding (2002a, 2002b) does not detail theinstruction that the preservice teachers received nor how they actually created theinterdisciplinary lessons that they taught, she does describe the thinking of the preserviceteachers who implemented the lessons—derived from questionnaires and writtenreflections—and also the benefits these preservice teachers seemed to derive frominterdisciplinary planning and teaching—based upon her interpretations of what sheobserved when the pre-service teachers taught their lessons. Specifically, she notes that

First, preservice teachers discovered unusual and creative ways to connect thecurricula. Second, the search for interdisciplinary connections encouraged preserviceteachers to address real-world problems and critical social issues. Third, it helpedthem to learn about subject areas other than their own and to gain respect forothers’ subject areas. Finally, the project convinced them that interdisciplinaryteaching is both doable and desirable—an important disposition for teachers enteringthe profession. (p. 277)

Teacher Professional Community and Teacher DevelopmentWe were aided in our interpretation of whether or not our students were learning

from an assigned interdisciplinary project and in our descriptions of what they werelearning by sociocultural theories of situated cognition and the concept of communityincluded in these theories (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1991; Lave & Wenger,1991; Levine, 2010; Wenger, 1999). Influenced by these sociocultural theories, we foundit helpful to define community as a working group of learners connected by a commongoal of meaning making, learning, and developing (Vygotsky, 1978). In this view,learning is a “fundamentally social phenomenon” (Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1999, p. 3).What we learn to do and who we learn to be are results of participation in communitiesof practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1999), those specific working groups that aresituated in real, authentic activity (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Knowledge andknowing in these communities of practice can result from the pursuit of competence, butthis pursuit is never done in isolation; rather, it is very much a social phenomenon thatcomes from “conversing and thinking in public with others we know” (Wenger, 1999,p. 74). Ideally, learners construct understanding in a community of practice by sharinglanguage and beliefs; articulating, discussing, and reflecting on strategies; negotiatinghow strategies will be used, and then generalizing based on collaborative problemsolving (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Guided by these ideas about community,especially in the study’s last two semesters, we consciously infused our collaborativeclasses with discussions of multiple perspectives and shared understandings ofinterdisciplinary lesson planning. In addition, we increased the amount of time spenteach semester on collaborative negotiation and formation of integrated lesson plans.

We use the term community in this study cautiously and deliberately, aware ofLevine’s (2010) concern that, because it is used to describe too many different, oftenshallow, collaborations by teachers, the term community has lost its meaning as aconceptual tool with which to think about teachers’ development. From Levine’s

17DiCamillo and Bailey

taxonomy of communities, we borrow the term “teacher professional community” tosuggest that the relationships we and the preservice teachers in our respective methodsclasses developed were incipient “generative collaborations” designed to “improve [our]ability to serve students” (p. 115). Levine calls for continued research to delineate clearlyhow specific activities of teacher professional communities can lead to teacher develop-ment, including preservice teachers’ growth, by examining “just what goes on ‘inside’professional communities which accounts for learning” (p. 116). It is this gap in theresearch that the present study seeks to address.

MethodParticipants

Participants in this study were 52 English and 54 social studies preservice secondaryteachers enrolled in our respective spring semester methods classes three different years.The methods courses are comprised of both undergraduate and graduate students. In thethree semesters we conducted this study, most graduate students were between the agesof 21and 26; all were students who had completed undergraduate degrees in disciplinesother than education and had enrolled in our program to obtain their initial certification.However, there were six graduate students who were changing careers and werebetween 35 and 50 years old.

In contrast to the graduate students, the undergraduates are enrolled in a traditional,four-year teacher education program, where they receive a Bachelor of Science degreeand a state professional teaching certification. Most undergraduate students take themethods course during their junior or senior year, two semesters before student teaching.The graduate students already hold Bachelor degrees in English and social studies,respectively, and are pursuing a state professional teaching certification and a Masters ofScience degree. The graduate program is usually completed in three semesters-oneacademic year and a summer. Because of the college’s proximity to Canada, many of ourgraduate students are Canadian and receive a teaching certification in our state (NewYork) and in Ontario. Most of the graduate students in the course are also enrolled in a100-hour field experience course in which they practice teaching several lessons inpreparation for student teaching. Most importantly, none of the preservice teachers in ourstudy had previous teaching experience. Thus, all but six of our participants were in thesame age group, and none had taken any coursework or had any experience in classroomteaching before entering our program.

Study ContextThe English and social studies methods courses at Canisius College are designed to

prepare preservice teachers to teach social studies and English at the secondary level.Course instructors model various instructional strategies and include practical assign-ments and experiences for preservice teachers. The methods courses last one semesterand meet weekly for two and a half hours. We are able to easily combine our classesbecause they both meet at the same time.

The interdisciplinary lesson is one of the required assignments for our methodscourses and usually occurs during the fourth or fifth week of the semester. Theassignment is worth approximately 5 to 10% of the students’ final grade in each of ourcourses. Before combining our methods courses for about four hours of class time,students are asked to read several articles written by teachers who use interdisciplinarylessons in their English and social studies classes (e.g., Tarpey & Bucholc, 1997).

18 DiCamillo and Bailey

During the first combined class (approximately one and a half hours), we ask ourstudents to form small groups, get acquainted with each other, and discuss whether theyhave experienced interdisciplinary teaching and learning. They also discuss the potentialbenefits and challenges of interdisciplinary teaching. Next, we hand out and explain theassignment (see Appendix A) in detail and then ask students to choose a partner (orpartners if there is an uneven number of students) from the other methods class. Usually,we encourage students to find partners who are interested in teaching at the same gradelevel. For example, a student interested in teaching 11th grade American or Canadianhistory would choose a partner interested in teaching 11th grade American or Canadianliterature. Finally, students work together to choose a topic for their unit sketch andlesson plan and begin crafting their integrated learning goals.

The following week, we combine our classes for the full two and a half hours in thecollege library. Students bring laptops or use library computers to work on theirinterdisciplinary lessons. We walk around the library answering students’ questions andassisting them with ideas and activities for their lessons. Most students do not finish theirentire lesson during this class, so they communicate with their partner(s) via email tocomplete it before the next class.

Research QuestionsTwo questions guided our inquiry: What will preservice teachers in secondary

English and social studies methods courses learn about teaching when they work tocreate an interdisciplinary lesson? and What benefits and challenges will the teachersperceive at the end of the process of creating an interdisciplinary lesson? We hoped thatthe answers to these questions would inform the curricula for our respective methodscourses.

Data Collection and AnalysisThe data for this study were derived primarily from students’ written reflections

about the project, although we also took field notes and collaboratively assessedinterdisciplinary lessons that students created, keeping copies, which were later codedand analyzed for emerging themes. The two of us also engaged in “reflection on action”(Schon, 1987); that is, we recorded notes about what we had done in our combinedclasses to maintain what we regarded as successful parts of the assignment and whatneeded more thought for achieving the meaning making that would lead to “generativecollaborations” (Levine, 2010, p 115) by our students. We noted, in particular, what inour lessons promoted and guided our interdisciplinary pairs to successfully negotiatetheir integrated lesson plans and, by doing so, to arrive at a shared understanding of whatmade these mutually constructed lessons better than lessons constructed individually.These notes became part of our data set. The most significant data, however, werepreservice teachers’ written reflections about the following questions:

1. Do you think it is important to include interdisciplinary curriculum/connections in your lessons? Explain your response.2. What did you learn from the process of working with a colleague from a different

subject area?3. What were the benefits/challenges of creating an interdisciplinary lesson?4. How could we (course instructors) make this assignment stronger?

19DiCamillo and Bailey

Individually, we analyzed preservice teachers’ responses to the questions above bysearching for patterns within their responses. Not only were we interested in seeing whatkinds of general patterns emerged from their answers, but we were especially interestedin patterns that would characterize our students as members of a learning communitywhose shared meaning making seemed to lead to new understandings about how to makelessons and how to be professional colleagues.After we established patterns in the teacher candidates’ responses, we worked together tosearch for thematic categories, such as the challenges they reported in giving up com-plete control of their curriculum. Our field notes and the preservice teachers’ lesson plansserved as sources of confirming/disconfirming evidence (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006).

After we completed our analysis of the teacher candidates’ responses, we noticedthat much of their learning process was similar to our own; we were, in essence, makingparallel journeys in our professional development, and we wanted to tell our story alongwith accounts of our students’ growth and development.

The limitations of this study were that we were the course instructors and researchers.We did ask for IRB approval and for permission from our students to use their writtenreflections and lesson plans in a study. There is the chance that because these preserviceteachers were creating interdisciplinary lessons for a course grade that they simply toldus what they thought we wanted to hear. However, we also know our students well andreceived enough negative comments about interdisciplinary teaching and the assignmentthat we felt our students were being honest. Additionally, the relatively low point value ofthe assignment seemed to be sufficient for students to take the assignment seriously butnonthreatening enough to ameliorate undue stress, making it more likely that studentswould give honest answers to our questions.

FindingsAs we read and re-read our notes and the artifacts provided to us by our students,

and as we talked together about the thematic connections that we were seeing in thesedata, we realized that we were seeing parallel trends in our notes. Though our studentswere directing their collective energies toward creating effective lessons while we weremaking lessons for them, we were coming to many similar conclusions about teaching,especially about collaborative, interdisciplinary teaching that depends upon negotiationof what should be taught and what teaching strategies should be used in an integratedlesson. These parallel findings are described by four thematic categories that emergedfrom our data analysis of both our students’ responses and our own process. These werethe following: 1) Learning the importance of clearly-defined goals, 2) Realizing thebenefits of interdisciplinary collaboration for professional growth, 3) Confronting thechallenges of letting go, and 4) Developing communities of practice. Space permits anextended discussion of only the second and fourth of these findings, presented in thefollowing two sections.

Realizing the Benefits of Interdisciplinary Collaboration for Professional GrowthLike Spalding (2002a, 2002b), we found that the teacher candidates in our study

perceived many benefits to collaborating. We also found, as Spalding and Wilson (2006)discuss, that collaboration assisted our own professional growth.

Teacher Educators. As we worked together to implement the interdisciplinarylesson assignment in our classes, our professional relationship developed and we beganto realize how much our collaboration strengthened our practice as teacher educators.Like the students in our methods courses, we discovered that working together provided

DiCamillo and Bailey20

us with fresh ideas for our classes. For example, as we were working on our interdisciplinarylesson assignment, we began discussing our syllabi and course assignmentsand realized that we covered some similar topics, such as “assisting students in develop-ing media literacy,” so we began to share articles from our respective disciplines aboutthese topics and discuss ways in which we could combine our classes to discuss medialiteracy and other common topics.

Our collaborative relationship has provided us, two new untenured teachereducators, with the opportunity to share our professional challenges and successes.We often discuss challenges that we encounter in our classes, and we have found that ourrelationship gives us the support we need to implement creative solutions to them.

Teacher Candidates. Each time we have implemented the interdisciplinary lessonassignment, teacher candidates have reflected on the benefits of collaborating with acolleague from a different discipline. A majority of teacher candidates said that theyalready held positive dispositions toward collaborating with teachers outside their subjectarea, but the assignment reaffirmed their view that this type of collaboration wasbeneficial. Some teacher candidates said that the assignment had changed their thinkingabout interdisciplinary collaboration. Instead of viewing collaboration as a waste of time,they now thought it would be beneficial to their teaching and students’ learning. Inresponse to our question, “What were the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration?”the three most frequent answers written by teacher candidates were the following:a) provides opportunities to share ideas and learn new teaching strategies, b) helps mesee subject matter connections, and c) assists me in incorporating different perspectivesinto my lesson plan. Considering the short duration of this assignment, we weresurprised so many students reported such positive dispositions toward collaborating withpeers outside their discipline.

Many candidates who wrote about the benefit of having a colleague to share ideaswith remarked that “two heads are better than one.” For example, June said, “My [socialstudies] colleague definitely came up with some ideas, connections, and texts thatI would never have thought of.” Likewise, Sean commented, “My English partneropened up new connections to the subject area we were teaching…she helped me honemy own ideas into a usable format and she helped with the overall effectiveness of thelesson.” Paul compared his experience to the benefits gained from collaborative groupwork:

I feel that I was able to learn a lot from the English colleague I was working with.It is the same concept as having students collaborate and work together. When theyare sharing ideas, they often learn a lot from the other person. If we came to a pointwhere we got stuck, we would talk through it. We would throw ideas outthere untilwe agreed on the most suitable solution.

These three candidates’ responses were typical of the written reflections we received.Several candidates also said that their planning colleague taught them new teachingstrategies and/or assessments to use in the future.

Teacher candidates also disclosed that interdisciplinary collaboration assisted themin seeing new connections and learning more about the other discipline. Kelly reflectedon her collaboration with a social studies candidate on a lesson about the history ofNative American reservations in Ontario, Canada, which used Tomson Highway’s (1989)Dry Lips Oughta Move to Kapuskasing, a play about a reservation communityconfronting issues of race and gender. She explained:

DiCamillo and Bailey 21

Being paired with a history major, and attempting to have a discussion of thedemographics and development of reservations in Canada showed me howunprepared I would be to teach this interdisciplinary lesson on my own. Not onlywould I be wary of misinforming the students, but also of the amount of workinvolved in studying the contextual information in order to present it to mystudents accurately.

Her comment points to the tension that many practicing teachers feel; they want toinclude interdisciplinary connections in their lessons, but often feel “unprepared” to doso without the assistance of a knowledgeable colleague. Another candidate, Jody, echoedKelly’s views that her colleague helped her include content from the other discipline:“Even though I had read Out of the Dust (Hesse, 1997), I still wasn’t an expert on thenovel or any of the literature associated with it. With my partner’s help, I was able tolearn how the novel related to my discipline [history].” Jennifer remarked that herEnglish colleagues helped her remember skills she had learned in school but forgotten:

Although I always considered English to be one of my better subjects while in highschool, I had forgotten how to properly break down and analyze a novel. Mycolleagues were able to offer me a refresher course that will enable me to use thisskill within my own classroom. It is equally important to be able to analyze a workof fiction for symbolism and historical references as it is to be able to work with ahistorical document.

Jennifer’s response revealed that the experience of working with colleagues encouragedher to develop new understandings about the importance of integrating traditionalEnglish skills, such as detecting symbolism, embedded in history content.

A third common response that teacher candidates provided about the benefits ofinterdisciplinary collaboration was that it helped them include different perspectivesabout the topic they wanted to teach. Cade said that working with a social studiescolleague “got me out of my regular routine” and “helped me to come at my work from adifferent angle.” Likewise, Vincent responded that he “found that history teachers andEnglish teachers think in different ways. Working together is advantageous because thelesson will include different viewpoints and will provide the students with different waysof looking at material.”

Besides these three benefits, teacher candidates wrote that interdisciplinarycollaboration was beneficial because it assisted them in becoming more excited to teachthe topic, boosted their confidence in lesson planning, and helped them create morein-depth lesson plans. These responses, added to the three common responses above,indicate that teacher candidates did indeed learn about some of the benefits ofinterdisciplinary collaboration from this assignment. Many said that they hoped to seekout colleagues from other disciplines as soon as they gained a full-time teaching position.Thus, similar to our view that collaboration strengthened our practice as teachereducators, teacher candidates seemed to view working together as beneficial, even afterone short assignment.

Developing Teacher Professional CommunityThe importance of community cannot be minimized for any learners (Coburn, 2001;

Grossman, Wineburg & Woolworth, 2001; Jackson & Davis, 2000; Kuntz, 2005), andcertainly we, as we learn the craft of teacher education, have benefitted greatly from thecollaborative planning for and evaluation of the interdisciplinary projects of our students.


Likewise, our students appeared to gain much from working together to create anintegrated lesson.

Teacher Educators. Our collaboration began in our first year as teacher educatorswhen we found common ground to ameliorate the confusion and isolation that, likemany beginning teachers, we felt in our new positions. In the intervening semesters, wehave continued to formulate and articulate our beliefs about teaching, share materials forteaching and professional growth, discuss and reflect upon strategies for good teaching,and negotiate how strategies could be used in our common classes to enact creativesolutions to problems. This appreciation for approaches arising from our shared work hasextended into many other departmental and professional tasks. For example, when ourSchool of Education was going through an accreditation process, we shared resourcesand supported each other in writing our subject area reports. Such collaboration reflectsnot just changes in how and what we teach, but, more importantly, in how we think aboutinstruction and what we model for our students, so that they too can see that synthesizingshared beliefs and ideas can lead to rich lessons for their own students.

Teacher Candidates. In the first semester of the interdisciplinary lesson planningproject, we gave little thought to the need to develop community among the teachercandidates and even between them and us, their instructors. Inexperienced as teachereducators, we assumed that if we gave candidates a template that described the parts ofthe lesson, they would merely plug what they knew from their respective content areasinto the template and come up with a passable lesson. In the second and third semestersof our project, we increased the time devoted to collaboration and discussion amongteacher candidates, allowing our combined classes to take on some characteristics of aworking, professional community and producing far better results.

Our data show that the more our students grappled, in small groups, with interpret-ing concepts in the articles they were reading and, in pairs, with applying these conceptsto the tasks of lesson planning, the more they learned and the more aware they were thatthe work they were doing had many benefits for their future professional work. In fact,students’ reflections indicated that those who understood that “learning…advancesthrough collaborative and social interaction and the social construction of knowledge”(Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989, p. 40) also saw the future benefits of interdiscipli-nary lesson planning. For example, Molly’s comments in class and her written reflec-tions indicated how difficult she found the process of shared lesson planning. Shepointed out how hard the process was when she and her social studies colleague “hadvery different visions of where we could go with the lesson,” disagreeing about “littlethings like how to word questions or objectives and even which website we shouldsuggest that the students use.” Unlike students in earlier semesters who alluded to theseproblems as reasons to plan for only superficial connections between the two contentareas, Molly saw them as reflective of authentic issues she would face in her future job.Learning to work them out by focusing on larger, shared goals, she found, could lead to alesson that neither she nor her partner had anticipated being able to create, making theexperience excellent preparation, she wrote, for showing future employers that “we havea vast wealth of knowledge to draw from and apply to a variety of contexts.”

Like Molly’s reflections, other students’ writing indicated growing awareness of thebenefits of shared meaning making for learning and professional growth. For example,


some students like Caleb, a student in the second semester, pointed out how muchworking on the interdisciplinary lesson plan had helped him to realize a widerperspective and, especially, the support to be found in a community. He wrote:

I have to admit that at first I thought that [the interdisciplinary lesson assignment]was just going to add more work to my already heavy workload. Yet, after participating in the activity, I found that it was not only beneficial for our students but for us,as well. It helped us to work from a different angle and brought a sense of closenessto us two teachers who may have not found any reason to associate with each otherbefore. This is definitely something that I will repeat in my next life as a “real teacher.”

Many, particularly among the third semester group, pointed out the advantages thatcome from combining and integrating the distributed knowledge in the group. Emma, forinstance, commented that she and her partner had worked well together by bouncingideas off of one another and “adding to each other’s ideas.” Reflecting on what she hadlearned from this collaborative construction of ideas, Emma said, “It taught me that I ammore creative when working with another person. It also taught me that there is a lot thatI do not know, but would like to learn.”

Levine (2010) points out that “explicitly identifying and working on shared norms,beliefs, and trust appear to be a precondition for helping groups of teachers to engage inand sustain specific educational innovations” (p. 117). As our students struggled togetherthrough the task of making an interdisciplinary lesson plan, they appeared to realize howsupportive and generative professional communities can be in developing pedagogicalthinking and professional confidence. Many of them, like Molly, Caleb, and Emma,intended to continue seeking out colleagues in their future schools with whom tocontinue these interdisciplinary relationships.

ConclusionThe teacher candidates’ responses to the collaborative, interdisciplinary lesson as

well as our own analysis of our professional growth indicate that as we developed ateacher professional community in our methods courses, we learned about the benefits ofinterdisciplinary collaboration. The assignment gave teacher candidates a glimpse ofwhat it would be like to plan lessons with a teacher or group of teachers outside theirdiscipline and helped them reflect on the potential benefits of creating relevant,meaningful curriculum for their future students. Additionally, the assignment allowed usto model interdisciplinary collaboration, a practice that we think is important forsecondary teachers’ professional growth.

Although one interdisciplinary lesson assignment is a small start, it shows what ispossible in a traditional teacher education program. Our study of preservice teachers’perceptions revealed that the assignment assisted teacher candidates in developingpositive dispositions toward collegial collaboration. It also assisted us, two new teachereducators, in enhancing our practice and growing as interdisciplinary partners.

Our research has implications for teacher educators in other, traditional teachereducation programs. Most important, our three-year collaborative effort shows thatfaculty can grow professionally when they work together to study their students’learning. Looking forward to future research, we are prompted to question what wouldhappen if we followed teams of teachers from our respective methods classes into theirfield experiences. Can they apply what they have learned about integrated, interdis-ciplinary teaching from their methods classes? We hope to pursue an answer to this newquestion in a future collaborative effort.


ReferencesBeals, M. P. (1995). Warriors don’t cry: A searing memoir of the battle to integrate

Little Rock’s Central High (abridged edition). New York: Simon Pulse.Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education:

An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of

learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sense making about reading: How teachers mediate

reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 23, 145-170.

Combs, D., & White, R. (2000). There’s madness in these methods: Teaching secondarymethods students to develop interdisciplinary units. The Clearing House, 73(5),282-286.

Erb, T. (2001). Transforming organizational structures for young adolescents and adultlearning. In T. Dickinson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (pp. 176-200). New York: Routledge.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teachercommunity. Teachers College Press, 103(6), 942-1012.

Hesse, K. (1997). Out of the dust. New York: Scholastic.Highway, T. (1989). Dry lips oughta move to Kapuskasing. Markham, ON:

Fifth House Books.Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in

the 21st century. New York & Westerville, OH: Teachers College Press &National Middle School Association.

Kain, D. L. (2001). Our turn? Teaming and the professional development of teachers. InT. Dickenson (Ed.), Reinventing the middle school (pp. 201-217).New York: Routledge.

Kuntz, S. (2005). The story of Alpha: A multiage student-centered team – 33 years andcounting. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.

Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to readand write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.

Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on sociallyshared cognition (pp. 62-82). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

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

Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning:The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory.Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 109-130.

Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educationalreform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226-234.

Little, J. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening upproblems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education,18(8), 917-946.

National Council for the Social Studies. (1994). Expectations of excellence: Curriculumstandards for social studies. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.

National Council of Teachers of English. (1995). Position statement on interdisciplinarylearning, pre-K to gr 4. Retrieved August 8, 2009 fromhttp://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/interdisclearnprek4


National Council of Teachers of English. (2007). Adolescent literacy: A policy researchbrief produced by The National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved August 8,2009 from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Positions/Chron0907ResearchBrief.pdf

Nowacek, R. S. (2007). Toward a theory of interdisciplinary connections: A classroomstudy of talk and text. Research in the teaching of English, 41(4), 368-401.

Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fosteringand comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spalding, E. (2002a). Of organelles and octagons: What do preservice secondary

teachers learn from interdisciplinary teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education,18, 699-714.

Spalding, E. (2002b). The hot fudge sundae quiz and other collaborative ventures:Interdisciplinary teaching and learning. The Educational Forum, 66(3), 271-282.

Spalding, E., & Wilson, A. H. (2006). Bowling together: Cultivating communities ofpractice in English and social studies education. English Education, (38)2, 102-122.

Tarpey, M. E., & Bucholc, K. (1997). Making more sense of America and the worldthrough interdisciplinary English. The English Journal, 86(7), 69-74.

Vermette, P., & Foote, C. (2001). Constructivist philosophy and cooperative learningpractice: Toward integration and reconciliation in secondary classrooms.American Secondary Education, 30(1), 26-37.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

New York:


Author Biographies

Lorrei DiCamillo is Assistant Professor of Adolescence Education at Canisius Collegein Buffalo, New York. She teaches social studies methods and field experience courses.Her research areas include social studies education and teacher education. Email:[email protected]

Nancy M. Bailey is Assistant Professor of Adolescence Education at Canisius Collegein Buffalo, New York. She teaches secondary English methods as well as literacycourses. Her research interests include teacher education and New Literacies.Email: [email protected]

Appendix A

Designing an Interdisciplinary Lesson Plan: A Collaborative Assignment

You and your colleagues are team teaching an engaging, thought-provoking unitsketch and lesson plan to a group of high school students for a 90 min. block period (inother words, you have the same 30 students each day for 90 min. in an English-SocialStudies course). The course could be U.S. History/American Literature, CanadianHistory/Canadian Literature, or Global History/and 9th- or 10th-grade ELA. Sample topicsinclude, but are not limited to 1920’s, WWII, Civil Rights Movement, Cold War, and thecurrent war occurring in Afghanistan.

Your project will consist of two parts: 1) A description of an interdisciplinary unitwhose goals reflect an integrated approach to teaching, and 2) A detailed, well-thought-out interdisciplinary lesson.

Questions to Guide your Lesson Plan: Use the following questions to guide yourinitial description of your unit, which will precede your detailed interdisciplinary lessonplan.

a. Approximately how many days will your unit last?b. What is the central theme, issue, problem or topic that will be the “glue” that will pull and hold the unit together?c. What are the common threads related to this theme, issue, problem, or topic? (Consult your articles for examples if you are struggling with this question.)d. What major time period/historical movement will be studied in this unit?e. What resources from each discipline will you use? Please provide a specific list of resources (e.g., The Canterbury Tales, Macbeth, newspaper articles from ___ period; the Emancipation Proclamation, etc.)f. Name a minimum of three integrated goals that you would like students to learn from this unit.g. What kind of assessment tool(s) will you use to ensure that all three of your integrated goals will be met?

Now pick one 2 to 3 day lesson that might be included in this integrated, interdisciplinaryunit to meet at least one of your unit goals. Create a detailed lesson plan using the lessonplan template handed out in your methods class. Be sure to indicate where in the unit thislesson will occur. In other words, tell what your students would have studied up to thislesson (even in other units, if that is appropriate). What would they have read in socialstudies and what are they reading for English?

Think carefully about your objectives: Are they specific? Are they observable andmeasurable? Are they aligned with your unit goal(s)? Think about your assessment(s):Are they aligned with your lesson objectives? Do they give you sufficient informationthat your students have understood the content/concepts you are teaching?

In addition to the assignment, you should include your individual response to thefollowing questions, typed on a separate sheet.

a. Do you think it is important to include interdisciplinary curriculum/connections in your lessons? Explain your response.


b. What did you learn from the process of working with a colleague from a different subject area?c. What were the benefits/challenges?d. Has your thinking about interdisciplinary teaching changed as a result of this assignment? Explain your response.e. How could we make this assignment stronger?

DiCamillo and Bailey

M.L. King, Jr.

1920’s WWII Civil Rights Mvt Cold War Afghan Conflict

28

Appendix B

Rubric for Interdisciplinary Lesson Assignment


Activity Criteria Possible Score Points

Directed Peer Response in Differentiated Approaches to the Video Analysis ofTeaching

Laura H. BaecherJennifer TutenHunter College, City University of New York

AbstractVideo analysis of teaching has become widespread in teacher education, due both to

the accessibility and portability of digital video and the movement towards performance-based assessment. However, in order to be meaningful, the process of viewing oneself onvideo must be well scaffolded. This practice report describes two approaches designed tosupport teachers’ ability to use video effectively as a tool in their development, one forexperienced teachers, and one for student teachers. Both involve structured, one-on-onepartner interaction as a supportive entry point into peer group video-analysis.

Vignette 1Erin is a third-year teacher. Her third-grade students vary greatly in their reading

abilities and Erin is concerned that she is not using guided reading as effectively as shemight to target her students’ needs. While guided reading is part of her school’s literacyblock, she has never been observed by a literacy coach or administrator. As part of herpracticum work for her degree as a literacy specialist, she is asked to identify an aspectof literacy instruction that she wants to develop more fully. Her course instructor visitsher classroom and observes her guided reading group. During the post-observationconference, Erin realizes that she was too wedded to her lesson plan for the guidedreading groups and wasn’t as responsive to her students’ needs as she’d hoped. After thatvisit, she works on her guided reading mini-lessons with her third graders for severalweeks. After video-recording several sessions, she is ready to share her clip with herassigned seminar partner, Sarah. She has already watched this clip five or six times,and feels she can easily spot several practices she needs to improve. After she uploadsher 12 minute video clip to the School of Education server, she carefully composes aletter to her partner. In particular, she asks for feedback on the structure of the guidedreading lesson and how she responds to her students. She is looking forward to seeingwhat Sarah will write back to her about the lesson.

Vignette 2Greg has been student-teaching for about two months, and after being observed

by his university supervisor at his field site, he has identified “giving instructions”as a growth area with his ninth grade English language learners (ELLs). He haspurposefully set up the camera today to record his instructions to the students attheir desks before they move into groups to work on a poster project. As he reviewsthis 5 minute portion of his video at home, he senses that something in his directionscan be improved, but he isn’t sure what. He then takes out the observation guideprovided by his seminar instructor. This guide prompts him, through a series of

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning Volume 5, Number 2 Spring/Summer 201130

targeted questions, to consider the following: (1) whether the teacher is facing (or hashis back to) the students and is clearly stating the directions; (2) how many and howcomplex are the steps in the directions, (3) how much text or visual support the teacherprovides for the oral directions, (4) whether a student was asked to repeat the directions,and (5) whether the teacher did a model or only provided directions. As he plays hisvideo clip over and over in order to complete the observation guide, he realizes what hasgone awry in his directions. He then uploads his clip to the School of Educationserver, where he and his seminar partner, Kyoji, will “chat” online over the course of theweek about their clips, both of which focused on giving directions.

IntroductionAs New York and other states begin to consider adopting teacher certification exams

that will include classroom video excerpted and annotated by teachers, as Californiaalready has (Performance Assessment of California Teachers [PACT], 2010), teachereducators need to be versed in how to support their candidates in this process. As facultyat a school of education employing video analysis of teaching with pre and in-serviceteachers with varying amounts of teaching experiences, we began to look at how structuredpeer interactions could maximize teacher development. The vignettes above (all namesare pseudonyms) are constructed from documented cases, retold to illustrate how videocan ground teachers’ self-reflection and serve to link teachers across classrooms andencourage collaboration. They also illustrate how the needs of both novice and experi-enced teachers may be met through differentiated approaches to video analysis. In thispaper, we draw upon four years of experience using partner response, in addition to otherscaffolds, to guide teachers through video analysis. We share how we approached videoanalysis, we investigate its impact through our own self-reports and teacher candidates’writing, and we provide insights for developing a peer-response video analysis protocolwith teacher candidates at different experience levels. Because video analysis ofteaching is an emerging and highly relevant topic to teacher educators in New York Stateand across the country, we hope this practice report will shed light on the value of peerscaffolding as a way to support both novice and experienced teachers in the videoanalysis of their teaching.

Video-Based Self-Analysis in Teacher EducationIn both teacher education and school-based professional development, video has

long been recognized as a powerful tool to ground theory in practice (Hennessy &Deaney, 2009; Krumsvik, & Smith, 2009; Rickard, McAvinia, & Quirke-Bolt, 2009),investigate learner behavior (Lerman, Hovanetz, Strobel, & Tetreault, 2009), and improvetechnique (Dymond & Bentz, 2006; Sherin, Linsenmeier, & van Es, 2009). The use ofvideo as a rich source of feedback in teacher development has become ever easier due tothe portability and affordability of digital technology and web-based communication.

Computer-based annotation and analysis programs will likely continue to developaround teachers’ videos (Richards & Hannafin, 2009), as codified teaching behaviorsbecome linked to student achievement gains (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). Teachersseeking professional licensure in New York State will be expected to analyze theirteaching in video in detail, as is currently done in Arizona and California (AACTE, 2010).

Baecher and Tuten 31

Value of Seeing Oneself Teaching on VideoWhile much has been written about the use of video as a training tool, most of this

video is staged or semi-staged and professionally edited to illustrate desired practice. Yetvideo can lose its impact when it is temporally or geographically removed from theclassroom reality of the teacher-viewer. Using video of one’s own practice, on the otherhand, instantly provides the teacher with raw footage and an unbiased record of thelesson. While other professional development activities can be highly meaningful, suchas action research, teacher diaries, or lesson study, video recording affords the onlyopportunity teachers will ever have to objectively view their teaching and their learners,not filtered through the notes or particular lens of a live observer. Video can thereforeserve as a tool in a teacher’s investigation of particular aspects of teaching, provideevidence of change or growth, or supply information about student learning (Rosaen,Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008). Video analysis in concert with theanalysis of lesson plans/materials and student work samples can offer teachers a morecomplete and valid picture of their instruction. This type of composite analysis isrequired for National Board Certification (NBPTS, 2010) and the California teacherperformance assessment (PACT, 2010).

One of the most powerful aspects of video in professional growth is the psychologicalimpact that it can have. Viewing oneself and one’s students on video often reveals habits,behaviors, or events previously unnoticed, or in direct opposition to what one thoughtwas occurring, making it a highly disconcerting experience. Fuller and Manning (1973),in their seminal review of the psychological impact of “self-confrontation,” describeteachers’ viewing of self in video as potentially deeply stressful, and they suggest that forthis reason teachers will tend to avoid the sense of vulnerability it generates. However,since teachers tend to enter and exit training programs and persist with previousexpectations for teacher behavior (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009), the cognitive dissonanceexperienced in video analysis may be necessary to change behavior that traditionalmemory-based reflection does not cause (Chan & Harris, 2006). As a result, videoanalysis can be used as a tool in the professional development of highly experiencedteachers looking to refresh skills, as well as of new teachers first mastering skills (Jacobs,Borko, & Koellner, 2009).

Scaffolded Viewing as a Support to Video ObservationNo matter the purpose for which video is to be used in teacher education, the

research is unequivocal that scaffolding is essential, especially with beginning teachers(Welsch & Devlin, 2007). Inexperienced teachers simply “see” less of the complexity inclassroom events than experienced ones, and naturally they can only identify thoseteaching practices and learner behaviors they know to look for (Yadav & Koehler, 2007).Since novice teachers will be better able to observe specific areas than to performaccurate overall self-assessment (Jensen, Connor & Killmer, 1994), narrow viewingguides are preferred for this group. However, focused observations are useful for bothnew and veteran teachers (Snoeyink, 2010; van Es & Sherin, 2008). These might bedeveloped through application of a coding scheme (West, 2007), or the facilitated,targeted viewing of video cases (Nemirovsky & Galvis, 2004). With structure and guidance,both new and experienced teachers are able to interpret their videos in much greater depth thanthose who are left without such support (van Es & Sherin, 2002). These viewer’s guides mightinclude tallies, checklists, or directed prompts, which direct the viewer to study specific items,or ask the viewer to choose his or her own items for investigation.

Baecher and Tuten32

Scaffolded video analysis is also necessary because teachers new to video observa-tion will tend to react judgmentally to the teaching they see on screen, mostly to thephysical mannerisms (voice, gesture) of the teacher (Fuller & Manning, 1973). Thistendency can hinder in-depth exploration of practice. For this reason as well, structuredviewing guides are instrumental in moving teachers into descriptive, rather than declara-tive reactions (Baecher & Connor, 2010). Discussion of video with peers is anotherscaffold that can help teachers recognize the richness of the material and the multiplicityof perspectives that it invites (Miller, 2009).

Peer Group Analysis of Teaching on VideoVideo can also supplement other professional development activities and can be used

in peer-observation to address time and scheduling conflicts, or to provide inter-visitationwithin or across schools. Many studies of video as a tool in teacher development haveanalyzed its use among experienced teachers as part of school-based professionaldevelopment (Skiera & Stirling, 2004). Here, video analysis usually takes place in smallgroups of peer teachers, at regular intervals, and over an extended period of time, such asin video “clubs” (van Es & Sherin, 2008). In these peer groups, teachers are generallyguided by a facilitator who focuses on a particular approach to teaching or to the subjectmatter, explores solutions to particular problems, or reviews how members are imple-menting a professional development initiative. This may be done through a number ofmeans, such as peer coaching, professional learning communities, or action researchteams. All of these approaches focus on the collaborative development, refinement, andsharing of craft knowledge, with video serving as a platform for mutual understanding,enabling teachers to view lessons together (Goldman-Segall, 1995). In fact, one study onthe impact of collaborative video analysis indicated that deeper understanding onlydeveloped through peer interactions, in contrast to independently viewing video cases orreading the equivalent information in textbooks (Hughes, Packard & Pearson, 2000).

BackgroundThe instructional practices described in this paper were developed over the past four

years of student teaching/practicum seminars (both courses are for letter grades) in twodifferent teacher certification programs: the Masters in Literacy Education, Birth-Grade6, and the Masters Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) program.The literacy program grants an advance certificate to teachers who are already licensed,while the TESOL program provides initial certification to teach K-12 English as aSecond Language (ESL). Teacher candidates in the literacy program work full-time aselementary teachers while they pursue their degree, and they have several years ofteaching experience before entering the program, which will qualify them to becomeliteracy coaches. The TESOL teacher candidates described in this paper are studentteachers who are preparing to teach in K-12 public schools.

Both programs are housed in the school of education at Hunter College, which ispart of the City University of New York, a large, urban university. Teacher candidates inthese and all programs at Hunter College must participate in a Video Analysis of Teach-ing (VAT) project during the student-teaching/practicum seminar. All teacher candidatesare required to submit one video-based, rather than live, observation. In addition, a shortexcerpt of teaching (5-7 minutes) must be uploaded to an internal server where it isstored within a searchable database of teaching video. Analysis of these videos is


integrated into the student teaching/practicum courses, with the support of the seminarleader and/or field supervisor. The VAT project began as a pilot in 2006 and now involvesmore than 1,500 students and 200 faculty members each semester; it is an expectedcomponent of seminar activities. Seminar instructors and clinical supervisors haveparticipated in several face-to-face and online tutorials related to working with video inteacher supervision. Additionally, school partners such as Knowledge is Power Program(KIPP) Academy, the Harlem Success Academy, Uncommon Schools, and Teacher Uhave adopted the same VAT platform for weekly video recording and sharing of teachingpractice at their school sites.

As video recording became more routine, the need to develop effective ways forboth experienced and inexperienced teachers to meaningfully analyze their videosbecame apparent. Time was set aside for discussions of teachers’ videos in seminar, butoften the conversation remained guarded, with participants remaining cautious, notwanting to appear judgmental of their classmate’s video. At the same time, teacherspresenting their videos might be overly critical of their own performance, but notnecessarily notice the most salient instructional concerns in the video. There was notalways a clear instructional focus as to why particular videos were being shown, and thepresenting teacher was unsure how to actively lead exploration of the video by the group.

To address these issues, we independently developed approaches that would buildcapacity in video analysis across a semester, so that by the time teachers would besharing their own video clips in seminar, they would be ready to do so more effectively.In the literacy program, teachers had already been in the field several years, and theywere going to be using video to deepen their understanding of particular aspects ofliteracy instruction. These teachers were able to view an entire lesson and sort out thesalient aspects of instruction they wished to investigate. They could identify by them-selves areas for exploration, based on suggested literacy topics such as conferencing,guided reading, reading and writing mini-lessons, and integrating technology intoliteracy lessons. In the TESOL program, student teachers needed to use video as afeedback tool to investigate lesson management in a classroom of ELLs in areas such asgaining student attention, using materials, distributing response opportunities, andmanaging group and pair work. The TESOL student teachers, as opposed to the Literacyteachers, had very little classroom teaching experience and looking at a full-length videoof their teaching was often overwhelming. They were not able to recognize criticalincidents, nor determine necessarily which aspects of instruction to explore. Therefore,we each developed and refined a series of scaffolding steps targeted to the experiencelevels of our respective teachers in order to improve the quality of video analysis amongthem.

To facilitate teachers’ analysis of their videoed lessons, we both chose to provide apeer support system, in the Vygotskian tradition of providing interaction as a basis forlearner development (1978). We believe that deep understanding of what was occurringin the teaching videos depended upon meaningful interactions with both peers and afaculty facilitator. The peer interaction was an essential component of creating acommunity of inquiry that would be supportive for each member teacher. Basing ourapproach on Wenger’s (1998) research on professional learning communities, we choseto create structures that would usher in each member of the group, without any exclusionof relative newcomers. Since video analysis places teachers in a particularly vulnerableposition vis-à-vis their peers, our approaches were highly structured in order for groupmembers to feel secure in their contributions.

Baecher and Tuten34

Descriptions of Directed Peer Response Approaches to Video Analysis

For the Literacy teachers, who were exploring their own practice as well as learninghow to become peer coaches, the approach used draws upon the Critical Friends process.The Critical Friends approach focuses on developing collegial relationships, encouragingreflective practice, and rethinking leadership (Bambino, 2002). This process is based oncooperative adult learning, which is often contrary to the patterns established in workenvironments. The Critical Friends Approach also addresses the need to regeneratemotivation to continue learning when the teachers already have experience and may feelthey know all there is to know. For the TESOL student teachers, micro-ethnography wasa key tool in supporting their close analysis of classroom events, so that they couldunpack the complex array of activities viewed in the videos. Since the TESOL teacherswere inexperienced, they were asked to examine small segments or particular aspects oftheir lesson in great detail, using observation tools designed by Good and Brophy (2007)and the instructor. For example, TESOL candidates could choose to investigate ques-tions in their lesson. First, they would transcribe every question posed throughout thelesson, then go back and categorize each one according to Bloom’s Taxonomy. For thehigher order ones, they would then need to determine what language supports had beenprovided to enable lower English proficiency students to access more cognitivelydemanding tasks. Another example would be to investigate their use of shelteringtechniques (Echevarria, Vogt & Short, 2007), by excerpting only the motivation orbeginning of the lesson and examine the ways they had created access to the content areausing pictures, maps, images, video, or realia—all of which could increase involvementat the start of a lesson among ELLs.

Video Analysis of Teaching in the Literacy Program: Peer CoachingIn the Literacy program, the video analysis of teaching is part of a wider context of

inviting candidates (in-service teachers) to view the observation cycle as an opportunityto take ownership of their professional growth. First, they are asked to identify areas oftheir literacy teaching they find challenging. These areas vary with the group, but typicalexamples include conferencing, guided reading, or conducting mini-lessons. Theseteacher-generated topics form the seminar agendas and readings. The observationbecomes an opportunity for the faculty observer to coach and mentor, rather than toevaluate and judge the teachers. Before participating in the video analysis of teaching, afaculty observer (the practicum course instructor) visits each teacher in his or her ownschool. Prior to the visit, the teacher writes a letter of invitation to the course instructor.This letter introduces the school and the classroom, outlines a targeted area of literacyinstruction to explore, and describes the activity or lesson that will take place. Teachersare encouraged to ask questions and express uncertainties about their teaching in order toframe the observation as an opportunity for growth. Following the in-person visit,teacher and course instructor de-brief, with the instructor focused on addressing thequestions and concerns raised in the teacher’s letter. After teachers have had time toreflect upon the visit, consult new resources provided, and make instructional adapta-tions, they write a letter to the instructor, describing and reflecting upon the impact of theobservation.

The goal for the video analysis is to translate this model of observation—pre-observation letter, observation, post-observation letter, with the emphasis on coaching—into a peer coaching through video experience. This assignment has a dual purpose.Teachers have an opportunity to videotape themselves, which provides a second opportu-nity for the course instructor to provide feedback and for the teachers to analyze their


own teaching. In addition, through exchanging videos with a peer, teachers are able tohone their observational abilities and begin to develop coaching skills as they providefeedback to another.

The logistics of the video peer observation are straightforward. Teachers are invitedto form pairs according to either the grade level they are teaching or the element ofliteracy instruction of concern. Teachers typically have about a week with borrowedvideo cameras to film and upload their 15-20 minute video. Next, they are asked towrite—to their partner—a letter that outlines the context of the video and their intentionsin the lesson, reflects on what they see in the video, and poses questions for their partnerto address in response. To fully address all of these points, teachers watch and analyzetheir own video multiple times. A graphic organizer was developed (see Figure 1) to helpstudents consider the video (Jensen, Tuten, Hu, & Eldridge, 2010). Knowing that a peerwill read the letter and analyze the video raises expectations for this work and pushesteachers to thoughtfully complete this part of the assignment.

Teachers email their partners the letters and can view the video online. Since this isan exchange, teachers are invested in carefully viewing and reviewing their partner’svideo in order to fairly and supportively respond in their letters. A rubric was alsodeveloped to reinforce the goals of their video peer observation (see Table 1).

Table 1. Sample Language from Rubric for Video-Based Peer-Coaching Letter

Baecher and Tuten36

Figure 1. Graphic Organizer for Viewing a Peer’s Lesson

After teachers have completed the assignment, debriefing takes place in class.Teachers report that the process of viewing their own videos and asking for specificfeedback sharpens their own observational skills. Receiving positive as well asconstructive feedback from a peer helps them better articulate their own strengths andcontinuing needs, reinforcing the reflective process. A participating teacher stated,“Videotaping was a huge risk-taking. I tend to be protective of the things I do or howI teach, but the way this project was done, writing friendly letters to invite someone towatch it and make suggestions without the feeling of being judged was a good experience.”Another reported:

I have never videotaped myself before teaching a lesson, so this was something verynew to me. I treated it like an observation and was excited to see myself from anoutsider’s point of view. After watching my video and writing my letter to a fellowclassmate, I was able to notice both positive and negative things. Little things thatI probably would not have thought about changing became much more obviousas I watched it on video.

Utilizing video analysis of teaching with in-service teachers also seemed to promotecontinued professional growth. A teacher shares:

I learned how watching yourself allows you to notice small yet important factors inyour teaching that would probably go unnoticed. I was dreading taping and watchingmyself, and I especially did not want anyone else to see it. However, it was reallyhelpful to view my class from a different perspective that allowed me to see thebigger picture. I also feel less intimidated about being viewed by others becauseI see that it is about learning and growing. If you do not put yourself out there youare limiting your opportunity to improve as an educator.

Video Analysis of Teaching in the TESOL Program: Structured Partner ObservationsAs previously mentioned, without structure, seminar conversations often drifted

from the rich content that the video presented. Since the student teachers in TESOLwere new to both teaching and to video analysis of teaching, several scaffolds weredeveloped. First, they participated in a self-paced tutorial based in Blackboard, whichinitiated them into what can be analyzed through careful analysis of teaching video. Thiswas completed independently in about three to four hours prior to the first class session.Student teachers looked at the same 5-minute clip of teaching and focused on threeconsecutive issues: teacher’s distribution of response opportunities, teacher’s use ofpraise, and teacher’s feedback to error. Next, student teachers were provided a guide foranalyzing their own videos, which they needed to complete prior to reviewing segmentsof their video in a meeting with their clinical supervisor. After they had taken thesesteps, they were then asked to “film for” a particular aspect of teaching that can beviewed and analyzed particularly well through video. Provided as a list of choices, withaccompanying observation worksheets, these aspects included those issues that had beenfeatured in the online workshop, such as tallying who responded to their questions,transcribing praise statements and categorizing as either specific or general, and notinghow they responded to students’ errors. Other suggested foci included aspects ofinstruction key to TESOL instruction, such as using the timer on the video player tocount and average wait time given after questions, examining discourse modifications,


such as rate of speech and word choice, or analyzing their presentation of grammar,whether done inductively or deductively., During the second half of the semester, thestudent teachers would present their clips each week in seminar, which coincided withone of these topics. Prior to this in-seminar presentation, student teachers paired them-selves according to observation topics. Since TESOL teacher candidates must teach onesemester in a K-5 setting and one in a 6-12 setting, the pairs could be from different gradelevels, but they would both be exploring the same aspect of teaching.For example, one student teacher might be focusing on giving directions in a second-grade classroom, with a partner also looking at the same topic, but in a high school class.These steps are outlined in Table 2.

During the sessions in which the partners present, discussion is guided by the teachercandidates rather than the seminar leader. The conversation focuses on the aspect chosenfor observation, and it concludes with participants generating guiding principles andpractical teaching strategies related to this topic. Since these arise from their classmates’teaching, often the student teachers are especially open to the alternatives suggested andtry them out in subsequent lessons. In teacher candidates’ course evaluations and writtenfeedback, peer interaction appears to play an important supportive role in analyzing theirown videos. In their reflections, candidates reference incorporating their partner’s, thesupervisor’s and their seminar peers’ feedback to develop alternative solutions to prob-lems they are exploring in the classroom, and they report on how this has translated intotheir practice. These student teachers have been highly specific in recognizing theantecedents to the teaching dilemmas they face. For instance, one student teacher writes:

Watching the video, I realized that I do not give students enough time to answerquestions. I ask questions, sometimes fairly complex ones, and then call upon thefirst student who raises his hand. A minority of the students participate in class, sothe other students get distracted and lose focus. I have been trying recently to givemore time to the students before I have them answer a question. Also, I have beendirecting questions to one particular table, so somebody from that table (usually onewhere no one regularly answers) must respond.

Baecher and Tuten38

Table 2. Steps in Structured Partner Observations through Video

Another student teacher, who in this case has attended to her “Do-Now,” or openingactivity, writes in detail, using transcribed student statements to illustrate her findings,and lists several ways to improve this portion of the lesson:

I judge from observing myself during the first video segment (i.e., 3:35 to 5:35minutes) that my Do-Now prompt was not explicit enough to generate any response.My question was, ‘Have you ever had trouble understanding someone speaking English?Or, only English?’ I waited ten seconds. No one answered. I asked more questions,except this time, I added details…Now the students began to understand me as theybegan to tell me what they thought…This warm-up activity could have beencompleted without such tedious modifications on my part. From this point on, I willstrive to have a thought-out prompt that is clear, direct, and appropriate to engenderthe kind of warm-up necessary for the Aim of the lesson. A possible prompt for thisparticular lesson may be to verbally and physically demonstrate what I meant by thetwo different situations (i.e., the incomprehensible John and comprehensible Susanspeaking only English and about the same subject). Alternatively, I may ask amodified Do-Now question twice—standing stiffly, hiding both arms behind myback, and using no facial expressions the first time, and moving my body and usingfacial expressions the second time. Or, I may first let the students read the question.Then, if and when they have questions about the question, I will explain in twoways: one with body and facial expressions and one without. I believe these differentattempts will better prepare the students for the Aim of the day.

Differentiated Approaches to Video Analysis of TeachingIn our experience with both novice and experienced teachers, the support and

interaction of a peer facilitates the benefits conferred by video analysis. By way ofillustration, let’s return to Erin and Greg, the teachers portrayed in the vignettes at thebeginning of this article.

Vignette 1, ContinuedErin receives a letter back from her peer, Sarah. Sarah begins by responding to

Erin’s concerns about conducting the guided reading in a more student-responsivemanner. She notes several ways Erin modified her introduction in reaction to the needsof her students and points out their high level of engagement. At the same time, Erin isable to recognize along with Sarah several missed opportunities to help her students usecomprehension strategies, which could have been supported by modeling them herself.Her sense of confidence is renewed and she decides to try out several of the alternativesher partner suggests. When she comes to seminar, she is eager to share her experienceswith video, the feedback she received from Sarah, and how her approach to guidedreading has become more nuanced. She now hopes to use video as a tool in coachingother teachers, as a supplement to traditional observation and for post-observationconferencing.


Vignette 2, ContinuedGreg and Kyoji spend about two hours online “chatting” over the course of the week

they are preparing their clips for seminar presentation. They take turns reviewing eachother’s 5-minute clips, both of which focused on giving directions. They use the same

prompt questions to look at their clips, and they discover that all five of the questionsseem to be important in giving effective directions for ELLs. After reviewing his videowith Kyoji, Greg sees that his back was initially towards the students as he was statingthe directions, since he was writing them on the board. He notes that he did providetextual support, but the oral support was lacking since he was turned away from thestudents. By watching the video, he can see that many of them are not looking or payingattention as he gives the directions. He also notices that he didn’t ask another student torepeat back, nor did he provide a model. Since the poster activity also involved severalsteps, he can now account for why he later had to go around to each group, repeating thedirections at each table. He comes to seminar and is able to confidently share his and hispartner’s clips, along with their findings. He is not evaluating the entire lesson, butrather, focusing in-depth on this particular aspect of instruction. He and his partner areable to emphasize to the other members of the class the importance of considering allfive of these elements when giving instructions to ELLs. The experience of video-recording is not simply evaluative, but also developmental.

For teacher educators looking to incorporate peer interaction into the video analysisof teaching, the approaches described in this paper indicate how this might be done differentlywith student teachers and practicing teachers. Teachers like Greg must take a series ofstructured steps in order to ready himself for work with his partner. These includeinvestigating a limited list of targeted observation areas, with accompanying observationguides, filming intentionally for one of these areas, and assigning a partner to discuss thisarea exclusively. Teachers like Erin might be able to freely select the area of teachingthey wish to explore. Their interaction might be structured in format only, such as the useof a peer coaching letter, while the content will be left up to the teachers. In both cases,deeper analysis of teaching is attained through the support and interaction of a peer, butthe task is differentiated to accommodate the background levels of the teachers.

ConclusionAlthough video recording has been a component of teacher education for many

years, further research is needed on whether and how the quality, quantity, and type ofvideo analysis supports teacher learning and improved student outcomes. More researchinto the interplay of teacher candidates’ self-analysis on video and clinical supervision isalso needed, since so many universities invest significant financial resources into hiringclinical supervisors, who may themselves have limited experience with video analysis.

As video-based performance assessment potentially becomes a component ofprofessional licensure, teachers will need to be able to view their own teaching andsuccessfully identify and meaningfully analyze aspects of their practice. Moreimportantly, if it is introduced early in their education programs, teacher candidates canhave a positive experience with a peer review that may become part of their professionalgrowth in the future. Our work with structures that support positive peer interactionaround teachers’ video has shown us that it is a dynamic and flexible approach thatcombines the power of collaboration with a grounding in evidence-based discussion ofpractice. While both collaborative inquiry and video-based self-reflection are key toolsin professional growth, in combination they can unleash the greater potential of each. Forboth new and experienced teachers, viewing and analyzing teaching with a partner can bemotivational, supportive, eye-opening, and even inspiring. It is teacher reflection at itsmost professional: teachers exploring teaching with each other.

40Baecher and Tuten40

ReferencesAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2010). Teacher Performance

Assessment Consortium. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/index.php?/Programs/Teacher-Performance-Assessment-Consortium-TPAC/teacher-performance-assessment-consortium.html

Baecher, L., & Connor, D. (2010). “What do you see?” Using video analysis ofclassroom practice in a preparation program for teachers of students with learningdisabilities. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 7(2), 5-18.

Bambino, D. (2002). Redesigning professional development: Critical friends.Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25-27.

Chan, P., & Harris, R. C. (2006). Video ethnography and teachers’ cognitive activities.Advances in Research on Teaching, 11, 337-375.

Dymond, S., & Bentz, J. (2006). Using digital videos to enhance teacher preparation.Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(2), 98-112.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2007). Making content comprehensible forEnglish language learners (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fuller, F., & Manning, B. (1973). Self-confrontation reviewed: A conceptualization forvideo playback in teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 43(4), 469-528.

Goldman-Segall, R. (1995). Configurational validity: A proposal for analyzing ethnographic multimedia narratives. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,4, 163-182.

Good. T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2007). Looking in classrooms (10th ed).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The persistence of presentism.Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2505-2534.

Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2009). “Intermediate theory” building: Integrating multipleteacher and researcher perspectives through in-depth video analysis of pedagogicstrategies. Teachers College Record, 111, 1753-1795.

Hughes, J., Packard, B., & Pearson, P.D. (2000). Preservice teachers’ perceptions ofusing hypermedia and video to examine the nature of literacy instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 599-629.

Jacobs, J., Borko, H., & Koellner, K. (2009). The power of video as a tool for professionaldevelopment and research: Examples from the Problem-Solving Cycle. T. Janik & T.Seidel (Eds.), The Power of Video Studies in Investigating Teaching and Learning inthe Classroom (pp. 259-273). Münster, Germany: Waxmann Publishing.

Jensen, D., Tuten, J., Hu, Y., & Eldridge, D. (2010). Teaching and learning in the discomfortzone: A guide for new teachers and literacy coaches. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jensen, R. A., Connor, K., & Killmer, N. (1994) Fear of the known: Using audio-visualtechnology as a tool for reflection in teacher education. Paper presented at the 74thAnnual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (February 12 - 16 1994)ED 387 482.

Krumsvik, R., & Smith, K. (2009). Videopapers-An attempt to narrow the notoriousgap between theory and practice in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy andEducation, 18(3), 269-278.

Baecher and Tuten41Baecher and Tuten

Lerman, D. C., Hovanetz, A., Strobel, M., & Tetreault, A. (2009). Accuracy of teacher-collected descriptive analysis data: A comparison of narrative and structuredrecording formats. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 157-172.

Miller, M. J. (2009). Talking about our troubles: Using video-based dialogue to buildpreservice teachers’ professional knowledge. Teacher Educator, 44, 143-163.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2010). The portfolio. Retrievedfrom http://www.nbpts.org/for_candidates/the_portfolio

Nemirovsky, R., & Galvis, A. (2004). Facilitating grounded online interactions invideo-case-based teacher professional development. Journal of Science Educationand Technology, 13(1), 67-79.

Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). (2010). What is PACT?Retrieved from http://www.pacttpa.org/_main/hub.php?pageName=Home

Pianta, R., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System(CLASS). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold,structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67.

Rickard, A., McAvinia, C., & Quirke-Bolt, N. (2009). The challenge of change: Digitalvideo-analysis and constructivist teaching approaches on a one year preserviceteacher education program in Ireland. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,17, 349-367. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/28268

Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticingnoticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect ontheir experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 347-360.

Sherin, M., Linsenmeier, K., & van Es, E. (2009). Selecting video clips to promotemathematical teachers’ discussion of student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education,60, 213-230.

Skiera, P., & Stirling, D. (2004). Using video cases to enhance professional developmentprograms. In L. Cantoni & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the World Conferenceon Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications 2004(pp. 3194-3198). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://edlitlib.org/p/12844

Snoeyink, R. (2010). Using video self-analysis to improve the “withitness” of studentteachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3),101-110.

van Es, E., & Sherin, M. (2002). Learning to notice: Scaffolding new teachers’interpretations of classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation, 10, 571-596.van Es, E., & Sherin, M. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in thecontext of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244-276.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher sociological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Welsch, R., & Devlin, P. (2007). Developing preservice teachers’ reflection: Examiningthe use of video. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 53-61.

Baecher and TutenBaecher and Tuten42

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.New York: Cambridge University Press.

West, T. (2007). Multilayered analysis of teacher-student interactions: Concepts andperspectives guiding video analysis with Tattoo, the analytic transcription tool.Pedagogies: An International Journal, 22(3), 139-150.

Yadav, A., & Koehler, M. (2007). The role of epistemological beliefs in preserviceteachers’ interpretation of video cases of early-grade literacy instruction.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 335-36.

Baecher and Tuten-

Author BiographiesLaura H. Baecher, Ed.D. is Assistant Professor of TESOL at Hunter College,City University of New York. Her research interests include the use of video inteacher development, clinical experiences and supervision of instruction for Englishlanguage learners, and content-based ESL. Email: [email protected]

Jenny Tuten, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Literacy Education at Hunter College,City University of New York. Her research interests concern teacher and familyviews of report cards and assessment practices, instruction of struggling readers,and literacy teacher preparation practices. Email: [email protected]


Sharing Perspectives

The Good, The Bad, the Ugly…and the Downright Perplexing: An essayreview of Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that PutStudents on the Path to College

Paul VermetteNiagara University

I have been thinking about this book by Doug Lemov of Uncommon Schoolssince I read Elizabeth Green’s March 7, 2010, article in the Sunday New York Times.Green, a journalist, compares and contrasts two polar edges of contemporary education,one that represents a complex, constructivist and highly engaging teacher practice andone that offers a simple, directive, behaviorist, traditional approach. While the formersuggests that a teacher/challenger must help students think deeply and become thought-ful about ideas that lead to conceptualized understanding for personalized transfer, thelatter suggests a task master teacher/leader who gets children under control and forcesthem to rehearse things that will lead to higher test scores on standardized tests and, asthe book’s sub-title indicates, promises them they are on the path to college.

My PerspectiveI am the first kind of teacher; as a professor of secondary teacher education at an

NCATE-accredited institution in New York State, I am involved in programs that lead toNew York State certification and produce very fine new teachers. Lemov is not only thesecond kind of teacher, but he would also love to see most teachers in North Americafollow the second path. In his work with Uncommon Schools and with some charterschools (i.e., the organization called Teacher U and groups like Teach for America andthe Knowledge Is Power Program schools), his work is revered. His ideas are offered toteachers as the “right answer” to the question “what is good teaching?”1

Many people I talk to suggest Lemov has turned a complex and skilled set ofdecision-based behaviors into the application of a set of all-purpose, scripted tactics.If only it were that simple. As the responses to Green’s Times article indicate (seeNew York Times, March 21, 2010), policy makers, politicians and (God forbid), schooladministrators may grab onto his 49 techniques and promote them as the accepted visionof good teaching. This vision could in turn determine pay raises for teachers, requirements forfederal and state grant applications, and the content base for teacher-certification tests.The horror in my tone reflects my fear that Lemov quite possibly has it all wrong. If so,efforts to improve teaching and increase the effectiveness of teacher education programsmay be set back another 25 years to the time of Madeline Hunter’s Theory into Practiceprogram (see Ellis, 2005). But if he is right, maybe educators have found some very goodanswers to the questions surrounding the improvement of instruction.


This book is, at the very least, perplexing because it raises more questions than itanswers and offers answers that lack supporting evidence. Because this book is beingread and supported by the same people who are supporting charter schools, it should bequickly and closely examined by many professionals. I seriously doubt readers will findthat Lemov has found much new that can actually be transferred to all classrooms toimprove student achievement. However, I strongly fear the political movement thatsupports him will make his suggestions appear to be the new and improved teachingprograms we supposedly need. I also fear support for Lemov from policy-makers andothers seeking a simple, clean answer to the perceived teaching problem. This bookoffers a simplistic training program that could be used to train, monitor, and evaluateteachers and short-circuit support from the continuous and complex professionaldevelopment that has been proven effective.

This is an important book because of its potential political impact and its possiblyfaulty set of messages, and I am personally dedicating a big chunk of my future scholarlyplans to study further its messages and, importantly, the responses to it in the widereducational world. My students at Niagara University are carefully critiquing it andtrying to find existing research to support his ideas (there is little or none offered in thebook), and our Professional Learning Community (PLC) led by secondary educatorsKarrie Jones, Cindy Kline, Beth Konkoski-Bates, Frank Pickus, and Jennifer Jones isassessing its suggestions and formulating an action research project to be disseminated insummer 2011. I encourage other educators around the United States and Canada tofollow suit and create their own groups to analyze the instructional ideas he has offered.

What has Lemov said that warrants all this free publicity? Five general themes runthroughout the text:

(l) Great teaching consists of applying his 49 techniques; (2) Accredited programs of teacher education don’t teach useful tactics for

classroom practice; (3) It is not worth following scholarly procedures for locating and studying useful

techniques; (4) Teaching can be improved primarily by imitating selected portions of the models

offered by a small group of master teachers; (5) Pre-K through grade 12 students must be managed, coerced, and forced to do

schoolwork against their will.

I think he is wrong on all five and his narrative is weakly supported. Some ofLemov’s more specific claims do warrant close analysis because his offerings includeboth solid as well as questionable advice.

The Organization of the Lemov BookThe book is really two books in one: in the first half, Lemov explains his 49

techniques, which he derived from watching some great teachers teach in low-socioeconomic and urban contexts. There are another 12 unnumbered techniques,chunked under the titles of “pacing” and “critical thinking.” I am not sure if advocateswill include these, focusing on 61 techniques, or ignore them as after-thoughts.The 49 labeled and described tactics worry me the most because I sense that the all-purpose

Vermette 45

interventions he offers will be implemented thoughtlessly and without clear goalsby people simplistically “trained” to use them. The book does have real potential as a“training guide” for alternative programs and for other non-reflective professionaldevelopment efforts.

Although literacy professors, reading teachers, and coaches will see a few problemswith the second half of the book, overall it is quite good in its advice. It is full ofwell-explained considerations for literacy, techniques to build vocabulary, pre-readingstrategies, and questioning suggestions. However, these might be lost if advocates remainfocused on the specifics of the 49 techniques. These “big 49” threaten to become areified checklist of quality indicators: they are straightforward, easy to measure, andappeal to those seeking a simple solution. This vision of good teaching could be foistedupon the profession without much comment or forethought, as was the testingcomponent of No Child Left Behind. Thus, this review focuses on the 49 techniquesreferred to in his title

The Organization of My ReviewThe four quadrants of my own title are based an old Clint Eastwood western,

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. The movie was a hit because it allowed for diverseinterpretations of a variety of experiences. The same holds true of Lemov’s work. I seesome “good,” some “bad,” and some “ugly” sorts of things at work. Mostly, I am movedby the perplexing things in the book that cause me to wonder why Lemov didn’t addressthe “big picture” (i.e., putting his ideas in the context of what schools are trying toaccomplish in their stated mission, or why he chose to address the demands of themodern classroom the way he did, without any concern for student thinking). When Ifinished reading it, I was left in a daze: had I just read a modern book about teachingwithout much mention of how students actually learn? Here, I will discuss The Good,The Bad, The Ugly, and The Perplexing.

The GoodGood Point #1: Lemov has his priorities straight. Many contemporary conversa-

tions on education are about computers and resources, family background, firing “bad”teachers, alternative programs, budgets, and testing results. Lemov has refocused ourattention on the key events of the entire educational enterprise— the set of interactionsthat take place in a classroom, between and among teachers and students. We share apassion for the importance of these classroom interactions and the implementation of ateacher’s thoughtful planning. Not nearly enough energy has been spent by administra-tors, policy makers, and the media on what good teaching looks like; why we think ourbeliefs about it are true; and what the research says about good teaching. My ownwritings are all about these things (Vermette, 1998, 2009; Kline & Vermette, 2009), butpoliticians, policy makers, and journalists generally don’t find such topics very engaging.For example, Danielson’s (2007) well-researched, carefully articulated, and practicalbook has not produced the positive response that Lemov’s has. Its neglect is truly ashame, for she articulates a research-supported vision of good teaching that is far moregeneralizable. Unlike Lemov, she offers a rubric to show gradations of performance.His behaviorist applications all seem to be of the yes/no variety, and there is no hint ofwhat a teacher should do if and when the technique doesn’t work as expected.

Vermette46

Good Point #2. A number of his suggestions are actually quite good and worthyof serious consideration. For example, Wait-Time (#25) is a powerful technique whendone well. Even though he seemingly contradicts himself with his simultaneous advo-cacy of Cold Call (#22), I am glad that wait-time is in here. Teachers may want to useFrank Lyman’s (l981) Think-Pair-Share if they really want to make a difference andbuild in some student-student collaboration and communication, but wait-time does havea successful record when used in a teacher-centered practice. A few other techniques areworthwhile, such as Everybody Writes (#26), in which learners are asked to record inwriting their own thinking. Also, Entry Routine (#28) calls for an environment thatprovides familiar and habitual patterns to classroom life (as long as the patterns areproductive, safe, and motivational).

Good Point #3. The book includes useful audio-visual resources. Included withthe book are 25 DVD clips, ostensibly showing 21 outstanding teachers demonstrating25 of the 49 (or 61) techniques. These are intended to help teachers replicate the prac-tices of the master teacher. I am very fond of the idea of watching masters show a skill sothat other teachers can play with the example, think about it, read about it, and experi-ment with it. However, I am not fond of an apprenticeship model that calls for “training”teachers by transmitting practices intact: teachers are not machines and students are notall the same raw material. Transfer of a technique by, and to, a living, breathing, thinkingperson is a complex thing. Teaching requires great thoughtfulness, intentionality, and aclear sense of purpose: the education of teachers must do the same. Watch the tapes witha critical eye, not an imitative one.

Good Point #4. Lemov offers teachers worthwhile follow-up activities. At theend of each of the 7 (or 9) units in the first half of the book, Lemov offers his readers(teachers) ideas on post-reading elaboration and examination-type activities. My col-league Cindy Kline really likes these challenges and suggests doing them would helpteachers think deeply and learn meaningfully.2 Of course, she is a constructivist so theinvestigative approach offered by these assignments makes sense to her. However,neither of us understands why these types of critical thinking activities would begood for the teacher-readers but not for teenagers preparing for college. Solvingproblems, analyzing ideas, and using reflection causes learning, yet, Lemov doesn’tseem to trust the students to think deeply, even in a well-managed classroom.

The BadPerhaps because I see some BAD parts in most of the GOOD items, and because my

perplexed reaction to this work is so pervasive, I find only two BAD aspects to the book.

Bad Point #1. Where are the citations? One truly bad thing Lemov has done is toturn his back on the entire scholarly field that he boasts of advising. His 49 techniquescome from watching great teachers, re-telling their narratives, and sharing their tips. But,nowhere—I mean in zero places, none—does he have a citation that suggests his advo-cated positions have any research or theoretical support.

Vermette 47

The book has no citations; therefore, the supposed record of support for his 49recommended tactics cannot be easily investigated. This lack of connection to the bodyof knowledge has led to some curious comments like the following:

a. he says “students remember twice as much if they write it down” (p. 140) but gives no evidence for this notion.b. he mentions competent and highly respected scholars such as Carol Dweck (p. 13) and Mary Rowe (p. 134) and promotes their suggestions, but doesn’t tell

us where to find their work (about mindset [Dweck, 2006] and wait-time[Rowe, 1986], respectively).

c. he thinks that writing good objectives using the 4Ms—#7 Manageable,Measureable, Made First, and Most Important—should be solely credited to hiscolleague Todd McKee (p. 60) and treats it like the whole notion of objectives isMcKee’s brand new idea!

d. in the same vein, he mentions support for his suggestions drawn from CoachBobby Knight (yes, the one who choked his athletes), sportscaster Chris Bermanof ESPN (pp. 12 and 216), and economist Karl Marx (p. 149). Here, though, Iwas thankful that he doesn’t tell us where to find their ideas.

By the way, a book on instruction that suggests wisdom from non-educators likeKnight, Berman, and Marx and ignores the findings offered in the high-quality work ofBransford and colleagues (2000), Ladson-Billings (2009), the afore-mentionedDanielson (2007), and Darling-Hammond and Sykes (1999) is a very curious thing.Leaving Bruner, Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, Johnson and Johnson, Slavin, Gardner, andSkinner out of this book is also most curious and raises huge questions about Lemov’sbackground knowledge.

Bad Point #2. The book dismisses cooperative learning. Another bad thing isLemov’s complete ignorance of all the potential of the practice of cooperative learning(CL), the most heavily research-supported intervention in history (see Ellis, 2005, for anoverview of this evidence). Perhaps because he didn’t see it actually happening in hissample observations or because it requires a thinking-generating approach that reducesregard for his training-dominated vision, it is absent.

Apparently, CL is either too difficult for teachers to try, it doesn’t work as designed,or it doesn’t fit into his philosophical vision of a good classroom. In Lemov’s universe,teachers direct the class like conductors do an orchestra or lion tamers do their wildanimals; but seldom can teens do think-work on their own. This is a shame for those whochoose to follow Lemov’s path, for the most powerful instructional intervention ever willbe left outside their horizon. The policy implications are also frightening: if, for ex-ample, state Education Departments or school district leaders or teacher educationprograms build their teacher evaluations around the 49 techniques, they will have missedan opportunity to promote techniques that help students develop the deep understandingsand skills needed for actual success in college (and life).

The UglyIn the Eastwood movie, it wasn’t clear what was bad and what was ugly, and the

same may be true here. However, if the bad points are simply wrong and cannot bejustified or explained away in any conceptually sound manner, the ugly points are a littlemore plausible but do not connect well to known and rationally accepted conventionalbeliefs. As you will see, Lemov offers a “kind of a” theory called No Theory—in other

Vermette48

words, a pure eclecticism—that predicts success but doesn’t tell why in any organizedsystematic fashion; he also borrows ideas from others, but neglects to identify thesources. This is truly ugly and sloppy scholarship, and perhaps worse. Please continue:

Ugly Point #1. Correlation means causation? Lemov claims his book offers amenu of choices to teachers; he suggests they can “pick and choose” the tactics they like.To me, this eclectic approach means “no clear plan” or “not sure what really matters,”which is downright ugly.

John Myers of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education thinks Lemov is buyinginto the fatal correlation-means-causation mentality. That is, Lemov believes goodteachers who get good scores do technique #___, so everybody should use it to get goodscores. He offers no direct explanation why the technique actually affects learning(Myers, 2010). Because both ice cream sales and deaths from drowning increase in June,July, and August (a famous line from basic statistics), it does not mean the treat causesthe drowning. Things other than his identified techniques might be at work for Lemov’sgreat teachers: maybe using Strong Voice (#38), Seat Signals (#34), and playing Pepper(#24) do not cause learning but are part of other things that successful teachers are doing.Moreover, things that might cause learning are ignored. For example, a glance at thebook’s index reveals no entries for feedback, a variable that research says does increaselearning in many classrooms and that actually causes thinking-learning. Yet, feedback isnot considered important enough to warrant serious mention, even if it might be at theroot of the exemplary teacher’s real success.

Simply stated, data drawn from correlations can begin the analytical process, not endit. Another example of an over-reliance on correlation is found in Hernstein and Murray’spopular but controversial The Bell Curve (1994), which argued that helping studentsfrom low-income environments was essentially a waste of energy and other resources.Had educational policy-makers bought that line of thinking, there would be far fewerattempts today to close the achievement gap.

Since he did no formal examination of the effects of the 49 techniques and is notrelying on established past history to ground his credibility, his notion that teachersshould try some of them, any of them, they are all good seems to be more of a wild stabat success than the articulation of a systematic plan to improve teaching.

While I still think teachers could—and should—do action research on these 49techniques, with no more than a scant 3 or 4 pages of explanation of each one and norecord of research support, we have little guidance in setting up the agenda for such aninvestigation.

Ugly Point #2. Plagiarism or snubbing the conventions? Lemov’s book, with itslack of a single citation, would receive an incomplete, a bad grade, or worse if submittedat most formal educational programs. Even at Uncommon Schools or Teacher U, if onelifted ideas liberally from another source without citation, eyebrows might well be raised.Madeline Hunter’s heirs might do just this when they read some of the following: theHook (#12) seems very close to her anticipatory set and Guided Practice is literally liftedfrom her lexicon. However, her monumental attempts to change teaching are notrecognized at all. Ironically, her program, which didn’t really work (see Ellis, 2005) ismuch like the one we get from Lemov 28 years later, and the author doesn’t even seem toknow about hers. Some colleagues I have spoken with have suggested that his

Vermette 49

casualness smacks of plagiarism (even Teach like a Champion sounds suspiciously likethe unrecognized Notre Dame football slogan “play like a champion”), but I tend to thinkhe is just intentionally snubbing the conventions of the discipline and the serious work ofacademics in education. This ignorance is truly bothersome, for the past 15 years havebrought forth great teaching advice, great scholarship, and great progress in teachereducation. But nowhere in this book is that truth evident.

The PerplexingFinally, we get to the perplexing category, which did not exist in the movie. The six

points you will see here raise many questions about the book, ones that may spark deepthinking by educators and lay-people alike.

Perplexing Point #1. What are Lemov’s motives? He never once acknowledgesthat some books—and maybe even some teacher education programs—are concernedabout instructional implementations that actually work. Does he not want to advertiserival works of advice or does he not know or trust them? Does he want to push hiscontrolling, aggressive style of classroom behavioral management to the exclusion ofsuccessful ones that make students think and move from compliance to responsibility?No matter what, his callous disregard for past events—except his own personal observa-tions—is strange. Interestingly, he never asks where his group of star teachers learnedand honed their techniques, nor does he wonder about their own teacher preparationbackground. I have a strange hunch that not all his great teachers are Teach for Americagraduates. I suspect they did not jump to more lucrative professions after two years in theclassroom but might be traditionally prepared teachers who have continued to learn fromyears of thoughtful experience, collaboration, and study. Maybe they have even rejectedsome of the 49 techniques he advocates. Wouldn’t it be fascinating to learn why some ofhis great teachers choose not to do some of the 49 techniques?

Perplexing Point #2. Why overlook social and emotional learning? Lemovignores all the evidence that concern for student affect, referred to as social andemotional learning (SEL), actually raises test scores and develops more positive studentattitudes, thus making better people, ones more suited to handling life’s challenges(see Payton et al., 2008; Zins et al., 2004). Perhaps many urban schools fear programsthat are overly concerned with these types of initiatives, although their effectiveness inurban settings is well supported by research from Anchorage and New Haven (that is, ifyou read and trust research). There is strong reason to believe that building communityand developing a sense of belonging matter greatly and are especially powerful in urbanschools. It is glossed over in this text, replaced by a concern for teacher use of boss-management techniques.

Perplexing Point #3. Why treat students like circus animals? I am deeplybothered by one specific technique, SLANT (#32), which directs students how to sit andwhat gestures to use while “doing school.” SLANT stands for Sit up, Listen, Ask andanswer questions, Nod your head, and Track the speaker. There is no reason on Earth totreat human beings like animals to be trained if no shred of neuroscientific evidenceindicates that a particular sitting position increases attention, thinking, and learning.

Vermette50

Like the debate on school uniforms, this one is about appearance: if urban schoolchildren look like they are learning, maybe the self-fulfilling prophecy will kick in andhelp. No matter what, there is no citation for or explanation of why SLANT might work,and there is no evidence for believing it will help students solve ill-structured problemsand understand content-specific concepts.

Perplexing Point #4: Where are the thoughtful students? I am also confused aboutLemov’s really good suggestion to Double-Plan (#10), which calls for the teacher to layout carefully what students will be doing as the teacher teaches. Sparking and encourag-ing student thinking is what good teaching is supposed to do (Vermette, 2009), so thisDouble-Plan notion has potential. It is unfortunate that nowhere else in the book does heseem to care about his own advice to think about children’s thinking, and he doesn’tDouble-Plan his own book. Every other technique in the book focuses on what teachersdo or how teachers could react to an individual student’s response, not on what thestudents are expected to do and think about. He focuses only on students’ behavior,never on their thought.

Perplexing Point #5: Why the tough guy act? Interestingly, Lemov’s No Warningstactic (#42) suggests that a “gotcha” approach (the old “catch them doing bad and they’llfeel bad and change” notion) will toughen children up to the rigors of an information-training style classroom. I wish this approach would just go away; perhaps naively,I thought Senge’s (2000) brutal critique of Industrial Age education had symbolically putan end to it once and for all. I also hoped Tony Wagner’s (2008) recent denunciation ofOld World, assembly-line teaching signaled a future commitment to a powerful 21st-century thinking curriculum like those Wagner found in the good charter schools hevisited and praised. Lemov suggests I was wrong in this hope; unfortunately, enticingstudent thinking and commitment must be replaced by teacher domination and studentcompliance and obedience.

While being tough occasionally increases the attention and participation of somedistracted students who are already committed to school success, it is actually muchmore likely to alienate, drive away, annoy, and infuriate students who are humiliated,embarrassed, or already de-motivated by traditional, fact-based, test-prep, information-heavy, assembly line schooling. This view of Lemov as a drill sergeant and tough guyleaves me bitter. I cannot imagine any reason that would explain why being caught andembarrassed, as the No Warning technique demands, would revive a student teetering atthe edge of caring about school or help a discouraged student re-dedicate himself tostudying irrelevant or uninteresting content. This “gotcha” technique might help if astudent already feels a deep sense of belonging (Osterman, 2000) or feels part of asupportive community, but many alienated students despise and distrust schooling.Moreover, there is no advice in this book for how to design the necessary positiveaffective environment that would be needed to bring those students back into the fold.I am perplexed why Lemov does not recognize this truth and does not show how theteachers who successfully use the aggressive technique avoid the likely negative re-sponses. I strongly suggest new teachers not “attack” their students in the style called forhere, at least not until each student feels that his or her relationships with both teacherand classmates are part of the real universe (See Vermette, 2009, for some solid ideasabout building a powerful and motivating sense of community in a classroom. Also,www.CASEL.org is a great source of ideas on this critically important modern issue.)

Vermette 51

Perplexing Point #6. How many opportunities has Lemov missed? Writing thisreview has led me to this final perplexing item. Lemov, with all of his credibility, experi-ence, and passion, may have missed the opportunity to make a real difference. Thisdifference can be made by others field testing of the techniques in real classrooms incareful experiments. The section of the book I most wanted to trust, Building Trust andCharacter (Number Seven), left me wanting the most. All the techniques there, includingPositive Framing (#43), Precise Praise (#44), The J-Factor (#46; Jis for Joy), and Nor-malize Error (#49, Hunter called it Dignify the Wrong Answer), are all connected tointrinsic motivational factors that actually drive lasting cognitive achievement and bindchildren to the hope offered by schooling. They all spark students to extend themselves,to think though difficult concepts, to reflect on ideas, and to transfer ideas to newcontexts. These are the conditions under which truly deep understanding takes place.Lemov’s teachers probably know this, but they apparently want to be so much in controlthat they cannot create classroom conditions that allow the full flower of student thinkingto bloom. Or, if they have motivated thinking with their teaching, he has missed it withhis 49 simple tactics. In short, there is no reason to think the 49 are at the root of highertest scores.

Student learning results from the thinking that is done in solving real problems,making real creations, and/or making evidence and logic-based decisions; in this tradi-tional teacher-controlled practice, it seems students cannot be asked to do these thingsexcept in very limited ways and after the important controlling techniques are in place.

The 49 techniques are supposed to get children on the path to college. I fear they dolittle to prepare them to handle the think-work responsibilities of the freshman year ofcollege or the complex demands of the diverse, complicated knowledge-working 21st

century tech-based society they will enter at the end of their K-12 schooling.

ClosingAs I said earlier, I think our field needs to discuss this work and its implications

quickly, relentlessly, honestly, and openly. I hope that many new PLCs and book studyclubs consider analyzing this text in the near future. I also truly hope, if Lemov sells lotsof books, that they are very carefully examined and discussed and that the resultingconversations create insight, questions, and commitments to excellence amongpractitioners. Finally, I hope the data and insights created by these future responsiveefforts (placed in a context that recognizes our existing knowledge base) produce the datadecision-makers use to shape policy. I believe the policy makers would be wiser tofollow the established research-supported mandates (as desired by professional accredit-ing agencies and learned in accredited teacher education programs) than to followLemov’s set of prescriptions, which are built on a limited set of unsubstantiatedobservations. Making policy by disregarding research-supported “truths” in favor of a setof opinions by an observer is almost certainly a bad idea.

While Lemov’s techniques boldly promise higher test scores and college entry, thereis little reason to think their use in most high school classrooms will lead to deeperstudent understanding and critical thinking, the development of communication skills,persistence under duress, collaboration skills, self-regulation, or empathy; as you know,these are the things high-school graduates really need to succeed. His vision of thewell-managed, well-orchestrated traditional classroom offers little preparation for the demandsof higher education, and, for that matter, of modern society and the global economy.

Vermette52

End Notes(1) Ironically, in the summer of 2010 the Commissioner of Education in New York (whois linked closely with Teacher U, an organization deeply supportive of Lemov’s 49tactics) proclaimed test scores in New York aren’t really meaningful and that the tests(and, importantly, the “cut scores”) must change. He thinks they do not predict highschool and college success. However, Lemov chose his master teachers preciselybecause they helped produce good scores, apparently now on bad tests.(2) Middle School SEL specialist Cindy Kline, who likes a number of Lemov’s tech-niques, also fears the use of the 49 as a training script or as an evaluation instrument. Sheargues that an approach modeled after business training (her first life) would be cata-strophic in a complex, customized industry-like teaching that emphasizes personalgrowth and change. “You cannot program a trainee beyond the script,” she told me, “andmost of the teacher’s important interactions are beyond the script. That is why theoreticalor principle-driven instruction is the thing that really works. Controlling the class toomuch actually inhibits student thinking and teacher thinking. Teachers need both a small,powerful set of research-supported ideas and lots of reflection and conversation.”

Once again, Lemov’s limited educational experience, knowledge, and background (abusinessman with an MBA from Harvard) may blur him to the vast differences betweentraining and teaching. Moreover, Tony Wagner (2008) emphasizes that businessesthemselves are adopting a less-controlled, less top-down approach and that key CEO’snationwide desire a new style of education that is student-centered, engaging, andcreative.

ReferencesAusubel, D.P. (l968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,

Rhinehart, and Winston.Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Worthy, J. (1995). Giving a text voice can improve

student understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 220-238.Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,

experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching;

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria: Virginia.Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds). (l999). Teaching as the learning profession:

Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: How we can learn to fulfill our potential. New York:

Ballantine Books.Ellis, A.K. (2005). Research on educational innovations (4th ed). Larchmont, NY:

Eye-on-Education.Hernstein, R.J., & Murray, C. (l994). The Bell Curve. New York: The Free Press.Jackson, P. (l968). Life in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Jones, J.L., Jones, K.A., & Vermette, P.J. (2009). Teaching mathematics understandings

for transfer. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 28(l), 1-5.Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. Riverside, CA:

University of California.Kline, C., & Vermette, P.J. (2009). The dual objective model for cooperative learning:

Towards affective and cognitive gains in middle school. In Transition, 27(1), 48-53.Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of

African-American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Vermette 53

Lemov, D. (2010). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path tocollege. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lyman, F.T. (l981). The responsive classroom discussion: the inclusion of all students.In A. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest. College Park, MD: Universityof MarylandPress, 109-113.

Myers, J. (2010, May 28). Personal communication.Nolen, S.B. (1995). The effects of a visible author in statistical texts. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 87, 47-65.Osterman, K.F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community.

Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323-368.Paxton, R.J. (2002). The influence of author visibility on high school students solving a

historical problem, Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 197-248.Payton, J., Weissberg, R.P., Durlak, J.A., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D., Schellinger,

K.B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learningforkindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews.Technical report. Chicago: IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social andEmotional Learning.

Rowe, M. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up. Journal ofTeacher Education, 37, 43-50.

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000).Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyonewho cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Vermette, P.J. (2009). ENGAGING teens in their own learning: 8 keys tostudent success. Larchmont: NY: Eye on Education.

Vermette, P.J. (1998). Making cooperative learning work: Student teams in K-12classrooms. Saddle River: NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Wagner, T. (2008, 2010). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’tteach the new survival skills our children need and what we can do about it.NewYork: Basic Books.

Zins, J.E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, C., & Walberg, H. (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say ?New York: Teachers College Press.

54 Vermette

Author Biography

Paul Vermette is a teacher educator at Niagara University. An expert in cooperativelearning and best instructional practices, Dr. Vermette has authored and co-authoreddozens of books and articles on engaging instruction at the middle- and high-schoollevels. He is the Vice President/President Elect of the New York Association ofColleges for Teacher Education. Email: [email protected]

Nota Bene

Book Review ofThe Power of One: How You Can Help or Harm African-American StudentsBy Gail L.Thompson. (2010).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Helene S. Napolitano, EmeritusMarymount Manhattan College

ContextGail Thompson, in The Power of One, beckons timid and fearful teachers to revisit

their perspectives on African-American culture, racism in the United States, andeducation outcomes for African-American students. She describes a process of self-empowerment and a practical approach for educating African-American students. First,the teachers must reflect to rid themselves of “personal, mental baggage” and deficitmindsets about African-American students. Then they can construct a relevantcurriculum and learn positive interaction skills with families, thus improving educationamong African-American students.

OverviewAn overview of Excelsior’s book reviews shows that books about the education of

African-American students have centered on deprivation in urban schools (Napolitano,2007); the exchange of cultural practices among diverse children (Napolitano, 2007); asense of voice among Blacks (VanSlyke-Briggs, 2007); meaningfulness of using Ebonicsand African grammar (Dowdy, 2007); and the effects of school desegregation policy onstudent achievement (Stearns, 2009). Thompson’s book is different because it is the firstto advocate an explicit, positive, and reflective teaching application regarding African-American students.

The author divides the book into two parts. The first includes a rationale for gainingconfidence as a teacher, administrator, or other school personnel member. The secondexplains how the teacher, administrator, or school personnel member can changecurriculum, classroom climate, and attitudes regarding testing African-Americanstudents. Each chapter in both sections is complete with exercises for self-examinationand reflection, leading to the development of self-empowerment.

Reading the book is insufficient; one must spend time responding to questions aboutemotions, feelings, fears, and learned attitudes and behaviors toward African-Americanchildren, their families, and lifestyles. After reflection and completion of the exercises,the empowered teacher is prepared for group meetings sharing personal viewpoints ofAfrican Americans, their culture, and education.


Group activities are outlined for these professional development sessions. The authorexplains how some social issues, such as slavery and poverty, have stifled educationalprogress among African Americans. Following Thompson’s development approach, onecan better understand the current status of African-American families and their culturaldifferences. Specifically, empowered teachers, administrators, and school personnelmembers can learn to adjust school programming in order to accommodate family stress.

Appendices show questionnaire responses for workshop attendees and areimpressive and persuasive. The author demonstrates, through workshop participantresponses, that teachers, administrators, and school personnel members still hold all thefears and prejudices about African Americans that we no longer expect of 21st-centuryeducators. The second part of the book is about changing curriculum to make it relevantto the African-American students’ culture and practices. Test-taking strategies arepresented, test results are explained, and consequential gaps between the general schoolpopulation and African-American students are clarified. The author offers suggestions forimprovement in these areas of testing.

The Notes section is particularly helpful to the reader who seeks supplementalresources. References for website and literature searches are current, and the case studiesare real, anecdotal reports, gleaned from the author’s experiences. Dr. Thompson’sconcluding chapter grips the reader’s attention by pleading, once again, for educators toadapt her approach to teaching among African-American students.

ReactionsUndoubtedly, the book is a template for use in personal and group professional

development arenas, but the following cautions should be taken. Cognitive restructuringor reframing is a recommended technique for eradicating negative beliefs, but theauthor’s definitional reference is inadequate for correct useful application (p. 38). Onecase study about the failure of a Catholic school for a good academic African-Americanstudent could be omitted (pp. 29-33). The case is truthful but could disillusion African-American students and families whose children are enrolled in Catholic schools, for theCatholic schools have an excellent reputation in educating their children. As in all groupcircumstances, the extent to which any individual would be candid in sharing prejudicesis questionable. Statistical analysis of questionnaire results is missing, and the readerremains unconvinced that the author’s professional reflective development approach isfoolproof. Every person who interacts with students could benefit from reading andusing the information about tests. The chapter is designed for use by teachers withAfrican-American students, but it is appropriate for all school personnel and students.

SummaryThis is a first encounter with a book whose author is passionate and direct about

racial issues and corrective measures to overcome negative attitudes towards African-American students. Her enthusiasm for developing self-empowered teachers of thesestudents is convincing and contagious. Although she proposes that experienced teachersof African-American students use the book, teacher educators should consider its usewith all preservice teachers. Respondents to a questionnaire agreed that better educationis key to eliminating racism in the United States. Let teacher educators begin the processby adopting this book for their preservice teachers.

56 Napolitano

References

Dowdy, J. (2007). Review of the book The Words Unspoken: The Hidden Power ofLanguage by Debra C. Smith. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Excelsior, 3(2), 78-79.

Napolitano, H. (2007). Review of the book The Other Side of Loneliness byNed O’Gorman. New York: Arcade Publishing. Excelsior, 1(2), 68-69.

Napolitano, H. (2007). Review of the book Immortality of Influence by SalomeThomas-El with Cecil Murphey. New York: Kensington Publishing.Excelsior, 1(2), 70-71.

Stearns, K. (2009). Review of the book Hope and Despair in the American City:Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh by Gerald Grant. Cambridge:Harvard University Press. Excelsior, 4(1), 79-80.

Thompson, G. (2010). The power of one: How you can help or harmAfrican-American students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Van Slyke-Briggs, K. (2007). Review of the book Readers of the Quilt: Essays on BeingBlack, Female, and Literate edited by Joanne Kilgour Dowdy. Cressville,NJ: Hampton Press. Excelsior, 2(1), 65-68.

57Napolitano

Author Biography

Helene S. Napolitano, Ph.D., is a retired Professor of Education at MarymountManhattan College. She served as President, Secretary/Treasurer, and ExecutiveBoard member of NYACTE for many years and is currently a National EditorialBoard member of Excelsior. Her current interests and past commitments have beenadvocating for children in cultural, economic, and educational poverty, especially asa supervisor of student teachers in at-risk and hard-to-staff schools inNew York City. Email: [email protected]

Book Review ofInside Teaching: How Classroom Life Undermines ReformBy Mary Kennedy (2005). Boston: Harvard University Press.

David A. GorlewskiD’Youville College

Mary Kennedy’s readable and informative book entitled Inside Teaching: HowClassroom Life Undermines Reform (Harvard University Press, 2005) was writtenduring the era of No Child Left Behind, but it deserves to be reviewed within theevolving context of President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top reform initiative. Race tothe Top represents a model that, once again, prescribes top-down reforms for America’spublic schools.

Kennedy’s study tackles the big picture of school reform by investigating what goeson inside teachers’ minds and individual classrooms. America’s schools are buffeted byreforms proposed by an array of agents–from political think tanks, state legislatures, andcolleges and universities, to the U.S. Congress–with little positive effect. Why, Kennedyasks, do teachers appear to be immune to those efforts?

To gain a deep understanding, Kennedy begins by outlining what reformers presentas their reform ideals. She lists three goals: more rigorous and challenging content, moreintellectual engagement, and universal access to knowledge. Knowing these reformideals, according to Kennedy, is essential to understanding why reform efforts havepersistently failed. Kennedy presents four generally accepted hypotheses for the failureof reforms: (a) critics maintain that teachers need additional knowledge and guidance tochange their practices, (b) teachers hold beliefs and values that differ from those ofreformers, (c) teachers have dispositions that interfere with their ability to implementreform, and (d) the circumstances of teaching prevent teachers from altering theirpractices.

To these, Kennedy adds a fifth hypothesis for reform failure: that the reform idealsthemselves may be unattainable or may actually impede effective teaching. To get to thecentral question regarding reasons for the persistent failure of reform, Kennedy observed,videotaped, and interviewed 45 teachers from upper elementary classrooms in schooldistricts not known for their reform activities but in close proximity to school districtsthat were. Kennedy explains that she selected:

… schools that lay within the catchment areas of significant reform initiatives butwere not particularly notable for their local reform efforts. I hoped that such schoolswould represent the kinds of places that reform initiatives often hope to influence butrarely do. (p. 24)

The book is filled with rich, minute-to-minute descriptions of classroom life. It notesthe interruptions and distractions, such as the ubiquitous public address announcements;the endless coming and going of students; and the drawing away of class time forsanctioned school activities like assemblies, field trips, health screenings, and mandatedtests. It depicts teachers’ efforts to provide information and teach skills and concepts

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and LearningVolume 5, Number 2 Spring/Summer 201158

within this disrupted environment. Furthermore, it describes teachers’ efforts to respondto individual student questions while maintaining lesson momentum. And, finally, thebook elaborates on the thought processes of teachers as they view videotapes ofthemselves in action. Here, we discover why teachers acted as they did, why they madethe decision to move the lesson in a different direction, or why they called upon onestudent to answer a question but not another. These post-lesson interviews are significantbecause they demonstrate how the teachers’ visions of a reform initiative might differfrom that of a reformer. For example, Kennedy found that, in practice, teachers conflate“universal access to knowledge” with “universal participation in classroom activities.”She also discovered that they conflate “intellectual engagement” with “any kind ofengagement.” Kennedy sees this as “a subtle difference that can lead to activities that arefun but not necessarily intellectual” (p. 230).

Kennedy found substantial evidence to support the first three hypotheses for whyreform efforts fail and each is related directly to teachers’ knowledge base, values andbeliefs, and dispositions. However, what makes her study particularly interesting is thetesting of her fourth and fifth hypotheses because each is unrelated to teacher agency.These hypotheses, which were also supported by data, suggest the reasons for reformfailure lie in the circumstances of teaching and that the reform ideals may, themselves,be unattainable.

Inside Teaching is an important book that speaks with clarity to many critical issuesin public education. First and foremost, it turns the tables on school reform byproblematizing not just schools but the reform movements themselves. By presentingnumerous reform ideals within the context of real classrooms, Kennedy provides aclear-eyed critique of reform. Quite simply, teachers are asked to embrace reformswhose aims are contradictory – reforms that cannot be fully implemented because theyliterally work to offset each other. Perhaps the simplest and most compelling examples ofcontradictory reforms are found in the descriptions of teachers who are torn betweenaddressing individual, and legitimate, student questions and, at the same time, assuringclass-wide student attention and participation. Here, the reform seeking more intellectualengagement conflicts with the reform seeking universal access to knowledge.

Kennedy’s book is not without its weaknesses. The concept of “failure of reform”comes across as definitive: almost as if all reforms fail all the time. For those in educa-tion who are charged with introducing reform initiatives at the local level (i.e., staffdevelopers, lead teachers, building administrators), the “persistent failure of reform”refrain is presented as a given when, in fact, America’s schools have implementedcountless reforms (e.g., gender equity, special education, portfolio assessment, andhigher standards, among others) with varying degrees of success. However, Kennedy’scontention that the reform ideals are ultimately unattainable rings true and her workhelps explain why no single reform seems to reach full implementation. This shouldcome as no surprise to the readers because public schools, as a reflection of society,mirror the tensions of living in a democracy. As elected officials struggle to writelegislation that tries to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of society,teachers, on a micro level, struggle to balance individual student needs with the needs ofthe class as a whole.

Inside Teaching becomes even more instructive when viewed from the perspective ofPresident Obama’s Race to the Top initiative, which seeks to connect studentperformance on standardized tests with teacher evaluation. What, the readers might ask,

59Napolitano

would the teachers in Kennedy’s study change in their day-to-day interactions withstudents in order to meet the expectations of Race to the Top? The daily teacher-studentinteractions detailed in Kennedy’s book comprise what she called “the circumstances ofteaching.” When studied, those “circumstances” included three significant findings:(a) teachers experienced numerous disruptions and distractions, (b) teachers were oftenconstrained while preparing and organizing their work, and (c) teachers had difficultymanaging complicated lessons and faulty props.

Unless there is a dramatic cultural and political shift in the United States, thecircumstances of teaching will not change in ways that eliminate or minimize distrac-tions and interruptions, provide substantive planning time for teachers, and facilitatesuccess in teaching heavily conceptual and complicated lessons. Race to the Top focuseson the ends, such as test scores. Kennedy’s findings focus on the means, such as theprocesses to achieve those ends. The disconnect between the means and the ends isdisturbing.

Where does the teacher or teacher educator go from here? Given the intractablecircumstances of teaching, Kennedy has since posited that bold ideas to reform educationare not good ideas (Kennedy, 2009). She writes, “What we need in education are ideasthat develop slowly and that build on what we already have, not ideas that developexcitedly or deviate markedly from current practice” (p. 4).

As an alternative to top-down reform, Kennedy suggests thoughtful, incrementalimprovement with educators studying their practices closely and deliberately to deepentheir understanding of the circumstances in which they work. Educators who believe thisimplicitly will find evidence in her excellent book.

ReferencesKennedy, M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Boston:

Harvard University Press.Kennedy, M. (2009). Against boldness. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 16-20.

60 Napolitano

Author Biography

David A. Gorlewski, Ed.D., is Assistant Professor in the School of Education atD’Youville College in Buffalo, New York, where he teaches courses in curriculumdevelopment and advanced curricular issues. His research interests include schoolreform and the use of student writing in program assessment and evaluation.Email: [email protected]

Book Review ofThe Well-Balanced Teacher: How to Work Smarter and Stay SaneInside the Classroom and OutBy Mike Anderson (2010).Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Julie SheaSUNY College at Oneonta

Mike Anderson has written this new book in an effort to help teachers bring balanceto their lives. With such a descriptive title, the reader might well expect to find yetanother one-read-can-fix-it-all self-help book. However, the book’s substance beginsimmediately in the forward. Writer Linda Lantieri retraces the painful event ofSeptember 11 and how teachers at Ground Zero schools had to

maintain their balance…. They had to develop that place inside themselves that givestheir work meaning and purpose before we could ever expect them to offer it to theircolleagues or students. The events surrounding September 11 became an opportunityto acknowledge that teachers have an inner life. It became evident that their innerlives required nurturing so that they could provide the healing their students sodesperately needed. (Anderson, 2010, pg. xii).

From there, Anderson states that teaching is one of the most stressful careers in theworkforce. He then begins to weave together reasons for and steps to take to maintaina healthy balance, which will nurture the inner life. Using a practical, common-senseapproach, he offers suggestions to negotiate the myriad of a teacher’s responsibilitieswhile maintaining this needed balance. He also reveals that teachers do not have to livethe roller-coaster life that so many do; instead they can become well-balanced betweenwork and personal life.

Based on years of research and his own life stories, Anderson writes simple, yetdetailed chapters to help teachers find a less demanding and more fulfilling life.He begins with the premise that before teachers can give all they want to give to theirstudents, students’ families, administrators, and colleagues, they must first take care oftheir own basic needs. Next, he asserts that teachers must be connected within the schoolsetting. He states that teachers seek affirmation and significance in their work but oftendon’t recognize it when it comes their way. In later chapters, he shares how having funin the classroom is not inconsistent with following the required curriculum but enhancesit for both teacher and students. Finally, he discusses the critical concept of balancingtime spent on professional responsibilities with time spent with personal and familyneeds. He believes that stress can be lessened by deciding what to eliminate and learninghow to say, “No.”


62 Shea

This enjoyable volume is easy to read and provides a number of relatable, plausibleconclusions about the teaching field. As a veteran teacher of over 18 years in the field,I, too, have felt the stress of the profession as I’ve tried to juggle teaching demands andthe ever-increasing state mandates with personal needs. I’ve caught myself saying overand over again, “There is just not enough time in the day to accomplish all that I amrequired to do.” I breathed a sigh of relief when I read that Anderson had also felt thatway and then smiled at how he found out that this emotion really is authentic.

It was refreshing to be reminded of the many simple, yet, healthy ways we must takecare of ourselves, such as making time for exercise, drinking plenty of water during theschool day, and giving ourselves permission to sit quietly at lunch and not correct papersor frantically make copies.

Mike Anderson’s current book provides a brand new teacher or a veteran teacher anabundance of quick, simple, and common-sense steps to take to lessen the burden of oneof the most stressful careers in today’s workforce. This book should be made availablein teachers’ lounges and could be the springboard for a school conference day’s work-shop on reducing educators’ stress. Within minutes of reading this book, any teacher willbe able to relate to Anderson’s findings. From the sensitively written forward to theconcluding paragraphs on the last page, this book provides the reasons to achievebalance in the lives of teachers and the steps to take to reach it.

ReferenceAnderson, M. (2010). The well-balanced teacher: How to work smarter and stay sane

inside the classroom and out. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Author Biography

Julie Shea has been an elementary school teacher in public and private education forover 18 years. She currently is a Reading Specialist at Franklin Central School, inFranklin, New York and is an adjunct professor in the Education Department atSUNY College at Oneonta, Oneonta, New York. Email: [email protected]

Documentary Review ofThe Corporation [DVD]Produced by Big Picture Media in association with TV Ontario, Vision TV,Knowledge Network, Saskatchewan Communications Network andACCESS, M. Achbar and B. SimpsonWritten by J. Bakan, H. Crooks, and M. AchbarDirected by M. Achbar and J. Abbott (2005).New York: Zeitgeist Films2 hours 24 minutes

The Corporation and the Demands of Social Justice

J. C. BlokhuisRoehampton University, London

I have used this documentary in teacher education programs since it was firstreleased on DVD. It is a useful supplement to guided readings from Why Social JusticeMatters (Barry, 2005), and an excellent introduction to the concept of social justice foreducators that I have previously discussed here in Nota Bene (Blokhuis, 2007). TheCorporation conveys a very powerful message to aspiring teachers, both on the value oftheir work and on the challenges they will face as educators in a society in whichconsumerism and commercialism are all-pervasive. After viewing and discussing thefirst 90 minutes of The Corporation, I ask teacher candidates to write a short reflectivelearning diary entry in which they consider why this film is particularly relevant foreducators concerned about social justice. I never ask my students to do anything I amunprepared to do myself, and they invariably find it helpful to read an exemplar of eachof my assignments. Thus what follows is my own response to the assigned question.

***According to the makers of this award-winning documentary, the business

corporation is the dominant social institution of our time. Whether or not this is true, itis obvious that business corporations play a key role in modern capitalist economies,because they are a primary means by which private wealth is generated. As such,unregulated business corporations are a primary means by which inequalities in wealthare generated. According to Brian Barry (2005), social justice becomes more difficult toachieve as the disparity between rich and poor increases. Thus for educators concernedabout social justice, it is important to understand how the activities of businesscorporations may be regulated in accordance with the demands of social justice.

A corporation is a legal “person.” It comes into existence when a group of personsreceive a state charter recognizing a legal entity separate and apart from the person orpersons who act as its directing mind and will. This is well-known to lawyers butperhaps not to many members of the general public. States have long permitted business


corporations to exist because corporate activities tend to generate wealth, jobs, and taxrevenues. In recent years, however, business corporations have been subject to fewerlegal constraints. While members of the business community have been among the mostvocal in demanding increased public accountability for governmental agencies andpublic corporations (notably school districts), business corporations themselves havebeen subjected to reduced public regulation, accountability, and oversight.

When governments adopt a policy mantra of deregulation, privatization, commer-cialization, free trade, and marketization, they are catering primarily to a very smallcadre of preferred shareholders in some of the world’s largest business corporations.It should come as no surprise that where successive governments have most eagerlyembraced deregulation since 1980, we now see the largest gaps between rich and poorand the lowest rates of social mobility. Children born to poor families in the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom are more likely to remain poor their entire lives thanchildren born to poor families anywhere else in the developed world (Barry, 2005: 60-61;citing Toynbee, 2004 and Blunden, 2002: 13).

There are, of course, many benefits to the corporate form as a mechanism forcoordinating human activity. Public corporations, notably municipalities, public schooldistricts, and an array of public service agencies, serve public interests at the publicexpense without generating profits or paying dividends to private shareholders. Businesscorporations likewise produce goods and services for public consumption, but they do soin order to generate wealth for their shareholders. While the goods and services thatbusiness corporations produce enhance the quality of life of millions of people, theprofits flow to those who provide the investment capital.

As I have noted elsewhere (Blokhuis, 2008a), corporate charters used to permitinvestors to profit incidentally in the production or provision of some public good. In theearly 19th century, when governments could not easily collect tax dollars, a privatecorporation would be chartered to construct a dam, a road, a canal, a railroad, or a port.Then as now, investors – capitalists – would contribute to the capital fund for the project.The corporation would collect tolls until the capital cost of the project had been recouped(plus a modest, predetermined increment). The corporation would then distribute thesefunds to shareholders and, having served the purposes for which it had been chartered,the corporation would then be dissolved, leaving the bridge or canal for public use (cf.Bakan, Crooks, & Achbar, 2005). The state might continue to levy tolls, but a perpetualgrant of authority to generate private profits in the provision of public goods and servicesused to be anathema to public sensibilities.

The profits generated by business corporations are made at the expense of others,particularly workers. While the environmental and social costs of corporate activities areborne by everyone, the poor pay a disproportionate price (Barry, 2005). Thus theunregulated business corporation creates numerous social justice problems becausecorporate activity inevitably produces disparities in income and wealth.

I have consistently used the term unregulated here when discussing businesscorporations because corporations are neither good nor evil in and of themselves. Theydo have neither a conscience nor a will. They are legal ‘persons’, not natural persons.They are merely tools that do what they have been designed to do. As the documentarymakers stress, the moral problem associated with the corporate form is that it permits theindividuals working within it to treat others as mere means – to do in an institutional

64 Blokhuis 65

capacity the kinds of things the same individuals would never do in their personalcapacity. Even young children are routinely targeted by unregulated corporationsseeking to maximize profits. The Corporation includes an interview with Lucy Hughes,vice president of Initiative Media and co-creator of ”The Nag Factor,” an internationalstudy designed to help children nag their parents more effectively for toys, trips to themeparks, and fast food. “Somebody asked me, ‘Lucy, is that ethical? You’re essentiallymanipulating these children,’ Hughes recounts. “Well, yeah, is it ethical? I don’t know.But our role at Initiative is to move products, and if we know that you move productswith a certain creative execution, placed in a certain type of media vehicle... then we’vedone our job.” It is worth noting that there are numerous jurisdictions in which itremains illegal for business corporations to market their products and services directly tochildren, a good example of regulation in the interests of society’s most vulnerablemembers.

Again, I emphasize the importance of public regulation; the behaviour of businesscorporations, as creatures of public law, is ultimately a public responsibility. In additionto regulating corporate behavior in the public interest, the state can and shouldminimize disparities in wealth through taxation. As Barry (2005) points out, tax lawspermitting corporate executives to retain millions in lightly-taxed salaries and bonuseslead to social injustice, as do laws permitting shareholders to retain millions inlightly-taxed dividends and capital gains. The state can and should tax such earningsheavily, as they are always generated at public expense. The state permits corporationsto exist in the first place, so it is completely legitimate to impose heavy taxes oncorporate earnings as a condition of doing business. Instead, governments all over theworld now compete with one another to attract corporate investment, evidence perhapsof the extent to which even the leaders of liberal democratic states appear willing to putprivate interests ahead of public interests. But in liberal democratic states, in theory atleast, politicians can do only what a majority of their intelligent and well-informedconstituents will abide.

The Corporation is particularly relevant for aspiring educators for a number ofreasons, perhaps most importantly because business corporations benefit from publicignorance and apathy. As the documentary makers emphasize, corporate executivesknow they can increase profitability by externalizing the costs associated with theiractivities onto an unwary or uncaring public. However, because corporations arecreatures of law, the public can control corporate behavior. Corporations can externalizetheir costs and can get away with all kinds of injustice when the many members of thepublic remain unaware of their own power to constrain corporate behaviour throughthoughtful, active engagement in our democratic institutions and political processes.

Because business corporations benefit from public ignorance and apathy, theirinvestors spend a lot of money manipulating people. Those who reap enormous privateprofits at public expense do not want voters to think deeply or critically. In this respect,the corporate agenda is diametrically opposed to the aims of professional educators.As educators, we seek to cultivate each child’s capacity to act rationally, to make goodchoices, and to be self-governing in accordance with reason and reasonable laws as anadult. In particular, as educators we are committed to helping children develop thesecapacities, knowing that people tend not to live flourishing lives when they aremanipulated and controlled by others (see Brighouse, 2006; Blokhuis, 2008b).

Blokhuis

66

This documentary is particularly important for educators concerned about socialjustice. When the rational capacities of young people are properly cultivated, they will beless susceptible to corporate propaganda. When young people understand therelationship between civic engagement and the legal constraints on corporate behavior,they will be more inclined to elect representatives willing to impose progressive taxes onprivate profits generated at public expense. The Corporation rather chillingly ascribes ahost of harms to workers, to consumers, to the environment, and to the long-termprospects for human survival on this planet (see Curren, 2009) to the businesscorporation, the dominant institution of our time. However, the business corporation isnot the problem. Neo-liberalism is not the problem. Ultimately, educators concernedabout social justice must confront the twin problems of public ignorance and publicapathy (see Kitcher, 2011). As all good teachers know, the most effective remedy ispublic education.

ReferencesBakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power.

New York: Free Press.Barry, B. (2005). Why social justice matters. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Blokhuis, J.C. (2008a). Channel one: When private interests and the public interest

collide, American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 343-363.Blokhuis, J.C. (2008b). On Education by Harry Brighouse. Excelsior: Leadership in

Teaching and Learning, 2(2): 99-101.Blokhuis, J.C. (2007). An analytic outline of Why Social Justice Matters by Brian Barry,

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 89-91.Blunden, J. (2002). Mobility has fallen. Centre Piece (Centre for Economic Performance,

London School of Economics), 7(2), 8-13.Brighouse, H. (2006). On education. New York: Routledge.Curren, R. (2009). Education for sustainable development: A philosophical assessment.

London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.Kitcher, P. (in press). Public knowledge and its discontents. Theory and Research in

Education, 9(2).Toynbee, P. (2004). Going nowhere. The Guardian (April 2), 15.

Author Biography

J. C. Blokhuis holds a law degree from the University of Ottawa and a Ph.D.in Educational Leadership, Thought and Policy from the University of Rochester.From 2006 to 2009, he served on the Executive Board of the New York StateAssociation of Teacher Educators. Though he currently resides in England,he hopes to return to New York someday. Email: [email protected]

Blokhuis


CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTSFOR SPECIAL TOPIC ISSUE:

Instructional Technology in Teacher Education

How are teacher education programs preparing teachers for the 21st centuryclassroom?

Why, or in what ways, is instructional technology important to teaching?

Deadline June 1, 2011

With Guest Consultant EditorSarah McPherson, Ph.D.,

Chair, Instructional TechnologyNew York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York

Topics may include (but are not limited to) the following:• What new technologies are most useful as preservice teachers prepare for their

teaching careers?• How do teacher education preparation programs incorporate new instructional

technologies in their programs?• What does research tell us about effective uses of new technologies to improve

student learning and teaching?• What are effective uses of online courses in teacher education?• What knowledge and skills should teacher education programs provide in order

to assess effects of technology on learning in the classroom?• What should teachers know about technology for students with special needs?• What challenges do teacher education programs face in preparing teachers to

apply instructional technology in their teaching careers?• How are teacher education programs addressing the following new technologies

for use in classrooms?- Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, etc.)- Web 2.0 tools (wikis, blogs, and nings)- Gaming, virtual worlds, and alternative realities- Student Response Systems- Interactive presentation systems (SmartBoards, etc.)- Cell phones, iPods, or other mobile devices

• How should teacher education programs prepare teachers to negotiate legal,ethical, and equitable uses of technology in classrooms?

• What are effective teacher preparation models for university and K-12 collabo-ration?

• What are future trends for using technology in teaching and learning?

Call for Manuscripts

Excelsior: Leadership in Teaching and Learning provides a forum to explore issuesrelated to teaching and learning at public and independent colleges and universities withprograms in teacher preparation.

Excelsior solicits original, thought-provoking manuscripts of various formats,including papers presenting research on issues and practices important to teacher educa-tion and in-depth discussions of perspectives on issues and practices that contribute to thepreparation and professional development of educators. A third format—Nota Bene—should contain brief, focused articles, book reviews, or website or technology recom-mendations.

Deadlines for submission:June 1 for the fall/winter edition

December 1 for the spring/summer edition

Manuscript Preparation and Submission

To submit a manuscript to be considered for review

• Send an electronic file compatible with Microsoft Word as an e-mail attachment to the editor, Cindy Lassonde, at [email protected].• Manuscripts must follow APA style as outlined in the most recent edition of the APA style manual.• Research and Perspectives manuscripts should not exceed 25 pages, including references. Nota Bene manuscripts should not exceed 5 pages, including references.• Include a 100-word abstract for Research and Perspectives manuscripts.• The cover page should consist of the title of the manuscript, a suggested running head, as well as the authors’ names, affiliations, addresses, e-mail addresses, and tele- phone numbers.• Omit headers and footers except for page numbers.• Omit all identifiers of the authors and affiliations from the manuscript. Also, be sure computer software does not reveal author’s identity.• Secure all permissions to quote copyrighted text or use graphics and/or figures of other non-original material. Include permissions with manuscript.• Data-based manuscripts involving human subjects should be submitted with a statement or verification from the author that an Institutional Review Board certificate or letter approving the research and guaranteeing protection of human subjects has been obtained from the researcher’s institution.

Manuscripts will be subject to a blind review by peer reviewers and the editor.The review process will take approximately three months from time of submission.

All manuscripts will be judged on their scholarship, contribution to the knowledgebase, timeliness of topic, creative and thoughtful approach, clarity and cohesiveness,appropriateness to category, and adherence to preparation guidelines. Selections may alsobe affected by editorial decisions regarding the overall content of a particular edition.

68

excelsior - nyactenew york state colleges and universities preparing teachers and other prof...

Documents