ll Ill Kill" "1/ Willi/Ill This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Investigation of the Impact of the Professional Development School Partnership on Instruction in an Urban Middle School. presented by Johnny Albert Scott has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy degree in K-12 Educational Admin. mew/ Major professor Date g/I/q‘i MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty PLACE ll RETURN BOXtoromwomde-ckoum ywnocotd. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or before data duo. MSU Is An Mann-five ActloNEqud Opponunhy Institution W m1 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP ON INSTRUCTION IN AN URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOL By Johnny Albert Scott A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dr. Gary Sykes Department of K-12 Educational Administration 1994 ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP ON INSTRUCTION IN AN URBAN MIDDLE SCHOOL by Johnny Albert Scott In light of principles set forth in the Holmes Group report Iomorrgw'g School (1990), a group of teachers in a Professional Development School (PDS) examined and attempted to change their practice. This study reports upon and analyzes that group's experience, and concludes that: (l) A PDS partnership can bring about meaningful change in teaching practice; (2) Of several factors important to that change, the most critical is the individual teacher's ability and willingness to match his or her predispositions with new knowledge, and; (3) The support structures and work patterns that a PDS partnership induces may cultivate a professional orientation among teachers who actively participate. Copyright by JOHNNY ALBERT SCOTT 1994 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In pursing an undertaking so intellectually challenging as the scholarly product of a dissertation, a graduate student must have a great supporting cast. Indeed, I did; consequently, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge them. First, I would like to thank the Michigan Partnership for New Education for all the support provided me during my two years as a graduate assistant. Under the leadership of Harrison Blackmond, Jr., this non-profit organization consisting of schools, universities, businesses, and governments provided me with an extensive array of experiences related to school change and professional development. In addition, Barbara W. Markle, Director of the Collaborative Leader Center of the Michigan Partnership, helped me tremendously by engaging me in many professional growth experiences. My thinking about schooling and my role in one school have been greatly enhanced because of these people's patience, dedication, and mentoring. Second, I would like to acknowledge my doctoral committee: Steven Kaagan, Brian DeLany, Phil Cusick, Gary Sykes, and Chris Wheeler. Each of these professors made himself available to me during my uncertainty about my thinking and writing during my tenure at Michigan State University. I will always be indebted to them. iv Finally, I would like to thank my family. To my mother and father, Hullie and Johnny; my sisters Catherine, Christine, and Cheryl; my brothers Raleigh and Havert: you have all provided an armor of love for me that has always served as my source of inspiration. With love, I want to acknowledge my eldest sister Caldonia who passed away during my studies at MSU. "Sweet," as the family referred to her, will always live in my heart. And to Michele--thank you for being a true friend and my greatest supporter. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES .Ch_aa.te_r CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM Introduction Purpose and Background . The Concept of the Professional Development School - An Overview . Research Questions Significance CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON AMERICAN SCHOOL REFORM AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING TEACHER CHANGE Introduction . Professional Development Schools in the Context of School Reform in America . Specific School Improvement Models Accelerated Schools The Coalition of Essential Schools- Re: Learning . The Holmes Group Professional Development School Tomorrow's School - the Holmes Group Concept Applying Sizer's "Direct" Category to the Holmes Group PDS The Impact of School Building Social Organization on Teacher Change Current Research--Pedagogical Standards for Specific Subject Matter Areas A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Teacher Change Basic Research . . . . External School/Teacher Intervention Agents School Level Factors Indicators of Teacher Change Summary — Factors Impacting on Teacher Change vi 10 ll 14 14 14 l6 16 20 23 23 26 28 33 37 40 40 40 42 42 CHAPTER THREE: METHODS Overview Selection of the Site . Selection of the Respondents Piloting the Instrument Data Collection . Data Analysis Methods First Level Coding . Pattern Coding . Validity, Reliability and Generalizability CHAPTER FOUR: SETTING AND CONTEXT . The School . . . School Organization School Faculty . . . Structure of Opportunity - Dunbar/MPNE/PDS PDS - How It Works at Dunbar . Summary - An Overview of Dunbar CHAPTER FIVE: PDS RELATED OPPORTUNITIES AND RESPONDENTS Professional Development School Opportunities PDS - Participating Teachers CHAPTER SIX: FINDINGS Introduction . . Framing the Assertions . Major Assertions from the Data . Assertion One Assertion Two Assertion Three Finding Related to the Holmes' Principle: "Inventing a New Institution" Assertion Four Subsidiary Finding . Assertion Five Speculation and Suggested Further Research Finding . Assertion Six . vii 45 45 46 47 51 SS 62 65 7O 73 77 77 79 79 80 8O 83 85 85 86 100 100 101 102 102 107 110 117 117 120 120 122 122 CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS Overview A Professional Orientation to Teaching Substitutes for Leader Behavior Subordinate Experience-Training . Professional Orientation to Teaching . Cohesive Work Group Change as a Web of Connections Limitations of the Study LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: LIST OF REFERENCES Letter to Principal Letter of Approval from District Office Letter of Approval from UCRIHS Teacher Interview Protocol Six Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools viii 125 125 126 129 131 131 132 133 136 139 140 141 142 152 153 LIST OF TABLES Demographic Categories of Sample (N=1l) Sources of Data . ix 63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of change in teacher practices 2 Embedded in PDS Structures of Opportunity 41 98 CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM Introduction Teachers' work has emerged as a major theme of educational reform. A mid-19805 synopsis of then current education reform reports was typical in its statement, "Teachers should be assisted to become the professionals they want to be" (See The Next Wayg, Education Commission of the States, January, 1987). However, such reports tended to overlook that teacher improvement often depends on teachers receiving assistance in doing things in new ways, and that discernibly improved teaching and student learning will appear only some time later. This is because teaching is a multidimensional activity, and improved teaching means teachers examining and attempting to change their practice over time. Expecting immediate teaching and learning improvements simultaneous with improved teaching practice is at odds with the logic and reality of the classroom. Teachers must actually try new things in new ways before student improvement can be expected. This study explores the Holmes Group concept of the "Professional Development School" (PDS) and treats it as an initiative of national significance. In contrast to popular expectations for simultaneously improved teaching practice and student learning, the PDS idea recognizes that teachers must first examine and attempt to change their practice before improvement in traditional measures of student performance can be expected (See Educational Policy Journal, March, 1993 and Journal of Teggher Education, January-February 1992). This is a case study focusing on how the PDS initiative supports teacher self-examination of teaching practice, and how the PDS approach leads teachers to perceive their practice as a factor impacting on student learning. This case study is not an evaluation of the implementation of the PDS concept. Nor does this case study judge PDS "pro" or “con". This case study is one attempt to understand the dynamics of change within a subset of teachers. These teachers voluntarily engaged in an added advantage -- Professional Development School opportunity. The Holmes Group, a consortium of nearly 100 American research universities, has committed itself to reforming education through bridging the gap between research and development at the university level and the practice of teaching and learning in public schools. This notion of a collaborative venture between schools and colleges has a number of precedents. One example is John Goodlad's "League of Cooperating Schools" project at UCLA, where veteran teachers examined and attempted to change their practice in a well planned school-university collaborative (Goodlad 1990; Sirotnik and Goodlad 1988). The PDS initiative broadens the traditional view of teacher activities and calls for ". . . purposeful preparation, mindful practice, critical reflection, mutual discourse, and continuing inquiry as normal ways of working" (Holmes Group, 1990, p. 55). Under the PDS concept, the school is a "center for reflection and inquiry." In this sense, to be observable, there must be evidence of PDS effects, such as distinct approaches, techniques, or philosophies that distinguish PDS-related teaching. But, those who advocate the PDS approach do not specify what this means in actual practice. That gap is explored by this case study, which traces the connection between the PDS setting and the actions of teachers in that setting who examine and attempt to change their practice. Purpose and Background This case study reports and analyzes how a subset of teachers in a building designated as a Holmes Group "Professional Development School" (PDS) self-examined their teaching practice and attempted to change it. This case study is based on the assumption that there is, indeed, plausibility between a school becoming a PDS site and subsequent positive change in teaching practice and student learning. This case study seeks to trace and report that change in teaching practice in one school. Because of the expected time lag between change in teaching practice and impact(s) on student learning, no attempt is made in this case study to demonstrate the student learning impact of a PDS school. Identifying and defining how teachers examine and attempt to change their practice is an undertaking fraught with complexity. This complexity arises, in part, from the often evolutionary and imprecise way in which teacher change occurs. It is further complicated by differences in subject matter content and academic consequences. Teacher change is an individual endeavor that has a cumulative effect. It is often not possible to pinpoint the precise moment at which any particular change occurs. Individual change requires intensive action sustained over long periods of time, and change does not necessarily occur at a constant rate. Thus, change can be viewed as a continuum, and at any time, a specific teacher's effort may be at any given point along the change continuum. Comprehending teacher change is also made difficult in a PDS because of the "I'm Okay, You're Okay" phenomenon that Gehrke's (1991) work highlights. As she points out, [one] major challenge evident in professional development school efforts lies in the sensitive realm of evaluation—-evaluation not only of one's own success, but also of one's partner. There are two parts to this challenge, then: realistic judgment of oneself, and authentic communication with one's partner. . . . While we may each be quick to point out privately the deficiencies in the other partner's performance, when we are brought face to face, we are silent. . . . By our silence and mild approval, we soothe the immediate situation, but we actually impede the development . . . (p. 47). Gehrke suggests that in the interest of maintaining a healthy self-esteem, teachers may find themselves reporting faint praise to changes in practices, perhaps because self-judgment strikes at teachers' individual and communal sense of competence. Evidence of a teacher examining his or her practice can range from something as concrete as lending or borrowing materials or redesigning curriculum to abstract self- questioning of personal competence, confidence, influence, or satisfaction. The literature on teacher change recognizes a whole range of factors. This poses the question, then, of exactly how changes in such teacher practices as inquiry, reflective practice, critical thinking, decision-making, action-taking, and evaluation can be attributed to a PDS partnership with the particular school building. In answer, it was decided to use the case study approach, addressing the issue of plausibility, which as Campbell (1978) argues is the appropriate aim for most social research, by tracing the activities and behaviors of a group of teachers who were a subset of a particular PDS school faculty. Further, because indicators of "teacher change" can range so widely, this case study concentrated on process and outcomes to determine how and to what extent teachers were examining and attempting to change their practice. Thus, certain teachers’ actions were analyzed to determine if PDS-related opportunities served as facilitators. For purposes of this case study, process means actions and interactions that strengthened teachers' daily teaching routines and . . . l . 2 actions, e.g., 1n subject matter study groups and/or pr0jects 1Subject-matter study groups were professional development sessions, usually two hours in duration, where teachers from within the discipline meet bi-monthly, share ideas and thoughts, discuss their beliefs about teaching and learning, perform envisioned tasks, simulate desired student outcomes, etc., as purposeful reflection to issues emerging from teachers’ work. Such issues included (a) where teachers and university faculty collaboratively decide what is to be taught and how. Outcomes means significant and meaningful changes in practice (e.g., changes in curriculum, materials, teaching approaches, and actions--including verbal as well as physical actions) or beliefs about teaching and learning as can be traced back to PDS-related influence. With the foregoing as background, the general research question of this case study was the following. How (in what ways and to what extent) does that school-wide intervention known as "PDS" support the efforts of a subset of teachers to pursue meaningful and significant changes in their practices? The Concept of the Professional Development School An Overview The Professional Development School (PDS) evolved from the Holmes' Group's (1990) Tomorrow's Schools. This consortium of educators set out to reshape the reform movement, mindful of the earlier movements to establish laboratory schools in universities subject-matter limitations, (b) lack of curriculum that support the kind of teaching that was emerging, (c) experimenting with alternative ways of grouping students in response to achievement heterogeneity, (d) conducting inquiries into understanding student learning, and (e) conducting inquiries into teaching practice. 2Projects served to enable professional development. As one medium of job involvement, projects facilitated systematic implementation and study of experimentations by teachers on self- identified problems. For the most part, projects evolved from study group deliberations and took on a practitioner/researcher dyad as they unfolded. and of the university-based curriculum efforts of the 19605. As the Holmes Group noted early on: We began this work fired with a simple concern for the quality of teacher education in America. The more we talked, the more we realized that teacher education represents a mesh in a very wide net that stretches from the universities to the schools and to the wider society. Pull on one part of the net, and you end up tugging on all the other parts, too. (Preface) Fashioned after the famous Flexner report that lead to modern medicine's teaching hospital, the PDS idea is receiving national endorsements as a prescription for refocusing American public education (see U.S. News & World Report, January 11, 1993). IggorrowflsfiSchools is the Holmes Group's manifesto and advocates transforming selected public schools into clinical sites. Such sites would provide teachers with a "negotiated" ". . . back-and- forth dialogue between people in a university and people in a school district; and between principles and actions" (p. 85). It would also provide on-the-job learning. This learning would not only entail personal experiences (local knowledge, Geertz, 1984), but additional sources of knowledge beyond the teacher's classroom experiences. Such knowledge is derived from scholarly research by university experts and others who are an integral part of the PDS initiative. Finally, and perhaps unique to the Holmes Group's conception of the PDS, new knowledge about teaching practice is conveyed to the PDS school faculty via an ongoing interaction between the teachers and the university personnel. Attention to teaching and learning is part of a long historical tradition in educational reform. Larry Cuban's (1984) work illustrated this point quite well, offering an analysis of attempts to introduce "child-centered instruction." More recent proposals-- James Comer (1980), Robert Slavin (1991), and Henry Levin (1991)-- also have implications for teaching and learning. The Comer Process is a community-centered approach to school reform based on the belief that all children can learn, that their education is the responsibility of the school and home, and that community involvement is essential to success. The guiding principles are a no-fault approach to problem solving, cooperation among all the adults concerned with the student, and consensus decision making. This plan is being used in approximately 160 schools nationwide in 14 school districts. Slavin's "Success for All" program was designed to bring all children in Baltimore's inner-city elementary schools up to grade level in the basic skills by the end of third grade. This effort is based on the belief that prevention, early intervention, and individual attention must be used to address problems students have in school. The program is also being implemented in some schools in Philadelphia, Charleston, and Montgomery. Levin's "Accelerated Schools" approach strives to promote accelerated learning experiences for disadvantaged elementary students so that they will catch up to their more advantaged peers. The major features of Levin's approach include school-based governance, clear goals, pupil and school assessment, and an extended school year. This program is used primarily in Maryland. To paraphrase Joselyn Green, senior writer for the Education Commission of the States, there is solid support in most if not all the proposals for the pivotal part teachers play in improving education. However, the proposals fail to state explicitly that teachers need assistance and support in doing things in new ways and that it will take time to show results. In contrast, the Holmes Group does distinguish between teacher improvement and student learning gains and does not promise an immediate improvement in traditional student measures. In Michigan, the Michigan Partnership for New Education (MPNE) embodies the Holmes Group recommendation for Professional Development Schools. Established in 1990 as a collaboration among Michigan business, education, and government, MPNE is a non-profit corporation that is pursuing reforms of teaching and learning in Michigan public schools. According to a 1991 informational brochure produced by MPNE/PDS, "These (Professional Development) schools: (a) operate exemplary K-12 programs, (b) serve as an institutional base for educating educators, (c) demonstrate the new K-12 and professional education, and (d) conduct supporting applied research and product development" (p. 1). As will be shown, the concept of the PDS has begun to be implemented at the school where the research for this dissertation was conducted. 10 Research Questions The general research question was the following. How (in what ways and to what extent) does that school-wide intervention known as "PDS" support the efforts of a subset of teachers to pursue meaningful and significant change in their practices? To provide a framework during the study, three subsidiary research questions helped guide the inquiry. 1. What were the personalL,operational definitions of teaching in this particula; PDS? (e g., ". . . through my involvement with PDS I've learned to be more reflective. And what that means is that now I'm up to the point that after every hour I sit down and think "What could I have done differently?" or ". it's made me a much more thoughtful practitioner--thoughtful in what I want the kids to do, thoughtful about the materials that I use, thoughtful in the way I assess them, much more thoughtful in getting their input into what we're going to be doing"). Such responses provided the researcher with insights into the practical impact of what it means for the subjects studied for this dissertation to teach in this PDS school. How did the teachers and students interact? Here, the study was interested in two factors: (a) the mode of classroom instruction (i.e., teacher-centered versus student-centered), and (b) the quality of the interaction between teacher and student. This latter characteristic was measured in two ways: 11 through the subjective observations of the researcher and via teacher-determined, before/after measures, such as a desired increase in classroom dialogue among the students. 3. Waa there a relationship between certain PDS-induced processes (e.g., collaboration day, subject matter study groups, individual teacher projects, school-wide projects, off-site visitations, etc.) and changes in teacher behaviors aag practices? Multiple sources of evidence contributed to answering this question including individual anecdotes from the teachers studied for this dissertation. These questions represented areas aligned to the general research question and generated properties and hypotheses for further testing during the course of the study. Significance The importance of this study is twofold. First, this is one of the first attempts to understand how the innovation called "Professional Development School" is working to change teaching and learning in a school. Second, the study pursues a significant, emerging theme in the research literature--the study of teachers attempting to change their practice. While the PDS innovation has attracted national attention, there has been very little empirical work to understand what actually goes on inside a PDS. There are claims of new kinds of teaching and learning emerging, but when asked about concrete instances, PDS advocates have little to point to. This study 12 analyzes how this innovation affected teaching and, by implication, learning in one PDS. Whereas aspects of the PDS strategy appear in the literature on educational reform, the ability to sustain partnerships in which there is joint and mutual exploration of difficult problems of practice and where wisdom of practice has status along with theoretical wisdom from the academy is unique to PDS. Further, both forms of wisdom are brought to bear in projects on problems of practice that are concrete, situated, and specific. Likewise, there are emerging conceptions of teaching that would require teachers to make some fairly dramatic changes in the way they think about teaching and learning in classrooms. Considerable work, for instance, has been done around mathematics and the NCTM standards (1989, 1991) which provide a high resolution image of the "new" teaching against which to judge the current status of mathematics teaching. Palinscar et al. (1991) call for reform in special education literacy instruction demonstrates similar implications. Such frameworks are now finding their way into policy instruments such as the California Mathematics Frameworks (1985). Teachers need a range of social and intellectual supports as they struggle to extend their mastery, but what that means varies from teacher to teacher at a level of concrete detail. In answer to the question of significance then, this study (a) notes that PDS has emerged as an important innovation in American educational reform that is relatively unstudied at the micro level; and (b) contributes to the theme of teachers attempting to change 13 their practices, which is an important topic in the research literature in the context of widespread efforts to reform American education. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON AMERICAN SCHOOL REFORM AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING TEACHER CHANGE Introduction This chapter provides: 0 A general overview of school reform schemes in America, and then specifically discusses three models of school improvement. 0 A report on the literature studying the impact of school building social organization on teacher change; 0 Current academic research on pedagogical standards for specific subject matter areas; 0 A conceptual framework for analyzing teacher change, and finally; 0 A summary of those factors impacting on teacher change. Professional Development Schools in the Context of School Reform in America American's urgent search for better schools continues as a high profile social endeavor. States, consortia, coalitions, councils, commissions, associations, and reformers all have launched proposals to reform schools. The analyst and reformer Theodore Sizer (1992a) uses three labels that are especially useful in categorizing these 14 15 reform efforts. The Holmes Group "Professional Development School" is best described by the second of the following. I. II. III. The oblique strategy is the most popularly familiar. Government here does not insist directly on fundamental reform of an individual school but, rather, promotes it at long range by means of a combination of three devices: (a) increased regulation. . . (b) increased mass testing. . . and (c) improved teacher salaries. . . . Key phrases for this strategy are "toughening up" and "holding schools accountable." Sizer labels the second as the direct strategy, i.e., the rethinking and redesign of individual schools. Government has promoted this approach less vigorously than has corporate America, especially those companies which for their own good reasons have themselves rethought and consequently "restructured" their ways and means of operation. The assumption here is that the means of education, however comfortably familiar and traditional, are profoundly flawed and that reform requires fresh, sensibly designed sorts of institutions. Sizer's third category for classifying strategic school reform efforts is termed systemic. It assumes that the oblique approach never gets boldly to the heart of the matter, and that the direct approach will not work because it l6 depends on the existing bureaucracy. It posits that only a marketplace where parents select schools for their children will provide the force necessary to overcome inertia and the hammerlock that the professional interests appear to have on public education (Sizer's emphasis, p. 22-23). In addition to the Holmes Group Professional Development Schools, there are other current examples in America of Sizer's "direct" strategy. These are discussed in the next section of this chapter, which concludes with a description of the PDS as conceptualized by the Michigan Partnership for New Education (MPNE). Specific School Improvement Models Accelerated Schools The Accelerated Schools project was established at Stanford University in 1986 after an exhaustive five year study on the status of at-risk students in the United States. The focus of the study was at the elementary level. In the study, at-risk students were defined as those children who were unlikely to succeed in schools as presently constituted. Under the guidance and direction of Henry Levin, the Accelerated Schools approach featured an "enrichment strategy" for all students rather than the traditional remedial one that deliberately slowed the pace of learning of children who lacked educational advantages. In order to implement the accelerated school philosophy, three principles serve as the architectural structure: (a) Unity of l7 Purpose; (b) School-site Empowerment; and, (c) Building on Strengths. Advocates of this approach argue that, an Accelerated School is not just a conventional school with new principles or special programs grafted onto it. It is a dynamic environment in which the entire school and its operations are transformed. The emphasis is on the school as a whole, rather than on a particular grade, curriculum, staff development approach, or other limited strategies. The goal is high academic achievement for all students. The three principles of unity of purpose, site-based empowerment, and building on strengths are woven together in virtually all of the activities of the Accelerated School (Levin, 1993, p. 9-10). There are four primary components in the accelerated school's approach. First is a focus on the development of learning activities that are characterized by high expectations and high status for the participants-~teachers and students alike. In doing this, the primary strategy of building on ones' own talents and strengths should take precedence. Second, deadlines (i e., 6th grade) are set by which the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students will be closed, such that disadvantaged children will then benefit from mainstream instruction. In espousing the belief that good pedagogy begins with the strengths of students, this second component calls for mainstream experiences and opportunities for at-risk students with the intention that these students will perform just as well. Third is the commitment to develop an effective curriculum that is faster paced than previous remedial efforts and that actively engages the interests of the students and increases their motivation to achieve. Grounding this component on current research, acceleration works as a strategy for at-risk students. One recent 18 study assigned at-risk students at random to remedial, average, and honors classes in seventh grade mathematics. At the end of the year, the at-risk students in the honors class--which provided pre-algebra instruction--outscored those in the other two groups (Peterson 1989). Fourth, design and implement programs of intervention that- engage parents, community members, teachers, and community resources. Because parents want their children to succeed, they can be powerful allies if they are placed in productive roles and provided with the skills to work with their children. In short, particularly in schools where enrollments consist predominantly of students from impoverished backgrounds, parents and the community are largely underutilized resources. In 1992—93, there were around 300 accelerated schools nationwide following this model. Of this number, only a few were as old as four years. However, there have been some early signs of gains in many of them. These gains have included bringing student achievement above grade level from well below grade level (McCarthy and Still 1993); increased parental participation in school events and student assistance (English 1992, McCarthy and Still 1993); increased student and teacher attendance (English 1992); and improved teacher and student expectations and attitudes relative to a matched control school (Knight and Stallings 1992). In the same terms as have gains been documented, so have a number of lessons been learned. First is the necessity of devoting considerable attention to capacity building, an important aspect of 19 which is involvement in the accelerated school process itself where opportunities to engage staff development, curriculum, and other interactions and activities are presented. Second is the need for more staff time. For a school staff to work together to define challenges and search for and implement solutions, "prep" time is required if site-based decision-making and responsibility are to be effective. Third are particular leadership issues. Leadership in the context of the accelerated school is focused on coordination and facilitation of activities as well as for obtaining the logistical support that is necessary in such areas as information, professional development, and instructional resources. Such leadership may come from established roles (i.e., principal) or from structured task patterns (i.e., governance committee). This has been a dilemma for principals because they operate within a larger bureaucratic structure beyond the particular accelerated school community. Fourth are the challenges of underutilized talent in the school. In order to launch an accelerated school effort, training in decision-making within groups is a must. Schools and teachers rarely have this capacity which turns into underutilization of stakeholder strengths. And, a final lesson learned is that local school districts must support these schools through providing technical assistance, staff development, and waivers from district mandates. What has been observed is that when school-level foci are inconsistent with districts' goal and objectives, these can circumvent the effectiveness of the work of individuals within accelerated schools. 20 The establishment of accelerated schools has sparked three new initiatives. First, the movement originated a need for a national network. In response, five university-based satellite centers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Las Vegas, and New Orleans have been established. In addition, a district-based satellite in the Denver area as well as a state-based center in Massachusetts have been established too. These Satellite Centers play a major leadership role in their geographical areas in both research and training for accelerated schools; as well, they provide technical assistance. Second, in recognition of a need for consistency among sites, a national training standard program has been established. This eightsday training workshop provides for coaches some initial skills required for establishing accelerated schools. Third, as a project that was initially focused at the elementary level, the accelerated school approach has initiated expansion into the middle school to provide for continuity of service to students. With about a dozen middle school launched by 1992, it is expected that ultimately high schools will adopt the accelerated approach. Next we turn to another major school-level reform initiative, the Coalition of Essential Schools project. The Coalition of Essential Schools - Re: Learning The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) grew out the findings of A Study of High Schools, an inquiry into American secondary education conducted from 1979 to 1984 which was sponsored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National 21 Association of Independent Schools (Sizer 1984). The study identified five imperatives for better schools (a) Give room to teachers and students to work and learn in their own, appropriate ways; (b) Insist that students clearly exhibit mastery of their school work; (c) Get the incentives right, for students and teachers; (d) Focus the students' work on the use of their minds; and (e) Keep the structure simple and flexible. Inspired by the vision articulated by Theodore Sizer of Brown University, these imperatives provide a framework for the implementation of the "Nine Common Principles" which Coalition member schools use to guide improvement. The Nine Common Principles are: help students learn to use their minds well; focus on mastering essential skills rather than covering content; apply the goals to all students; personalize the teaching and learning process; enculture the notion of student—as-worker; award diplomas upon exhibition of mastery of the essentials; engender a tone of unanxious expectation, trust, and decency; encourage principals and teachers to see themselves as generalists first and specialist second; develop ultimate budget targets that provide for a maximum of 80:1 studentbteacher ratio; and provide substantial time for collective planning (Sizer 1992b). Today more than 400 middle and high schools across the country have joined the Coalition since its formal inauguration in September 1984. Although advocates of this approach consider the ideas within an Essential School to be on-going, some general observations from early works from the field can be expressed (Chion-Kenney 1987). 22 First, it is clear that the nine common principles necessarily act in combination. Second, significant and sustained support of the school faculty is critical. Next, planning for a restructured program takes substantial, unremitting effort and emotional energy. And, finally, the Essential Schools movement is first and foremost a movement in pedagogy. More recent work has expanded on these preliminary findings. Muncey and McQuillan (1993) found the following. 0 In most of the schools there was not a consensus that fundamental changes in school structure or teaching practices needed to occur. The changes that occurred or were considered when a school joined the Coalition forced the issue of what constituted the school's philosophy and revealed differences in faculty members' perceptions of their jobs, of the school's mission, and of the best ways to educate students. The usual starting points for reform were principles that individual teachers (or small teams of teachers) could attempt to apply with little disruption to the school as a whole. At most schools, a core of faculty members became active in their school's reform, but their efforts often ended up dividing the faculty. Most Coalition supporters were naive about the degree to which school reform could be effected by focusing on academic concerns and about issues of power and politics within their schools. The divisions created within schools as a result of Coalition membership restricted communication among the faculty, and responses to changes were often based on hearsay. Schools assumed that once the faculty "accepted" a reform program, there was little need for further reflection on this decision (p. 487-8). 23 As these findings suggest, there is frustration in embarking upon such an ambitious effort of school-wide reform. Schoolowide reform is difficult to accomplish and entails labor-intensive rethinking on everyone's part. In 1988, the CES entered a partnership with the Education Commission of the States (ECS) in an effort known as RezLearning. Together, the two organizations launched a joint reform effort to stimulate and support redesign work at the school, district, state, and national levels. While the Coalition focuses on school-site reform, ECS works with policy makers, districts, departments of education and states to improve the regulatory and policy environment in which schools operate. The Coalition of Essential Schools promises no panacea, no quick model that can be put into place. The Coalition's Essential schools-in—the-making sites have already signalled this. The Holmes Group Professional Development School Tomorrow'a Schools - The Holmes Group Concept A review of the literature regarding PDS shows that scholarly research is just beginning to emerge, and that some differences in nomenclature have yet to be settled (see Darling-Hammond 1994). Nevertheless, there is a common understanding of certain underlying principles. These central principles include: teaching and learning for understanding; creating a learning community; teaching and learning for understanding for everybody's children; continuing learning by teachers, teacher educators, and administrators; 24 thoughtful long-term inquiry into teaching and learning; and, inventing a new institution (Holmes Group, 1990, p. 7). Using both the lead definition established earlier (p. 6 & 7) and the aforementioned scholastic milieu, the Holmes Group Professional Development School as a strategy to reform American education is showing increased acceptance throughout the United States. Examples were found in the several PDS schools working with the Michigan Partnership for New Education at Michigan State University, the Gheens Professional Development Academy in Louisville, and the Puget Sound Consortium at the University of Washington in Seattle. Overall, a PDS can be conceptualized by combining the Holmes Group's six principles (see Appendix E) with three functions that are more explicitly linked to the PDS approach: (1) Demonstrating exemplary practices; (2) Serving as a training site for pre-service teachers, and; (3) Conducting on-going research by veteran teachers and university professors. Combined, these principles and functions distinguish a PDS school from any other "good school." One analyst, Frank 8. Murray (1993), characterized a PDS in terms of eleven features. As he argues, these features are inherent to the fundamental difference between PDS and many other successful schools. As he points out, these features are not isolated components; rather they work in concert. Murray's eleven features follow: 25 1. Understanding as the goal of the school. 2. Important Knowledge. 3. Goals of the school apply to all pupils. 4. Dialectical instruction. 5. Active pupils. 6. Valid assessment. 7. Learning community. 8. The professional teacher. 9. School organization and finance. 10. Integrated support services. 11. The PDS research mission. Murray goes on to note that PDS inquiry (i e., the PDS research mission) is about understanding of the particular case which differs from the traditional university-based research with an aim to the more universal explanations and contributions to general theory. As Murray further points out, "The logic of PDS research is in the tradition of the early Genevan work, and surprisingly, it is also in the Skinnerian Tradition of single-subject demonstrations of the powerful local and contingent factors that determine the events at hand" (p. 68). The mutually desired benefit for schools of education and schools is that this new approach to researching teaching is directly linked to the delivery point--teachers--and so includes the daily subjective reality of teaching. Ismat Abdal-Haqq (1992), coordinator of the Clinical Schools Clearinghouse, explored similarities and differences among other 26 conceptions of PDS—like ventures. Interestingly, he found that other terms have emerged to label similar new kinds of schools. These terms include professional practice school, mastery in learning site, and clinical school. These collaboratives are between schools and professional associations, for the most part. However titled, he found that the central aim of "all" these new kinds of schools was basically the same. That is, teaching and how to redesign it so that higher-quality learning for all students becomes prevalent. A "teaching" that cultivates an array of skills implicit in the vision embodied in such descriptors as ~- "teaching for understanding" (Cohen, McLaughlin, and Talbert 1993), "higher order thinking" (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1989) or "high literacy" (Resnick 1989). Abdal-Haqq's digest of the PDS and PDS-like concepts makes clear that there is a link between school reform and these new kinds of schools. Applying Sizer’s "Direct" Category To The Holmaa Group PDS In education since the late 19805--an era termed the "second wave" of educational reform--three themes emerged in the literature. One major theme linked to the goals of PDS is the idea of school restructuring. The term restructuring has been used to refer to a wide variety of efforts designed to accomplish "some degree of tinkering with the formal organizational structure of schools" (Elmore 1991). These efforts include school-site management, school-within-a-school, and charter, to name a few. 27 One distinction that advocates of PDS propose in thinking about school restructuring is that it be viewed from the broader implications of changing conditions for teaching and learning and not as an end in itself. In this sense, restructuring is recognized more as a systemic approach that coordinates the reform of all segments of schooling simultaneously. Another major theme of reform that PDS connects to is the need for revitalization of teacher education programs (see Educational Policy Journal, March, 1993 and Jourgal of Teacher Education, January-February, 1992). The Holmes Group especially compares its role in teacher education to that of the teaching hospital in professional medical education or the way the agricultural extension service serves the agricultural community. In accomplishing this goal, schools of education place pre-service teachers in opportunities to practice novel, cutting edge, or counter-intuitive teaching methods directed at local actions and the particular child. Perhaps most importantly, teacher training under the PDS concept is based on a firm educational program that combines further academic experiences with on-the-job experiences. Accordingly, PDS scholars argue, teacher training is significant to the degree it is both purposefully developmental and scholarly. A third theme of the reform literature PDS aligns with, and arguably one of the most important, is the improvement of teaching and learning. PDS, a concept in its infancy, is constructing its own knowledge about students and teacher learning through applied research. To this end, PDS is developing theory in practice through 28 developmental experiences thoroughly planned, implemented, and evaluated. PDS's primary requisite of combining research to continuing education of practitioners is carefully monitored through both collaborative teacher-professor research and teacher action research. In conclusion, the academic literature on PDS is somewhat sparse, but shares certain common understandings of what such a school will be, and how teachers are to operate within it. There are a few basic themes that each of these approaches to school reform hold in common. First, the primary focus is on content and what happen between teachers and students. Second, school reform is accomplished through the use of multiple approaches (i.e., curriculum reform, professional development, program improvement/adoption). Third is the importance of "time" for teachers to interact. Further, these movements highlight the relationship between the social organizational context of school and teaching. Discussion around that theme-~school context effects on teachers--is next. The Impact of School Building Social Organization on Teacher Change School-level organization as an aspect of teachers' work goes a long way towards permitting teachers to engage in attempts to examine and change their practice. Many authors have equated teachers' attempts to change their practices with professional development and the character of schools. Recent studies (Little 1982, 1987, Rosenholtz 1989, Lieberman 1990, Maeroff 1993) have 29 generated an increasingly sophisticated grasp of how schools can provide opportunities for teacher learning. In the professional development literature two themes are often heralded as aspirational goals that guide reformers to ideas of teachers' work-related activities. These themes are "collegiality" and "collaboration". As with all terms of broad images, arriving at the substance of specific activities within these themes depends on the situational contributors. Nevertheless, studies of professional development have shown these loosely defined concepts as practices conducive to teachers changing from what they may be doing to a vision of some improved state of affairs in their classrooms. Indeed, Little's (1982), oft-cited study of "Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation", found four types of practices that clearly distinguish more successful schools from their less successful counterparts. Little’s work examined six urban schools. "Schools were classified as relatively more successful or relatively less successful on the basis of aggregate standardized achievement scores over a 3-year period in reading, language arts, and mathematics" (p. 326). What Little discovered was that the ways in which schools were organized directly related to occasions for teachers to learn on the job and thusly, to school performance. "Critical practices of adaptability" which were instrumentally directed to professional improvement is the term she used to identify the contexts in which teachers' changes were attempted. The four types of interactions were (a) discussion of classroom practice, (b) mutual observation and critique, (c) shared efforts to 30 design and prepare curriculum, and (d) shared participation in the business of instructional improvement (p. 331-2). What Little calls norms of collegiality are habits and patterns that translate into social conditions that support teaching. At a level of specific detail, these interactions include teachers engaging in regular talk about their teaching practices through which teachers build up a shared language to discuss issues related to their teaching; and, teachers frequently observing each other and providing critiques about each others' teaching. Likewise, teachers plan, design, evaluate, and prepare materials together. Teachers also use time together as a forum to experiment through which they actually teach each other. With the caveat that schools operate within walls sustained by the educational bureaucracy, it is possible to create opportunities for teachers that are collegial in nature. Grade-level organization, team teaching, interdisciplinary teams, and subject-areas groups may prove highly effective as school-level patterns that may facilitate efforts of teachers to examine and attempt changes in their practices. The underlying assumption about the advantage of collegiality is that over time, by teachers working closely together on matters of curriculum and instruction they will find themselves better equipped through an expanded repertoire for meeting the immediacy of classroom work. Maeroff (1993) maintains that collegiality is a form of professional virtue that produces "a sense of community and shared commitment that diminishes teachers' isolation and uncertainty about effectiveness" (p. 9). 31 Rosenholtz (1989) equates many of the behaviors embedded in collegiality with an associated theme: collaboration. She found that collaboration was one variable among four organizational factors that explained a direct effect to teachers' learning opportunities in a stratified random sample of seventy-three elementary schools in Tennessee. The other three organizational factors are support, encouragement, and technical knowledge offered by colleagues to enhance teaching strategies. The key to support is that it provides training and consultation to supplement teachers in changing old practices for new ones, as more current technical knowledge pass teachers' way. Encouragement is seen as organizational structures that reinforces individual teachers's intuitive and non-technical sense of what they should be doing. And, technical knowledge is both theoretical and practical insights that better able teachers to perform in their classrooms. In her work, Rosenholtz focused on school productivity as measured by students' basic skill mastery on Tennessee's minimum competency testing (MCT) program. She filtered teacher learning effects (the techniques of mastery learning) through student attainment. What she found was that certain kinds of teacher behaviors, often characterized as collaboration, positively related to school productivity. Further, school organization was an important factor to teachers' engagement in these collaborative activities. What proved equally interesting was that, Learning may be the direct outcome of collaboration, as teachers request from, and offer colleagues, new ideas, strategies, and techniques. But quite apart from the 32 rendering of technical assistance, collaboration may indirectly influence learning through the leadership of teachers within the school (p. 79). Given Little and Rosenholtz's work, the challenge that collegiality and collaboration are intrusions that pull teachers away from instruction can be answered by noting the positive effects of such patterns of work. In light of the workplace conditions of collegiality and collaboration, spin-off routines such as the reorganized school calendar to manipulate the use of time; shared planning and preparation time where teachers work in concert, pool ideas, evaluate topics and strategies, and arrive at agreement about curriculum pacing and sequencing; the notion of school as a learning community where everybody is a learner; meaningful mentoring relations where peer relations and reviews are encouraged; the idea of the teacher-researcher and the expanded professional roles of presenting new learning to other colleagues; and, the development of small-scale experiments where teachers study their own practices have begun to surface in the literature as distinguishable practices and supports. Research such as Rosenholtz' and Little's has suggested a relationship between professional development opportunities of teachers and school performance, one pulse of the social context of teaching. Consonant with this, one of the things that is notable about the PDS concept is the contextual emphasis it places on teaching as an aspect that shapes teachers' actions. What makes this distinctive is that PDS utilizes much of what we know about 33 ways in which schools may organize as environments to expand professional development opportunities. Looking at the various school-wide reform efforts discussed, it is evident that these efforts are strongly influenced by a combination of philosophies of school reform (i e., curriculum-based reforms, staff development approaches, program improvement/adoption). In this next section, we examine some of these forces that shape teacher change. Current Research--Pedagogical Standards for Specific Subject Matter Areaa Since the late 19805 changes in teaching practices have been both motivated and justified by research on this topic. Individual education professionals, scholarly communities, and national and state associations having a special interest in curriculum, teaching, and teachers have been identifying newer visions of teaching. The most prominent example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics' Standards document (NCTM, 1989, 1991), offers a vision of mathematics learning that is in the forefront of the reform of mathematics teaching. Likewise, other reports from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Education Goals have followed this lead. This broad movement of public/professional documents with companion aspirations of higher student learning are striving for a consensus about newer visions of teaching--a teaching that commands greater grounding in disciplinary knowledge, an expanded teaching repertoire, and a presence of mind that allows the integration of 34 these skills to meet individual needs of children. A teaching that substantiates the complexity of the endeavor, and by implication, advances the reformist conceptions of teaching in schools. A teaching often counterposed to "sit and git" styles of instruction. Researchers interested in teaching are beginning to become aware of the need to understand the manner in which practicing teachers learn (see Cohen, McLaughlin, and Talbert 1993). Richardson's (1990) work provides a perspective on change in teaching practice and the use of research. As she argues, It means that opportunities should be created to allow teachers to interact and have conversations around standards, theory, and classroom activities. It also suggests that a necessary element of the conversation are discussions of alternative conceptions and activities that in combination with some of the teachers' own conceptions form a View of warranted practice (p. 16). The account of the California's Mathematics Framework (California State Department of Education, 1985) is consistent with Richardson's view, at least from the teachers' studied point of view. This set of cases dealt with practitioners implementing a new state-wide mathematics framework consistent with the latest research-based understandings about mathematical learning. "Throughout the cases, it is apparent that most of these teachers are experimenting some and questioning more; that they are looking at students' thinking and learning with a new lens, though they may not now understand what they see" (Darling-Hammond, 1990, p. 240). The work of researchers such as Cohen, McLaughlin and Talbert, Richardson, and the Center for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) group who conducted the California case studies provides insights 35 about how practicing teachers come to examine and attempt to change their practice towards some revisionist conception of teaching (see Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1990). An alternative approach to change in teaching practices focuses not on pedagogical standards for specific subject matter areas, but rather on so-called "program improvement." Hay's (1988) work, for example, focused on the relationship between the quantity of involvement teachers had in the school improvement process and the quantity of implementation and degree of change that occurred in their classrooms. In this sense, teacher change is viewed through the relationship between teacher involvement and school improvement. In his study, accounts of changes in teaching practice were affirmed through involvement in school improvement. Goldenberg and Gallimore (1991) explained changes in teacher practices through the implementation of an early Spanish literacy program and the improved academic results of students. These authors argued that the interplay between the perspective of the classroom teacher and research knowledge about how to promote early literacy development resulted in discoveries that led to new teacher practices. For example, one practice that emerged that the authors described was the sending of "little" or "predictable" books home with children. Such change in teacher practices eventually led, the authors argued, to significant improvement in early Spanish literacy attainment, and to revised teacher expectations about minority children's learning. 36 The findings in both of these studies traced teacher change through program improvement processes that were local and context-specific in nature. Underlying this growing body of research is the fact that changes in teaching practices were defined in terms of a framework that represents a consensus from within a larger professional network of scholars beyond classroom teachers. The knowledge of teaching driven by standards or theoretical propositions in public/professional documents has extended thinking about significant teaching goals. Judgments about teacher change should be based on research knowledge derived from sound evaluations. There is something to be said for matching standards of practices in teaching to standards derived from our best knowledge. The combinations and variations of the different approaches to school reform as seen in this literature review may prove to be the most effective strategy in any one school. While research knowledge may be necessary to meaningful teacher change, it is the combining of practitioners' predispositions with new knowledge within the local context of school, an acting unit itself, that yields distinctive change. These interrelationships explain how practicing teachers learn and modify their beliefs and practices. As specific descriptions about how practicing teachers learn research-based practices are rare in the literature, the purpose of this study is to offer insight about the process of how veteran teachers learn by reporting and analyzing how a subset of teachers 37 were themselves examining and attempting to change their practices in a school known as a Professional Development School. And, where university researchers supplied one set of ideas and inputs to the process of teacher change. A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Teacher Changa This review of the literature indicates that, generally speaking, the study of changes in teaching practice has focused on changes that impact at the school level (Richardson 1990), and has examined individual teacher change in terms of whether that change was instigated by external mandates. Further, most of the literature explicitly links teacher change to aspects of student performance. Consistent with the theme of this dissertation, Fullan's (1991) work provides a conceptualization of changes in teaching practice, but without measures of student performance. Fullan explains, The implementation of educational change involves "change in practice". But what exactly does this mean? change in practice can occur at many levels-~the teacher, the school, the district, etc. . . . There are at least three components or dimensions at stake in implementing [change at the teacher level]: (1) the possible use of new or revised materials (direct instructional resource such as curriculum materials or technologies), (2) the possible use of new teaching approaches (i.e., new teaching strategies or activities), and (3) the possible alteration of beliefs (e.g., pedagogical assumptions and theories underlying particular new policies or programs) (p. 37). In Fullan's multi-level View, in thinking about change in practice, one must take into account the rippling effects within the 38 organization of schooling in order to really understand actual change at the teacher level. Fullan further explains, it has been necessary to rethink the change process. Discussing individual roles and lists of factors, while helpful to a point, seems no longer adequate. Researchers and initiators of change have reconceptualized and studied change projects by identifying key themes in successful improvement efforts. This has resulted in a much more dynamic and vivid picture of the change process (p. 81). As introduced earlier, the "restructuring" theme as an idea within the broad literature of school reform captures many of the school-level factors that come to bear on teachers' attempts to examine and change their practices. Fullan does not take on the big question of restructuring schools; rather, he directs his attention to how schools as a workplace are organized. As he further explains: . I use structure in the sociological sense to include organizational arrangements, roles, finance and governance, and formal policies that explicitly build in working conditions that, so to speak, support and press for improvement. Time for individual and team planning, joint teaching arrangements, staff development policies, new roles such as mentors and coaches, and school improvement procedures are examples of structural change at the school level that are conducive to improvement (p. 88). Many of the factors Fullan identifies parallel Little's and Rosenholtz's work. These findings taken together provide a strong body of evidence that workplace conditions are crucial to teacher change, with professional development as the centerpiece. To interpret teacher change, one must hold a view of a school as a dynamic, structuring force. It is what organizes teachers' 39 actions and interactions into a set of signals--practices and routines. The Michigan Partnership for New Education holds: Each [Professional Development] school will be a center of inquiry for new Knowledge about teaching and learning. . . . The following illustrate some of the important new characteristics of schools being developed in Professional Development Schools. 0 A place where there is a linkage of teacher development, curricular and instructional development and organizational development to enhance learning for children. 0 There is an overriding commitment of all educators in the school to student learning with an emphasis on learning for understanding, high order thinking, and the development and use of appropriate assessments for this kind of student learning. 0 A place where risks are taken, where the participants are willing to try new things, and are open to change and continuous learning. 0 Provision of integrated preservice and inservice education of school and university faculty, i.e., teachers, administrators, parents, and other personnel, in the context of a learning community. 0 A memorandum of agreement formally binds the university and the school in a shared, long-term sustained collaboration. 0 A center for inquiry into teacher education, teaching, learning and school organization, including various kinds of research (e g., collaborative, basic, applied) and development for the purpose of improving education for children. 0 A site where there is discussion about and demonstration of "best education practice" known at any given time (State of MI /MPNE, Sept. 1993, vol. 1 of 2, p. 1-3). These characteristics may be thought to resemble working relationships among the teachers who were the subject of this dissertation. 40 Figure l graphically illustrates the chief factors which this dissertation found to be significant in achieving teacher change. _asic Research MPNE and other PDS-reform efforts have common roots in the work of Little and Rosenholtz, each of whom focused on practical methods of organizing schools to achieve the systematic professional development of the faculty. Many of the actions and interactions advanced by MPNE/PDS are consonant with the works of the Holmes Group 1990, Little 1982, Rosenholtz 1989, and Fullan 1991. Thus, the effect of teacher change attempts are the results of many, often interacting efforts. External School/Teacher Intervention Agents The MPNE, in collaboration with the College of Education at Michigan State University introduces the school building staff and community to new ways of thinking about and actually practicing pedagogy. This additional set of ideas offer practitioners another way of looking at things they may have been doing in routine ways. School Level Factors There are two direct influences on teacher change, INSERVICE SESSIONS and IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. These PDS-induced practices and routines engage teachers in a range of matters related to teaching. Such engagement includes analyzing content, testing ideas, enacting pedagogy, engaging in simulation around desired new teaching School-level Changes in Factors Teaching Practices TEACHERS INDICATORS OINSERVICE SESSIONS 0Use of new or (subject-matter revised materials study groups) ————> OIHPROVEMENT PROJECTS 0Change in teaching (school-wide and approach individual) oChange in belief l ‘ I 0T1me OTeacher interchanges OChanging school environment School/Teacher Basic Intervention Agent Research OMPNE/PDS OFullan OUniversity OPDS Concept Staff 4——- OLittle ORosenholtz Eiggga_;. Conceptual Framework of change in teacher practices. 42 approaches, and cultivating collegial relationships among an expanded referent group including university personnel. Additionally, grafted onto these practices are three related factors that indirectly influence teacher change, e.g., availability of time, interchanges between teachers participating in the change effort, and from all of these, the emergence of an environment that encourages systemic as well as individual change. Indicators of Teacher Change The principal indicators of change in teacher practice are changes in beliefs, the use of revised or new materials, and actual alteration of teaching practice. These key characteristics, in following Fullan's classification scheme of change in teaching practice--in materials, teaching approaches, and beliefs--was used to categorize observed or reported changes in the practice of the subset (n=9) of teachers who were the subject of this dissertation. Summary - Factors Impacting on Teacher Chaaga The literature on school reform recognizes a range of factors that may impact on teachers examining and attempting changes in their practice. First, this literature indicates that teacher change is not separate from, but occurs within the context of the school unit itself. The school reform strategy known as "school-university collaboration" provides a set of principles that guide school reform, and which also impact on teacher change. The principles 43 advocated by any one school-university collaboration proponent are broad and purposely are not prescriptive. However, all collaborative approaches agree upon standards of educational performance. Such performance standards represent a consensus among a variety of educational stakeholders, including research universities (i e., Holmes Group), professional associations (e.g., National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers), scholarly communities (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, American Association for the Advancement of Science), individual education professional (e.g., Henry Levin, Theodore Sizer, James Comer), and other state and local associations having a special interest in curriculum, teaching, and instruction. Additionally, under the school-university collaboration strategy, any combination of philosophies of school reform (i.e., curriculum reform, professional development, program improvement/adoption) may occur simultaneously and shape teacher change. Second, the literature shows a common assumption that much of what happens in any one school participating in "added opportunity" such as a school-university collaboration is strongly influenced by how a particular school may organize as a workplace. That is, the social conditions of a particular collaboration effort serve as one structuring force shaping teachers' actions and interactions. Likewise, organizational factors such as support, encouragement, and technical knowledge are also a force within a school-university collaboration. 44 Third, the research shows that teacher change is an individual endeavor which is a process, not an event. While the meaning of this varies from teacher to teacher, change is discernible by examining each teacher's patterns of work. That critical focus is the very basis of instruction and meaningful change. Finally, the literature review makes clear that there is a link between that literature and the specific teachers who are the subjects of this dissertation. From the literature review it can be concluded that the Michigan Partnership for New Education embodies the Holmes Group (1991) concept of the "Professional Development School." CHAPTER THREE METHODS Overview This case study reports and analyzes how a subset of teachers in a Professional Development School examined their teaching practice and attempted to change it. That purpose was pursued by way of an embedded case study design. As Yin (1989) explains, The same case study may involve more than one unit of analysis. This occurs when, within a single case, attention is also given to subunit or subunits. For instance, even though a case study might be about a single public program, the analysis might include outcomes from individuals projects within the program p. 49. For purposes in this study, individual teachers represent subunits within the single case study (a subset of teachers) unit of analysis. This Chapter describes the procedures and methods used. This MPNE/PDS partnership creates new structures and processes that alter the participating schools, so that a brief description of the MPNE/PDS organization is appropriate. By 1993, 13 universities and 24 regular K-12 public schools in Michigan were engaged at various stages of professional development school evolutions under the auspices of MPNE. These stages of development include exploration, orientation, implementation, and operation. The 45 46 understanding of these stages established context for the researcher in identifying and selecting the study's site. These stages signal a MPNE/PDS status and help indicate where interesting things were occurring in the form of exemplary practices. This study examines whether this teacher-centered reform effort facilitates a subset group of teachers in scrutinizing and attempting to change their practice. The remainder of the Chapter discusses selection of the site and respondents; piloting the instrument; data collection; data analysis; and validity, reliability, and generalizability. Selection of the Site The study's site, as listed in the index of the State of Michigan Grant to Michigan State University for the Michigan Partnership for New Education (State of MI./MPNE), September 1993, vol. 2 of 2, is engaged at the operational stage. As noted in Volume 1 of that report, the operational stage is defined as, "A state of continued school restructuring activity designed to improve and keep abreast of educational innovation (p. 8). Mindful of this definition, the researcher sought one school from among the 24 schools participating in the MPNE/PDS initiative. In qualitative research, sampling is not necessarily statistical. As Glaser and Strauss (1968) point out, to be included in a study, the subject or unit need not be randomly selected, but only needs to be an instance 47 of the phenomenon under investigation. In this case, the researcher's prior involvement provided ground for selection. As an African-American male, the researcher was particularly interested in urban schools. His prior background as a high school principal from Florida, in Michigan on leave-of-absence pursuing doctoral studies scheduled to return to an urban area figured prominently during site selection. To further an understanding of education in urban schools, an emphasis was placed on urban centers. Looking over the range of PDSs available among the 24 schools, only one site was both well advanced and located in an urban area comparable to the situation he would be returning to. Selaction of the respondents The selection criteria were developed as part of negotiating access to the site. The criteria were the result of two meetings beginning in July, 1993. The first meeting took place with the researcher, the major professor, and the district and site coordinators where a procedure for conducting research in the school was discussed and established. That procedure included working with the coordination committee and having that committee participate in the discussion and design of the research project. As a result of this meeting, a subsequent letter in September, 1993 from the Core 3 . Team requested that the researcher attend their next regularly 3The Core Team is the building-level committee that makes decisions on issues affecting the PDS initiative. 48 scheduled meeting. The Core Team wanted to get better acquainted with the researcher and to ask questions about his proposed study. On September 22, 1993 the researcher met with the Core Team to discuss the proposed study. The Core Team had developed a series of conditions for the researcher to consider as part of their earlier letter. The proposed conditions were the following. 1. The Core Team will define the overall sample of teachers that qualify to participate in this study; actual participation will be on a voluntary basis by specific individuals. 2. The Core Team will review and approve all instruments and research procedures before they are used. A subcommittee may be appointed to provide recommendations to the Core Team. 3. The Core Team will receive periodic progress reports from the candidate. The Core Team is a subcommittee of the Coordination Committee, charged from time to time with specific responsibilities by the committee. 4. The candidate and the Core Team will work together to develop a dissemination plan that will benefit all Dunbar faculty in their efforts to improve instruction. 5. The Core Team reserves the right to add a section to any material submitted for publication to provide its own perspective if it does not agree with the author's conclusions or interpretations. 6. In approving this dissertation proposal, the Core Team also commits itself to providing support and assistance to see that the work proceeds on schedule and in a way that is beneficial to the candidate and the school. After discussion with the Core Team, the researcher agreed to the proposed conditions. The conditions seemed to make sense for the support of the work in the study. Based on that discussion, a common understanding of the criteria to be used emerged. The single 49 criterion was--innovative classroom practice rising out of opportunities created by PDS. Then the Core Team met and used this criterion to nominate a group of teachers. The Core Team took a list of the entire faculty and beside each teacher's name, each Core Team member put "yes" or "no" and then tallied the numbers. Eleven teachers were nominated for participation in the study as result of this procedure. This purposive sample corresponds with canons set forth within qualitative research. Again, as Glaser and Strauss note, "In studies of verification and description. . . . Theoretical sampling requires only collecting data on categories, for the generation of properties and hypotheses" (p. 52). The make-up of the sample of teachers represents six demographic categories. These categories include: (1) teachers that were considered experienced with long term participation with PDS; (2) teachers who were at the site long term, but fairly new as far as participation with PDS; (3) teachers who were fairly new to the site and who have recently become active with PDS; (4) subject matter specialty; (5) race; (6) sex. There is overlapping among categories. There were three experienced teachers with long term PDS involvement. By long term, these teachers were members of the original cadre from PDS inception in that school. One of the three teachers was in the regular education area, concentrating in the Language Arts. The remaining two teachers were in special education. Their disciplinary areas included learning disabilities 50 in Social Studies and a Language Arts/Mathematics combination. All of these teachers were white women. Two teachers had been at the site long term, but were fairly new as far as PDS participation was concerned, (i e., over a 3-year period). One teacher taught Mathematics in the regular program while the other taught learning disability-~Science. Both were white women. In addition, six teachers were fairly new to the site and just recently became involved with PDS, (i e., over the past two years). Four of the teachers were in regular education areas, including Language Arts, a Language Arts/French combination, Science, and Social Studies. The other two teachers were in the special/alternative education area. Their disciplinary areas included an Alternative Education class that was responsible for Language Arts, Social Studies, Science and Mathematics, and an Industrial Technology class. Of the six teachers who were fairly new to PDS, two men and a woman were African-American, and one was a white female, in the regular education area. Then there was an African—American male in Industrial Technology and an African-American woman in Alternative Education. Overall, the sample consisted of six regular and five special/alternative education teachers. Three teachers had a long term involvement with PDS while another six were fairly new to the site and recently had become involved with PDS. The remaining two 51 teachers have been at the site long term, but were fairly new to PDS. The following subject matter specialties in that school were represented: in regular education, Social Studies, Science, Mathematics, Language Arts, and a Language Arts/French combination; in special/alternative education, Learning Disabilities in Science, Social Studies and Language Arts/Mathematics combination, Industrial Technology, and Alternative Education. Six white and five African-American teachers comprised the sample, with eight women and three men. All the males were African-American. Table 1 displays the demography categories of the sample of teachers. Nine teachers out of twenty-eight PDS participants in the school were selected to study. This subset of teachers provided a broad and varied representation of the school's faculty who were involved with PDS activities. They permitted the researcher to explore possible differences in implementing change based on a range of experience. Their actions were the focus of the study. Piloting the Instrgmaag The research protocol (see Appendix D) was field tested in October, 1993. An original PDS teacher in that school (who had been promoted to assistant principal) agreed to an interview. The. purpose of this interview was twofold. First, the researcher wanted reactions to specific questions as they related to the purpose of the study. Secondly, this occasion created a baseline in regard to 52 tom-02.6w 03.0582 :5: o... s 2.3:... .8 an 3. a: E 6.9:: .38 o... c. 2350:. _o 335:: o... I = p a 2. 633.52.. 3 .2. >525... 3:2... 2:32.... . in 1.08 .33.. 32,." . .26. .81 fit 5.) .8326. :83: 2:30! 2 >395: 133.2. .5 8393 and 83...: 3 8.59m 3!. u...- 81 o. to: 2...... 3oz... in?» o .25. .mOa 83$ 5.! cos-32:2. no .8 no 3!. 2.3.3 .55.: 5.2.1:: >5... .3 .8... .o .58 ago.— £< 8.85355 35.1.3 0:153 3.5.... 38» .053 1523 .o .3522. 5323 use... .5. 83...... .mo.. 5.! cot-93:2. E... 93.. 0.95m 01605 .12 01:35 01:35 01: 82>» tootsie-03¢ 82>: 3!:(5012 5.8. cocoa-of... .20..» cowooatm o>=ocbo=uacpuu0dmo mo mmusuosuum mom :4 moppopem .m mupmflm .tiaazalie .zbisi: 833.8188 _ . 9353.8...» Bauhao £38.38: - - . - - 3.35.325 68:8 8.5.0 as: .3 p.113... 1.5.: His-22f:— _ Tara _isz... _ ah g;. H .. H «<43. — _ a! — p.333... _ lip-p.38; .33.... ”a. clef... . — - 1.6.8.0 . an. 3 .32 Ice: .ianozaaom 3... 5. it I. 3.8 .3 SEE a. x he: scalpel—o0] _ - i Ill can... .53... “9.5 can 8:: iniagxxrlllszieu. CHAPTER SIX FINDINGS Introduction This case study reports and analyzes how a subset of teachers in a Professional Development School examined their teaching practice and attempted to make changes. It will be recalled that Fullan's (1991) conceptualization of changes in teacher practice indicates three dimensions: (a) use of new or revised materials; (b) use of new teaching approaches; and (c) alterations in beliefs. Conceptually, it may be tempting to envision the three individually and serially, because that is the way they are presented, but in practice they merge and interact. This is a useful distinction to keep in mind as change is a process, not an event and demarcation may not always be as precise. Singly and together these effects should be found in a well-planned PDS as envisioned by the principles (see Appendix E) set forth in the Holmes Group's Tomorrow'§_§chools (1990). Topically the Holmes' principles include: 0 Teaching and learning for understanding 0 Creating a learning community 0 Teaching and learning for understanding for everybody's children 99 100 0 Continuing learning by teachers, teacher educators, and administrators o Thoughtful, long-term inquiry into teaching and learning 0 Inventing a new institution based on the foregoing. In light of both the Holmes' principles and Fullan's classification scheme the subset (n=9) of teachers' actions were analyzed using the criterion - "innovative classroom practice rising out of opportunities created by PDS", via teacher changes in teaching strategies, curriculum, and beliefs. The study's premise was that PDS-related processes stimulated and supported the changes these teachers were engaged in. Framing the Assertions This chapter organizes first order findings into a set of six assertions. Assertions one, two, and three are major findings. They relate directly to Fullan's (1991) classification scheme. Assertion four relates to the topical principle "Inventing a New Institution" as set forth in Holmes Group (1990) report. The final two assertions arose from the work, but did not relate directly to the original research question. Nevertheless they were provocative and worth commenting on. Assertion five is a subsidiary finding. And assertion six is presented as informed speculation, about which further research might be in order. A concise, complete statement of the research question is as follows: 101 To what extent and in what ways does participation in PDS stimulate a subset (n=9) of teachers to make what kinds of changes in their work? The inquiry was then further pursued around the following general issues. (a) What does "participation" in a PDS entail? (b) How does this promote change in teaching? (c) What kinds of change do teachers undertake? All data-—direct observations, interview transcripts, observational anecdotals, and site documents—~were analyzed via pattern codes. The excerpts that follow are presented in if/then statements with summary interpretative commentary to establish evidentiary warrant for assertions (Erickson 1986). As Erickson argues, the primary significance of interpretative approaches . . . [is] its central substantive concerns [for] the nature of teaching as one but only one, aspect of the reflexive learning environment, and the nature (and content) of the meaning-perspectives of teacher and learner as intrinsic to the educational process (p. 120). Key assertions that follow are presented in three parts. The first section presents operational statements with clarifying remarks of teacher beliefs and/or actions, followed by parallel . 9 . . direct quotes from teacher 1nterv1ews and/or anecdotes of first-hand observations. A brief interpretative summary concludes 9 . The terms teacher and respondent are used interchangeably. 102 the assertion. As shown in Figure 2 (p. 98), that summary of data may assist with interpreting particular findings. _aior Assertions from the Data Assertion One. PDS participation at Dunbar led to a type of engagement that involved teachers and students in new ways of thinking about content. Engaging content is multidimensional and entails: (a) content that teachers want to teach, e g., Connected Math Project with an MSU professor--Ms. Hill and Ms. Browning's inclusion project; (b) assessments teachers use, e.g., the project on the Homeless; (c) how teachers connect content in class to out—of-school experiences; and (d) strategies teachers use to engage students to learn the content, e.g., the elective Journalism class that uses the school newspaper to encourage the integration of math and science with reading and writing. Further, engagement in PDS has produced a variety of instructional materials at Dunbar that otherwise would not have occurred except for PDS. Remember for example, that Ms. Dooley's school newspaper (The Pride) project started out as an idea to encourage students to integrate the disciplines into their writing. Now this publication is a tool that Ms. Dooley continually utilizes as a way to exhort students to write. In the evidence that follows, notice particularly that engagement had multiple layers of meaning associated with matters of teaching. Also note that use of new or revised materials were both in existence and unfolding. 103 (a) Content teachers want to teach. (Connected Math Project) Ms. Music ". . . For instance, we were just working in math on finding area and we all knew the formula for finding area - length times width for the rectangle, and it was kind of interesting with the curriculum. It wasn't my idea but the curriculum that I'm presently using; they set up a way for the kids to explore that formula within the work that they're doing. And it really is kind of interesting and seems to make more of an impact on kids as far as tomorrow they'll remember what they did. They may not remember exactly the language of area equals length times width but they'll know they had a rectangle and that they measured this side and this side and then they multiplied it together . . . [the researcher asks about the curriculum]. . . . It's the Connected Math Project and it's being developed by Michigan State." (Interview transcript, p. 6). (Inclusion Project) Ms. Hill ". . . I think probably the biggest change has been in the way I look at curriculum and the fact that I now believe that I know what's best for my kids and that I will initiate any action that will change the curriculum or adapt it to what I need." (Interview transcript, p. 2) (b) Assessments teachers use. (Immediacy to classroom work) Ms. Hill ". . . I look at assessing students much differently than I did in the past. I rarely use curriculum designed tests. I'm not saying that I never looked at assessing kids in a different way because I did, you had to if you were working with a variety of kids who had a variety of learning levels. But not to the extent where I thought - 'What is this teacher-made test telling me?’ They can answer these questions about a story but does this assess how that story has affected them, has it made them think about what's going to happen to them later on in life? Have they been able to apply it to the real world? . . . . So I do a lot more with that kind of assessment tool than any of those questions at the end of the stories and things like that." (Interview transcript, p. 4) 104 (Social Studies study group) (J.A. Scott, first-hand observation anecdote, November 12, I993) The purpose of the meeting as indicated by the chairperson (Daniels) was to develop an assessment tool for the school-wide homeless project. Seven school-based faculty and a university partner who is a recognized subject-matter expert were present as they discussed issues around assessment and what that would look like. Some of the issues included: - How would they differentiate between seventh and eighth grade students' growth? - What form would the assessment take (i.e., portfolio, demonstration, standard, essay question, etc.)? - How would they [teachers] be consistent so that all students regardless of grade level would be assessed on growth? - What measures would teachers look for as outcome indicators? The session began with the chairperson re-stating the purpose that the group had identified. That is, the development of an assessment tool for the school-wide homeless project. Teachers were asked to share their ideas about what they thought the assessment should be. One teacher talked about the idea of using an essay question and allowing students to respond that way. The university partner built off that idea, but suggested to the group that they may want to talk about what would be a standard that they all could agree on, then translate that into a question form. The discussion continued as other teachers talked about the different grade levels (seventh vs. eighth) and how to deal with that difference. That led into conversation about what was being covered among classes and grade levels. As the discussion progressed the overall issues of how to allow students to present their positions on the issue of homelessness, supporting it with what they had observed and documented was still very much unclear for the teachers. (c) How teachers connect content in class to out-of-school experiences. (Homeless Project) Mr. Daniels ". . . we are involved in a project called Project Homeless in which we are studying the problem as a social issue and trying to get some alternatives or find solutions. . . . We've taken a group of students down to Detroit and had them interview individuals that are living the life of homeless persons . . . one of things that we are trying to do is make sure that the students 105 are not told that this is a problem, this is how we resolve it. What we try to do is have the students make decisions . . ." (Interview transcript, p. 3) (Immediacy to classroom work) Ms. Hill ". . . I believe in the trade books in the classroom. I think it is probably one thing that's really important . . . I buy basically [trade books] about minorities and more of them are either about African-Americans or written and illustrated by African- Americans because that's what these kids are interested in." (Interview transcript, p. 11) (d) Teaching strategies teachers use to engage students to learn the content. (Elective Journalism class) Ms. Dooley ". . . what I did before was I just was not so specific. Sitting down with [university partner], she helped me understand that the stories that we were reading didn't have any theme that the kids could understand. I wasn't helping them think about things the way she helped me think about them. I wasn't asking questions the way she asked me questions . . . she sort of asked me things that I would have never asked my kids. Like for instance, with plot and events: for the events I didn't know the relationship between the plot and events and how important that was until [university partner] . . . would say "How come the kids are just listing every little event?" "Because that’s what I told them to do". Well let's think about this though . . . let's think about this line that connects plot and events. Maybe we should have the kids list things that are important to the plot. Doing this made them summarize the story easier, follow the story easier, and they don't have to remember every little detail" (Interview transcript, p. 6) (Immediacy to classroom instruction) Ms. Hill ". . . I’m involved with . . . the home economics teacher who teaches a child development course to eighth graders. What she started last year with [one feeder elementary PDS school] was her eighth graders would go over four at a time, four times a week and sit (and read) with the pre-kindergarten students. . . . So I had . . . our students . . . make books for these kids. We call it our book-making project . . . I bought a punch and binder machine and the kids are going to make books (using their written work) for those kids. (Interview transcript, p. 8) PDS participation provides opportunities to do project work that would not occur otherwise. Projects were a forum for 106 experimentation and learning. Under these conditions, teachers tested ideas, analyzed practices and effects, and then described to others attempts at something new, even when results were not immediately apparent. Teachers believed that introducing students to learning should convey the excitement, the challenge, and the essentialness of understanding how subject-matter content was relevant to their lives. However, that issue for teachers was still a struggle. Additionally, what teachers felt they wanted to learn included subject-matter itself, as their schooling experiences were unsuitable for this new kind of teaching. In most cases teachers met regularly with university partner(s) who were recognized experts in the subject-matter and discussed what was happening in their classes as part of their projects. Such project work then created opportunities for the individual teacher and their students to experience new learning. Both improvement projects and inservice sessions (study groups) revealed that teachers begin to take on professional conceptions of their work by participating actively in PDS. The Social Studies' study group vignette illustrates the cultivation of teachers' professional judgment, specifically Mr. Daniels and Ms. Browning, as they grappled with such questions as, "What did these students need to learn?" and, "Did they learn?". Ms. Music and Ms. Hill's comments indicate similar implications. This suggests that professional forms of authority, when one exercises independent judgment on behalf of clients but within a collegium of peers, emerge as a result of actively participating in PDS. Richardson 107 (1990) examined this issue as well. As one aspect of professionalism, she argues that "If we want teachers to implement a practice, we can hardly suggest that an important element in this type of change is that teachers control the decision to implement or not" (p. 12). Autonomy is the term she used in her work. Accordingly, engaging the content manifested itself among the study group of teachers (n=9) in their developing of professional attitudes. Assertion Two. Active participation in PDS breaks down the barriers of teachers (n=9) working by themselves in their own classrooms. It leads to greater collaboration and a willingness to share what teachers learned with others and to have others view their practice and offer their suggestions. In other words, teaching becomes public. Active participation means regular attendance at and discussion within PDS-sanctioned events, i.e., improvement projects, study group sessions, reallocated time dyads with other professionals, on committees, in meetings, via off-campus experiences, etc. All respondents were active participants in multiple PDS- related activities. As a result their teaching became increasingly public. Teaching as public was characterized by three types of activities: (a) allowing guests to observe in classrooms as teachers openly displayed innovations; (b) formal and informal sharing of knowledge and skills during collaboration day and study 108 group sessions; and (c) co-teaching to analyze the many suggested ways to teach. To elaborate this point more fully, illustrative comments follow relating to each of the modes: (a) Guests in classroom. Ms. Browning ". . . I've often been asked to share my classroom with visitors from around the country that have come . . . around the world . . . people from Thailand that have come, members of the Round Table [a local business consortium], members of MPNE have often come to my room, and I’ve also met with them outside of class time and spoken to them about many of the same kinds of things that you're asking. . . . Yesterday we had the Dean of the College of Education come in and observe our first hour." (Interview transcript, p. 5) (b) Knowledge sharing. (1) Formal sharing Ms. Hill ". . . for two years in a row [I] went to the national reading conference the first time in Miami and then the next year it was in Palm Springs and what we did was we presented along with [university partner] . . . the findings that we had written up so far of our seventh grade mainstreamed or regular education initiative . . . we also presented twice there. I presented at AERA with [university partner] about learning community. . . . We've done workshops at Mackinaw Island for people who are just becoming involved in PDS . . . and I presented some findings and materials at the MAMSE (Michigan Association of Middle School Educators) conference. I've done teacher demonstrations, I've been taped, so a lot of involvement in that way." (Interview transcript, p. 8). (2) Informal sharing Ms. Music ". . . I know that we're all wonderful people . . . but [referring to subject-matter study group sharing] was never . . . a culture that was . . . established in the teaching profession. I would ask other LD teachers maybe some advice on particular kids that we both shared as far as strategies or whatever may be working with them. But as far as going out beyond my own little group of teachers that are teaching the same disability, I just never really had the opportunity nor-—I can't say that I wasn't interested but I just didn't. I don't know why we just didn't allow that to happen 109 and now I find my colleagues have much more to offer me than I ever would have believed". (interview transcript, p. 4) (c) Co-teaching to analyze the many suggested ways to teach. (Pilot project) Ms. Thorton ". . . it's called the Post B.A. program. . . .The intern I have right now has so many ideas--things that I have never thought of . . . as a matter of fact this last unit we did-~short stories. It was her idea to have the students after we had read the short stories write their own short stories using themes that we had already talked about and I would have never thought to do that. I thought well we'll read the stories and we'll talk about them and then we'll just move on to the next unit." (Interview transcript, p. 7) Voluntarily sharing classroom ideas with visitors through direct observation demonstrates that teachers want others to know about what they have been learning. Moreover, making reports and presentations at inservice sessions (study groups) and conferences supplies evidence that this may be an emerging PDS approach characterizing one aspect of how these teachers (n=9) were learning. Teaming with another professional (e.g. teacher, university partner, etc.) who has a stronger grounding in subject-matter knowledge is another interesting possibility of how PDS in that school helped teachers become more knowledgeable about subjects they were teaching. Finally, these patterns of teacher interaction (e.g. talking publicly about what one is learning, sharing ideas with other teachers during study groups, making presentations at conferences out of the building, mentoring novice teachers, etc.) parallel the findings of Little's (1982) work. "Norms of collegiality and experimentation" is the phrase coined by Little to describe similar characteristics she found in schools as being 110 conducive to continued learning on the job. In expanding Little's understandings, these patterns imply a new norm: shared beliefs shape conduct. Assertion Three. Certain beliefs of teachers (n=9) changed as a result of active PDS participation. In considering this assertion, however, length of involvement with PDS proved to be an important factor. This is not surprising, as teachers who were involved over longer periods had more time to consider and enact change. For some teachers who felt they had pretty good practices PDS give them a way to expand those practices and make them better. In doing so, teachers began thinking about practice in different ways and this enhanced their practice. Other teachers were just becoming involved with PDS so they were being exposed to new kinds of materials, new ways of thinking, and were gearing up to try some of the ideas and strategies they were being exposed to. Representative areas where changes occurred include: (a) how the teacher conceives his/her role. (b) patterns of classroom participation/climate. (c) beliefs about who can learn and how students learn. (d) beliefs about who possesses knowledge and how knowledge is constructed. These categories were derived from the researcher's review of literature and teachers' depictions. But it is perhaps more to the point to observe shifts in respondents' current thinking. 111 (a) How the teacher conceives his/her role. (Immediacy to classroom) Ms. Thorton ". . . It’s made me see that I'm not the dictator and these are the little people that have to do what I say. It's made me see that being in the classroom is a collaborative effort between the teacher and the students . . ." (Interview transcript, p. 2). (Immediacy to classroom) (J.A. Scott, first-hand classroom observation anecdote, November 4,1993) Ms. Dooley Setting the scene: This is a seventh grade Journalism class that emerged as an elective through a proposal that Ms. Dooley wrote to the PDS coordination committee. The class was to encourage the integration of math and science in reading and writing. Ms. Dooley and a university partner (from the Wharton Center, MSU) co-taught the observed period. There were 11 students present as Ms. Dooley began class by orienting the students to that day's activity. The class was in the midst of creating a newscast production named 4U2NV TV to be aired school-wide. The students had been previously arranged in groups of three to four. Each group had been assigned responsibility for certain segments of the production. Their responsibilities included writing their own scripts with specific emphasis on the segment of the newscast that they were assigned. There was one segment that was going to cover general school news with an anchor-person type format. Another segment would be a "Feature" series with each student serving as an investigative reporter responsible for a story. And finally, there was a sports segment. All students were encouraged whenever possible to link subject- matter content to their stories. The stories that students were working on were about events occurring both inside and outside of school. For example, one story was to feature live student interviews about responses to Michael Jordan's retirement. Another story was to feature readings by the winners of the school-wide Halloween poetry contest. In small groups, students were to discuss and select logos for their respective newscast segments. One goal of this activity was to enlarge students' intellectual framework based on an assumption that this experience would lead to learning. In addition, some PDS teachers had taken an overnight field trip to the Wharton Center located on the campus of Michigan State University where they explored career opportunities as they related to the performing arts. As the students worked collectively on their segment logos, they were also working on their respective introductions and story scripts. During the class period, Ms. Dooley circulated, working 112 and assisting students primarily through making editorial comments on their written work. At the same time, the university partner was staging brief recording simulations where students read their scripts. The university partner had been working with the students weekly on Thursdays. As Ms. Dooley ended the class period, students were asked to write comments about their reactions to what they were doing on a sheet of paper and turn it in before they left. Some student comments were as follows: "Today we did our intros so we can do our reports. I really enjoyed this a lot and there is nothing to be improved. I like this class just the way it is." "I think what we are doing is fun and educating, and I think I would love to see myself on TV." "We worked on our broadcast and I loved it all. I had fun. I will love to keep doing it and I can't wait until next week because we are going to be on camera and I like him [referring to the university partner] for a teacher and Ms. Dooley, too."' During our interview Ms. Dooley explained, This Journalism class when I started was very rigid. Okay guys we're going to do this today, we're going to do that tomorrow, but through PDS I became less rigid. They gave me that that’s okay-just relax and that's what I did. . . . Now I just facilitate the class, it's not like I'm a teacher in this class and that's one thing that I love because when I started out I felt I had to be the big boss in the class and now I'm just a facilitator." (Interview transcript, p. 4) Such comments suggest that teachers were conscious of how the human dimension may be cultivated in the local context of individual classrooms. First-hand observations note that pedagogical practice moved from "teaching as telling" to "engaging the students". It appears that through PDS opportunities teachers were encouraged to talk publicly about their teaching styles and that may have provided the impetus for the observed shifts. Teachers also received ermission from outside "ex erts" to ex eriment, and this was a P P significant impetus for their actions. 113 Furthermore, as in this instance with Ms. Dooley, teachers actively sort out interesting instructional activities to capture students' attention with the curriculum they have developed rather than with a curriculum driven by a specific textbook. Recall Ms. Hill's book-making project too. Such comments and observations imply that teachers' fundamental perspectives about themselves were changing. (b) Patterns of classroom participation/climate. (Immediacy to classroom) Ms. Dooley "We had our goals set at the beginning of the class and one of our goals was to have them work in cooperative groups and solve problems together. So that was one of the things we were doing." (Debrief Interview, p. 2 of 11/4 classroom observation) (Immediacy to classroom) Ms. Music ". . . I didn't talk much about the classroom environment and maybe I should talk about that a little bit. I try real hard to get an environment where kids feel real comfortable and feel real safe and very willing to share their thoughts and ideas. One of the comments I've had from other visitors when they've been in that classroom - my other math class - is that they get a sense that kids are not inhibited at all to share their ideas or their thoughts." (Debrief Interview, p. 1) These comments revealed specific classroom practices that both teachers were using as part of trying the new concept of building a learning community where students work together. Ms. Dooley is talking about the introduction of cooperative grouping as a new pattern of classroom participation. Ms. Music's comment, in a sense is participation, but an aspect that is different than the orchestration of participation through grouping. It is participation resulting from the norms of a learning community where 114 Ms. Music has striven for certain values such as respect for everybody's opinion and intellectual risk-taking. (c) Beliefs about who can learn and how students learn. (Connected Math Project) Ms. Music ". . . I've made lots of changes that I consider for the better . . . I guess my whole philosophy has changed about kids with learning disabilities in mathematics. My focus is not on remediation and . . . I really believe that kids with learning disabilities in mathematics can really be successful in higher mathematics if you remove some of those road blocks or barriers that kept them behind like [overly focusing on] basic skills, but give them opportunities to explore geometry and a little bit of algebra in which those skills are embedded in the materials and have real reasons for them to use them" (Interview transcript, p. 3) (Inclusion Project) (J.A. Scott, first-hand classroom observation anecdote, December 9, 1993) Ms. Engel Setting the scene: This is an inclusion project joining a Learning Disabilities class and a General Education eighth grade science class. 28 students in the combined class were beginning their first lab experiment in the ISCS curriculum text Gases, Gases, Everxghere. The students were beginning a set of experiments with the intent of learning how to identify certain gases and how to create them. The experiment called for the students to follow a procedure that would engage them in: - using a metric scale. - figuring weight for rock and shell minerals. - recording varying amounts of hydrochloric acid on to both minerals. Then, - observing and documenting what happens. Ms. Engel began the class by orienting the students, four to five to a table, to that day's activity. She instructed students to gather quickly their scales and minerals for their tables. During this same period, the co-teacher has begun to move closer to one table of 115 five students (2 boys, 3 girls) that were starting. His presence by their table signaled to stop and wait for instruction. In approximately three minutes, Ms. Engel began a narrative description of procedures to the lab experiment with the class. Her opening emphasis on issues of safety (wear goggles when handling chemicals) now added local meaning to why the co-teacher had approached that table of students who had begun earlier. As Ms. Engel continued outlining the procedures, the co-teacher added clarifying comments as needed. Students now began to gather at their tables, talking among themselves about who would do what. Questions began to arise from around the room and both teachers began assisting students at their tables. Back-and-forth, both teachers worked with students and shared emerging understanding with the class. This back-and-forth instructional monologue between teachers and students characterized the dominant approach to teaching during that class period. At the end of the period, Ms. Engel wrapped-up by posing the question: 'What could we have done to make this [lab experiment] go smoother?’ When asked during the debriefing interview about what was happening, Ms. Engel explained ". . . As it relates to what we are doing [through] PDS, there's a lot of grouping you saw going on and we picked those groups. The kids don't know but we picked them. So many girls, so many boys at a table, some special ed. kids and some general ed. kids on purpose so that we were working as teams, groups . we combine my LD kids with the general population . . . I told you a few days ago [referring to our 12/6 interview] my main objective teaming my kids . . . those kids [her LD students] look normal, sound normal, act just like the other kids, 'academically why don't they get to have the same things?’ This intentional co-teaching arrangement where both teachers had obviously spent time discussing the instructional approach, characteristics of students and trading teaching groups indicates how both teachers were beginning to confront the way they view learning for certain students. As Ms. Engel further stated during the debriefing interview, ". . . when you combine the two groups you see the difference in children more than if you were in your own class . . ." which helped her re-think the goals of special education. The two teachers believed that giving each other advice, co-planning, and helping with specific discipline problems, maximized both teachers strengths (LD teacher's knowledge about 116 student characteristics and general ed teacher's increased subject- matter knowledge) and was beneficial to all students. That theme-- intentional co-teaching—-is a shift from the traditional separate classroom - separate curriculum model that currently prevails. (d) Who possesses the knowledge and how it is constructed. (Immediacy to classroom) Ms. Hill ". . . in the beginning we just let the kids write about whatever they wanted to write about and we never were able to get them to do what I call the nitty gritty stuff, which is the grammar aspects, the spelling, you know all the technical things. Our kids have wonderful ideas, just wonderful ideas but they don't know how to put them in writing . . . [referring to what she does with students now, process writing] . . . this is what you do, you brainstorm and here's some ways that you brainstorm and here's some ways you can organize this kind of writing and so forth. So that's how I changed. Plus I went to the Red Cedar Writing Project this summer where I was a writer myself and . . . [now I] write with my kids and . . . I never really showed the kids I was a writer also and that's a real strong lesson I learned . . .' (Interview transcript, p. 3) This self-report from Ms. Hill has multiple implications. At one level, in recalling her frame of reference, she inferred that now she values what her students bring to the learning process; instead of putting up road blocks in the form of concentrating solely on grammar and spelling, she has begun to allow students to present their ideas as a means to the later development of technical skills. At another level, there is the sense that this is much more a writing process approach where students are pre-writing and the teacher is also writing. Both teacher and students are constructing knowledge in the course of their writing. Moreover, this teacher may be learning more about writing as well as the teaching of writing through a process in which she 117 engaged in her own efforts to write as one basis for understanding something about the writing process and as a basis for helping students. Finding Related to the Holmes' Principle: "Inventing a New Institution" Assertion Four. Active participation in PDS induces stress. This stress is the result of the willingness to work extra hours for a cause teachers (n=9) believe in, as their self-selection implies. Depictions that imply stress induction were consistently a high frequency category among all respondents. Stress is a gradual build-up over time that seems to surface in different forms. Teachers described the stress as: (a) demands in confronting multiple levels of achievement in large classes; (b) limitations of organizational structure; and (c) preparation time. There is variation of opinion on what was stressful about PDS work. All teachers (n=9) talked about the problem of making curriculum more responsive to students' interest. In response, textbooks were used less and project materials were developed and tested to respond to multiple levels of achievement in any single class. However, decision-making around teacher-made materials induced anxiety for teachers as to what materials would be developed. And, anxiety persisted over concerns about what would happen during any particular class period because of that uncertainty about content. Some teachers saw contract requirements affecting the master schedule embodying teacher/students ratios as inhibiting to their 118 creativity and reinforcing their isolation. This issue (i.e., efforts to institute more improvement projects) covered a building level need versus a Master Agreement resolution which created confusion over promises to teachers. Secondly, in anticipating the next teaching task some teachers' work demands extended beyond planning periods, professional development time, and the school day and that was stressful. Teachers often spoke about how difficult it was to get materials or develop lessons that embodied visions that they were themselves experiencing through PDS-related opportunities, i.e., simulations in study group sessions, talking in dyads with university faculty, etc. Teachers fairly new to PDS seemed to see this work demand issue as stressful as it related more to the time requirement, energy, and their own personal competence. The comments next fully capture these pent-up frustrations. (a) Demands in confronting multiple levels of achievement in class. (Immediacy to classroom work) Ms. Music ". . . Yes, I would say I still struggle - I don't know if that's one of your questions later on. I still struggle with Reading [in a seventh grade L.D. Language Arts class]. I have a difficult time feeling like I'm making - having an impact on kids with reading." (Interview transcript, p. 4) Ms. Hill ". . . to tear apart a curriculum [in a class with many student achievement levels] and try to put it back together your ego is so involved with that and it was real shattering for a while. And every now and then I do get you know - I think I'm doing the right thing . . . but then you know once again it takes just one kid to make a connection for me and it puts it all back into perspective and what I'm here for." 119 (b) Limitations of organizational structure. (bureaucratic requirements) Ms. Music ". . . I did some team teaching [an inclusion project] with [Ms. Hill] for three years and it was a good experience. The first two years we had professor support and then it sort of phased out a little bit. That was part of the reason why I decided not to do it again. The other part of the reason is it just was not an ideal situation . . . having 45 kids with two teachers ." (Interview transcript, p. 9) Ms. Hill "We were told the school as an organization was going to change. It was going to change to be supportive of all the new and innovative techniques and strategies and classroom things that we were trying . . . I know that it's hard to change organizations but one reason that [Ms. Music] and I still are not team teaching is . . . we felt we needed support to continue that inclusion project. . . . We wanted them to limit the regular ed. students to 25-27. . . . There was no . . . administration support. They said . . . it's against the contract . . ." (Interview transcript, p. 9) Ms. Browning ". . . Frustration . . . [the school administration] may say they're as interested but haven't offered as much support to really do much tremendous change . . . If we make waves at all or if we have some concerns about really changing scheduling or changing bigger things than currently exist, I think there hasn't been the support." (Interview transcript, p. S). (c) Preparation time. (Working-extra hours) Mr. Daniels ". . . Time. It has required that I give some of my time to classroom preparation . . . I found myself on several occasions going to libraries picking up information . . . [on] my own personal time . . . because I find that if I am going to be effective for six hours in a classroom there are things that are going on out there in the community that must be filtered and brought into the classroom." (Interview transcript, p. 7) Ms. Johnson "There are no days that I'm home before 5:00 pm ever. There's a lot of stress . . ." (Interview transcript, p. 9) These comments reflect two levels of stress: 1) stress as the result of job intensification (Popkewitz and Lind, 1989); and, 2) the uncertainty about what it is that teachers want students to 120 know. As it pertains to job intensification, teachers were having to keep everything going as well as trying to figure out how to change their practice; that required more time, more hours. On the other hand, that required some bureaucratic reorganization too. The second level of stress arose from an increase in uncertainty and ambiguity. Once teachers let go of all the control structures (e.g. mandated curriculum, textbooks, departmentalization, etc.) that made their work lives regular, predictable, and routinized in order to experiment, uncertainty increased. Questions that were once settled were suddenly re-emerging like, 'what do kids need to learn?' or 'how do I assess that?’ Despite the evident stress, the rewards still appear to outweigh the hazards for teachers (n-9), as evidenced by their continued voluntary participation. Subsidiary Finding Assertion Five. PDS involvement stimulates forethought in accepting change as a regular part of teachers’(n-9) professional lives. Despite increased stress, when asked, "If PDS was to leave in a year or two, how would that affect your practice?" all teachers (n=9) said they would not go back to the way they were teaching. This common conviction is an intriguing point. In some cases teachers were uncertain about their practice and would take a risk to try something different. In other cases, teachers knew how to approach studying their practice and were unwilling to go back to methods before PDS. This latter tendency paralleled length of involvement with PDS where teachers who had participated longer had 121 begun to network within a larger community of professionals beyond their school colleagues. In contrast, one might have expected these teachers to be less inclined to continue participation as their work became increasingly uncertain. Yet typical of the responses, these teachers were committed to continue self-improvement. Committed to continue self improvements. (A focus on learning) Ms. Thorton [Because of being a mentor as a part of the Post B.A. pilot] ". . . It's been a really positive experience for me; as a matter of fact I'm seriously considering getting my master's in teacher education . . . I think it's exciting when I can help a new person who wants to become a teacher - give them new ideas and let them try them out, let them see how they work; but I also think it's exciting because I can learn from them . . ." (Interview transcript P- 7) (A focus on learning) Ms. Dooley [PDS has made it] ". . . easier now to take risks than it was before. Because now I've already got this stuff behind me, I've already got these nice things that I've done. I've got my credibility now . . . I can take risks, and I can go on and do other things and I know people are going to trust me to do this, and I'm not going to lose my mind because I've done most of it before" (Interview transcript, p. 10) Ms. Johnson ". . . so if PDS were to leave I would definitely continue the practices that I've learned through PDS but then I would feel a loss because I think that PDS is the type of - and I hate to call it a program - but PDS is such that you're learning something new all the time." (Interview transcript, p. 8) Ms. Hill ". . . I would continue to try to do the same kinds of things. . . . What I really want to do is to try to do what I'm doing better. Because the bottom line is the kids and I think now I know where to go, I have the resources . . . I've made connections in all conferences I've gone to, I've made connections with other PDS schools . . . I would never fall back on what I was doing because I don't like it, it's not good for kids." (Interview transcript, p. 10) 122 Such comments, indicative of current levels of respondents' PDS participation and interests, indicate that teachers (n=9) would refer to one another for ideas, informally talk about what one wanted to learn, or act as a buddy to a new teacher. This finding supports Rosenholtz's (1989) contention that teacher's regard for their work -- their sense of optimism, hope, and commitment -- tends to reside in workplace conditions that enable them to feel professionally empowered and self-fulfilled, that keep them reaching for new teaching challenges, fresh opportunities, and ever-expanding technical knowledge (p. 165). Again, as shown in Figure 2 (p. 98), all respondents (n=9) were engaged in some sort of innovative project work. Overall, their self-reported beliefs suggested that teachers (n=9) were committed to continued self improvements and PDS nurtured that inclination. Speculation and Suggested Further Research Finding Assertion Six. Gender status plays a role in PDS participation at that site. This was a "purposive sample" provided to the researcher. It appeared from observation that there was no reason for greater female participation to be expected. Recall that the selection of the sampled teachers used the single criterion, "innovative classroom practice", and that twice as many females were nominated as males. Moreover, during first-hand observations, interviews, and analysis of relevant documents, females' verbal and written representations were more concise and expressive of points or positions than males. One might 123 speculate that gender status participation in that PDS reflects the nature of gender operating in wider society. For example, Deborah Tannen's (1990) socio-linguistic analyses explore in detail the dynamics of gender differences and offer one explanation of how men and women engage the world. As she argues, . [men engage] the world in a way that . . . as an individual in a hierarchical social order . . . he [is] either one-up or one-down. In this world, conversations are negotiations in which people try to achieve and maintain the upper hand if they can, and protect themselves from others' attempts to . . . push them around. Life, then, is a contest, a struggle to preserve independence and avoid failure (p. 25). Whereas, [females approach] the world as . . . an individual in a network of connections. In this world, conversations are negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus. They try to protect themselves from others' attempts to push them away. Life, then, is a community, a struggle to preserve intimacy and avoid isolation (p. 25). Tannen noticed during her research that this duality became particularly clear during expressions of concern. This is particularly relevant in a PDS where the act of offering assistance occurs frequently. Female teachers may interpret this offer as an expression of human connection by a person who understands and cares. Male teachers may interpret it as a reminder of weakness from someone who is better off and knows it. Thus, Tannen's findings offer (1) a possible explanation of gender difference in PDS participation, and (2) a foreshadowing to anticipate gender differences in PDS-related work. 124 PDS participation emphasizes teachers' communal sense of competence, i.e., a professional community. PDS teachers, in some sense, were saying, "Teaching at Dunbar is broke, and we have to fix it." This exerted tremendous pressure on other teachers. The reorganization of teachers' work days to accommodate professional development, for example, is an issue that has implications. Concomitantly the pressure is reciprocal. In essence, it is related to the converse of Gehrke's (1991), "I'm Okay, You're Okay" phenomenon discussed earlier on p. 4. Gender as a proxy for participation and the degree of faculty participation at Dunbar is a crucial factor to the movement of the PDS idea forward from its current marginal status to a genuine school-wide initiative that might transform the school. To review, participation in PDS engaged teachers in new ways about a range of matters directly related to teaching. This seems logical since PDS is an instruction-centered intervention. Once teachers begin to become active with PDS, their practices become increasingly public. Likewise, through common experiences with other educators (i e., university personnel) teachers' (n—9) beliefs about teaching and learning expand. This expansion is the result of a marriage between the local knowledge that teachers possess and the wisdom of the academy that the university brings, directed towards the immediate situations of classrooms. This expansion also captures the interconnectedness of change. It is with this in mind that overall conclusions may be framed. CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS Overview This case study reports and analyzes how a subset of teachers in a Professional Development School examined their practice and attempted to make changes. This chapter provides an overall interpretation of the case study findings. The set of findings may be interpreted in terms of a familiar construct--a professional orientation to teaching. Kerr and Jermier (1978) argue that, "professional orientation . . . cultivate[s] horizontal rather than vertical relationships, give[s] greater credence to peer review process, however informal, than to hierarchical evaluations, and tend[s] to develop important referents external to the employing organization" (p. 379). This overarching construct serves to draw together the individual assertions into a single, integrated construct. Three interpretative themes pull together several of the ideas of professional orientation introduced in the set of assertions. Those themes-~professiona1ism as a construct, substitutes for leader behavior, and the interconnectedness of change--organize this chapter. The three themes come together into an overall conception 125 126 about the deep meaning of and implications for a Professional Development School. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the study's limitations. A Professional Orientation to Teaching The idea of a professional orientation to teaching has implications for school-wide organization. The PDS-related structures of opportunity at Dunbar described earlier provide evidence that an emergent way of organizing the school did facilitate efforts of the subset (n=9) of teachers to examine their practice. Subject—matter study groups, reallocated time dyads, discussions between teachers and university faculty, and school- wide and individual teacher projects singly and together contributed to new ways of thinking and acting among the subset of teachers studied. Importantly, these school-level support activities and structures were incorporated into the day-to-day routines at that school, an indication of school restructuring. Moreover, the subset studied has begun to operationalize practices that capture a professional orientation to teaching. Those practices include: (1) aspects of reflection and inquiry through both improvement projects and inservice sessions (study groups); (2) making teaching public; (3) accepting uncertainty and ambiguity in the process of creating more powerful forms of teaching; (4) greater collaboration among peers that included university personnel; and, (5) replacing hierarchal authority with expert authority over the kinds of decisions and judgments teachers make about their work. 127 The researcher noted a broad shift among the study participants, where many of the teachers had been socialized into an essentially bureaucratic conception of their work. Little in their experience had taught them that their judgment about curriculum and instruction would be heeded or trusted. They were told to teach out of pre-selected texts, to follow the teachers' manual, to make sure the students scored well on tests, to turn in lesson plans, to leave the evaluation of teaching to the principal, and so on. These routines are characteristic of bureaucratic conceptions of teaching. The Professional Development School opportunity is in direct contrast to this approach. It brought into the environment of teachers university partners who encouraged teachers to ask questions about their own practice and to begin to think of alternatives. The Dunbar teachers studied found this challenging. For many it was the first time anybody engaged them in reflecting on their teaching by asking "Why are you doing that?" Teachers typically thought for a moment then said, "Well, now that you mention it, I don't know, because it doesn't seem to be working very well, it's just that we've always done it this way!" University personnel, who were encouraging judgment, discretion, and innovation prompted teachers to start thinking about what they were doing. This suggests that the subset of teachers gave credence to an informal review and interaction process, a mark of a professional orientation. University professors at Dunbar rather than entering to tell teachers how to fix their teaching, came in, learned what teachers 128 were concerned about, and merged their perspectives with those of the teachers. The MSU personnel offered to try to work on problems teachers were addressing; then, professors actually taught in classrooms. Trust evolved because teachers saw university professors struggle themselves. Trust became the consequence of shared experiences rather than a precondition for them. Once teachers saw that university personnel were willing to put themselves on the line as well, a willingness to ask questions about subject-matter emerged as well as a willingness to experiment with changing practice. Teachers regarded university personnel as both expert and accessible. They respected professors' expertise but in its introduction in Dunbar/MPNE/PDS, both academic and practical/local knowledge enjoyed status. These dynamics then helped create conditions, still rather fragile, for a professional orientation to teaching, a new form of authority among the subset of teachers. This potential shift in beliefs about who has authority to make decisions about curriculum, teaching, and learning was occurring among the study subjects. PDS facilitated this shift which was both subtle and profound. Teachers began to find sources of authority within themselves and within a collegium of peers with whom they interacted, tested their ideas, argued, explored, and experimented. And, the standards that were used to judge the quality of that work, in some sense, were shared and emergent. PDS warranted the teachers' knowledge and gave them power to use what they knew in 129 their classrooms. PDS also expanded what the teachers knew and introduced norms of experimentation and continued learning. Recall also the argument in assertion five that PDS involvement stimulated forethought, a presence of mind. Certain forms of participation Rosenholtz (1989) notes, "awaken teachers' consciousness that learning is a continuous process" (p. 74). This intellectual characteristic of teaching appears as trajectories of development along a continuum of teacher change. This was a PDS faculty of 28 individuals from whom the researcher identified only 9 for study, and these teachers were at various stages of change. They had entered the PDS partnership either through a focus on curriculum or on teaching strategies. Some were three years into the process and had changed substantially. Others had just joined the school and were at very preliminary stages. Sgbstitutes for Leader Behavior This study illuminates one aspect of school management related to teachers who were attempting some exciting new things. To support these new forms of teaching, there had to be some initiating structures and/or policy interventions. These enabling behaviors, often characterized as leadership, are typically associated with the school principal since that position is regarded as central in its impact on the effectiveness of school personnel. It became clear early on that in this PDS, the traditional initiating structures and policy interventions were occurring at a level beyond that school, 130 with other key players, via the Michigan Partnership for New Education (MPNE). One way of interpreting what was occurring at Dunbar/MPNE/PDS can likewise be grounded in Kerr and Jermier's (1978) work. They further explain, "that certain individual, task, and organizational variables act as 'substitutes for leadership', negating the hierarchal superior's ability to exert either positive or negative influence over subordinate attitudes and effectiveness" (their emphasis, p. 375). Pitner's (1986) summary analysis "further explicate[s] the leadership substitutes construct and specifically appl[ies] it to educational organizations" (p. 24). Pitner found twelve characteristics that served as potential substitutes for leadership in educational organizations. They were: subordinate experience-training (81), professional orientation (S2), indifference to organizational rewards (S3), task clarity (S4), task-provided feedback (SS), intrinsically satisfying tasks (S6), formalization (S7), active advisory staff (S9), cohesive work groups (810), low leader position power (511), spatial distance between superior and subordinates (312), (p. 25). According to Pitner, the presence of one or any combination of these characteristics can influence leader behavior. The purpose of her work was to determine whether substitutes exist in school settings. Clearly there was evidence that several of these characteristics were operating among the subset of teachers studied. Concrete examples for three of these characteristics--subordinate experience-training (81), professional orientation (52), and cohesive work groups (SlO)--among the subset studied illustrate the substitutes construct. 131 Subordinate Experience-Training Chapter Five includes descriptions taken from Michigan State University's documents that confirm that teachers in this study engaged in a variety of PDS-related skill enhancing experiences. Ms. Thorton participated in the pilot, post BA, Five Year Teacher Education Program with MSU among other things; Ms. Music attended the Woodrow Wilson Summer Institute at Princeton University for middle school mathematics teachers among her many experiences; Ms. Hill participated in the Red Cedar Writing Project in a summer institute at MSU among her many experiences; Ms. Browning presented at the Michigan Partnership for New Education School Leadership Academies; and Ms. Morris received a scholarship to Rutgers University and attended their summer middle school mathematical teaching institute. This sampling of the many specific PDS-related opportunities demonstrate that the substitute construct of subordinate experience-training existed among the teachers studied. Professional Orientation to Teaching Practices that captured a professional orientation to teaching among the study subjects included, as noted: aspects of reflection and inquiry through both improvement projects and inservice sessions (study groups); making teaching public; accepting uncertainty and ambiguity in the process of creating more powerful forms of teaching; greater collaboration among peers including university personnel; and replacing hierarchical authority with expert authority over the kinds of decisions and judgments teachers make 132 about their work. Moreover, these characteristics as a "substitute" fit logically with the study's leading contention that a professional orientation was emerging, at least within this group of teachers. Cohesive Work Group The final substitute for leadership evolved from the work patterns—-study groups and improvement projects. In this study these two work patterns resembled Pitner's cohesive work group. Some of the actions and interactions among study subjects consonant with Pitner's notion of "big ideas" within cohesive work groups included: engagement of teachers and university personnel in scrutinizing teaching, e.g , Ms. Dooley's commentary of her story mapping experience, or Ms. Music's vignette on implementation of the Connected Mathematics Program curriculum; the Social Studies' study group vignette where teachers, specifically Mr. Daniels and Ms. Browning's professional judgments were cultivated as they discussed assessment ideas; the inclusion project work, such as Ms. Engel's science class that allowed for co-planning and the maximization of both teachers' strengths (Ms. Engel knowledge about high-risk behaviors of students and the co—teacher's increased subject-matter knowledge). This sampling of PDS-induced actions and interactions among the study subjects in many respects exemplified both the affective and cognitive criteria for cohesive work groups. As evidenced by these accounts of teachers' training experiences, an emergent professional orientation, and actions and 133 interactions conducive to cohesive work groups, it is hypothesized that the substitutes construct was operating at Dunbar/MPNE/PDS, at least among the subset of teachers studied. Further, the substitutes construct, in a preliminary way brings together what may serve as a broader understanding of the Professional Development School strategy. Change as a Web of Connectiona A final theme identifies a pattern that emerges from the interconnected nature of change engaged in by this subset of teachers. The image of a web comes to mind, a web that forms connections among aspects of change within the teacher's head and among teachers within each study group. Once teachers started to experiment with one part of their practice, they began to see the need to change other components as well. In following Fullan's classification scheme, for instance, when individual teachers focused on content, issues about how to assess learning emerged. The two are connected. When teachers started to think about content differently, by implication assessment was affected. Ms. Dooley's experiences captured this point of connectedness at an individual level among curriculum, instruction, and change efforts of teachers. Regarding the teaching strategy she used to engage students (see p. 105) she further explained, it was overwhelming to see all this stuff that I'd never taught before like story mapping. [Referring to how once you enter the PDS process, matters relating to teaching begin to ramify outward. Before PDS she had students] . . . just read the story and answer the questions [but story mapping] was a different thing. 134 Plus assessing it, I never knew how to assess something like that. . . . But we [referring to herself and the university partner] finally came up with an assessment tool and that helped a lot. (Interview transcript, p. 2) As this instance indicates, when teachers focused on teaching strategies they started to think about other components of teaching. The lesson seems to be that once teachers start the process of change, they cannot limit their focus to just curriculum, teaching, or assessment without taking up related issues in teachers' work. In a more subtle vein, but still within the realm of connections, is the issue of role. Recall Ms. Thorton's comments about how she conceived her role: "I'm not the dictator and these are the little people that have to do what I say". The researcher noticed an evolution in her thinking, her talking publicly about her teaching style, and how she confronted her own assumptions. Her poignant statement that "before, my lessons were written in stone" demonstrated a previously held belief about an aspect of her practice. Over time and because of active PDS participation, she began to enact some of the new learning she experienced, for example how the human dimension could be cultivated in the local context of an individual classroom. The point here is that change is dynamic and the teachers studied were experiencing this in terms of fundamental shifts within themselves that encompassed multiple, connected dimensions. Simultaneously and at another level, each subgroup of teachers also extended their connection to wider topics and issues of school-related change. In the Social Studies group vignette for 135 example, teachers utilized both improvement projects and inservice sessions (study groups) to exchange ideas, test beliefs, and expand thinking through joint dialogue and simulations. Greater teacher decisions around issues of curriculum, teaching, and assessment emerged. Re-conceived roles (i.e., the characteristics of a professional orientation to teaching discussed on p. 126) formed out of the new work patterns of study groups and improvement projects, that further increased teachers' interdependencies. Study groups and improvement project interactions enacted and cultivated teachers' professional judgments, at the same time increasing their interdependence upon each other as they grappled with emergent issues. Fullan's dimensions (i e., change in belief, practice, and materials) can be seen as a starting point for what needs to be a broader way of thinking about the interconnected nature of change. In expanding on Fullan's theory, this study also found assessment issues inextricably linked to changes in belief, practice, and materials which suggests a logical evolution of Fullan's theory of teacher change and a subject deserving further study. Teachers have to engage at some point in the evaluation of their experiments and learnings. Teacher uncertainty about issues of assessment also relate to the gradual emergence of substantive forms of authority around key decisions and judgments about teaching work. Hence such interconnections serve to enhance the growth of a professional orientation. 136 The aggregation of teacher experiences and their simultaneous rippling effects bring to mind the image of a web. It sketches out a potentially significant image of teaching that is inherent in the three root words in the very title itself-~Professional Development School. Perhaps, then, the concept of a Professional Development School will come to define a professional orientation to teaching, the tenet for developing a profession. Limitations of the Study These insights into the deeper meaning of the Professional Development School concept raise some concerns. One limitation of this study's findings is that the unit of analysis was the subgroup, not the whole school. Claims about PDS as a school cannot be made. Partial faculty participation at Dunbar mirrors what has happened in other school-wide reform efforts nationally. Further research must identify the specific obstacles (i.e., cost, voluntary participation, regulatory functions) currently inhibiting the spread of PDS involvement, particularly in relation to the emergence of a professional orientation among teachers. Once these obstacles are identified, we may be able to begin to move from the current "school-within-a-school" character of PDS to a genuine school-wide reform. A second limitation was the time span. This was not a longitudinal study and the future status of PDS at the site is unknown. This account represents a snapshot in time, and future developments are uncertain. In understanding the bounded design of 137 this study, one at the very least may take its themes as a starting point for better understanding of this strategy for professional development that links local school systems into networks of organizations that include schools, professional communities, and universities where educational research, development, and teacher training occur. A third limitation is the narrow focus taken. This study examined the impact of the PDS partnership on instruction in that school. Because of this preoccupation with instruction, the study focused on the teacher who is the very basis from which instruction begins. Concentrating on individual teachers or teams of teachers implementing reports of innovation tended to keep as a central point the issue of change in individual practice. Broader issues of school-wide change, policy interventions, cost (university "in-kind" contributions, released time cost), program structure, or the impact of PDS on that school's master schedule were not pursued in any depth as important topics in their own right. Each of these factors requires further study. For those who care to build upon this research, focusing on these issues may serve as a starting point. Finally, this study is not an evaluation of the PDS as a method of school reform. That was not the question this study pursued. Therefore, to make a judgment about PDS as a reform strategy would require a basis in other data, including cost effectiveness, impact on students, whole-school change, prospects for institutionalization, and spread to other sites. These are all 138 important issues in evaluating the PDS idea, but were not the focus of this study. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Johnny A. Scott PO. Box 6595 Union Bldg. MSU E. Lansing. Michigan 48824 Appendix A MICHIGAN sun: UNIVERSITY ' . Letter to Pnncrpal April 22, 1993 Pnncrpal School Address City, State DearSir: I am Johnny A. Scott. a PhD student in the department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University and a graduate assistant with the Michigan Partnership for New Education. As part of my degree requirements, I am conducting research on Professional Development Schools (PDS). The purpose of my study is to report and analyze the impact of the PDS partnership on instruction in an urban middle school. As a participating PDS associated with the Michigan Partnership, I would like to interview, as well as observe (with appropriate permission) permanent members of your school staff at their convenience. All interviews will be no longer than one hour in length while the number and length of observations may vary depending on the nature of the activity. The study is proposed to convene in May 1993 to mid December. In the summer (June, July, & August), if possible, interviews or other interaction (e.g., MPNFJPDS activities such as instituws. academies. and the summer transition program) with available respondents will be attempted. Site interviews and observations will be conducted during the period September tluough December of the 1993-94 school year. All of the data that I collect will be treated with strict confidence. name will not be used. and identifying characteristics will be disguised. There are some limitations on the extent to which confidentiality can be guaranteed since publicity about the PDS movement has occasionally identified districts and schools. Thus, anyone familiar with those sites might be able to identify individuals despite the use of pseudonyms and ' identifiers. Nevertheless, every effort will be made to protect the confidentiality of information by keeping materials in secure locations and by also using pseudonyms and disguising personal identifiers in any written reports and presentations. I hope that you will participate in my study. While no specific benefits can be guaranteed, I believe that the knowledge gained will be valuable to me and other schools as they begin working to develop their Professional Development School. I will contact you by phone to arrange an appointment to discuss this request. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please feel free to contact me at (517) 784-5048. Thank you very much for considering participation in my study! Sincerely, Johnny A. Scott 139 APPENDIX B gig-é" 923 E. Kearslev Street 0 Flint. Michigan 48502 ' (313) 760-1000 May 3, 1993 Mr. Johnny A. Scott 1128 S. webster Jackson, Michigan 49203 Dear Mr. Scott: This is to confirm that you have permission to conduct your doctoral research at Middle School in the manner set forth in your proposal. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincer'ly, ' l Stevan v. Nikoloff, v ’ctor Research and Testin: SVN/jid 140 APPENDIX C omcs or RIBBON All) GRADUATE STUDII Michigan State Unmty 225 Administration Building East Lansing. Michigan 48824-1046 FAX: 51773364171 MSU :s m Murmurs-scum. new whim MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Julyl.l993 TO: Johnny Scott 1123 s. Webster St. Jackson. MI 49203 RE: IRB I: TITLE: 93-289 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP ON INSTRUCTION IN A REGULARLY ESTABLISHED SCHOOL CATEGORY: l-A. C. D REVISION REQUESTED: NIA APPROVAL DATE: June 21, 1993 The University Committee on Research Involving Hum Subjects’ (UCRIHS) review of this project iscomplete. lampleasedtosdvisethattherigbtssndwelfareoftheburnansubjectsappeartobe adequatelypmtectedandmethodsmobtaininformedconsutsrosppmpfiste. Therefore.the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above. UCRII-IS approval is valid foronecslendsryeet. beginningwiththeapprovsldsteshownsbove. Investigatorsplsnningtocontinues project beyondone yesrrnustseekupdetedcertificstion. Request formewedamvdmmbemmdedbydlfwrofmefouowingmdsmm. l. 'I'behunnnsubjectsprotocolisthesarnessinpreviousstudies. 2. ThereInvebeennoilleffectssufieredbythesubjectsduetotheirpsrticipstioninthesmdy. 3. Mbswbeenmconphinnbythembjeasortheirrepmnuvesnhtedwtheir participation in the study. 4. Thaehunmbeenschngeintheresarchenvimnmtnornewinfmmuonwbichwmdd Mmgmmnskwhummbjectsthmthnssmnndwhenthepmwcolwuiniusfly reviewedsndspproved. ‘l'hereissrnsximutnoffoursuchexpeditedrenewalspossible. Investigatorswishingtocontinues project beyond that time need tosubtnit it again forcornplete review. UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving hum subjects, prior to initiation of the change. Investigators must notify UCRIHS promptly of any problem (unexpected side effects. conplsints. etc.) involving bum subjects during the course of the work. Ifwe can be ofany future help. plane do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355-2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171. Sincerely, David E. Wright. Pap. cams can: DEW:pjrn cc: Dr. Gary Sykes 141 APPENDIX D Appendix D Teacher Interview Protocol Pre-Interview Session Introduction Hello, I am Johnny Scott, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University. As part of my degree requirements, I am conducting research on Professional Development Schools (PDS). The purpose of my study is to report and analyze how a subset of teachers are attempting to change their practice in a Professional Development School. As a participant in a PDS associated with the Michigan Partnership for New Education, you are experiencing this event. Therefore I would like to interview you, as well as observe (with your approval) events (e.g., classroom, PDS meeting, study groups, reallocated time activities, and informal interaction with student(s) and/or parents(s), etc.) that may help illustrate points you make during this interview. To ensure accuracy, I would like to tape record the interview sessions. All your responses will be treated with strict confidentiality. Are there any questions or comments that you may have at this time? Obtain Consent If not, would you please read this Hand it to respondent Consent Form and sign it at the bottom. Initiate Interview To help frame your responses, again, I am especially interested in changes in your practice facilitated by participation in PDS. Proceed to Interview Questions on page three. 142 143 Consent Form As a participant in a Professional Development School, I agree to participate in the research conducted by Johnny A. Scott. The purpose of the study is to report and analyze how a vanguard subset of teachers are attempting to change their practices. The methods of data collection will be interview, observation, and document analysis. I understand the nature of this research study and may discontinue my participation at any time. I, as a respondent, have the right to decline to answer any question I may choose in an interview. I also may request that any taping be stopped at any time, and that segments of the tape in which I may be identifiable not be used. I understand that given the highly visible nature of the PDS work in districts and schools, there are some limits on the confidentiality that can be guaranteed me. I have been assured, however, that every effort will also be made to protect the confidentiality of information about all respondents and the school, for example, by keeping materials in secure locations and by using pseudonyms and disguising personal identifiers in any written reports or presentations. I give my permission for the researcher to have access to events (e.g., observe in classroom, PDS meetings, faculty study groups, reallocated time activities, and informal interaction with student(s) and/or parent(s), etc.) or documents (e.g., class notes, presentations papers, study group notes) that may help reconstruct any points of relevance presented during the interview. I give my permission to participate in the study. Yes No Name: Signature: Position: Date: 144 Teacher Interview Guide A. Background Information 0k, let's get started. I want you to know how much I appreciate your willingness to participate in this study. Let's start with some background information. 1. How long have you been teaching? 2. How long have you been teaching at Dunbar? 3. What subject(s) do you teach at Dunbar? 4. Now let's go back into history a little. Do you remember when PDS first came to Dunbar? 4.1 What do you remember about that? 5. When did you first become involved with PDS? 6. If respondent became involved before PDS started, ask: 6.1 Why did you decide to become involved? If respondent became involved after PDS started, ask: 6.2 Why did you decide to get involved at that time and not earlier? 145 B. Individual Teaching Practice 1. As you know the focus of my study is on instructional practice and whether PDS has contributed to any changes. Do you think you instructional practice has changed as a result of participating in PDS? Pause to let them pick an area. May need to prompt for the following areas: curriculum, classroom instruction strategies, assessment, learning community, integrating content areas, inclusion projects, other programs or activities. Once they start talking, let them talk. Keep them on one topic at a time, like curriculum. Don't let them give a long list so it is unclear what they are referring to later. If they give examples, fine. 2. In what way did PDS involvement contribute to your making this change? Or, in what way did PDS create a climate where you would want to make this change? If they just give a general area, ask them to tell you more about this or to give specific examples, then follow with the question above. Once they have finished a specific area, ask: 3. Well, these are important and interesting examples in area. Could you now tell me if there has been any kind of evolutionary change in your teaching practice(s) over time as you look at all the examples you gave me? 4. Has your involvement in PDS contributed to this in any way? 4.1 If so, why? 4.2 If not, why not? 146 5. That was an interesting example. Can you think of any other area where change has occurred in your own instructional practice as a result of participating in PDS? Follow above procedure until all areas are exhausted. Probe with the areas that have not been mentioned e.g. the respondent might have talked about curriculum and assessment. 6 That's interesting. Can you tell me more about why that was important? 7. Let's go back and try to make some summary statements. Overall, how do you think your involvement in PDS has affected your teaching? 8. One key part of PDS, as I understand it, is reflection on one's practice. You've helped me a lot in understanding how your involvement in PDS has affected your teaching. Can you tell me something about how reflection enters into this? 9. Has this been a part of the change process for you? If so, tell me about this. It is likely that responses will divide into two categories: informal reflection, where they learn new strategies and get new visions of what teaching and learning can be and formal reflection, where they have written about their practice. You should probe each category. 147 C. Levels of Professional Participation 1. We've talked about teaching. Let's look at how PDS involvement has affected other activities. What kind of activities are you involved in as a result of PDS? Pause to see if they come up with something. If they say they don't understand, ask 1.1 Do you have a PDS project you are working on? 2. What about your sense of professionalism? Has PDS involvement had any implications for that? 3. Have you had opportunities to demonstrate your accomplishments for others (parents, school members, state or national audiences)? 3.1 Has this had any implications for your sense of professionalism? It may be that this point has surfaced under teaching. If not, here is a place to probe. 4. What about personally? What has participation in PDS meant for you personally? They may cover this in response to earlier questions as they talk about a sense of professionalism, etc. 5. We've talked about the kinds of changes you've made as a result of participating in PDS. I wonder if there have been any costs to you of such participation? Here we are interested in personal costs principally i.e. time away from family, additional meetings, stress, etc. 148 D. PDS Impact on Regularities of Schooling 1. Another area I'm interested in is the school as an organization. Has the school as an organization affected your ability to change? 1.1 In what ways? 2. Has PDS affected the school as an organization? 2.1 In what ways? E. Summary Questions 1. Now let's take a hypothetical situation. If PDS were to be cut out and left Dunbar in a year or two, what impact would that have on you? 2. I am interested in any non-PDS influences on your activities and involvements over the last couple of years. As you think about it, what other things have influenced your work commitments? Probe: How about PA 25? Have you been involved with its implementation here? What about your district's site-based decision-making initiative? 3. Finally, are there other things you would like to share with me about your involvement in PDS? After the respondent answers this question , hand the Potential PDS Effects Teacher's Interactions Checklist to the respondent. State to respondent: Would you take a few minutes to complete this form? Closing Statement Thank you again for your participation. I've found this interview to be very helpful for my study. I wonder now if I could arrange a time to observe either a class or some other PDS related event to aid my understanding on what kinds of PDS activities you are involved with. 149 Potential PDS Effects Teacher's Interactions Checklist The following are possible affects of participating in a Professional Development School. Please check all the affects that have occurred to you even though some may not have been discussed during the interview. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOO Lend and borrow materials. Create a shared file of materials. Design and prepare materials. Review materials or books. Assign materials or books to grade level or course. Design curriculum units. Research materials and ideas for curriculum. Write curriculum. Prepare lesson plans. Review/discuss existing lesson plans. Ask for project ideas. Ask for classroom management ideas. Ask for help with specific problems of instruction. Ask for help with specific discipline problems. Praise other teachers. Criticize others. Refer one teacher to another for an idea. Credit new ideas and programs. Discredit new ideas or programs. Persuade others to try an idea/approach. Dissuade others from an idea/approach. Describe to others an attempt to try something new. Make collective agreements to participate in a program (e.g., inservice). Make collective agreements to test an idea. Trade teaching assignments/groups. Invite other teachers to observe. Observe other teachers. Argue over theory, philosophy, approach. Confront other teachers on issues of race (e.g., "disparaging remarks"). Analyze practices and effects. Praise individual students or classes. Criticize or complain about individual students or classes. Teach others in formal inservice Make reports to others in meetings. Teach others informally. Talk "publicly" about what one is learning or wants to learn. Attend inservices as groups or teams. Talk about social/personal life. Play cards. Have a beer on Fridays. Present evidence for student "staffing." Spread the word about good classes or workshops. O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 150 Offer reassurance when others upset. Ask informally about what is being covered in other grade levels, classes. Convert book chapters to reflect new approach (e.g., mastery learning). Act as a "buddy" to new teachers. Suggest others "try this." Divide up administrative chores. Team teach (voluntary). Team teach (involuntary). Participate on committees. Plan how to use new curriculum packages. Defend or explain specific classroom practices. Plan how to handle new grade level or course assignment. Design inservice. Work on presentation for conference out of building. Reach group agreement on solutions to school-wide problems. Decide how to use aides. Train aides. Complain about aides. Evaluate performance of principals. Give advice to others when asked. Hake suggestions without being asked. lSl Teacher Follow-up Guide The Follow-up Session is conducted after observing each individual respondent in a variety of PDS-related activities (e.g. classroom instruction, collaboration day, subject matter study groups). Questions Begin the Follow-up Session by asking the following questions: 1. Can you briefly explain to me what was happening? 2. How does what you've just outlined relate to your PDS involvement? Feedback During this portion of the follow-up session, the interviewer offers his or her observations to the individual respondent. These observations are derived from answers obtained in the first interview and first hand observation of the respondent's behavior in the activities identified above. APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Six Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools Principle One Teaching and learning for understanding. All the school's students participate seriously in the kind of learning that allows them to go on learning for a lifetime. This may well require a radical revision of the school's curriculum and instruction. Principle Two Creating a learning community. The ambitious kind of teaching and learning we hope for will take place in a sustained way for large numbers of children only if classrooms and schools are thoughtfully organized as communities of learning. Principle Three Teaching and learning for understanding for everybody's children. A major commitment of the Professional Development School will be overcoming educational and social barriers raised by an unequal society. Principle Four Continuing learning by teachers, teacher educators, and administrators. In the Professional Development School, adults are expected to go on learning, too. Principle Five Thoughtful long-term inquiry into teaching and learning. This is essential to the professional lives of teachers, administrators, and teacher educators. The Professional Development School faculty working as partners will promote reflection and research on practice as a central aspect of the school. Principle Six Inventing a new institution. The foregoing principles call for such profound changes that the Professional Development School will need to devise for itself a different kind of organizational structure, supported over time by enduring alliances of all the institutions with a stake in better professional preparation for school faculty. 152 REFERENCES LI ST OF REFERENCES Abdal-Haqq, Ismat. (1992). "Professional development schools: an annotated bibliography of selected ERIC resources." Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 43, no. 1, January-February. Bereiter, Carl and Marlene Scardamalia, "Intentional learning, and instruction", in Laruen Resnick, ed., Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1989. California State Department of Education. (1985). Mathematips framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento: Author. Campbell, Donald T. (1978). Qualitative knowing in action research. In M. Brenner, P. Marsh, and M. Benner (Eds.), The social context of method. New York: St. Martin. Chion-Kenney, Linda. (1987). A report from the field: the Coalition of Essentials School. American Educator. Winter, pp. 18-27, a7-48. Cohen, David K., Milbrey W. McLaughlin, and Joan E. Talbert (1993). Teaching for understanding: challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cuban, Larry (1984). How teachers taught: constancy and change in American classrooms. 1890-1980. New York: Longman. Cuban, Larry (1988). "Why do some reforms persist?" Educational Administration Quarterly. August, vol. 24 no. 3, pp. 329-35. Comer, James P. (1980). School Dower: implications of an interventionpproject. New York: Free Press. Conant, James B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Daly, William T. (1985). College-school collaboration; appraising the major approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 153 154 Darling—Hammond, Linda. (Ed.) (1994). Professional development schools: schools for developing a profession. Teachers College Press: New York. Delamont, Sara (1992). Fieldwork in educational settings: Method;L pitfalls and perspectives. Washington D.C.: The Palmer Press. Education Commission of the States, Denver. The next wave: a synopsis of racent education reform reports. No. TR-87-l, Colorado 80295, 303—830-3600, Feb. 1987. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. (1990). Fall, volume 12, no. 3, pp. 233-353. Educational Policy Journal. (1993). Special issue: professional development schools. March, vol. 7, no. 1, Corwin Press, Inc. Newbury Park, Ca. Elmore, Richard F. (1991). Teaching, learning, and organization: school restructuring and the recurring dilemmas of reform. Graduate School of Education, Harvard University. Revised version of an address given at AERA. English, Richard A. (1992). Accelerated Schools Report. Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia. October. Erickson, Frederick. (1986). '"Qualitative methods in research on teaching." in Merlin C. Wittrock, third edition, Handbook of Research on Teaching. MacMillan Publishing Co.: New York. Fullan, Micheal G. with Suzanne Stiegelbauer (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Geertz, Clifford. (1984). "From the native's point of view": on the nature of anthropological understanding. In R.A. Shweder and R. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: essa s on min self and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gehrke, Nathalie. (1991). "Simultaneous improvement of schooling and the education of teachers: creating a collaborative consciousness." Metropolitan Univeraitiea. Summer, pp. 44-50. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory. London: Wiedenfield and Nicholson. Goldenberg, Claude and Ronald Gallimore. (1991). Local knowledge, research knowledge, and educational change: a case study of early Spanish reading improvement. Educational Researcher, vol. 20, no. 8, November, pp. 2-12. 155 Goodlad, John I. (1964). School curriculum reform in the United States. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education. Goodlad, John I., Renta Von Stoephasius, and M. Frances Klein (1966). The changingyschool curriculum. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education. Goodlad, John I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Goodlad, John I. (1990). Linking schools and universities: symbiotic partnerships. (Occasional Paper No.1 revision, Center for Education Renewal). Seattle: University of Washington, College of Education. (Original work published 1986). Hargreaves, Andy (1984). "Experience counts, theory doesn't: how teachers talk about their work." Sociology of Education. Vol. 57, (October): pp. 244-54. Hay, John Wesley. (1988). The relationship between teacher involvement in a school improvement process and the quantity of implementation and degree of change. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 50, (l-A) 35, Abstract No. DA8907821. The Holmes Group (1990). Tomorrowia schools; principles for the design of professional development schoola. East Lansing: Holmes Group, Inc. The Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow's teaghers; a report of tha Holmea Group. East Lansing: Holmes Group, Inc. Journal of Teacher Education. (1992). Theme: professional development schools. January-February, vol. 43, no. 1, Washington D.C.: Author. Kaagan, Stephen S. and Barbara W. Markle (1993). "Leadership for learning." Perspective: Council for Basic Education, vol. 5, no. 1, Winter, pp. 1-16. Kerr, Steven and John M. Jermier (1978). "Substitutes for leadership: meaning and measurement". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 22, pp. 375-403. Knight, Stephanie and Jane A. Stallings. (1992). "Examining the effects of the Accelerated School model on teacher and student perceptions and behaviors." Paper presented at annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 24. 156 Lambert, Kerry S. (1992). A study on teacher change to developmentally appropriate practice in the primary grades of an urban elementary school. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 52, (10-A), Abstract No. DA9208327. Levin, Henry M. (1991). Accelerating the process of all students. Rockefeller Institute Special Report No. 31 Albany, New York. Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York at Albany. Levin, Henry M. (1993). "Learning from accelerated schools", in James H. Block, Susan T. Everson, and Thomas R. Guskey (eds), Selecting and Integrating School Improvement programs. New York: Scholastic Books, forthcoming. Lieberman, Ann. (1990). Schools as collaborative culturaa: creating the future now. New York: The Falmer Press. Little, Judith W. (1982). "Norms of collegiality and experimentation: workplace conditions of school success." American Educational Resaarch Journal. no. 19, pp. 325-40. Little, Judith W. (1987). "Teachers as colleagues" in Virginia Richardson-Koehler, edition Educator's handbook; a reseagch perspective. Longman: New York. Little, Judith W. (1990). "The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations." Teachers College Record, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 509-36. Maeroff, Gene I. (1993). Team building for school change; eguipping teachers for new roles. New York: Teachers College Press. McCarthy, Jane and Suzanne Still (1993). "Hollibrook accelerated elementary school", in Joseph Murphy and Phil Hallinger (eds), Restructuring Schools. Monterey Park, CA: Corwin Press. Michigan Partnership for New Education. (1991). Informational packet. East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Partnership for New Education. (1992). State of Michigan Grant to Michigan State University for the Michigan Partnership for New Education, September, volume 2 of 2. Michigan State University: Author. Michigan Partnership for New Education. (1993). State of Mlphlgap Grant to Michigan State Univeraity for tha Michigan Partnership for New Education, September, volume 1 of 2. Michigan State University: Author. 157 Michigan Partnership for New Education. (1993). State of Michigan Grant to Michigan State University for the Michigap Partnership for New Education, September, volume 2 of 2. Michigan State University: Author. Michigan State University, College of Education. (1990). Educational Extension Service third-year (1991) plap. East Lansing, MI. Author. Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman (1984). Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, California. Muncey, Donna E. and Patrick J. McQuillan. (1993). Preliminary findings from a five-year study of the Coalition of Essentials Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, February, pp. 486-89. Murray, Frank B. (1993). "All or none" criteria for professional development schools. Educational Policy. March, vol. 7, no. 1. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA.: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA.: Author. Palincsar, A.S., K.A. Hric, L. Klenk, E.M. Anderman, and A.L. Wilson. (1991). Developing a literate community in special education classrooms through responses to literature: an examination of discursive practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference. Palm Springs, Ca. Peterson, John M. (1989). Remediation is no remedy. Educational Leadership. March, vol. 46, pp. 24-25. Pitner, Nancy J. (1986). "Substitutes for Principal Leader Behavior: An Exploratory Study." Educational Administration Quarterly. Spring, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 23-42. Popkewitz, Thomas S. and Kathryn Lind. (1989). "Teacher incentives as reforms: teachers' work and the changing control mechanism in education." Teachers College Record, vol. 90, no. 4, Summer, pp. 575-93. Prawat, Richard S. (1992). "Teacher's beliefs about teaching and learning: a constructivist perspective." American Journal pf Education. May, pp. 354-95. Richardson, Virginia (1990). "Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice." Educational Resaarcher. October, vol. 19, no. 7. ' 158 Rosenholtz, Susan J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The organization of schools. New York: Longman. Sarason, Seymour B. (1982). The culture of the school and tha problem of change. Second Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Sirotnik, Kenneth A. and John I. Goodlad. (1988). School-university partnerships in action. New York: Teachers College Press. Sizer, Theodore, R. (1992a). School reform -- what's missing. World Monitor. Vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 20-29. Sizer, Theodore, R. (1992b). Horace's school: redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Sizer, Theodore, R. (1984). Horace's compromise: tha dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Slavin, Robert, et al. (1991). "Success for all". Phi Delta Kappan. April, pp. 593-609. Tannen, Deborah. (1990). You iust don't understand; women and men in conversation. Ballantine Books: New York. U.S. News and World Report. January 11, 1993. Yin, Robert K. (1989). Case study research; design and methods. Revised Edition. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. IGNR STATE UNIV. 0110 111111111111111111111:5 11111111111111