PROMOTING PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ ENACTMENT AND APPROPRIATION OF NEW INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES IN THEIR FIELD PLACEMENTS By Denisse M. Hinojosa A DISSERTATION Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements Submitted to for the degree of Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education—Doctor of Philosophy 2019 ABSTRACT PROMOTING PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS’ ENACTMENT AND APPROPRIATION OF NEW INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES IN THEIR FIELD PLACEMENTS By Denisse M. Hinojosa Prospective teachers experience the complexity of teaching from the moment they start their field placement. Experiencing this complexity without adequate professional guidance could prevent prospective teachers from enacting in practice what is learned in teacher preparation programs. In this dissertation, I explore the ways in which I used onsite coaching moves such as modeling and dialogic feedback in my work coaching two elementary interns throughout their participation in a professional development program to appropriate instructional strategies for differentiating instruction in general education classrooms. I seek to understand interns’ responses to these coaching moves and implications on the development of interns’ teaching practice. In Chapter One, I explore the IDEAL framework which helped me understand how the onsite coaching cycle. In Chapter Two, I explore the types of feedback provided on lesson plans and planning sessions to support teacher learning. In Chapter Three, I explore onsite modeling and dialogic feedback to scaffold prospective teachers’ enactment of new instructional strategies. In Chapter Four, I share an approach to onsite coaching that has implications for field supervision to support prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in their field placements. All chapters are related to exploring prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in the context of developing their teaching practice. This dissertation is dedicated to my son Carlos Enrique for being my support and my motivation to keep going. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the Michigan State University College of Education and the Michigan State University Graduate School for their financial support to write this dissertation. I am especially grateful to my advisor and chair of my dissertation committee Dr. Corey Drake for being a role model, and for her continuous guidance and support throughout my PhD studies at personal and professional level. As my advisor, Dr. Drake encouraged me to inquire, to be critical of my work, and to go beyond course work in order to have a better understanding of teacher learning. Dr. Drake has taught me more than I could give you credit for. I would also like to thank all the members of my dissertation committee—Dr. Madeline Mavrogordato, Dr. Amy Parks, Dr. Jennifer VanDerHide, and Dr. Paula Winke—for their guidance and feedback thought the different stages of becoming a scholar. Finally, I would like to thank my son Carlos Enrique, and parents Adalberto and Maritza, who have been pillars in pursuing this project. Their love and understanding supported me in fulfilling this work. . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ xi CHAPTER ZERO: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................2 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................4 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................................6 Researcher’s Role and Positionality ....................................................................................7 Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................8 Summary ............................................................................................................................10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER ONE: The IDEAL (Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and Learning) Theoretical Framework ..............................................17 Introduction ........................................................................................................................18 Literature Review...............................................................................................................20 Teacher Preparation Programs ...............................................................................20 The IDEAL Framework ....................................................................................................22 Theoretical Perspective ......................................................................................................24 Sociocultural Perspective .......................................................................................24 Scaffolding from a Sociocultural Perspective ........................................................25 Pendleton Model for Feedback ..............................................................................26 Unpacking the Stages of the IDEAL Framework ..............................................................28 Community of Practice ..........................................................................................28 Stage One: Designing a Program ...........................................................................30 Stage Two: Approximation of Practice Cycle .......................................................31 Representations of practice ..........................................................................31 Approximations of practice ..........................................................................32 Coaching ......................................................................................................33 Stage Three: Appropriation of Practice .................................................................35 Feedback on lesson plans and debriefing sessions ......................................36 Planning and debriefing sessions .......................................................38 Characteristics of feedback ................................................................39 Onsite Coaching ...........................................................................................42 Coaching in teacher preparation programs ........................................44 Coaching during professional development .......................................45 Teacher Education and Professional Development ...........................................................46 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................50 v CHAPTER TWO: Can We Talk? Promoting the Appropriation of Instructional Strategies through Feedback and Dialogue ....................................................................................................59 Introduction ........................................................................................................................60 Literature Review...............................................................................................................60 Theoretical Background .....................................................................................................63 Design and Methods ..........................................................................................................66 Contexts and Participants .......................................................................................66 Data Collection ......................................................................................................67 Data Analysis .........................................................................................................68 Findings..............................................................................................................................71 Feedback on Lesson Plans before Classroom Observations ..................................73 Feedback in form of questions .....................................................................74 Direct feedback ............................................................................................77 Positive reinforcement with explanations ....................................................80 Questions to Ask in Planning Session ...................................................................82 Two—option questions ................................................................................83 Clarification questions .................................................................................84 Knowledge .........................................................................................85 Task or Strategy .................................................................................86 Unpack thoughts ................................................................................87 Grouping and pairing .........................................................................89 Discussion ..........................................................................................................................90 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................93 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................95 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................98 CHAPTER THREE: Practice What You Teach: Onsite Coaching and Dialogic Feedback to Promote the Appropriation of Instructional Strategies ................................................................104 Introduction ......................................................................................................................105 Literature Review.............................................................................................................106 Theoretical Background ...................................................................................................109 Design and Methods ........................................................................................................111 Contexts and Participants .....................................................................................111 Data Collection ....................................................................................................112 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................114 Findings............................................................................................................................116 Onsite Coaching ...................................................................................................117 Questions to Ask in Debriefing Session ..............................................................120 Starting debriefing sessions .......................................................................120 Questions about interns’ moves .................................................................121 Elicit insights ...................................................................................121 Discuss strategies that were not reflected on ...................................123 Questions that focused on students’ learning.............................................125 Questions to ask in planning and debriefing sessions ................................127 Drawing on prior knowledge/experience questions .........................127 Reflection questions and suggestions ..............................................128 vi Rejecting feedback ...........................................................................129 Self-awareness ..................................................................................130 Discussion ........................................................................................................................132 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................135 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................136 CHAPTER FOUR: Field Supervision: A Coaching Model to Support Prospective Teachers in Field Placements ..........................................................................................................................141 Introduction ......................................................................................................................142 Literature Review.............................................................................................................143 Theoretical Background ...................................................................................................145 Methods............................................................................................................................146 Contexts and Participants .....................................................................................147 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................147 Findings............................................................................................................................148 Stories of Feedback on Lesson Plans Followed by Planning Sessions ................149 Coaching Kate ............................................................................................149 Feedback on Lesson Plans ...................................................................................153 Feedback in the form of questions .............................................................153 Direct feedback ..........................................................................................154 Positive feedback with an explanation .......................................................154 Planning Sessions.................................................................................................155 Starting questions .......................................................................................155 Two—option questions ..............................................................................156 Clarification questions ...............................................................................156 Knowledge .......................................................................................156 Task or Strategy ...............................................................................157 Unpack thoughts ..............................................................................157 Grouping and pairing .......................................................................157 Stories of Modeling during Classroom Observations Followed by Debriefing Sessions ................................................................................................................157 Coaching Helen ..........................................................................................160 Onsite Coaching: Modeling .................................................................................163 Questions to Ask in Debriefing Sessions .............................................................164 Starting debriefing sessions .......................................................................164 Questions about interns’ moves .................................................................165 Elicit insights ...................................................................................165 Discuss strategies that were not reflected ........................................165 Questions that focused on students’ learning.............................................166 Questions to Ask in Planning and Debriefing Sessions .......................................167 Drawing on prior knowledge/experience questions ...................................167 Reflection questions and suggestions ........................................................167 Self-awareness questions ...........................................................................168 Discussion ........................................................................................................................168 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................171 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................173 vii CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS .......................................................179 Conclusion and Implications............................................................................................180 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................186 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Planning Sessions during the 2017-2018 Academic Year ................................................68 Table 2 Classroom Observations and Debriefing Sessions during the 2017-2018 Academic Year ....................................................................................................................................................... 113 Table 3 What Kinds of Feedback on Lesson Plans and Planning Sessions Support Prospective Teachers’ Enactment and Appropriation of Instructional Strategies? ........................................159 Table 4 What Kinds of Feedback on Debriefing Sessions Support Prospective Teachers’ Enactment and Appropriation of Instructional Strategies? .........................................................169 ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: IDEAL Framework: Cycle of appropriation of instructional teaching practices .......23 FIGURE 2: Cycle of appropriation of instructional teaching practices .........................................65 FIGURE 3: Unpacking the appropriation cycle...........................................................................146 FIGURE 4: Lisa’s work on the board and worksheet in problem #1 ..........................................161 FIGURE 5: Lisa’s work on the board and worksheet in problem #2 ..........................................161 x KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Professional development Community of practice Zone of proximal development Emergent bilingual Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and PD CoP ZPD EB IDEAL Learning TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages xi CHAPTER ZERO: INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction Prospective teachers are in the process of developing orientations and teaching practices, including the practices to which they are exposed in teacher preparation programs. However, once in their field placements, prospective teachers often experience the “problem of enactment” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 70). Learning to teach is complex (Hoban, 2002), and there are several barriers that may prevent prospective teachers from enacting particular strategies or practices while integrating theory-based knowledge with experience-based knowledge. Some prospective teachers experience little difficulty throughout this learning process; others may need more support. In this study, I understand enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies as part of the effort to bridge the enactment gap so that prospective teachers use research-based teaching practices in their teaching. For this dissertation, I present a three-paper study. In Chapter I, I present the IDEAL framework (Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and Learning) (Hinojosa, 2018), which is the conjectured framework that informed my work. The IDEAL framework helped me understand how the coaching cycle, as explained in this study, supported prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in the context of practice. In Chapter II, “Can We Talk? Promoting the Appropriation of Instructional Strategies through Feedback and Dialogue”, I explore the types of feedback provided on lesson plans and planning sessions, and how this feedback promoted, or not, enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies by prospective teachers. In Chapter III, “Practice What You Teach: Onsite Coaching and Dialogic Feedback to Promote the Appropriation of Instructional Strategies”, I explore coaching moves in the form of modeling and the types of questions asked 2 in debriefing sessions after classroom observations. I explore how modeling and scaffolding in the form of questions supported, or not, the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Chapter IV, “Field Supervision: A Coaching Model to Support Prospective Teachers in Field Placements” is a practitioner piece which seeks to provide field supervisors and teacher preparation instructors with a model for taking a clinical stance to coaching prospective teachers in their placements through the use of onsite coaching and dialogic feedback. All of the chapters are related to exploring prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies to teach emergent bilinguals (EBs)1 in general education classrooms as they participated in a professional development (PD) program (Hinojosa, under review). Statement of the Problem In field placements, prospective teachers are expected to integrate theory-based knowledge taught in their teacher preparation programs with experience-based knowledge. For example, prospective teachers have to learn to engage with students, prepare students for higher- level thinking, differentiate instruction, learn about the school’s community, reflect on the implications of their teaching practice on students’ learning, and so on. Experiencing this complexity without adequate professional guidance can prevent prospective teachers from implementing in practice what is learned in teacher preparation programs. Researchers (e.g., Ball, 2010; Ellery, 2008) suggest that there is a need for studies that focus on types of feedback that support prospective teachers’ teaching practices, and on the context and form in which feedback is delivered. Further, Mutch (2003) called for research that provides empirical evidence on the types of feedback that support learning. 1 In policy papers, the term English learners (ELs) is often used. Throughout this dissertation however, I use the term emergent bilinguals (EBs) to refer to students who are culturally and linguistically diverse and whose first language is other than English. 3 In relation to experience-based knowledge, it is primarily learned during immersion in real classroom and school contexts. Without adequate support, however, prospective teachers can strive with limited success to enact teaching practices learned in their teacher preparation programs. For decades, researchers have looked for ways to bridge the gap prospective teachers experience between theory and practice. Darling-Hammond (2006, p. 307) claimed that “extensive clinical work, intensive supervision, expert modeling of practice, and diverse students” could provide opportunities to learn how to teach in the actual contexts of practice. Building on this line of research, this study seeks to contribute to bridging the disconnect between university-based teacher education and field-based experiences at schools. Purpose of the Study For the past three years, I have led a project in which I explored the design and implementation of a PD program designed to prepare prospective teachers, teacher preparation instructors, mentor teachers, and field instructors to appropriate instructional strategies to teach EBs in general education classrooms. I developed and used the IDEAL framework to help explain and understand the design of the PD program, its outcomes, and its implementation across stakeholders. Throughout the first years of the study, I explored Stages One and Two of the IDEAL theoretical framework. That is, I explored how the design of the PD program supported stakeholders’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. I looked in particular at participants with English as-a-Second Language (ESL) certification and those without ESL certification. Further, I explored how one practicing teacher supported TESOL (Teaching English as a Second Language) minor prospective teachers in their placements in enacting productive practices to teach EBs; and how coaching practices supported the practicing and 4 prospective teachers to enact productive practices to teach EBs. The feedback provided by my committee supported me to be critical and curious about my research and awoke my curiosity about exploring Stage Three of the IDEAL model. By using discourse analysis (Gee, 2014) in an embedded single-case study of coaching, I hoped to explore the role of coaching in supporting prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in general education classrooms. More specifically, the purpose of this study is to explore the ways in which I used questions and feedback in my work coaching two elementary interns—one with a TESOL minor and the other without—throughout their participation in a PD program to appropriate instructional strategies for differentiating instruction in general education classrooms. The following research questions guided this study: 1. What kinds of feedback on lesson plans supported, or not, prospective teachers in enacting and appropriating new instructional strategies in general education classrooms? 2. What kinds of questions in planning and debriefing sessions supported, or not, prospective teachers in enacting and appropriating new instructional strategies in general education classrooms? 3. What coaching moves during classroom observations supported, or not, prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in general education classrooms? In this dissertation, I sought to understand how the kinds of feedback provided on lesson plans and questions on planning sessions supported interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies from a PD program. Along with feedback on lesson plans, I aimed to understand they ways in which planning sessions provided a space for interns to reflect on how 5 the instructional strategies they proposed in the lesson plans could support, or not, their students achieving their learning goals. Additionally, I sought to explore how feedback supported interns in reflecting on how to implement such instructional strategies and to consider students’ responses toward the instructional strategies when designing tasks. In relation to coaching and debriefing sessions, I sought to understand how coaching, and the ways in which I used onsite coaching moves such as modeling and questioning, supported interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Finally, I sought to provide field supervisors with a model for coaching prospective teachers in their placements through dialogic feedback and modeling. That is, my goal was to develop a model of field experiences that could provide opportunities to connect theory learned in university course work and enact it as the complexity of teaching arises in field placements. Significance of the Study This study contributes to the development of the limited literature in teacher education in relation to providing feedback on lesson plans, planning sessions, and debriefing sessions. These forms of feedback allow prospective teachers to make explicit connections with university course work, previous feedback, and previous teaching experiences. Similarly, feedback, as described in this study, can promote prospective teachers’ self-reflection on the implications of their teaching practices, and the negotiation of the development of their teaching practice as they reflect in practice (Ghaye, 2011; Louhran, 2006; Schön, 1987) with the assistance of a coach. Further, this dissertation contributes to understanding modeling as a coaching move to provide immediate feedback. In other words, it contributes to the field’s understanding of how modeling can support prospective teachers’ development of their teaching practices with real-time representations of practice. Finally, this study presents a coaching cycle that could be used by 6 field supervisors and teacher educators to design field experiences that provide opportunities to test theories, use knowledge, see and try out the practices advocated by the academy, and analyze problems that arise in the field (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a). This study is significant because it contributes to providing field supervisors and teacher educators with coaching moves that make the enactment of new instructional strategies salient and visible (Grossman et al., 2009b). Within the appropriation cycle in the IDEAL framework, this study builds from the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) to recognize dialogic feedback and modeling as scaffolds to support teacher learning (Bruner, 1986). This study investigates a coaching cycle which acknowledges the importance of providing dialogic feedback seeking to foster reflection on the development of teaching practices. That is, the study explores the role of interweaving written feedback with interactions and dialogue. Researcher’s Role and Positionality My role in this study is researcher as learner (Glesne, 2011). The learner’s perspective helped me reflect upon the research procedures, findings, and the interactions with the participants. For example, over 20 years of experience providing PD for practicing teachers and preparing prospective teachers to teach EBs was a foundation in the design of the framework and the use of coaching moves that promote enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. In addition, my graduate studies in “Teaching and Educational Management” and “Higher, Adult, Lifelong Education” were foundations to working with prospective teachers and enhanced the development of this coaching model. Throughout the study, I was an active participant. That is, I built relationships with prospective teachers and their students including the EBs in the schools where they taught. I modeled instructional strategies in prospective teachers’ classrooms showcasing the importance 7 of focusing on students’ learning outcomes and the implications of the enactment of instructional strategies. To provide feedback in lesson plans, planning sessions, and debriefing sessions, I built from my prior knowledge in teacher learning and in higher education so that I studied coaching moves that I designed and implemented. When I analyzed the data, I found consistencies between what I have been working on in the past years, and what I found in the literature related to feedback and models for feedback. In summary, my positionality and my role allowed me to understand the implications of using different coaching moves to support teacher learning. Participant observation throughout this study played an important role during the period of data collection. The context of the study influenced my role as an observer. As a participant observer (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2015), I simultaneously was a member of the learning community, a researcher, and the central participant in the study. I spent significant time in the settings; I supported interns in the design of learning opportunities, performed classroom observations, and coached interns. These roles allowed me to fully engage with the participants and how my coaching moves supported them in the context of developing their teaching practice. As a researcher, I took an outsider perspective allowed me to detach as much as possible from the data. This perspective allowed me to see old things new which supported me in looking beyond on one aspect of the data. Further, the outsider perspective that allowed me to see interactions that I took for-granted and to look at our interactions strange. This perspective supported me in minimizing limitations as the person who designed and implemented the PD program. Definition of Terms In the following section, I present the definition of key terms that I use throughout this dissertation. In this study, I discuss coaching as an umbrella term for different coaching moves 8 that I enacted, including modeling, feedback, dialogic feedback, and questioning. Questioning is a coaching move that is embedded in feedback and dialogic feedback.  Onsite Coaching. I define onsite coaching as the one-on-one and group support of teachers with different levels of expertise by a more experienced practitioner—coach— to assist them in the appropriation of instructional strategies in the context of their teaching practice.  Modeling. I define modeling as a coaching move in which an experienced teacher demonstrates the enactment of teaching practices in order for the practitioner to have a visual representation of that teaching practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Putnan & Borko, 2000; West & Cameron, 2013).  Dialogic Feedback. I define dialogic feedback as feedback which provides opportunities for field supervisors and prospective teachers to engage in conversations about teaching performances (Freeman & Lewis, 1998; Laurillard, 2005; Nicol & Macfarlane, 2006).  Representations of Practice. According to Grossman et al. (2009a), representations of practice seek to make certain aspects of teaching practices salient and visible. These representations are in the form of professional videos explicating how to enact strategies, video recordings of teaching situations, and lesson plans (e.g., Lampert & Ball, 1998). Other representations are observations of mentor teachers in field placements and written case scenarios to provoke problem solving (Silverman, Welty, & Lyon, 1995).  Appropriation of Practice. Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999) defined the term appropriation of practice to illustrate the developmental process through which 9 teachers internalize to systematically incorporate instructional strategies in their teaching. Appropriation is a product of sustained social participations and individual processes which support the co-construction of knowledge.  Enactment. According to the Webster dictionary, enactment is defined as the act of implementing something. In this study, I define enactment as the act of implementing instructional strategies as a process toward appropriation of such strategies. Summary Chapter 0 is an introductory chapter in which I present the importance of supporting prospective teachers develop their teaching practice in the context of practice. This section is followed by Chapter I in which I introduce the theoretical framework. Next, I discuss the purpose of the study and its significance, followed by my role and positionality. After these sections, I present and define key terms that I use throughout this dissertation. Finally, I discuss the summary, which is an overview of the content of each chapter in this dissertation. In Chapter II, I explore the kinds of feedback provided on lesson plans and during planning sessions. In other words, I explore how written feedback along with dialogic feedback promoted, or not, prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. In this chapter, I start by introducing the research questions and the review of literature. Because research on feedback on lesson plans and planning sessions is limited, I draw on research related to providing feedback in higher education and in special education. In the design and methods section, I discuss how I used discourse analysis (Gee, 2014) to trace the strategies that participants used over time, as evidenced in prospective teachers’ lesson plans, artifacts, and transcripts from planning sessions. That is, I explore the changes that interns made in writing their lesson plans over time. Then, I compare the analysis of both interns to understand 10 how feedback provided on lesson plans and in planning sessions systematically promoted interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. I focus in particular on instructional strategies that appeared to be new to interns and the ways in which they justified and reflected on their choices to implement, or not, such strategies in planning sessions. In the findings section, I describe three kinds of feedback used in lesson plans and three kinds of feedback used in planning sessions. I provide examples of how these kinds of feedback supported interns in shaping their teaching practice and reflecting on the design of teaching opportunities by considering the implications for students’ learning. I conclude by discussing the implications of these kinds of feedback for teacher preparation programs. In Chapter III, I explore how modeling, as an onsite coaching move, supported, or not, interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. I also explore how dialogic feedback during debriefing sessions prompted interns and me to engage in discussion of the appropriation and enactment of new instructional strategies and how interns’ perceptions of their students’ learning affected their implementation of subsequent instructional strategies. I sought to investigate how these coaching moves supported interns to consider using those instructional strategies in their future lessons. I also explored how much coaching interns received and how coaching increased, or decreased, throughout classroom observations. I start Chapter III by introducing the research questions and the review of literature. This is followed by the IDEAL framework and the design and methods section. Following the analysis used in Chapter II, in Chapter III I used discourse analysis to determine what types of coaching supported interns in implementing new instructional strategies, and how our conversations in debriefing sessions provided a space for interns to reflect on the enactment of new instructional strategies. For this analysis, I explored how interns answered questions and how they developed 11 awareness of the changes they made over time. In the findings section, I describe how I used modeling to provide immediate feedback during classroom observations, and how questioning fostered reflective dialogue which supported interns’ awareness of the development of their teaching practices to support students’ learning. I describe five types of questions: starting questions, questions about interns’ moves, questions that focused on students’ learning, questions that drew on prior knowledge, and reflection/suggestion questions. I provide examples of how I used modeling and dialogic feedback. I conclude Chapter III by discussing the implications these coaching moves have for teacher preparation programs. Chapter IV is oriented for practitioners. That is, I share an approach to coaching that has implications for how field supervisors, mentor teachers, and teacher educators support prospective teachers in developing their teaching practices. In Chapter IV, I provide a model for taking a clinical stance to coaching prospective teachers in their placements through the use of dialogic feedback and modeling as coaching moves. To write Chapter IV, I did a re-analysis of the findings from Chapter II and Chapter III to present in an accessible way the types of feedback used in lesson plans, planning sessions, debriefing sessions, as well as onsite coaching during classroom observations. I start with the review of literature and the IDEAL framework. In the methods section, I describe my use of discourse analysis and then I distill the findings of Chapter II and Chapter III to share implications for practitioners. In the findings section, I discuss the appropriation cycle and I share representative stories that describe how these coaching moves supported prospective teachers’ throughout the appropriation process. In the discussion section, I present implications for tools that practitioners could use to support teacher learning. 12 Chapter V is the conclusion and implications chapter. In this chapter, I discuss how the IDEAL framework informed this dissertation. Next, I discuss the findings and implications of each chapter. This is followed by questions that arose from my dissertation, questions that will guide my future research, and how these questions interweave with two projects I am currently working on with a university in Perú and the Peruvian Ministry of Education. 13 BIBLIOGRAPHY 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ball, E. C. (2010). Annotation an effective device for student feedback: A critical review of the literature. Nurse Education in Practice, 10, 138-143. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Ellery, K. (2008). Assessment for learning: A case study using feedback effectively in an essay- style test. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 421-429. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustaining teaching. Teacher College Records, 103(6), 1013-1055. Freeman, R. & Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and implementing assessment. London, Kogan Page. Gee, J.P. (2014). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ghaye, T. (2011). Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A practical guide for positive action. London: Routledge. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., Williamson, P. (2009a). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record 111(9), 2055-2100. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009b). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. Grossman, P., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1-29. Hinojosa, D.M. (2018). Coaching during workshops and classroom observations: Promoting the appropriation of instructional strategies to teach emergent bilinguals. Individual Paper presented at American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 70th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press. 15 Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The role of pre-service teacher education. In L. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 54–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd Ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4, 24-38. Putnan, R.T. & Borko, H. (2001). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Research methods in practice (2nd Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Silverman, R., Welty, W. M., & Lyon, S. (1992). Case studies for teacher problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 16 CHAPTER ONE: The IDEAL (Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and Learning) Theoretical Framework 17 Introduction Since the 1900s many efforts have been made to support prospective teachers to make connections to methods and foundational courses in their field placements so that they enact new instructional strategies while developing their teaching practice. Researchers have sought to bridge the disconnect between university course work and what prospective teachers experience in the context of practice. For example, professional development schools were developed through teacher education programs (Darling-Hammond, 2007) in which teacher educators would provide methods course instruction at schools, co-teaching by teacher preparation instructors and mentors, opportunities for mentor teacher professional development (PD), and so on. These initiatives seek for prospective teachers to make connections between theory learned in their programs and the appropriation of such theory in their field placements. Further efforts have been made to create clinical laboratories on university campuses for prospective teachers to learn and practice new instructional strategies under the supervision of university faculty with the hope that prospective teachers would use such instructional strategies in their field placements (Berliner, 1985; Fraser, 2007; Grossman, 2005). Yet another effort was the development of a three-level model of teacher learning called “Realistic Approach” (Korthagen, 2010) which sought to support prospective teachers with a bottom-up approach building from their experiences to bridge the divide between theory and practice. Zeichner (2010) created hybrid spaces in schools so that prospective teachers could learn theory about teaching in their placements. Further, Grossman, Hammerness, and McDonald (2009) proposed to add pedagogies of enactment to pedagogies of reflection and investigation in teacher education programs with a core set of practices of knowledge, skill, and identity to bridge the divide between foundations and methods courses, and the divide between universities and schools. Similarly, researchers 18 (e.g., Battey & Franke, 2015; Kazemi & Franke, 2004; McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013) who focused more broadly on PD reminded us to continuously support novice and practicing teachers to make intentional connections among approximation, appropriation, and inquiry in relation to students’ learning content. Despite all of these efforts to support prospective teachers, questions remain about how to support prospective teachers to enact the strategies learned in teacher preparation programs. Moreover, questions remain about how to prepare prospective teachers to make sense of their own learning and to reflect on the implications of the development of their teaching practices for students’ learning. In an effort to answer these questions, I developed the IDEAL framework (Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and Learning) to connect to and build on prior research and inform the design and study of teacher preparation experiences that can support teachers to make connections between what is learned in teacher preparation programs and the context of developing their teaching practice. In the remainder of this paper, I present the IDEAL framework as a tool that seeks to bring together previously disconnected theories of and pedagogies for teacher learning (i.e., representations of practice, approximation of practice, appropriation of practice, dialogic feedback, onsite coaching, and communities of practice) into a framework that can guide research and practice. This framework seeks to support teacher educators in designing learning opportunities that systematically promote the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. The IDEAL framework will continue to be revised as I learn from empirical work based on the framework. This theoretical paper was motivated by earlier empirical work and findings (Hinojosa, 2018, under review). Based on this prior work and experience in teacher education, drawing on the sociocultural theoretical perspective (Dewey, 1904/1965; Ericsson, 2002), and following 19 Pendleton, Schofield, Tate, & Havelock’s (2003) model for feedback interaction, I propose a framework that consists of a trajectory of participation to support prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in three iterative stages taking place within a community of practice (CoP). Throughout these stages, prospective teachers participate in determining the content of the program, engage in representations and approximations of practice, receive onsite coaching supports during classroom observations, receive feedback on lesson plans, engage in dialogic feedback on planning and debriefing sessions, and build and develop a CoP. To better understand the ways in which making connections between theory and practice; coaching practices in the form of scaffolding, modeling, and feedback; and teachers co- constructing knowledge while engaging in networks of social activity support teacher learning, the IDEAL framework explores features of teacher education that support prospective teachers enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Literature Review To design the IDEAL framework, I built on previous research and theory that aimed to provide teacher educators with tools to support prospective teachers in developing their teaching practice. As follows, I present a synthesis of literature related to theories on teacher learning in which I ground the design of the IDEAL framework. Teacher Preparation Programs Research is consistent in terms of teacher preparation programs seeking to prepare prospective teachers with knowledge and skills to support their teaching practice. However, Ball, Sleep, Boerst, and Bass (2009) asserted that most teacher preparation programs focus on prospective teachers’ reflection and analysis rather than focusing on their actual skill and enactment. Teacher preparation programs can benefit from providing opportunities for 20 prospective teachers to enact the content of course work in their teaching. For example, Ball and Forzani (2009, p. 499) contended that “[t]he practice of teaching comprises the intentionally designed activity of reducing the chanciness, that is, of increasing the probability that students will attain specific intended goals.” The essence of Ball and Forzani’s argument is that the design of tasks to support prospective teachers’ learning could not be left to chance. Rather these tasks should be carefully designed for teachers to meet the desired learning goals. Consistent with the idea of designing intentional activities that support teacher candidates to be better prepared, Battey and Franke (2015) acknowledged that there is a call for teacher learning opportunities to make “intentional connections to practice, ongoing engagement, collaborative inquiry, and explicit attention to content” (p. 436). Both quotes suggest that teacher preparation programs should provide prospective teachers with learning opportunities that intentionally seek to support the ongoing development of their teaching practices in the context of practice. Nemser (1983) argued that ensuring prospective teachers’ expertise in teaching upon graduation is unrealistic for two reasons, the short time that teacher preparation programs have to prepare prospective teachers, and the prior knowledge and experiences that prospective teachers bring to the program. Being knowledgeable of the subject matter; having a repertoire of approaches to planning, instruction, and assessment; and learning how to support students based on their cultural backgrounds does not guarantee expertise in teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2003). Most learning to teach does not happen when learning theory from university course work (Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1995). Rather, learning to teach is a systematic process that requires continuous practice and reflection (Hiebert, Morris, Berk, & Jansen, 2007). The skills prospective teachers need to learn to teach can be made salient and visible in the context of the development of their teaching practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2012). In field experiences, prospective 21 teachers have two jobs—teach and learn how to teach. It is not enough to provide prospective teachers with teaching strategies solely, but rather provide prospective teachers with opportunities “to learn from teaching” (Hiebert et al., 2007, p. 48). These perspectives have significant implications for teacher preparation programs to coach teachers in the context of teaching because “learning is an integral part of teaching” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b, p. 1019). Onsite coaching (Lampert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke, 2010; Lampert et al., 2013) matters because it can provide opportunities for teachers to learn by intentionally connecting course work and the content of teacher preparation programs to what teachers experience in their classrooms. That is, onsite coaching supports allow coaches to guide prospective teachers in applying knowledge in the field and foster inquiry about enacted teaching practices. Prospective teachers can benefit from learning opportunities that provide tools for them to reflect on what counts as evidence for students’ learning and that lead students to achieve their learning goals (Hiebert et al., 2007). Through dialogic feedback (Keller, Brady, & Talor, 2005), the IDEAL framework supports teachers to reflect on what counts as evidence of students’ learning as teachers focus on students’ responses. The IDEAL Framework The IDEAL framework aims to provide a research tool for designing opportunities that support teacher learning and promote the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Building on prior empirical research, theory, and literature, I first present an overview of the IDEAL framework. This is followed by a more in-depth discussion of the theoretical support for the framework. Through repeated cycles of practice, the IDEAL framework suggests the importance of providing teachers and teacher candidates with repeated cycles of practices in order to support 22 their enactment and appropriation of new strategies. As illustrated in Figure 1, the trajectory of participation takes place through three iterative stages: the Content Stage (Stage 1), the Approximation of Practice Stage (Stage 2), and the Appropriation of Practice Stage (Stage 3). To describe the trajectory of participation, I use an overarching arrow that contains the three iterative cycles of appropriation. This arrow represents the CoP (Wenger, 1998) in which prospective teachers begin their participation toward expertise. In the sections that follow, I first describe the theoretical perspectives underlying the framework. I then describe the Content Stage which builds on prospective teachers’ reported learning needs. I then identify the phases in the Approximation of Practice Stage which consists of cycles of representations and approximations of practice during the multimodal modules and workshops, and onsite coaching. Next, I describe the Appropriation of Practice Stage in which iterative cycles of feedback on lesson plans, feedback during planning and debriefing sessions, and coaching during classroom observations systematically lead to teachers’ learning. There is a need for empirical research to support and refine the IDEAL framework so that it could be more useful for teacher education programs. FIGURE 1: IDEAL Framework: Cycle of appropriation of instructional teaching practices 23 Sociocultural Perspective Theoretical Perspective The IDEAL framework seeks to bridge the disconnect between theory and practice. The existence of this disconnect represents a divide between what teachers learn in teacher education programs and what is actually enacted in the context of teachers’ practice. Bridging this disconnect matters because it can promote teachers’ classroom effectiveness which may result in improved student academic achievement (Kennedy, 1999). The IDEAL framework draws upon the sociocultural theoretical perspective (Ericsson, 2002; Rogoff , 1996; Vygotsky, 1978) that conceptualizes teacher learning as a long-term, iterative process that promotes prospective teachers’ changes of participation in socially mediated activities (Leont’ev, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978). In the volume Mind in Society (1978), Cole and colleagues compiled and selected work by Vygotsky in which he discussed the notion of the social origin of learners’ development influenced by socially mediated learning. Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural perspective was based in the premise that social interactions and the environment influence learning development in conjunction with language and symbols. Vygotsky (1981) argued, We could therefore say that it is through others that we develop into ourselves… The individual develops into what he/she is through what he/she produces for others. This is the process of the formation of the individual. (pp. 161–162) This premise lies in the interdependence between individual and social process in the co- construction of knowledge through individual human action and social development. In the IDEAL framework prospective teachers’ development takes place in social interactions as the co-construct knowledge in the context of practice. Vygotsky (1987) posited that auxiliary stimuli or mediators (e.g., learning centers, visuals, scaffolds, non-verbals, representations of practice, approximations of practice, and so 24 on) contribute toward the construction of higher psychological structures. Vygotsky (1987, p. 133; 1994, p. 61) defined auxiliary stimuli as signs. In accordance to Vygotsky’s theory, signs work as mediators in learners’ cultural development. That is, a sign is introduced as an auxiliary stimulus between the stimulus and the response. In the IDEAL framework, mediators are scaffolds that support the appropriation of new instructional strategies that support the process of meaning making. Once prospective teachers appropriate new instructional strategies, these are transformed into affordances that support their teaching practice. When sustained, the relationship between social interaction and scaffolds provide the possibility for prospective teachers to move toward higher levels of development within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). In the IDEAL framework, the ZPD represents the distance between prospective teachers’ current level of development and the level they could potentially achieve with guidance of a coach in the forms of scaffolding, modeling, and feedback. Scaffolding from a Sociocultural Perspective Rogoff (1990) described scaffolding as a process situated in social interaction in which, through guided participation, the learners receive temporary supports from others who are more experienced. In IDEAL, scaffolding is in the form of approximations of practice, representations of practice, questioning, and modeling that support teacher learning. In this framework, these scaffolds support prospective teachers to rehearse aspects of teaching in a safe space. Further, these scaffolds promote prospective teachers to reflect on the development of their teaching practice making learning salient and visible because they systematically develop awareness on the implications of their teaching. The goal is for the prospective teachers to systematically take responsibility for their learning and participation over time (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Scaffolds support the appropriation of new instructional strategies when prospective teachers build from 25 prior knowledge and past experiences to co-construct new knowledge alongside a more experienced peer (Rogoff, 1990; Stone, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978). Building from prior knowledge (Vygotsky, 1987) provides prospective teachers tools to reconcile discontinuities between theory and what prospective teachers experience in everyday practice. The ZPD includes peers and coaches with various degrees of expertise and representations of practice that support intentional learning (Brown, 1992). This lens supports the design process for teacher preparation programs that build on prospective teachers’ prior knowledge and past experiences (Rogoff, 1990) as an anchor from which to build new teaching practices. In addition, onsite coaching through the ZPD recognizes coach-teacher interactions as scaffolds to co-construct knowledge as they engage in social activity (Bruner, 1986). Finally, feedback provided through questioning scaffolds teachers’ reflecting on their current teaching practices. This is what Vygotsky described as the process of first understanding the use of pedagogical tools in interactions in reflective dialogue, to later enact and appropriate these tools. The sociocultural perspective highlights the role of human agency as teachers develop conceptual tools to engage in dialog, listen to different perspectives, and build networks of relationships. The community in which prospective teachers share their points of view and engage in discussions contributes to their professional growth (Engeström, 2001). Further, the sociocultural perspective allows teacher educators to focus on teacher learning, and on how they can support and guide learning. Pendleton Model for Feedback The IDEAL framework follows Pendleton’s et al. (2003) model for feedback interaction used in medical education. In the medical field, several models have been proposed for feedback such as Giving Feedback Checklist; SET-GO; SIPP; Sandwich; TELL; ALOBA, 26 Pendleton, and so on. I chose Pendleton’s model because it focuses on providing a safe environment for teachers to self-assess their teaching practices and engage in constructive dialogue about how to improve such practices. Pendleton’s model provides a structured approach to hold debriefing sessions that encourage student-doctors to reflect on their medical practices. This model consists of four steps: Step One encourages the learner to articulate his or her good practices; Step Two allows the educator to state agreement and to elaborate on observed good practices; Step Three provides a space for the learner to reflect on areas of improvement related to his or her practice; and in Step Four the educator provides feedback on how to improve current practices. Pendleton’s model has been widely used in the medical field for education and development purposes. For instance, Burgess, Roberts, Black, and Mellis (2013) used Pendleton’s model to study the implications of peer feedback on senior medical students over two years. Findings suggest that seniors perceived this feedback as valued opportunities that contribute to their education. Similarly, Lefroy, Watling, Teunissen, and Brand (2015) outlined guidelines that aimed to provide feedback into practical use for field supervisors and clinical learning in the medical field. Lefroy et al., (2015) considered Pendleton’s model seeking for medical students to improve their practice. The researchers concluded that effective feedback supported conversations that allowed the development of awareness of seniors’ competences in their medical practices. It also supported identification of challenges, and facilitated improvement in their medical practices. Jippers et al., (2010) used Pendleton’s model for feedback seeking to improve and innovate health service organizations and delivery to close the gap between knowledge and practice. The researchers concluded that younger medical specialists used structured feedback toward the innovation approach they presented. These studies suggest 27 that Pendleton’s model provides a supportive environment for the learner to recognize and develop self-awareness on practices that could be appropriated or developed based on observed performances. Unpacking the Stages of the IDEAL Framework Community of Practice Franke and Kazemi (2001) outlined that teachers’ participation in CoP is critical in their appropriation of pedagogical practices. Participation is an encompassing process in which individuals are active participants in the practices of social communities (Wenger, 1998). Throughout their participation, individuals develop their identity in relation to these communities. A CoP is formed by the people who engage in this participation. Wenger (1998) defined CoP as groups of people who share the same interest for something to engage in a process of collective participation to develop understanding and expertise in a common area of interest. Building from the sociocultural perspective, CoP reflects the social nature of human learning as participants are embedded in social interactions to improve practice. There are three required components to constitute a CoP: the domain, the community, and the practice. Wenger (1998) defined these constructs as follows: Domain is defined as the shared interest that brings committed members together toward learning about the domain. Community is defined as the shared interaction and engagement in which members are committed to build relationships and co-construct knowledge over time. Finally, practice refers to members’ development of a shared repertoire of resources that would support their practice as a result of their interactions over time. In the IDEAL framework, participation is voluntary, and members are drawn toward the common interest of developing understanding of teacher learning. Interactions in workshops provide a space for member to engage in peripheral participation to systematically take up 28 practice as they develop their identities and central practices to teacher learning in the CoP. Participation in the CoP supports members to solve problems; and share experiences, practices, and resources as they systematically co-construct tools to support student learning. The inclusion of the CoP construct in the IDEAL framework highlights the importance of a CoP for teacher preparation programs that intends to promote reification and participation. Reification refers to the processes in which prospective teachers define their participation in the CoP by producing artifacts and instruments to make sense of teachers’ learning experiences (Wenger, 1998). For prospective teachers to engage in reification, they interpret, represent, and design their educational experiences to connect these experiences with students’ learning. Through participation, prospective teachers’ engagement in a CoP allows them to “continue to be students of subject-matter, and students of mind-activity” (Dewey, 1904/1965, p. 317) because they continue learning about practice in practice which is what leads them to professional learning. In the IDEAL framework, during workshops prospective teachers work together in designing learning opportunities and share their experiences after enacting new instructional strategies. Meetings in workshops provide a space for prospective teachers to reflect on the implications that the enactment of new instructional strategies have on students’ learning. Prospective teachers’ participation and engagement in the CoP promotes accountability among prospective teachers which is a key component to promote genuine collaboration and the co- construction of knowledge (Birkeland & Freiman-Nemser, 2012). In the IDEAL framework, CoP is a space for prospective teachers to share their stories and experiences when enacting new instructional strategies, to provide each other peer-feedback, to reflect as a group on what was most useful and what can be improved, and as group to scaffold the process of appropriation of instructional strategies. Further, prospective teachers negotiate 29 meaning in the CoP as they construct a shared identity through their interactions in the workshops. In other words, prospective teachers re-shape their identities through “a very complex interweaving of participative experience and reificative projections” (p. 151). Stage One: Designing a Program Stage One is contained in the oval that represents iterative cycles of repetition of approximations of practice, representations of practice, and coaching during workshops. This cycle starts with a rectangle that highlights the benefit of assessing prospective teachers’ strengths and learning needs prior to the design of the program. It is important that programs build on prospective teachers’ learning needs (Feiman-Nemser, 2003; Gándara et al., 2005; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Hawley & Valli, 1999) to promote prospective teachers’ active involvement and engagement, access to practical resources, and opportunities to reflect about their teaching practices and students’ learning within a CoP. There is an arrow that connects this step to the design of the teacher preparation programs. The participant-involved approach (Vonk, 1993) allows prospective teachers to have ownership of the learning process. That is, prospective teachers participate in determining the content of the program, and building on their strengths and learning needs. These components of Stage One are determined by the outcomes of the pre-assessment. It is essential, however, to assess the implementation and content of the program on a periodic basis based on prospective teachers’ progress, learning needs, and feedback. Formative and iterative analyses help generate a framework that accounts for improving prospective teachers’ teaching practices. In the following sections, I describe ways in which the content of the programs supports prospective teacher learning in the context of practice. 30 Stage Two: Approximation of Practice Cycle Stage Two describes the approximation of practice cycle. The three components contemplated in this cycle (i.e., approximations of practice, representations of practice, and coaching during workshops) are linked by two-way arrows which suggest that there is no specific order in which each take place. At the same time, these components are contained in a circle which represents the iterative cycles of repetition from simple to more complex tasks. This cycle provides opportunities for coaches to examine and assess prospective teachers’ systematic appropriation of instructional strategies through their development. Stage two provides opportunities for prospective teachers to rehearse new instructional strategies in safe space prior to their enactment in the field. Representations of practice. Drawing from Grossman et al.’s (2009) work, the first component in this cycle is representations of practice in the form of professional videos explicating how to enact strategies, video recordings of teaching situations, and lesson plans (e.g., Lampert & Ball, 1998). Other representations are observations of mentor teachers in field experiences and written case scenarios to provoke problem solving (Silverman, Welty, & Lyon, 1995). Representations of practice seek to make certain aspects of teaching practices salient and visible. To introduce prospective teachers to new instructional strategies, prospective teachers watch video recordings with professionals enacting instructional strategies, scaffolds, and content instruction in authentic teaching settings. In addition, prospective teachers read case scenarios with explanations of how these instructional strategies are enacted. Written cases seek to make visible aspects of the teaching practice that are not salient in video recordings because they deconstruct how the instructional strategy can be enacted and how it supports students’ learning. CoP meetings are opportunities for prospective teachers to deconstruct representations 31 of practice and to reflect on visible and hidden aspects of teaching. In other words, prospective teachers engage in discussions that foster reflection and thinking on the enactment of new instructional strategies and on the implications that the enactment of such instructional strategies have on students’ learning. Approximations of practice. Stage Two acknowledges the importance of prospective teachers engaging in intensive and focused opportunities to experiment with aspects of practice. This is what Grossman and colleagues (2009) called approximation of practice. The idea is to provide prospective teachers with opportunities that simulate scenarios they will encounter when teaching. These approximations of practice are a safe space for prospective teachers to rehearse new instructional strategies, to engage in discussion on how to implement those strategies, and to receive feedback about their teaching practice from a coach. Prospective teachers benefit from opportunities to engage in practice that resembles the actual practice of the profession (Grossman et al., 2009), and from opportunities to develop habits of mind and character and new ways of thinking (Shulman, 1998). I argue that approximations of practice are one step that can contribute to reducing the gap between theory and practice. During the workshops, the coach provides prospective teachers with multiple opportunities for approximations of practice based on the content of the program and opportunities to reflect on how the content of the program promotes students’ learning. As the approximation cycle repeats, prospective teachers encounter more elaborated and complex approximations. For example, in the first approximation cycles prospective teachers work on simple tasks such as working on a case scenario to scaffold a student’s understanding of a text by using instructional strategies from the program. The complexity of these tasks increases in the subsequent cycles of repetition in which teachers design a lesson plan based on students’ 32 individual characteristics. The goal is for the coach to scaffold approximations of practice by providing supports to prospective teachers when rehearsing the enactment of new instructional strategies. Even when approximations of practice provide prospective teachers with opportunities to practice, it is not guaranteed that prospective teachers have already developed expertise on how to enact new instructional strategies. It is not guaranteed either that prospective teachers have appropriated them. Despite the fact that prospective teachers are persuaded to adopt these instructional strategies, I argue that prospective teachers will benefit from additional support to enact the strategies in their teaching practice. Coaching. There is overlap between the definitions of coaching and mentoring. Harrison, Dymoke, and Pell (2006) defined coaching in teacher education as a particular form of mentoring which focuses on the performance of particular tasks, skills, or capabilities. The researchers defined mentoring as a developmental activity which takes place at the school setting which comprises counseling, friendship, and socialization. For the purpose of this framework, I use the term coaching and define it as the one-on-one and group support of teachers with different levels of expertise by a more experienced practitioner (coach) to assist them in the appropriation of pedagogical tools throughout the different stages of the professional development program. Coaching has been used in induction and professional development of teachers since the 1980s and it was extended to teacher preparation in the early 1990s (Little, 1990). Research suggests that coaching has positive effects on supporting novice teachers to increase confidence and self-esteem, provide emotional support, improve classroom management skills and manage work load; and help teachers adapt to the demands and expectations of the school (see Feiman- 33 Nemser & Parker, 1992; Malderez, Hobson, Tracey, & Kerr, 2007; Marable & Raimondi, 2007; McIntyre & Hagger, 1996). Feiman-Nemser (2001b) posited that teachers would benefit from onsite coaching so that they have support on how to confront the difficulties of enacting teaching practices. Further, onsite coaching provides a space for teacher educators to take a clinical stance and support teachers to adopt new pedagogies and promote dispositions for continuous improvement (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Grossman, 2005; Zeichner, 2010) because coaching supports them in confronting the complex aspects of teaching (Little, 1990). In CoP meetings prospective teachers negotiate the ways to enact new instructional strategies. One of the coaches’ roles is to scaffold conversation among prospective teachers in order for prospective teachers to reflect and share their experiences when enacting the instructional strategies and for them to co-construct knowledge. In these meetings, coaches encourage prospective teachers to share artifacts they designed and used in their classes. As a group, prospective teachers can use those artifacts for reification. That is, for coaches to seek that prospective teacher see the meetings in the CoP as part of their ongoing practice rather than part of the PD. That can be done by making explicit connections with prospective teachers’ development of their teaching practice and what is discussed and worked in workshops. Onsite coaching can support prospective teachers to take an inquiry stance, and view their classrooms as places for learning and to experiment with the instructional strategies and artifacts developed in the CoP. Prospective teachers can benefit from engaging in informal conversations with coaches outside the CoP (Battey & Franke, 2015). This engagement allows coaches to engage prospective teachers in discussion about practice, design artifacts, and know prospective teachers better in order to have richer discussions in the CoP. Finally, coaches can promote the development of the CoP by fostering group work as part of prospective teachers’ on- 34 going practice. The goal is for prospective teachers to engage in dialogue about developing their teaching practice and to share experiences outside the meetings in the CoP and after they finish their participation. Stage Three: Appropriation of Practice Stage Three of the IDEAL framework focuses on appropriations of practice. Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999) used the term appropriation to illustrate the developmental process through which prospective teachers internalize to later incorporate instructional strategies in their teaching. In other words, changes in participation through iterations. Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999) posited that the process of appropriation varies in degrees that range from lack of appropriation to appropriating a label, appropriating surface features, appropriating conceptual underpinnings, and achieving mastery. There are several reasons that may impede prospective teachers in appropriating or partially appropriating pedagogical tools. Some of these reasons are that the concepts may be too difficult to comprehend; prospective teachers may reject these new concepts; prospective teachers may lack understanding on how the new instructional strategies can benefit students; and prospective teachers may lack of opportunities to implement instructional strategies in real teaching. Stage Three is also contained in an oval that represents that appropriation is an iterative process. In this Stage, I contemplate that the appropriation component may promote prospective teachers’ changes in participation. Because I acknowledge that changes in participation are not linear but rather travel across iterations, there is an arrow that connects Stage Three back to Stage One of the framework. In other words, once prospective teachers appropriate certain pedagogical tools across the three stages of the appropriation cycle, the cycle repeats to promote the appropriation of new instructional strategies until the prospective teacher reaches the desired 35 level of expertise. Although I describe aspects of the IDEAL framework separately, these aspects are intertwined. I argue that the appropriation of instructional strategies is directly influenced by the extent prospective teachers actively engage in collective participation in the CoP, and as they actively engage in representations and approximations of practice, receive coaching in methods course as well as coaching during classroom observations along with feedback on lesson plans, and feedback on planning and debriefing sessions (Hinojosa, 2018; under review). For example, the content of the professional development program provides a space for prospective teachers to watch demonstrations on how to use pedagogical tools. The meetings in the CoP supported by coaching during PD are a space for prospective teachers to rehearse how to enact instructional strategies in a safe environment. Feedback on lesson plans and debriefing sessions followed by coaching during classroom observations promote the appropriation of new instructional strategies. Stage Three contributes to closing the gap between approximation and appropriation of practice because dialogue and inquiry allow prospective teachers to reflect on how their teaching practices could support students’ learning. Feedback on lesson plans and debriefing sessions. The cognitive perspective associates feedback with a one-way corrective approach in which an expert transmits information to a passive recipient about changes to be considered (e.g., Boud & Molly, 2013; Winne and Butler, 1994). Alternatively, from the sociocultural perspective, feedback is perceived as facilitative and participatory (e.g., Carless, Salter, Yang, & Lam, 2011; Showers, 1985). Researchers (e.g., Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Hounsell, McCune, Hounsell, & Litjens, 2008; Nicol 2010; Rust, O’Donovan, & Price, 2005) strongly encourage engaging in dialogue as an effective practice to discuss written feedback. That is, the coach provides opportunities for prospective 36 teachers to take an active role to discuss written feedback through dialogue and participation in shared experiences that develop awareness on their own performance and improvement. Stage Three builds on Pendleton et al.’s (1984) model for feedback interaction which I translate as feedback on lesson plans, planning and debriefing sessions, and coaching during classroom observations to take feedback toward a coaching approach. Building on Pendleton’s et al. (1984) model, in this framework feedback on lesson plans is provided in the form of inquiry. In planning sessions, prospective teachers are provided a space to reflect on the feedback provided and on how they intend to enact instructional strategies. Throughout classroom observations, the coach supports prospective teachers’ enactment of new instructional strategies and takes detailed notes of aspects of teaching and students’ responses to the enacted strategies. Debriefing sessions seek to promote self-evaluation and reflection (Keller et al., 2005). In debriefing sessions, the coach provides a space for prospective teachers to unpack the strengths of the lesson. This is followed by a discussion of those strengths and the coach provides specific examples and quotes from the interactions. Next, prospective teachers share areas of improvement followed by the coach providing specific examples of interactions and quotes from the observation. Finally, the coach asks prospective teachers to reflect on why to continue enacting effective practices, how to address feedback, and work on a plan for further improvement. These iterations seek to provide prospective teachers with a safe environment to engage in dialogue about teaching practice. These dialogues also seek to promote self-evaluation and reflection that leads to the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. As follows, I describe feedback before and after classroom observations, the characteristics of feedback and coaching during classroom observations. 37 Planning and debriefing sessions. In Stage Three, the coaching cycle starts with pre- observation conferences. For prospective teachers to develop deeper levels of reflection and thinking (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b), coaches discuss the outcome of the lesson plans. That is, the coach and prospective teacher discuss the implementation of the learning session before teaching. This time is used to revise the learning session and to discuss upfront the plan of implementation. An important part of this cycle is feedback. Hill and Grossman (2013) asserted that feedback has a better impact on prospective teachers’ learning when they discuss with an expert about instruction and the problems right after classroom observations. Additionally, Biancarosa, Bryk, and Dexter (2010) concurred that individualized feedback is more successful when it is specific and actionable. Feedback focuses on discussing feedback provided on lesson plans, and on how to use specific prospective teachers’ moves and practices, to select pedagogically appropriate models, and to highlight instructional strategies that prospective teachers can incorporate in their repertoire (Hill & Grossman, 2013) to promote students’ learning. Coaches focus not only prospective teachers’ performance, but also engage in conversations about prospective teachers’ thinking (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992). That is, reflect upon prospective teachers’ thinking, experiment with interpretations and possible solutions, provide a rationale, and elaborate on why prospective teachers selected those pedagogical tools to engage in critical thinking. This is what Schön (1987) called reflection-in- action. Building on these thoughts, in IDEAL feedback is provided during the post-observation conference. These debriefing sessions take place right after prospective teachers facilitate a lesson. During the debriefing sessions, the coach and the prospective teacher discuss specific aspects of the learning session in relation to the content of the program. By going together over 38 field notes, the coach provides opportunities for constructive dialogue about the strengths and areas of improvement of practitioners’ teaching and its impact on students’ learning (Schmidt, 2008). It is important that the coach generates meaning-making questions for prospective teachers to make sense of the learning experience. Coaches encourage prospective teachers to reflect upon the outcomes of the lesson to develop “analytic skills to study teaching” (Hiebert et al., 2007, p. 49). That is, reflect on the enactment of instructional strategies and to what extent it supported, or not, students’ achieving their learning goals. With the coach’s scaffolding, prospective teachers reflect on ways to adapt the pedagogical tools or competencies from the course work, plan for future lessons and determine their effectiveness, share and create new artifacts and tools that benefit the group as they engage in discussion. The engagement in reflection first with the coach and next in the CoP fosters in prospective teachers a continuous and systematic analysis of the process of appropriation of instructional strategies because it turns prospective teachers’ attention on how to use the feedback to improve upcoming learning sessions Characteristics of feedback. For feedback to be effective it has to be accessible and understandable (Ferguson, 2011). Even when coaches provide feedback that prospective teachers understand, it cannot be assumed that prospective teachers would know how to use it (Sadler, 1989). Further, research suggests that contingent interaction or scaffolds better support the learner’s discursive symmetry in the form of dialogic feedback or dialogic interactions support the learning process. Therefore, prospective teachers could benefit from engaging in dialogue of specific observed behaviors (Gigante, Dell, & Sharkey, 2011) that allows prospective teachers to reflect on teaching practices that could be repeated and improved. 39 In higher education contexts, there is vast research on feedback and its implications on students’ learning. However, research on feedback on teacher learning contexts is limited. Scheeler, Ruhl, and McAfee (2004) conducted a meta-analysis on the impact of various forms of feedback provided to prospective teachers. The researchers concluded that feedback that is systematic, corrective, positive, and immediate results in positive changes in prospective teacher behavior. For example, researchers (Buck, Morsink, Griffin, & Lenk, 1992; Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005) suggest that prospective teachers could benefit from feedback in their field placements that is systematic and not only seeks to evaluate but to assess. Similarly, Van Houten (1980) argued that who delivers feedback has implications on teachers’ learning. Van Houten suggested that onsite feedback could be delivered by mentor teachers, field supervisors, onsite supervisors, and coaches. Consistent with the literature, IDEAL considers systematic onsite feedback provided by a coach that takes an active role as a teacher educator. Corrective feedback seeks to provide objective information related to specific teaching behavior to correct errors (Buck et al, 1992; Darling-Hammond et al, 2005; Scheeler et al., 2004; Van Houten, 1980). Researchers concurred that corrective feedback is significantly more effective than feedback such as non-corrective or general feedback. Chi, Siler, Jeong, Yamauch, & Hausmann (2001) contributed to feedback taxonomy by adding to corrective feedback suggestive and didactical feedback. Suggestive feedback seeks to promote learners’ performance by asking questions, providing hints and suggestions, deepening a problem, and checking. Didactical explanations aim to explain and suggest teachers what to do next by rephrasing and repeating teachers’ words. Consistent with the literature, IDEAL considers feedback in the form of questions, direct feedback, and suggestive feedback in the form of two option questions and 40 clarification questions. This framework contributes to literature on how to provide feedback by adding the following categories: drawing on prior knowledge/experience, reflection questions, prospective teacher’s moves and quotes, and focus on students’ learning comments/questions. These questions seek to develop teachers’ self-awareness of how their teaching practices and changes on teaching practices have, or not, positive implications on students’ learning. In relation to positive feedback, literature is also consistent on how praise of specific teaching behavior supports teacher learning (Scheeler, McAfee, Ruhl, & Lee, 2006). Auld, Belfiore, and Scheeler (2010); Barton & Wolery, (2007); Scheeler et al., (2004) argued that prospective teachers benefit from performance feedback that is provided in a positive manner and it encourages prospective teachers to enact desired teaching practices. IDEAL contributes to positive reinforcement by providing explanations of how instructional strategies would support students’ learning. Positive reinforcement with explanations seeks to encourage prospective teachers to reflect on how and why to continue enacting observed instructional strategies. Explanations aim to develop awareness on how the instructional strategies prospective teachers considered systematically support their enactment and appropriation. There is consensus among researchers that prospective teachers benefit from immediate feedback (Coulter & Grossen, 1997; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hounsell et al., 2008; O’Reilly, Renzaglia, & Lee, 1994; Scheeler et al., 2004; Scheeler et al., 2006). Couler and Grossen (1997) concluded that in-class feedback has positive effects on teachers’ changes of behaviors and teaching practices. Following this stance, Scheeler et al. (2006) suggested stopping unwanted teaching practices to provide corrective feedback by using wireless technology as opposed to providing deferred feedback. Deferred feedback refers to the data in the form of field notes taken through classroom observations to be shared with teachers after the classroom observation or 41 later. Immediate feedback could prevent prospective teachers from practicing and reinforcing errors that may prevent them from enacting the desired teaching practices. However, in most cases, coaches rely on deferred feedback (Giebelhaus, 1994; Sharpe, Lounsbery, & Bahls, 1997). IDEAL acknowledges the importance of timely feedback. In response to O’Reilly et al.,’s (1994) recommendation on finding less intrusive manners to provide immediate feedback than interrupting instruction, in this study I propose providing feedback as coaching during classroom observations in the form of modeling to prevent disruptions and flow of the class. Onsite Coaching. Gibbons and Cobb (2017) identified four forms of coaching: coaching cycle, co-teaching, debriefing challenges of implementation, and observing instruction or modeling. IDEAL explores onsite coaching in the form of modeling the enactment of new instructional strategies during classroom observations. In this framework, modeling (Feiman- Nemser, 2001a; Putnan & Borko, 2000; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; West & Cameron, 2013) is described as demonstrations of enactment of new instructional strategies that a more experienced teacher provides to prospective teachers in the context of practice. Modeling has been explored in a few studies. For instance, Feiman-Nemser (2001a) discussed how a mentor teacher used modeling to support prospective teachers to identify characteristics of good teaching. Similarly, West and Cameron (2013) explored the implications of a more experienced teacher modeling teaching practices to support prospective teachers in the context of developing their teaching practice. In relation to PD programs, Matsumura, Garnier, Correnti, Junker, and Bickle (2010) explored how onsite coaching supported 73 novice teachers, and the implications of their new teaching practices on EBs’ and low-income students’ achievement. Findings suggest that novice teachers increased the quality of their instructional strategies, and there were significant gains in students’ learning outcomes. Yet, more research that explores the implications of onsite coaching 42 on prospective teachers’ development and their effects on students’ learning outcomes is needed (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009). Prospective teachers could benefit from coaching in the actual context of their teaching practice because it extends the support prospective teachers receive in their classrooms. My argument is that onsite coaching promotes prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies and allows them to attend to the complex interactions of teaching. By implementing this practice, teacher preparation programs situate practice at the core of teachers’ development. Onsite coaching brings the content of teacher learning inside the school environment and promotes the appropriation of skills that allow prospective teachers to enhance students’ learning. During instruction, prospective teachers have to pay equal attention to multiple activities at the same time (Little, 1990). The continuous coaching during classroom observations provides prospective teachers with opportunities to enact instructional strategies with the support of an expert—coach. The expert’s role is to systematically remind prospective teachers the instructional strategies that support students; to support teachers determine what pedagogical tools to use in a case-by-case basis; and to model the enactment of instructional strategies in the classroom. By modeling (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Putnan & Borko, 2000; West & Cameron, 2013) instructional strategies, coaches avoid making suggestions on changing teaching practices, but rather prompt the teacher to recognize that the pedagogical tools that he or she is using can have positive effects on students’ learning. Onsite coaching (Lampert et al., 2013) makes practice visible because it enables teachers to be better aware of the effectiveness of their teaching practices and to be willing to try instructional strategies from course work. This cycle of 43 continuous onsite coaching allows prospective teachers not to experience difficulty sustaining and appropriating the content of teacher preparation programs. Coaching in teacher preparation programs. For prospective teachers to understand how to enact new instructional strategies, they observe how the coach models such strategies. Literature suggests that coaching of prospective teachers in teacher preparation programs builds on the apprenticeship model (Haggerty, 1986). Teacher preparation programs require prospective teachers to observe experienced teachers—supervisors, practicing teachers, or mentor teachers— in the classroom. This is what Lortie (1975) called “apprenticeship of observation” (p. 61). The effectiveness of these observations depends on “the skill, involvement, and conscientiousness of the supervising teacher” (Lortie, 1975, p. 59). In other words, prospective teachers spend an established number of hours observing the mechanics and tools that practicing teachers display in class. The goal is that throughout these observations, prospective teachers take those teaching practices and implement them in their own teaching. Labaree (2000), however, concluded that this observational stance does not allow prospective teachers to “see the thinking that preceded the teacher’s action, the alternatives she considered, the strategic plan within which she located the action, or the aims she sought to accomplish by means of that action” (p. 232). The traditional view of field supervisors in teacher preparation programs is of evaluation and supervision (Korthagen, 2010; Zeichner, 2010). By field supervisors adopting onsite coaching when providing supports in field experiences (Darling-Hammond & Skyes, 2003; Grossman et al., 2009; Margolis, 2007), these could be learning opportunities for prospective teachers to reflect in the context of developing their teaching practice. Onsite coaching has significant implications for teacher preparation because it could systematically prevent teachers from experiencing the “problem of enactment” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 70). The 44 problem of enactment refers to the gap between what prospective teachers can consider and implement in their teaching practice, to what they actually enact. As described by Kennedy (1999), prospective teachers are exposed to new pedagogical tools in teacher education programs. However, even when prospective teachers are persuaded to enact these instructional strategies, they could benefit from having support to enact them in practice. Building on the ZPD, onsite coaching recognizes coach-teacher interactions as scaffolds to support teacher learning (Bruner, 1986). Coaching during professional development. Research suggests that teachers who are engaged in coaching are better able to support their students in achieving their learning outcomes and that improvement in teaching can be seen with small investment of time (e.g., Allen, Pianta, Gregory, Mikami, & Lun, 2011; Biancarosa & Bryk, 2011). In addition, Birkeland and Freiman- Nemser, 2012, p. 115) asserted that coaching allows novice teachers to learn in collaboration with “colleagues and experts who can model effective practices, build background knowledge and prompt reflection.” Consistent with the literature and as expressed in prior paragraphs, I argue that practicing teachers can also benefit from additional support that goes beyond professional development. Because “a great deal of teacher learning occurs in the context of practice” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 54), practicing teachers could benefit from a shift in professional developers’ role when supporting them during PD programs. IDEAL acknowledges that professional developers can provide onsite coaching supports for teachers to have a safe space to rehearse aspects of practice and to promote the enactment of new instructional strategies. During classroom observations, coaches can use an observation protocol to make sure that what is observed across learning sessions is consistent. This instrument seeks to tailor PD by aligning what the coach does during classroom observations to promote teacher learning 45 opportunities. Observation protocols are “key levers for the improvement of teaching” (Hill & Grossman, 2013, p. 371) and the information collected can be used for two purposes, inform practice and to provide feedback. This observation protocol has specific elements which indicate actionable teaching characteristics, and the scope and level of detail around desired practices do not need to be too broad or too specific. Further, this protocol allows coaches to take detailed field notes on teachers’ enactment of instructional strategies and students’ responses and implications of the enactment of such strategies. These field notes are a baseline for debriefing session and ask drawing on prior knowledge/experience, reflection questions, teacher’s moves and quotes, and focus on students’ learning comments/questions which encourage teachers to focus on students’ learning outcomes. Planning sessions, onsite coaching, and debriefing sessions repeat until teachers appropriate the pedagogical tools and the assistance of the coach is no longer needed. Teacher Education and Professional Development Teachers are thought to need updating rather than opportunities for serious and sustained learning of curriculum, students, and teaching. Instead they are offered one- shot workshops with advice and tips of things to try, catalogues filled with blackline- master activities for the latest educational ideas (cooperative learning, problem solving, literary analysis, or something else), six-step plans for a host of teaching challenges, and much more. (Ball & Cohen, 1999, p. 4) My purpose in sharing this excerpt is to illustrate that prospective teachers can benefit from continuing opportunities to improve their teaching practices. It is not enough to provide a set of teaching strategies or tool-kit, but rather to “become serious learners in and around their practice” (Ball & Cohen, 1999, p. 4) to have the necessary skills to promote students’ learning. In Hinojosa (2018; under review), I used the IDEAL framework to investigate the design features of a PD program focused on prospective teachers’ preparation to differentiate instruction in general education classrooms. Data suggests that representations of practice, 46 approximations of practice, and onsite coaching supported interns to differentiate instruction as part of their teaching and to be culturally responsive to EBs. These features contributed to prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Additionally, differentiated instruction was based on students’ individual characteristics and learning needs. I conjecture that the IDEAL framework can guide the work of teacher educators to understand how prospective teachers systematically enact and appropriate instructional strategies from teacher preparation programs in their teaching practice. Based on the literature discussed above and on previous studies, I propose a draft of the IDEAL framework with three stages of activities associated with the role of onsite coaching to guide and promote prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies. Stage One describes a program that builds on participants’ reported learning needs. Stage Two describes the approximation of practice cycle. With coaching during workshops, prospective teachers engaged in discussions, shared how they adapted and implemented the content of the PD program in their field placements. Representations of practices with demonstrations on how to enact new instructional strategies provided prospective teachers with opportunities to understand and develop ways of seeing instructional strategies. Approximations provided a safe space for prospective teachers to rehearse though iterative cycles of repetition from simple to more complex tasks with coaching support prior enacting new instructional strategies in their field placements. Stage Three supported prospective teachers’ appropriation of new instructional strategies through feedback on lesson plans which prepare them to focus on analysis and reflection to prepare themselves for the environments in which they will conduct their practice. Onsite coaching and feedback mediated discussions on how to enact instructional strategies. Through iterative cycles of repetition, prospective teachers appropriated such strategies. 47 For the past decade, research on teacher preparation has shifted toward practice as the central goal of preparing teachers (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Battey & Franke, 2015; McDonald et al., 2014). While it is true that teacher preparation programs call for focusing on practice, I argue that a focus on practice compels teacher preparation programs to provide prospective teachers with additional supports in the context of developing their teaching practice. In the IDEAL framework, onsite coaching is the umbrella for all the onsite supports that a more experienced practitioner provides in the context of teaching. Prior research suggests that onsite coaching can support prospective teachers in their field experiences to enact theory from university course work. It can provide opportunities to reflect on observed teaching practices that can only arise in the field, leading teachers to learn from teaching (Hiebert et al., 2007; Nemser, 1983). Moreover, I hypothesize that the IDEAL framework can support researchers to design ongoing learning opportunities tailored by teachers’ reported needs (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b) to bridge the disconnect between theory and practice. Having taught for many years does not guarantee expertise in teaching. IDEAL recognizes that teaching is a lifelong endeavor and that prospective and novice teachers can benefit from supports to continue developing their teaching practice. For example, from previous research (Author, 2018; under review) the IDEAL framework suggests that this framework applies for the context of PD for practicing teachers as well as for prospective teacher learning. These promising findings suggest potential implications for teacher preparation programs and field supervisors of prospective teachers in their placements. First, inquiry and reflection are import aspects of teacher learning. However, prospective teachers could benefit from opportunities to learn in and from practice while they engage in inquiry. I hypothesize that prospective teachers benefit from onsite coaching supports and from feedback in planning and 48 debriefing sessions as described on this framework. Coaching in those settings provide teachers with opportunities to enact and appropriate new instructional strategies with the support of an expert, be reminded to use instructional strategies from course work, and observe the coach modeling these instructional strategies, reflect while teaching what the most suitable approaches to use during instruction are that support students’ learning. A very important part of clinical field placement is for prospective teachers to work with field supervisors. However, research on field supervision for prospective teachers is limited. In their field placements, prospective teachers experience the complexity of teaching (Hoban, 2002). Experiencing this complexity without adequate professional guidance could prevent prospective teachers from enacting in practice theory learned in teacher preparation programs. I conjecture that the IDEAL framework can contribute to research in teacher preparation on how to provide dialogic feedback that fosters reflection and awareness on the decisions prospective teachers make and on understanding of the rationale behind those decisions while developing their teaching practice. Empirical research on the IDEAL framework is needed to explore the onsite coaching cycle to support researchers design opportunities for field supervisors to take a clinical stance and provide them with tools to: model the enactment of new instructional strategies, provide reflective feedback on lesson plans, and provide dialogic feedback on planning and debriefing sessions. In conclusion, throughout the IDEAL framework, I argued for a structural component that supports teacher preparation programs to bridge the gap between what is taught in university course work to be enacted in practice. Onsite coaching and dialogic feedback matter because they emphasize practice while prospective teachers are teaching, and in conjunction they promote the appropriation of instructional strategies. 49 BIBLIOGRAPHY 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333(6045), 1034–1037. Auld, R. G., Belfiore, P. J., & Scheeler, M. C. (2010). Increasing pre-service teachers’ use of differential reinforcement: Effects of performance feedback on consequences for student behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 169-183. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ball, D.L. & Forzani, F.M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenges for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511. Ball, D., Sleep, L., Boerst, T., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458–474. Barton, E. E., & Wolery, M. (2007). Evaluation of e-mail feedback on the verbal behaviors of pre-service teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 30, 55-72. Battey, D., & Franke, M. (2015). Integrating professional development on mathematics and equity countering deficit views of students of color. Education and Urban Society, 47(4), 433-462. Berliner, D. (1985). Laboratory settings and the study of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 2-8. Biancarosa, G., & Bryk, A. S. (2011). Effect of literacy collaborative professional development. Journal of Reading Recovery, 10(2), 25–32. Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A. S., & Dexter, E. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of lit-eracy collaborative professional development on student learning. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7–34. Birkeland, S., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Helping school leaders help new teachers: A tool for transforming school-based induction. The New Educator, 8(2), 109-138. ISSN: 1547- 688X. Boud, D. & Molloy, E. (2013). Decision-making for feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in Higher and Professional Education (pp. 202-217). London: Routledge. 51 Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2) 141-178. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buck, G., Morsink, C., Griffin, T., & Lenk, L. (1992). Preservice training: The role of field- based experiences in the preparation of effective special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15, 106-123. Burgess, A.W., Roberts, C., Black, K.I., & Mellis, C. (2013). Senior medical student perceived ability and experience in giving peer feedback in formative long case examinations. Medical Education, 13(79), 1-5. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 3(6), 395-407. doi: 1 0. 1 080/0307507 1 003642449. Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S.A., Jeong, H., Yamauch, T., & Hausmann, R.G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533. Coulter, G. A., & Grossen, B. (1997). The effectiveness of in-class instructive feedback versus after class instructive feedback for teachers learning direct instruction teaching behaviors. Effective School Practices, 16, 21–35. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “Highly Qualified Teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, Article 33. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1904/1965) – The relation of theory to practice in education. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected writings (pp. 313-338). Chicago: U of Chicago Press. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights form the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp. 21–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 52 Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a). Helping novices learn to teach lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of teacher education, 52(1), 17-30. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001b). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers college record, 103(6), 1013-1055. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational leadership, 60(8), 25- 29. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Beyond SOLO teaching. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 10–16. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1992). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S. programs for beginning teachers. NCRTL Special Report: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. East Lansing, MI. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1995). Perspectives on learning to teach. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University. Franke, M.L, & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40(2), pp. 102-109. Fraser, J.W. (2007). Preparing America's teachers: A history. New York: Teacher College Press. Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers' challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning: The Regents of the University of California. Retrieved on October 10, 2015 from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491701.pdf. Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31. Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. (2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 411- 425. Giebelhaus, C. R. (1994). The mechanical third ear device: A student teaching supervision alternative. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 365–373. Gigante, J., Dell, M., Sharkey, A. (2011). Getting beyond “good job”: How to give effective feedback. Pediatrics Perspectives, 127(2), 205-207. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3351. Grossman, P. (2005). Pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.). Studying teacher education (pp. 425-476). New York: Routledge. 53 Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record 111(9), 2055- 2100. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. Grossman, P.L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1-29. Haggerty, B. (1986). A second look at mentors. Nursing Outlook, 34(1), 16–24. Harrison, J., Dymoke, S., & Pell, T. (2006). Mentoring beginning teachers in secondary schools: An analysis of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1055-1067. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Hiebert, J., Morris, A.K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teaching Education, 58(1), 47-61. Hill, H.C. & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371-384. Hinojosa, D.M. (2018). Coaching during workshops and classroom observations: Promoting the appropriation of instructional strategies to teach emergent bilinguals. Individual Paper presented at American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 70th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hinojosa, D.M. (under review). Preparing interns to differentiate instruction for emergent bilinguals in general education classrooms. Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don't. Teaching and teacher education, 25(1), 207-216. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., and Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(1), 55–67. 54 Jippers, E., Achterkamp, M.C., Brand, P.L., Kiewiet, D.J., Pols, J., & van Engelen, J.M. (2010). Disseminating educational innovations in health care practice: Training versus social networks. Social Science and Medicine, 70(2010), 1509–1517. Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 203-235. Keller, C. L., Brady, M. P., & Taylor, R. L. (2005). Using self-evaluation to improve student teacher interns’ use of specific praise. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 368-376. Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The role of pre-service teacher education. In L. Darling Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 54–86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2010) How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(4), 407-423. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2010.513854. Labaree, D. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: Difficult practices that look easy. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 228-233. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129– 141). New York, NY: Springer. Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H. . . . Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lefroy, J., Watling, C., Teunissen, P.W., & Brand, P. (2015). Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. Perspectives on Medical Education 4(2015) 284–299. doi: 10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981) Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Press. Little, J.W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 297-351).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago. 55 Malderez, A., Hobson, A. J., Tracey, L., & Kerr, K. (2007). Becoming a student teacher: Core features of the experience. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 225-248. Marable, M. A., & Raimondi, S. L. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of what was most (and least) supportive during their first year of teaching. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(1), 25-37. Margolis, J. (2007). Improving relationships between mentor teachers and student teachers: Engaging in a pedagogy of explicitness. The New Educator, 3, 75-94. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H. E., Correnti, R., Junker, B., & Bickel, D. D. (2010). Investigating the effectiveness of a comprehensive literacy coaching program in schools with high teacher mobility. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 35-62. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., & Kavanagh, S. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education a call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378-386. McDonald, M., Kazemi, E., Kelley-Petersen, M., Mikolasy, K., Thompson, J., Valencia, S. W., & Windschitl, M. (2014). Practice makes practice: Learning to teach in teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 500-515. McIntyre, D., & Hagger, H. (1996). Mentoring: Challenges for the future. In D. M. Intyre, & H. Hagger (Eds.), Mentors in schools (pp. 144-165). London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd. Nemser, S. F. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. O’Reilly, M. F., Renzaglia, A., & Lee, S. (1994). An analysis of acquisition, generalization and maintenance of systematic instruction competencies by teachers using behavioral supervision techniques. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 22–33. Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P. & Havelock, P. (2003). The new consultation: Developing doctor-patient communication (2nd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Putnan, R.T. & Borko, H. (2001). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (1996). Developmental transitions in children’s participation in sociocultural activities. In A. J. Sameroff & M. M. Haith (Eds.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on mental health and development. The five to seven year shift: The age of reason and responsibility (pp. 273-294). Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press. 56 Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147–164. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scheeler, M. C., McAfee, J. K., Ruhl, K. L., & Lee, D. L. (2006). Effects of corrective feedback delivered via wireless technology on preservice teacher performance and student behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 12-25. Scheeler, M.C., Ruhl, K.L., and McAfee, J.K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396 - 407. https://doi-org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/10.1177/088840640402700407 Schmidt, M. (2008). Mentoring and being mentored: the story of a novice music teacher’s success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 635–648. Sharpe, T., Lounsbery, M., & Bahls, V. (1997). Description and effects of sequential behavior practice in teacher education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports, 68, 222– 232. Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 43–48. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. Elementary School Journal, 98, 511–526. Silverman, R., Welty, W. M., & Lyon, S. (1992). Case studies for teacher problem solving. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. A. Forman, N. M. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning. Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 169–183). Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Van Houten, R. (1980). Learning through feedback. NY: Human Sciences Press. Vonk, J. H. C. (1993). Mentoring beginning teachers: Mentor knowledge and skills. Mentoring, 1(1), 31–41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 57 Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R. Van der Veer, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 57–72). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Wegner, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 5738– 5745). Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1- 2), 89-99. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347671. 58 CHAPTER TWO: Can We Talk? Promoting the Appropriation of Instructional Strategies through Feedback and Dialogue 59 Introduction Prospective teachers experience the complexity of teaching from the moment they start their field placement (Hoban, 2002). Experiencing this complexity without adequate professional guidance could prevent prospective teachers from enacting in practice what is learned in teacher preparation programs. Researchers (e.g., Ball, 2010; Ellery, 2008) suggest that there is a need for studies that focus on types of feedback that support prospective teachers’ teaching practices, and on the context and form in which feedback is delivered. Further, Mutch (2003) urged for research that provides empirical evidence on the types of feedback that support learning. In an effort to bridge the disconnect between university-based teacher education and field-based experiences at schools, in this study, I explore how the types of feedback I provided on lesson plans and planning sessions supported prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies from a PD program (Hinojosa, in press) to differentiate instruction for emergent bilinguals (EBs) in general education classrooms. Central to this undertaking are the following research questions: 1. What kinds of feedback on lesson plans supported, or not, interns in appropriating and enacting new instructional strategies? 2. What kinds of questions in planning sessions supported, or not, interns in appropriating and enacting new instructional strategies? Literature Review For decades, the tendency of teacher preparation programs has been to emphasize teaching knowledge and content (Imig & Switzer, 1996; Korthagen, 2010; Zeichner, 2012). Since the 1900s, continuous efforts have been made to promote prospective teachers to make connections to methods and foundational courses in their field placements with the goal of 60 bridging the gap between theory and practice (i.e., Berliner, 1985; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Fraser, 2007; Grossman, 2005; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; Zeichner, 2010). Findings are consistent in relation to the need for teacher educators to take a clinical stance and adopt pedagogies of enactment to support prospective teachers in field placements (Darling- Hammond, 2006; Grossman, 2005; Zeichner, 2010). In other words, researchers argue for more cohesive integration of university course work and field work by intensifying supervision of field placements. The perennial disconnect between university-based teacher education courses and field experiences (Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003; Vick, 2006; Zeichner, 2010) is due in part to the traditional view of field experience which has defined the role of field supervisors — evaluation and supervision (Korthagen, 2010; Zeichner, 2010). This traditional view provides a space for prospective teachers to teach; however, prospective teachers could benefit from field supervisors having an active coaching role in their field placements (Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005; Carroll, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Skyes, 2003; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Grossman et al., 2009; Margolis, 2007). In this role, field supervisors could provide learning opportunities in which prospective teachers inquire and rethink their teaching based on students’ outcomes (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Rosaen & Florio-Ruane, 2008; Zeichner, 1996). This support could be in the form of feedback that promotes prospective teachers’ enactment of desired teaching practices (Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004). The traditional concept of feedback (Boud & Molly, 2013) suggests a monologue in which information is provided with the hope that prospective teachers find use in it. However, some researchers in the medical field, and in higher and teacher education (e.g., Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Scheeler et al., 2004) have 61 suggested moving away from this traditional approach toward a type of feedback that promotes prospective teachers’ enactment of new teaching methods and teaching practices in their field experiences. When provided effectively (Ferguson, 2011), feedback can increase prospective teachers’ confidence and motivation to enact and appropriate new instructional strategies. The effectiveness of feedback is related to the timing, specificity, and complexity of feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Scheeler et al., 2004; Shute, 2008). For example, if feedback is not provided on time (e.g., at the time prospective teachers enact the strategies, right after the learning session finished), prospective teachers may assume that there is an implicit approval of their teaching practices. Further, feedback needs to be provided with language that prospective teachers can understand and it has to be objective in relation to an observed teaching practice. These attributes contribute to prospective teachers’ acknowledgement of what steps to take to act upon feedback as soon as they receive it. In addition to these attributes, Gibbs and Simpson (2004) considered the sufficiency and detail of feedback. That is, there needs to be a correlation between the quality and amount of feedback. Further, Ferguson (2011) suggested that for feedback to be effective it has to be personalized, accessible, understandable, and acted upon. Research suggests that these attributes promote prospective teachers’ positive attitudes toward feedback and encourage them to put feedback in practice because they understand how to enact it. When these characteristics are met, feedback can close the gap between the current and desired teaching practices (Carless, Salter, Yang, & Lam, 2011; Ferguson, 2011; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 2010). Sadler (1989, p. 78) emphasized that “it cannot simply be assumed that when students are ‘given feedback’ they will know what to do with it.” For prospective teachers to enact desired teaching practices, they need support that goes beyond written feedback on lesson plans. Researchers (e.g., Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Hounsell, McCune, Hounsell, & Litjens, 2008; Nicol 62 2010; Rust, O’Donovan, & Price, 2003) strongly encourage engaging in dialogue as an effective practice to discuss written feedback. Feedback as dialogue (Freeman & Lewis, 1998; Laurillard, 2005; Nicol & Macfarlane, 2006) refers to feedback which provides opportunities for field supervisors and prospective teachers to engage in conversations about performances. Studies (e.g., Nicol, 2010; van der Schaaf, Baartman, Prins, Oosterbaan, & Schaap, 2013; Yuan & Kim, 2015) suggest that prospective teachers benefit from planning sessions that open and promote dialogue with field supervisors. Learning sessions facilitate prospective teachers to take a more active role and reflect (Prins, Sluijsmans, & Kirschner, 2006; Sadler, 1998) about their teaching practice because in these conversations prospective teachers can clarify information and ask questions about feedback. Reflective thinking is an intentional form of thinking about a current experience in relation to a previous experience or prior knowledge which makes prospective teachers aware of their performance (Lee, 2005; Meziro, 1991). Theoretical Background This study builds on the IDEAL (Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and Learning) framework (Hinojosa, 2018) which helps explain the design, implementation, and outcomes of a PD program. Building on the sociocultural perspective (Ericsson, 2002; Rogoff , 1996) and the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), the IDEAL framework draws on scaffolds, modeling and feedback to explore teacher learning as a socially mediated activity. This framework is described as a trajectory of participation which takes place in three iterative stages: (1) the professional development program stage, (2) the approximation of practice cycle, and (3) the appropriation of practice stage (see Figure 1). This trajectory is contained within an overarching arrow that represents a 63 continuum in a community of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998) in which teachers begin their participation toward expertise. Stage One describes how the program builds on teachers’ learning needs (Feiman- Nemser, 2003; Hawley & Valli, 1999) and provides resources to support teacher learning. Stage Two describes the approximation of practice cycle. Through iterative cycles of approximations and representation of practice (Grossman et al., 1999), and coaching during the PD program, teachers rehearse the enactment of new instructional strategies in a safe space. Stage Three discusses appropriation of practice. Appropriation of practice (Grossman et al., 1999) refers to the developmental process in which teachers enact and appropriate new instructional strategies from the PD programs in iterative cycles. There are four components that support Stage Three: feedback on lesson plans, planning sessions and debriefing sessions after classroom observations, and coaching during classroom observations. To provide teachers with feedback during planning session, IDEAL builds on Pendleton’s model for feedback interaction (Pendleton, Schofield, Tate, & Havelock, 2003) used to encourage student-doctors to reflect on their medical practices. For the purpose of this study, I focus the first two components— feedback on lesson plans and planning sessions. The process of appropriation varies in degrees that range from lack of appropriation to, appropriating a label, appropriating surface features, appropriating conceptual underpinnings, and achieving mastery. IDEAL explores how coaching in the form or feedback and modeling supports teachers’ appropriation of instructional strategies. Further, because IDEAL draws on the sociocultural perspective, feedback is perceived as facilitative and participatory (e.g., Carless et al., 2011; Showers, 1985). That is, a sociocultural approach to feedback (Leont’ev, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978) provides opportunities for teachers to take an active role in discussing written 64 feedback through dialogue and participation in shared experiences that develop awareness of their own performance and improvement (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Hounsell et al., 2008; Nicol 2010). Through reflection-in-action (Schön, 1987) teachers think and experiment with interpretations and possible solutions, provide a rationale, and elaborate on why they selected those pedagogical tools to engage in critical thinking. In summary, this theoretical framework is appropriate for this study because it explains how particular design features of the PD program potentially support teachers’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies. At the same time, this helps explain the phenomenon of how teachers negotiate new ways of teaching as they engage in iterative stages of practice through the trajectory of participation. In relation to teacher learning, this perspective emphasizes the agency of teachers while they situate the appropriation of instructional strategies in social contexts, going beyond what teachers have learned in the PD and shared in the CoP, and extending it to their classroom practices. FIGURE 2: Cycle of appropriation of instructional teaching practices 65 Design and Methods By adopting an embedded single-case study with two units of analysis (Yin, 2014) and discourse analysis (Gee, 2014) I explored the type of feedback I provided on lesson plans and the kinds of questions I asked on planning sessions, and how these promoted, or not, interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. One of the criticisms in studying my own practice is of the researcher being too close to the study. Because I am an insider to this data, I used the “making strange tool” (Gee, 2014, p. 19) to take an outsider perspective which allowed me to see old things new. Because I provided feedback and asked the questions, I asked myself, what kinds of feedback and questions prompted interns’ enactment of new instructional strategies? What questions and responses did I take for-granted? I adopted a critical stance and questioned the grounds of the conventional which allowed me to see our interactions strange. The making strange tool allowed me to look into the oddness and arbitrary nature of how my feedback and questions promoted interns’ enactment of new instructional strategies. The outsider’s perspective allowed me to detach from the data in order to move to a higher level of abstraction (Erickson, 1984) to look at interns’ discourse on why and how they planned on enacting new instructional strategies building from feedback on lesson plans and planning sessions. Contexts and Participants In the year 2017-2018, 47 interns—42 female and 5 male, eleven with Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) minor—participated in a PD program focused on learning to teach EBs in general education classrooms (Hinojosa, under review). Out of these 47 interns, 2 volunteered to receive support in their placement to differentiate instruction for EBs. These interns were Helen and Kate [all names are pseudonyms]. Helen was placed at 66 Braxton Elementary at Caster School District. Helen taught 3rd grade. Helen held a TESOL minor—she had been prepared to teach EBs; she speaks Spanish as-a-second language (upper intermediate) and Arabic (basic). Helen had study abroad experience. She went to a Spanish speaking country in South America in the year 2014 as part of her teacher preparation experience. Kate was placed at Dexter Elementary at Rogue School District. Kate taught 1st grade. Kate speaks English only, and she did not have study abroad experience. Prior to the study, Kate did not receive preparation on how to teach EBs and she expressed feeling ill- prepared to teach EBs. Data Collection I used voluntary sampling (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2015) to recruit the participants. I visited Helen and Kate in their field placements for nine weeks. I coached them in the enactment of instructional strategies focused on learning for teaching EBs in general education classrooms. These strategies included strategies to support beginning EBs, create a supportive learning environment, making language and content accessible, initial assessment, the role of parents, etc. Some of my coaching practices included feedback on lesson plans and feedback and questions during planning sessions before each classroom observation. These were followed by coaching during classroom observations in the form of modeling, and planning sessions after classroom observation (Hinojosa, Chapter3). Interns sent their lesson plans one or two days before classroom observation to get feedback and to discuss possible changes. Before each classroom observations interns and I discussed how the lesson would be implemented, including possible changes based on feedback, looked at worksheets and artifacts to be used in the lesson, and discussed alternative ways of implementation. Interns and I would exchange several emails throughout the week to clarify tasks, instructional strategies, worksheets, and so on. Data sources 67 Type of Data Planning session 1 Planning session 2 Planning session 3 Planning session 4 Planning session 5 Planning session 6 Planning session 7 Planning session 8 Planning session 9 Focus group Collection Dates 01/22/18 01/30/18 02/05/18 02/12/18 02/20/18 02/26/18 03/05/18 03/12/18 03/19/18 Helen Duration (minutes) 21:00 15:00 16:00 15:00 12:00 11:00 12:00 20:00 10:00 Collection Dates 01/24/18 01/31/18 02/07/18 02/14/18 02/22/18 02/28/18 03/07/18 03/14/18 03/21/18 03/24/18 Kate Duration (minutes) 17:00 08:00 05:00 05:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 06:00 07:00 94:00 for this analysis include: 200 minutes of transcripts from planning sessions, 94 minutes of transcripts from focus group interview with the two participants, analysis of 32 lesson plans including 14 lesson plans for formal observations, and artifacts from lesson plans (Table 1). Table 1 Planning Sessions during the 2017-2018 Academic Year Note. Planning sessions occurred between 01/22/18 and 03/24/18. Data Analysis To analyze the data, first I read the transcripts and focused on utterance meaning and force, which are central to pragmatics—the study of interaction (Thomas, 2013). In other words, I focused on the relationship between my questioning and feedback and interns’ responses and understanding of those. For instance, I suggested that Helen enact an instructional strategy, saying “*One2 thing that usually works for me (2) is if I ask them to work in pairs.” Helen responded, “Yeah, (2) I thought about that, ↓ (2) uh, and I do like to do like (1) like a turn and talk (3) like think, pair, and share. So they think (1)↑ and they work in a small group↑(1) and they share it out ↓. I do like that ↑.” In this example, I analyzed how my questions and utterances influenced Helen’s willingness to enact suggested instructional strategies. I focused on the 2 * voice pitch and style change; (number) pause for number of seconds; ↓ falling intonation; ↑ rising intonation; underline stress or emphasis in the utterance. 68 meaning of her responses, tone, and intonation. To analyze interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies over time, I traced the strategies that Helen and Kate used throughout their internship, as evidenced in their lesson plans, artifacts, and transcripts from planning sessions. I focused in particular on instructional strategies that appeared to be new to the interns and the ways in which they justified and reflected on their choices to implement, or not, such strategies in pre-observation planning sessions. To analyze feedback on lesson plans, I did four cycles of analysis. First, I used the frame problem tool (Gee, 2014) to determine the extent to which interns differentiated instruction throughout their internship. That is, in each lesson plan, I highlighted the instructional strategies from the PD program and tallied how many instructional strategies from the PD program interns considered in each lesson plan. I looked into how interns proposed to enact such strategies and the connections they made with their enactment and implications on students’ learning. For instance, Helen mentioned, “I will ask questions to both push the students’ thinking, reinforce the lesson objectives, and make connections between concepts/presentations.” I looked for these kinds of thinking to understand at what point of the PD interns made these connections and what types of feedback and questions promoted these kinds of discourse. In addition, I looked at whether the amount of feedback interns received increased or decreased across time. Second, I used the deixis tool (Gee, 2014) to categorize people, places, and time. For example, Kate proposed, “They will be exposed to high frequency words and spelling words they will be using this week. While reading these words, I will be activating schema by asking them to give their own examples and definitions of the words.” In these sentences, Kate used “while reading, I, they, them, and their” to talk about the students. Kate used “this week” to refer to 69 week 5 in the observations. This analysis helped me identify the people, place and time of the discourse to later analyze the stanzas understanding the full context of the conversations. Third, I highlighted the feedback provided, and I organized the feedback and how interns addressed this feedback into a “meta-matrix” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 178). Fourth, I looked across feedback to determine if there were patterns, or not, across the types of feedback and how interns responded to it. I realized that there were three categories that were used consistently and frequently: in the form of questions, direct feedback, and positive reinforcement with explanations. Because feedback and interns’ responses were juxtaposed, I could understand how feedback supported interns in considering whether to enact, or not, new instructional strategies. For example, I asked Helen, “Are you giving groups discussion questions to guide their discussion?” Helen responded, “I will be walking around asking all of the groups questions as well as giving them a list of questions to facilitate their own discussions.” In this example, Helen did not make explicit the use of guiding questions. Feedback, in the form of questions, prompted Helen to reflect and design a worksheet to support students’ discussion. Analysis of the feedback during planning sessions also took place in four cycles. In the first cycle, I used the frame problem tool to reconstruct and capture how our conversations allowed interns to reflect on enacting new instructional strategies. For example, I looked at lesson plans, artifacts, and transcripts, and I listened to the whole recording in order to situate the context. Looking at the different sources of data allowed me to situate the context of our discourse when we reflected on the enactment of new instructional strategies. While reconstructing the context of our conversations, I used the deixis tool to categorize the people we talked about, as well as the place and time. For example, I shared with Kate, “That comment gave me evidence that he actually understands everything. That is good! So how do you feel 70 about this task and about doing it with the students?” In this example, he refers to Rudra, you is Kate, and this task is a cloze activity. This analysis informed people, place and time in the conversations to make sense of the events for the subsequent analysis. After having looked at deixis across transcripts, I worked on the second cycle of analysis. I highlighted relevant questions and responses from the transcripts. I organized these questions and responses into a “meta-matrix” in the form of groups or idea units called “stanzas” (Gee, 2014, p. 80). For example, because I looked at the type of questions I asked, I placed my questions first followed by interns’ responses. I grouped interns’ responses into larger blocks of information in the form of explanations. I organized these stanzas across the 18 classroom observations. This organization allowed me to look for changes in the enactment of strategies across time. Once the stanzas were organized chronologically, I worked on the fourth cycle of analysis. Like I did on lesson plans, I looked for patterns in the types of questions I asked, and how those questions prompted interns’ enactment of instructional strategies. Three categories emerged: starting questions, two-option questions, and clarification questions. Next, I contrasted the questions I asked to Helen and Kate in order to find similarities or differences. Making this contrast allowed me to realize that I consistently used these three categories across the 18 planning sessions. Finally, I looked for evidence about the relationship between feedback across lesson plans and planning sessions, and interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies by looking at whether or not the amount of feedback provided decreased or increased. Findings Supporting Helen and Kate for one year in the PD program and their field placements allowed me to understand how the kinds of feedback provided on lesson plans and questions on planning sessions supported interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies from 71 a PD program. Analysis of the data shed light on three kinds of feedback used in lesson plans: in the form of questions, direct feedback, and positive reinforcement with explanations. Data suggests that feedback on lesson plans systematically supported interns to consider enacting new instructional strategies. Feedback allowed interns to shape worksheets, Power Point presentations, and tasks so that these supported students to achieve their learning goals. Additionally, feedback supported interns in reflecting on how to implement such instructional strategies and to consider students’ responses toward the instructional strategies when designing tasks. In relation to Helen’s and Kate’s dispositions to enacting feedback, analysis of the data suggests that interns were more receptive to feedback when it built on their plan and their own ideas. Thus, in early stages of the intervention, there was some degree of resistance to enacting feedback. Interns were somehow reluctant to enacting feedback when suggested to enact instructional strategies they were not familiar with, or when the feedback received required them to make changes to their original lesson plans. In addition, the differences in interns’ TESOL background seemed to play an important role in their dispositions to enacting feedback. On the one hand, because Helen held a TESOL minor, she perceived that she did not need as much coaching support to differentiate instruction. On the other hand, Kate was more receptive to enacting new instructional strategies and to receiving more coaching support. Planning sessions played an important role in interns’ enactment and systematic appropriation of new instructional strategies. Planning sessions provided a space for Helen and Kate to reflect on how the instructional strategies they proposed in the lesson plans could support, or not, their students achieving their learning goals. There were three kinds of questions asked during the planning sessions: starting questions, two-option questions, and clarification questions. Planning sessions provided a space for interns to reflect on the feedback provided in 72 the lesson plan, changes that they decided to make, and how they were going to implement the learning session. Another set of questions used interchangeably in planning and debriefing sessions (Hinojosa, Chapter3) were: questions that drew on prior knowledge and reflection/suggestion questions. These questions sought to foster reflection on past teaching experiences, to focus on students’ response to the enactment of new instructional strategies, and to make connections when the coach was not providing support. Finally, I asked interns to observe and reflect on students’ growth across time to focus on how students benefit, or not, from the instructional strategies interns implemented. Analysis of the data suggests that interns developed self-awareness about how their changes impacted students’ learning by comparing early lesson plans and recent ones. In the following sections, I discuss the kind of feedback provided on lesson plans and planning sessions and how those supported the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Feedback on Lesson Plans before Classroom Observations Prior to classroom observations, interns drafted a lesson plan on a template I provided (Appendix). I deconstructed the feedback on lesson plans in seven areas: learning goals, expected language and content to use, Content Area Standards, CCSS ELP Standards, sequence of the lesson plan, differentiated instruction for EBs, and assessment. To provide feedback, I adopted a clinical stance. That is, I sought to help interns reflect on how the instructional strategies they proposed would support, or not, students’ learning. I intended to shape the content and pedagogy of the lesson by suggesting including instructional strategies from the PD program in case interns did not consider doing so. As follows, I discuss the three kinds of feedback used on lesson plans. 73 Feedback in form of questions. Feedback in the form of questions encouraged interns to reflect on how they would enact the tasks proposed on the lesson plans. The questions were formulated providing an answer or a suggestion as part of the question. For example, in a literacy class, Kate wanted students to engage in comprehending a story. It was her intention to start by reading the text. I suggested, “Have you thought of activating schema by showing students a picture of the story or book or characters and the title and make them guess? The plan is good, but you can use a visual to make students guess before they discuss.” In this example, I encouraged Kate to reflect on activating students’ prior knowledge. To do so, I provided strategies from the program that she did not consider using. Because the feedback was provided in the form of question, Kate perceived it as a suggestion and she was more receptive to make changes. During the planning session Kate concurred, “Okay, so format has changed. We will read a story of kids that go around the world in a day. It’s more like going to a cultural fair. I want students to think about, how would you feel in a place that you don’t know the language? I want them to put themselves in that position so that they can think about it. Like, how would you feel?” In her response to the feedback, Kate not only modified her plan in relation to activating schema but she also wanted to make her class more culturally responsive. Throughout the year, Kate and I worked on enacting multiple instructional strategies to support students’ literacy development. Kate changed her orientation when she realized that students were more focused on the readings and they remembered and used academic language across content areas. For example, Kate reflected, “I was surprised how much the students remembered from the story I read yesterday… But they were recalling, not just like little details either, but like the big point of the story which was pleasantly surprising to me because I wasn’t really sure where I was going to go from there.” In this quote Kate expressed her satisfaction 74 with using the strategy I suggested and she reflected on students’ responses to it. Once Kate included comprehension questions, I encouraged her to reflect on the kinds of questions she wanted her students to focus on. I suggested, “Maybe you wish to be more explicit about the questions you ask. What kinds of questions do you wish to ask: scanning (detail), skimming (main idea), or inference, or all? These levels of questions are related to the comprehension level of each student. Are all your students in the same level? If not, what kinds of questions can each student answer? How can you ‘push’ all students to answer different level of questions?” In this example, I encourage Kate to reflect explicitly on kinds of questions she could use. I also used questions to make her reflect about all her students achieving the same learning goals. In the planning session, we discussed the types of questions she wrote and how she would use them to support comprehension. One of those strategies was asking pre-, during, and post-comprehension questions. Initially, Kate was somewhat reluctant to enact this strategy. For example, I asked, “Okay, for the story do you have a comprehension question? Or…” Kate reflected, “[Uh] not for the first read. It’s just getting them used to it when I am back on Friday, I will do more of the comprehension questions.” In this example, Kate rejected the feedback because she was not aware yet on how students could benefit from these kinds of questions. Kate enacted and continued enacting this strategy only when she realized that students comprehended the text better when focusing on questions. Similarly, initially Kate rejected feedback that would allow her students to move away from choral repetition toward producing their own examples. I suggested, “Yeah. And then rotate the cards instead of choral repetition. I don’t know, sometimes choral repetition is not as effective. I haven’t seen your students interacting so probably they do wonderfully. In my opinion, it works best when you assign the cards in groups. Anyways, I am just thinking.” Kate responded, “And I appreciate that! Uh, so then we will 75 explain, or say another word “because” we read the sentence, and this sentence has to do with the story they read.” In this example, Kate appreciated the suggestions; however, she was unwilling to change the strategy she had been using and provide students with opportunities to produce as opposed to repeating. Kate systematically changed this approach as she realized that students benefit from this strategy. In a math class, Helen wanted to introduce the concept of estimates by asking “What does it mean to estimate? When do we estimate? Why?” I suggested scaffolding students’ understanding of the concept by asking, “How about start by asking students to estimate the price of something? Can you show pizzas and ask students to estimate the cost of 2 or 3 pizzas? If students don’t know the definition of estimate, you ask one student or two to infer the definition building from the example.” In this example, I encouraged Helen to introduce a math concept with examples students are familiar with. The questions made Helen reflect on how students could benefit from making connections with how they use math in the real world to make sense of this new concept. During the planning session, Helen shared that she liked my idea and she followed by saying, “And then they are going to want a pizza party (giggle).” For another lesson plan, Helen designed a project in which students would use buttons to make button dolls and work on multiple stages math problems. The task was complex and it would have been hard to follow if Helen did not scaffold it or provide a worksheet. I suggested, “This task is really good! The instructions have multiple steps and they are somehow complex. Are students going to have them in print? Maybe project them on the board and/or give a worksheet? If so, don’t you think that students could use the worksheet to solve the problem and look at the instructions? You may already know this, but you can have a title for the task. You can add a space for their names, and the questions.” In this example, Helen designed a good task 76 that allowed students to work on the math; however, Helen did not consider using a worksheet as considered in the PD program. In the feedback, I praised her work and I asked questions that made her reflect on how students could benefit from having print material to solve the problem and how to design it. During the planning session, Helen expressed, “I wasn’t sure if I wanted to give them a worksheet because I didn’t know what to put in it. I was just going to give them like a blank paper to write the questions on. But I liked your idea. Here!” My suggestions supported Helen to reflect on how to design a worksheet and what to include in it. Direct feedback. I provided direct feedback on how to implement instructional strategies and to support interns to introduce tasks. I sought to remind interns to implement the content of the PD program. Additionally, I sought to help them reflect on how the enactment of the tasks may impact students’ learning. For example, to teach prepositions of place, Kate planned on asking students to draw a house on a piece of paper. Kate planned on reading sentences using different prepositions so that students drew things based on what she said. For instance, Kate wrote, “[Write “inside” on the board.] Draw something inside your house.” I realized that the task was well designed; however, Kate started under the assumption that students were familiar with all the prepositions. With this in mind, I suggested, “I would suggest assessing students’ prior knowledge. Look for an image of a bedroom on the internet and project that on the board. Write down the prepositions that they need to use (inside, by, above, on) on the board and say ‘You are going to answer the questions using these prepositions.’ And you show the prepositions making it explicit. You ask a few questions making students use the prepositions you have on the list (no more than 2 minutes). If they do this correctly, you move to the task you have here which is pretty good.” In this example, I provided direct feedback on how to build from students’ prior knowledge. This feedback made Kate reflect on her students’ different 77 levels and learning needs. During the planning session, Kate showed me the image she was going to use and she asked, “But how do I use it?” This was an opportunity to coach her on how to scaffold the use of prepositions by showing and image. This allowed Kate to assess to what extent students knew the content before moving to the task she designed. On a math lesson, Helen’s goal was for students to make a list of products they could buy within a budget to organize a party. Helen wrote, “Ask students: why do stores lower the price of an item when you buy it in a larger amount? Ask students about which things they would need to plan their perfect party. What would we need? Let’s make a list.” The task was well developed; however, I realized that Helen intended to use items from the textbook, and those were school supplies and stationary. I expressed, “This is really good! I like it when teachers give meaning to the task. However, when I look at the items, I don’t see many for a party, or am I looking at the wrong sheet? Maybe it would be best to use an ad from a local supermarket. You select the items they can choose from and start from there. Thoughts?” In this example, I coached Helen on adapting tasks from the textbook to make them more relevant for students. I encouraged her to make connections between math and the real world. During the planning session Helen shared, “My mentor and I were talking about this too. The thing is that in the book there are these sale prices with soap and stationary. So, I think we can do with the supermarket, yes, I want to do the supermarket.” In this example, feedback on the lesson plan encouraged Helen to reflect on what she planned on asking students to work on. Feedback encouraged Helen to discuss the material with her mentor and reflect on how to make tasks more authentic and meaningful to students. Another goal for direct feedback was for interns to plan and anticipate based on students’ responses. For example, Helen designed a learning activity for students to estimate the 78 costs. I provided feedback so that Helen would think ahead about the responses that she may get from students and on how she can follow up. For example, “Students share how much a pizza cost, say $8.99. Next, you can ask students, ‘If I have $15 dollars and a pizza costs $8.99, can I buy the pizza?’ Students may say ‘Yes.’ You ask them ‘Why?’ After that, you elicit their responses and write those down on the board. You can follow up and say, ‘If a small pizza costs $3.99, how many pizzas can I buy? ’ Scaffolding means to start from something easy to later make it more complex. If you start using very complex examples, some students will not get what you are trying to convey.” Direct feedback allowed Helen to reflect on how to scaffold students’ understanding of task from going to simple to more complex. Helen decided to take my suggestions and during the planning sessions she expressed, “I definitely think it was a good addition. This will let me more like a check in instead of a like ah an activating knowledge thing.” Further, asking Helen to anticipate to students’ responses systematically helped her focus on students’ learning as opposed to focus on her teaching. Similar to their responses to feedback in the form of questions, in some cases, interns were reluctant to enact the direct feedback provided. For instance, I realized that Helen’s students would benefit from cloze activities to reinforce the use of low frequency words. We discussed, D: Cloze, you have fill in the blanks. H: Yeah that right. D: Those are in module 2. H: Okay. D: You have in module 2 a bunch of scaffolding strategies. H: I have used them before but I forgot about them. In this example, I encouraged Helen to enact an instructional strategy from the modules, and I pointed out where she could find those strategies. Because of her TESOL background, Helen 79 expressed that she did not need to go over the program and was less willing to try out new strategies. Positive reinforcement with explanations. I provided positive feedback with an explanation on how instructional strategies would support students’ learning to encourage interns to reflect on how and why to continue enacting observed instructional strategies. Developing awareness on the instructional strategies interns considered systematically supported their enactment and appropriation. For example, Kate and I had conversations about providing spaces for students to work more on the tasks as opposed to her providing definitions and examples. After these conversations Kate proposed, “Word cards 1-3 in detail read the card slowly, giving students the words in sentences that are more relatable to the experiences they have had. Have students define the word if they know what it means and/or have them give me sentences.” On the feedback, I mentioned, “Very good! I am glad that you are incorporating this strategy to reinforce the use of low frequency words on students. If students provide their definition and their own examples, they will remember these words more.” Again, I used positive feedback with an explanation to encourage Kate to continue reflecting on how this strategy would benefit students use academic language in context. Awareness on how students benefit from instructional strategies I suggested on prior feedback, encouraged Kate to enact new ones. On another lesson plan, Kate was eager to try a cloze activity from the PD program. Kate expressed, “Talk through the definitions of the words again. Have students read the passage, decide what word goes in the blank, physically place it in the sentence, and explain why they chose that word. Hopefully students include something about the definition of the word in their explanation. Have students each do one “by themselves” and work as a team for the other two. If students get stuck they can also work together.” In this explanation, Kate not only described how to implement the 80 task, she focused on the impact on students’ learning and she designed the task based on possible responses. I expressed my content and said, “Very good! I appreciate you including instructional strategies from the program. Students would benefit from this cloze activity because they will reinforce how to use vocabulary and they will look into the sequence of the story, great job!” Positive feedback with an explanation allowed me to share how the cloze activity would further support her students’ English language development. For a math class, Helen wanted students to learn about “Patterns in products.” Helen planned to start, “I will do a number talk with the students to elicit an understanding of how we can use patterns to help solve multiplication facts, especially with squares.” Throughout the lesson, Helen planned the tasks based on how she expected her students to respond, and the tasks scaffolded students’ understanding of the topic. I expressed, “This lay out looks really good. What I appreciate the most is that you are focusing on students’ learning as opposed to focusing on your teaching. I consider it great that you are maximizing students’ working and thinking in class rather than your teaching. This looks really good! Look forward to seeing you tomorrow.” I used positive reinforcement to continue encouraging Helen to focus on students’ learning and designing tasks based on their individual levels. Further, I explained why this strategy would support her students. In another math class, Helen used cards with fractions to teach students how different fractions can have the same value (e.g., 1/2=2/4). Helen planned to give the cards to the students along with a worksheet with the following questions, “Did you notice any patterns? Were you able to guess any before you flipped through the cards? What were your strategies?” Building on feedback provided in previous lesson plans, Helen focused on developing students’ mathematical thinking and reflecting on the strategies that they used to work on the tasks. I expressed, “Excellent! I appreciate you making students aware of their own 81 thinking.” In this example, I use positive reinforcement and an explanation to encourage Helen to continue developing students’ mathematical thinking. I provided Helen feedback on a formal classroom observation in a social science class in the middle of the academic year. Helen claimed that she differentiated instruction only in the sections reserved for that; however, she was not yet aware that she differentiated instruction throughout the lesson plan. I expressed, “You also have differentiated instruction throughout the lesson plan! You activate schema by asking students to guess from pictures, you provide print materials (worksheets and a visual of the questions), plus you will provide written questions of what students need to focus on. THAT is differentiated instruction. Great job!!! So proud of you.” I used positive feedback to make Helen aware that she was unconsciously using the instructional strategies from the program to differentiate instruction even when she was not aware that she was doing so. This awareness supported the enactment and appropriation of such strategies. Questions to Ask in Planning Session Before classroom observations, interns and I debriefed each plan to facilitate the lesson. I started planning sessions by asking questions such as “What’s the plan for today?” or “Let’s look at the lesson plan, let me know how you feel about it.” Starting planning sessions asking open-ended questions provided a space for interns to discuss modifications they made on lesson plans based on the feedback, and to articulate how they would facilitate the lesson based on the feedback. While interns unpacked their thoughts, I encouraged them to reflect on how the instructional strategies and tasks would support students’ learning and to focus on students’ outcomes. I sought to systematically move them away from focusing on their teaching to focusing on students’ learning. In our planning sessions, I deconstructed feedback in two types, two-option questions and clarification questions. 82 Two—option questions. These questions sought to provide interns with two options for how to present instructional strategies in case they did not consider doing so. Two—option questions empowered interns because they did not direct interns on what to do. Instead interns were given the opportunity to make their own choices. For instance, Kate and I debriefed how students were going to change parts of a poem and come up with a title. In the lesson plan, Kate did not explain how students were going to work on the task. I asked, “When it comes to production, are students going to work in groups or individually? How do you plan to do it?” Kate took a minute to think about it and responded, “Students work on this individually. They can talk to us, they can talk to each other…” The two-option question encouraged Kate to reflect on how to structure the task for students to benefit more from it. In addition, Kate reflected on whether to pair or group students, or ask them to work individually. In another class, Kate wanted to teach cause and effect. Listening to Kate made me realize that she had not yet decided how to introduce the topic. I asked, “When you talk about cause and effect, are you going to provide an example first? Or are you just going to elicit examples?” Kate took a few seconds to respond and said, “I’m trying to decide because a lot of the time I think, okay, I am going to ask them to give me examples. But then, I give an example right away. And then I am hey, students can do that too. So, when I started earlier this week, when I started the cause and effect discussion, I gave them an example, and then they gave me a lot more examples. So I am wondering if I should let them just give me examples this time since they’ve been hearing my examples all week.” In this example, two-option questions encouraged Kate to reflect on strategies that she used in previous classes, and reflect why she may consider a different strategy building on previous experiences. 83 Two-option questions also encouraged interns to reflect on enacting instructional strategies that they did not consider. For example, in a math lesson Helen wanted students to use plastic magnets to build 3-dimetional shapes. I realized that Helen did not consider wrap-up for the task and I asked, “Are students going to come to the front and share their shapes, or are they going to share with other groups?” Helen responded, “That’s a good idea. Yeah! They can come to the front and share the shapes they built.” This question made Helen aware of the need to encourage students to share their work with others and to think of ways to wrap up the lessons and look for ways for students to learn from that experience. When working on another lesson, Helen wanted her students to work on a task and to check for students’ comprehension, she planned on demonstrating how to work on it. I wanted to make sure that she did not provide the response for the task and asked, “Are you going to demonstrate the task with any of these examples from the worksheet or with different examples?” Helen reflected for a minute and said, “I was going to demonstrate kind of with the first example. I will walk students through it, and maybe the second exercise, uh students can kind of as a group try it without me really saying what is going on. And then, I will do the rest of them or they do it on their own. But we will work as a group. And that will be about 10 minutes per group, that I will have there and we will do all of that, and then on the back of this worksheet is what they call math boxes.” In this example, two-option question allowed Helen to reflect on how she was going to walk students through the task, how much support she would provide, and determine when students would be ready to work on their own. Clarification questions. Clarification questions sought to encourage interns to reflect on four dimensions of their teaching: knowledge, task or strategy, unpack thoughts, and grouping 84 and pairing. Clarification questions provided a space for interns to unpack their thoughts on how they intended to implement instructional strategies proposed on lesson plans. Knowledge. Knowledge-related questions encouraged interns to reflect on using scaffolds, activating prior knowledge, and building on students’ knowledge. For example, Helen’s plan was to ask students to work on a task but the vocabulary on the task was complex. To make sure students were familiar with the language, I asked, “Do all the students know this vocabulary?” Helen responded, “We talked about them a lot last week and we used them. Students made these little spinners. Not everybody got to it but they were able to identify, this is the sign, this is the vertex, and this would be the angle.” This question provided a space for Helen to reflect on the importance of making connections with prior knowledge, and for me to learn about classes I did not observe. Similarly, when I asked Kate to reflect on a character from a book students read, I asked, “Do students know who Tomás Rivera is?” Kate responded, “No (sigh). We read it yesterday, but I am going to read it again. I looked it up and I am going to give students more background knowledge on who he is today.” By asking Kate to reflect on the main character of the book students read, I helped her reflect on the importance of providing context to what she teachers. Additionally, clarification questions allowed me to make connections to classes I did not observe. Clarification questions allowed me to ask Helen and Kate whether they considered, or not, scaffolding students’ knowledge. For instance, I asked Helen, “Are you going to activate schema especially with EBs?” Helen reflected for a minute and responded, “I was going to ask students about the words we learned last week and have them give them to me. The plan was that I was going to draw a triangle and have as a class (.) they have to tell me what each of these pieces are. Is that kind of what you were looking for?” In this example, clarification questions 85 allowed Helen to reflect explicitly on what scaffolds are and on how to enact them. I also asked Kate to reflect on scaffolding and asked, “Are we going to scaffold students’ knowledge?” Kate reflected for a minute and responded, “Uh, I could! I have not done that before because probably these are things that students are expected to know ahead of time and they have their partners to work with. Um, if there is one word that seems particularly challenging, I’ll talk about beforehand.” In this example, clarification questions allowed Kate to reflect on past teaching practices and on enacting scaffolding strategies. Further, it opened the conversation and allowed Kate to reflect on why it would be a good practice to scaffold students’ knowledge. Task or Strategy. I used task or strategy-related questions to provide a space for interns to discuss how to present and carry out tasks or strategies. I used yes/no questions to encourage interns to reflect on how they will use worksheets and images, introduce tasks, explain concepts, and so on. For instance, in some cases interns did not consider using visuals and I asked, “Do you have images?” Kate responded, “We can put some up, yeah.” In this example, strategy related questions allowed Kate to reflect on enacting a strategy she did not consider. In other cases, I used task-related questions to encourage interns to reflect on narrowing down the questions that they planned to ask. For instance I asked, “Food like, are you going to be specific about food? Because students can say pizza or ice-cream.” Kate explained, “Oh well there is like two stories that we usually read each week that has a boy eating pizza. So I think if they say pizza, well what goes on the pizza? Trying to get them to think, okay, there might be pizza but there is cheese on it, there is sometimes meat on it, there is veggies on it. If they still don’t get to that point, I may say, what about broccoli? What about when you have to eat eggs? Or those kinds of things.” Task-related questions provided Kate a space to reflect on how to respond in case students come up with responses she was not prepared for. 86 Task-related questions not only enabled interns to consider enacting strategies but also to reflect on how they would enact them. For example, I asked Helen, “Are the questions going to be on the board?” Helen did not consider having the questions on the board, but she considered the idea and responded, “Yes, I can do that. And then, students have to figure out like if they want, like for some of these they have to get 3 for $10. So they have to get at least 3 or 3 whatever it is. And they will do estimates with these. So, some of these numbers are like big whole numbers, so they want to get like 5 of these boxes doing the estimation of like, what kind of strategies can we get. So, I know that 1.80 is really close to 2. So, I can do 2x5, so if I have $10 I know I have enough. So my estimate can be $10.” Task related questions encouraged Helen to enact a strategy and to unpack how she would enact it based on students’ responses. Similarly, I asked Helen about whether or not she considered giving students a worksheet, “Are they having a worksheet?” Helen responded, “Um (sigh) I wasn’t sure, I thought about it but I wasn’t sure what it would even say on the worksheet except for um, if they were going to um, as if I was going to do the different types of questions. That is what I was going to have in the worksheet. I was just going to give them like a blank paper to write the questions on. But if they have, because I wasn’t sure what to put on in the worksheet.” In various opportunities I provided feedback for Helen to use worksheets. Helen was still somehow reluctant to do so. Task-related questions provided a space for us to reflect on how to design worksheets, what to include in them, and how to use them. Unpack thoughts. Unpack thoughts questions are open-ended questions (i.e., how, why, what, and so on) that provided a space for interns to reflect and elaborate on how they planned to enact tasks. For instance, for a reading comprehension task Kate considered asking pre-reading questions. I used unpack thoughts questions to encourage Kate to share the questions she 87 intended to use and how she would follow up. I asked, “And what are the questions that you have?” Kate responded, “Um, what kind of story is this? Who the characters may be? We’ll talk about it before I read it. And then read it, talk about those again, write their answers. Leave it up there, talk about these words. And do it again.” Unpack thoughts questions allowed Kate to verbalize what she intended to do so that together we revise the questions and the enactment of the task. When working on another task, Kate shared that she planned on scaffolding students’ knowledge. I used unpack thoughts questions for her to verbalize how she would do so. For instance, I asked, “Alright, and how are you going to scaffold that?” Kate reflected for a minute and responded, “Um uh, I am going to start with talking about more just where does food come from? Asking them, where does our food come from? Do you know? Do you get it from the store?” Unpack thoughts questions encouraged Kate to reflect on what questions to ask and to be prepared for students’ responses. I used unpack thoughts questions to encourage Helen to reflect on how she would use worksheets once she decided to design one to teach math. I asked, “What are you going to do with this worksheet? How are students going to work it?” Helen shared, “Students will be working with their math partner, the same math partner they work with the last time when you were here. Students will just work together, work through and solve these problems.” This question provided a space for us to reflect on different ways to use a worksheet and not just handing them to students. Similarly, thought related questions encouraged Helen to reflect on teaching practices that she needed support on improving. For instance, I asked, “How are we going to check this? How are we going to bring students together to check if they actually did it correctly?” Helen responded, “Um… well, I will be seeing students in front of me in my groups. So I can check as it goes. And if there is anything that comes up, um that repeatedly that they are 88 misunderstanding; I will try to put them together at the end. It is hard (sight) we have a time crunch that between the beginning. I do struggle with the summary at the end a lot. Um… and I kind of will try to summarize within a small group and not with the whole group.” This question encouraged Helen to share what she struggled with and provided an opportunity for us to reflect on different ways to summarize the lesson. Grouping and pairing. For students to work on tasks, they could benefit from being adequately paired or grouped. Grouping and pairing questions encouraged interns to reflect on how students could be paired or grouped to support one another throughout the tasks. For example, I used this question to remind Helen about Think-Pair-Share and to use this strategy to pair students with their assigned math partner. I asked, “Think-Pair-Share?” Helen concurred “Absolutely! Yes, yes, yes. I’ll have students write the answers down with the parenthesis in there and figure out how to solve it. Yep the same, think-pair-share, like a mini number talk.” In this example, grouping and pairing questions encouraged Helen to reflect on asking students to work in pairs to support each other throughout the learning process. Grouping and pairing questions allowed interns to reflect on how to pair EBs. I asked, “How are you going to pair EBs?” Kate reflected, “They are with, the two of them are not with each other. It is a little bit, the way that we pair them is a little bit of academic kind of pairing, so not alike, and a little bit… a lot of social who can get along and work together.” This question opened an opportunity to discuss ways to pair and groups students. We discussed the importance to pair and group students based on how they work together and how they learn best as opposed to just by academic outcomes. At the end of the academic year I asked Helen and Kate to share their perceptions of feedback on lesson plans and planning sessions. Helen noted, “I thought it was really helpful. It 89 definitely helped me think a lot more specifically about the steps that I was taking, and what I really wanted them to get at the end of the lesson. I think that it is easy to get carried away with what you want them to do. Know what you want them to have at the end, and just being a lot more specific and a lot more efficient. That was the biggest thing that I got from feedback on lesson plans.” Kate shared, “Feedback helped me put into words what I was really doing. Because initially I was like just okay. This is what I am doing to help this kid do that. I didn’t really say why. It was more like, this is what’s going on, and that was kind of it. But then, I was able to get more detail of I am scaffolding this by doing this, which is why I am going to do this, kind of thing. I am focusing more.” Both interns expressed that feedback supported them in being specific and to focus on what they intend to accomplish in the lesson. Planning sessions enabled interns to verbalize and unpack their thoughts on why and how instructional strategies would support students achieve their learning goals. In the focus group interview we discussed why interns’ disposition changed toward feedback. I shared my perspectives on making suggestions but not forcing them to enact those suggestions. Interns shared: D: We walked through the lesson plan. I can give you suggestions, but you make the final decision. And, from my experience it is hard to change your beliefs until you are proof wrong. So, if you don’t want to change it, go ahead, and you will see. K: That you are wrong! (laugh) H: It will come back at you (laugh). Trust me! D: You have to try things out, I could suggest… K: [Yeah,] but you have to feel if it works or not. In this conversation, interns shared their need to try out what they belief would work in their teaching despite the feedback they received. My role was to support their decisions and provide a space for them to reflect on improvement based on their successful or failed experiences. Discussion In this study, I sought to explore the types of feedback provided in lesson plans and planning sessions, and connect this feedback to what actually happens in interns’ teaching 90 practice (Hinojosa, Chapter3). Analysis of the data suggests that feedback in lesson plans and planning sessions played a role in interns’ appropriation and enactment of new instructional strategies because they guided interns throughout the learning process. In other words, interns could systematically and effectively appropriate new instructional strategies because interns had a clear sense of what they needed to do to improve their teaching practice. Data suggests that balancing written feedback with interactions and dialogue during planning sessions was a turning point that supported interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. As outlined in Stage One of the theoretical framework, interns participated in a PD program which sought to develop interns’ cultural awareness and support the enactment of new instructional strategies to differentiate instruction in general education classrooms (Hinojosa, under review). In Stage Two, interns participated in iterative cycles of representations of practice, approximations of practice, and coaching during classroom observations which sought to provide a space for interns to rehearse the content of the PD program in a safe space with the assistance of a coach (Hinojosa, under review). Following the trajectory of the theoretical model, throughout Stage Three, interns received feedback on lesson plans and on planning sessions. Feedback, as described in this study, was closely related to interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies (Orsmond, Merry, Reiling, 2005). Consistent with the literature (Gigante, Dell, M., Sharkey, 2011), feedback on lesson plans was in the form of thought provoking questions. These questions did not aim to tell interns which instructional strategies to use, rather to promote self-reflection, engagement, and make interns responsible of their own learning. Feedback on lesson plans was personalized and sought to support interns’ development (Ferguson, 2011). Further, feedback on 91 lesson plans was balanced. That is, feedback provided suggestions on how to improve the current lesson plan, and provide positive feedback when the intern included instructional strategies. Research (Butler & Winne, 1995; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) suggests interns’ perceptions of feedback can positively or negatively influence their response to it. In other words, for interns to be receptive to feedback, they have to hold positive perceptions toward it. Therefore, in this study, phrasing of feedback was a key component in interns’ receptiveness, confidence, motivation, and encouragement to continue their professional growth (Ferguson, 2011). Feedback was specific in the form of constructive suggestions and positive reinforcement which was easy to understand. Positive feedback explained how and why new instructional strategies would benefit students’ learning. Further, consistent with literature (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) in this study, feedback informed interns about their improvements and how such improvements supported them achieve their learning goals. Planning sessions enabled interns to capitalize on feedback provided on lesson plans. In other words, planning sessions allowed interns to make sense of written feedback and to bridge the gap between the desired level of performance and the desired enactment of new instructional strategies (Evans, 2013; Taras, 2003). From a sociocultural perspective, feedback is perceived as facilitative (Carless et al., 2011). That is, learning through dialogue and participation of shared experiences in which interns take an active role to develop awareness on their strengths and areas of improvement, as well as developing awareness on their own performance and improvement. This could be achieved by raising questions, and providing comments and suggestions that enable interns to take responsibility of their own revisions and decisions building on the understanding of the dialogue, and without dictating what the understandings have to be. In this study, planning sessions provided a space to open a collaborative discussion about feedback 92 (Gibbs & Simpson; Nicol, 2010) provided in lesson plans. These discussions enabled interns to share their understanding on how and why to enact new instructional strategies by focusing on students’ learning to adjust their teaching practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2008). This feedback sought to provide advice so that interns improve their teaching practices (Gigante et al., 2011). Finally, analysis of the data suggests that planning sessions were a space to scaffold feedback by checking interns’ understanding of the feedback. It also provided a space for interns to elaborate on plans to implement the lesson plans, eliciting and supporting on the implementation of new instructional strategies, and eliciting and providing examples on how to implement teaching strategies. This feedback allowed interns to make connections between feedback provided on lesson plans and planning sessions (Gigante et al, 2011) to encourage its enactment in field placements. In this study feedback had a direct impact in interns’ appropriation of new instructional strategies because interns implemented the feedback in their current and forthcoming work or lesson plan implementation. The characteristics of feedback described in the prior paragraphs influenced its receptiveness and enactment among interns. Conclusion Teacher preparation programs ask prospective teachers to write lesson plans. However, instruction on how to provide feedback on lesson plans is scarce. For interns to implement feedback, they need to make connections between the feedback they are receiving, and their teaching practice. This study contributes to the guidance on how to provide feedback on lesson plans that promote interns to implement what they learn in teacher preparation programs in their teaching. Interns could benefit from feedback that is clear, positive, constructive, and guide them toward future improvement. Further, interns could benefit from a more participatory (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Hounsell et al., 2008; Nicol 2010; Rust et al., 2005) planning session which 93 allow them to learn through dialogue. That is, provide interns with an active role in which they expand on their ideas, raise questions, seek for clarification, and defend their position on why they may, or not, enact the suggested instructional strategies. 94 APPENDIX 95 APPENDIX Lesson Plan Template Title: (Title of the Lesson Plan)__________________________________ Grade: Summary of the Lesson Plan: (Outline of the content and the objectives of the lesson plan). Scope and Sequence: (List outlines of all components of the lesson plan. You should outline the different sections of the lesson plan and indicate the sections in which you will differentiate instruction for ELs. In a section bellow you will illustrate differentiated instruction for ELs in more detail). Focus Questions: (List questions you would like your students to focus on while learning the content). Overall Expectations: Subject Matter: List what you expect your students to learn at the end of the lesson in terms of content (e.g., science and technology, mathematics, social science, history, etc.). Language: List what you expect your students to learn in terms of language (e.g., oral communication, reading comprehension, writing, listening). Content Area Standards List the CCSS.ELA standards corresponding to the grade level. CCSS ELP Standards List the ELP standards corresponding to the grade level. Specific Expectations: (Subject Matter and Language) Instructional activities: (List tasks you have designed so that your students learn the content and they achieve the objectives of the lesson). Specific Modifications/Accommodations for ELs: EB’s Name and Unit: (e.g., Assel, ESL Unit 3) (Explain how you will differentiate the tasks according to the English level and prior knowledge of this specific EL). EB’s Name and Unit: ________________ (Explain how you will differentiate the tasks according to the English level and prior knowledge of this specific EL). EB’s Name and Unit: ________________ (Explain how you will differentiate the tasks according to the English level and prior knowledge of this specific EL). Assessment and Evaluation: 96 List the types of assessments you will use in your lesson plan, and explain how you intent to implement them (e.g., complete a short anticipation guide prior to the read-aloud; read-aloud; peer feedback; teacher observation; self-assessment checklist; quiz; student-teacher conferences; exchange writing drafts, culminating task rubric; students reflect on their own performance and make suggestions for improvement; students complete a guided reflective journal entry; etc.). (Table adapted from Reach Every Student 1-8, 2008, p. 65) 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ball, E. C. (2010). Annotation an effective device for student feedback: A critical review of the literature. Nurse Education in Practice, 10 , 138-143. Berliner, D. (1985). Laboratory settings and the study of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 2-8. Boud, D. & Molloy, E. (2013). Decision-making for feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in Higher and Professional Education (pp. 202-217). London: Routledge. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 242-252. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 3(6), 395-407. doi: 1 0. 1 080/0307507 1 003642449. Carroll, D. (2007). Helping teachers become teacher educators. In D. Carroll, H. Featherstone, J. Featherstone, S. Freiman-Nemser, & D. Roosevelt (Eds.). Transforming teacher education: Reflections from the field (pp. 181-202). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249–305. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “Highly Qualified Teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, Article 33. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/261. Ellery, K. (2008). Assessment for learning: A case study using feedback effectively in an essay- style test. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 421-429. Erickson, F. (1984). What Makes School Ethnography 'Ethnographic'? Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 15(1), 51-66. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights form the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp. 21–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 99 Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational leadership, 60(8), 25- 29. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning: How do teachers learn to teach? In M. Cochran- Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 697-705, 3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge. Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 51-62. Freeman, R. & Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and implementing assessment. London, Kogan Page. Fraser, J.W. (2007). Preparing America's teachers: A history. New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, J.P. (2014). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 446–476. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31. Gigante, J., Dell, M., Sharkey, A. (2011). Getting beyond "good job": How to give effective feedback. Pediatrics Perspectives, 127(2), 205-207. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3351. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Grossman, P. (2005). Pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.). Studying teacher education (pp. 425-476). New York: Routledge. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. 100 Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hinojosa, D.M. (2018). Coaching during workshops and classroom observations: Promoting the appropriation of instructional strategies to teach emergent bilinguals. Individual Paper presented at American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 70th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hinojosa, D.M. (Chapter 3). Practice what you teach: Onsite coaching and dialogic feedback to promote the appropriation of instructional strategies. Hinojosa, D.M. (under review). Preparing interns to differentiate instruction for emergent bilinguals in general education classrooms. Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(1), 55–67. Imig, D. G., & Switzer, T. J. (1996). Changing teacher education programs. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd Ed.) (pp. 213-226). New York: Macmillan. Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2010) How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(4), 407-423. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd Ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Lee, H. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 699–715. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981) Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Press. Margolis, J. (2007). Improving relationships between mentor teachers and student teachers: Engaging in a pedagogy of explicitness. The New Educator, 3, 75-94. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). SAGE Publications. 101 Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4, 24-38. Nicol, D.J. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. Nicol, D.J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2), 199–218. Orsmond, P., Merry, S. & Reiling. K. (2005). Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: a qualitative interview study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30(4), 369–386. Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P. & Havelock, P. (2003). The new consultation: Developing doctor-patient communication (2nd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., & Kirschner, P.A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289–303. Reach Every Student 1-8 (2008). Supporting English language learners: A practical guide for Ontario educators. Queen's Printer for Ontario. doi: ISBN 978 - 1 - 4249 - 8405 – 3 Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Research methods in practice (2nd Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rosaen, C., & Florio-Ruane, S. (2008). The metaphors by which we teach: Experience, metaphor and culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Nemser, & D.J. McIntyre (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd Ed., pp. 706-731). New York: Routledge. Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147–164. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Sadler, D.R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 77–84. Sadler, D.R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. 102 Scheeler, M.C., Ruhl, K.L., & McAfee, J.K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396—407 Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 43–48. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153– 189. Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L.S., & Johnson, T.S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 15, 1399-1436 Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 28, 549-565. doi: 10. 1080/02602930301678 Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. van der Schaaf, M., Baartman, L., Prins, F., Oosterbaan, A., & Schaap, H. (2013). Feedback dialogues that stimulate students’ reflective thinking. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 227–245. Vick, M. (2006). It's a difficult matter: Historical perspectives on the enduring problem of the practicum in teacher preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 181- 198. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wegner, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th Ed.). SAGE Publications. Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3) 408–434. Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M.L. Gomez (Eds.). Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 215-234). New York: Teacher College Press. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1- 2), 89-99. Zeichner, K. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 376-382. 103 CHAPTER THREE Practice What You Teach: Onsite Coaching and Dialogic Feedback to Promote the Appropriation of Instructional Strategies 104 Introduction In field placements, prospective teachers are expected to integrate theory-based knowledge taught in their teacher preparation programs with experience-based knowledge. For example, prospective teachers have to learn to engage with students, prepare students for higher- level thinking, differentiate instruction, learn about the school’s community, reflect on the implications of their teaching practice on students’ learning, and so on. Experience-based knowledge, however, can only be learned when immersed in real classroom and school contexts. Without adequate support, prospective teachers could strive with limited success to enact teaching practices learned in their teacher preparation programs. For decades, researchers have looked for ways to bridge the gap prospective teachers experience between theory and practice. Darling-Hammond (2006, p. 307) claimed that “extensive clinical work, intensive supervision, expert modeling of practice, and diverse students” could provide opportunities to learn how to teach in the actual contexts of practice. To continue with the coaching cycle after having explored feedback on lesson plans and planning sessions (Hinojosa, Chapter2), in this study I explore coaching in the form of modeling during classroom observations and in the form of dialogic feedback in debriefing sessions. To guide my analysis, I focused on the following research questions: 1. What kinds of coaching moves supported, or not, interns in enacting and appropriating of new instructional strategies in general education classrooms? 2. What kinds of questions in debriefing sessions supported, or not, interns in enacting and appropriating new instructional strategies in general education classrooms? 105 Literature Review Teaching is a complex practice. There are aspects of teaching that teacher educators can prepare prospective teachers to address. Some aspects of teaching can be learned outside the classroom. However, there are other aspects of teaching that can only be learned in practice. Building from this premise, it is imperative to prepare prospective teachers to understand and respond to “the complexity underlying most classroom events” (Jackson, 1990, pp. 144). Coaching prospective teachers in their field placements can support them in confronting the complexity of teaching in the context of practice and to see these problems as learning opportunities (Little, 1990). Studies provide models and patterns of action and support in field supervision (Darling-Hammond & Skyes, 2003; Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Grossman et al., 2009a) and onsite coaching (e.g., Lampert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke, 2010; Lampert et al., 2013) to support prospective teachers’ developing teaching practices. However, there is still a need for research that focuses on how coaching and field supervision can support prospective teachers’ enactment and conceptual understanding of the development of their teaching practices. In a meta-analysis, Gibbons and Cobb (2017) identified four coaching activities that could support teacher learning at an individual level: coaching cycle, co-teaching, debriefing challenges of implementation, and observing instruction or modeling. In this study, I explore onsite coaching in the form of modeling and dialogic feedback to adopt a clinical stance as coaches interact with prospective teachers. Coaching can allow prospective teachers to adopt an inquiry stance, learn from practice, and create opportunities and conditions that support student learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001b). One form of coaching involves prospective teachers receiving support from an experienced colleague (Campbell, & Malkus, 2011; Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, 106 Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009) in the form of modeling the enactment of new instructional strategies followed by engaging in dialogue in debriefing sessions. Modeling (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; Putnan & Borko, 2000; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; West & Cameron, 2013) requires an experienced teacher demonstrating the enactment of teaching practices in order for prospective teachers to have a visual representation of practice that could support enactment and appropriation. For example, in a two-year study, Feiman-Nemser (2001a) described how an accomplished teacher modeled teaching practices as living representations of practice for novice teachers to identify characteristics of good teaching. The teacher in this study paused the lesson when necessary to highlight aspects of the teaching practice making the enactment of instructional strategies salient and visible to prospective teachers. Feiman-Nemser’s view of modeling was shared by West and Cameron (2013). These researchers argued that prospective teachers benefit from an experienced coach modeling specific teaching moves for prospective teachers to have real time representations of practice in the context of practice. In summary, modeling allows prospective teachers to understand how to respond to the complex set of skills that teaching entails. Modeling followed by dialogue after classroom observations could promote prospective teachers’ active engagement in developing orientations and teaching practices. Feedback as dialogue (Kulhavy, 1977) involves conversations in which coaches and prospective teachers exchange information about prospective teachers’ performance in their field placement (Butler & Winne, 1995; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989, 2010). Dialogue after classroom observations seeks to promote self-evaluation and reflection (Keller, Brady, & Talor, 2005) upon the enactment of new instructional strategies with the goal of continuing the enactment of desired instructional strategies. In this study, dialogic discourse (Scott, 1998) is in the form of questions 107 and scaffolding that aims to encourage prospective teachers in an open dialogue and debate to explore and justify their choices in their teaching practices. Through reflexive dialogue (van Zee & Mistrell, 1997), prospective teachers articulate their own ideas and questions which lead to extended series of questioning. The coach’s role is to support prospective teachers through negotiating rather than transmitting or confronting. Research on feedback in teacher education is limited. For instance, Chi, Siler, Jeong, Yamauch, and Hausmann (2001) considered the following classification: didactical explanations, corrective feedback, and suggestive feedback. Van Houten (1980), on the other hand, proposed three important attributes of feedback, its nature, time, and who delivers it. Researchers concluded that when feedback meets these attributes mentioned above, it could support the enactment of effective teaching practices. Research (Coulter & Grossen, 1997; O’Reilly, Renzaglia, & Lee, 1994) suggests that prospective teachers benefit more from receiving immediate, corrective feedback than from receiving deferred feedback. These findings are consistent with Scheeler, Ruhl, and McAfee’s (2004) meta-analysis on the impact of forms of feedback provided to prospective teachers. Across the ten studies that were selected, the researchers considered the following categories: corrective, noncorrective, general, positive, specific, and corrective feedback. Scheeler et al., (2004) concluded that for feedback to be effective it needs to be systematic, corrective, positive, and immediate. By using Vygotsky’s (1978) zone of proximal development, coaches recognize coach- teacher interactions as scaffolds to support teacher learning (Bruner, 1986). These scaffolds can be inquiry-oriented by using open-ended questions that aim to shift prospective teachers’ higher level of thinking, consider alternative approaches, and self-assess their teaching practices. For example, in a four-year longitudinal study, Averill, Drake, Anderson, and Anthony (2016) 108 examined how questioning supported novice teachers to promote mathematical thinking. Findings suggest that questioning supported teachers to reflect, discuss, make decisions, and enact teaching strategies because questioning enhanced and improved the co-construction of meaning, and empowered novice teachers in enacting ambitions mathematical teaching. Theoretical Background This study builds on the IDEAL (Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and Learning) framework (Hinojosa, 2018) which helps explain the design, implementation, and outcomes of a PD program. The IDEAL framework draws upon the sociocultural theoretical perspective (Ericsson, 2002; Rogoff , 1996; Vygotsky, 1978) and Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development. By using scaffolds, modeling and feedback, this framework explores teacher learning as a process of teachers engaging in socially mediated activities. This framework also draws on Pendleton, Schofield, Tate, and Havelock’s (2003) model for feedback interaction used in debriefing sessions that encourage student-doctors to reflect on their medical practices. This framework is described as a trajectory of participation which takes place in three iterative stages: (1) the professional development program stage, (2) the approximation of practice cycle, and (3) the appropriation of practice stage (see Figure 1). This trajectory is contained within an overarching arrow that represents a community of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998) in which teachers begin their participation toward expertise. Stage One describes how the program builds on teachers’ learning needs (Feiman- Nemser, 2003; Hawley & Valli, 1999) and provides resources to support teacher learning. Stage Two describes the approximation of practice cycle. Through iterative cycles of approximations and representation of practice (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009b), and coaching during the PD program, teachers rehearse the enactment of new instructional strategies in a safe 109 space. In this study, I focus on one part of Stage Three of the framework—appropriations of practice. Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999) used appropriation of practice to illustrate the systematic developmental process through with teachers enact and appropriate instructional strategies from the PD program in iterative cycles. There are four components contemplated on Stage Three: feedback on lesson plans, planning and debriefing sessions, and coaching during classroom observations. In Chapter Two, I focused on the first two element of the stage. For the purpose of this study, I focus on feedback coaching during classroom observations and on debriefing sessions. Onsite coaching can support teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies because it brings theory in practice. When teaching, teachers engage in multiple activities at the same time and they experience the complexity of teaching. Modeling is a coaching move that can support the enactment of new instructional strategies making them salient and visible. Modeling is followed by a post-observation conference. During debriefing sessions the coach and the teacher discuss specific aspects of the learning session in relation to the content of the program. By using questioning, the coach provides opportunities to engage in dialogue about strengths and areas of improvement (Schmidt, 2008) by looking at detailed field notes of teachers’ moves and students’ responses to those moves. The coach seeks to scaffold teachers’ reflection on ways to adapt pedagogical tools and competencies, and design a plan on how to improve the teachers’ teaching practices. This theoretical framework is appropriate for this study because it explains onsite coaching moves that supports teachers’ enactment of new instructional strategies and systematic appropriation of such strategies. Additionally, this framework helps explain how questioning supports coaches and teachers to engage in reflective dialogue as they negotiate new ways of 110 teaching. In relation to teacher learning, this perspective emphasizes the agency of interns while they situate their enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies in social contexts, going beyond what teachers have learned in the PD and shared in the CoP, and extending it to their classroom practices (see FIGURE 2). Design and Methods To analyze the coaching moves during classroom observations and types of questions I used in debriefing sessions, I adopted an embedded single-case study with two units of analysis (Yin, 2014) and discourse analysis (Gee, 2014). I explored how coaching in the form of modeling and questions prompted interns and me to engage in discussion on the enactment of new instructional strategies and how interns’ perceptions of their students’ learning affected their implementation of subsequent instructional strategies. My role as “participant observer” (Glesne, 2011, p. 65) allowed me to interact extensively with participants and with the schools’ communities. Therefore, I became too close to the study. To detach myself and to take an outsiders’ perspective, I used the “making strange tool” (Gee, 2014, p. 19). For example, when analyzing the data, I asked myself, how did interns perceive modeling of instructional strategies? What questions and responses related to feedback did I take for-granted? The making strange tool allowed me to adopt a critical stance and question the premise of our interactions in the classrooms and our dialogues in debriefing sessions. By adopting an outsider’s perspective, I detached from the data to move to a higher level of abstraction (Erickson, 1984) to understand how coaching moves supported, or not, interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies. Contexts and Participants In the year 2017-2018, two interns—Helen and Kate [all names are pseudonyms]— 111 volunteered to receive support in their field placements while participating in a PD program which prepared them to differentiate instruction in general education classrooms (Hinojosa, under review). Helen did her internship teaching 3rd grade at Braxton Elementary at Caster School District. Helen identified herself as White, middle-class, and bilingual. Helen speaks Spanish as-a-second language, and she had a study abroad experience in a Spanish-speaking country in South America in 2014. Prior to the study, Helen held a TESOL minor. Kate did her internship teaching 1st grade at Dexter Elementary at Rogue School District. Kate identified herself as White, middle-class, and monolingual. Kate reported not having had a study abroad experience or preparation on how to teach EBs. Prior the study, Kate expressed feeling ill- prepared to teach EBs. Data Collection I used voluntary sampling (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2015) to recruit Kate and Helen. For nine consecutive weeks, I coached Helen and Kate in their field placements on the enactment of new instructional strategies to differentiate instruction in general education classrooms. The coaching cycle started with feedback on lesson plans and debriefing sessions before classroom observations (Hinojosa, Chapter2) followed by classroom observations and debriefing sessions. During classroom observations, interns enacted new instructional strategies, and I modeled their enactment when interns showed difficulties in their implementation. I took extensive and detailed field notes to determine what types of coaching interns needed when enacting new instructional strategies. After each classroom observation, interns and I reflected on the positive aspects of the lesson and areas of improvement. We finalized our conversations by discussing a plan for how to address the areas to be improved. Debriefing sessions took place right after the observation was finished so that interns could reflect on continuing their teaching practices, or 112 making changes and adjustments in a timely matter. Data sources for this analysis include: extensive field notes from 21 hours of classroom observations with interns’ and students’ quotes, 200 minutes of transcripts from debriefing sessions, artifacts (i.e., worksheets, pictures of the white board with interns’ explanations, pictures of tasks, pictures of learning activities, and pictures of hands on materials), email communication, and 94 minutes of transcripts from a focus group interview (Table 2). The focus group was semi-structured, and questions sought for interns to share their experiences when receiving coaching supports in their field placements, reflect on the implications of the enactment of new instructional strategies on students’ learning outcomes, and reflect on how their teaching changed over time and the reason for such changes. Table 2 Classroom Observations and Debriefing Sessions during the 2017-2018 Academic Year Helen Kate Collection Duration (minutes) Collection Duration (minutes) Dates Type of Data 01/24/18 Class 1 01/31/18 Class 2 02/07/18 Class 3 02/14/18 Class 4 02/22/18 Class 5 02/28/18 Class 6 03/07/18 Class 7 03/14/18 Class 8 Class 9 03/21/18 01/24/18 Debriefing sessions 1 Debriefing sessions 2 01/31/18 02/07/18 Debriefing sessions 3 02/14/18 Debriefing sessions 4 Debriefing sessions 5 02/22/18 Debriefing sessions 6 02/28/18 Debriefing sessions 7 03/07/18 Debriefing sessions 8 03/14/18 Debriefing sessions 9 03/21/18 Focus group 03/24/18 Note. Classroom observations occurred between 01/22/18 to 03/24/18. Dates 01/22/18 01/30/18 02/05/18 02/12/18 02/20/18 02/26/18 03/05/18 03/12/18 03/19/18 01/22/18 01/30/18 02/05/18 02/12/18 02/20/18 02/26/18 03/05/18 03/12/18 03/19/18 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 21:00 15:00 16:00 15:00 12:00 11:00 12:00 20:00 10:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 70:00 17:00 08:00 05:00 05:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 06:00 07:00 94:00 113 Data Analysis To understand interns’ communication in the context of feedback, I read all the data trying to understand the meaning in interaction (Thomas, 2013). That is, I focused on the interrelationship between my questioning and interns’ utterances to explore how interns intended their utterance to be understood, the meaning of their utterance, and the force. For example, I said, “What I realized is (2) 3as students were in groups, ºthe ELs were lost.º↓ They were like oh wondering (make sounds).” And Helen responded, “ºYeah…º That is partly like (2) for like //(4)… ºShe (Puja) is very very lowº, I don’t know how much it is as a result of the English ability or (2) other things (1) because it has been out there…” In this example, Helen argued that Puja’s lack of engagement was due to her lack of English skills. However, in previous conversations and from the observations I was aware that Puja was strong in math. I analyzed Helen’s utterance along with intonation and body language to get a better interpretation of the conversation and make connections with the extent in which she differentiated instruction, or not in this particular class. To analyze interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies over time, I traced the strategies that Helen and Kate used throughout their internship, as evidenced in their enactment of instructional strategies during classroom observations and debriefing sessions. I focused in particular on instructional strategies that appeared to be new to the interns and the ways in which they justified and reflected on their choices to enact, or not, such strategies in debriefing sessions. Analysis of the data took place in four cycles. By adopting an interpretivist approach (Gee, 2014) I reconstructed the relation between modeling the enactment of instructional 3 (number) pause for number of seconds; ºquieterº quieter speech; ↓ falling intonation; // take time to think; underline stress or emphasis in the utterance. 114 strategies with our dialogue and reflections on the enactment of such strategies. For instance, I looked across field notes, quotes, artifacts, and transcripts, and I listened to the recordings of debriefing sessions. This allowed me situate the context of feedback, and to understand whether or not coaching and feedback had implications for interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies. Throughout the reconstruction of the coaching cycle, I used the deixis tool (Gee, 2014) to reference words that could be determined through context (e.g., person, place, time). For instance, Kate responded, “We4 make sure that… because I’ll all say it, and then they’ll say it. And then we also read each word, so kids are really attentive. I know that’s different in every single classroom, but with these kids, they want to get it out.” In this example, “we” refers to the mentor teacher and Kate. “It” refers to the words Kate teaches, that refers to choral repetition, and “they” to the students. This analysis helped me identify the people, place and time of the discourse to later analyze the stanzas understanding the full context of the conversations. On the second cycle of analysis, I highlighted relevant questions and responses from the transcripts into blocks of information or idea units called “stanzas” (Gee, 2014, p. 80). I looked for how stanzas clustered into blocks of information that allowed me to understand interns’ reflection on the enactment of instructional strategies. I organized these stanzas chronologically into a “meta-matrix” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 178) for all 18 classroom observations. I placed the questions first followed by interns’ responses. This organization allowed me to understand how interns reflected on the enactment of new instructional strategies and how our conversations promoted the appropriation of these strategies over time. On the fourth cycle of analysis, I looked for patterns in the types of questions I asked. I looked at how 4 I dropped the “Ums” and “Uhs” from the quotes. 115 these questions prompted interns to reflect on the implications of their enactment. In addition, I looked at whether or not interns considered enacting these strategies in subsequent lessons. From the analysis, five categories emerged: starting questions, questions about interns’ moves, questions that focused on students’ learning, questions that drew on prior knowledge, and reflection/suggestion questions. I contrasted these questions across the two participants, and I found that I consistently used these questions across the 18 debriefing sessions. Finally, I looked for evidence about the relationship between coaching during classroom observations and debriefing sessions, and interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies by looking at whether or not, the amount of coaching during classroom observations decreased or increased. Findings To understand how coaching supported interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies, I explored the ways in which I used onsite coaching moves such as modeling and questioning. Coaching, as described in this study, promoted interns’ appropriation of new instructional strategies and allowed them to consider using such instructional strategies in subsequent lessons. Analysis of the data suggests that debriefing sessions provided a space for interns to reflect on the enactment of new instructional strategies. Additionally, the coaching support interns received systematically decreased throughout classroom observations because interns became skillful in the enactment of such strategies and they appropriated these strategies as part of their teaching practice. Questioning fostered reflective dialogue which supported interns’ awareness of the development of their teaching practices to support students’ learning. Questioning also allowed interns to reflect on areas of improvement and work toward a plan to overcome difficulties they 116 encountered in their teaching. Because debriefing sessions took place right after classroom observations, interns could make changes as soon as they received feedback preventing errors from continuing to be enacted. The types of questions used were: starting questions, questions about interns’ moves, and questions that focused on students’ learning. Another set of questions used interchangeably in planning and debriefing sessions (Hinojosa, Chapter2) and after were: questions that drew on prior knowledge and reflection/suggestion questions. Data suggests that these questions encouraged interns to reflect on past teaching experiences and on how students responded to the enactment of teaching strategies, as well as to make connections between the observed lesson and other lessons that I did not observe. Further, analysis suggests that interns benefited from developing self-awareness about how their changes impacted students’ learning. Additionally, interns observed and reflected on students’ growth across time to focus on how students benefited, or not, from the instructional strategies interns enacted. Analysis of the data suggests that interns developed self-awareness by comparing early lesson plans and recent ones. Finally, data indicates that interns benefited from doing peer observation and from engaging in discussion with other interns about their current teaching practices. Onsite Coaching Onsite coaching supported interns in the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. As an experienced teacher, I demonstrated the enactment of these strategies and expected interactions with students when I realized interns could benefit from this support. Onsite coaching provided a real-life representation of practice in the context of interns’ own teaching practice. For example, when necessary, I modeled how to provide explanations, suggested modifications on the enactment of instructional strategies, assisted interns in providing explanations, and reminded interns to follow lesson plans’ layouts. An essential part of onsite 117 coaching was taking extensive field notes on interns’ teaching moves and on their students’ responses to those moves. I used these field notes in debriefing sessions to open dialogue about interns’ teaching and to reflect on implications on students’ learning. During the first classroom observation, Kate’s goal was for students to provide definitions of words. This was the first time she tried to enact this strategy. Some students provided definitions and Kate clarified those definitions. Kate asked students to provide a sentence with ‘because.’ Students struggled and could not provide an example. Kate repeated the same question and she did not consider paraphrasing. I stepped in and along with non-verbals— acting out and using gestures—I said, “I ate a piece of chocolate cake because_____.” Rudra completed the sentence by saying, “it was my birthday!” Next, I provided space for Kate to enact the strategy I modeled. Kate yawned, stretched her arms as if she were ready to sleep, and shared, “I went to sleep because____.” Mary responded, “because I was tired!” Kate continued to elicit examples with the rest of the words using the strategy I modeled. In this example, modeling supported Kate in proving a representation of practice in the context of teaching. Further, Kate could enact the instructional strategy knowing that she had my support in case she needed it. In another class, Kate’s goal was for students to learn how to organize events. Kate asked students to read from the board, and they said chorally, “First, Next, Last.” Kate was about to ask students to put the events from the story in order. I suggested asking students to provide examples of the sequence of what happens when they come to class in the morning. Kate agreed and asked students, “Tell me, what the sequence of what happens in the morning is?” I supported by scaffolding students on what events to focus on and narrow down their responses to the first two hours. I explicitly asked them to use the words on the board. Kate watched carefully what I 118 modeled, and she continued providing examples such as lunch choice, book choice, work on a task, reading center, etc. With these scaffolds, students responded, “First, we switch a book back.” Another student said, “Next, is morning work.” Students kept thinking and finally one shared “Last, is reading center.” Once Kate was aware that students fully understood the sequence, she asked them to work on the sequence of the book. In this example, I suggested that Kate check for comprehension prior to working on a task. I modeled scaffolds that allowed Kate to enact the desired instructional strategy. Throughout my observations, I realized that Helen struggled providing clear instructions and checking for comprehension. Helen and I discussed how to enact an instructional strategy and I supported her in the enactment. For example, Helen started by asking Joe to read the task. Then, she asked volunteers to explain what they have to do in the task. After listening to both students, Peter said, “I do not understand!” Helen did not respond and she looked at me. I quickly said, “Can any one share what they have to do?” Lisa said “Yes, we have to follow the instructions on this paper to draw on this other paper.” Both students engaged in discussion about how to complete the task. In this example, I modeled expected interactions with students as she provided instructions and checked for comprehension. In addition, I made Helen aware that I was attentive to support her as she developed her teaching practice. During the focus group interview, Helen and Kate reflected on onsite coaching and how it supported them noticing aspects of their teaching that they could not notice because they focused on their teaching and not on students’ learning. For example, Kate shared aspects of my coaching support during the first observations, and Helen responded, “She would do that with me too! She would add in, like specially that first lesson with the angles and the measurements. She was not only asking students to think about things but she was also highlighting, because I was 119 overwhelmed with everything else. She was highlighting that different strategy because I didn’t even notice that students were doing that. She made them see the challenge of it. Students were doing this awesome thing that I didn’t know I was asking them to do.” In this example, Helen reflected how modeling the enactment of an instructional strategy helped students develop mathematical thinking. Modeling allowed Helen to realize that students could use different ways to solve a math problem. Further, field notes of students’ responses and her examples allowed Helen to develop awareness on how students benefited from sharing their mathematical thinking and explaining to their peers the different ways they used to solve the same math problem. These reflections promoted Helen to move away from focusing on her teaching and to focus on students’ learning. Questions to Ask in Debriefing Session Extensive field notes on interns’ teaching moves, as well as students’ responses to those moves and interactions in the classroom were essential in our dialogue to reflect on the learning sessions. By using these field notes, I sought to open discussion on how the instructional strategies promoted, or not, students to achieve their learning goals. These field notes encouraged interns to reflect on how to discuss strengths and on how to improve their developing teaching practices based on students’ outcomes. Starting debriefing sessions. I started debriefing sessions by asking interns to share what they considered was relevant and salient in the lesson. I used questions that encouraged interns to unpack their perceptions of their strengths and areas of improvement: “Tell me, how do you feel about the class? How did it go?” “How do you feel about the class? Things that went well, things that could have been better” “This is the time in which you develop your teaching practice. What are the strengths? What are the areas of improvement?” Interns based on their 120 perceptions of the class. For example, Kate concurred, “Strengths, I think students are so engaged. And they want to give me responses even if it’s not exactly what I’m looking for. They give me something and I can work with something rather than nothing. So they are always so like, ‘I have a sentence, I don’t know the definition but I have a sentence.’ Even the interactions with each other I think are getting better. So they are like, ‘hey here is the definition. We are supposed to try it without saying that kind of stuff.’” Similarly, Helen reflected, “I thought that, in general the students’ talk went really well. There were a lot of good discussions, strategies that came out of those. I remember how they came up with different things, things that weren’t that clear and we were able to talk through that. And they questioned each other, and um discovered when they made mistakes, and they were able to talk through those mistakes.” These questions supported interns to unpack aspects of their teaching such as: differentiating instruction, knowing their students one-on-one, using scaffolding strategies, developing students’ critical thinking and metacognitive awareness, designing tasks that promote students’ learning, designing worksheets focusing on learning goals, assessing students’ outcomes, and so on. Questions about interns’ moves. These questions sought to provide a space for interns to share their perspectives about the outcomes of the class. Even when I was aware of interns’ teaching moves based on what I observed in the classroom and field notes, I encouraged interns to discuss aspects of their teaching before I commented on it. These questions have two sub- categories: elicit insights and discuss strategies that were not reflected on. Elicit insights. I used these questions to elicit interns’ perspectives on their teaching— strengths and areas of improvement—without providing any prompts from the observation. For example, Kate and I reflected on the implications of using pre-reading comprehension questions. I asked, “What are the strengths of the lesson?” Kate shared, “For strengths, I was surprised how 121 much the students remembered from the story I read yesterday. It was the first day back yesterday, so I was like I don’t know how much they really paid attention. So I don’t know if the story was interesting to them or if it was something different that we covered before? But the students were recalling, not just like little details either, but like the big point of the story which was pleasantly surprising to me because I wasn’t really sure where I was going to go from there.” I used this opportunity to follow up with a question that would encourage her to reflect on strategies she used when I was not there to observe the class. I asked, “What did you do yesterday when you read the story?” Kate thought for a minute and responded, “I told them that I wanted them to think about why the story is important, and why is it important to them to learn from people of the past and to learn about the past in general. I think maybe making it more (sigh) connected to them. So, like why is it important to me to know this rather than just the teacher wants me to know this. Uh-uh! Now I know why (giggle).” These questions allowed Kate to identify instructional strategies that supported students’ literacy development. These questions made Kate aware of the implications of using instructional strategies promoting their enactment and systematic appropriation. In another class, I asked Helen to share her perspectives on the lesson, “Tell me, how did you feel about the class?” Helen responded, “It wasn’t as strong as I think last week’s lesson was. I ran out of time to get everything in. So that was difficult. And I did have to change my plans half-way through with changing, well they had to do the worksheet and then just doing the math, basically the angles.” In this example, Helen focused on timing and on not being able to follow her lesson plan. Because she focused on those aspects of her teaching, she left aside students’ learning. I responded, “I liked it because you made students reflect on the different ways to get the different angles. How they can use multiplication, addition, subtraction, division, 122 and you actually were asking them to reflect on their learning and also on the things that they were doing which is metacognition.” Asking interns’ perceptions allowed me to learn what were the areas they focus more on and what were the ones that they leave aside. Because Helen was more concerned about timing and following a plan, she did not see that the instructional strategies she used supported students’ metacognitive awareness. Our dialogue provided a space to support her in focusing on other aspects of teaching. I also encouraged interns to share areas of improvement. I asked, “What are the things you consider you could improve?” Kate reflected, “I think, I didn’t write the things I wanted to ask them today so then I got caught up in their conversations. I didn’t point out that this is a non- fiction text. What do you know about this? And I don’t know why I didn’t do it today. I usually put the vocabulary cards and I still have them so they can see the words. But this time, I put them behind the book. Why did I do that? Afterwards, of course I am thinking about this. That should have been like out so I feel that it was my planning this time, wasn’t very good.” By asking Kate to share areas of improvement, I gave her the opportunity to reflect on aspects of her teaching that could be improved as opposed to me telling her what I consider could be improved. I also provided a space for her to reflect and share how she could improve her teaching practice. Discuss strategies that were not reflected on. I used these comments to address points that prospective teachers missed to reflect on. I shared in great detail aspects of their teaching that were well facilitated, and also I commented on areas of improvement by quoting how students responded to such instructional strategies. I made sure to provide a safe space for interns to reflect on how to use feedback as a learning opportunity and to develop their teaching practices. I emphasized aspects of their teaching that were successful and explained how students benefited from those practices. For example, I shared with Helen how she built on students’ prior 123 knowledge to introduce a new topic, “The first part was great. I loved how you elicited expressions and words students have seen before. They came up with polygons, clock wise, triangles, sides, and also the way that you made students come up with the concept of degrees. What do you think we were doing there? When we were asking them to think of what is the symbol that represents degrees, what do you think was happening in their mind? What did we do with that strategy?” In this example, I emphasized a strategy that supported students’ learning and I followed up with questions for Helen to reflect on the implications of enacting such a strategy. Helen reflected, “I really liked that because it connected to degree for temperature. They just needed to transfer that knowledge to the angles, use the same symbol and the same word. I knew that they had to know that symbol, just activating their prior thinking about something, and connecting something new to it, and kind of building on to it, it’s like I don’t know remember, is it Vygotsky? Where it’s like something that is already formed and you are adding a little bit more to it, and suddenly you have something new.” The questions I asked allowed Helen to make connections with the theory she learned in the teacher preparation program and the context of her teaching practice. Because this connection was explicit, it promoted her systematic enactment and appropriation. For another classroom observation I asked Helen, “Tell me, how did you feel about the lesson?” Helen expressed, “I felt really good about it. And there weren’t major misconceptions or confusions when students started working on the worksheet and the reporting. They really seem to understand, or even if maybe they got a word wrong here or there, talking through, they understood the concept of what we were getting at. It was really fun, and everybody was on task.” In this example, Helen reflected on the overall outcome of instruction. Debriefing sessions allowed her to focus on the implications of instruction. By using Helen’s teaching moves, I 124 supported her on focusing even more on aspects of her teaching. I responded, “I think that this class went very well. I consider that using the buildings to talk about shapes was a smooth transition that allowed students to make connections of math with what they see in real life. You made sense of your teaching. It’s not about, oh let’s talk about the sphere, let’s talk about a cube, but to show them that math is all around. You said, ‘there are shapes in this world and we use math all the time.’” In this response, I used Helen’s strategies and quotes to encourage her to reflect on the implications of enacting such strategies. I encouraged her to reflect on why students were on task and on how her teaching moves supported students’ engagement. Questions that focused on students’ learning. I used students’ quotes, responses, reactions, interactions, understanding, misunderstanding, engagement, and lack of engagement to encourage interns to reflect on how the enactment of instructional strategies supported, or not, students’ learning. For example, Kate elicited examples of high frequency words, specifically the word “don’t.” Benjamin, a student with special needs volunteered. Benjamin said, “Don’t” and he showed the way not to sit. Kate scaffolded Benjamin’s oral production for him to articulate his example. I remarked on Kate using this strategy during the debriefing session, “I appreciate how you scaffolded Benjamin’s participation. I liked the part in which he said ‘Don’t’ and he showed the wrong way to sit. He didn’t have the words and you provided scaffolds so he could actually say what he wanted to say. You made him feel part of the group.” Kate looked at me and responded, “Good! I didn’t notice.” Kate was not aware of the implications of scaffolding Benjamin’s oral production. Because I provided concrete examples, I made salient and visible the support that she provided students. This awareness promoted the continuous enactment of these scaffolds. 125 Helen and I discussed how to encourage students to show their work and to negotiate with their peers, supporting their mathematical thinking. I shared students’ discussions as they talked about shapes, vertices, and edges, “When you push their thinking students come up with amazing things. Do you remember when Paula said, ‘But not all of them have vertices because cylinder has a circle as a base.’ That was excellent thinking. You were able to connect things that students see in the classroom that they see in the world with math, they made sense of the content.” Helen responded, “Yeah! I wasn’t expecting that. I was like sweet!” By making salient and visible the implications of instructional strategies, Helen systematically developed awareness on why to enact such an instructional strategy. In the subsequent classes, Helen enacted this strategy and reflected whether or not students achieved the same outcomes. Helen continued to provide a safe space for students to develop their mathematical thinking by letting them know that making errors is part of the learning process. I mentioned: D: “You made students feel that it’s okay to make errors because that is the process of learning. Always pointing out, ‘If you don’t make errors, you are not learning.’ I liked it when you had 2x2x2 and asked, ‘What is the answer?’ One student said 6. Another one said 9. And the first students said, ‘I want to change my mind.’ I loved that!” H: “Yeah, I think that has taken time to develop because when I started doing something like that—the number talk—at the beginning, I would have one kid that would shout out an answer, and the rest of the class would be afraid or not engaged. And now, like I see kids like Lisa, who doesn’t often show engagement on the carpet, she will say, ‘I have an answer, I want to share my strategy.’ Puja showed a strategy today, that was awesome. Kids that don’t normally respond on the carpet on whole group like that, I have more and more engagement every time I do it. They really like it, and I love doing it because it forces them to think.” In this quote, Helen reflected on how she systematically enacted and appropriated this strategy as part of her repertoire because she saw how students who did not use to participate engaged in discussion. Using students’ responses and quotes in dialogic feedback allowed Helen to focus on students’ learning making that the reason of the enactment of new instructional strategies. 126 Questions to ask in planning and debriefing sessions. I used these questions to draw on interns’ prior knowledge and experiences, and draw on the content of the PD program. The goal was to encourage interns to enact instructional strategies that could promote students’ learning by reflecting on how the implementation of such strategies support their students to achieve their learning goals. Drawing on prior knowledge/experience questions. I drew on interns’ prior knowledge and experiences to provide insights on how to present a task. We discussed previous classroom observations and students’ responses to those strategies, and I reminded them of their role as a facilitator and the need to focus on students’ outcomes. For example, Kate was willing to change the way she presented the poems to students. Every time we debriefed she expressed that she wanted students to do more with the poem. To support this change that Kate wanted to make, I drew on a task that we had been working on. I suggested using the same strategies she used for reading comprehension to introduce the poem, “Can you think of the strategies we use for reading comprehension? Let’s use those for the poem. For example, students can share with you, what happened to them when they lose a tooth, and make connections. Build on students’ prior knowledge, activate schema by asking students to think about the title of the poem and what it will be about. Before reading, you connect the poem with their own experiences when losing a tooth. Students may share some of the words you want to teach from the poem the same way they do with reading comprehension.” Kate responded, “Okay, yeah. So, I can use that for the poem and when I teach math, social studies, and science.” In this example, I made an explicit connection between instructional strategies used in literacy to support Kate to change the way she presented the poem. This connection made Kate aware that the strategies used in literacy could be used across content areas. 127 To support Kate to continue enacting these strategies when teaching other content areas, I asked her to reflect on how literacy strategies supported students’ learning and think of ways to transfer those to new contexts. For example, I shared, “Do you remember when students read the butterfly book? When you elicited the type of text?” Kate reflected, “Oh my gosh! Students were like instantly informational! I figured that maybe they would have given me like a fantasy one just because it is easier for them to describe the features, but immediately they were oh informational. And I was, that’s exactly what I wanted to hear! But, like Rudra saying ‘Well, we are probably learning about butterflies.’” In this example, asking Kate to reflect on how predicting the type of texts supported student engagement when working on a previous task, allowed her to make connections on how to introduce content in other subjects. Reflection questions and suggestions. I used questions and suggestions to provide direct feedback on how to facilitate tasks, promote students’ engagement and participation, introduce new content, elicit students’ thinking, and so on. For example, in the following conversation I suggested to Kate how to elicit vocabulary and to maximize students’ engagement: D: I would show the water bottle without saying a word. And students may respond “Oh a bottle.’ That could trigger them think about cause and effect. K: Yeah, I am thirsty, I am going to drink water. D: Exactly. Or introduce a big word, ‘I want to hydrate.’ K: Oh yeah! (laugh) D: Then I shiver. You can always use non-verbals. K: [Yeah, non-verbals] D: In this way, you elicit and build from that. That is scaffolding. I provide a little bit of support for students to give me examples. K: Okay (nodding). I provided explicit examples and demonstrated how to scaffold students to provide examples without Kate doing it for them. I also used suggestions to support interns on improving the ways they design the task. For example, Helen used a worksheet designed by other interns for students 128 to work on arrays. I realized that the instructions were confusing and students had problems working on the task. I asked Helen to look at the worksheets and share how many completed the task. Not many did. I suggested, “Why not using an open-ended task? Think of your own array. Of course we have to be very clear on the wording because even when this is a good way to finish, the instructions were kind of confusing. It’s not your fault, but I couldn’t get it. I was thinking, do students have to work 4x4, or do they have to come up with different arrays. Puja said, ‘I don’t understand what I have to do’ (laugh).” I used suggestions to encourage Helen to revise the worksheets prior asking students to work on them. As opposed to using a deficit perspective to provide feedback, I used it as a learning opportunity and to look for ways to improve her teaching practice. While looking at the worksheets, Helen concurred, “I will have them correct this tomorrow. I am going to consider your idea. I’ll give them a worksheet that has more structure and examples. I pulled out the ones that have that part. Some are close but sloppy. And there are some that are very off.” Because feedback was taken as a learning opportunity, Helen was more receptive to it and more willing to consider it in developing her teaching practice. Rejecting feedback. Interns were not always willing to accept feedback. In most cases, interns rejected feedback when they were not yet confident on how to enact the new instructional strategies and when they perceived that feedback would change their original lesson plans. To support interns in these situations, I allowed them to enact their original plans to later reflect on whether or not they supported students’ learning. For example, Kate was reluctant to ask pre- reading comprehension questions to support students’ understanding of the texts. During the debriefing session, we reflected, D: What about the story? Well, that is the way that you do it. Does it have to be like that? 129 K: Yeah! Unfortunately, we have to read it so that they are familiar with just how the story flows and some details from it. Even when we don’t ask them to provide any of those details afterward. And then we talk about the words and the words, and they are more attentive to the words on the second read. In this example, I encouraged Kate to reflect on looking for alternative ways to support students’ comprehension. At first, Kate rejected the feedback, but she systematically enacted and appropriated the new instructional strategies with my modeling and dialogic feedback supports. Similarly, Helen rejected feedback when I encouraged her to allow her students to take a more active role in the classroom. D: And then you can say, who can write the names. Do you remember those? H: I like the idea, cool. D: Well you always ask. This would be the…? H: Yeah elicit. And then I thought about this one too. I think that I am giving them way too much to do (giggle). In this example, I suggested Helen to provide opportunities to write the names of the geometric figures. Helen responded that the idea could benefit students but she was reluctant to enact the strategy arguing that it would increase the work that students have in the lesson. Modeling and reflective feedback systematically supported Helen in enacting this strategy in subsequent lessons. Self-awareness. Interns benefited from being aware of the implications of their teaching and students’ learning. To support the development of this awareness, I asked interns to compare early lesson plans to recent ones, to do peer-observation and discuss with other interns about the development of their teaching practices, and to observe and reflect on students’ progress, or lack of progress, across time. I also asked questions that allowed them to reflect on aspects of their teaching. For example, I asked Kate about an instructional strategy that she appropriated, “Why is that strategy important? Why do you keep enacting it?” Kate reflected, “Um, because students learn by making sense of things on their own understanding. And if I just say something to them, 130 they are going to be like, what? Okay?! They are not thinking! There is no point to it for them anymore. It’s not them thinking, ‘I want to make this connection and understanding.’ It’s more like, ‘My teacher is going to tell me this anyway.’” In this reflection, Kate shared her role as a facilitator and not transmitting knowledge. Kate developed awareness of the importance of facilitating students’ learning as opposed of transferring knowledge. Similarly, Helen reflected on her students’ learning. I asked, “What would be the difference between in the past when you provided everything to now that you are eliciting?” Helen noted, “Students are learning more. And I am doing a lot less talking (sigh) and I like that because that is the point of learning. Students are doing the learning, they are making the connections. They are having these moments, ‘Oh this is what that means! Not this.’ And I am not like, ‘This is what I am looking for, this is what you need to do, this is what I am trying to teach you.’ But they are getting it by themselves. And, like they are doing the learning now, and I am not just transferring. Transferring is very different than learning.” In this quote, Helen shared how she focuses on students learning and she no longer thinks about transferring content but rather providing spaces for students to make sense of their learning. In the focus group interview, interns reflected on their perceptions of onsite coaching in developing their teaching practices. Kate and Helen agreed that they were not aware of their teaching and debriefing sessions supported them make connections. For example, H: Like Kate, I am not always aware of all the stuff that I am doing while I am teaching. Denisse would take notes of the things that I was doing, and said ‘Oh you did this and this was awesome.’ And I thought, oh I did that because I didn’t have other thing to say so I kept saying it. And it turned out to be really great. So it also made me more conscious for the coming lessons. K: Same here! For the next lesson, I was being more aware of how I was wording things and how I was explaining things to the kids, and just kind of being a lot more specific on ‘You did this, and this was really good, and you were able to get this out of the students.’ I added that into the other subject areas, my other teaching, my other 131 lessons, and kind of develop it on my own as well. Even the way that the debriefing sessions were framed, it wasn’t like ‘What you did wrong?’ In this conversation, interns shared how detailed field notes of their teaching moves and students’ responses made them aware of their teaching practices which promoted the enactment of such instructional strategies in subsequent lessons. Interns reflected on how they enacted these strategies across content areas not limiting to the classes I observed. Interns remarked that dialogue and asking them to reflect on areas of improvement provided confidence to share and to find ways to improve their teaching practice. Discussion In an effort to provide understanding of how onsite coaching supported interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies, I discuss how coaching moves such as modeling and dialogue as a reflexive tool to provide feedback after classroom observations were used in field placements. Following Stage Three of the framework, interns received coaching support in the form of modeling as it is done with medical residents (Pendleton et al., 1984) to engage in the reciprocal connection of theory and enacting the theory in practice. Consistent with research (Grossman et al., 2009b), interns benefited from this coaching cycle as it made complex practices salient and evident. Because I acknowledge that feedback must be immediate or within six hours (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hounsell, McCune, Hounsell, & Litjens, 2008; Scheeler et al. 2004) I used modeling as a coaching move. Modeling was an alternative manner to provide less intrusive immediate feedback (O’Reilly et al., 1994) which prevented disruptions of the flow. In this study, modeling was in the form of onsite coaching that provided interns real-time representations of practice. Consistent with Couler and Grossen (1997), in-class feedback had positive effects on supporting interns’ development of teaching practices because interns benefited from an experienced teacher modeling the enactment of new 132 instructional strategies. Modeling scaffolded the enactment of instructional strategies. Further, modeling provided a safe space for interns to enact new instructional strategies because the coach supported interns in case their assistance was needed. Modeling, as described in this study, situated coaching teachers through the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and recognized coach-teacher interactions as scaffolds to support teacher learning (Bruner, 1986). As outlined on Stage Three of the framework, interns received immediate feedback after classroom observations. This allowed interns to be aware of the context in which the feedback was provided and it provided opportunities for interns to apply the feedback to practice and demonstrate improvement. Further, immediate feedback took away an implicit approval of interns’ teaching practices and discouraged them from perpetuating ineffective instructional strategies. Debriefing sessions were in the form dialogue in which the intern and I exchanged information about the intern’s teaching at his or her field placements (Butler & Winne, 1995; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989, 2010). Through questions, I scaffolded interns’ strengths and areas of improvement and guided their development through dialogue. This is what Vygotsky (1978) described as the process of first understanding the use of pedagogical tools in interactions with others, to latter appropriate these tools. In other words, through reflective dialogue, interns took an active role in co-constructing understanding of the development of their teaching practice with the support of an expert (Rogoff, 1990). Questions as described in this study, encouraged interns’ involvement and reciprocity on how to enact instructional strategies and on how to focus on students’ learning outcomes. Because these questions were part of a routine, it encouraged interns to assess and correct how they enacted new instructional strategies and develop a shared view on the areas of improvement (Gigante, Dell, & Sharkey, 2011). 133 Consistent with Averill et al. (2016), questioning promoted prospective teachers to be active participants in the decision making of their teaching practice because interns reflected about practice in practice. For interns to be actively involved in thinking reflectively about feedback during debriefing sessions and to enhance the interaction, feedback was provided based on criteria that interns were expected to meet (Rust, Price, & O’Donovan, 2003; Sadler, 2010). Questioning sought to improve interns’ teaching practices by eliciting their reflections on specific observed behaviors (Gigante et al., 2011). The use of detailed field notes with interns’ teaching moves and students’ responses to these moves were essential in this process because they promoted interns to reflect on the outcomes of their teaching. Dialogues were not dominant, evaluative, or judgmental. Rather, the coach provided a space for interaction, reflective thinking, and opportunities for interns to think on actions or steps to take in order to implement the feedback. An important part of feedback was drawing on prior knowledge questions which linked to interns’ knowledge of instructional strategies and its enactment in previous lessons. This is what Rogoff (1990, p. 72) called “bridging” as part of guided participation. These questions allowed the coach to make connections with the enactment of instructional strategies when the coach did not observe classes. This bridging promoted interns to build from their past teaching and learning experiences as an anchor to build on new teaching practices. Finally, this form of dialogue strengthened rapport because interns were more receptive to feedback and they attributed greater validity to it. That is, interns were more responsive to enacting feedback because it was provided in a supportive manner, with supportive body-language, and because they perceived that the coach had the best interest in their development as a future teacher. This 134 was shown by reflecting on how interns could address the feedback and take action to improve their teaching practices. Conclusion Feedback can support interns’ appropriation of new instructional strategies when it reinforces interns to make explicit connections with previous feedback or teaching experiences. Feedback as scaffolds supports interns’ self-reflection on the implications of their teaching practices. Interns can benefit from reflecting on implications of students’ outcomes as opposed to reflecting on or emphasizing their teaching practice because the latter may obscure the main goal of teaching, students’ learning. The coach’s role is to provide opportunities for interns to understand how students make sense of the content. This study has implications for field experiences. Feedback after classroom observations could systemically contribute to interns negotiating the development of their teaching practice as they reflect in practice (Ghaye, 2011; Louhran, 2006; Schön, 1987) with the assistance of a coach. Further, teacher preparation programs could benefit from adopting a coaching approach that supports interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. That is, interns could benefit from having purposeful design field experiences which provide opportunities to test theories, use knowledge, see and try out the practices advocated by the academy, and analyze problems that arise in the field (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a). 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY Averill, R., Drake, M., Anderson, D., & Anthony, G. (2016). The use of questions within in-the- moment coaching in initial mathematics teacher education: Enhancing participation, reflection, and co-construction in rehearsals of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 486—503. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. Campbell, P.D. & Malkus, N.N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430-454. Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S.A., Jeong, H., Yamauch, T., & Hausmann, R.G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533. Coulter, G. A., & Grossen, B. (1997). The effectiveness of in-class instructive feedback versus after class instructive feedback for teachers learning direct instruction teaching behaviors. Effective School Practices, 16, 21–35. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “Highly Qualified Teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, Article 33. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights form the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp. 21–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001a). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustaining teaching. Teacher College Records, 103(6), 1013-1055. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001b). Helping novices learn to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational leadership, 60(8), 25- 29. 137 Gee, J.P. (2014). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ghaye, T. (2011). Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A practical guide for positive action. London: Routledge. Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. (2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 411- 425. Gigante, J., Dell, M., Sharkey, A. (2011). Getting beyond "good job": How to give effective feedback. Pediatrics Perspectives, 127(2), 205-207. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., Williamson, P. (2009a). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record 111(9), 2055-2100. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009b). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. Grossman, P.L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1-29. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hinojosa, D.M. (2018). Coaching during workshops and classroom observations: Promoting the appropriation of instructional strategies to teach emergent bilinguals. Individual Paper presented at American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 70th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hinojosa, D.M. (Chapter 2). Can we talk? Promoting the appropriation of instructional strategies through feedback and dialogue. Hinojosa, D.M. (under review). Preparing interns to differentiate instruction for emergent bilinguals in general education classrooms. Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(1), 55–67. 138 Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. Teachers College: Columbia University. Keller, C. L., Brady, M. P., & Taylor, R. L. (2005). Using self-evaluation to improve student teacher interns’ use of specific praise. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 368-376. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232. Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129– 141). New York, NY: Springer. Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H. . . . Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. Little, J.W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 297-351).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). SAGE Publications. O’Reilly, M. F., Renzaglia, A., & Lee, S. (1994). An analysis of acquisition, generalization and maintenance of systematic instruction competencies by teachers using behavioral supervision techniques. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 22–33. Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P. & Havelock, P. (2003). The new consultation: Developing doctor-patient communication (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Putnan, R.T. & Borko, H. (2001). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Research methods in practice (2nd Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (1996). Developmental transitions in children’s participation in sociocultural activities. In A. J. Sameroff & M. M. Haith (Eds.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on mental health and development. The five to seven year 139 shift: The age of reason and responsibility (pp. 273-294). Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press. Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147–164. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Sadler, D.R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. Scheeler, M.C., Ruhl, K.L., and McAfee, J.K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396 - 407. Schmidt, M. (2008). Mentoring and being mentored: the story of a novice music teacher’s success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 635–648. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45–80. Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Van Houten, R. (1980). Learning through feedback. NY: Human Sciences Press. van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 209–228. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wegner, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th Ed.). SAGE Publications. 140 CHAPTER FOUR: Field Supervision: A Coaching Model to Support Prospective Teachers in Field Placements 141 Introduction Teaching is complex (Hoban, 2002). Prospective teachers experience this complexity once they start their field placements. Being aware of the professional guidance that prospective teachers need to integrate what they learned in teaching preparation programs in their teaching practice, I developed a coaching cycle to support prospective teachers in their field placements. This coaching model opens dialogue and self-evaluation of prospective teachers’ teaching choices. The supports in the coaching cycle were: modeling (Feiman-Nemser, 2001), dialogic feedback (Ellery, 2008; Kulhavy, 1977), questions, and intensive clinical work (Darling- Hammond, 2006). The coaching cycle provides a space for intensive supervision and intensive clinical work which supports prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. In this paper, I share an approach to coaching that has implications for how field supervisors, mentor teachers, and teacher educators support prospective teachers in the development of their teaching practice in the context of practice. More specifically, I explore the ways in which I used modeling and dialogic feedback in my work coaching two elementary interns throughout their participation in a professional development (PD) program (Hinojosa, under review) to appropriate instructional strategies for differentiating instruction for emergent bilinguals (EBs) in general education classrooms. Drawing on the findings of Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, I distill and share implications for practitioners by answering the following questions: 1. How does the coaching cycle support, or not, interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies in their field placement? a. What kinds of feedback on lesson plans supported, or not, prospective teachers in appropriating and enacting new instructional strategies? 142 b. What kinds of coaching moves supported, or not, interns in enacting and appropriating of new instructional strategies? c. What kinds of questions in planning and debriefing sessions supported, or not, prospective teachers in enacting and appropriating new instructional strategies? Literature Review In their field placements, prospective teachers are asked to use what they have learned in their teacher preparation program to teach content, address the learning needs of students based on their individual characteristics, manage a classroom, and so on. Prospective teachers can benefit from field supervisors taking an active coaching role in field placements (Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Zeichner, 2010) that supports the prospective teachers in understanding and responding to the complexity of developing their teaching practice (Jackson, 1990). There are a few models for field supervision (e.g., Darling- Hammond & Skyes, 2003; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Grossman et al., 2009a) that involve onsite coaching (e.g., Lampert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke, 2010; Lampert et al., 2013). These models seek for field supervisors to provide prospective teachers with learning opportunities for teachers to inquire and rethink teaching (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Rosaen & Florio-Ruane, 2008) based on students’ learning outcomes, and provide learning opportunities in the contexts of practice (Little, 1990). Onsite coaching in the form of modeling (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Putnan & Borko, 2000; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; West & Cameron, 2013) and feedback (Ferguson, 2011; Scheeler, Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004) can be an alternative approach to supporting cohesive integration of university course work and field work by intensifying supervision of field placements. Modeling is described as a process in which an experienced teacher demonstrates 143 the enactment of instructional strategies in field placements. Modeling through representations of practice (Grossman et al., 2009a) seeks to provide prospective teachers with visual representations of practice of how desired teaching practices are enacted in conjunction with students’ responses and interactions in the context of practice. Studies (e.g., Feiman-Nemser, 2001; West & Cameron, 2013) are consistent on how prospective teachers benefit from modeling. These studies suggest that prospective teachers can identify characteristics of good teaching. More research is needed to understand what prospective teachers learn from observing mentor teachers and how these observations support prospective teachers’ learning. Prospective teachers also benefit from feedback on lesson plans, and feedback during planning and debriefing sessions. Research suggests that effective feedback (Ferguson, 2011) can increase prospective teachers’ confidence and motivation to enact and appropriate new instructional strategies. Effective feedback is related to its immediacy, specificity, and complexity (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Scheeler et al., 2004; Shute, 2008). For example, feedback is more beneficial when provided immediately so that prospective teachers do not assume implicit approval of their teaching practices. This feedback also has to be provided in language that is accessible to prospective teachers. Further, the feedback has to be related to observed teaching practices. When these attributes are met, prospective teachers tend to develop positive attitudes toward feedback (Carless, Salter, Yang, & Lam, 2011; Ferguson, 2011), encouraging its enactment. However, there is still a need for additional research on feedback on lesson plans, and on specific coaching moves to provide feedback. When prospective teachers receive only written feedback, it cannot be assumed that they will know how to interpret and enact it (Sadler, 1989). Literature (e.g., Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Hounsell, McCune, Hounsell, & Litjens, 2008; Nicol 2010; Rust, O’Donovan, & Price, 144 2005) indicates that written feedback followed by dialogue supports understanding on how to use feedback. Feedback is traditionally conceptualized as a monologue (Boud & Molly, 2013) in which an experienced teacher provides information with the hope that prospective teachers find it valuable. However, researchers are moving away from this traditional view toward a dialogic approach (e.g., Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Scheeler et al., 2004). When feedback is provided as dialogue (Kulhavy, 1977), coaches and prospective teachers engage in conversation about prospective teachers’ performance in their field placements (Butler & Winne, 1995; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989, 2010). That is, through questions and scaffolding, the coach opens opportunities for dialogue and debate about the choices prospective teachers made when developing their teaching practices. The coach seeks to promote self-evaluation and reflection (Keller, Brady, & Talor, 2005), and to negotiate changes as opposed to confronting the choices made and imposing the enactment of other instructional strategies. In other words, coaches encourage prospective teachers to take a more active role (Prins, Sluijsmans, & Kirschner, 2006; Sadler, 1998) to reflect on the development of their teaching practices. Theoretical Background This study builds on the IDEAL (Instructional Strategies, Design, Engagement, Approximation of Practice, and Learning) framework (Hinojosa, 2018). Building on the sociocultural perspective (Ericsson, 2002; Rogoff, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978) and the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), IDEAL draws on different forms of coaching, such as scaffolds, modeling, and dialogic feedback to explore teacher learning as a socially mediated activity. In relation to feedback, IDEAL builds on Pendleton’s model for feedback interaction (Pendleton, Schofield, Tate, & Havelock, 2003). This model is used in the medical field to encourage student-doctors to reflect upon the development of their medical practices. The 145 coaching cycle is part of this larger framework, but in this paper I focus just on the coaching cycle. In the IDEAL framework, the coach and the teacher discuss specific aspects of the learning session in relation to the content of the program by referring to detailed field notes of teachers’ moves and students’ responses to those moves. The coach seeks to scaffold teachers’ reflection on ways to adapt pedagogical tools and competences, and design a plan on how to improve the teachers’ teaching practices (Figure 3). FIGURE 3: Unpacking the appropriation cycle Methods I adopted discourse analysis (Gee, 2014) to explore how the coaching cycle supported, or not, interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in their field placements. Data sources included: extensive field notes, including intern and student quotations, from 21 hours of classroom observations; artifacts (i.e., worksheets, pictures of the white board with interns’ explanations, pictures of tasks, pictures of learning activities, and pictures of hands on materials); email communication; 494 minutes of transcripts from planning and debriefing sessions; 94 minutes of transcripts from a focus group interview; and 32 lesson plans including 14 lesson plans for formal observations. 146 Contexts and Participants Helen and Kate [all names are pseudonyms] volunteered to receive my support in their field placement. Helen did her internship teaching 3rd grade at Braxton Elementary at Caster School District, and Kate did her internship teaching 1st grade at Dexter Elementary at Rogue School District. Helen held a TESOL minor and speaks Spanish as-a-second language. Kate is monolingual, and she reported to feel ill-prepared to teach EBs. Data Analysis To analyze the data over time, I traced how modeling, feedback on lesson plans, and feedback on planning and debriefing sessions supported interns throughout their internship. I traced the instructional strategies interns proposed to enact in their lesson plans, and how they used the various forms of feedback to shape their teaching practices in their field placement as evidence of enactment and appropriation. To analyze the extent to which interns differentiated instruction on lesson plans throughout their internship, I adopted an interpretivist approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994). For example, in each lesson plan, I highlighted the instructional strategies from the PD program that interns proposed to enact. Then, I made connections on how dialogue on planning sessions supported, or not, interns’ making changes based on the feedback. I looked for interns making sense of the content of the PD program and the types of feedback on lesson plans and questions that supported these changes. Additionally, I looked at whether, or not, the amount of feedback on lesson plans interns received increased or decreased throughout the academic year. If it decreased, it was an indicator of interns’ learning. Next, I organized the feedback and how interns addressed this feedback into a “meta-matrix” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 178). 147 Because feedback and interns’ responses were juxtaposed, I could determine patterns across the types of feedback and questions, in how interns responded to these. To understand the relationships among my questioning, interns’ responses to feedback, and interns’ enactment of new instructional strategies in their field placements, I re-read all the transcripts while listening to the audio recordings. I also looked across lesson plans, artifacts, field notes, and emails. This allowed me to understand our interactions (Thomas, 2013) and to situate the context of our conversations. Next, I highlighted relevant questions and interns’ responses from the transcripts and organized these into the meta-matrix in the form of groups or idea units called “stanzas” (Gee, 2014, p. 80). To look into changes in interns’ enactment of new instructional strategies, I organized the stanzas chronologically across the 18 classroom observations. Similar to the analysis of lesson plans, I looked for patterns in the types of questions and I looked at how those questions prompted interns’ enactment and appropriation of instructional strategies. From this analysis, nine categories emerged. I regrouped these categories based on the point of the coaching cycle in which they were asked. Findings Throughout one academic year, interns participated in a PD program to differentiate instruction for EBs (Hinojosa, under review), and they received coaching supports in their field placements. Analysis of the data suggests that these coaching moves supported interns’ systematic enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in the context of practice. Further, data suggests that this framework has implications for field supervision because it calls for field supervisors to take a clinical stance to support interns’ development of their teaching practices. In other words, through four iterative cycles of onsite coaching—feedback on lesson plans, feedback on planning and debriefing sessions, and modeling during classroom 148 observations—coaches can support interns enact the theory learned in university course work in practice. In the following sections, I provide representative stories describing how coaching moves supported the appropriation process, followed by the four components of the framework and specific coaching moves that distill from these stories. Stories of Feedback on Lesson Plans Followed by Planning Sessions In the following sections, I provide examples of how feedback on lesson plans followed by planning sessions supported Kate’s enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. I describe how I supported Kate during the first classroom observations. Coaching Kate. I supported Kate in her literacy class. In the first planning session, I suggested Kate could enact some strategies from the program to support her students in developing their literacy in English (e.g., reading comprehension, academic language, and writing). At the beginning, Kate was reluctant to enact the new instructional strategies because she was not confident about making changes in her original lesson plans. For example, D: Okay, so why don’t you start by showing the book and asking, ‘Do you remember who he is? Activating schema, prior knowledge, what is it that happen? Why is it important to learn about from people? That is, the question that you want to focus on. K: Not today, we focused on that yesterday. In this example, I encouraged Kate to activate students’ prior knowledge and to use guided reading to support students’ reading comprehension. Because these strategies were new to her, Kate rejected the feedback and continued with her original plan. When Kate rejected feedback, I allowed her to experience students’ lack of responses to later reflect on changes that we could make to support students’ development. Kate was more receptive to feedback when she experienced that feedback was effective and supported students meet their learning goals. For example, Kate reflected on my suggestions and in the following class that I observed, she wanted to include strategies I suggested in the planning session (e.g., cloze activity, unscramble activity, 149 and pre-, during, and post-comprehension questions) when working on a text called “The Rainy Trip.” On the lesson plan Kate proposed, “Introduce story from blue folder. Pose essential question. Read story once. Answer/discuss essential question.” I realized that Kate did not specify how she would introduce the story. Neither did Kate specify the type of question she would ask. To provide feedback on how to introduce the story, I mentioned, “How are you going to activate schema or prior knowledge? Are you planning to introduce new vocabulary before the reading? Or are you going to make them guess what the story is about by looking at the pictures or the cover?” I used feedback in the form of questions to encourage Kate to reflect on different ways in which she could activate students’ prior knowledge. In the questions, I provided alternatives that she could consider. To provide feedback on the comprehension question I expressed, “Very good! I am glad that you included comprehension questions as we discussed last week. This will help students stay focused on the reading. What types of questions are you going to ask? Scanning, skimming, inference?” In this quote, I used positive feedback with an explanation to remind Kate the importance of asking comprehension questions and I made a connection to previous planning sessions. I followed up with feedback in the form of a question to suggest types of questions that she could ask students to work on. In the next section of the lesson plan, Kate proposed to enact some strategies from the program, “Have students read the passage, decide what word goes in the blank, physically place it in the sentence, and explain why they chose that word. Hopefully they include something about the definition of the word in their explanation.” In this example, Kate described the cloze activity that she wanted her students to work on. She explained how she would enact such activity, and most importantly, she described how students would respond to the task. I provided feedback by saying, “Very good! I appreciate you including instructional strategies from the 150 program. Students would benefit from this cloze activity because they will reinforce how to use vocabulary and they will look into the sequence of the story. Great job!” In my feedback, I used positive feedback with an explanation to make salient and visible the implications of its enactment on students’ literacy development. This type of feedback also encouraged Kate to continue enacting this strategy. In the lesson plan, Kate mentioned that she would also include comprehension questions. I reinforced the feedback provided on the lesson plan following up with a planning session: D: So, what is the plan for today? K: So this morning, first I will be going over our vocabulary words. Then, we will go over the reading in the blue folder and the tasks from the lesson plan (continue unpacking her plan). D: How are you going to scaffold the story? K: I am going to start just with talking about the story in the blue folder. Students love listening to those stories. D: Have you thought about asking students to predict the story by reading the title of the book? They don’t have to give you a right answer, the goal is to get them engaged and activate prior knowledge. You can also use comprehension questions. Did you come up with some questions? K: I can use comprehension questions. These are some questions I came up with (i.e., How many characters are in the story? What did Ellie eat at the restaurant? What is the name of the book they play the game with?) I started asking open-ended question for Kate to unpack her thoughts and provide an opportunity for her to share whether she decided to enact my feedback, or not. The “unpack thoughts question” provided a space for Kate to reflect on how to enact the strategy she proposed. Similarly, the two-option questions in the form of task-related to provide different options on how Kate could enact the task. Finally, when Kate shared her questions, I realized that she planned to ask for only one level of comprehension, detail or scanning. I took notes to encourage Kate to diversify the types of questions for future learning sessions. 151 For the next part of the lesson plan, Kate prepared a worksheet (figure 3) with different paragraphs for students to put in order. In each paragraph, there was one low frequency word missing. Students had to put the word in the correct space. Kate planned on pre-teaching the words before reading the story to them. We discussed, K: And then, after carpet I have four students that I will be calling over, and one of them is my EB Rudra5. And they will have these [showing scrambled part of the story]. These are actually from the story we read again. I want them to be able to organize it and put the word that needs to be there. D: So today you can explain that you have this story, and that we are trying to decide where these words go. Are we going to pre-teach the words or not? K: Yes, I have the words right here [show the words]. I want to go over the definitions of the words again. I would like students to read the passage, the whole thing, and then decide after learning what the definitions are again, what word goes on the line. So that they can actually take it and put it right on it. D: And, how are students going to put the words here? K: I wasn’t sure if wanted to get some tape and have them actually to tape it out or just pick up the piece of paper and then place it. D: What we can also do is have these on post-its and use the stick part of it, or have the words like you do. K: Oh yeah! I have sticky notes. I should have thought of that! What was I thinking?! In this conversation, Kate shared how she intended to enact new instructional strategies from the PD program. Kate explained how she would group the students and include Rudra. I realized that the words students had to use were low frequency. I used knowledge-related clarification question for Kate to reflect on how she would approach introducing academic language. Additionally, I used “unpack thoughts questions” for Kate to share how she would use the worksheet and ask students to work on the task. Dialogic feedback supported Kate because Kate was unsure how she wanted students to put the words in the gaps. I followed by using a two- option question for Kate to choose what was best. This question allowed Kate to reflect on a better way for students to work on the task. In the planning session, I empowered Kate to make her own decisions, I provided alternatives, and I supported her in shaping tasks that she designed. 5 Rudra, Puja, and Lisa are EBs in Kate’s and Helen’s classrooms. All names are pseudonyms. 152 Feedback on Lesson Plans Analysis of the data shed light of three kinds of feedback used in lesson plans: in the form of questions, direct feedback, and positive reinforcement with explanations. Interns received feedback on lesson plans in the seven areas that were contemplated in the lesson plan template: learning goals, expected language and content to use, Content Area Standards, CCSS ELP Standards, sequence of the lesson plan, differentiated instruction for EBs, and assessment. Interns also received feedback on worksheets, Power Point presentations, and tasks so that these support students achieve their learning goals. Feedback on lesson plans was the first step in encouraging interns to enact new instructional strategies in case they did not consider doing so. By adopting a clinical stance, I encouraged interns to reflect on how the instructional strategies they proposed would support, or not, students’ learning. The goal was not to instruct interns on what to do or what strategies to enact, but rather to ask thought-provoking questions that allowed interns to reflect on making changes. Further, feedback sought for interns to reflect on how to enact the instructional strategies that they proposed by having a strong focus on students’ responses to those strategies. Feedback in the form of questions. Questions were formulated providing an answer or a suggestion as part of a question. These questions sought to encourage interns to reflect on how enact the instructional strategies they proposed in their lesson plans. For example, “This is good! How will you check comprehension? The same strategy used above? Will students compare with other groups?” “I know you worked on this last Friday. Will students have manipulatives again? Will students be able to experiment?” “Have you thought of activating schema by showing students a picture of the story or book or characters and the title and make them guess?” “Maybe you wish to be more explicit here. What kinds of questions? Scanning 153 (detail), skimming (main idea), inference? There are different levels of questions.” “Are students going to have it in print like a worksheet? In that case, they could use that paper to solve the problem and look at the instructions.” “Students know what this is right? If not, you need to introduce this word.” Direct feedback. Direct feedback sought to encourage interns to enact strategies from the PD program that they did not consider. It also scaffolded interns on how to enact these instructional strategies and to consider implications on students’ learning. Some examples are, “These questions can be on the board prior students work on the task. You can tell them to focus on these before working.” “This looks good. I wonder if you have a written passage of someone asking questions. It can even be a video! You have people talking and asking a variety of questions. Maybe the person understands or asks for repletion. The video or the text is short, 90 seconds or 12 lines.” “Then, you can use these questions to elicit the information you presented. In that way students will be working with something that they see, not on something that they remember.” “This is a very good question. Consider having it at the beginning.” “Good! Before playing the video, post a thought provoking question. Write it down on the board and make them think of the answer as they watch it. The question can be closely related to the goal you try to achieve.” “Here you can try what we did before. Write the question, elicit their responses, write them down, and as they listen to the story they can check if their predictions were correct. This is activating background knowledge or schema.” Positive feedback with an explanation. Positive feedback with an explanation supported interns in reflecting on how and why to continue enacting the instructional strategies they proposed. This feedback sought to develop awareness on the implications of enacting the instructional strategies to foster appropriation in interns’ development of their teaching practice. 154 For instance, “Excellent! This will reduce the time you talk and you will maximize theirs. Let students ask questions related to the task, the same way we do in math.” “You also have differentiated instruction throughout the lesson plan! You activate schema by asking students to guess from pictures, you provide print materials (worksheets and a visual of the questions), plus you will provide written questions of what students need to focus on. THAT is differentiated instruction. Great job!!! So proud of you.” “Very good! I am glad that you included comprehension questions as we discussed last week. This will help students stay focus on the reading.” “I appreciate you reflecting on the importance of students providing their own sentences and their own definitions. I am glad that you maximize students’ work.” Planning Sessions Data suggests that interns benefited from feedback on lesson plans followed by planning sessions. Planning sessions provided a space for interns to unpack their thoughts on how to enact the lesson plans, and for them to share whether or not they decided to make changes based on written feedback they received. There were three kinds of questions that emerged: starting questions, two-option questions, and clarification questions. There is a set of questions that were used interchangeably in planning and debriefing sessions: questions that drew on prior knowledge and reflection/suggestion questions. These questions sought for interns to make connections with theory from university course work, and with past teaching experiences, and to make connections when the coach did not provide onsite coaching support. Starting questions. Starting questions sought for interns to unpack how they intended to enact what they proposed in the lesson plan. Additionally, these questions provided a space for interns to share whether or not they decided to make changes based on the feedback provided in lesson plans. For example some questions are, “What’s the plan for today?” “Let’s look at the 155 lesson plan, let me know how you feel about it.” “Can you pull out the lesson plan for today? Did you have time to look at my feedback?” Two—option questions. Two-option questions provided interns with two options on how to present a task in case they did not consider these options. Two-option question empowered interns because they were given opportunities to make choices as opposed to being instructed on enacting certain instructional strategy. Some examples are, “Are you going to demonstrate how to work on the task with any of these worksheets or with a different worksheet?” “When you talk about cause and effect, are you going to provide an example first? Or are you just going to elicit examples from the students?” “Are you going to ask students to paraphrase what they have to do before they work on the task? Or are they going to work on the task right away?” Clarification questions. Clarification questions encouraged interns to unpack how they intended to enact what they stated in the lesson plans. These questions encouraged interns to focus on four dimensions of teaching: knowledge, task or strategy, unpack thoughts, and grouping and pairing. Knowledge. Knowledge-related questions encouraged interns to enact strategies from the PD program such as using scaffolds, activating prior knowledge, and building on students’ knowledge. Some examples of these questions are, “Are you going to scaffold students’ knowledge?” “How are you going to scaffold that concept?” “Are you going to do the same thing that we did last week? Kind of elicit if students know? If students don’t know that is okay?” “Do students know who Tomás Rivera is?” “Are you going to ask students to explain what they have to do before you go over the reading?” 156 Task or Strategy. Task or strategy-related questions encouraged interns to reflect on how to present or carry out the tasks they proposed in their lesson plans, how to use worksheets, present images, introduce tasks, explain concepts, and so on. For instance, “Are you going to demonstrate how to work on the task first?” “Are you going to show students a picture?” “So the questions are going to be written on the board, right?” “And how are you going to explain degrees?” “Are students going to write the names of the geometric figures?” Unpack thoughts. I used open-ended questions (i.e., how, why, what, and so on) to allow interns to reflect and to unpack how they plan to enact tasks. Some examples used are, “What are you going to do with this spinner? How are students going to work on it?” “How are we going to check the comprehension of the task? How are we going to bring students together to check that they actually work on the task correctly?” “How are you going to introduce these low frequency words?” “You will be using this worksheet. How are you going to use it?” “And how are you going to accomplish the goal of the lesson? Just by asking them?” Grouping and pairing. For students to work on tasks, they could benefit from being adequately paired or grouped. Grouping and pairing questions encouraged interns to reflect on how students could be paired or grouped to support one another throughout the tasks. For example, “How are you going to pair the students?” “Are students going to work in groups? How are you planning to group them?” “Are students going to be working in groups, individually? How is that going to be?” Stories of Modeling during Classroom Observations Followed by Debriefing Sessions In the following sections, I provide examples on how feedback on lesson plans and planning sessions supported Helen’s enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. In these examples, I describe modeling during classroom observations. Similar to Kate, Helen 157 rejected feedback. Helen’s TESOL background contributed to her being even more reluctant to enacting new instructional strategies and to receiving feedback. For example, D: Are you going to check comprehension with them one-on-one with ELs? H: Not one-on-one. I can but, uh, (a few seconds thinking)…there is not. I have not noticed in the past that when we’ve done things like this that they’d they’d seem to be like they are doing okay but I can make a point to that. Absolutely, so that I know for sure that they are getting it. In this example, I encouraged Helen to check for comprehension because I observed that some students struggled in understanding instructions. Helen rejected the feedback arguing that students have no problems in understanding instructions. I also provided feedback in relation to teaching low frequency words. I encouraged her to check for comprehension prior asking students to work on the task. D: Do students know what wreckage is? H: Um, I am going to be showing this video actually people under the water looking into the wreckage. So we will be talking about that. Um, and talk about the ship wreck and wreckage. Helen was confident that students will understand the new vocabulary. But my feedback allowed her to reflect on how students would respond to the task. When we debriefed the lesson, Helen shared, D: How do you think that the feedback that I provided supported you? H: Yeah, there were a lot of things that were really helpful. Making sure that students knew the terms at the beginning was something that I anticipated having to do and I am glad that you said something because my mentor has her son across the hall and he comes really early in the morning. I checked with him and asked ‘Do you know what these words are?’ You know a general kid, he didn’t know what lumber was, he thought it was metal or something. So things like that. So then I was like I am going to make sure I point this out to the whole class. That is something I would not have thought about and I would have just sent them do their thing and they would have been confused. That was really helpful, those things like that.” Because feedback intended to provide suggestions rather than transmitting or imposing, our conversations allowed Helen to reflect on aspects of developing her teaching practice. 158 Table 3 What Kinds of Feedback on Lesson Plans and Planning Sessions Support Prospective Teachers’ Enactment and Appropriation of Instructional Strategies? Feedback on Lesson Plans Questions to Ask in Planning Sessions Direct feedback  These questions can be on the board prior students work on the task. You can tell them to focus on these before working.  Then, you can use these questions to elicit the information you presented. In that way students will be working with something that they see, not on something that they remember. Feedback in form of question  This is good! How will you check comprehension ? The same strategy used above? Will students compare with other groups?  I know you worked on this last Friday. Will students have manipulatives again? Will students be able to experiment? Starting questions  What’s the plan for today? Positive feedback with an explanation  Excellent! This will reduce the time you talk and you will maximize theirs. Let students ask questions related to the task, the same way we do in math.  Very good! I am glad that you included comprehension questions as we discussed last week. This will help students stay focus on the reading.  Can you pull out the lesson plan for today? Did you have time to look at my feedback? 159 Clarification questions  How are you going to scaffold that concept?  Are you going to scaffold students’ knowledge?  Are you going to do the same thing that we did last week? Kind of elicit if students know? If students don’t know that is okay? Two option questions  Are you going to demonstrate how to work on the task with any of these worksheets or with a different worksheet?  When you talk about cause and effect, are you going to provide an example first? Or are you just going to elicit examples from the students? Helen had a space to make errors and to realize by herself that it could be beneficial to make changes. That is, allowing interns to make mistakes supported them in being more receptive to feedback. Coaching Helen. Helen started the lesson as we discussed in the planning session. Helen showed images of button dolls (e.g., Lalaloopsy, Coralline) and students said the names chorally. Next, Helen said, “Today we are going to talk about button dolls, but I need you to help me with a problem first.” As suggested in the lesson plan, Helen used the board to introduce the math problem. She drew a button doll and 5 buttons in it, and paraphrased the problem, “Now help me solve this problem, we need to think how many packages of buttons we need to build dolls but we don’t need to have any extras.” Helen told students to think and then to raise their hands if they know how to solve the problem. This was an opportunity for Helen to enact the think-pair-share strategy which we discussed in several opportunities. I paraphrased her instruction and said, “Yes, take a minute to think. Next, pair with a person next to you and tell this person what you thought. Then, raise your hand and share.” Helen realized that she missed the pairing component, and she said, “Yes, think, pair, and then share!” In this example, modeling reminded Helen of enacting a strategy that we discussed in previous observations. After eliciting several strategies from students, Helen read the instructions, and she reminded them of the expectations while she handed in the worksheets. For this part, Helen did not do as we discussed to check for comprehension. Students read the worksheet and some did not have a clear understanding of what they had to do. I suggested Helen to tell students to read the instructions again and to underline the relevant information. Because my intention was to model how to differentiate instruction, I worked with Puja and Lisa. Puja highlighted the relevant information to solve the problem. Lisa used a pencil to underline the most important information. 160 Lisa and Puja discussed about the problem and how to solve it. They decided to add 12+12 and to keep adding 12 until the number finishes in 0 or in 5. To prove their answer, they multiplied 5x12=60 (Figure 4). FIGURE 4: Lisa’s work on the board and worksheet in problem #1 For question 2, Puja and Lisa read the instructions carefully and underlined the relevant information. They needed to find out how many dolls they could make with all the buttons. Puja said, “Each doll has 5 buttons, we can count until we get to 60.” Lisa drew many circles and she wrote number 5 in each circle. But there were too many circles. Puja said “You need to number the circles.” On top of each circle Lisa wrote number 1, 2, 3 and so on. Then, she counted by 5s, e.g., 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, until she got to 60 (Figure 5). To wrap up, Helen asked students to share their responses. Lisa raised her hand and she was willing to share. Lisa looked at me implying that she needed support. I modeled how to provide sentence starters so that Lisa could share her work for the first question. Helen observed what I modeled and scaffolded Lisa’s unpacking of her mathematical thinking by using sentence starters to solved question two. FIGURE 5: Lisa’s work on the board and worksheet in problem #2 161 I started the debriefing session with the question, “How did the class go?” Helen responded, “I think it went pretty well. Students all were able to get somewhere in the right direction of like figuring it out. It is hard for me. It took me a long time, and I still shrug my head around it. It’s hard! But I definitely saw a lot of really awesome critical thinking and the problem solving came out of it. That’s really what I wanted to hit today. So, I think that overall it went pretty well. And they were really into the puzzle.” In this example, the starting question allowed Helen to share her perceptions of the lesson. Her reflections were on how her work support her students achieve the learning goals she expected them to achieve. Next, I used questions about interns’ moves to elicit Helen’s insights on her teaching, “I loved what you said, ‘I need you to help me think of this problem, with this puzzle.’ And then you said, ‘I want to know your strategies and your thinking and not the responses.’ That is perfect because there were students who were ready to give you the answer right away. But now, you gave the opportunity for other students to answer. That was really good. What else? In terms of the strategies that you were using, let’s break it down.” In this quote, I used Helen moves to emphasize a strategy she used to encourage students to reflect on how to solve the math problem. Helen encouraged students to think beyond right or wrong answers, rather to focus in the process of problem solving. We continued discussing how Helen supported Lisa share her work with her classmates: D: I think you did an amazing job when you asked students to share. That was very important. You were supporting them, and there were no right or wrong answers. All of them were building on one another’s responses. What did you realize when you asked Lisa to share? H: Yeah. I loved it. She was thinking, ‘What do I show?’ D: What did you notice on the way that I supported Lisa to scaffold her talking and presenting her work? H: Um, you gave a lot of sentence starters I think. You led her in that direction and she had to fill, finish the thought. She knew that you would help her get the words out. Definitely the visual and showing which pieces to start with helped. 162 D: Yeah, that’s what I did. I made sure that every part of the problem was in a different board. Lisa wanted to erase it and I said no. H: Oh [show surprise] I see. You showed the different things. Yeah, okay. D: Exactly, we worked on different boards. And when Lisa had to go to the front, she had to talk. She didn’t have the language so I was right next to her, and as you said I provided sentence starters. That is scaffolding. Lisa was able to complete it because had the idea. H: Yeah, she knew. D: And then you did as I modeled, good job! H: Thanks! Other days when I call kids out to share, I can tell that they don’t really know the way they are explaining it. It is coming across to the other kids. I would give them like try to think about it this way. So, I will start something and they will finish what I am saying. So definitely yes, I’ve seen that work as well for everybody. In this conversation, I used Helen teaching moves and students’ responses to those moves to discuss aspects of her teaching that she did not reflect on. I also used eliciting insights questions to encourage Helen to reflect on the implications of the strategy that I modeled. This question encouraged Helen to break down what she observed and also allowed me to share strategies that she did not see me asking Puja and Lisa to use. I made explicit that asking students to use different boards with would allow students to use those to unpack their thinking when discussing their work. Finally, I praised Helen doing as I modeled to continue working in the task. This comment allowed her to make connections on the implications of enacting the strategy of proving sentence starters in other classes I did not observe with students who are not EBs. Onsite Coaching: Modeling The third part in the onsite coaching continuum is coaching during classroom observations. The goal was to support interns in the enactment of the instructional strategies proposed and discussed in the lesson plans and planning sessions. To provide this support, I sat strategically in the classroom seeking to be close to the intern and the students. As an experienced teacher, my role was to model the enactment of new instructional strategies when needed. After having modeled how to enact the strategy, I encouraged the intern to continue with the task as I had demonstrated. Interns benefited from these real-life representations of practice 163 because they saw demonstrations on how to enact instructional strategies in conjunction with their students’ responses in the context of practice. Modeling supports included: provide explanations, suggest modifications, assist in providing explanations, and remind to follow lesson plans’ layouts. These supports systematically reduced as interns developed expertise and my coaching supports were no longer needed. During classroom observation, I took extensive field notes on interns’ teaching moves and on their students’ responses to those moves. I used these field notes in debriefing sessions. Questions to Ask in Debriefing Sessions In this part of the coaching cycle, I used field notes collected from classroom observations. When taking field notes, I sought to collect valuable information that would open dialogue in debriefing sessions for interns to reflect on their teaching and to reflect on implications on students’ learning during the learning sessions. By using dialogic feedback, interns and I discussed how the instructional strategies they enacted supported, or not, students achieve their learning goals. The use of interns’ teaching moves and quotes of students’ responses to those moves allowed interns to reflect on the strengths of their teaching and on how to overcome challenges in developing their teaching practice. Starting debriefing sessions. In debriefing sessions, I sought to open dialogue and for interns to share their perceptions of the outcomes of the lesson. I asked open-ended questions which allowed them to share what they considered was relevant during instruction. Examples of these questions are: “Tell me, how do you feel about the class? How did it go?” “Things that went well, things that could have been better?” “This is the time in which you develop your teaching practice. What are the strengths? What are the areas of improvement?” 164 Questions about interns’ moves. These questions sought for interns to unpack the strengths and areas of improvement of the learning session I observed. The goal is to maximize interns’ talk as I promoted dialogue on the outcome of the learning session by using field notes. These questions have two sub-categories: elicit insights and discuss strategies that were not reflected. Elicit insights. I used these questions to elicit interns’ perspectives on their teaching— strengths and areas of improvement—without providing any prompts from the observation. Some examples include: “What else you did you like about your teaching?” “I understand, I agree with you. So, what do you think worked very well?” “What do you think could be improved in today’s class?” “This is the time that we try and we try things that could work and could work better. So, what is the next step? What are we going to do next?” “Tell me about that part of the lesson. What were your thoughts about it?” Discuss strategies that were not reflected. I used these comments after interns had shared aspects of their teaching to encourage them to reflect on other aspects they did not discuss. To discuss interns’ strengths and areas of improvement, I quoted students’ responses to instructional strategies. These quotes allowed interns to reflect on how the instructional strategies supported, or not, students’ learning by seeking to understand the implications of their teaching practice. For example: “The first part was great. I loved how you elicited expressions and words students have seen before. They came up with polygons, clock wise, triangles, sides, and also the way that you made students come up with degrees. When we were asking them to think of what is the symbol that represents degrees, what do you think was happening in their minds? What did we accomplish with that strategy?” “By listening how other students think about math, Puja could be like ‘Oh maybe that’s another way to do it.’ I appreciate that you are pushing students 165 to talk about their thinking which is metacognitive awareness and which is closely related to the exit ticket you have. I think it’s a good way to finish. Okay, talk to me about the exit ticket.” “Even when this did not work, we have to learn from our mistakes. And this is the right time for you to make mistakes because you are a student. You have me, you have your mentor, you have our support. We know that instructions should be clear. It’s best to have a better structure and an example. Before working on the task, one of the students asked, ‘Are you going to walk us through the steps?’ Students asked because they are getting used to you walking them through the steps.” Questions that focused on students’ learning. These questions allowed interns to focus on how the enactment of the instructional strategies supported, or not, students’ learning. To do so, I used students’ quotes, responses, reactions, interactions, understanding, misunderstanding, engagement, and lack of engagement. For instance, “I agree with you, because it is mostly you doing everything. And students are not that engaged. I would give them worksheets.” “What you did today was amazing! Having all the vocabulary on the board helped Rudra and the rest of the class to use those words. I think that the strategy is working. Students are absolutely engaged. You elicited definitions, you were not providing definitions. You asked students to put the words in a sentence, so you were asking them for oral production.” “Another thing that I saw, I am not sure if you realized that, the interactions among students were amazing. That was really good. Because students had the sequence phases: first, next, then, and last, they were using those all the time.” “You were developing their metacognitive awareness on how math works. There were some students that said, ‘I am thinking of a math problem!’ That was great! Students were not just memorizing, rather you were pushing their thinking toward what you wanted them to do.” 166 Questions to Ask in Planning and Debriefing Sessions. These questions were used interchangeably in planning and debriefing sessions. These questions allowed me to make connections among interns’ prior knowledge and theory learned in the PD program. Drawing on prior knowledge/experience questions. Drawing on prior knowledge/experience questions allowed me to make connections to how interns enacted instructional strategies in prior classroom observations, and to build from those past experiences. At the same time, I reminded interns of their role as a facilitator and the need to focus on students’ outcomes. For example, “Remember what we discussed last week, scaffolding is provide temporary supports for students to work on more complex tasks.” “Do you remember what we did with Puja last week? You can use the same strategies. Bring students to the carpet and use the projector. Students can show their work and explain this math in their own words. Or they can write it down.” “Remember that last class the instructions were not that clear and students had problems solving the tasks? What can you do differently?” “I facilitate, I see myself as a facilitator. That is, students do everything. I just guide them so that they achieve their learning goals.” Reflection questions and suggestions. Reflection questions and suggestions allowed me to provide direct feedback on how to facilitate a task, promote students’ engagement and participation, introduce new content, elicit students’ thinking, and so on. For example, “Have you thought on make the instructions shorter and more to the point?” “Let’s focus on these questions. For instance, how many astronauts were on the spaceship? Another question would be about the problem, how did the astronauts solve the problem to come back to the moon? Or you can also focus on the words that you are introducing so that students use those words when 167 speaking and writing.” “You can give definitions of the triangles, for instance, ‘A triangle that has different sides is called _____.’ So that students complete fill in the blank with the correct word.” “Do you think you can project this worksheet on the board? And as it is projected, students can come to the board and write the numbers there? Students can engage in discussion on how they solved the math problems.” “We can put some images of the Louvre, the Pyramids, and the Empire States. Let’s pull those out and ask the students, ‘What are these? Do you recognize these buildings?’ First, start with real images. Then make connections with math.” Self-awareness questions. Self-awareness questions allowed interns to develop awareness on the implications on the development of their teaching practices. To develop self- awareness, interns can compare early lesson plans to recent ones, do peer-observation and discuss with other interns about the development of their teaching practices. The coach could also ask questions such as, “Look at the first lesson plans you worked on. How has your teaching changed since you started in your field placement?” “What new strategies are you incorporating in your teaching? How do those strategies support your students’ learning?” Discussion In this study, I sought to explore how different onsite coaching moves throughout the appropriation cycle supported interns’ systematic enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in the context of developing their teaching practice. Analysis of the data suggests that the tools used in this study made the enactment of new instructional strategies salient and visible (Grossman et al., 2009b). That is, the appropriation cycle situated onsite coaching through the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and recognized dialogic feedback and modeling as scaffolds to support teacher learning (Bruner, 1986). 168 Table 4 What Kinds of Feedback on Debriefing Sessions Support Prospective Teachers’ Enactment and Appropriation of Instructional Strategies? Questions to Ask in Debriefing Sessions Questions to Ask in Planning and Debriefing Sessions Starting debriefing sessions  This is the time in which you develop your teaching practice. What are the strengths? What are the areas of improvement?  Things that went well, things that could have been better? Questions about interns’ moves  What else you did you like about your teaching?  Questions that focused on students’ learning I agree with you, because it is mostly you doing everything. And students are not that engaged. I would give them worksheets.  This is the time that we try and we try things that could work and could work better. So, what is the next step? What are we going to do next?  What you did today was amazing! Having all the vocabulary on the board helped Rudra and the rest of the class to use those words. I think that the strategy is working. Students are absolutely engaged… 169 Drawing on prior knowledge/experience questions  Remember what we discussed last week, scaffolding is provide temporary supports for students to work on more complex tasks.  Remember that last class the instructions were not that clear and students had problems solving the tasks? What can you do differently? Reflection questions and suggestions Self-awareness questions  Look at the first lesson plans you worked on. How has your teaching changed since you started in your field placement?  What new strategies are you incorporating in your teaching? How do those strategies support your students’ learning?  Have you thought on make the instructions shorter and more to the point?  Let’s focus on these questions. For instance, how many astronauts were on the spaceship? Another question would be about the problem… As outlined in Stage One and Two of the IDEAL framework (Hinojosa, 2018), interns participated in a PD program in which through representations and approximations of practice, interns rehearsed in a safe space the enactment of new instructional strategies with the assistance of a coach (Hinojosa, under review). Following the trajectory of the theoretical framework, throughout Stage Three interns received coaching supports through feedback on lesson plans, feedback on planning session, modeling during classroom observations, and feedback on debriefing sessions. Data suggests that interns benefited from receiving written feedback followed by planning sessions (Orsmond, Merry, Reiling, 2005). Because feedback on lesson plans was in the form of thought provoking questions (Gigante, Dell, M., Sharkey, 2011), it fostered interns’ self-reflection, engagement, and make interns responsible of their own learning. In addition, phrasing of feedback made interns more receptive to feedback and they held positive perceptions toward it (Butler & Winne, 1995; Ferguson, 2011; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Following the theoretical framework, interns receive coaching supports during classroom observations. Interns’ enactment of new instructional strategies was supported by receiving immediate feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hounsell et al., 2008; Scheeler et al. 2004) in the form of modeling. Modeling was an alternative to providing less intrusive immediate feedback (O’Reilly, Renzaglia, & Lee, 1994) which did not disrupt the flow of the learning session. Debriefing sessions took place after classroom observations fostered dialogic exchange about the perceptions of interns’ teaching in their field placements (Butler & Winne, 1995; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Sadler, 1989, 2010). Questions fostered reflective dialogue and supported interns’ understanding the use of pedagogical tools in interactions with others and scaffolded interns’ strengths and areas of improvement (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978). Questioning promoted interns to be active participants in the decision making of their teaching 170 practice because interns reflected about practice in practice (Averill, Drake, Anderson, & Anthony, 2016). Consistent with Grossman et al. (2009b), this study builds on the importance of prospective teachers learning about students’ understanding and the need to build from that understanding to design learning sessions. In other words, students’ understandings and misunderstandings are a foundation for prospective teachers to develop a sense on how students comprehend, or not, key topic across content areas. The coaching cycle described in this study provide tools to support prospective teachers focus on students’ thinking. Further, it provides tools that could support prospective teachers unpack their thoughts and scaffold the co- construction of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). These tools provide supports for prospective teachers to design learning opportunities having in mind the multiple ways in which students might respond to the tasks. In addition, these tools allow prospective teachers to understand how students make sense of the content and to support students making sense of what they are learning. Conclusion As teacher educators, we raise questions related to teacher learning. For example, how to prepare prospective teachers to focus on students’ learning? How to prepare prospective teachers to scaffold instruction? How to make teacher learning salient and visible? How to prepare prospective teachers to make sense of their learning and to unpack their thinking? How to support prospective teachers become lifelong learners? This study has implications on teacher preparation programs because it contributes to answering some of these questions. Further, this study provides field supervisors with a model for coaching prospective teachers in their placements through feedback dialogic feedback and modeling. This model has promising 171 implications for field supervisors to adopt a coaching stance which promotes prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Through onsite coaching and dialogic feedback prospective teachers reflect on aspects of developing their teaching practice in practice (Ghaye, 2011; Loughran, 2006; Schön, 1987). In other words, by taking this clinical stance, field experiences can provide opportunities to connect theory learned in university course work and enact it as the complexity of teaching arises in field placements. 172 BIBLIOGRAPHY 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY Averill, R., Drake, M., Anderson, D., & Anthony, G. (2016). The use of questions within in-the- moment coaching in initial mathematics teacher education: enhancing participation, reflection, and co-construction in rehearsals of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 486—503. Ball, E. C. (2010). Annotation an effective device for student feedback: A critical review of the literature. Nurse Education in Practice, 10, 138-143. Boud, D. & Molloy, E. (2013). Decision-making for feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in Higher and Professional Education (pp. 202-217). London: Routledge. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 3(6), 395-407. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249–305. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “Highly Qualified Teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, Article 33. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/261. Ellery, K. (2008). Assessment for learning: A case study using feedback effectively in an essay- style test. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 421-429. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights form the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp. 21–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustaining teaching. Teacher College Records, 103(6), 1013-1055. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational leadership, 60(8), 25- 29. 174 Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 51-62. Ghaye, T. (2011). Teaching and learning through reflective practice: A practical guide for positive action. London: Routledge. Gee, J.P. (2014). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 446–476. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31. Gigante, J., Dell, M., Sharkey, A. (2011). Getting beyond "good job": How to give effective feedback. Pediatrics Perspectives, 127(2), 205-207. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., Williamson, P. (2009a). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record 111(9), 2055-2100. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009b). Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273-289. Grossman, P.L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of Education, 108(1), 1-29. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. Hawley, W.D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hinojosa, D.M. (2018). Coaching during workshops and classroom observations: Promoting the appropriation of instructional strategies to teach emergent bilinguals. Individual Paper presented at American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 70th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hinojosa, D.M. (under review). Preparing interns to differentiate instruction for emergent bilinguals in general education classrooms. Hoban, G.F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press. 175 Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., and Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(1), 55–67. Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. Teachers College: Columbia University. Keller, C. L., Brady, M. P., & Taylor, R. L. (2005). Using self-evaluation to improve student teacher interns’ use of specific praise. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 368-376. Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232. Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129– 141). New York, NY: Springer. Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H. . . . Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. Little, J.W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 297-351).Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). SAGE Publications. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. O’Reilly, M. F., Renzaglia, A., & Lee, S. (1994). An analysis of acquisition, generalization and maintenance of systematic instruction competencies by teachers using behavioral supervision techniques. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 22–33. Orsmond, P., Merry, S. & Reiling. K. (2005). Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: a qualitative interview study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 30(4), 369–386. 176 Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P. & Havelock, P. (2003). The new consultation: Developing doctor-patient communication (2nd Ed). New York: Oxford University Press. Prins, F., Sluijsmans, D.M.A., & Kirschner, P.A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289–303. Putnan, R.T. & Borko, H. (2001). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Remler, D. K., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Research methods in practice (2nd Ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rosaen, C., & Florio-Ruane, S. (2008). The metaphors by which we teach: Experience, metaphor and culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Nemser, & D.J. McIntyre (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd Ed., pp. 706-731). New York: Routledge. Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147–164. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144. Sadler, D.R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 77–84. Sadler, D.R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. Scheeler, M.C., Ruhl, K.L., and McAfee, J.K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396 - 407. Schmidt, M. (2008). Mentoring and being mentored: the story of a novice music teacher’s success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 635–648. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 43–48. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153– 189. 177 Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L.S., & Johnson, T.S. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 15, 1399-1436 Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, J. (2013). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wegner, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th Ed.). SAGE Publications. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1- 2), 89-99. 178 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 179 Conclusion and Implications There is consensus among researchers on prospective teachers benefiting from supports that allow them to understand the complexity of teaching. This dissertation contributes to the growing research on providing supports and guidance to prospective teachers to integrate what they learned in their teacher preparation programs in developing their teaching practice. In other words, integrate theory-based knowledge and experience-based knowledge to for prospective teachers to enact new instructional strategies in the context of developing their teaching practice. Throughout the chapters of this dissertation, I explored how the different onsite coaching moves within the coaching cycle systematically supported interns’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies and how these informed the IDEAL theoretical framework. Previous longitudinal studies (Hinojosa, 2018, under review) and this dissertation informed the IDEAL framework in terms of the components that support teacher learning in course work, and onsite coaching moves support the enactment and appropriation of theory in practice. In other words, through a trajectory of participation, the IDEAL framework suggests that participants engage in iterative cycles of onsite coaching moves that promote the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Over the past three years, I explored Stages One and Two of the IDEAL theoretical framework. In these stages, I sought to understand how the design of the PD program, and use of representations of practice, approximations of practice, and coaching during the PD program supported stakeholders’ (i.e., prospective teachers, practicing teachers, field supervisors, and teacher preparation instructors) development of cultural awareness to teach EBs in general education classrooms. Further, I explored how through iterative cycles of repetition, the features of the PD program supported stakeholders to differentiate instruction to teach EBs in general 180 education classrooms. In this dissertation, I explored Stage Three of the IDEAL framework which sought to understand the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies through the use of onsite coaching moves such as modeling (Feiman-Nemser, 2001), dialogic feedback (Ellery, 2008; Kulhavy, 1977), questions, and intensive clinical work (Darling- Hammond, 2006). In the following paragraphs, I unpack how these onsite coaching moves support teacher learning. Chapter One discussed the IDEAL framework which draws on the sociocultural theoretical perspective and follows Pendleton’s (2003) model for feedback interaction. In this chapter, I discussed how earlier empirical work and findings informed the development of this framework. In this chapter, I unpacked the three stages of the framework (i.e., Designing a Program Stage, Approximation of Practice Cycle, and Appropriation of Practice Stage), and the components within each stage. Chapter Two explored two components of Stage Three of the IDEAL framework: feedback on lesson plans and feedback on planning sessions. Research on feedback in teacher learning is limited. In the medical field and in higher education, researchers advocate to move away from feedback as monologue, toward dialogic feedback (e.g., Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Scheeler et al., 2004) because the latter supports reflection. Literature suggests that there are attributes that feedback has to meet for it to be effective. For example, timing, specificity, and complexity of feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Scheeler et al., 2004; Shute, 2008); as well as sufficiency and detail of feedback (Gibbs & Simpson, 2004) fosters feedback to be acted upon. Further, learners to know what to do with written feedback, a dialogue about feedback needs to take place (Freeman & Lewis, 1998; Laurillard, 2005; Nicol & Macfarlane, 2006). Chapter Two contributes to the literature in 181 relation to feedback on lesson plans followed by planning sessions that promote the enactment of new instructional strategies. In this chapter, feedback on lesson plans was characterized by being in the form of thought-provoking questions that promoted self-reflection and engagement, and made interns responsible for their own learning. Further, because feedback was constructive and phased toward providing explanations and encouraging reflection, participants were more receptive to it and eager to enact it. Written feedback was followed by dialogic feedback during planning sessions. Planning sessions provided a space for collaborative discussion in which interns made sense of written feedback, and provided opportunities to share experiences, developed awareness, and sought for improvement building on prior knowledge and experiences. Chapter Three explored the following two components of the IDEAL framework: modeling and feedback on debriefing sessions. Research on modeling (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Putnan & Borko, 2000; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; West & Cameron, 2013) as a form or coaching is limited. Literature suggests that modeling provides prospective teachers with real- time representations of practice that supports them to respond to the complexity of teaching. Chapter Three contributes to the literature in relation to modeling during classroom observations. In this chapter, I discussed how modeling followed by dialogic feedback in debriefing sessions supported prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. Modeling during classroom observations provided immediate feedback without interrupting the flow. Further, modeling reminded prospective teachers to enact instructional strategies they did not consider. Dialogic feedback during debriefing sessions provided a space to exchange information and to reflect on prospective teachers’ development of their teaching practice. Reflective dialogue promoted prospective teachers to be active participants in the decision 182 making of their teaching practice, and encouraged prospective teachers to involve in reflecting how the enactment of instructional supported students’ learning. Finally, Chapter Four is a practitioners’ piece which sought to provide teacher educators and field supervisors with an onsite coaching model that supports teacher learning. Literature is consistent in terms of the need to prepare prospective teachers to integrate theory- based knowledge and experience-based knowledge. However the latter can only be learned when prospective teachers start their field experiences. Researchers have developed models that seek to bridge the disconnect between theory and practice (e.g., Darling-Hammond & Skyes, 2003; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Grossman et al., 2009). Chapter Four, contributes to the literature by providing a model for field supervision. In this chapter, I unpack the four components of the Appropriation of Practice Stage which are: feedback on lesson plans, feedback on planning sessions, modeling during classroom observations, and feedback on debriefing sessions. Chapter Four aimed to provide tools for each of the components of the model for practitioners to design learning opportunities so that prospective teachers unpack their thoughts, scaffold the co- construction of knowledge, and make sense of the development of their teaching practice. Research on field supervision for prospective teachers is limited. Findings in this dissertation have promising implications for how teacher preparation programs can provide supports for prospective teachers in their field experiences. Further, this dissertation contributes to the literature on how this onsite coaching cycle supports teacher educators and field supervisors take a clinical stance to promote prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies in the context of practice. Finally, this dissertation discusses how the different components of the onsite coaching cycle made complex teaching practices salient 183 and visible. That is, this model provides opportunities for teacher educators and field supervisors to connect theory learned in method courses to the enactment of such theory in teaching. This study allowed me to raise questions related to teacher learning and to reflect upon the future directions of my research. In my interactions with prospective teachers I learned how they perceived the cyclical process of the curriculum and their dispositions to re-visit and build on previous knowledge. For instance, in some cases prospective teachers were reluctant to revisit concepts arguing that they already knew those concepts and it was not necessary to study them again. This happened specifically with the prospective teacher that held a TESOL minor. Helen reported that she did not go over the modules, videos, or Power Points arguing that she already knew all the concepts and it was not necessary. Her perception of preparedness made Helen reluctant to receive more instruction even when she struggled in enacting instructional strategies. It was only when both prospective teachers shared their experiences in their field placements and the instructional strategies that they enacted and appropriated, when Helen realized that she had missed learning opportunities. These realizations made me wonder, how can I prepare prospective teachers to scaffold instruction? How can I support prospective teachers become lifelong learners? In relation to supporting prospective teachers develop their teaching practice there are numerous unanswered questions that will guide my research in the coming years. These questions are, how can I prepare prospective teachers to focus on students’ learning? How to scaffold prospective teachers’ enactment of theory from methods courses in their teaching practice? How can I make teacher learning salient and visible? How can I prepare prospective teachers to provide students with a space to make sense of their learning and to unpack their thinking? These questions will guide my future research as I continue developing my understanding of the enactment and appropriation of new instructional strategies. It is my goal to 184 continue these efforts in US and international contexts. In other words, I plan to continue developing these onsite coaching tools with two projects I am currently working on, one with a university in Perú and another project with the Peruvian Ministry of Education. Further, I will improve the IDEAL theoretical framework for practical use in field supervision, to continue designing tools that support prospective teachers’ enactment and appropriation of what they are taught in teacher preparation programs in their field placements, and to explore their implementation in longitudinal studies. 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY 186 BIBLIOGRAPHY Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “Highly Qualified Teacher” challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, Article 33. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/261. Ellery, K. (2008). Assessment for learning: A case study using feedback effectively in an essay- style test. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 421-429. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustaining teaching. Teacher College Records, 103(6), 1013-1055. Freeman, R. & Lewis, R. (1998). Planning and implementing assessment. London, Kogan Page. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 446–476. Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., Williamson, P. (2009a). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record 111(9), 2055-2100. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. Hinojosa, D.M. (2018). Coaching during workshops and classroom observations: Promoting the appropriation of instructional strategies to teach emergent bilinguals. Individual Paper presented at American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 70th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. Hinojosa, D.M. (under review). Preparing interns to differentiate instruction for emergent bilinguals in general education classrooms. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd Ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Nicol, D.J. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. 187 Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P. & Havelock, P. (2003). The new consultation: Developing doctor-patient communication (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Putnan, R.T. & Borko, H. (2001). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Scheeler, M.C., Ruhl, K.L., and McAfee, J.K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(4), 396—407. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153– 189. Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 188