Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Best Practices for Transformational Teacher Education: The Full-Immersion Professional Development Schools Alternative.
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Polizzi, Joseph A. |
| Copyright Year | 2009 |
| Abstract | This article reports findings to promote the best practices of a transformative teaching and learning environment, from a case study of a yearlong full-immersion secondary-level professional development school. The results support the idea that interns have a significant stake, an active professional community commitment, and a heightened awareness during their training and before their employment. As a result of the full-immersion professional development school experience, interns experience a significant transformational impact in their personal and professional grounding as future career educators. Best practices for the promotion of authentic teacher preparation are discussed. There are alternatives to the current models of teacher preparation and development: They embody different assumptions about teaching and learning and the transformation of schooling—assumptions that appear more compatible with the complex demands of the context of teaching (Little, 1993). The long-held practice of a future teacher’s spending 3 years at the university, then the final two halves of the 4th year in a field experience based on student teaching, has been questioned, namely, regarding whether it is an effective or authentic preparation model for future teachers (see Roth, 1994). Preservice teachers often give their in-service experiences a failing grade— calling it limited, inconsistent, and disconnected from their coursework (Neville, Sherman, & Cohen, 2005). Many educators advocate for a more professional, clinical, and authentic approach to the preparation of new teachers (Campoy, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 1994; Goodlad, 1994). Over the past decade, partnerships between colleges of education and school districts have taken root in school districts nationwide and in such places as the Netherlands and Japan, forming professional development schools (PDSs) and providing professional learning and development experiences to university faculty, experienced teachers, and the preservice teachers. There are many encouraging signs that PDSs are positively affecting the traditional ways that teachers are trained, recruited, inducted, and developed (Levine & Trachtman, 1997; Mule, 2006). Many PDSs are playing a valuable role in school reform efforts. They are transforming the way that school districts and colleges of education work together to bridge the gap between theory on one hand and practice, academic preparation, classroom learning, inservice experiences, and transitions on the other. Castle, Fox, and O’Hanlan-Souder (2006) found that PDS teacher candidates performed at higher levels (compared to nonPDS teachers) on aspects of instruction, management and assessment and that these higher levels of performance are intertwined with a sophisticated understanding of the connections between and across various aspects of teaching. As the idea of the PDS becomes a more widespread and established part of the educational lexicon (as recently recognized by the National Association of Professional Development Schools [NAPDS]), the term professional development school has been used as a catch-all phrase for various models of school–university partnerships that may or may not be described as an authentic PDS. The NAPDS (2008) has articulated the following parameters to more clearly define a PDS: 1. A comprehensive mission that is broader in its outreach and scope than the mission of any partner and that furthers the education profession and its responsibility to advance equity within schools and, by potential extension, the broader community; 2. A school–university culture committed to the preparation of future educators that embraces their active engagement in the school community; 3. Ongoing and reciprocal professional development for all participants guided by need; 4. A shared commitment to innovative and reflective practice by all participants; 5. Engagement in and public sharing of the results of deliberate investigations of practice by respective participants; 6. An articulation agreement developed by the respective participants delineating the roles and responsibilities of all involved; 7. A structure that allows all participants a forum for ongoing governance, reflection, and collaboration; 8. Work by college/university faculty and P–12 faculty in formal roles across institutional settings; and 9. Dedicated and shared resources and formal rewards and recognition structures. Clarification is still necessary that further distinguishes PDSs from the traditional student-teaching models. With the definition of the NAPDS, it is difficult to truly discern differences in traditional student-teaching field experience and a PDS experience, which is an integral albeit separate functioning schoolswithin-school collaborative effort. At their best, PDSs do create a schoolwide culture that incorporates teacher candidates as full participants of the school community (NAPDS, 2008). Although Nos. 2, 3, and 7 hint at a full immersion into a school community, the NAPDS definition stops short of designating the experience as such. As school districts, colleges of education, and departments of education further consider instituting PDS policies, the development and implementation of a PDS should encapsulate the number of hours required of a PDS intern to serve in a clinical capacity in the school district. Literature on teacher preparation points to the extensive internship in a PDS as a critical element of effective teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 1999). However, one area of concern involves the discrepancy from PDS to PDS and the actual amount of time that an intern may spend in the classroom and school context, as compared to that of someone going through a traditional student-teaching field placement. For example, in 2003, the state of Maryland redesigned its PDS standards and requirements, calling for PDS programs in the state to ideally aim for 100 days (full-time) across two semesters of in-school experience for certification. Currently, the overall length of the full-time portion requirement (5 days per week) of any PDS internship varies, with 15 weeks as a minimum full-time placement (Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K–16, 2003). The number of days in many regular on-campus student-teaching programs is between 15 to 20 weeks at 5 days per week, which is equal to 75 to 100 days per year and which still falls far short of a full-year immersion. In some instances, organizations consider a PDS simply 20 weeks of traditional student teaching spread out over the course of a full year. |
| Starting Page | 98 |
| Ending Page | 111 |
| Page Count | 14 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Volume Number | 3 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ915874.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
