Stephanie L. Knight

THE COGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES OF ESL STUDENTS

0 In recent years, researchers have investigated the importance of the cognitive strategies students use while reading (Weaver 1979, Hansen 1980, Wilkinson 1980, Linden and Wittrock, 1981, Cohen 1983). The use of these strategies has been found to be effective in improving studentsreading comprehension (Brown 1981, Baker and Brown 1984, Palinscar and Brown 1984, 1985). However, as Padron (1985a) has noted, most of these studies have been conducted with English monolinguals, and few have examined the reading strategies of ESL students (Padron 1984, 1985b). Since reading and language are closely linked (Carroll 1977), the difficulties bilinguals encounter in reading texts in their second language may differ from those experienced by monolinguals. Connor (1984), for example, found that there were differences in the way students process material written in the second language. The study reported here was conducted to determine whether there are differences in either the type or frequency of cognitive reading strategies reported by ESL and monolingual students. Individual interviews, which were audiotaped for analysis, were conducted with 23 Spanish-speaking ESL students and 15 English monolingual students from the third and fifth grade classes of an inner-city public school in a major Southwestern metropolis. Subjects were first administered the San Diego Quick Assessment (see Ekwall 1979), a graded word list to determine their independent reading levels. Students then read an appropriately matched passage from the Ekwall Reading Inventory Manual (Ekwall 1979), stopping at pre-marked intervals to explain the reading comprehension strategies they were using. Spanishspeaking students were allowed to respond in their native language so that

The Reflectivity-Activity Dilemma in School-University Partnerships

Universities and schools differ in their orientations toward the role of reflectivity and activity in collaborative restructuring efforts. The authors describe and compare three models of school university partnerships in relation to factors that may affect the balance of reflectivity and activity needed for successful collaboration. They suggest that comparison, analysis, and evaluation of such models may provide guidelines for resolving the reflectivity-activity dilemma.

Professional Development for Teachers of Diverse Students: A Summary of the Research.

This article summarizes findings from a research review of professional development for teachers of students from traditionally underrepresented populations, including those from diverse cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Questions addressed in this review include: (a) What constitutes professional development for teachers of diverse students? (b) How does professional development for teachers of diverse students impact teacher outcomes? and (c) How does professional development for teachers of diverse students impact student outcomes? Manual and database searches of studies conducted in the United States from 1986 to 2003 and published in peer-reviewed journals yielded 56 qualitative and quantitative studies after synthesis criteria were applied. Of these, 18 met the criteria for rigorous research. In general, findings suggest that little evidence exists for determining the effectiveness of various professional development approaches.

Using Collaborative Teacher Research to Determine the Impact of Professional Development School Activities on Elementary Students' Math and Writing Outcomes

As a result of the emphasis on professional development schools (PDSs) in teacher education over the past decade, numerous theoretical articles, process descriptions, and research reports provide considerable information about the nature and impact of school-university partnerships (Abdal-Haaq, 1998; Book, 1996). Several articles outline the perceived benefits for school and university faculty of participation in joint inquiry (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1992). The literature provides particular insights into what happens to teachers, future teachers, and to a lesser extent, university professors; and how schools and universities change as a result of their collaboration. Most studies focus on roles and relationships, teacher attitudes, and teacher education, rather than on the elementary and secondary students in PDSs (Book, 1996). Although almost all PDS partnership goals include a stated emphasis on improved school achievement and student learning (Freeman, 1996), few studies address the impact of PDS efforts on student outcomes (Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Book, 1996; Valli, Cooper, & Frankes, 1997). Why have researchers not adequately addressed the impact of PDS on K-12 student outcomes? Field research that assesses student learning is difficult and fraught with pitfalls that threaten its rigor. Easy-to-obtain measures such as standardized tests may be too far removed from the focus and activities of PDSs to provide adequate measurement of impact on student learning. Reform efforts focusing on restructuring typically seek to evaluate authentic student activities that have relevance and meaning for them (Newmann, 1991) but may be difficult to measure. Furthermore, it is difficult to isolate distinct variables in complex interventions such as PDSs that can be directly related to student outcomes. Use of control group or other traditional experimental designs, which might serve to identify cause-and-effect relationships, may be seen as unethical by teachers and administrators because they deny potentially beneficial treatments from groups of students and teachers in the school. Another possible reason for the paucity of research on the effects of PDSs on K-12 students involves issues of trust and collaboration between practitioners and researchers. Many opportunities for inquiry to be misunderstood exist in partnerships where tenuous relationships are evolving between two very different cultures struggling with issues of trust, power, and control (Knight, Wiseman, & Smith, 1992; Ruscoe, Whitford, Egginton, & Esselman, 1989). Teachers may have concerns about the implications of experimentation in their classes because the experience may be damaging to students (Darling Hammond, 1992). Furthermore, partnership research can directly affect the professional lives of teachers and administrators. For example, teachers may see research as competing with instructional goals (Book, 1996); less than outstanding findings may reflect badly on programs, teachers, and administrators increasingly under public scrutiny. Teachers and administrators have traditionally been the objects of study by university researchers who may or may not even share their findings with the objects of their research. Teachers often see little relevance in studies that answer questions they do not ask and reports that use terminology they do not understand. As a result, the gap between research and practice widens. One response to the problems of mediating research and practice and excluding teachers voices in the development of knowledge about teaching and learning is the collaboration of school and university researchers in determining PDS impact. Collaborative inquiry (Sirotnik 1988), also known as teacher research (Hollingsworth & Sockett, 1994), action research (Oja & Pine, 1987; Reason 1994), or collaborative research (Lee, 1993), holds significant promise. The goal of collaborative teacher research is to link research with practice to affect teacher thinking and instructional behavior, school systems and culture, and student outcomes. …

Performance Assessment of Teaching: Implications for Teacher Education

Recent challenges concerning the quality of teachers and the programs that prepare them have resulted in responses from professional organizations that have been more widespread and intense than in the past (Robinson, 2011; Wiseman, 2012). The Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation (BRP) formed by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the merger of NCATE and Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) into Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) to improve teacher education (Cibulka, 2011), and the Teacher Performance Assessment Initiative which emerged from collaboration between the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) member institutions (Robinson, 2011) are examples of ways that professional organizations have responded to the challenges. In general, calls for performance assessments of teaching to provide both formative and summative information about the quality of teachers, teacher candidates, and teacher preparation programs pervade the current discourse on education at every level, including schools and districts, institutions of higher education, state and national policymaking entities, and professional organizations. As a result, a number of performance assessments have emerged that can provide feedback to teacher education programs about the strengths and weaknesses of their candidates as well as evidence for licensure and certification of teachers. For example, Education Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) was designed to provide information for program improvement through the use of a common set of performance assessments for preservice teachers and has also been adopted by states and districts for summative evaluation purposes (http://edtpa.aacte.org/). The multiple performance measures in systems like edTPA improve upon value added models (VAM) by providing information on teaching quality, not just teacher quality or teacher effectiveness, and provide information sooner than might be accomplished by use of VAM alone (Newton, 2010). For this theme issue, we invited research and conceptual articles related to teacher performance assessments specifically as they affect teacher education, including validation studies of measures used in the assessments. We posed a series of questions that we considered important for researchers to address related to performance assessments, including the following: What are the relationships between current performance assessments and teacher education, either conceptually or in terms of outcomes? What do we know about the use of performance assessments in the context of teacher education, and what do we need to know? How do performance assessments of teachers in schools map onto assessment of teacher education programs, or how dont they? What differences may exist across novice teachers and expert teachers with respect to performance assessment, and how does that impact their professional learning? What are the implications of the relationships between for-profit companies, university teacher education programs, researchers, states, and professional organizations with respect to performance assessments of teachers? What is the relationship between assessment criteria and the research on teaching and learning, and what are its implications for teacher education? How do states make decisions to move to statewide teacher assessment systems? What potential conflicts of interest may exist among various stakeholders in performance assessment efforts? How do policies related to performance assessment of teachers affect opportunities for teacher learning? What can we learn from the history of past efforts to evaluate beginning teachers? What is different this time? What do we know about the validity and reliability of performance assessments and why does this matter? …

Professional Development and Practices of Teacher Educators

Journal of Teacher Educations (JTE) Major Forum at the 2013 AACTE Annual Meeting (Knight, Edmondson, Hollins, Imig, & Gitomer, 2013) focused on the current and future preparation of teacher educators. The topic attracted a large audience and the presenters generated a great deal of interest among attendees. However, from questions and comments, it was clear that while some in the audience considered teacher educator education a separate area of study, others considered the research on teacher education as the appropriate knowledge base for the practices and preparation of teacher educators. The participants noted that a similar assumption was made initially when considering the relationship between research on teaching and teacher education. We subsequently learned that while research on teaching informs research on teacher education, the latter needs a specialized knowledge base of its own. While we are making gains in building that specialized knowledge base for teacher preparation and professional development, we have neglected the study of teacher educators. The assumption that a good teacher will become a good teacher educator is prevalent in the field but has not been systematically examined. As a result of this discussion, we raised the following question: Does the preparation of teacher educators warrant attention to the development of a pedagogy of teacher educator education separate from that of teacher preparation? The mission of JTE is to build and refine the knowledge base on teacher education to inform policy and practice. However, we have paid relatively little attention in the past to an important component of teacher education--the quality of teacher educators. We know little about the learning, practices, and preparation involved in teacher educator education. In addition to highlighting what we know (or do not know) about current practice and preparation of teacher educators, the topic of the AACTE major forum highlighted the development of next generation teacher educators. Standards-based curriculum and assessment (Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts and Mathematics and the Next Generation Science Standards), and the accompanying accountability associated with their implementation (see JTE theme issue Volume 63:5), place considerable demands on acquisition of the kind of teaching skills that few teachers currently possess (Lampert et al., 2013). As a consequence, the current assessment and accountability challenges also place demands on preservice and inservice teacher educators to enable teachers to effectively incorporate the standards into instruction (Moon, Passmore, Reiser, & Michaels, 2014). Defining the knowledge and skills that teacher educators will need to prepare teachers for the challenges of standards-based instruction is a necessary first step. Determining how teacher educators can acquire this expertise is a high-priority research task. As a result of the discussion focused on preparation of teacher educators as distinct from teachers, we initiated a call for manuscripts focused on teacher educator practices and professional development. Much has been said about the complexity of teaching and teacher learning and the need for research that reflects that complexity. We assume that teacher educator learning and teacher educator preparation are similarly complex. However, we lack a well-developed knowledge base that would explicate this complexity. In our call for manuscripts and in our JTE Major Forum, we posed the following sets of questions that were designed to begin a more focused discussion of a pedagogy of teacher educator education and stimulate research on the topic: * Who are teacher educators and what are the current knowledge, skills, and dispositions that they possess? What practices characterize the work of teacher educators? Are the practices similar for preservice and inservice teacher education? * What forms of knowledge do teacher educators use that differ from those used by teachers in general, and how do these forms of knowledge develop? …

Quality Teacher Education Research How Do We Know It When We See It

In the first issue of Volume 63, we focused our editorial on the need to improve research in teacher education by increasing the rigor and relevance of studies in the field. We referred to individual studies as bricks in a structure that would serve as a knowledge base for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers (Knight, Lloyd, Arbaugh, Edmondson, Nolan, & Whitney, 2012). As researchers, we need to attend to both the quality of individual bricks and the positioning of those bricks within the framework. In other words, by situating our findings within the theoretical frameworks and prior research that undergird the knowledge base, we can advance the field. Research submitted to Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) is steadily improving. Although much of our own evidence as editors of JTE is anecdotal, coming from the hundreds of articles we encounter each year, evidence for improvement is emerging from other sources as well. Our acceptance rate has steadily increased while we have maintained the same high standards for publication. Although not the sole indicator of quality, the change in the impact of the journal may also signal a perceived increase in quality by readers of the journal. In a previous editorial (JTE 63:1), we cited our rank of 18 out of 177 education and education research journals and an impact factor of 1.891 as evidence of our standing in the field. Since that time, thanks to the efforts of previous editors and what we see as the improvement of research in teacher education leading to more citations, JTE has moved to number 10 of 203 journals and has increased the impact factor to 2.292 (Thompson Reuters, 2012). Nevertheless, we still have more to do. As editors, we spend a great deal of time articulating what makes some manuscripts publishable and others not. Manuscripts are often subjected to editorial team review prior to being sent out for peer scrutiny and always before their final acceptance. As we discuss the characteristics of various manuscripts, the complexity of defining research quality in a field with such diverse methods and topics becomes apparent. Others have explored the topic for education research in general (see, for example, National Research Council, 2002). However, as we continue this discussion, we find we are slowly acquiring a set of criteria which can be applied to diverse studies specifically in teacher education. Although these criteria are still emerging, we would like to expand the discussion to the JTE readership by sharing our thoughts on some of the criteria we have formulated to date. Criteria for Quality In judging manuscripts, we consider a number of questions related to criteria for quality. Some questions are dictated by criteria for appropriateness for JTE, but others revolve around more generic issues of quality. As editors of a journal with such a diverse readership, we find that to make the range of studies and topics accessible to proponents of different philosophies, research paradigms, and interests, authors need to be very explicit in their rationale and report of the research and how they have incorporated the criteria for quality in their studies. The following questions may help guide authors in this process. Appropriateness for JTE The first question we ask of any manuscript that comes across our desk is whether the study actually focuses on teacher education, and if so, would it be of interest to readers of the journal. Is the manuscript appropriate for JTE? Two types of manuscripts typically receive a negative response to this question. Studies that focus on teaching or teachers or students in elementary and secondary schools, without making an explicit connection to teacher education, constitute the first category. Merely mentioning the applicability of the findings for teacher education in the implications is not enough. The connection to teacher education should appear in the theoretical framework and the rationale for the study, as well as in the discussion and implications. …

Examining the Complexity of Assessment and Accountability in Teacher Education

The theme of accountability currently permeates conversations about education at every level, including teacher education and professional development. In our Call for Manuscripts for this theme issue, we invited empirical or conceptual manuscripts addressing assessment and accountability in teacher education that would move the community forward in considering the topics both more precisely and with greater complexity. The range of suggested subtopics and questions within assessment and accountability in teacher education was broad to elicit a wide range of responses. In general, we asked, Who is to be held accountable? For what? And by whom? As we reviewed the many excellent submissions, one predominant response to these questions centered on value-added modeling (VAM) approaches to accountability. Although this is only one of several answers to the questions we asked, it is one that has important intended and unintended consequences for various stakeholders in teacher education, including beginning teachers, mentor teachers, administrators, teacher educators, higher education institutions, and policy makers. Emergence of Value-Added Models for Teacher Education The rise of interest in VAM for teacher education is related to the search for the definition of teacher quality that has emerged as a primary factor in determination of K-12 student performance, probably as a confluence of a number of events (see Knight, 2011). The Tennessee study (Sanders & Horn, 1998), a landmark study using random assignment of teachers and students to classrooms, firmly established the advantage for students of having a high-quality teacher over a number of years. For many years, educators had struggled with the seemingly intractable socioeconomic factors related to poor student performance. The notion of teacher quality appeared to be manipulable and constituted a viable approach for closing student achievement gaps. Not only do teachers make a difference but their effectiveness can potentially be assessed, rewarded, and improved through recruitment, incentives, and/or professional development. No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top funding and legislation served to popularize the VAM approach for determination of teacher quality. Given the emphasis on teacher professional development as a contributor to teacher quality, the application of VAM approaches for teacher education accountability may have appeared to be an obvious connection to policy makers (see Floden, 2012 [this issue]). Despite the rather limited evidence of the impacts of teacher preparation programs on student achievement (Duckworth, Quinn, & Seligman, 2009), many policy makers concluded that the quality of teacher education preparation, as with individual teachers, can potentially be assessed, rewarded, and improved--or removed if necessary. However, just as VAM applied to determination of individual teacher quality resulted in a number of methodological, ethical, and other concerns, VAM used to determine the quality of teacher education programs carries similar concerns as well as others specific to teacher education. Possibilities and Limitations of VAM for Teacher Education In February 2012, Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) sponsored a Major Forum at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Annual Meeting in Chicago that featured research using VAM for assessment of the quality of teacher education programs in several states and commentaries that focused participants on both the possibilities as well as the limitations of this approach. Participants agreed that the framing of VAM as a policy issue is important and that much is at stake as we consider the education of teachers and the education of young people in this country. Federal and state governments are investing a great deal of money in value-added assessment systems, and the consequences of policy implementation are complex and significant. …

Effects of Implementing Classroom Instructional Models on English Language Learners' Cognitive and Affective Outcomes

Abstract The purpose of the present study was to examine alternative instructional strategies for improving the education of English language learners (ELLs). More specifically, the present study provides descriptive and comparative information on the use of different instructional approaches that were implemented by 17 bilingual teachers and their 325 Hispanic ELLs from five elementary schools located in a medium-sized metropolitan school district in the south central region of the United States. The three instructional approaches examined in the study were (a) ESL in the Content Areas (Chamot & OMalley, 1986), (b) Effective Use of Time (EUOT) (Stallings, 1980, 1986), and (c) a combination approach including both ESL in the Content Areas and EUOT. The fourth group included in the study did not receive any training and functioned as the control group. The analysis of covariance results revealed that the EUOT group had significantly higher posttest scores on reading and language arts achievement than all ...

Reconceptualizing Teacher Quality to Inform Preservice and Inservice Professional Development

In the previous issue, Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Ana Maria Villegas provided Part One of two JTE articles based on their chapter in the upcoming fifth edition of the Handbook of Research on Teaching (Cochran-Smith et al., in press). Their handbook chapter presents the findings from the review of 1,500 teacher education research studies published between 2000 and 2012. Part One of the two articles described the procedures and theoretical framework used in the literature review, outlined three major trends that have influenced research in teacher education, and presented the findings for the first of three major research programs in teacher education identified through the search (Cochran-Smith & Villegas, 2014). Part Two, included in this issue, Critiquing Teacher Preparation Research: An Overview of the Field, Part Two, by Cochran-Smith et al., presents the findings from portions of the remaining two programs of research: research on teacher preparation for the knowledge society and research on teacher preparation for diversity and equity. Studies outlined in the second research program examined the influence of school-based fieldwork opportunities in teacher preparation on student teacher learning and explored the traditional student teaching combination of university supervisor, mentor teacher, and student teacher, as well as alternatives to this triad. A number of studies also investigated how teacher candidate characteristics and factors related to school and fieldwork features shape teacher learning and experiences during the practicum/student teaching. Findings revealed the very different, often conflicting views of teaching and learning that universities espouse in contrast to teaching and learning implemented in schools and/or mandated by education policies. Studies in the third program of research referenced the changing demographics in public schools and examined the opportunities for learning to teach diverse student populations provided to preservice teachers in individual courses and fieldwork. In particular, research examined the influence of teacher preparation on altering teacher beliefs about diverse students and developing effective practices for teaching them. However, the studies about teacher preparation practice stopped short of informing effective practice for student learning because they simply ignored school students learning, assuming that the goal of teacher preparation is teacher learning (p. 117). The two review articles by Cochran-Smith and colleagues provide a number of implications and directions for research and practice in teacher education. In particular, the findings of the review coupled with findings from other articles in this and previous issues of JTE suggest a reconceptualization of teacher quality that has the potential to influence our characterization of quality inservice and preservice teacher professional development. The following sections provide a brief overview of (a) the characterization of teacher quality from a policy research perspective that has dominated the past two decades and influenced the schism between university and school views of effective teaching and learning noted by Cochran-Smith et al. and (b) a set of considerations derived from articles in this and previous JTE issues that can be incorporated into new views of teacher quality to inform new views of teacher preservice and inservice professional development. From Teacher Quality to Teaching Quality Three areas have traditionally been considered in relation to teacher quality or effectiveness (Kennedy, 2008): cognitive resources that include knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions; performance in the classroom; and effect on students. Although these three categories provide a framework for viewing and assessing different facets of quality, their operationalization has often been problematic. Federal initiatives such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top (RttP) have driven the operationalization of these aspects of teacher quality over the past 10 years, influenced the research agenda related to teacher quality, and driven school-based determination of teacher effectiveness. …