Professional Developmental Schools (PDS) & Field Experiences
- Raven Robinson
- Jan 22, 2016
- 6 min read
Clift, R.T & Brady, P. (2005). Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rutter, A. (2011). Purpose and vision in professional development schools. In J. Neopolitan (Ed.), Taking stock of professional development schools: What's needed now? A Yearbook for the National Society of the Study of Education, 110(2), 289-305. Teachers College Press: Columbia University.
National Association for Professional Development.(2008). What it means to be a professional development school. Waco, TX. Retrieved from http://napds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Nine-Essentials.pdf
Association of Teacher Educators.(1999). Task force on field experience standards: Standards for field experiences in teacher education. Reston, VA. Retrieved from http://www.ate1.org/pubs/uploads/nfdfstds.pdf
Summaries
Clift & Brady (2005): Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences
The authors discuss their examination of research that acknowledges how the relationship between methods courses (English; social studies; mathematics; science) and field experiences with teachers’ behaviors (influencing student achievement), concepts, content, and context have developed, overtime. The authors use the following areas of questioning to outline their findings: persons responsible for conducting research on or within methods courses, field experiences, and student teaching with respect to design and claimed impacts (some researchers may have assumed an instructional/supervisory role while sharing ideas of recognizing social, cognitive, and cultural constructs, and noticed prospective teachers varied and grappled with their own philosophies and favored constant dialogue and feedback); and contributions (organized interaction in an amenable environment, notions of learning; increased self-efficacy; shared partnership of knowledge and beliefs) and limitations (shifting views of preservice teachers, journal parameters, implementing principles into practice) of research, within and across content areas. In regard to professional development schools (PDSs) and general supervision relating to K-12 teacher, pupils and schools and on university-based faculty, the authors conveyed that it takes time to develop a partnership to stave off preservice teachers’ misconceptions of teaching for consistent, effective support. As for future research plans, the authors support that background information, theoretical foundations, reliable data collection/analysis, longevity of studies, and diverse/reciprocated expressions are among the confounding elements in the research; financial resources and time may allow for more sufficient data.
ATE (1999): Field Experience Standards
Regardless of the variability amongst teacher education programs, The Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) created a task force to support and extend standards of field experiences, which would mitigate the undermining of the quality and goals of all programs. Among the areas of focus, the ATE emphasizes six major components that impact the quality of field experiences: context and culture of field experiences (teacher socialization with affective and objective content); diversity (responsive teaching in relation to students’ experiences/socioeconomic status); collaborative review/reform (shared ideas essential for innovation among teacher candidate and school/campus-based educators); reflection/analysis (metacognition of teaching, coupled with coaching); selection, preparation, and assignment of campus-based and school-based teacher educators (Vygotsky-based with attention to the ZPD for constructive feedback and dialogue from experienced educators); assessment in field experiences (reliable perceptions of reviewing and analyzing practices). The ATE concluded their reasoning by presenting an outline of important terminology and 12 standards with indicators and program/performance outcomes.
NAPDS (2008): What is a PDS?
The National Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) state that the goal of professional developmental schools (PDSs) is to develop and maintain professional educators through school-university partnerships. As the former agenda communicated that PDSs were characterized through a simplistic perspective of connectivity (prepare, provide, encourage inquiry, and promote), many educators believed that their school met the requirements of being deemed as a PDS. As a result, in efforts to eradicate those misconceptions, research provided that PDSs were to be highly regarded as a complex vehicle for fulfilling the desire of sustaining educational goals. In order to bridge the gap between legislative mandates and conceptions of educators and educational institutions to identify a PDS, the NAPDS (along with associations and PDS-experienced educators) pronounced nine essential components of a PDS: five points of fundamental nature (community-centeredness; encirclement of preparation ; unmitigated, reciprocated learning; refinement of practices; dissemination of information for internal and external learning privileges) and four points of systemic management (specified roles/responsibilities of participants; ongoing facilitation of organizational efforts; formal contributions from faculty of higher education and P-12 institutions; shared resources and formal compensation). The NAPDS hopes that the aforementioned essentials will allow for the cultivation of practical and intellectual alignment among educators and institutions, alike.
Rutter (2011): Purpose and Vision of Professional Development Schools
The author commits to enforcing the concept of why professional development schools (PDS) were developed and how such institutions of learning may effectively commit to the field of education. To introduce the need of reform, the author illustrates how the inconsistency of demands in the nation allowed for education to suffer more than it deserved to be upheld. As the nation recognized how the components of the educational system must be transformed, efforts to develop institutions of higher caliber paved way for the concept of a PDS structure. As arguments about the standards for professionalism and how to properly underscore the proposed capabilities/needs of teachers, the need for a holistic understanding and partnerships/mutual undertaking of PDSs the author provided reference for six organizing principles for PDSs and twenty postulates, respectively. The author asserts that as teaching should be elevated with comparison to the level of professionalism with other fields of work, accommodations for proposed changes must be effective on a more comprehensive scale; including all stakeholders for effective change in our educational system.
Reflection
As a mentor teacher, I have found the articles to be relative to the experience I have had with first and second-year teachers at my school site. As recent graduates from teacher programs that were involved with a PDS partnership, they would discuss their frustrations they had during their field experiences. For example, when I read about the Association of Teacher Educators (1999) reviewing research that stated student teachers used a constructivist approach to teaching, as taught in the teacher education program, but cooperating teachers intervened and made students conform to more didactic methods used by the teachers, this struck a familiar cord. One teacher explained her frustration with not being able to be more flexible during instruction, due to the aforementioned phenomenon. They believed that the school-based educators and university-based educators were experiencing a power struggle. There were times when she recognized that students were not responsive to the latter teaching methods and wanted to focus on being the facilitator (constructivism), but her cooperating teacher wanted to continually justify why she should always be the authoritarian. As exemplified in Clift & Brady (2005), [her] espoused beliefs were not communicated or practiced to avoid conflict with the cooperating teacher. She found it increasingly difficult to follow the educational goals of her teacher preparation program.
Now, as a teacher of record, she has to find ways to make up for her loss in experience. This teacher constantly reviews the methods she learned from her courses to reactivate her understanding to provide students with quality educational experiences. So, again, as Clift & Brady (2005) stated, one of the limitations found in research among the content areas was teachers’ lack of ability to properly and appropriately implement theory into practice.
As I have engaged in interactions with new teachers about their teacher preparation background and reading the literature for this week, I cannot stop thinking about whether I was actually involved in a PDS --- as a student! Not only was my high school named after the university it was adjacent to, but also was comprised of similar characteristics that followed the standards of a PDS school. From a student’s perspective, I remembered observing (practices by teachers and other personnel) some of the following standards as promoted by National Association for Professional Development Schools (2008):
A school–university culture committed to the preparation of future educators that embraces their active engagement in the school community
Work by college/university faculty and P–12 faculty in formal roles across institutional settings
Dedicated and shared resources and formal rewards and recognition structures
Engagement in and public sharing of the results of deliberate investigations of practice by respective participants
Unfortunately, this is the only evidence I have towards an attempt to deem my former grade school as a PDS. The other standards were not seen as physical, observable concepts, as a student. The reason for this memory being so valuable to me is attributed to the fact of trying to understand the perception of a student about a PDS. While the focus in most readings was directed towards teacher preparation, I am gaining interest into how a student of such a fostering environment for learning would view themselves in the complex infrastructure. As I teacher, I want to try to adjust myself to reflecting on the information from the perspective of a teacher (to gain more knowledge for understanding and involvement) and from a student’s perspective (how do they view themselves and wish to engage in the learning process). As a grade school student, I realized the expanse of people coming in to teach, observe, and supervise, so I know other students may have questions about what the educational system is trying to develop to increase their achievement/learning gains. What would students have to say about their learning? Will policy makers be able to listen to the ideals of students, coupled with the values of teachers?
Comments