Growing Teacher Inquiry: Collaboration in a Partner School

Poetter, Thomas S.; Badiali, Bernard; Hammond, D. J.

doi:10.1207/s15327930pje7503_11

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More importantly, the afore mentioned studies suggest that quality of mentoring by university supervisors varies with the roles that they choose to play while supporting student teachers. Other research indicates that university supervisors can choose to mentor through promotion of inquiry, where student teachers experiment with novel pedagogical techniques and reflect upon their implementation and effect with the support of university supervisors ( Johnson and Cotterman, 2015;Poetter et al, 2000;Rock and Wilson, 2005;Soslau, 2015). Ultimately, classroom teachers and university field supervisors make professional competencies overt to student teachers (Orland-Barak, 2014), thereby helping them transition into their new profession (Garvey, 2004).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing student teachers’ teaching self-efficacy through Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE)

Chizhik

et al. 2018

IJMCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The researchers developed a model of mentoring student teachers, known as Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE), to provide opportunities for classroom teachers to build shared understanding with university field supervisors. The purpose of this paper is to compare teaching efficacy of those student teachers who matriculated through the SMILE approach with mentoring student teachers who matriculated through a traditional approach to mentoring and identifying aspects of SMILE that may have contributed to the development of teacher efficacy. Design/methodology/approach A total of 29 student teachers participated in the SMILE model of supporting student teaching, and 29 student teachers (comparison group) were provided with a traditional support structure. At the start and end of their one-year post-baccalaureate credential program, all student teachers completed a teaching efficacy questionnaire. During the last month of the teacher-credential program, all student teachers were interviewed in focus groups regarding the quality of their student-teaching mentoring. In addition, the researchers asked classroom teachers in the SMILE cohort to complete a questionnaire, identifying specific strengths and weaknesses of the SMILE model of mentoring student teachers. Findings Student teachers in the SMILE cohort improved their teaching efficacy in comparison with student teachers in a traditional model of support. SMILE student teachers appreciated critical feedback, while the comparison group participants focused on whether feedback was positive or negative. In addition, SMILE student teachers attributed their development of instructional skills to the mentoring process from classroom teachers and university supervisors, while comparison group participants attributed their development as teachers mainly to their classroom teachers who modeled effective instructional strategies. SMILE classroom teachers made reference to how particular aspects of the model (e.g. sequencing and lesson study) contributed to both student- and mentor-teacher development. Originality/value The SMILE approach to mentoring student teachers facilitated collaboration between university field supervisors and classroom teachers in joint mentoring of future teachers into their profession, a rare occurrence in teacher education programs. Joint mentoring led to improved teaching efficacy among student teachers.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing student teachers’ teaching self-efficacy through Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE)

Chizhik

et al. 2018

IJMCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This era found researchers adjusting to the plight of conducting research with, rather than on, teachers, therefore increasing the number of presented and published action research studies. The content of the articles included specific descriptors of the action research conducted by teachers (Campoy, 1996;Galassi et al, 1999;Murphy, 1996;Poetter, Badiali, & Hammond, 2000;Viechnicki, 1997;Wortham, 1997).…”

Section: -2001mentioning

confidence: 99%

Action Research as Primary Vehicle for Inquiry in the Professional Development School

Tunks

2011

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Yearbook chapter, a compilation of multiple sources, presents both the history of action research and an analysis of reported action research in the professional development school (PDS) between 1992 and 2010. The history begins prior to the inception of the PDS and provides a theoretical premise for action research in the PDS in subsequent years. Sixtyfour action research PDS articles used to develop the chapter, derived from EBSCOhost searches, resulted in 38, or 59%, of the articles from ERIC databases. The remaining 26 articles, or 41%, were published in refereed and nonrefereed journals. The 33 other sources used for the chapter consisted of books, chapters in books, reports, Web pages, and monographs from agencies. The chapter represents an in-depth study of action research in the PDS with recommendations for future practice and collaboration.According to the Center for Collaborative Action Research (2010), action research is defined as a process of deep inquiry into one's practices in service of moving towards an envisioned future, aligned with values. Action Research is the systematic, reflective study of one's actions, and the effects of these actions, in a workplace context. As such, it involves deep inquiry into one's professional practice. The researchers examine their work and seek opportunities for

show abstract

“…As reflection is a key component of many teaching practices, the process of purposeful reflection should be taught early on in teacher education, and reinforced through professional development activities (Ax, Ponte, Brouwer, 2008;Grushka et al, 2005). For those who are just learning to engage in purposeful reflection, initial experiences should include significant scaffolding designed to allow teachers to see the advantages of reflection, and to cultivate the mentoring relationships which are often crucial in encouraging future (and more indepth) reflective activities (Poetter et al 2000). For those working with preservice teachers, integrating reflection into multiple learning activities allows preservice teachers to see the links that exist between reflection and action and between research and practice (Ax et al, 2008).…”

Section: Reflecting On Practice: From Dilemmas To Wonderingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When there is institutional support for classroom research, teachers are more apt to see their work as part of a larger culture of change within the school. Poetter et al (2000) found that preservice teacher research conducted within a supportive institutional context allowed for developing teacherresearchers to find supportive mentors within their classrooms. These mentor teachers were willing to engage in some of the more difficult research activities in an effort to help the preservice teachers they were mentoring.…”

Section: Working Through Tensions In the Classroom Research Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Allowing the process of research and reflection to be a part of early professional learning experiences can provide the necessary foundational knowledge needed to help preservice teachers see the value of engaging in classroom research (Grushka et al, 2005). Further, incorporating research experiences into field placements can allow for the dual roles of mentoring inquiry and supervising teaching to be integrated (Poetter et al 2000). Finally, by stretching out the learning that is necessary to successfully engage in classroom research, the various attributes of quality research can be taught in chunks that are more manageable for students (Hayes, Smith, & Curtis, 2010).…”

Section: Facilitating Classroom Research In Preservice Teacher Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preservice Teacher Development of Perspectives towards Inquiry through Classroom Research

Smith¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Uses real-world dilemmas to frame wonderings Dana and Yendol-Hoppey (2009) Uses existing research to frame research questions Kirkwood and Christie (2006) Uses classroom research to address research questions Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1993) Uses a well thought out methodology to guide research Galetta and Jones (2010) Uses data to contribute to professional learning Prestage et al. (2003) Uses data to consider student learning Brookhart et al. (2010) Makes classroom research public Rust and Myers (2006) Recognizes the cyclical nature of inquiry Glanz (1999) Over time, develops an inquiry stance Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993; 2009)

show abstract

Growing Teacher Inquiry: Collaboration in a Partner School

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Developing student teachers’ teaching self-efficacy through Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE)

Developing student teachers’ teaching self-efficacy through Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE)

Action Research as Primary Vehicle for Inquiry in the Professional Development School

Preservice Teacher Development of Perspectives towards Inquiry through Classroom Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About