This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 00:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

A Comparison of the Experiences of YearlongInterns in a Professional Development School andOne-semester Student Teachers in a Non-PDSLocationBetty J. Conaway a & Majka Woods Mitchell aa Baylor University , USAPublished online: 03 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Betty J. Conaway & Majka Woods Mitchell (2004) A Comparison of the Experiences of YearlongInterns in a Professional Development School and One-semester Student Teachers in a Non-PDS Location, Action inTeacher Education, 26:3, 21-28, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2004.10463329

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2004.10463329

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A COMPARISON OF THE EXPERIENCES OF Yearlong Interns in a Professional Development School and

One-semester Student Teachers in a Non-PDS Location

Betty J. Conaway Baylor University

Majka Woods Mitchell Baylor University

Abstract

University teacher preparation programs are experiencing a period of major reform as they transition away from engaging teacher candidates in theoretical discussions of instructional practices to programs that require teacher candidates to implement instruction in P-12 classrooms. In this study, 22 yearlong interns in professional development schools and 35 traditional one-semester student teachers in non-PDS sites were interviewed at the end of the four-year program. Interview questions concerned instructional responsibilities and decision-making, behavior management, professional support, social interactions with mentor teachers, university supervisor support, and content of seminars. The groups reported differences in the areas of instructional responsibilities, behavior management problem solving and perceptions of professional support.

Calls for profound changes in teacher education have been constant for the past 150 years (Imig & Switzer, 1996). One innovation that has recently received increased attention is the yearlong intern- ship within the context of the professional develop- ment school (PDS). Limited research exists investi- gating the differences in experiences of graduates of programs with yearlong internships and those from tradition programs with one-semester student teach- ing experiences (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996). Conaway and Saxon (2000) reported that both year- long interns and teacher mentors believed that the nature of the yearlong internship in a PDS was a superior preparation for teaching when compared to one-semester student teaching in a non-PDS setting. The purpose of this study was to compare the expe- riences of yearlong interns in a PDS and the experi- ences of one-semester student teachers in a non-PDS setting. Points of comparison included instructional decision-making, responsibilities for behavior man- agement, support from campus educational profes- sionals, social interactions with other educational professionals on the K-5 campus, and perceptions of

support from the university supervisor. All teacher education students in this study were from the same four-year university teacher education program.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

A series of courses, several field-experiences, and a semester of student teaching characterize tra- ditional teacher education programs. Public school teachers who cooperate for early field-experiences and mentor traditional one-semester teachers have little, if any information concerning the teacher edu- cation program’s philosophy or the teacher candi- date’s prior experiences. The typical teacher educa- tion program lacks coherence and congruence (Arends & Winitzky, 1996; Cruickshank & Armaline, 1986), which, in turn, discourages com- mitments to long-term collaboration between K-12 teachers and university teacher education faculty (Barnes, 1987; Killian & McIntyre, 1986; Watts, 1987). The lack of routine, regular contact and com- munication exaggerates the distance between the K- 12 campus and the university (Teitel, 1994), limits

Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Fall 2004 02004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the effectiveness of short-term field-experiences, and hinders the implementation of long-term field- experiences. Situating early field-experiences and internships in PDS schools may be a viable response to these issues.

One-Semester Student Teaching

Traditional one-semester student teaching is the capstone experience of many university-based teacher education programs. The student teaching experience is often distinctly separated from prior course-work and early field-experiences. University supervision of the “capstone” experience is often provided by a completely separate group of faculty from those who provide instruction for earlier coursework (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996). Typically one-semester student teachers are scat- tered among many K-12 campuses, each with a unique approach to curriculum implementation and instructional strategies, as well as different class- room management practices (Arends & Winitzky, 1996). One-semester student teaching is often less than the typical 15 weeks that comprise a university semester. The length of the student teaching experi- ence can be as short as five weeks (Johnson & Yates, 1994). The development of a professional community of educators that includes teacher educa- tion students, university faculty, and cooperating K- 12 teachers can provide the foundation for improv- ing and enhancing instruction (Secada & Adjaian, 1997; Talbert &McLaughlin, 1994). Yet many of the characteristics of one-semester student teaching make opportunities for building productive and meaningful relationships very limited for the teacher candidates, university faculty, and mentor teachers.

Yearlong In terns hips

The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future advocated the concept of a year- long internship for teacher candidates (1996). Some teacher education programs report successful imple- mentation of a yearlong internship within the con- text of a five-year program which includes a mas- ter’s degree (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Less fre- quently, universities have implemented a yearlong internship as part of a four-year undergraduate pro-

gram (Conaway & Saxon, 2000). Thomson, Beacham, and Misulis (1 992) reported that the year- long internship resulted in three critical factors as reported by interns, cooperating teachers, university faculty and principals. One, the extended time in the field helped the interns develop confidence, self- esteem and heightened their awareness of the pro- fession. Two, the extended experience provided the students with a better understanding of teachers’ action, curriculum, and student behavior. Three, cooperating teachers benefited from the intensive staff development through close interaction with university faculty.

The length of a yearlong internship may be ben- eficial simply because the extended time allows interns to observe student’s growth and development over the course of an entire year and to develop more meaningful relationships with mentor teachers and university supervisors. Administrators of K-12 schools are generally supportive of a yearlong internship because the interns can provide assistance to the mentor teacher over an extended period of time. However, there are important drawbacks to the yearlmg internship that must be considered. First, yearlong interns make a significant time commit- ment to the internship, which precludes, or severely limits, opportunities for outside work or social activ- ities. Second, in this era of increased emphasis on accountability, potential mentor teachers may not be willing or able to share responsibility for student achievement with an inexperienced intern. Professional Development Schools

One of the goals of the PDS movement is to integrate the preparation of new teachers into the daily routines of the K-12 campus (Holmes Group, 1986, 1990, 1995). Classroom teachers and universi- ty faculty working in a PDS framework develop per- sonal relationships while collaborating to accom- plish four main goals: 1) to maximize students’ learning, 2) to support professional teaching prac- tice, 3) to enhance the professional education of novice and veteran teachers, and 4) to encourage research and inquiry related to educational practice (Holmes Group, 1990; Levine, 1988, 1992).

Although each PDS is unique, the PDS campus described in this study served as one of 16 pilot schools for the development and field-testing of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) PDS Standards. The standards

I

22 Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Fall 2004 02004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

represent a consensus among educators about the definition and mission of a PDS (Teitel, 2003, p. xiv). The NCATE Standards for Professional Development Schools describe five critical attributes of a PDS: (1) a learning community involving all stakeholders, (2) collaboration between the school district and the university, 3) assurance of quality and accountability to the public, (4) organization of university-school structures to systematize continu- ous improvements, and (5) a commitment to prac- tices that support equity (NCATE, 2001; Teitel, 2003, p. xviii). Continued focus on the contents of the PDS Standards will, over time, influence the entire campus culture and permeate all organization- al structures. The PDS in this study began in 1993 as a collaborative project between the university and a local school district of approximately 15,500 P-12 students. Since that time the university and the school district collaboration has deepened and is reflected in every aspect of the PDS campus culture.

This was a two-year study using qualitative research procedures. Both one-semester student teachers and yearlong interns completed a short sur- vey and then were interviewed in depth at the end of the four-year teacher education program. Responses were reviewed to identify key words and themes. Answers were then tabulated and categorized by identified themes. Research questions included:

1) Do one-semester student teachers and year- long interns report different experiences in terms of instructional decision-making?

2) Do one-semester student teachers and year- long interns report different experiences in terms of responsibility for classroom man- agement?

3) Do one-semester student teachers and year- long interns report different experiences in terms of perceived support from other cam- pus educational professionals?

4) Do one-semester student teachers and year- long interns report differences in social interactions with other campus educational professionals?

5 ) Do one-semester student teachers and year- long interns report different experiences in terms of support from the university super- visor?

Participants

All participants were elementary education majors from the same university. Courses required for each participant were identical except for the fourth and final year of the program. During this final year, one-semester student teachers completed 15 hours of traditional methods courses on the uni- versity campus during the fall semester and then moved on to student teaching in a local elementary school. The actual student teaching experience was 12 weeks in length and was supervised by part-time adjuncts.

Yearlong interns completed these same 15 hours of methods courses in the fall semester, but each course was completely field-based. Instead of tradi- tional assignments, interns prepared materials that they used for instruction in the classroom of the mentor teacher. Interns also received feedback and support from the tenured university faculty members who were members of the PDS team. As the school year progressed, interns gradually assumed more responsibility for teaching. All interns volunteered to participate in the yearlong internship instead of one- semester student teaching.

All yearlong interns for two academic years at the PDS completed surveys and interviews; the total number of yearlong interns was 23. In addition, 35 randomly selected elementary one-semester student teachers were asked to complete surveys and inter- views. All of the one-semester student teachers com- pleted student teaching in a non-PDS setting. All interns and one-semester student teachers were female, 87% were Anglo, and 98% were between the ages of 21 and 30.

The PDS is located in a medium-sized Central Texas school district. Ethnic distribution in the dis- trict is 41% Hispanic, 38% African-American, 19% Anglo, and 2% other. Approximately 70% of all one-semester student teachers were assigned to the same school district. The remaining 30% of the one- semester student teachers were assigned to one of the other 19 districts within the county.

Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Fall 2004 02004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Do one-semester student teachers and yearlong interns report different experiences in terms of instructional decision-making?

Responses to survey and interview questions were categorized by the degree of responsibility for instructional decision-making. Interns reported more independence and responsibility for making and implementing instructional decisions than one- semester student teachers. Specifically, one-semester student teachers reported that they often implement- ed instructional plans suggested by the mentor teacher or used materials prepared by the mentor teachers. In contrast, interns reported that the mentor teacher often expected them to independently design, prepare and implement instructional plans, consulting as needed with the mentor teacher throughout the process. Interns described transition- ing to the position of “lead teacher” while the men- tor teacher assumed a supporting role. Further, interns reported more frequent collaboration with counselors, librarians and other teachers for the pur- pose of planning instruction than reported by one- semester student teachers. Interns reported more fre- quent and extended debriefing discussions with mentor teachers after an instructional episode lead- ing instruction than did one-semester student teach- ers. It could not be determined from the responses if these differences were due to the length of the internship, to characteristics of the PDS environ- ment, or expectations of the mentor teachers or uni- versity supervisors.

Do one-semester student teachers and yearlong interns report different experiences in terms of responsibility for classroom management?

Responses to survey and interview questions were categorized by the classroom management strategies described. Interns consistently reported an emphasis on “positive behavior management tech- niques.” One-semester student teachers did not report a dominant philosophy or method of behavior management. This difference may be a result of the interns all being assigned to one campus whereas the one-semester student teachers were assigned to

several different schools. Interns reported more fre- quent consultation with other school personnel and more instances of contact with parents concerning student behavior than one-semester student teachers.

No other differences in responsibilities for class- room management were found when responses of interns and one-semester student teachers were com- pared. Both interns and one-semester student teach- ers reported frequent discussions with mentor teach- ers about problem solving strategies for behavior management. Both interns and one-semester student teachers reported the same degree of independence and responsibility for making decisions related to behavior management, or individual students and the entire class.

Do one-semester student teachers and yearlong interns report different experiences in terms of sup- port and social interaction with other campus edu- cational professionals?

Responses to survey and interview questions were categorized by the examples of professional support and social interactions reported. These responses tended to blend together for both interns and one-semester student students. In the area of perceptions of professional support, interns reported more frequent discussions of their developing teach- ing abilities with mentor teachers than one-semester student teachers. Interns also reported more frequent discussions with mentor teachers and university supervisors to analyze the degree of success of an instructional episode than did one-semester student teachers. Examples of social interactions reported by interns and one-semester student teachers were not distinctly different.

Do one-semester student teachers and yearlong interns report different experiences in terms of sup- port from the university supervisor?

Reponses to survey and interview questions were categorized by content and frequency of inter- actions with university supervisors. The total num- ber of interactions with university supervisors was higher for interns; however, this difference was attributed to the length of the internship. Interns and one-semester student teachers reported no differ- ences in the types of support provided by university

24 Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No 3, Fall 2004 Q2004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

supervisors. Neither were there differences reported in the willingness of teacher mentors or university supervisors to make time for discussing difficulties or concerns related to instructional or behavior man- agement issues.

Additional Responses

All 23 interns agreed that the yearlong intern- ship was beneficial when compared with the one- semester student teaching experience. Interns offered a variety of reasons to support this belief. Most (20 out of 23) stated that they were more con- fident of their abilities as a result of the yearlong experience than they would have been after com- pleting one-semester student teaching. Several stated that the yearlong internship provided a more realis- tic experience than a one-semester student teaching assignment, This response is consistent with find- ings reported by Thomson, Beacham, and Misulis (1 992). Four interns stated that they had already accepted teaching positions; each felt that they had been given preference over other applicants because of the yearlong internship experience.

One-semester student teachers also reported a high level of satisfaction with the student teaching experience. Both interns and one-semester student teachers expressed frustration and anxiety associated with the process of coordinating applications and interviews for teaching positions. One intern and two one-semester student teachers indicated that they would be attending graduate school and did not plan to look for teaching positions.

The most frequently mentioned problem with yearlong internship was that communication was diffxult because the university supervisor was not always on the elementary campus all day every day and mentor teachers could not always provide the specific information about performance expectations for interns. This response is consistent with findings reported by Conaway and Saxon (2000).

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER ED U CAT1 ON

The data from this study suggest that there were differences in the experiences of yearlong interns in a PDS setting and one-semester student teachers in a

non-PDS setting in the areas of instructional respon- sibilities, behavior management, and perceptions of professional support. One obvious difference between the yearlong internship and the one-semes- ter student teaching experience is that the internship is twice as long. The length of the experience undoubtedly contributed to participant’s responses. It is likely that some of the difference reported stems from the practice of assigning all interns to a single PDS campus, while one-semester student teachers were assigned to many different schools within the county. The data did not suggest if these differences were due to the length of the internship, characteris- tics of the school culture, or expectations of univer- sity supervisors or mentor teachers.

immersed in a campus culture actively committed to K-12 student learning and preservice and in-service teacher development through an inquiry orientation to teaching and learning. Numerous studies report that preservice teachers who had field-experiences or internship located in a PDS are likely to use a variety of pedagogical practices, have a more sophisticated knowledge of school rituals, exhibit more confidence in their professional knowledge and skills to instruct diverse student populations, and have lower attrition rates upon entering the pro- fession (Abdal-Haqq, 1998). Other studies have reported that a cohort group of interns on a PDS campus positively contributes to professional social- ization, provides beneficial opportunities to collabo- rate, enhances self-esteem, and provides emotional support, (Goodlad, 1990; Lanier & Little, 1986; Sandholtz & Dadlez, 2000). Findings of the study reported in this paper are similar to those reported by Stallings and Kowalski (1990) in which teacher candidates who interned at an inner-city Houston PDS outperformed controls on praise and support, percent of students on task, questioning strategies, and percent of academic statements.

Other researchers have reported that communi- cation problems are common among PDS interns, university faculty and mentor teachers (Teitel, 2003; Conaway & Saxon, 2000) and between university faculty, PDS teachers and teacher education students participating in short and long-term field-experi- ences (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). Insufficient com- munication may be more of a symptom of the con- tinuing development of the school-university collab-

Interns assigned to the PDS in this study were

Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Fall 2004 02004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

oration than a problem. As PDS teachers develop personal mentoring skills and confidence in their role and responsibilities, interns will be able to rely more on the teacher mentor as a source of informa- tion related to daily tasks. Interns’ perceptions of the availability of information will change as mentors develop confidence in their roles and as the univer- sity collaboration strengthens.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods and instructional strategies useful for ordinary, everyday teaching are “communicated to beginning teachers only in a very limited extent, and the wheels of teaching have to be invented by each new generation” (Brown and McIntyre, 1993, p. 14). Much data exist on teacher education stu- dents (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991), but definitive empirical research defining critical ele- ments of teacher education programs is very limited (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996). Some teacher edu- cators question whether or not “experience is as good a teacher of teachers as most people think” (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1986, p 62).

porting and developing teaching practices for both beginning and veteran teachers. Some partnerships may use the “PDS” designation, yet demonstrate few, if any, of the critical attributes described by the NCATE PDS Standards (NCATE, 2001). Organizational complexities within the school dis- trict and the university often hinder progress toward identified goals (Sandholtz, 1997). However, the PDS described in this study was a participant in the development of the national NCATE PDS Standards and as a result, representatives of the PDS campus, the university, and the school district periodically assess the development of each of the standards in this school and continuously strive to more fully achieve the goals set forth in the standards. University faculty and PDS teachers in this study contributed to the design of the standards and partic- ipated in the monitoring and periodic assessment of the implementation and development of each stan- dard on the PDS campus.

University programs to prepare teachers are experiencing a period of major reform as they tran-

The PDS concept holds much potential for sup-

sition away from theoretical discussions of instruc- tional practices to programs that focus on imple- menting instructional practices over extended peri- ods of time in P-12 classrooms with guidance from university faculty and classroom teachers. The liter- ature is very limited in identifying the specific char- acteristics of classroom-based experiences, including one-semester student teaching and yearlong intern- ships, that contribute to developing teachers who are both competent and caring.

The rise of alternative certification programs presents a unique challenge to university teacher education programs. Texas is just one example of this trend. Of the 28,349 initial teaching certificates issued by the state of Texas to beginning teachers in 2003, only 45.5% were prepared in traditional, uni- versity undergraduate programs (Herbert, 2004). The growth of non-traditional routes to certification demands that universities re-examine all assump- tions associated with traditional teacher education programs, including the format and requirements of the capstone field-experience. Is the yearlong intern- ship worth the time and effort of all those involved? Are there important differences between the supervi- sion of tenured faculty and that provided by part- time adjuncts for capstone field-experiences? Do graduates of the yearlong internship enter and remain in the profession at higher rates than those who complete only a one-semester capstone field- experience? How do different preparation routes contribute to K-12 student achievement? Do first year teachers who have completed a yearlong intern- ship require more or less support and mentoring when they assume responsibility for a classroom when compared to one-semester student teachers? These and many other critical questions remain.

REFERENCES

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1 998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Convin.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991). Teaching teachers: Facts andjgures. Washington, DC: Author.

26 Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Fall 2004 02004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Arends, R. & Winitzky, N. (1996). Program Structures and Learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed,), The teacher educator ’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 526-556). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barnes, H. L. (1987). The conceptual basis for thematic teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 13-1 8.

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. J. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Conaway, B. J. & Saxon, T. F. (2000). A yearlong student teaching experience: A qualitative study following three years of implementation. Taas Teacher Education Forum, 25 (Spring) 45-54.

experiences in teacher education: Considerations and recommendations. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 34-40.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Studies in excellence in teacher education: Preparation in a jve-year program. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

Ducharme, E. R. & Ducharme, M. K. (1996). Needed research in teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 1030-1047). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1 986). Pitfalls of experiences in teacher preparation. In J. Raths & L. Katz (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 2, pp., 61-73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation 5 schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guyton, E. & McIntyre, D. J. (1990) Student teach- ing and school experiences. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.) Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 5 14-534). New York: Macmillan.

Herbert, K. S. (2004). Production and retention of beginning teachers from 1999 to 2003: A com- parison of preparation routes. Austin, Texas: State Board of Education Certification.

Holmes Group. (1 986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.

report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Cruickshank, D. & Armaline, W. (1986). Field-

Holmes Group. (1 990). Tomorrow ’s schools: A

Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of edu- cation: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Imig, D. G, & Switzer, T. J. (1996). Changing teach- ing education programs: Restructuring colle- giate-based teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 2 13-226). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Johnson, J. & Yates, J. (1 994). A national survey of student teaching programs. DeKalb, IL. Northern Illinois University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 232 963).

Killian, J E. & McIntyre, D. J. (1986). Quality in the early field-experience: A product of grade level and cooperating teachers’ training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(4), 367-376.

Lanier, J. E. & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 527-569) New York: Macmillan.

Building a model. Washington, DC: Center for Restructuring, American Federation of Teachers.

Levine, M. (1992). A conceptual framework for professional practice schools. In M. Levine (Ed.), Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school reform (pp. 8-24). New York: Teachers College Press.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved July 2003 from http://www.ncate.org/2000/pdsstands~1O-OO.pdf.

Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York: Author.

Sandholtz, J. H. & Dadlez, S. H. (2000). Professional development school trade-offs in teacher prepa- ration and renewal. Teacher Education Quarterly.

Levine, M. (1 988). Professional practice schools:

National Commission on Teaching and America’s

72( l), 7-27. Sandholtz, J. H. (1997). A model not a mold: A

comparison of four schoolhniversity partnerships. In D. Byrd & D. J. McIntyre Eds.), Research on the education of our nation’s teach- ers: Teacher education yearbook V (pp. 258- 276). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Fall 2004 92004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Secada, W. G. & Adajian, L. B. (1997). Mathematics teachers’ change in the context of their profes- sional communities. In L. Fennema & B. s. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transi- tion (pp. 193-2 19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stallings J. & Kowalski, T. (1990). Research on pro fessional development schools. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 251-263). New York: Macmillan.

Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123-1 53.

Teitel, L. (2003). The professional development schools handbook: Starting, sustaining, and assessing partnerships that improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Convin.

Teitel, L. (1 994). Can school-university partnerships lead to the simultaneous renewal of schools and teacher education? Journal of Teacher Education 45 (September-October), 245-252.

Thomson, S., Beacham, B., & Misulis, K. (1992). A university and public school collaborative approach to preparing elementary teachers. The Teacher Educatol; 28(2), 46-5 1.

Watts, D. (1987). Student teaching. In M. Haberman & J. M Backus (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 3, pp. 15 1-1 67). Nonvood, NJ: Ablex.

Betty Conaway is Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and Chair of the Teacher Education Faculty at Baylor University. Research interests include teacher education, math education, and literacy development in children and adults.

Majka Woods Mitchell is Interim Director of the School of Education Center fo r Education Services at Baylor University. Research interests include teacher education and programs for gijted and talented children.

28 Action in Teacher Education, Vol. XXVI, No. 3, Fall 2004 02004 By the Association of Teacher Educators

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:59

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14