Preservice teachers’ inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.tat

�Tel.: +1 413

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 205–218

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Preservice teachers’ inquiry in a professional development schoolcontext: Implications for the practicum

Lucy Mule�

Smith College, Morgan Hall, Northampton, MA 01063, USA

Abstract

Professional development school (PDS) contexts are increasingly being viewed as powerful sites for the preparation of

future teachers in the USA. One of their documented strengths is in the fostering of preservice teachers’ inquiry within

collaborative frameworks that result from the partnerships between university teacher education programmes and schools.

This article focuses on one inquiry-based PDS programme, describes five inquiry projects carried out by interns in the

programme, and presents interns’ perceptions on engaging in inquiry during their yearlong internship. The discussion that

follows explores the potential of the inquiry approach in PDS contexts to reform the teacher education practicum.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Preservice teacher education; Teacher inquiry; Professional development school; Field experiences; Student teaching;

School–university partnerships; Collaboration

1. Introduction

Current reform literature acknowledges the cru-cial role that prospective teachers as inquirers canplay in educational renewal, of both preserviceteacher education and public schools in the USA(Cochran-Smith, 1991a, 1999; Cochran-Smith &Lytle, 1990, 1992, 1999; Kincheloe, 1991, 1993;Wells, 1994). Kincheloe (1991, 1993) describes theconcept of preservice teachers as researchers/in-quirers as a ‘‘reconceptualization’’ of teachereducation. The practicum, arguably the mostpowerful influence in preservice teacher education(Bullough et al., 2002; Johnstone, 1994), is increas-ingly being urged to focus on developing in futureteachers an inquiry ethic or stance that is consistent

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

e.2005.09.011

585 3252.

ss: [email protected].

with the vision of teachers as inquirers. The conceptof preservice teachers as inquirers recognizes pre-service teachers as active participants in their ownprofessional growth, knowledge constructors, andagents of change (Cochran-Smith, 1991a; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 1994).Such a conceptualization is in direct contrast withmore traditional views of learning to teach (Bul-lough et al., 2002; Britzman, 2003; Fesnot, 1989;Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; McIntyre, Byrd, &Foxx, 1996).

Increasingly, the teacher education programmeswithin the professional development school (PDS)contexts in the USA have embraced the concept ofteachers as inquirers (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003;Darling-Hammond, 1994). But what does theinquiry approach to preservice teacher educationin American PDS contexts entail? How do interns insuch programmes understand inquiry? What is the

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Mule / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 205–218206

potential of the inquiry approach in reforming thepracticum? In this paper, I address these over-arching questions. Answers to these questions couldbe of interest to teacher educators seeking informa-tion on use and impact of inquiry in PDS contexts. Istart the paper by situating PDS in the teachereducation reform literature and use one programmeas an illustration of a PDS programme conceptua-lized around the notion of inquiry. I examine thenature of inquiry carried out by five interns andtheir perceptions regarding inquiry. A discussionfollows regarding the potential of inquiry-basedPDS programmes in reforming the practicum.

2. Professional development schools and teacher

education reform

PDSs are understood both as a place and aconcept or idea (NCREST, 1993). As a place, assummarized by Abdal-Haqq (1995), PDSs (1) arelocated in public schools, (2) are involved in reformefforts, (3) collaborate with universities and col-leges, districts, and professional associations, (4)base their practice on research and experience, andinquiry based methods are used to refine practice.As a concept, they emphasize collaboration betweenuniversity and school. Collaborative relationshipsbetween these two institutions was the vision of theHolmes Group, a consortium of large US univer-sities offering teacher education and devoted tosystemic reform of teaching and teacher educationwho came up with the term PDS, and emphasizedthat PDS was their preferred conceptualization ofthe possibility of building better relationshipsbetween schools and training institutions (Gardner& Abu Libde, 1995; Holmes, 1990; Petrie, 1995).One important characteristic of this collaborativeapproach is that the two institutions would formpartnerships with concerted efforts at three maingoals:

1.
rethinking the preparation of preservice educa-tion students (Book, 1996; Darling-Hammond,1994; Holmes Group, 1986);
2.
ensuring continuing development of experiencedprofessionals (Goodlad, 1990; Holmes Group,1990; Lieberman, 1998), and
3.
modeling exemplary practices that will lead toschool student achievement of a high order;provide sustained, applied inquiry for bothstudents and faculty (Goodlad, 1994; HolmesGroup, 1986, 1990; Lieberman, 1998).
To achieve the goals above, Holmes Group (1990,1995) insists that a ‘‘new institution’’ called PDS has
to exist.
3. The programme context: inquiry-based PDS

practicum

Valley Road (pseudonym) PDS programme,which provides the context of this paper, resultedfrom the partnership between a large university anda local school district in the northeastern part of theUSA. The partnership had started in 1994 and wasinitially supported by a small ‘‘Goals 2000’’ grantthrough the state’s (as opposed to federal) depart-ment of education. Like most PDS partnerships,Valley Road emphasized collaboration between theuniversity and a local school district in achieving itsthree goals popularly referred to as the 3Es:Enhance the educational experience of all children;Ensure high quality field experiences for prospectiveteachers; and Engage in furthering the professionalgrowth of school- and university-based teachers andteacher educators (Dana, Silva, & Colangelo, 1999,2001).

To meet the second goal, ensur[ing] high qualityfield experiences for prospective teachers, ValleyRoad programme adopted programme strategies toensure participation of both school and universitybased teacher educators, including joint selectionand placement of interns, co-planning and jointinstruction of method courses, developing andleading site-based seminars, joint intern mentorship,and making public presentations based on colla-borative action research.

In an attempt to offer quality field experience forinterns, the Valley Road programme conceptualizedthe practicum around the notion of inquiry. Themost explicit expression of this focus was a TeacherInquiry course offered in the second half of theinternship. It consisted of a series of seminars, oftenorganized in workshop format, and incorporatedpresentations and activities led by university pro-fessors, supervisors, teachers, and PDS graduates ofValley Road’s pilot year (1998–1999). At the end ofthe course, interns and teachers were expected topresent a Teacher Inquiry Project in a publicconference held in May in one of the PDS sites.Interns could choose to conduct inquiry individu-ally or jointly with peers or mentor teachers.

The justification for placing teacher inquiry at thecore of the programme as a way of enhancingprofessional growth for both preservice and mentor

ARTICLE IN PRESSL. Mule / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 205–218 207

teachers lies at the heart of the concept of PDS. Theunderlying belief is that teacher professional devel-opment thrives through a continuous study of his orher own teaching practice and interaction withothers involved in the same process. Darling-Hammond (1994) observes that a vision for teachersas career-long constructors of knowledge of theirpractice ‘‘can only be developed if teacher prepara-tion enables entering teachers to put theory intopractice in settings that model and encourage bothstate-of-the art practice and inquiry ethic thatsustains continued professional growth’’ (p. 9).Besides promoting professional growth, a cultureof inquiry when it becomes pervasive in teachersand administrators has the potential to transformschools (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). It is thisvision of teachers as reflective, change agents thatguided the valley Road teacher educators as theysought to inculcate the inquiry ethic right from thepreservice education. The following section explainsthe study to examine five interns’ perceptions ofinquiry in the Valley Road programme.

4. The study

4.1. Setting

In the academic year of this study, 27 interns,from a pool of 50 applicants, had joined theinternship in their senior year of college. Both thePDS option and the regular option were offeredconcurrently in the university’s elementary teachereducation programme. The regular option was thestandard form of the practicum offered at theuniversity and involved student teaching for onesemester and attending the teaching seminar andmethod courses on the university campus two days aweek. The PDS option required a year-longcommitment during which the interns would vir-tually spend the year in the PDS sites takingmethods courses concurrently with their internship.Thirty mentor teachers from four PDS sites in thepartnership hosted interns in their classrooms forthe internship year. Most of these teachers hadspent the summer co-planning the science, math,social studies and classroom environments methodscourses with university faculty. Four universityfaculty were ultimately in charge of the methodcourses, and two of them also acted as buildingliaisons and supervisors along with two othersupervisors: a graduate student and a former schoolprincipal who was hired jointly by the school district

and the university. The six university educatorsspent a great deal of time in the four PDS sitesteaching method courses, conducting seminars,researching, or helping interns in their classrooms,but the supervisors (a.k.a. Professional Develop-ment Associates—PDAs) literally spent their entireday in the PDS sites.

4.2. Methodology

The phenomenological case study design waspreferred for this study due to its emphasis onnatural settings as data sources, inductive forms ofdata analysis as well as subjects’ perspectives andthe meanings they construct of the phenomenaunder study (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990). The fiveinterns—Dan, Ruth, Rose, Lin and Candice—whose inquiry projects and perceptions are featuredin this paper were among the ten placed in one PDSsite. The five interns were among the six from thelargest PDS site who responded to a general call forparticipants in this study. I decided to drop the sixthintern from the study when he withdrew from theinternship early into the year. The five interns in mystudy were in no way meant to be representative ofall the 27 interns enrolled in the PDS programmefor the year; rather as a typical sample (Patton,1990) they served an illustrative purpose. While theinterns’ inquiry projects are the main source of thedata used for this paper, interns’ perceptions aboutinquiry were gleaned from a variety of sourcesincluding in-depth phenomenological interviews(Seidman, 1998); interns’ electronic portfolios; andinterns’ reflective texts, including journals, dailylogs, and lesson plans. Other sources of dataincluded researcher’s field notes and programmedocuments. My position as the programme re-searcher with unlimited access to all aspects of theprogramme during the one year of study put me in aunique position to make observations, participate indiscussions with interns, access interns’ reflectivetexts, and carry out at least six interviews with eachparticipant.

4.3. Data analysis

Qualitative data analysis procedures were usedfor this study guided by the work of Merriam (1998)and Strauss and Corbin (1990). Data analysis wason going throughout the period of the study(Merriam, 1998). Data were compiled in separatefolders for each participant. Open coding was used


to conceptualize the data by breaking, comparing,contrasting and categorizing it (Strauss & Corbin,1990, p. 63). Open codes for each case weredeveloped after reading and rereading the dataand color highlighting phrases, sentences or pas-sages that thematically cohered, thus capturingemerging categories. Field notes provided a meansof triangulation when compared and contrastedwith interview data as well as the interns’ reflectivetexts. From open codes, major categories or axialcodes were developed by making connectionsbetween a category and its subcategories (Strauss& Corbin, 1990, p. 97). At this stage, usingstrategies suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990)I checked that that the categories were internallyconsistent with each other but externally distinctfrom one another. These major categories served toinform and illustrate key perceptions regardinginquiry held by interns in this study. Majorcategories were documented in a chart, and thosethat were triangulated within and across cases wererecorded in a cross-case report, with careful atten-tion to maintaining an audit trail back to theoriginal cases. This data analysis process wasfollowed to create five case studies, and to developcross-case analysis of interns’ perceptions of in-quiry. A discussion of these perceptions follows thedescription of the interns’ inquiry projects below.

5. Description of interns’ inquiry projects

Table 1 summarizes a description of the projects.The description contains the name of intern andtitle, type, focus and interest of the inquiry project.

The frameworks applied to the description of theinterns’ inquiry projects in Table 1 require some

Table 1

Description of the inquiry projects

Intern Title Type of inquiry

Lin Healing the wounds: increasing a

child’s self-esteem

Shared inquiry w

mentor teacher

Candice Teaching kindness Supported inquir

Dan Self-esteem: intervening to ensure

success of a capable child

Parallel inquiry

Rose Literature circles: what are they

and how to get them started?

Shared inquiry w

mentor teacher

Ruth Motivating the unmotivated: a

teacher inquiry into increasing

student motivation

Supported inquir

explanation. Three types of inquiry projects werecommon in the Valley Road practicum: sharedinquiry, supported inquiry and parallel inquiry.Dana and Yendol-Silva (2003) note that each ofthese structures of inquiry involves some degree ofcollaboration. For instance, in shared inquiry likethe one Lin and Rose were engaged in, interns andtheir mentors collaborated in every aspect of theproject. Both of them earned university credits forit: the interns toward PDS course credits; thementor teacher toward professional development.In supported inquiry, like the one Ruth and Candiceengaged in, the intern owned the project butreceived support from the mentor teacher. Inparallel inquiry, like the one Dan engaged in, theintern and the mentor each owned their ownprojects and helped each other to develop the twodistinct projects.

Another framework used is suggested by Louden(1992) and Wallace and Louden (2000) and adaptedfrom Jurgen Habermas’s theory of ‘‘knowledge-constitutive interests’’ and posits that there are fourinterests that could describe teacher inquiry. De-pending on the focus of reflection, the four interestscould be described as: (1) technical, (2) personal, (3)problem solving, and (4) critical. A technical interestinvolves application of specific rules or theoreticallyderived models and the development of technicalskills of teaching (Wallace & Louden, 2000).Interns’ inquiry around this interest would show apreoccupation with certain skills and principlesprescribed in competency based manuals or in priortheory or practice. This interest was not representedin the five inquiries. The personal interest involvesconnecting experience in the practicum with under-standing of one’s own life. It clarifies personal

Focus Interest

ith Child learning Problem solving

y Professional practice

curriculum

Problem solving

Child learning Problem solving

ith Professional practice

curriculum

Problem solving personal

y Children learning Problem solving


teaching identities for interns. Researchers haveexplored the complexities involved in the process oflearning to teach and the amount of energy it takesnew teachers to restore the resonance between thecore self and the teaching self (Bullough, 1992;Britzman, 2003). A most immediate concern formost novice teachers is to make this connection.Rose showed this concern in the rationale for herinquiry when she justified the motivation behind herinquiry as partly informed by her past biography asa literacy learner.

The problem solving interest seems to have beenthe major focus with all the five interns. Accordingto Wallace and Louden (2000), problem solvinginterest ‘‘is concerned with resolution of theproblems of professional action’’ (p. 104). Theseproblems, for most novice teachers, focus onchildren’s learning, own professional practice—pedagogical technique, classroom practice, andprofessional growth—and curriculum change tomaximize learning (Berliner, 1994; Burbank &Kauchak, 2003). Ruth, Dan and Lin’s inquiryprojects focused on children’s learning and inter-vention strategies adopted, while Candice andRuth’s projects focused on professional growthand ways of changing the curriculum to maximizelearning.

The last interest in the framework is criticalinterest. According to Louden (1992), the criticalinterest engages issues of power and ethical condi-tions of teaching, and the social conditions withinwhich teachers teach (p. 191). Louden’s under-standing of the critical interest resonates withCochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) theorizing ofteacher research as social inquiry. Drawing from theEuropean social and economic roots of the Frank-furt School they see the emphasis on the criticalinterest as being on transforming educational theoryand practice toward emancipatory ends thus raisingfundamental questions about curriculum, teachers’roles, and the ends as much as the means ofschooling (p. 18). Literature is divided on thewhether preservice teachers are developmentallycapable of engaging the critical interest in theirinquiry. Dinkelman (2000) cites researchers whoargue that the critical interest ‘‘is an aim that restsbeyond the pale of typical preservice teachers’development, and is best thought of as a trait thatis acquired by teachers who have several years ofclassroom experiencey’’ (p. 196). Other researchershave argued that given certain necessary conditions,preservice teachers are able, as are veteran teachers

committed to this perspective, to engage the criticalinterest in their inquiry. Cochran-Smith (1991b)argues that one condition involves pairing preser-vice teachers with teachers who ‘‘teach against thegrain’’. She argues that

[s]truggling along with experienced teachers is anenterprise that is less glamorousyit may be thatit is the only way to help students generate andthen sustain over the long haul[their] criticalperspectives on schooling and [their] commit-ment to teach against the grain. (p. 280).

None of the five inquiry projects considered forthis study reflected the critical interest.

6. Interns’ perceptions of inquiry

The analysis of the interns’ inquiry projectsprovided in the preceding section is important in adiscussion about the nature of inquiry that is andcould be possible for interns within PDS contexts.Such information is important when thinking aboutthe potential of the inquiry approach to reform thepracticum. That discussion is taken up after theanalysis of interns’ perceptions of inquiry in thissection. I observed that irrespective of the focus andthe interest areas represented in their inquiryprojects, the interns progressively came to perceivethemselves as inquirers, and, I dare say, it is a tagthey took great pride in. In articulating theirperceptions of inquiry, interns revealed that whilethe process of engaging in inquiry was challengingat first it was helpful in several ways. They becomemore aware of themselves as teachers and moredeliberative in their practice. They experienced aheightened awareness on the need to focus onstudents and become more innovative in theirteaching. Engagement with inquiry also offeredthem an opportunity to reflect deeply on students,teaching, and learning within a web of supportprovided from various sources. In the followingdiscussion, I elaborate on the interns’ perceptions ofinquiry as: (1) running wild (2) providing them witha space to own, (3) enhancing collaboration, and (4)as pleasure. I use excerpts from the data to provideillustrations of each of these perceptions.

6.1. Inquiry as running wild

In the initial stages of their internship, internsexhibited some apprehension and, to some extent,resistance the notion of learning to teach through


inquiry. Ruth expressed frustration to what sheunderstood as lack of structure in the approach:

One of the biggest things though is that [learningin the practicum] is structured but it seemsunstructured. Like our inquiry projects rightnow [y] I am concrete person; I like whenpeople tell me, ‘‘Do this, follow this progression[y]’’ that is my personal preference, and itmakes me crazy when somebody goes, ‘‘Okay,go! Run wild!’’ I think that is one of the thingsthat was a problem in the fall.

Rose at first reacted to the suggestion aboutkeeping a journal to record observations andemerging concerns that they might inquire into withthe same exasperation as Ruth:

My own reflections [y]. I have been wondering alot. The journals, I was like, ‘‘just write some-thing down!’’ I honestly felt that in the beginning,‘‘oh my goodness, three times a week!’’ Now, Iprobably even don’t write down as many ques-tions and wonderings as I have had.

The perception of inquiry as running wild,unorganized, and an unnecessary add-on dissipatedthree quarters-way through the internship year. Anumber of factors in the organization of the ValleyRoad programme may have contributed to thisshift, and I will highlight some of these. At thispoint, the seminars in which teachers, interns,university professors and supervisors discussedinquiry had intensified. Although the seminarswhich were held in the PDS sites were oftenorganized around small inquiry groups comprisinginterns, teachers, supervisors, and sometimes uni-versity professors, there were times when all wouldmeet in a large group. Large group seminars wereaddressed by teachers who had engaged in class-room inquiry before and had published and/orpresented their work to groups of other teachers, orhad presented in local and national conferences.They were invited to share their work and helpanswer any questions that interns, other teachers,and PDAs might have regarding the process, thechallenges, and the benefits of engaging in inquiry.Some graduates of the pilot year Valley Road PDSprogramme, who were now first-year teachers, werealso invited to share their inquiry projects. Theseteachers served as credible models for interns andthey positively impacted interns’ views about thevalue of inquiry and the need to embrace uncer-tainty as normal in the process of teaching. In the

participatory approach employed in inquiry work,all participants in the programme became teachers,learners and researchers.

Another important factor that may have con-tributed to alleviating the interns’ initial apprehen-sion regarding inquiry was the explicit guidelinesprovided to interns outlining possible themes as wellas phases of the process. One programme designerdescribed the organization of inquiry in theprogramme:

To facilitate the inquiry process, four themesbecome the focus of the year’s work for interns.Though each of the four themes becomes theforeground for inquiry at one particular timeduring the year while others recede to thebackground, all four themes are in constantinterplay. During the Jumpstart the focus is on‘inquiry into self’. ‘Inquiry into community andcontext’ becomes the focus during September.‘Inquiry into children’s thinking and understand-ing’ moves into the foreground from Octoberthrough January, and ‘inquiry into oneself asteacher and one’s teaching practice’ is highlightedfrom February through June (Nolan, 2000, p. 3).

By February, Interns had internalized the cycle ofinquiry: finding a wondering; developing a researchplan; finding your findings; the inquiry write-up;and making your inquiry public (Dana & Yendol-Silva, 2003). Throughout the process of inquiry theinterns were not only assured of a developmentallysensitive approach, they were also guaranteed someform of collaboration from their mentor teachers.As noted elsewhere in this paper, each of the typesof intern inquiry encouraged in the programme—shared, supported, and parallel—involved somedegree of collaboration with mentor teacher.Mentor teacher support ranged from help withcollecting data to collaborative formulation ofresearch questions and analysis of data. SinceInterns in inquiry-based programmes suffer adisadvantage because most of them have fewresearch skills and little or no frame of referenceinto conducting truly meaningful research (Burbank& Kauchak, 2003), it is important for them to beprovided with conceptual clarity, adequate time inthe field, and a supportive environment withinwhich to carry out their inquiry. The threefactors—modeling, developmentally sensitive ap-proach, and collaboration with mentor teachers—were important in turning the initial confusion andskepticism about inquiry that interns had expressed


at the beginning of the internship into a morecelebratory attitude that lasted through the end oftheir internship.

6.2. Inquiry as space to own

The interns came to understand the process ofinquiry as a means of articulating their deeply heldconvictions about teaching and learning that wereintricately mingled with their past biographies andmolded by current concerns in their classrooms. Inthis sense, they understood inquiry as providingthem with the space to address the personal andproblem solving interests described by Louden(1992) and Wallace and Louden (2000). Candiceand Rose best demonstrate this understanding ofinquiry. Candice, in our first interview at thebeginning of the internship, had elaborated on hervisually (using play-doh) conceptualized metaphorof her vision for her ideal classroom: ‘‘I made littlepeople in a circle holding hands. I had some clay leftover, so I put a heart in the middley I think peopleholding hands is a good symbol for community,togetherness, friendship, and caring.’’ This assign-ment had been given during the Jumpstart period(ten days of orientation prior to the internship) as away of helping interns’ explore their beliefs aboutlearning environments. Later, towards the end ofthe year, Candice noted that despite her efforts andthe mentor teacher’s efforts to promote a learningcommunity, children were still acting hostile, whichinterfered with the learning in the classroom. Shetherefore used her inquiry project to discover ways

y to use the language arts and social studiescurriculum to help our students accomplish thefollowing: see the value of each person, realizethe effects of unkindness, reflect on their ownbehavior, and most important, begin to showtheir classmates kindness and respect. It wasimportant to me to help our students becomekinder and more respectful for two reasons.First, each child has a ‘‘need for close, supportiverelationships.’’ These relationships are ‘‘funda-mental to children’s healthy emotional and socialdevelopment’’ (Lewis, 1995). My belief is thatchildren not only need these relationships athome, but at school as well. These relationshipsare crucial at school because, as Alfie Kohn saysin Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Com-

munity, ‘‘few things stifle creativity like the fearof being judged or humiliated. Thus, a supportive

environment will allow people of any age to playwith possibilities and challenge themselves tostretch their thinking. The moral is: if you wantacademic excellence, you have to attend to howchildren feel about school and about each other’’(p. 103). Kohn provides support for my secondreason for wanting to help the children buildfriendships. I wanted to create a safe andcomfortable environment, which would promotelearning by allowing children to take risks.

Candice, with the help of her very supportivementor teacher, engaged in her inquiry, whichinvolved redesigning the language arts and socialstudies to incorporate materials that she felt wouldfacilitate the kind of classroom environment sheaspired to. Both of them worked very closely withthe PDA to formulate, plan, and carry out researcharound Candice’s wonderings.

Rose provides a further example of how internsfelt safe to elbow for space to address personal aswell as the problem solving concerns. After having a‘‘very poor’’ background learning to read as a childwho ‘‘grew up with basals’’, Rose later developedoutside of school a love for reading. Yet in hermind, ‘‘I drew a fine line between learning how toread and reading for enjoyment. They were notconnected in any way in my mind.’’ Her dream as ateacher was to get children to enjoy reading as theylearned to read. To do this, she needed tocompletely overhaul the reading instruction in hermentor teacher’s classroom, which she thoughtreinforced the same concept of reading that shehad encountered in her elementary schooling. Shedecided to use her inquiry project to start literaturecircles in her classroom:

I love books! My collection grows every monthwhen a new book order arrives! I enjoy readingthem to my students and I am finding that theyenjoy listening to them as well! I can’t believe Ihad such preconceived notions about howstudents should learn how to read. I feel thisoverwhelming breakthrough in my thinking andI know it is just the tip of the iceberg! As I beginto read information on literature circles, I knowthat there is a way that I can teach students toread and comprehend as well as learn to lovebooks. I can’t wait to find out more and I amanxious to see how my thoughts change andgrow as my inquiry project takes place.


Rose and Candice both used their own convic-tions about learning and modified them in thecontext of their current classrooms as bases for theirinquiries. They both struggled with the desire tochange their classrooms from patterns designed bythe mentor teacher which they felt were not workingfor them and were not aligned to their views aboutcurriculum, teaching or learning. The two of themreported having very supportive mentor teacherswho encouraged them to ‘‘take risks’’. Withoutmentor teachers who were change-minded them-selves and willing to become vulnerable in the eyesof their charges, the opportunity to carve out thepersonal space through inquiry would not have beenpossible. Literature has emphasized that it isimportant that in the process of learning to teachinterns are provided with spaces to own; to exploretheir biography, understand their teaching self,develop teaching stories, and experiment withpersonal teaching theories (Britzman, 2003; Bul-lough & Gitlin, 1995; Hogan & Flather, 1993).Interns in my study celebrated these spaces madeavailable to them through inquiry.

6.3. Inquiry as pleasure

Interns also expressed inquiry as pleasure. Thesefive interns expressed and exhibited a great sense ofaccomplishment and pleasure as they presentedtheir research to the public in the May conferenceheld in one PDS site. Three sources of this pleasureillustrated below are:

1.
Inquiry as a way of making a difference in achild’s life.
2.
Inquiry as a way of informing own classroompractice.
3.
Inquiry as a way of contributing to the knowl-edge of teaching.
Dan and Ruth demonstrate the expression ofpleasure at making a difference in a child’s life. Danconcentrated his inquiry on one child whom heperceived to have low self-esteem that interferedwith his learning:

Perhaps this paper will help others gain a betterunderstanding of [name]. But that is not its mostimportant purpose. The most important thingisn’t this paper or the presentation that will beoccurring. Rather, the most important thing isthe process that I have taken that has allowed me

to write this paper. Through my data collection,analysis, and my research, I have been able tomake a difference for the better in the life of oneof my students.

Ruth’s inquiry centered on how as classroomteachers, she and her mentor teacher could ‘‘moti-vate three unmotivated students with little parentalsupport to complete their homework accurately andon time’’. After observing the effects of severalintervention strategies on each of the three overtime, Ruth reflected on the mixed effect of herinterventions on one of her three focus children:

Where this child is and where I feel that sheshould truly be are two different places. As aneducator, however, I must be both proud andpleased with each step of progress any studentmakes. In addition, I must look at my ownpractice, and see how exactly it is that myteaching affects the success of my students.Could it be that the child’s improvement hascome about as a result of my prompting her toshare issues that may be affecting her education?Yes.Could it also be that the child’s improvement hascome about as a result of someone simply takingan active interest in her? Yes again.It is not so important how the child’s workimproves so long as it does—it is important why.Only by knowing what it is that motivates a childto do her best can we continue to encourage herto do just that. I have found a way to get a childwho used to write one-line journal entries towrite much more. However, this is only the firstof many successes that I hope to achieve with thislearner.

Another source of pleasure in inquiry emanatedfrom the interns’ perception that they could changeor adjust their classroom practice in informed waysas a result of inquiry. Proponents of reflectivepractice led by Schon (1983, 1987) see this will-ingness to reflect in and on practice as an importantcomponent of professional practice. Candice, in thefollowing excerpt, further illustrates the samedisposition.

The relationships among children are fascinatingto study, and even more important to try anddevelop. Although the children in [class] have alot to learn about showing caring and respecttoward others, they have come a long way. I feelthat I have begun to reach my original goal,


which was to help the children grow to be kinder,more supportive classmates and friends. Never-theless, I have more wonderings now than when Ibegan. I wonder if third-graders can understandthe feelings of others. I wonder if there arechildren who will not allow themselves to becomepart of the community. If there are, how can Ihelp these students get past what they are feeling?I also wonder how the home lives of childrenaffect their relationships at school. In conclusion,I feel that this quote from Margaret Cusak’sarticle Does Building a Classroom Community

Facilitate Learning?’’ summarizes nicely what Ihave learned: ‘‘Building a community of learnerstakes patience, persistence and serious listening:it requires that we teach peace.

The last source of inquiry as pleasure was theinterns’ feeling that inquiry allowed them to makeimportant contributions to knowledge of individualstudents, curriculum, and pedagogy. Dan under-stood his inquiry project, and the findings of it, tobe important in adding not just to his own knowl-edge of the student but also to that of other teachersin the school. He noted:

As I said, helping [student] with his self-esteem isan on-going process, and it will continue into themiddle school. We were careful to note on thesixth grade placement card about [student’s]special needs. Although he is not identified asan official special needs student, we realize thathe may definitely have emotional special needsy perhaps this paper will help others gain abetter understanding of [student].

Similarly, Rose and her mentor teacher did notsimply look at their inquiry project on literaturecircles as another course assignment. They saw it asan opportunity to experiment and add to theirknowledge of curriculum and pedagogy. In theprocess of their own experimentation they soughtviews from other teachers in the school whohad used literature circles over a long period.For instance, in a teacher questionnaire designedto solicit other teachers’ views and experienceswith literature circles, they posed the followingquestions:

1.
Why did you choose to have students participatein literature circles?
2.
How many times do you hold literature circles ina week?
3.
How long does a literature circle last? 4. Do you feel that it is important to have students
participate in specific roles? Why?
5. Have you found that most students actively
participate in the discussions?
6. What would you say are the advantages and
disadvantages of literature circles over traditionalreading groups?

In expressing inquiry as pleasure, interns wereacknowledging the direct impact of inquiry onenhancing self-reflection and growth around theirclassroom practice and their knowledge of curricu-lum, individual children, and children’s learning.Proponents of the reflective approach to teachereducation see a reflective teacher as one whoinquires into his or her thinking and practice withan eye toward making improvements (Bullough &Gitlin, 1995; McIntyre et al., 1996; Schon, 1983,1987). Interns in this study saw inquiry as a viablemechanism for developing reflective habits.

6.4. Inquiry as a tool for enhancing collaboration

Rose and Lin demonstrate how inquiry canbecome a tool for cultivating increased levels ofcollaboration between especially the mentor tea-chers and interns, and of collegiality with othermembers of the school community. Inquiry pro-vided interns with the opportunity to enter into ameaningful learning community through this colla-boration. The following excerpt from Rose and hermentor teacher shows how the two were functioningas co-inquirers around curriculum and pedagogicalissues. They reflect on how the process of their jointinquiry led them to seek out the curriculumspecialist:

We shared the vision of wanting to do somethingexciting with novels, and to get the studentsactively engaged in literature. We had heard thebuzzword ‘‘literature circles’’ mentioned aroundour cluster and in the LAC, and that led to ourinitial wonderings: What are literature circles?How do you set them up in the classroom? Ourpurpose then became to answer our initialwonderings about literature circles. We decidedto ask our language arts specialist what thesecircles were all about. (She) recommended a booktitled, Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in

Student Centered Classrooms by Harvey Danielsand we read it y


What followed Rose’s and her mentor teacher’swonderings became a complex interplay of intern,mentor teacher, district curriculum specialist, PDAworking very closely together to facilitate thedesigning, implementation and researching of theliterature circles in this one class.

Similarly, Lin’s joint inquiry with her mentorteacher led them to cultivate collegial relationshipswith other people who student teachers in thetypical practicum would probably not interact withso closely:

Since September, we [Lin and mentor teacher]had been working together to brainstorm ideason how to help [student]. We had taken notesabout his behavior before and decided that wewanted to continue to do this y In addition, wespent time meeting with parents, psychologistsand other support persons. During these meet-ings we shared observations about school andhome behaviors, expressed concerns, and to-gether developed plans to help [student] be moresuccessful and feel better about himself.

Lin, in the rest of the interview, emphasized howshe perceived that engaging in inquiry had broughther into close working relationships with her mentorteacher, the parents, learning support specialists inthe school, and with the child in question.

For both Lin and Rose, working collaborativelywith their mentor teachers around inquiry projectsthat were of interest to both was important. It hasbeen noted that the collaboration between mentorteachers and interns around inquiry could bechallenging due to paucity of time, developmentaldifferences as well as issues of ownership (Burbank& Kauchak, 2003; Levin & Rock, 2003). It isimportant that mentor teachers remain aware of thepower and developmental differences between themand their interns and offer the necessary scaffoldingas interns engage in inquiry. At the same time theymust be willing to move beyond the guiding andsupporting role to a more professional partnership(Bowers, 1994). Dan, for example, felt that hismentor teacher was prepared from the onset tonurture a professional partnership relationship.

I think it shows that we both make decisions. It ishis classroom; he is the employee of the district,you know, but he introduced me as anotherteacher in the classroom. He did not say, ‘‘this ismy student teacher.’’ That is kind of neat, andalthough I am a student teacher, he is grateful to

have another teacher in the room. He said,‘‘welcome to our classroom, we will be makingdecisions together’’ (intw 5).

When interns and mentor teachers collaboratearound inquiry there is a greater likelihood that theywill also collaborate around other aspects ofteaching. Collaboration around inquiry increasescommunication and shared vision for teachingbetween mentor teachers and interns (Burbank &Kauchak, 2003; Phelan, McEwan, & Pateman,1996).

7. Discussion and implications for developing

inquiry-based PDS practicum

Current reform literature, in arguing for the needto reform the practicum, suggests that inquiry-basedprogrammes are desirable (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,1999; Darling-Hammond, 1994; McIntyre et al.,1996). The case study of five interns in a PDSpracticum led to two important observations that Iwant to explore further in this section. First, withregard to interns’ perceptions of inquiry it seemsthat engaging in inquiry within a PDS context mayentail a disruption of the interns’ normativediscourse about learning to teach (Britzman,2003), increase collaboration between mentors andinterns, and lead interns into deeper levels ofreflection. Second, as was evident the types ofinquiry undertaken by the interns, interns reveal apreoccupation with mainly the problematic andpersonal interest areas as opposed to the criticalinterest area. What do these findings tell us aboutthe whether or not incorporating inquiry into thepracticum experience can lead to positive reform ofthe practicum? In this section, I emphasize fourimportant outcomes associated with inquiry-basedprogrammes that are critical in reforming theteacher education practicum.

One outcome is that, when carefully designedwith interns developmental concerns in mind,inquiry-based programmes may disrupt normativediscourses about learning to teach often inscribed inthe myths of teacher as expert and self-made(Britzman, 2003). Student-teachers have tradition-ally not been viewed as inquirers, as knowledgeproducers. It is not an easy role for student teachersto assume. Participating in inquiry while at the sametime dealing with the challenges of teaching as anovice teacher can be stressful and overwhelming tointerns. The PDS structure could easily add to this


stress because of its emphasis on collaboration withothers in the practicum (Beach & Pearson, 1998;Burbank & Kauchak, 2003; Hopkins, Hoffman, &Moss, 1997; Phelan et al., 1996). To ease internsinto this uncharacteristic role of inquirers, it isimportant that they are provided with enough timeto develop familiarity with their contexts and withthe process. The typical one semester practicummay not provide enough time. Equally important isthat interns are provided with necessary scaffoldingby university and school-based teacher educators asthey plan and carry out their inquiry.

A second outcome involves changes in the studentteacher-mentor teacher dynamic toward more col-laboration and collegiality. In an inquiry-basedpracticum the mentor teacher-intern relationshipmay change to diminish the power differentialbetween interns and mentor teachers (Poetter,Badiali, & Hammond, 2000). Guyton and McIntyre(1990) note that student teachers in the typicalpracticum are often passive in the classrooms andmostly listen and respond as mentor teachers takelead in hierarchical, top-down structure. As a result,student teachers are forced to conform to thedidactic expectations of the teacher. Soon enoughthey abandon any new ideas they might haveregarding curriculum and instructional strategies.The rigidity in the teacher-student teacher relation-ship often leads to a practicum experience that isuneducative (Zeichner, 1996) and sometimes mis-educative (Bullough et al., 2002; Guyton & McIn-tyre, 1990; McIntyre et al., 1996). This rigidity is amajor source of unproductive tension for studentteachers in the practicum (Beach & Pearson, 1998;Phelan et al., 1996). An inquiry-based practicumseems to lessen this rigidity in the student-mentorrelationship.

A third outcome is that inquiry seems to be aneffective tool for fostering reflection (Bullough &Gitlin, 1995; Cochran-Smith, 1991a, b; Zeichner,1990). While acknowledging the ambiguity sur-rounding the use of the term ‘reflection’ in theteacher education literature, McIntyre and hiscolleagues note that the reflective teaching traditionaims to bring understanding to the complex natureof teaching and emphasizes the growth of theprospective teacher through experiences, reflection,and self-examination (p. 172). Interns in my studyunderstood reflecting on self, instructional strate-gies, children learning, as well as the curriculum tobe an important tool for professional development.An inquiry-based practicum with the goal encoura-

ging reflection by interns can lead to the develop-ment of lifelong, self-directed learners.

That the interns’ inquiry projects described in thispaper showed deep levels of reflection around thepersonal and problem solving interests but did notreflect the critical interest would be considered bysome to represent the normal developmental trendin the process of learning to teach (Berliner, 1994;Burbank & Kauchak, 2003). It has been argued thatwhile inquiry around the critical interest is recog-nized as a worthy goal for preservice teachereducation, little is known regarding how to fosterthat form of inquiry. Liston and Zeichner (1991)note that even when student teachers reflect thecritical interest in their inquiry it is not always clearif and how social-reconstructionist based teachereducation efforts impact their orientation.

[I]t is not altogether clear that the successreported can be attributed to participation inthe projects. In some cases of success documen-ted in the literature, for example, there is strongpossibility that students adopted socially criticalperspectives before entering a project [y]. Atthis point there is a lot that we just do not knowabout the impact of these reform efforts (p. 185).

The suggestion by Cochran-Smith (1991a) andCochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) that placinginterns with mentor teachers who ‘‘teach againstthe grain’’ would most likely influence interns’inquiry projects toward the critical interest is worthconsidering. Cochran-Smith (1991a) uses the term‘to teach against the grain’ to refer to teachers whonot research and articulate their own expertise butalso are willing to learn from, interpret, andultimately alter the day-to-day life of schools bycritiquing the cultures of teaching and schoolingand by to calling into question the policies andlanguage of schooling that are taken for granted (p.110). The task for PDS programmes that areinterested in promoting the development of thecritical interest in their students would be to identifyand support such teachers as mentors. Teacherswho engaged a wide range of interests including thecritical are more likely to function as change agentsin schools (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Huffman& Kalnin, 2003; King, 2002; Sandholtz, 2002). Suchteachers, according to Cochran-Smith and Lytle(1999) take a central position in participating inknowledge production


[y]collaboratively, primarily in inquiry commu-nities and /or networks where participantsstruggle along with others to construct mean-ingful local knowledge and where inquiry isregarded as part of the larger efforts to transformteaching, learning, and schooling (p. 279).

I believe an inquiry-based PDS practicum lays afirm foundation in preparing future teachers who fitthe vision of teachers as change agents in schools.

A final outcome, which probably is the mostsignificant when thinking about teacher educationreform, is that inquiry-based practicum may make itpossible for interns to participate in a learningcommunity in which all participants are engaged inconversations and inquiry about their practice(Holmes Group, 1990, 1995). The notion of alearning community contrasts the ‘sink and swim’and ‘do it yourself’ (Britzman, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1994) view of student teaching in thetypical practicum. When inquiry is the centerpieceof the practicum, interns, teachers, and universitypeople become involved in what Cochran-Smithand Lytle (1999) refer to as construction of ‘knowl-edge of- practice.’ When this locally constructedknowledge is shared in public, as the case was whenValley Road teachers and interns participated in theMay conference, interns see themselves in acompletely different light—as budding professionalsamong other professionals in the learning commu-nity. It is likely that novice teachers with both aninquiry stance and a sense of community may beempowered to enhance learning opportunities fortheir students and change the traditional cultures ofteaching and education.

In conclusion, my study suggests that a practicumfounded on university–school collaboration within thePDS model can be beneficial to preservice teachers,teachers, and their pupils. A special advantage of thismodel deserves mention: the concept of preserviceteachers as inquirers allows for the development offuture teachers needed for the renewal of the culturesof teaching and education that is the central aim ofPDSs. This advantage alone justifies continuedinvestment in the PDS practicum model.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Professional development schools: A

directory of projects in the United States. Washington, DC:

Clinical Schools Clearinghouse, American Association of

Colleges for Teacher Education.

Beach, R., & Pearson, D. (1998). Changes in preservice teachers’

perceptions of conflicts and tension. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 14(3), 337–351.

Berliner, D. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary

performance. In J. Mangieri, & C. Collins (Eds.), Creating

powerful thinking in teachers and students (pp. 161–186). Fort

Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Book, C. L. (1996). Professional development schools. In J.

Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research

on teacher education (pp. 194–210). New York: Macmillan.

Bowers, R. (1994). A topology of cooperating teacher-student

teacher relationships: Perceptions of student teachers. In M. J.

O’Hair, & S. J. Odell (Eds.), Partnerships in education:

Association of Teacher Educators’ teacher education yearbook

II (pp. 102–119). Fort worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College

Publishers.

Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study

of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New

York Press (Original work published 1990).

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1992). Beginning teacher curricu-

lum decision-making, personal teaching metaphors, and

teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(3),

239–252.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of

teaching: Methodologies for exploring self and school context.

New York: Garland.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark,

D. C., & Egan, M. W. (2002). Rethinking field experiences:

Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Jour-

nal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68–80.

Burbank, M. D., & Kauchak, D. (2003). An alternative model

for professional development: Investigations into effective

collaboration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5),

499–514.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991a). Reinventing student teaching.

Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 104–118.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991b). Learning to teach against the grain.

Harvard Educational Review, 61(3), 279–311.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1999). Learning to teach for social justice. In

G. A. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth

Yearbook of the National Society for the study of Education,

Vol. 98(1) (pp. 114–144). Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Learning from teacher

research: A working topology. Teachers College Record,

92(1), 84–103.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1992). Communities for

teacher research: Fringe or forefront? American Journal of

Education, 100(3), 298–324.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research

movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7),

15–25.

Dana, F. N., Silva, D. Y., Colangelo, L. (1999). The Pennsylvania

State University-State College Area School District profes-

sional development mentor teacher resource guide. Unpub-

lished manuscript.

Dana, N., & Yendol-Silva, D. (2003). The reflective educator’s

guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to

learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press, Inc.

Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the

student-centered classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.


Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development

schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Dinkelman, T. (2000). An inquiry into the development of critical

reflection in secondary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 16(2), 195–222.

Fesnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A

constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Gardner, W. E., & Abu Libde, A. (1995). Professional develop-

ment schools: How will they travel? Journal of Education for

Teachers, 21(3), 303–315.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. (1994). The national network for educational

renewal. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 632–638.

Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and

school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teacher education (pp. 514–534). New York:

Macmillan.

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of Holmes

Group. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the

design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI:

Holmes Group.

Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education: A report

of Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Hogan, P., & Flather, C. A. (1993). Finding voice, finding place.

In D. J. Clandinin, A. Davies, P. Hogan, & B. Kennard

(Eds.), Learning to teach, teaching to learn (pp. 100–108). New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hopkins, S. W., Hoffman, S. Q., & Moss, V. D. (1997).

Professional development school and teacher stress. Action

in Teacher Education, 18(4), 36–46.

Huffman, D., & Kalnin, J. (2003). Collaborative inquiry to make

data-based decisions in schools. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 19(6), 569–580.

Johnstone, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher: Or is it? An

analysis of the role of experience in learning to teach. Journal

of Teacher Education, 45(3), 199–208.

Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative

inquiry as a path to empowerment. Bristol, PA: The Falmer

Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher

thinking: Mapping the postmodern. Westport, CT: Bergin &

Garvey.

King, B. (2002). Professional development to promote school-

wide inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3),

243–257.

Levin, B. B., & Rock, T. C. (2003). The effects of collaborative

research on preservice and experienced teacher partners in

professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 54(2), 135–149.

Lieberman, A. (1998). Foreword. In Abdal-Haqq (Ed.), Profes-

sional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1991). Teacher education and the

social conditions of schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.

Louden, W. (1992). Understanding reflection through collabora-

tive research. In A. Hargreaves, & M. Fullan (Eds.), Under-

standing teacher development (pp. 178–214). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and

laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education

(pp. 171–193). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study

applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publish-

ers.

National Centre for Restructuring Education, Schools, and

Teaching (NCREST) (1993). Vision statement: professional

development schools network. PDS News 1(1). New York.

Nolan, J. (2000). The influence of professional development school

context on my practice as a student teaching supervisor: A

personal narrative. Paper presented at the Annual American

Educational Research Meeting, Orlando, FL.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Petrie, H. G. (Ed.). (1995). Professionalization, partnership, and

power: Building professional development schools. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Phelan, A., McEwan, H., & Pateman, N. (1996). Collaboration in

student teaching: Learning to teach in the context of changing

curriculum practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4),

335–353.

Poetter, T., Badiali, B., & Hammond, D. J. (2000). Growing

teacher inquiry: Collaboration in a partner school. Peabody

Journal of Education, 75(3), 161–175.

Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Inservice training or professional

development; contrasting opportunities in school/uni-

versity partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7),

815–830.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals

think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a

new design for teaching and learning in professions. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seidman, I. E. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide

for researchers in education and social sciences. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:

Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2000). Teachers’ learning: Stories of

science education. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Wells, G. (1994). Changing schools from within. Toronto: OISE

Press.

Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum:

Looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education for

Teaching, 16(2), 105–132.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences.

In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Current

reforms in pre-service teacher education (pp. 215–234). New

York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Further reading

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers’ personal

knowledge: What counts as ‘personal’ in studies of the

personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 490–500.

Dana, F. N. (1999). The professional development school story:

Assessing the impact of year one (1998– 1999) of the state college


area school district-Pennsylvania state university elementary

professional development schools. Research Report submitted

to, The State College Area School District Board of Directors.

Dana, N. F., Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., Nolan, J., Zembal-Saul,

C., Tzur, R., Sanders, L., Mule, L., et al. (2001). Developing

new PDS work: Better questions, better problems. Action in

Teacher Education, 22(4), 15–27.

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, NY: Teachers College Press.

Tang, S. Y. F. (2003). Challenge and support: The dynamics of

student teachers’ professional learning in the field experience.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 483–498.

Documents

Preservice teachers’ inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum