This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 08:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

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

Professional Development Schools andPreservice Teacher StressW. Scott Hopkins a , Suzanne Q. Hoffman a & Vel D. Moss ba University of South Alabama , USAb University of Mobile , USAPublished online: 06 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: W. Scott Hopkins , Suzanne Q. Hoffman & Vel D. Moss (1997) ProfessionalDevelopment Schools and Preservice Teacher Stress, Action in Teacher Education, 18:4, 36-46, DOI:10.1080/01626620.1997.10463362

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1997.10463362

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 licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

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

Action in Teacher Education Winter 1997, Vol. XVIII, No. 4, pp, 36-46

Professional Development Schools and Preservice Teacher Stress

W. Scott Hopkins Suzanne Q. Hoffman University of South Alabama

Vel D. Moss University of Mobile

Abstract

Educational reforms offer a variety of ideas with potential for improving schools. Inasmuch as research has consistently identified the field experience component (Conant, I963), especially the influence of the public school teacher, (Glickman & Bey, 1990)) as the most influential force in preservice teacher education, institutional emphasis has shifed toward improving the activities of preservice teachers in the public schools. Historically, these public school activities have been fragmented; the public schools accept preservice teacher education students although public school teachers have limited input into the design of the teacher education program of the institution and the public school activities of preservice teachers. Institutions of higher education are interested in short-term solutions to the problem of preservice teacher education and may ignore their responsibility to be partners in educational reform that promotes higher quality field experiences while improving the public schools. Professional Development Schools (PDSs) have been developed as instruments of reform in teacher education. The authors describe a research project that compared the changes in stress scores of preservice teachers involved in a pilot PDS with the changes in stress scores of preservice teachers in a traditional teacher preparation program. The study found a statistically signijicant increase in stress during the culminating field experience for those preservice teachers in the pilot PDS program.

The most prevalent call for reform of the past ten years has focused upon a collaboratively designed and implemented Professional Development School (PDS) (The Holmes Group, 1990). Although a Professional Development School may be identified by names such as Key School (Goodlad, 1984), Clinical School (Carnegie Foundation on Education and The Economy, 1986), Induction School (Wise, et al., 1987), Partner School (Goodlad, 1990), and Preservice Mentoring Site (Hopkins & Moss, 1993), it still functions as the collaborative partnership linking colleges of education with schools or school districts (Stallings & Kowalski, 1990). Its emergent role in school reform has resulted in theme issues in journals (Ashton, 1992; Gilman, 1994), books dealing with case studies and procedural suggestions (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Serotink & Goodlad, 1988; The Holmes Group, 1990), reports on successful pilot programs (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1995), reports of state-wide projects (Ponticell, Johnson, Olivarez, & Smith, 1995), foundation reports (Sid Richardson Foundation Forum, 1993), and reports of special task

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

forces (Association of Colleges and Schools of Education in State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1995). The goal of such an arrangement with a public school or public schools is to renew simultaneously schools and teacher education by developing a collegial learning community whose purpose is the intellectual engagement and development of all its members-students, teachers, administrators, preservice teachers and university faculty through reflective practice (Holmes Group, 1990). This would result in new models of teacher education and development to serve as exemplars of practice, builders of knowledge, and vehicles for communicating professional understandings among teacher educators, novices, and veteran teachers (Darling- Hammond, 1994).

A PDS is often defined by its purpose rather than a set of characteristics (Nystrand, 1991). However, most PDSs are committed to the six guiding principles of The Holmes Group (1990) for creating Professional Development Schools: committing to teaching for understanding; organizing classrooms and schools as learning communities; setting ambitious goals for all children; establishing an environment that supports continuous learning for all; making reflection and inquiry central to the school; and developing a new type of organization to adhere to these principles. Although questioned by Zimpher (1990), these principles and the partner site ideals developed by Clark (1995) offer opportunities for public school teachers to engage in school improvement projects, demonstrate theory as practice, and become clinical faculty at a university (see Figure 1).

A PDS with these characteristics will enable public school teachers to improve learning experiences in the classroom, participate in the development of the profession, determine the settings in which educators function, and develop a sense of responsibility for teacher education through active involvement in the preparation of preservice teachers. In contrast to the customary triad relationship of a traditional student teaching program, such an arrangement should provide more consistency among field experience sites, remove ambiguity from expectations, by the involvement of the classroom teacher in developing guidelines and procedures, and create a dual- teaching relationship between the classroom teacher and the preservice teacher. This removal of the ambiguities of a traditional student teaching program should lessen stress caused by inconsistencies between university and public school expectations, as well as provide a stronger support system for the preservice teacher by structuring opportunities for more bonding between the cooperating teacher and the preservice teacher.

Figure 1 Model of Pilot PDS in Research Project

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Raywid (19%) suggested that much reform is not really reform, but rather pseudo-reform. This is consistent with Hawley (1990), who suggested that rather than rearranging courses in teacher education we should focus on who should do what and when it can be done most efficiently and effectively. Public school teachers are most knowledgeable regarding what makes good teaching within a contextual framework. These teachers have spent a lot of time with students and know how to create authentic experiences that meet students' instructional needs, how to monitor these students' progress, and how to make instructional-based decisions. These school-based teacher educators, who are expert practicitioners in charge of designing appropriate activities for preservice teachers, may be designated clinical faculty (North Carolina General Assembly, 1994) or clinical professors (Neufield & McGowan, 1993).

Clinical faculty design experiences that are consistent with the knowledge base of the unit; the primary supervisory responsibility is assigned to these clinical faculty because they assume a large share of the responsibility for directing the activities of preservice teachers. In addition, these clinical faculty demonstrate exemplary teaching as the norm rather than the exception and will be recognized as clinical faculty of the university. Although the financial rewards may be negligible or nonexistent, the status of being recognized and being given the opportunity to use university facilities (e.g., library, fitness center, faculty discounts) provides needed recognition. As part of the collaborative effort, university liaisons can assist in improving the skills of clinical faculty in working with preservice teachers. However, care is essential to prevent another social level where the clinical faculty are subservient to the university liaison. Therefore, the university faculty who are assigned the role of liaison should be available to assist the clinical faculty as they work with preservice teachers. It is essential that this liaison relationship exist and that there is not a traditional role definition in which the university representative assumes an authoritative posture and destroys the collaborative role.

In order to maximize these experiences of theory as practice, there must be a cadre of preservice teachers assigned to each site. This cadre must be large enough so that the school cannot ignore its role as a clinic for development of the preservice teacher. This total immersion in the school allows the preservice teachers, like the clinical faculty, to learn from one another (Meade, 1991). The concept of clustering preservice teachers was advocated by Oja (1988) as well as Schwab (1989), who found that groups of preservice teachers at one site have lower levels of emotional exhaustion than preservice teachers who are not grouped in clusters. Lowering levels of emotional exhaustion among preservice teachers should reduce stress while increasing productivity and enabling them to focus upon how to implement theory as practice in the classroom. Clustering preservice teachers in one site also provides preservice teachers with an increased sense of self-worth. They know the school and staff, are often more confident, utilize peer support, and move away from developing survival skills to focusing upon their own learning as a function of their students' learning. Administrators within the building will become actively involved in the preparation of these preservice teachers by scheduling meetings to help them learn about support services such as counseling and by providing them with amenities such as faculty mailboxes, faculty parking places, and other non-monetary statements of the importance of the preservice teacher in the social structure of the school. This immersion in the school culture provides preservice teachers with a more realistic idea of what teaching is while it stimulates and enriches individual learning through on-site collaborative work and reflection with peers (Devaney , 1990). This on-site collaboration is often not implemented if there are only one or two preservice teachers at a site.

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

In order for a PDS to work, collaboration between the university and the public schools is essential (Yopp, Guillaume, & Savage, 1994). This arrangement operates on the principle that preparation of preservice teachers is a responsibility of the educational community rather than the present practice of using the schools as a site for university field experiences. The importance of the relationship among the entities is reflected in that four of the ten characteristics of successful collaboration (Darling-Hammond, 1994) use such words as mutual, shared, and sharing. Factors known to impede collaboration include a lack of shared goals (Lashley, 1992), who is in control (Wisniewski, 1992), who provides how much finances (Lawson, 1990), changes in the culture of schools and colleges (Winitzky, Stoddart, & O’Keefe, 1992), lack of an interactive approach (Whitford, 1994), unwillingness to form relationships between individual teachers and university faculty members (Green, Baldini, & Stack, 1993), sacrificing of public school personnel in order to facilitate university established deadlines (Duffy, 1994), and reluctance of institutions of higher education to change their reward system (Boyer, 1991; Diamond, 1994; & Teitel, 1992).

University and public school personnel responsible for establishing the pilot PDS worked cooperatively to establish a PDS that was as close to a true collaboration model as possible. The steering committee, which consisted of more public school personnel than university personnel, had open discussions regarding the needs and the impediments. In order to avoid a turnover of personnel, all those involved committed to the program for at least three years. One of the identified drawbacks was the unwillingness of the central office personnel at the university to contribute enough financial resources to implement this pilot study. Therefore, €he university-based teacher educators received no additional compensation or reassigned time for this project. An example of the extra assignments assumed by the university personnel is the clinical faculty preparation seminars, for the school-based teacher-educators, offered on-site and focusing on the new role of clinical faculty. These seminars focused on renewing or developing skills in the area of communicating, conferencing , and evaluating. Administrators were also involved in brainstorming sessions regarding how to inculcate preservice teachers into the culture of the school.

Preservice Teacher Stress

The preservice teacher, as a neophyte attempts to make the transition to teacher. This transition often causes stress. Kyriacou and Sutcliffe (1997) defined teacher stress as a response syndrome of negative effects resulting from the teacher’s job. This idea was further supported by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and indicates that stress is mediated by the teacher’s perception of threat to his or her well-being. Preservice teachers are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of stress because of their lack of experience as well as their unclear perception of their own status and the possibility of conflicting advice and expectations (Sinclair & Nichol, 1981). Other factors that may increase the preservice teachers’ stress are the reform movements in teacher education (Corcoran, 1989), the lack of coping strategies in dealing with sudden immersion into the teaching culture (Kieffer, 1994), and the situational self-esteem of the preservice teacher (Doherty, 1980). The possible uncertainty of the environment for preservice teachers may require the development of additional coping systems or external social support. While some stress is essential to success, too much may interfere with a complex mental task such as teaching (Kryiacou & Sutcliff, 1977). It was anticipated that the structure of the PDS, with its identified role for preservice teachers and specialized preparation of cooperating teachers for their new role as clinical faculty, would provide the social support system needed to enable those preservice teachers involved in the pilot PDS to have less stress than those preservice teachers in a traditional student teaching program. The social support offered by the dual teacher (clinical faculty and preservice teacher) concept instead of the

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

triad of university supervision, cooperating teacher, and preservice teacher would help to alleviate the stress of preservice teachers and reduce role ambiguity, role overload, role conflict, and the uncertainty of the future (Marcelissen, Winnubst, Buunk, & Wolff, 1988). In a related study, Wills (1985) suggested that the perception that support is available would enhance feelings of personal control and result in increased coping strategies. Without an increase in the social support system, stress is much more likely to induce fatigue, exhaustion, and burnout (Dunham, 1984).

Purpose of Study

The literature from Professional Development Schools and Preservice Teacher Stress was joined to form the basis for the current study. The purpose of this study was to compare stress levels of preservice teachers in a pilot PDS program with the stress levels of preservice teachers in a traditional teacher preparation program.

Method

Subjects were 64 Elementary Education Majors who were completing their culminating field experience, c?mmonly called student teaching, during one academic year at a medium-sized university in the Southeastern United States. Students were assigned, without regard to preference or any other criteria, to complete this experience in a traditional student teaching situation or in a pilot PDS. On the day prior to beginning their culminating field experience, all subjects were given the Teacher Stress Scale as a pretest. Following completion of their culminating field experience, subjects were given the same instrument as a posttest. Both the experimental and the control group were in the same room and were administered the instrument at the same time.

Instruments and Data Collection

Preservice teacher stress was measured using selected sub-scales from the Teacher Stress Scale developed by Pettegrew and Wolf (1982). Some sub-scales, such as the one indicating administrative support, were not applicable for preservice teacher. The subscales selected measured role-related stress (difference between expectations and actuality) through role ambiguity (the absence of clear information about the role one must perform), role overload (the absence of sufficient resources to performs one’s role adequately), and role preparedness (a feeling of a lack of competency to perform a given role). Also measured were job satisfaction (well-being at work and surrounding life in general), and illness symptoms (reported presence of certain stress-related psychosomatic symptoms in the individual teacher) (Pettegrew & Wolf, 1982). High scores indicate greater coping with forces that may cause stress, except for illness symptoms where lower scores indicate successful dealing with stress. Pettegrew and Wolf (1982), established the structural reliability through Smallest Space Analysis to establish correlation coefficients ranging from .86 through .90. Predictive and constructive validity were established at the .001 level of confidence. This allowed them to conclude there was satisfactory internal consistency for all constructs and the instrument met standards and provided a reliable and valid multivariate assessment of stress.

h i g n and Analvsis

The research consisted of a pretest-posttest control group design. Data collected were analyzed using Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to perform analyses of

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

covariance (ANCOVA) for overall stress and its sub-scales. The alpha level adopted for hypothesis testing was .05.

On all measures, posttest means were higher than pretest means for both experimental and control groups, indicating that subjects in both groups developed a greater capacity for dealing with stress on all measures except illness symptoms (Table 1). As indicated, the increase was greater for the control group on all measures except role overload.

Table 1 Increase in Stress Mean from Pretest to Posttest

Sub-scales

Overall Role Role Role Job Illness Stress Ambiguity Overload Preparation Satisfaction Sympt

Experimental .345 .325 .556 .087 .200 .609

Control .599 1.237 .275 .343 .406 .632

Differences in the changes in stress scores between the experimental and control groups were statistically significant for overall stress, role ambiguity, role preparedness, and job satisfaction, with the control group exhibiting higher scores (less stress) than the experimental group on each of these measures. It should be noted that when calculating the ANCOVA (using

Table 2 Posttest Stress Means

Sub-scales

Overall Role Role Role Job Illness Stress Ambiguity Overload Preparation Satisfaction Sympt

Experimental 5.102 4.612 4.893 5.125 5.45 5.516

Control 5.183 5.175 4.713 5.318 5.537 5.148

(P= .007) (p = .OOO) (p = .094) (p = .025) (p = .043) (p = .07 1)

*statistically significant (Q < .05)

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

the pretest as a covariate) for the role preparedness sub-scale, there was a statistically significant interaction (p= .05) which maintains the variables interact with effects on behavior. On the role overload measure, the increase in stress scores was greater for the experimental group than the control group. However, this difference between the control and experimental groups was statistically not significant. As previously indicated, high scores are more reflective of less stress on all scales except illness symptoms. Data from this measure indicate that the ability to cope, or stress tolerance, as measured by the increased stress scores, rose for both control and experimental groups involved in the study. The change that occurred resulted in a higher posttest mean for the experimental group, indicating the control group exhibited a greater tolerance for illness symptoms than the experimental group. However, the difference was not statistically significant.

Discussion

The results of this experiment were not in accordance with the authors’ predictions. However, due to the lack of true randomization of the subjects in the assignment to the experimental or control groups, this is a quasi-experimental design rather than a true experimental design. Therefore, the pretest is the only equivalency between the groups instead of groups being considered equivalent in all areas. Thus, there may be other variables influencing results. These uncontrolled-for variables may have been an influence in the study. The use of multiple theoretical covariates would lessen the influence of other variables.

A rise in stress scores (indicating a greater sense of preservice teachers’ abilities to counteract negative influences or stress coping) was experienced in both groups. Perhaps as preservice teachers progressed through their culminating field experience, they began to ,discover they possessed the attitudes, skills, and abilities to become successful teachers. The most stressful facet, the unknown, became known and was not as stressful as anticipated. The day-to-day interactions in the role of a teacher provided a realistic expectation of the forces affecting teachers.

In comparison with the experimental group, the control group reflected a statistically significant decrease for overall stress, as well as for three of the sub-scales. These results indicate the experiences of the preservice teachers in the experimental group did not result in scores that indicated greater coping with stress. The clinical faculty had been involved in the PDS for less than one year; their anxieties regarding their new role could have been one of the primary sources of preservice teachers’ anxieties and may have been a contributing factor in the rise in stress of the preservice teachers in the experimental group. The clinical faculty in the experimental group may have transmitted their anxieties to the preservice teachers.

In addition, the evaluation process may have increased the stress in the experimental group. To explain, in the control group, most of the preservice teachers focused upon evaluation by university personnel and recognized that the evaluative role of the cooperating teacher was somewhat limited. Thus, the focus was upon the few visits of the university supervisor. In the PDS, the external influence of the university supervisor was negated and the clinical faculty and preservice teacher focused upon the daily performance of the preservice teacher. Although the clinical faculty’s evaluations were formative, they were much more frequent and were of primary importance. In other words, each day was designed to be of importance and the cumulative effect of the formative evaluations was a summative evaluation that would determine the grade assigned to the preservice teacher. This situation where the preservice teacher was continuously susceptible to evaluation may have led to increased anxiety and a sense of stress.

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

The immersion of the preservice teachers in the PDS total school culture and environment could have caused preservice teachers to recognize that they were not as well prepared for the realities of teaching as they had hoped. Their meetings with other staff members such as counselors, media specialists, and social service agencies may have made them cognizant of the many non-teaching duties of teachers. Despite their best efforts, the PDS preservice teachers might have believed that they would be unable to fulfill their expectations. By contrast, the preservice teachers in the control group were not involved in as many non-instructional duties of teachers. Therefore, much of the environmental and institutional constraints that could have heightened their own sense of stress could have been mitigated by the cooperating teacher or building principal. Thus, the control group may have had a limited view of the total responsibilities of a teacher.

Another plausible interpretation of these results is that PDS settings produce more stress in preservice teachers because too many aspects of teaching are heaped upon the novices at once, perhaps inappropriately so, causing more stress. Perhaps the “traditional” field setting is more closely matched to the level of functioning and needs of the preservice teacher. If further studies indicate that PDS settings do indeed foster debilitating stress, then some of the components of PDS realities need to be eliminated.

Implications

In order for the public schools to meet the challenges of society, the method of preparing teachers must be part of the reform of public schools. Teacher educators need to compare expected characteristics of programs with what actually happens. The results of this study provided insights into possible changes in research design as well as programmatic improvements, such as working with school personnel other than classroom teachers so that preservice teachers are better prepared for the almost constant evaluation and the myriad tasks they are expected to perform. Developing more involved early field experiences in the public schools might lessen the stress of preservice teachers.

This pilot PDS attempted to bridge the gap between preservice teaching and teaching as a regular employee of a school system. It focused on the preparation of preservice teachers by establishing a community of learners, empowering public school teachers by redefining their roles and making them clinical faculty, providing the link between the theory of reflective practice and its application, offering collegiality through collaboration, and providing opportunities for professional development for the public school teachers. In order to prepare teachers for tomorrow’s schools, universities must foster more productive and efficient teachers that have realistic expectations of what teachers can and are expected to accomplish. To achieve this goal, total immersion in this type of PDS may require a different support system for preservice teachers instead of assuming that if the experience is designed to be a more in-depth and realistic experience, preservice teachers will automatically develop stress-coping abilities consistent with successful teaching.

University liaisons and public school teachers need to develop sensitivity to the developmental needs of preservice teachers: Although the university and public schools may have agreed upon specific activities they feel will produce better teachers, a PDS designed to be more successful will have preservice teachers involved in developing goals, objectives, and activities. The preservice teachers have the most to gain or lose in a PDS and should have input into its theoretical design and implementation. This sense of empowerment could be a positive motivator and encourage preservice teachers to see scholarship where the teacher overcomes negative

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

influences through personal commitment to rearrange the learning environment so that all students are active participants in the learning process. This synergistic and symbiotic relationship will increase the potential for the PDS movement to become an active agent in the reform of public education and teacher education.

References

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1995). Professional development schools: A directory of projects in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.

Association of Colleges and Schools of Education in State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (1995). Professional development schools: What are they? What are the issues and challenges? How are they funded? How should they be evaluated?

Ashton, P. T. 1992. Professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43( 1) . Boyer, E. L. (1991). Scholarship revisited: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ:

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for

the 21st century. Report of the task force on teaching as a profession. NY: Author Clark, E. W. (1995). Partner schools. Seattle: Center for Educational Renewal, College of

Education, University of Washington. Conant, J . B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw Hill. Corcoran, E. (1989, April). Critical issues for intern teachers during the clinical experience. A

paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed). (1994). Professional development schools. New York: Teachers

College Press. Devaney, K . (1990). Holmes's hallmark: The education core. Theory Into Practice, 24(1), 6-

12. Diamond, R. M. (1994, May 11) . The tough task of reforming the faculty rewards system. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. B1, 3. Duffy, G . G. (1994) Professional development schools and the disempowerment of teachers

and professors. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(8), 596-600. Dunham, J. (1984) Stress in teaching. New York: Nichols. Doherty, J. (1980). An exploratory investigation into the relationship between self-esteem and

teaching performance in a group of student teachers. Education Review, 32( I ) , 21-35. Gilman, D. A. ( 1994). Professional development schools. Contemporary Education, 64(4). Glickman, C . G. & Bey, T. M. (1990). Supervision. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of

Goodlad, J. I. (1994). A place called school: Prospects for the future. McGraw Hill: New

Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Green, N . Baldini, B. & Stack, W. M. (1993). Spanning cultures: Teachers and professors in

professional development schools. Action in Teacher Education, 15(2), 18-24. Hawley , W. D. (1990) The prospects for collaboration between schools and universities to

improve American education. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 330 642) The Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional

development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author. Hopkins, W. S. & Moss, V. D. (1993). The effects of mentoring upon preservice teachers'

activities during the culminating field experience. SRATE Journal, 2( l ) , 24-30.

research in teacher education. (pp. 549-566.) New York: Macmillan.

York.

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Kieffer, J. C. (1994). Using a problem focused coping strategy on teacher stress and burnout.

Kryiacou, C. & Sutcliff, J. (1977). Teacher stress: A review. Educational Review, 29, 199-

Lashley , T. J. (1992). Education's "impossible dream": Collaboration. Teacher Education and

Lazarus, R. S . , & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Lawson, H. A. (1990). Constraints on the professional service of education faculty. Journal of

Meade, E. (1991). Reshaping the clinical phase of teacher preparation. Phi Delta Kappan,

Marcelissen, F. H., Winnubst, J. A., Buunk, B., & Wolff, C. J. (1988). Social support and

Neufield, J. A., & McGowan, T. J. (1993). Professional development schools: A witness to

North Carolina General Assembly. (1994). Preparing teachers for today and tomorrow. Report

Teaching and Change, 1(2), 190-206.

306.

Practice, 72(2), 17-22

Teacher Education, 41(4), 57-70.

72(9), 666-669.

occupational stress. A causal analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 26, 365-373.

teacher empowerment. Contemporary Education, 54(4), 249-25 1 .

to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee of the General Assembly of North Carolina: Author.

Nystrand, R. 0. (1991). Professional development schools: Toward a new relationship for schools and universities. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 330 690)

Oja, S. N. (1988). A collaborative approach to leadership in supervision. Final Report to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, United States Department of Education.

Pettegrew, L. & Wolf, F. (1982). Validating measures of teacher stress. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 373-396.

Ponticell, J. A., Johnson, M., Olivarez, A., & Smith, C. (1995). Perceptions and reality in professional development schools: Lessons from experience. SRATE Journal, 5(2), 43-50.

Raywid, M. A. (1990). The evolving effort to improve schools: Psuedo-reform, incremental reform, and restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(2), 139-143.

Schwab, R. L. (1989, March). Stress and the intern teacher: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Serotink, J. E., & J. E. Goodlad (Eds.). (1988). School universitypartnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concern. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sinclair, K. & Nicol, V. (1981). The sources and experiences of anxiety in practice teaching. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 9(1), 1-8.

Sid W. Richardson Foundation Forum. (1993). The professional development school: A common sense approach to improving education. Fort Worth, TX: Author.

Stallings, J. A., & Kowalski, T. (1990) Research on professional development schools. In W. Robert Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 251-263). New York: Macmillian.

teachers. Teaching Education, 4(2), .77-85

restructuring with teacher education reform. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 74-97), New York: Teachers College Press.

Wills, T. A. (1985). Supportive functions of interpersonal relationships. In S. Cohen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health (pp. 61-82). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Teitel, L. (1992). The impact of professional development schools on the preparation of

Whitford, B. L. (1994). Permission, persistence, and resistance: Linking high school

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Winitzky, N. , Stoddart, T. & O'Keefe, P. (1992). Great expectations: Emergent professional

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., Berliner, D., Haller, E., Praskac, A., & development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43( l), 3-1 8.

Schechty , P. ( 1987). Eflective teacher selection: From recruitment to retention. (R-3462- NIEKSTP). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation..

Wisniewski, R. (1992). On collaboration. Teacher Education and Practice, 7(2), 13-16. Yopp, H. H., Guillaume, A. M. , & Savage, T. V. (1994). Collaboration at the grassroots:

Implementing the professional development school concept. Action in Teacher Education, 15(4), 29-35.

Zimpher, N. (1990). Creating professional development school sites. Theory into Practice, 24( l), 2-5.

W. Scott Hopkins, a former public school teacher and administrator, is Professor and Chair, Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of South Alabama.

Suzanne Q. Hoffman, a former teacher of German and ESL, is a doctoral student in Instructional Design and Development at the University of South Alabama.

Vel Moss, former English teacher, is Associate Professor and Director of Teacher Education at the University of Mobile.

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

Mic

higa

n U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

12 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014