15
This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo] On: 20 November 2014, At: 06:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Teacher Educator Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20 Teacher preparation: A collaborative model Kenneth D. Moore a & Sandra Looper a a School of Education and Psychology , East Central University Published online: 20 Jan 2010. To cite this article: Kenneth D. Moore & Sandra Looper (1997) Teacher preparation: A collaborative model, The Teacher Educator, 32:3, 152-164, DOI: 10.1080/08878739709555142 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878739709555142 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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

  • Upload
    sandra

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 20 November 2014, At: 06:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Teacher preparation: Acollaborative modelKenneth D. Moore a & Sandra Looper aa School of Education and Psychology , EastCentral UniversityPublished online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Kenneth D. Moore & Sandra Looper (1997) Teacherpreparation: A collaborative model, The Teacher Educator, 32:3, 152-164, DOI:10.1080/08878739709555142

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878739709555142

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

Page 2: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

TEACHER PREPARATION:A COLLABORATIVE MODEL

Kenneth D. Moore andSandra Looper

School of Education and Psychology, East Central University

AbstractCriticism of education and teacher preparation persists. The "TeachersEducating and Motivating Students," or TEAMS, model was developedto address this criticism. The TEAMS model has been structured using aProfessional Development School (PDS) concept as the core component.The model is a competency-based, structured block program featuringconcurrent enrollment in groups of courses and a corresponding fieldcomponent.

Evaluation of the TEAMS program is a continuing process.Completion of a "perceptions" survey and a workplace competenciesinstrument by students and mentors/administrators revealed that theTEAMS program is accomplishing intended goals. Furthermore, t testsrevealed only one significant difference in perceived adequacy betweenstudents and mentors/administrators on the workplace competencies. Thedata also revealed an overall positive attitude toward the project and sat-isfaction regarding the achievement of workplace competencies.

Introduction

An innovative competency curriculum model for elementaryteacher preparation was developed at East Central University. It isbased upon the premise that a collaborative partnership is needed forquality teacher preparation. The model is a collaborative, realisticapproach to elementary teacher preparation. Experiences areprovided in "real world" classrooms where students can integrate thetheory of the university classroom with the practical reality of thepublic school classroom. Furthermore, public school personnel arerecognized as full partners in the education of prospective elementaryteachers.

152

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

The Program Model

The focus and theme selected for the model elementary teacherpreparation program is Teachers Educating And Motivating Students,or TEAMS. The TEAMS program is a structured block programfeaturing concurrent enrollment in groups of courses and a corres-ponding field component. There are six distinct blocks to theprogram (see Figure 1). The six-block sequence is structured to

Figure 1. TEAMS Program Curriculum Sequence

Campus Field (PDS)

Block 1Sophomore

Block 2Sophomore

Block 3Junior

Block 4Junior

Block 5Senior

Block 6Senior

EDUC 2112 Intro to Teaching

EDUC 2402 Sur Excep ChidEDLBS 4913 Child LitPSY 3413 Psych of ChildPSY 3512 Ed PsychEDUC 2531 A-V Skills

4—•

EDUC 2222 Preprof Field Exp

Admission to Teacher Education

1EDUC 3463 Reading K-3MATH 2713 Math IEDUC 3413 Language Arts

r

EDUC 3483 Reading 4-8EDUC 3513 Math Meth-InterMATH 2723 Math II

rEDUC 3493 Reading DiagOpen (3 hour max)

r

Open

4—•

4—•

4—•

4—•

EDUC 3503 Math Meth-PrimaryEDUC 3222 Prof Clin Tchg I

EDUC 3613 Science MethodsEDUC 3522 Prof Clin Tchg II

EDUC 3713 S.S. MethodsEDUC 4212 Prof Clin Tchg III

EDUC 3955 Student TeachingEDUC 3955 Student TeachingEDUC 4522 Prof Clin Tchg IV

153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

consist of a two-phase preprofessional foundations component and afour-phase pedagogical professional component. Each phase (block ofcourses) is taught by an instructional team rather than as separate anddistinct courses taught by individual instructors. These instructionalteams plan their courses as a group and plan interdisciplinary activi-ties to be completed by students in the field component of the block.The block courses are often joined and the entire team works withstudents simultaneously on interdisciplinary concepts and/or ideas.

Each TEAMS program block focuses on specific identified com-petencies. Students proceed through die blocks in a cohort group.The competencies associated with each block must be met bystudents before they can move on to the subsequent block.

Modules that focus on program competencies are an integral partof the field components. These modules are structured to deliver rele-vant and appropriate instruction related to block competencies.Students who fail to meet the required competencies by the end ofthe block are given the opportunity to satisfy deficiencies through thecompletion of designated alternative activities. These alternativesinclude activities tJiat can be completed independently by studentswho did not meet the required competencies of a specific block. Theextended activities are designed by public school teachers and univer-sity staff who also share in the responsibilities of instructing thestudents with regard to identified competencies. Currently, allstudents have met the module requirements so no additional remedi-ation has been necessary. Videotaping and providing greaterflexibility in the selection and completion dates of assignments hasbeen an effective way of meeting individual needs. For example, onestudent who was unable to complete an assignment, requestedpermission to send it by e-mail. Thus, students are also finding waysto solve time-management problems and meet the desired outcomesof the program.

The field component of the TEAMS program has beenstructured using a Professional Development School (PDS) conceptas the core component (see Figure 2). That is, the public schools anduniversity have agreed to a joint program for preparing teacher candi-dates. Program decisions are made jointly by the public schools andthe university with both public school personnel and universityfaculty involved in planning, teaching, and evaluating the program.

A university associate director was employed to direct theprogram. The superintendents of three local school districts were

154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

contacted and asked to participate in the program. All three superin-tendents expressed a desire to be involved in the innovative programand agreed to participate if the respective school personnel wereinterested. Various meetings between the three superintendents,school principals, university associate director, and dean of theSchool of Education and Psychology led to the identification of fourschools that were interested in participating in the program.

Four elementary schools are presently participating in theprogram: Byng Elementary (Grades 3-6), Washington Elementary(Grades 3-4), Francis Early Childhood Center (Grades PK-2), andLatta Elementary (Grades PK-6). The design of the PDS is charac-terized by such terms as collaboration, site based, team planning,and team teaching. In other words, the selection of faculty from theuniversity and participating public schools, student involvement andrequirements, and selection of evaluation procedures are collabor-ative efforts on the part of school and university personnel. To carryout these tasks a steering committee was established.

The Steering Committee is composed of the four participatingpublic school principals, four public school teachers (one from eachparticipating school), the university program associate director, andtwo university student representatives. Three district superintendentsand the dean of education and psychology serve as ex-officiomembers (see Figure 2). The four principals and four public schoolteachers were designated public school associate directors. TheSteering Committee is responsible for the establishment and imple-mentation of policies relative to the TEAMS program.

The Steering Committee met throughout the year on a monthlyor bi-monthly basis as needed. Some of the agenda items included:(a) develop a name and logo and develop student and teacher selec-tion criteria; (b) design student and teacher applications and developa rating system to evaluate applicants; (c) approve a timeline andtopics for teacher training; (d) create student and teacherresponsibilities in the program; (e) establish guidelines for itemsused in the evaluation of students, including portfolios andclassroom performance; (f) select and develop a format for thepresentation of student instructional modules; (g) evaluate and adaptthe sequence of classes for students; (h) suggest ways to enhance thestudents' field experience by linking more closely with universityclassroom assignments; (i) evaluate competencies and assign a focusfor each of the clinical phases; (j) examine program competency

155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

demonstrators and adapt them if necessary to reflect the goals of theprogram; (k) devise a system to encourage student improvementincluding frequent evaluation and support and/or correction asneeded; (1) approve forms to document student hours, participation,probation, and dismissal; and (m) approve a proposed budget for1995-96.

Figure 2. TEAMS Collaborative School Structure

State Departmentof Education

Regents forHigher Education

I University I 1 Agreement I Public Schools (4)1

UniversityAssoc Dir

_L

Public SchoolsAssoc Dirs (8)

UniversityStudents (2)

SteeringCommittee

IProfessional

Developmental Schools

UniversityFaculty

Field ExperienceStudents

PublicSchool Teachers

IntroductoryLevel 1

MethodsClinical-I

1MethodsClinical-II

1Student TeachClinical-III

MethodsClinical-IV

156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

The Steering Committees task of designing die various compo-nents for students and teachers, the sequence and content ofcurriculum, focus of clinicals, evaluation procedures, andestablishment of a workable system for all stakeholders was achallenging one. Discussion and debate regarding each issue allowedeach committee member to view the ramifications of decisions fromat least three vantage points: (a) the students' needs, (b) public schoolteachers' needs, and (c) the university's needs. We found that theneeds of the triad were not particularly congruent. For example,when discussing items to include in student portfolios, universitystaff wanted a number of items that die public school partnersviewed as "busy work" rather than a tool for obtaining employment.A compromise was reached by assigning levels of portfoliodevelopment. The synergy created a better product than would havebeen produced by die individual participants. When determiningwhat preservice would best prepare students, one instrument thecommittee used was the Oklahoma State Department of EducationsEntry Year Evaluation. This document includes four areas, HumanRelations, Teaching and Assessment, Classroom Management, andProfessionalism, which comprise the assessment of Oklahoma'sbeginning teachers. Working together in order to prepare studentsfor success in the "real world" caused members to argue, cajole,demand, reflect, defend, compromise, and finally realize that the keyto student success is shared responsibility. Empowerment and owner-ship of the program were the by-products of collaboration.

During the initial program year the students participated in theprescribed coursework (see Figure 1), Student Orientation I and II, ajoint meeting with public school mentors, 28 hours of field experi-ence, 10 hours of instructional modules, and 4 hours of openforums. Student modules were taped so students who were unable toattend could have access to needed information and perform indepen-dent follow-up activities. Some students also attended some of theteacher workshops that were optional for students and otherofferings available during the year.

Selected PDS teachers received training and were designatedclinical professors. They attended initial informational meetingswhere the program overview was presented, an orientation, a plan-ning meeting, a joint meeting with students and university staff, andthree teacher workshop days. Teacher workshops were videotapedso tiiat teachers who were unable to attend could be informed of

157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

necessary information presented. They also participated in individualconferences with the university associate director of the program atdie end of die year in order to evaluate students' performance andportfolios.

Mentor teachers receive financial remuneration for their work inthe program and serve as field supervisors and carry out assessmentactivities in the field components of the program blocks. In addition,clinical professors are involved in team teaching on-site courses andare appointed to a mentoring program. The mentoring programassigns added responsibility to the clinical professor (mentor)regarding the observation, instruction, and evaluation of his or herassigned student teacher. Thus, it eliminates die need for individualuniversity supervisors during the clinical and student teaching phasesof the program.

University staff involvement included teaching coursework, par-ticipation in teacher planning meetings, joint meetings with publicschool teachers and university students, and small-group planningmeetings that were designed to enhance and support the programsgoals. Each semester, updates regarding the TEAMS program weredisseminated during faculty meetings, and the minutes of eachmeeting were posted in the Education Department.

Program Student Assessment

The TEAMS program is designed around what teachers shouldknow and be able to do in authentic teaching and learning situa-tions. It involves knowledge, dispositions, skills and abilities, andwisdom of practice. Essentially, the program consists of three levelsof learning.

Level 1: The development of a knowledge base related to the com-petenciesLevel 2: The students' demonstration of authentic applications ofthe exit competenciesLevel 3: The ability to transfer learning to new situations

Assessment of students at these three levels requires theevaluation of two types of learning: knowledge and performance.

It is important to note from the outset that an emphasis on com-petencies and performance does not imply that conventional testingbe abandoned. Instead, it reflects the belief diat certain educationalcompetencies cannot be adequately assessed through conventional

158

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

formats. Some competencies, however, can only be assessed throughconventional testing.

The assessment of knowledge and performance level learningrequires multifaceted evaluation techniques. An assessment of theTEAMS competencies requires a combination of these evaluativetechniques. Essentially, the evaluation can be grouped into four areas:objective products, written products, skill demonstrations, and port-folio assessments.

The portfolio assessment was initiated in the second block of theprogram and is continuing. That is, portfolios are evaluated at theconclusion of each of the subsequent blocks by faculty and publicschool mentors. Thus, clinical professors (school teachers) have animportant role in this evaluation process. Peers also assist in the eval-uation of portfolios during the final clinical phase.

The East Central TEAMS program requires a great deal ofcollaboration and adjustment by both university faculty and publicschool teachers. Developing the needed attitudes of shared responsi-bility, obligation, and respect is well underway. The program requiresand is receiving a total university and school commitment. The first-year program evaluation shows that it has received this commitment.

First-Year Program Evaluation

Determining the success of the TEAMS program is a continuingprocess. When the Steering Committee was asked to consider ways toimprove the program, one of the teachers commented, "I don't seeanything at this point that we need to change. The improvementprocess has been an integral part of our committee's function. We'vemade the necessary changes as we saw a need to change."

During the first month of the grant, all elementary teachers inparticipating district schools and university department of educationfaculty were given a "perceptions" survey to determine attitudestoward the current teacher education program. The survey resultsrevealed that the primary areas of dissatisfaction were: (a) providingopportunity and support to university staff to teach in public schoolclassrooms and come in direct contact with students and serve in aninstructional role, (b) providing individual compensation to publicschool teachers for supervising and evaluating teacher candidates,(c) accepting public school faculty members as equal partners indeveloping teacher candidates, and (d) providing teacher candidateswith a realistic view of the intricacies involved in teaching.

159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 11: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

At the conclusion of the first year program, the results of asecond survey reflected improved perceptions. The areas with themost favorable ratings included: (a) provided individual compen-sation for public school teachers for supervision and evaluation ofteacher candidates, (b) accepted public school faculty members asequal partners in developing teacher candidates, (c) encouraged andsupported an effective partnership with public schools in preparingteacher candidates for their educational careers, and (d) provideddiverse sites, levels, and instructional strategies for teacher candidates'application of theoretical foundations. The lone problem arearemained in "providing opportunity and support to university staff toteach in public school classrooms and come in direct contact withstudents and serve in an instructional role."

Administrators and teachers (mentors) continue to relate positiveperceptions regarding the success of the TEAMS program. They viewthemselves as being involved in the decision-making process ofpreparing classroom teachers. They see their expertise and experiencebeing valued and considered in the program design and implementa-tion. As such, they view themselves as equal partners in preparingteacher candidates. In effect, the administrators and teachers appearto view the TEAMS program as providing the needed realistic, real-world approach to teacher preparation.

It was judged that further, more formal testing of the pilotprogram was necessary to get a realistic picture of its viability. Toaccomplish this task an applicable instrument was developed.

The Instrument

Since the world of teaching and learning is constantly changing,prospective teachers must be prepared to be adaptable, flexible, andever changing as the need arises. That is, prospective teachers must beprepared for the real world, which will be dramatically different fromthe system with which we have become familiar. Thus, an importantgoal of the TEAMS program is to develop the skills students need tobecome successful in the "everyday world of work."

In 1991, the Secretary's Commission on Achieving NecessarySkills (SCANS) identified the skills necessary to be successful in theworkplace (Packer, 1992; SCANS, 1991, 1992, 1993). The skillsidentified by SCANS are made up of five competencies and a three-part foundation of skills and personal qualities. The instrument

160

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 12: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

developed and used to evaluate more formally the TEAMS programis based on the SCANS skills. The instrument utilizes the five work-place competencies as delineated by the SCANS report. Theyinclude: resources, interpersonal skills, information, systems, andtechnology. In order to measure workplace foundation skills and per-sonal qualities, five competency subsets were added to theinstrument: (a) responsibility, (b) self-esteem, (c) sociability, (d) self-management, and (e) integrity/honesty. Thus, the instrument wasdesigned to evaluate the design and management of the program aswell as student skill development.

The final form of die instrument consists often workplace com-petencies with associated response sections. The response sectionsform a continuum of from one to four; the respondent can indicatewhether the competency area is perceived as being addressed at apoor, fair, good, or excellent level of adequacy. Provisions are alsomade to give the respondents the opportunity to voice their reactionsto each of the competency areas.

The TEAMS faculty and mentors attempt to focus on the tenSCANS workplace competencies throughout the program. The fiveprogram management workplace competencies are continuouslymodeled so that students develop the skills needed to be effectivemanagers in their own future classrooms. Also, because responsibility,self-esteem, social skills, self-management, and integrity and honestyare viewed as important ingredients in the overall preparation ofteachers, die five workplace foundation skills and personal qualitiesare emphasized, reinforced, and evaluated across the board at all levelsof the program.

The SCANS instrument was distributed to the 30 studentsenrolled in the TEAMS program at the last program seminar.Students were asked to complete the instrument and return it to theuniversity associate director of the program. The instrument, alongwith a self-addressed envelope, was mailed to the 34 public schoolmentors and administrators at the conclusion of the initial year of theprogram. Returns were received from 20 (67%) of the programstudents and 31 (91%) of the mentors and administrators. It wasjudged that the lower response rate of program students was due tothe timing of the administration of the instrument. Program studentswere involved in semester final examinations at the time of thesurvey.

161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 13: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

Individual means and standard deviations for each workplacecompetency area are presented in Table 1. An analysis of the meansfor both students and mentors/administrators shows that all valueswere greater than 3.12. The greatest differences in mean values wereon workplace competencies: 8—development of social skills and

Table 1

SCANS Areas and Comparisons between Students andMentors/ Administrators on Workplace Competencies

Workplace Competency

1. Project resource allocation (time,money, materials, space, and staff)

2. Project utilized interpersonal skillseffectively (work teams, leadership,and worked well with individualsfrom different cultures)

3. Project collected and analyzedinformation and data, maintainedfiles, shared, disseminated andcommunicated to all groups andindividuals

4. Project demonstrated the ability tounderstand social, organizational,and educational systems, andutilizes them to the best advantage

5. Project utilized modern equipmentand processes to introduce andacclimate the student to an everincreasing technical profession

6. Project helped develop responsiblebehaviors

7. Project helped develop student'sself-esteem

8. Project helped students developsocial skills

9. Project helped students establishself-management skills

10. Project helped students developintegrity and honesty

StudentsMean

(N=20)a

3.60(0.49)3.67(0.47)

3.53(0.60)

3.68(0.46)

3.50(0.67)

3.74(0.44)3.61(0.49)3.44(0.61)3.40(0.66)3.26(0.91)

Mentors/AdministratorsMean (N=31) a

3.81(0.40)3.70(0.46)

3.81(0.39)

3.70(0.46)

3.37(0.73)

3.68(0.47)3.55(0.56)3.13(0.95)3.56(0.57)3.30(0.76)

Difference(S-M/A)b

-0.21(3)-0.03(9)

-0.28(2)

-0.02(10)

0.13(5)

0.06(6.5)0.06(6.5)0.31(1)-0.16(4)-0.04(8)

tValue

-1.62

-0.24

-2.03"

-0.11

0.61

0.44

0.39

1.11

-0.85

-0.13

a Standard deviations are in parentheses.b Rank order of differences are in parentheses.* Significant at 0.05 level.

162

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 14: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

3—collection, analysis, and communication of information. Aninspection of the means on workplace competencies reveal that thementors/administrators had a lower perception of the sociabilitydevelopment of students (8), whereas students had a lower perceptionof the university associate directors and the mentors' collection,analysis, and communication of information (3). However, judgingfrom the mean values, neither group perceived workplace com-petency areas 3 and 8 as being major problem areas.

T tests for independent samples were used to test for astatistically significant difference in perception between students andmentors and administrators as to the addressed level of adequacy ofdie SCANS competencies. The means, standard deviations, andlvalues diat resulted from an analysis of the respondents perceptionsof the competency statements are presented in Table 1. An inspectionof the t values reveals that the difference in means was statistically sig-nificant (j> < 0.05) on only competency area 3—collection, analysis,and communication of information. A closer inspection of the meanssuggest that the mentors and administrators believed that the univer-sity associate director and mentors did a significantly better job ofcollection, analysis, and communication of information than did thestudents. However, as noted earlier, the mean values (3.53 and 3.81,respectfully) indicate perceived high levels of adequacy.

An examination of the written responses to the workplacecompetency areas revealed an overall positive attitude toward theprogram and satisfaction with the achievement of the workplacecompetencies. However, both students and mentors suggested thatmore emphasis needed to be put on using technology in theclassroom. Specifically, they suggested that computer applicationsand classroom use of die internet should be addressed to a greaterextent. They further suggested that there was a need to improve ondie quality and kinds of technology used in the program. In addition,some students believed that greater emphasis should be put on thedevelopment of student responsibility and social skills.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that the TEAMS project isaccomplishing its goals. The programs collaborative partnershipapparently is leading to quality teacher preparation. Initial attitudesand enthusiasm for the project are positive and high for all

163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 15: Teacher preparation: A collaborative model

participants. Above all, competencies that are identified as necessaryto be successful in the workplace are being accomplished. However,apparently the TEAMS project organizers and planners shouldaddress technology and student responsibility and social developmentto a greater extent.

The success of the TEAMS project suggests that teachereducators must focus attention on changing the fundamentalstructure of teacher education programs as well as institutional com-mitment to teacher education. The underlying challenge forexcellence in teacher preparation appears to be collaboration withcommitment and involvement on the part of higher and public edu-cation. We must view ourselves as a team.

References

Packer, A. H. (1992). Taking action on the SCANS report. Educational Leadership,49(6), 27-31.

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991). Skills and task forjobs. A SCANS report for America 2000. Department of Labor, Washington, DC: Author.

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1992). Learning a living: Ablueprint for high performance. A SCANS report for America 2000. Department of Labor,Washington, DC: Author.

Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1993). Teaching theSCANS competencies. Department of Labor, Washington, DC: Author.

164

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ater

loo]

at 0

6:03

20

Nov

embe

r 20

14