All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Losing Our Voice in the Din of Classroom Practice
Unformatted Document Text:  partnerships that could result in future teachers with a stronger grounding in theory-based practice.E. Implication for Action: The first implication for action is that more future research is needed on the perspectives and problems of university faculty involved in PDSs. A more thorough description of the nature of their work and its implications for their teaching and scholarship is needed. More discussion of their relationship to partner school faculty and students and how they are received by those schools is especially important. Future research is also needed that draws out a more explicit description of how teachers view the role of theory and the university in the PDS and how their perspectives are transferred to preservice teachers. Within partnerships themselves, and especially as new partnerships begin, the university faculty needs to advocate for the role of and respect for theory/research and develop stronger arguments for the role of university-based methods course. However, they also need to work more diligently toward developing methods classes that effectively integrate theory and practice. Section II: Outcomes and MethodsA. Learner/participant outcomes: It is hoped that participants in this session would leave with a sense of dissonance regarding the dominant perspective that says university/school partnerships are typically run in a top-down fashion and that teacher education must relinquish some of its control to partner schools in order to let the public school voice be heard. It is also hoped that, as a result of the presentation, they will reconsider the role of theory in PDS relationships and consider that the university needs a more prominent role in both the practice and the research surrounding PDS projects.B. Methods:1. Two hundred published or presented studies of PDS partnerships were selected randomly from a review of all PDS literature between 1990 and 2005. Those studies were then reviewed to determine the dominant voice in the writing about PDSs. The questions that guided the review were:What is the role of the author in the partnership?Does the author make his/her “position” and perspective in the partnership known?Whose voice is dominant in the narrative of the article?What voice(s) is/are claimed or intended to be represented in the article or paper?What voice(s) is are actually dominant regarding the opinions/perspective represented?When quotations are used, who is quoted?If one partner makes reference to another, is the other party’s perspective offered also?Where does the power or control over the PDS relationship seem to lie?If a problem is noted, according to the authors, who is responsible?If changes need to be made who, according the authors, needs to make the changes? Assuming a traditional paper presentation format (10-15 minutes per paper), I will to briefly present the methodology of the study (using overhead transparencies), then summarize the results, along with some implications for action as described in Section I, References Bliss, T., & Mazur, J. (1997, April). How INTASC standards come alive through case studies. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.Blocker, L.S., & Mantle-Bromley, C. (1997). PDS versus campus preparation: Through the eyes of

Authors: Breault, Rick.
first   previous   Page 2 of 3   next   last



background image
partnerships that could result in future teachers with a stronger grounding in theory-based
practice.
E. Implication for Action:
The first implication for action is that more future research is needed on the perspectives
and problems of university faculty involved in PDSs. A more thorough description of the nature
of their work and its implications for their teaching and scholarship is needed. More discussion
of their relationship to partner school faculty and students and how they are received by those
schools is especially important.
Future research is also needed that draws out a more explicit description of how teachers
view the role of theory and the university in the PDS and how their perspectives are transferred
to preservice teachers.
Within partnerships themselves, and especially as new partnerships begin, the university
faculty needs to advocate for the role of and respect for theory/research and develop stronger
arguments for the role of university-based methods course. However, they also need to work
more diligently toward developing methods classes that effectively integrate theory and practice.
Section II: Outcomes and Methods
A. Learner/participant outcomes:
It is hoped that participants in this session would leave with a sense of dissonance
regarding the dominant perspective that says university/school partnerships are typically run in a
top-down fashion and that teacher education must relinquish some of its control to partner
schools in order to let the public school voice be heard. It is also hoped that, as a result of the
presentation, they will reconsider the role of theory in PDS relationships and consider that the
university needs a more prominent role in both the practice and the research surrounding PDS
projects.
B. Methods:
1. Two hundred published or presented studies of PDS partnerships were selected randomly from
a review of all PDS literature between 1990 and 2005. Those studies were then reviewed to
determine the dominant voice in the writing about PDSs. The questions that guided the review
were:
What is the role of the author in the partnership?
Does the author make his/her “position” and perspective in the partnership known?
Whose voice is dominant in the narrative of the article?
What voice(s) is/are claimed or intended to be represented in the article or paper?
What voice(s) is are actually dominant regarding the opinions/perspective represented?
When quotations are used, who is quoted?
If one partner makes reference to another, is the other party’s perspective offered also?
Where does the power or control over the PDS relationship seem to lie?
If a problem is noted, according to the authors, who is responsible?
If changes need to be made who, according the authors, needs to make the changes?
Assuming a traditional paper presentation format (10-15 minutes per paper), I will to briefly
present the methodology of the study (using overhead transparencies), then summarize the
results, along with some implications for action as described in Section I,
References
Bliss, T., & Mazur, J. (1997, April). How INTASC standards come alive through case studies.
Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, NY.
Blocker, L.S., & Mantle-Bromley, C. (1997). PDS versus campus preparation: Through the eyes
of


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 2 of 3   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.