Conceptualizing Developmentally Responsive Teaching in Early Field Experiences: Free

During their schooling experiences and while in their teacher education programs, preservice candidates are exposed to concepts, theories of learning, and methods of instruction. When they enter a field experience they “continually test and modify these constructions in the light of new experience” (Schwandt, 2000, p. 197). But these “tests” and “modifications” are not carried out in isolation; rather, they are undertaken with other teachers “against a backdrop of shared understandings, practices, [and] language” (p. 197). Teaching is a social process, and preservice candidates learn not only through their own experiences in the classroom but also through experiences with others. During field experiences, the preservice candidates and host teachers are able to engage in dialogue around these new constructions of knowledge. However, even if the dialogue is minimal or nonexistent, construction of knowledge continues to take place since the classroom is a social context. A social constructivist would view this learning as “sensemaking rather than [an] acquisition of rote knowledge” (Oldfather, West, & White, 1999, p. 9). Using a social constructivist perspective in the study of the immersion of preservice candidates in the social context of a middle school allowed and encouraged the exploration of the construction of knowledge of the developmental needs of young adolescents. Because “constructivism is a descriptive theory of learning and not a prescriptive theory of learning” (Richardson, 1997, p. 3), this study describes the knowledge constructed while conducting a case study during the first professional field experience of a middle school teacher education program and the extent to which case study provided scaffolding for the conceptualization of developmentally responsive teaching.

To examine the use of case study as a pedagogical tool, I engaged in a qualitative inquiry utilizing content analysis of child study projects and postproject reflections completed by middle level preservice candidates. Using content analysis, I explored how, or whether, middle grades preservice candidates conceptualized developmentally responsive teaching practice during early field experiences through the writing of a case study report about one middle school student. Two questions guided this study:

1. In what ways does case study provide evidence of student learning?

   • How do preservice candidates connect young adolescent development to learning experiences of middle school students?

   • How do preservice candidates connect theoretical ideas presented within their coursework and through their course readings to the context of a middle school environment?

2. In what ways does case study deconstruct the dilemmas of learning to teach in early field experiences?

The analysis of child study projects proved helpful in identifying the preservice candidates’ patterns of thinking and knowing as well as instructional needs for future semesters. Moreover, the study provided insights into the use of case study as an effective pedagogical tool for middle level teacher education.

The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2002) established essential elements of middle level teacher education that provide preservice candidates the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to enact developmentally responsive pedagogy. According to the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2002), a program must encompass three specific areas with regard to an emergent concern for developmental responsiveness: (1) understanding young adolescents and their needs, (2) understanding the philosophy and organization of middle-level education (e.g. teaming, advisory), and (3) understanding middle grades planning, teaching and assessment. The program through which this study was conducted included these overarching goals as desired outcomes for the candidates of the program. Specifically, the MSTEP utilized the Association for Middle Level Education, formerly National Middle School Association, Standards for Middle Level Teacher Preparation (National Middle School Association, 2001) as learning targets and worked to design courses and experiences that would help candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions delineated in the standards.¹

The semester of this inquiry 22 candidates (age range 20-45; 8 male and 14 females; 21 Caucasian and 1 Hispanic) enrolled in the first course in the MSTEP and participated in the case study project. The course introduced the students to the theoretical underpinnings of the middle level concept and the young adolescent learner. It was taught twice a week in a large, local middle school that served students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. This particular school housed the largest minority populations and the highest percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch in the school district. Course assignments, readings, and activities were created to help the candidates (co)construct an understanding of young adolescent development, developmentally responsive practices in the middle school, and foundational knowledge of middle level philosophy. Candidates also read, discussed, and responded to five case studies of middle school students presented within one text. Finally, candidates completed roughly 60 hours of field work in one classroom throughout the semester. During the intensive field experience, they were required to complete a case study investigation and report of one middle school student and write a guided reflection of the process.

The CSP was a case study investigation designed as the hallmark assessment for the first professional course in the MSTEP. There were two main goals of the project. First, the project was designed as an authentic assessment of candidates’ learning with regard to Association for Middle Level Education Standard 1: Young Adolescent Development and Standard 2: Middle Level Philosophy and School Organization (National Middle School Association, 2001). Second, the field experience and the CSP were created to engage candidates in a project that would push them beyond their own “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975) while also providing contextually based examples of how the spectrum of young adolescent development can have an impact on teaching and learning in a middle school.

To complete the CSP, candidates were required to self-select a student and shadow him/her in classes, lunch periods, before and after school, and between classes for at least ten days during the semester-long field experience. Throughout the field placement, they were also required to informally interview the child’s teachers, engage the child in conversation, analyze work samples, work one-on-one with the child during times appointed by the regular classroom teacher, and maintain a work log with field notes. Using all of these sources of data, candidates wrote a case study report describing their child socially, emotionally, academically, and physically while connecting their observations and understandings to the theoretical ideas presented in class, course readings, and class activities. After completion of the CSP, the candidates answered guiding questions reflecting on the experience of conducting the CSP.

The data sources for this study were the CSPs, CSP reflections, and field notes for each candidate. While the student work samples, teacher interviews, and student interviews were collected with the papers, they were not analyzed for the study because of the nature of the human subject’s approval granted by the university’s office of research integrity.

Drawing from Gilgun, Daly, and Handel (1992), document analysis was used to complete a three-phase coding procedure. The first phase was completed based on the first research question for the study. The data were marked for statements and phrases that were examples of candidates connecting adolescent learning to the spectrum of young adolescent development and making explicit connection between the theoretical underpinnings of middle school organization, course readings, and activities. During the second phase, data were coded by marking statements or phrases that were considered candidates’ perceived learning as it related to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions expected of preservice candidates with respect to Standard 1: Young Adolescent Development and Standard 2: Middle Level Philosophy and School Organization. The third and final phase of coding was completed based on the second research question. The data were marked for statements and phrases that were examples of candidates encountering issues related to their apprenticeship of observation, connections between theory and practice, and the complexity of teaching.

When designing the CSP, I wanted the candidates to engage in the (co)construction of a sound foundation of middle school philosophy and understand the need for developmentally responsive pedagogy as detailed in the Association for Middle Level Education Standards for Middle Level Teacher Preparation (2001) and the Essential Elements of Middle Level Teacher Education established by The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2002). I also wanted to help students begin to deconstruct their own schooling experiences, beliefs about teaching and learning, and preconceived ideas about middle school students while constructing a bridge between theoretical ideas presented in class and practices observed in the classroom and school. The data suggest the preservice candidates (co)constructed an understanding of many of the essential elements of middle level education and were able to make explicit connections between adolescent development and the need for developmentally responsive teaching practices. The data also suggest that candidates’ personal views of middle school students and teaching and learning in the middle school were challenged by their CSP student.

The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform (2002) suggests that preservice candidates must have the opportunity to become experts on the developmental spectrum of young adolescent students as well as how it impacts learning through formal study and hands-on experience with middle school students. The National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform also suggests that preservice candidates must understand how middle school organization and philosophy play a role in the life of adolescents. The CSP allowed the candidates to authentically connect the formal study of adolescents’ developmental needs to the actual daily experience of working with middle school students in the context of a middle school. The candidates provided examples of social and emotional development in relation to learning. They connected those needs to teaming and studentteacher relationships as a way to provide consistency, a sense of security, and accountability for the students throughout the school day. Candidates also noted how their understanding of the developmental needs of students made them consider instructional choices that would support the intellectual development and meet the learning needs of middle school students. Interestingly, the lack of talk and movement were identified by the candidates as missing components within the middle school environment, stifling both social and physical development. Each of these findings will be discussed further within this section.

Relationships. For young adolescents, relationships matter (Jackson & Davis, 2000). The preservice candidates in this study noted the importance of student-teacher relationships to the behavior, success and engagement of middle school students. Lisa noted the importance of mutual respect as well as high expectations—both important components of effective relationships with young adolescent students (Van Hoose, Strahan, & L’Esperance, 2009).

Isaiah connected a caring relationship to behavior and engagement as he points out the importance of students knowing that you care about them.

Casey observed relationships that had an impact on achievement and success of students in various classrooms. She was able to see the implications of relationships having more to do with caring or personality.

Finally, Haley connected the importance of strong relationships to helping foster strong self-esteem in students who struggle to value their own contributions to the classroom.

Teaming. The preservice candidates reported the importance of providing consistency for young adolescent students through the use of teaming. They noted the change in behavior, engagement, and success of the students when a clear and consistent approach was not implemented. Each of the preservice candidates mentioned teaming in connection with the need for a consistent approach to management in order to improve the overall educational experience for middle school learners.

Lisa discussed her subject’s behavior with regard to inconsistent discipline policies and how this inconsistency is affecting his success in the classroom.

Katlyn described the importance of teaming to the effectiveness of the overall management of student behavior and engagement in learning.

Seeing both the positive and negative effects of relationships and teaming allowed the preservice candidates to construct an understanding of the importance of knowing their students beyond their classroom as well as communicating with their colleagues around student issues.

Many of the preservice candidates reported the shock they experienced when they witnessed the significant differences among student-teacher relationships, teachers’ management systems, teaching style, and instructional strategies within the same team. They expressed their own frustration as adults with having to endure the changes throughout the school day and credited the middle school students with patience, understanding, and tolerance. Through this project, the candidates were able to begin constructing a concern for developmental responsiveness that will equip them with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to create an environment conducive to learning, design curriculum that is engaging and meaningful, develop appropriate and supportive relationship with their students, and foster a collegial spirit among teammates.

Instructional Choices to Support Learning. The data also reveal that the preservice candidates were able to connect the developmental needs to the design of the curriculum, lessons, and activities they would present to their students. Based on their reports they gained a basic understanding of how “instructional practices in the middle school should focus on what we know about the learning needs of young adolescents” (Knowles & Brown, 2000, p. 108). All of the following developmentally responsive practices were observed and described by many of the candidates as appropriate for middle school students’ learning: consistency, student engagement in the lesson, fairness, caring, chunking information, limiting lecture, understanding and supportive attitudes and actions, knowing the background of the students, asking/caring about family/home life, differentiated instruction, fair and open assessment, allowing questions, effective teams, having fun, and laughing. For the candidates to observe and conceptualize these practices as developmentally appropriate is critical for their success as teachers as they construct an understanding of how significantly their practice will influence the academic, social, and emotional confidence of their students.

Movement and Talk. Interestingly, 16 of the candidates noted two developmentally responsive practices never observed in their classrooms: movement and student talk during instruction. They found this observation to be particularly distressing given our discussion in class of the developmental needs of young adolescent students. The course readings highlighted two areas of development that many times characterize the early adolescence stage: the random and rapid physical development and the burgeoning social development. These two areas of development are often times overlooked, consciously or unconsciously, by classroom teachers, as attending to these needs through movement and social interaction is seen as time consuming, unnecessary, and unproductive. The majority of the candidates recognized the importance of movement and discourse in the classroom as well as the lack of attention to these needs based on their observations and interactions with their CSP student.

Mary acknowledged the importance of movement because of the physical issues many students experience in classrooms where they sit most of the day. She goes further to note that movement is a concept that can be difficult to manage, but worth the effort.

Maggie connected the need for movement and social interaction to the behavior of her student. Her student experienced difficulties in some environments where these developmental needs were not being met.

Lisa’s observations of her student helped solidify what she had read during her coursework. More importantly, she recognized the importance of meeting the social and physical needs of students through planning instructional activities that would incorporate movement and talk into structured learning time.

The second goal of the CSP was to help candidates engage in the deconstruction of their own middle school experiences by observing, reflecting, and analyzing the middle school environment through the lens of a current middle school student. The candidates were given no specific directions on how to choose a subject for their project; simply to choose a child within the classroom in which they were placed. Within the case study report they were required to describe their selection process and provide a rationale for their choices. Many candidates were intrigued by students who behaved, learned, or interacted with other students and teachers in ways they considered to be very different from themselves as middle school students. Eighteen of the candidates reported choosing their subject based on these perceptions. Dana described how her views of middle school and of middle school students were challenged by a child experiencing middle school in a very different way than she had experienced it. Dana writes about her thought process after choosing her child.

Dana’s view of middle school was challenged when she engaged in observation and analysis of this child’s behavior. While Dana was very outgoing and outspoken as a middle school student, her CSP student was not, yet was very successful in school socially, emotionally and academically. She draws on a course text as she describes how this realization changed her view of her role in middle level education.

Seventeen of Dana’s classmates reported similar experiences as they continually made comparisons to themselves as middle school students and their CSP student. Many of the candidates began to question the teaching strategies their own teachers had used in middle grades based on how their CSP student reacted to similar experiences. Because these candidates came to their first field placement with merely their own schooling experiences, drawing on that knowledge is how they construct new understandings and, in some cases, deconstruct their beliefs about teaching and learning in the middle school. This project provided the candidates an opportunity to see and experience teaching and learning in ways quite different from their own experience as middle grades students. Darling-Hammond (2006) suggests that learning to teach requires this type of experience because getting new teachers to think differently about teaching is difficult. New teachers must engage in work that helps them see and understand the multidimensionality and variability of teaching rather than just drawing on their own knowledge constructed from their “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975).

Along with challenging the socially constructed views of these preservice candidates, this project prompted many of them to develop compassion for middle school students in general. Because the majority of the preservice candidates were drawing on their own experiences in middle school, by nature of the task they were forced to think about how they felt as young adolescent students. This project pushed the preservice candidates to see middle school from a middle school student’s perspective again. They had to sit in the student desks during the entire class period and follow the student wherever he/she went. They were not allowed to leave their students’ side at anytime during the school day. Mary commented on this experience as she recalls some of the physical development issues young adolescent students have.

Maggie’s experience helped her understand the importance of making sure her curriculum is relevant and her students are engaged.

In general, the dominant view of young adolescent students is by and large negative and biologically based (Adams, 1997; Lesko, 1996, 2001; Lexmond, 2003). Many of the candidates came to this first professional course with that perspective and many other preconceived ideas about middle schools and middle school students. During class, they openly discussed how many people, themselves included, perceive middle school students as unruly, egocentric or disrespectful. Nevertheless, they developed compassion for these adolescents and expressed a desire to enact practices that were developmentally responsive and appropriate for their future students.

The findings suggest case study, as a pedagogical approach, was helpful in preparing candidates of the MSTEP by adding “context to theory” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 119). As with other case methods, these preservice candidates constructed context-specific narratives about students, instructional strategies, and the learning environment. These narratives were written after the candidates carefully observed and interviewed their student and his/her teachers, analyzed student work samples, and documented their insights and questions about teaching and learning in the middle school. They analyzed and interpreted those experiences in light of the knowledge constructed through theories and ideas presented in their coursework (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Darling-Hammond (2006) suggests these experiences help new teachers “develop their skills of observation and documentation and their ability to analyze how children learn and can be supported in the process of development” (p. 120).

Evidence from the analysis of the CSP suggests candidates made explicit connections between what they know about young adolescents and the context-specific evidence they gathered, and how this knowledge informs their teaching. Through this project, they were forced to view the students’ and teachers’ behaviors in relation to context. It became clear that they understood the diversity in learning styles, personalities, developmental needs, and student interests; the importance of relationships and appropriate instructional strategies; and the young adolescents’ needs associated with social and physical development. The CSP helped them look for contextual information and use the theoretical principles they had learned in the college classroom to interpret what they saw in the middle school classroom and construct an understanding of the characteristics and developmental needs of the middle school learner.

This knowledge provided a framework for observing and analyzing developmentally responsive practices. While they noted the importance of many of the “academic” practices such as chunking information, differentiated instruction, fair and open assessment, and questioning during the lesson, they were distressed by the lack of attention to certain social and physical needs that interact with the other aspects of development and influence learning that takes place in the classroom.

Reflecting on the desired learning outcomes delineated in the rubric for this project, the data suggest my students acquired basic understanding of middle level philosophy and adolescent development and recognition of how the spectrum of young adolescent development can have an impact on their teaching as well as their students’ learning. Knowing they would continue in the program for two more semesters, I felt confident that they had internalized the need for and importance of developmentally responsive practices.

As potent as these outcomes are for middle level teacher preparation, I am deeply troubled by what students did not write or report. As I poured over the data, I was struck by the absence of any recognition of cultural identity or how it is embedded throughout the developmental spectrum for young adolescent students. None of the candidates discussed the ethnicity or race of their CSP students except when they described the child physically. They chose to use words such as “brown skin” or “Hispanic” when providing details about the child’s physical attributes. As the instructor, I know we read about and discussed the importance of cultural identity. Our class was intentionally taught in a middle school serving the highest percentage of minority students in the school district to allow students to experience a diverse setting as a participant and not as a spectator. However, when I analyzed the rubric for the assignment, I realized my language was not explicit enough as I only focused on the intellectual/academic, social, physical and emotional development. I made a conscious choice to use those words as I did not want diversity or cultural identity to appear to be separate from the other aspects of development, rather embedded throughout the spectrum. Similar to Howell and Arrington (2008), I found that working with a group of mostly White preservice candidates with little experience with ethnic or cultural diversity, I must be more explicit in my expectations and provide them with the language to use in describing race, ethnicity, and culture. Moreover, it is critical that I provide clear examples of how cultural identity is interwoven within the developmental spectrum and impacts learning significantly.

Studying teaching and learning in this way unexpectedly challenged the preservice candidates’ socially constructed views of young adolescents and middle schools and helped me, as a teacher educator, begin to address the “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975). When the preservice candidates systematically observed and analyzed a young adolescent perceived to learn and participate in the middle school environment differently than they had, they were able to view teaching and learning in new ways. In order for candidates to learn to teach, they must have opportunities such as this “to understand teaching in ways quite different from their own experience as students” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 35).

Case study as a pedagogical tool began the process of deconstructing the candidates’ beliefs and understandings of middle school students. The data suggest that this deconstruction led to the candidates developing compassion for the middle school students instead of prescribing to a biologically based, socially constructed view of adolescence (Lesko, 2005). Based on the findings of this study I would argue that two contributing factors played a role in these first steps of deconstruction. First, all of the candidates have made a conscious choice to teach middle school students and are enrolled in a specialized middle school teacher education program. They have had coursework that has helped them construct an understanding of the development and developmental needs of young adolescent learners. They understand the rapid, and many times, tumultuous emotional, physical, social, and intellectual development that occurs for these students in a very random and unpredictable manner. Second, through the specific focus on young adolescent development, the candidates have also been asked on several occasions to reflect on their own emotional, physical, social, and intellectual development as well as their own schooling experiences. While getting preservice candidates to move away from their “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975) is a goal of teacher education, having candidates recall their own experiences with the developmental spectrum narrows the gap between who they are as teachers and who the students are as young adolescents and creates an opportunity for candidates to understand the importance of enacting developmentally responsive instructional practices in their classrooms.

While Case Study within this field experience provided many opportunities for candidates to deconstruct their apprenticeship of observation, it only allowed candidates to approach the problem of enactment. They observed practices that were counter to what they had learned in their coursework but because they were merely observing, the cognitive dissonance was around the disconnection between theory and practice and not their own instructional choices. Their opportunities to teach without the host teacher were limited to small groups and one-on-one situations. As candidates move into future semesters, they will be asked to engage in solo planning, teaching, and assessment where they will encounter the problem of enactment more authentically. Hopefully, reflection on their CSP student will provide an impetus to enact research-based practices regardless of how they were taught as middle school students.

Finally, I did not expect the candidates to fully understand the multidimensional, simultaneous, and unpredictable nature of teaching with one semester of field experience. Furthermore, with limited opportunities to teach whole group lessons, it would be impossible for them to grasp the complexity of teaching. However, this experience lays the foundation for development of their confidence as teachers that will support their growth as they engage in experiences throughout the rest of the program. Each semester will build on the next and layers of understanding will accumulate helping them to see the complexities of teaching and learning.

Case study as a pedagogical approach in early field experiences can help establish a solid foundation for candidates as they progress through their programs. The case study approach also needs to be embedded throughout middle grades teacher candidates’ coursework and field placements to help candidates develop knowledge and construct an understanding of the complexities of teaching. Finally, it is critical for middle level teacher educators to help candidates understand how cultural identity development is embedded in the entire spectrum of young adolescents’ developmental change. As seen in this study, we must offer middle grades teacher candidates examples of developmentally responsive practice and culturally responsive practices as well.