A profile of elementary school teachers involved in a professional development school.

Abstract. This exploratory study identifies the characteristics of elementary school teachers who were involved in professional development school (PDS) activities at one PDS site. It describes 42 teachers" level of involvement in the PDS partnership using both a subjective (respondents' self-report) and an objective (university team's assessment, based on the number and types of PDS activities in which teachers had engaged) measure of involvement. Using survey data collected at the end of the second year of the PDS's implementation, the researchers calculated univariate descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and correlation coefficients to profile who participated in the PDS and the extent to which they did so. They found that, on both measures of level of involvement, most of the teachers were somewhat or highly involved in PDS activities. While the two indicators are moderately, positively, and significantly related to each other, they yielded different results when they were analyzed in relation to four other sets of variables. The findings point to the need to explore more fully the characteristics of those teachers who do participate in PDS partnerships in order to develop more effective strategies to involve teachers in such collaborative arrangements and to achieve PDS purposes. ********** Professional development schools (PDSs) are collaborative partnerships created among universities, K-12 schools, and school districts, with a focus on inquiry, research, and education reform. These unique alliances are dedicated to the simultaneous renewal of schools and teacher education programs (Goodlad, 1990), and, according to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (1997), they share the following responsibilities:

* Clinical preparation of new teachers

* Continuing development of school and university faculty

* Support of children's learning

* Support of research directed at the improvement of teaching and learning. (p. 4)

With respect to the preparation of new teachers, PDSs are transforming teacher education programs. The traditional model of teacher education, often criticized for being unstructured and lacking rigor, places the total responsibility for preparing new teachers on universities (Abdal-Haqq, 1998). With newly established PDSs, however, preparing new teachers is not left solely to universities, but rather is shared with local schools and practicing teachers. Similar to the medical model, the PDS model provides exemplary clinical settings in which preservice teachers can learn and practice the art and science of teaching with experienced and trained mentors.

Evidence supports placing preservice teachers in PDSs for field experiences (Abdal-Haqq, 1998). Compared to preservice teachers in non-PDS settings, those in PDS settings use a greater variety of instructional practices and strategies (Miller & O'Shea, 1994; Zeichner, 1992), spend more time interacting with children (Houston, Hollis, Clay, Ligons, & Roff, 1999), participate in more collaborative activities (Sandholtz & Dadlez, 2000), and are more confident in their professional knowledge (Book, 1996). Furthermore, student teachers in professional development centers are significantly more positive about their experience than are student teachers in traditional placements (Yerian & Grossman, 1993). In short, student teaching experiences in PDSs are successful for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the commitment of cooperating teachers (Kroll, Bowyer, Rutherford, & Hauben, 1997).

As Kroll et al. (1997) note, dedicated classroom teachers are essential components of effective PDSs. PDS teachers have the overwhelming task of working with their own students in classrooms, while coaching and mentoring preservice teachers and conducting research with university collaborators. Yet, teachers who do participate in PDS activities appear to be satisfied with their decision to do so, and they appear to benefit from the arrangement. For example, through surveys of 140 elementary school teachers in six PDS sites conducted during the 1992 to 1993 school year, Morris and Nunnery (1993) discovered that teachers perceived a greater sense of professional knowledge and collegiality due to the PDS experience. In another study, teachers reported that, as a result of a PDS partnership, many had changed the way they taught, their reflection of practice, and their conception of collegial work (Berry & Catoe, 1994). Similarly, teachers in the Houston Consortium (Houston et al., 1999) who engaged in professional development activities reported a greater willingness to experiment with new instructional strategies.

While PDS participation offers positive outcomes for teachers, not all teachers who are given the opportunity choose to participate in PDSs in the same fashion and to the same degree. One key question to address, then, is why teachers choose to become involved in PDS activities. They may do so for various reasons: to obtain the most current teaching strategies, to collaborate on interesting research topics, or to gain extra help in the classroom. Other factors also may be instrumental in encouraging their involvement. For instance, Powell and McGowen (1996) sought to determine why teachers participate in PDSs. After interviews and classroom observations with 12 elementary school teachers at a newly created PDS in an urban area in the southwestern United States, they reached the following conclusions:

* An event beyond the teachers' control was responsible for their initial exploration of teaching in the PDS

* The information that teachers remembered receiving about their role within a PDS was limited and had very little effect on their decision to join

* Teachers decided to become part of the PDS collaborative based on their experiences of greater control over their environments

* Teachers hoped the formation of the PDS would provide opportunities for them to assert greater control over their personal and professional growth

* The teachers' desire for control over their environment increased through their participation in the PDS. (p. 253)

However, teachers also may be reluctant to participate in PDS-supported endeavors for various reasons. For instance, Teitel (1994) suggests that teachers may not believe it is their responsibility to work with preservice teachers, or they may hesitate to engage in the kind of teaching that PDSs require. Furthermore, Rafferty (1993) contends that work in a PDS is more demanding, because partnership schools have higher expectations for students, promote and encourage collaboration, require greater levels of content knowledge and pedagogical expertise, and promote ongoing faculty reflection. Therefore, teachers who work in PDSs should possess certain traits beyond the traditional attributes of content knowledge and pedagogical expertise. Rafferty explains that such teachers also must be reflective; flexible; collaborative; desiderative (i.e., having a desire to know and understand); conational (i.e., being willing to act); and communicative. On a related topic, other authors (e.g., Moore, Hopkins, & Tullis, 1991) state that the success of a PDS rests on having specifically qualified participants. They assert that interest in working in a partnership school is not, by itself, sufficient. Moreover, NCATE's (1997) second responsibility of PDSs--the continuing development of school and university faculty--may not be met if the qualifications of PDS participants are not clearly delineated.

Despite the growing body of literature describing PDS partnerships, outlining characteristics of PDSs, and discussing the roles, responsibilities, and consequences for PDS participants (Book, 1996), very little is known about the characteristics of those teachers who do participate in PDSs, the extent to which they participate, and the types of factors that are associated with their involvement. In fact, a literature search yielded no studies describing such topics. While previous research has examined teachers' overall level of involvement in and satisfaction with PDS partnerships in general, it has not profiled "involved" teachers (i.e., those who participate in PDS activities). Specifically, are certain types of teachers more involved in PDS partnerships than others? How are teachers' level of comfort with, and understanding of, PDSs and their goals associated with their level of participation in PDS partnerships? And how do teachers' views of themselves and their practices as educators--those that reflect their own sense of efficacy and professionalism and that are associated with best teaching practices, the very qualities that PDS partnerships are designed to foster (Holmes Group, 1990)--relate to their involvement in such partnerships? This study is designed to address these questions. Its results have practical implications, because without dedicated PDS teachers, none of the four PDS responsibilities outlined by NCATE (1997) can be performed. More generally, the teachers' participation in PDS activities has significant implications for teacher education programs and recruitment efforts.

The PDS Partnership

In the fall of 1998, a PDS partnership was established between a university and one of 46 public elementary schools in the school district in central Florida. The five goals of the partnership are to: 1) increase student achievement; 2) implement research-based best practices; 3) develop strong professional partnerships between school teachers and university faculty members; 4) develop a trusting, collaborative communication network between the school and the university; and 5) provide ongoing preservice and inservice professional development activities.

The PDS site, a Title I school, served approximately 810 students in pre-kindergarten through 5th grade in the 1999 to 2000 school year, the year to which the analyses in this study pertain. Approximately 25 percent of the students were served in special programs, including pre-kindergarten early intervention, varying exceptionalities, severely emotionally disturbed, dropout prevention, and gifted. Of the 99 school staff members, 60 were instructional staff, 3 were administrative staff, and 36 were support staff. Among the teaching staff, about 32 percent had a master's degree or higher, and the average number of years of teaching experience was about 14.

Although teacher involvement in PDS activities has been voluntary, approximately 80 percent had participated in various PDS-supported activities over the two years since its inception in the fall of 1998. The four categories of PDS-sponsored activities include PDS governance (e.g., participating in the steering council); preservice teacher supervision (e.g., working with junior and senior interns); professional development activities at the PDS site (e.g., attending technology training sessions, participating in monthly study groups); and professional development activities off-site (e.g., presenting at professional conferences, such as those hosted by the International Reading Association, and attending workshops sponsored by outside agencies).

The university is a comprehensive, private regional school in the southeastern United States with approximately 2,000 undergraduate students and 1,000 post-baccalaureate, graduate, and law students. It comprises four schools and colleges, with the College of Arts and Sciences housing the Department of Teacher Education. Since the PDS began in the fall of 1998, approximately 20 university professors and staff and 100 preservice teachers have participated in PDS partnership activities.

Research Methodology

Research Method

This study is a cross-sectional descriptive and correlational analysis of elementary school teachers at one public elementary school that serves as a PDS site. It describes the teachers' level of involvement in PDS activities during the 1999-2000 school year, and it identifies the characteristics and factors that are associated with their PDS participation. In an attempt to profile "involved" teachers, the researchers analyzed the teachers' demographic characteristics and their level of comfort with and understanding of PDSs and their goals in relation to their level of involvement in the PDS partnership. They also examined teachers' sense of self-efficacy and professionalism and their use of best practices (Daniels & Bizar, 1998; Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998) in relation to their participation.

The source of the data is a voluntary, confidential self-administered questionnaire that included both close-ended and open-ended questions on the following topics: the teachers' jobs at the elementary school, their understanding of and comfort with PDSs, their opinions about and participation in PDS-sponsored activities, their assessment of the importance of PDS goals and whether the partnership is meeting those goals, their reflections about themselves and their practices as educators, and their demographic characteristics. The university-school PDS liaison distributed the survey to the 60 full-time and part-time teaching staff at the end of the second year of the PDS in May 2000, at the final staff meeting of the academic year.

Although some comparable data were collected at the beginning and end of each academic year since the inception of the PDS (see Tichenor, Everett, & Heins, 2003), the researchers believe that the data from the end of the second year of the partnership are the best for addressing their research questions for several reasons. First, by May 2000, the partnership was well-established,-publicized, and-supported by the school's administration, the university's Department of Teacher Education and its faculty, and the PDS liaison. Second, by then, both the university faculty and the school teachers had been given ample opportunities to get involved in PDS activities (Tichenor, Everett, & Heins, 2003). In fact, during the 1999-2000 school year (the second year of PDS implementation), university faculty spent approximately 200 hours at the PDS site participating in various professional development activities, while education majors, in aggregate, spent approximately 5,600 hours observing and working in PDS classrooms. And, as noted above, over three-fourths of the teachers participated in the partnership during its first two years. Third, most of the initial kinks with the partnership had been worked out by then. For example, much time was spent during the first two years initiating and sustaining an open communication system for all stakeholders. Finally, although it was no longer a novel program, neither was the PDS partnership so firmly entrenched that it had become taken-for-granted or routine.

The researchers used two measures of level of involvement to pursue their primary interest in describing the teachers who were involved in the PDS, their level of involvement, and the factors that are related to that involvement. One, called the "Subjective Level of Involvement," is based on one of the close-ended survey items--the teachers' self-reported level of involvement as based on their answers to the question, "To what extent have you been involved in PDS-sponsored professional development activities this year?" Respondents answered with the ordinal response categories of not involved, barely involved, somewhat involved, or highly involved. The other measure of the teachers' level of involvement in PDS activities--the "Objective Level of Involvement"--was derived from a university team's evaluation of the teachers' level of involvement during the school year. To develop this measure, three university representatives, including the university-school PDS liaison and two faculty members--all of whom have been instrumental in initiating and implementing the PDS partnership and have been heavily involved in it since its inception--evaluated the teachers' level of involvement. They relied on detailed records (i.e., a tracking chart) they had kept of whether the teachers had participated in PDS endeavors during the 1999-2000 academic year and of the type of activities in which participants had engaged. Specifically, they placed each teacher into one of four categories of involvement: not involved, if the teacher had participated in no PDS activities during the year; minimal involvement, if she or he had participated in only one activity; average involvement, if she or he had participated in at least one ongoing PDS activity, plus one other activity, or had been involved in at least two PDS activities; and high involvement, if she or he had participated in at least two ongoing PDS activities. An ongoing PDS activity was defined as one that required sustained involvement and/or more extensive interaction between the teachers and the university faculty. Examples of these types of activities are being a member of the PDS steering council that meets regularly to discuss and plan partnership activities, participating in one of several study groups aimed at implementing best practices in education or working with low-achieving African-American males, supervising junior or senior student interns, and presenting at a conference or a workshop.

Population and Sample

Of the 60 teaching staff members, 44, or 73 percent, completed the survey. As the university team's rating of involvement level in PDS activities for the academic year could be matched to only 42 of these respondents, however, the analyses reported here rely on those 42 respondents. Table 1 describes the respondents. The majority (85.7 percent) were female, and most were white (97.6 percent). Over half (57.1 percent) had a bachelor's degree; over a third (35.7 percent) had a master's degree; and the remainder (7.1 percent) had a specialist's degree. The respondents were distributed across grade levels as follows: pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, 14.3 percent; 1st and 2nd grades, 9.5 percent each; 3rd grade, 7.1 percent; 4th grade, 11.9 percent; 5th grade, 14.3 percent; special area (including art, music, physical education, guidance, literacy resource, media, and speech/language), 21.4 percent; and exceptional student education (including varying exceptionalities and severely emotionally disturbed), 11.9 percent. The mean and median ages of the respondents were 43.8 and 45, respectively. On average, they had taught 15.8 years and had spent 10.8 years at the elementary school (with respective medians of 18 and 6.5).

The sample of 42 respondents appears to be fairly representative of the total teaching population at the school. Specifically, for the school year in question, for the total population, 85 percent were female, and 96.7 percent were white. The population figures for the highest level of education completed were 65 percent for a bachelor's degree; 30 percent for a master's degree; and 7.3 percent for another type of educational credential. The distribution of the population over grade levels was as follows: pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, 10 percent; 1st grade, 8.3 percent; 2nd through 5th grades, 6.7 percent each; and other (including special areas, gifted, elementary resource, literacy resource, varying exceptionalities, severely emotionally disturbed, and guidance), 55 percent. Finally, the mean number of years the total instructional staff had taught was 14.8, with a median of 14; the mean number of years they had taught at this particular school was 9.2, with a median of 5.5.

In short, compared to the total population, the sample contained a smaller proportion of teachers with a bachelor's degree and a larger proportion of them with a master's degree, as well as more experienced teachers (as indicated by both the number of years they had taught and the number of years they had taught at the elementary school). The discrepancies between the population parameters and the sample statistics could be due to the relatively small sizes of the population and the sample, as well as to possible self-selection bias. Moreover, particularly with respect to the population and sample grade distributions, differences are probably a function of the different classification systems used by the county and the school, compared to the self-reported measures on the survey. For instance, while the county and school classification systems group the teachers of gifted students with those who teach in exceptional student education, the survey respondents who taught gifted classes listed the grade level they taught, and thus were classified in the sample by that grade level.

Data Analysis

The main goal of this study was to profile those teachers who were involved in PDS activities during the 1999-2000 academic year. The profile describes teachers' level of involvement in the PDS partnership, using the two measures of involvement described above; examines the relationship between these two measures of involvement; and determines whether and how four sets of variables are related to the teachers' level of involvement (their demographic characteristics, their level of comfort with and understanding of PDSs, their rating of the importance of the PDS goals and of the extent to which they believed the PDS is meeting those goals, and their perceptions of themselves as educators).

The researchers used univariate descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and correlation to identify those teachers who were involved in PDS activities during the year, and to examine the factors associated with PDS involvement. For each set of results, missing data was excluded from the calculations; hence, the total number of responses may not total 42.

Results

Table 2 contains the frequency distributions for the two measures of involvement in PDS activities. For the subjective indicator, respondents evaluated their level of involvement as highly involved, somewhat involved, barely involved, or not involved. Although only a few respondents (11.9 percent) stated that they were highly involved in PDS activities during the year, over half (59.5 percent) claimed that they were somewhat involved. Almost a quarter (23.8 percent) were barely involved, and only 4.8 percent were not involved at all in PDS-sponsored activities.

For the objective measure, the university team classified all 60 teachers as having high involvement, average involvement, minimal involvement, or no involvement. The percentage of all 60 teachers in each of the categories resembles the percentage of the 42 teachers who were matched to the survey data. Specifically, among all of the teaching staff, 23.3 percent were categorized as having high involvement; 36.7 percent as average involvement; 20 percent as minimal involvement; and 20 percent as no involvement. The corresponding figures for the 42 survey respondents are 26.2 percent; 33.3 percent; 26.2 percent; and 14.3 percent.

The researchers considered whether the classifications on the two measures of involvement would correspond. That is, when the respondent's attribute is "highly involved" on the subjective measure, is it "high involvement" on the objective indicator? When it is "somewhat involved" on the subjective measure, is it "average involvement" on the objective measure? When it is "barely involved" on the subjective indicator, is it "minimal involvement" on the objective one? And when it is "not involved" on the subjective measure, is it "no involvement" on the objective measure? To answer these questions, the researchers cross-tabulated the subjective and the objective levels of involvement for the 42 respondents. The results are in Table 3.

The table reveals that some of the respondents are "misclassified"--that is, there is not a direct correspondence between the respondents' own assessment of their level of participation in PDS activities and the university team's evaluation of their involvement. Less than half (38.1 percent) of the teachers fall on the diagonal of the table (with the diagonal indicating that the teachers' own perceptions and the university team's evaluation of the teachers' level of involvement "match").

These "mismatches" present an interesting methodological question regarding whether the respondents' self-rating or the university team's evaluation represents the more reliable or valid measure of level of involvement. It appears that, in stating their own level of participation, respondents either under- or overestimated their level of involvement, relative to the university team's assessment. More respondents "underestimated" their level of involvement on the subjective measure (as indicated by the 33.3 percent above the diagonal on Table 3) than "overestimated" it (as shown by the 28.6 percent below the diagonal). The respondents who "underestimated" their involvement all did so by only one category (e.g., a respondent's self-rating was "barely involved," while the university team evaluated that person as having "average involvement"). However, this was not the case for those who "overestimated" their level of involvement, where 11.9 percent were off by two categories. Yet, despite these "mismatches" in the attributes on the two measures, the correlation between the variables, as measured by gamma, is .499 (p = .002), thereby indicating a moderate, positive, and significant relationship between the two variables.

Because there is not a direct correspondence between the classification of the teachers on the two variables, the analyses below use both measures. As the subsequent analyses reveal, results are not always consistent in how the two measures relate to the four sets of variables that the researchers examined (teachers' demographic characteristics, level of comfort with and understanding of PDSs, rating of the importance of the PDS goals and of the extent to which the PDS is meeting those goals, and perceptions of themselves as educators).

Table 4 presents the respondents' demographic characteristics by their level of involvement in the PDS partnership. The demographic variables examined are the teachers' gender, grade taught, highest level of education completed, age, how long (in years) they had been a teacher, and how long (in years) they had taught at the school. For grade taught, the categories reported in Table 1 were collapsed, as follows: pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade into primary; 4th and 5th grade into intermediate; and special area and exceptional student education into other. To examine the relationship between each measure of involvement and the first three demographic variables, the researchers present cross-tabulations, and they calculated measures of association (not reported in the table). Pearson's r correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the association between each indicator of involvement and the other three variables.

As Table 4 indicates, on both measures of involvement, females tended to have higher levels than males, as shown by the combined frequencies for the first two categories of each variable (highly involved and somewhat involved on the subjective measure, and high involvement and average involvement on the objective measure), compared to the last two categories of each variable (barely involved and not involved on the subjective indicator, and minimal involvement and no involvement on the objective indicator). When the first two attributes of each measure of level of involvement are combined, it is also the case that primary grade teachers were more involved than intermediate grade teachers, and the latter were more involved than the other teachers. With respect to the teachers' highest level of education completed, on both indicators of involvement, the most involved were those with a specialist's degree, all of whom fell into the first two categories of the variables. On both measures, those with master's degrees were the least involved, with over 46 percent being barely/ minimally or not involved. The measures of association between each of these three variables and each of the indicators of level of involvement were not statistically significant, nor were the measures of association between each indicator of involvement and each of the other three demographic variables--respondent's age, how long they had been teaching, and how long they had taught at the particular elementary school. Hence, none of the teachers' demographic characteristics is significantly associated with their level of involvement in the PDS partnership.

Table 5 reports, first, the respondents' level of comfort with and understanding of PDSs and, second, these factors as they relate to their level of involvement. On the survey, the teachers rated their current understanding of what a PDS is and their current understanding of what the goals of PDS partnerships are, using the response categories of excellent, good, fair, or poor. While these questions dealt with PDSs in general, a third item focused specifically on the school-university PDS. It asked, "In general, how comfortable are you at this time in working collaboratively with university educators in your classroom?" Respondents indicated that they were very comfortable, comfortable, neither comfortable nor uncomfortable, uncomfortable, or very uncomfortable. The frequency distributions for these three variables, reported in the top panel of Table 5, reveal that, at the end of the second year of the PDS partnership, the majority of respondents--over 80 percent--had an excellent or good understanding of what a PDS is and of PDSs' goals. They also were either very comfortable or comfortable with working collaboratively with university educators.

The bottom panel of Table 5 shows how these three variables are associated with the two measures of level of involvement. According to the values of gamma and their associated levels of significance (in parentheses), all three variables are moderately, positively, and significantly related to the subjective indicator for level of involvement, while none of them is related to the objective indicator.

The third set of factors the researchers examined in relation to teachers' level of involvement is their evaluation of the importance of the specific partnership goals and of the extent to which the PDS is meeting those goals. On the questionnaire, respondents rated the importance of these five PDS goals: increasing student achievement; implementing research-based best practices; developing strong professional partnerships; developing a trusting, collaborative communication network; and providing ongoing preservice and inservice professional development activities. They rated these goals as very important, important, neutral, unimportant, or very unimportant. Then, they stated the extent to which they believed the PDS partnership is meeting each of these goals by strongly agreeing, agreeing, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, disagreeing, or strongly disagreeing that the PDS is meeting the goal. The frequency distributions for these variables are in the first part of Table 6.

In rating the importance of the PDS goals, more respondents (84.2 percent) stated that increasing student achievement is very important, compared to the other four goals. Next in importance is the goal of providing ongoing preservice and inservice professional development activities, with 60.5 percent rating it as very important. Between 42 and 49 percent of the respondents evaluated the other three goals as very important. However, over 75 percent of the respondents claimed that all five goals are either very important or important.

Regarding whether the PDS is meeting its goals, about 64 percent of the respondents strongly agreed that it is meeting the goal of providing ongoing preservice and inservice professional development activities. Just over 40 percent strongly agreed that the PDS is meeting the goals of developing a trusting, collaborative communication network and of developing strong professional partnerships. Fewer--27 percent or less--strongly agreed that the goals of increasing student achievement and of implementing research-based best practices are being met. When the strongly agree and agree responses are combined, between about 67 percent (for increasing student achievement) and 92 percent (for providing professional development opportunities) of the respondents believed that the PDS is accomplishing its objectives.

The second part of Table 6 contains the values of gamma and their levels of statistical significance (in parentheses) for the respondents' rating of the level of importance of each PDS goal and its association with each indicator of level of involvement, and for their assessment of the extent to which the PDS is meeting each goal and its relationship to each measure of level of involvement. Four of the five ratings of the importance of the PDS goals are moderately to strongly and positively related to the subjective measure of level of involvement, and these relationships are statistically significant at the .05 level or below. The only relationship that is not significant is the association between the respondents' rating of the importance of the goal of increasing student achievement and the subjective indicator of level of involvement. Interestingly, this pattern does not hold when the objective indicator for level of involvement is examined in relation to the ratings of the importance of these PDS goals. Here, only two associations--that with implementing research-based best practices and that with developing a trusting, collaborative communication network--are moderately, positively, and significantly related at the .05 level or below.

When the respondents' level of agreement with the statements about whether the PDS is meeting each of its five goals is analyzed in relation to the subjective indicator of level of involvement, again, four out of the five associations are moderate to strong, positive, and significant at the .05 level or below. The exception is meeting the goal of providing professional development activities. The associations between the objective measure of level of involvement and the respondents' assessment of the extent to which the PDS is accomplishing its five objectives yield different results. Only one of the correlations--that with implementing research-based best practices--is moderately, positively, and statistically related at the .05 level or below.

The final set of factors that the researchers analyzed in relation to the teachers' level of involvement in the PDS is their perceptions of themselves and their practices as educators. On the survey, the participants stated their level of agreement (ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, or not applicable) with 19 statements that concern the teachers' sense of efficacy, professionalism, and best practices. These statements, along with their variable names (in parentheses), are as follows: I believe that I am an effective teacher (Effective). I believe that I am capable in my job (Capable). I have a strong sense of self-efficacy (Efficacy). I set high standards for myself as a teacher (Self Standards). I set high standards for my students (Student Standards). I am a confident and poised teacher (Confident). I consider myself a lifelong learner (Learner). I use cooperative learning in my classroom (Cooperative Learning). I use flexible grouping with whole groups (Whole Groups). I use flexible grouping with small groups (Small Groups). I use flexible grouping with individual students (Individual Students). I use authentic assessment for portfolios (Portfolios). I use authentic assessment for anecdotal records (Anecdotal Records). I use authentic assessment for running records (Running Records). I use integrative learning (Integrative Learning). I use guided reading (Guided Reading). I use integration of technology (Technology). I use multiage groups (Multiage Groups). I use multiple intelligences (Intelligences).

Table 7 gives the frequency distributions for these 19 variables. On eight items, between 95 and 100 percent of the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the statements that assessed their perceptions of themselves and practices as educators. These variables are Effective, Capable, Efficacy, Self Standards, Student Standards, Confident, Learner, and Intelligences. All except for the last of these center on the teachers' sense of themselves as educators and as professionals, rather than on their practices per se. On the other 11 items, there were still high levels of agreement, with between about 68 and 90 percent strongly agreeing or agreeing, except for Multiage Groups. However, about 10 percent or more of the respondents indicated that these 11 statements were not applicable to them. These variables were Cooperative Learning, Whole Groups, Small Groups, Individual Students, Portfolios, Anecdotal Records, Running Records, Integrative Learning, Guided Reading, Technology, and Multiage Groups, all of which focus on teaching practices. Yet, fewer than 5 percent strongly disagreed with any of the 19 statements, and, for 15 items, none did so.

Finally, the researchers calculated gamma to analyze the relationship between each measure of level of involvement and each of these 19 variables (with the respondents who had answered "not applicable" omitted from the calculations). Because only two of the 38 associations are statistically significant, they are not presented here. It was only for the subjective indicator of level of involvement and its relationship to two practices--Portfolios and Running Records--that the associations are strong, positive, and statistically significant. For Portfolios, gamma is .696, with a probability of .012; for Running Records, it is .736, with a probability of .002.

Summary, Conclusions, and Implications

This study examines elementary school teachers' level of involvement in a PDS, and it identifies the characteristics of those teachers who were involved in PDS activities over the course of a school year. The factors that the researchers analyzed in relation to teachers' level of involvement were their demographic characteristics, their level of understanding of and comfort with PDSs, their evaluation of the importance of five specific PDS goals and of the extent to which the PDS is meeting those goals, and their assessments of themselves and their practices as educators.

The researchers used two measures of teacher involvement: 1) an objective indicator, determined by both the number and types of PDS activities in which the teacher had engaged during the year, as recorded by a university team, and 2) a subjective indicator, based on teachers' own responses to a survey item on the topic. On both of these measures, the researchers found that the plurality of the respondents were in the middle ranges of involvement (i.e., somewhat involved on the subjective measure and an average level of involvement on the objective measure) (see Table 2). Moreover, about 60 percent or more of the respondents had combined high and mid levels of involvement on both measures, and relatively few had no involvement in PDS activities over the year, regardless of which measure was used. These findings indicate that most of the teachers participated in PDS activities during the second year of the PDS's implementation.

When the researchers examined the relationship between the respondents' classifications on the two variables for level of involvement, they discerned a moderate, positive, statistically significant relationship (see Table 3). Nevertheless, fewer than 40 percent of the respondents had classifications on the two indicators that "matched." Compared to their classification on the objective measure, more of the respondents (about a third) reported lower levels of involvement than stated higher levels (about 29 percent).

One possible and likely explanation for these "mismatches" is that in determining their level of participation, respondents' definitions of involvement differed from the university team's. While the university team had clear guidelines for assigning the teachers' level of involvement, the teachers did not: They interpreted what each category meant and classified themselves according to some unknown referent. Hence, it is also quite possible that, among themselves, the teachers' ideas about what constitutes being highly, somewhat, barely, or not involved varied. Finally, perhaps the teachers did not remember accurately those PDS activities in which they had participated. And while it is possible that it was the university team who misclassified the teachers' level of involvement, that scenario is less likely, because the team kept detailed records of each teacher's participation in PDS activities throughout the year.

Perhaps more interesting issues are, first, whether the two classifications should match and, second, how each indicator of level of involvement related to the four sets of factors examined. First, while the researchers did not know whether the respondents' classifications on the two variables would correspond (given that it is not uncommon for objective and subjective measures of the same phenomenon not to do so), they did hope that they would, to enhance the reliability and validity of the measures used. Second, as reported, the subjective indicator--the respondents' self-assessment of their level of involvement--was more closely associated with the factors that the researchers analyzed in this study than was the objective indicator. It seems reasonable to argue that because the respondents answered several questions about their perceptions of the PDS partnership (not facts about it), their own rating of their level of involvement was made in the context of addressing these other PDS-related matters and, hence, reflective of their thinking about the PDS partnership in its totality. On the other hand, it is unlikely that, in developing its objective measure, the university team classified the respondents' level of involvement in such a context. That is, it is doubtful that, when developing the objective indicator, the university team took into account the teachers' level of understanding of and comfort with PDSs, their assessment of the importance of the PDS goals and of the extent to which the PDS is meeting its objectives, and their views of themselves and their practices as educators. The researchers believe that these issues warrant further investigation, and recommend that future studies investigate other ways to measure teachers' level of involvement in PDS activities, perhaps by developing other objective measures (e.g., based on researchers' systematic observations of teachers' ongoing activities in the school) or subjective measures (e.g., as determined by teachers' own detailed record-keeping of their engagement in such activities, or by providing teachers with clear-cut guidelines for how to classify their level of involvement).

In an attempt to discern the types of teachers who are involved in PDS activities, the researchers discovered some interesting patterns and relationships. First, they looked at the teachers' demographic characteristics (see Table 4). Although none of the teachers' demographic characteristics is significantly related to their level of involvement, relationships with three of the variables reveal some interesting patterns that may contribute to our understanding of the types of teachers who participate in PDS endeavors. These include teachers' gender, highest level of education completed, and grade taught. Regarding respondents' gender, on both the subjective and objective measures of involvement, females tended to have higher levels of involvement than males. In terms of the highest level of education completed, on both variables, those respondents with a master's degree had the lowest level of involvement (when the categories of no and bare/minimal involvement are combined), while those with a specialist's degree had the highest level. With respect to the grade taught, on both indicators, primary grade teachers had higher levels of involvement than intermediate grade teachers, and the latter had higher levels of involvement than the other (i.e., special area and exceptional student education) teachers. Primary grade teachers may have been more involved in the PDS partnership than intermediate grade teachers, because the former also may have been less involved in high-stakes accountability testing than the latter. That is, intermediate grade teachers have had more pressure to prepare their students for the statewide, standardized tests that are now being used to "grade" schools for funding purposes. Moreover, primary and intermediate grade teachers probably participated more in PDS endeavors than did special area and exceptional student education teachers, because they tend to have more contact with university PDS faculty, PDS liaisons, and preservice teachers. Furthermore, many special area teachers may have believed that the PDS activities emphasize general academic education rather than their specific specializations.

Although the number of cases in the subcategories of these demographic variables is too small to permit more detailed and sophisticated multivariate analyses (e.g., multiple regression), the researchers speculate that the patterns just described are related to the respondents' combination of attributes. For example, half of the males taught in the special areas and exceptional student education (i.e., other) category, and more of those with a master's degree (rather than with a bachelor's or a specialist's degree) also taught in the special areas and exceptional student education (i.e., other) category--the category of grade taught with the lowest level of involvement. These types of relationships deserve further investigation with a larger case base.

In addition to the demographic variables, the researchers analyzed teachers' level of understanding of, and level of comfort with, PDSs in relation to their level of involvement (see Table 5). A moderate, positive, and significant relationship can be identified between the subjective indicator for level of involvement and for each of these items: teachers' understanding of what a PDS is, their understanding of PDS goals, and their level of comfort in working collaboratively with university educators in their classrooms. However, no such associations existed for the objective measure.

Given the nature of this data and analyses, a causal connection cannot be established between the variables in the significant relationships just mentioned. Yet, it is probably the case that a reciprocal relationship exists between them. It is logical to assume that teachers who reported that they had a better understanding of PDSs and of their goals, and who stated that they were more comfortable working with university educators, were also the ones who assessed their own level of involvement as higher than those who did not. Their level of understanding and comfort may have encouraged their higher levels of involvement. However, the opposite causal ordering also makes sense: It is reasonable to assert that teachers in the first category enjoyed the benefits of PDS precisely because they were involved. Future investigations should address these types of issues.

The researchers also examined teachers' ratings of the importance of the five specific PDS partnership goals and their evaluation of the extent to which they believed the PDS is meeting those goals, in relation to their level of involvement (Table 6). Four of the five teachers' ratings of the importance of the PDS goals are moderately to strongly, positively, and significantly related to the subjective measure of involvement: implementing research-based best practices; developing strong professional partnerships; developing a trusting, collaborative communication network; and providing ongoing preservice and inservice professional development activities. However, only two of the five teachers' assessments of the importance of the PDS goals are moderately, positively, and significantly related to the objective indicator for involvement: implementing research-based best practices and developing a trusting, collaborative communication network. In all of these cases, those respondents who rated these goals as more important also had higher levels of involvement in PDS activities, and vice versa. Again, although the causal nature of these relationships cannot be untangled, both interpretations make sense: First, that teachers who were more engaged with the partnership also saw its goals as being more important than those teachers who were not as involved, and, second, that if the teachers did not believe that the PDS's goals were important, they were not as likely to get as involved in PDS endeavors as those who did see the objectives as important.

On the related topic of the teachers' perceptions about the extent to which the PDS is meeting each of its five specific goals and their associations with the two measures of level of involvement, again, four of the five relationships involving the subjective indicator are moderately to strongly, positively, and significantly related. They are: increasing student achievement; implementing research-based best practices; developing strong professional partnerships; and developing a trusting, collaborative communication network. Yet, only one of the relationships with the objective variable is moderately, positively, and significantly related: implementing research-based best practices. In all of these cases, those respondents who had higher levels of agreement that the PDS is meeting these objectives were also the ones who were more involved in the PDS partnership, and vice versa. Again, the researchers believe that the educators who were more invested in PDS activities were also those who were more likely to feel that their efforts were paying off (i.e., to agree that the PDS is accomplishing its ends); otherwise, they might feel that their participation in the partnership was a waste of time. Conversely, those respondents who had higher levels of agreement about the PDS meeting these goals were also the ones who were more involved in the PDS activities.

The ratings of the importance of the two PDS goals that are statistically related to both measures of level of involvement--implementing research-based best practices and developing a trusting, collaborative communication network--and the assessment of the extent to which the PDS is meeting the one goal that is statistically associated with both indicators of level of involvement--implementing research-based best practices--warrant additional comment. These results are not surprising, given the emphasis that the PDS arrangement has placed on these goals since the establishment of the PDS. For example, several activities have focused on implementing research-based best practices, such as yearlong study groups on best practices, literature circle demonstrations, technology integration training, and cooperative learning workshops. Other endeavors have stressed developing a trusting, collaborative communication network, such as creating a PDS handbook and brochure (both a parent-friendly and a Spanish version), distributing minutes of steering council meetings to all teachers, providing a suggestion box at the school, and including an equitable representation of teachers on the steering council (i.e., from across grade levels, special areas, and exceptional student education).

Furthermore, the partnership also has emphasized activities that reflect the other three PDS goals that are significantly related to the subjective indicator on either the rating of the importance of the PDS goals variables or the extent to which the PDS is meeting the goals variables. For instance, PDS activities aimed at developing strong professional partnerships have included university faculty members and teachers presenting at professional conferences and steering council members meeting at summer retreats to reflect on and celebrate the previous year's accomplishments and to formulate plans for the coming year. Those activities that have provided ongoing preservice and inservice professional development activities have included various technology workshops (e.g., PowerPoint, Hyperstudio, Web page design), student achievement gains workshops, children's literature conferences, and writing workshops. Those endeavors concerned with increasing student achievement have included after-school tutoring for children who are not on their grade level for reading, test-taking strategies workshops for parents, and visits to other schools in the state that have been identified as high-achieving. Finally, these findings about the PDS meeting its goals are consistent with prior studies of teachers' satisfaction with PDSs, especially those that have found that teachers who participate in PDSs benefit in terms of their professional development and their teaching practices (e.g., Berry & Catoe, 1994; Castle & Hunter, 1997; Houston et al., 1999; Schverak, Coltharp, & Cooner, 1998).

The vast majority of teachers in this study have a strong sense of efficacy and professionalism as educators (see Table 7). For example, between 95 and 100 percent of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they are effective, capable, confident teachers who set high standards for themselves and for their students, and that they have a strong sense of self-efficacy and consider themselves lifelong learners. Yet, it is perhaps because of the little variation in these variables that no significant relationships were found between them and either of the measures of level of involvement. In fact, such strong self-perceptions may reflect the structure and culture of the school itself: it is a school with strong, stable leadership, with little faculty turnover, and has a culture that emphasizes professionalism, professional growth, open lines of communication, collaborative and cooperative relationships among the staff, and keeping abreast of current developments in the field of teacher education to enhance student learning and achievement--all cornerstones of PDSs. The school's stable teaching force is committed to the students and to each other, and it has achieved this status in part because of the efforts of its dedicated, involved principal, who has provided strong leadership at the school for almost 20 years. In other words, it may be other characteristics of the school, and not its status as a PDS site per se, that are linked to the teachers' perceptions of themselves as educators. Thus, future studies should include a variety of school settings with diverse characteristics in terms of their structure (e.g., size, rate of teacher and administrative turnover, demographic composition of the students and staff) and their culture.

Interestingly, an examination of the relationship between each of the two indicators of level of involvement and the other variables on Table 7--those dealing with the respondents' teaching practices--indicated that only two are strongly, positively, and significantly related to the subjective measure: the teachers' self-reported use of authentic assessment for portfolios and for running records. This finding may be due to the intense use of running records by preservice teachers during field experiences, as well as to their requirement to create a portfolio. Teacher education students must complete a portfolio before they graduate from the university, and cooperating teachers are encouraged to provide assistance and feedback during the development process. In other words, through teachers' work with education majors, teachers at the school are frequently exposed to both of these assessment techniques. These findings of only two statistically significant relationships suggest that, in general, teachers' practices are not associated with their level of involvement in the PDS at this site.

In conclusion, this study profiled elementary school teachers at one PDS site who participated in PDS activities by examining two measures of the teachers' level of involvement, and by relating them to teachers' perceptions of various aspects of the PDS partnership and their views of their practices and of themselves as educators. The researchers know of no other study that tries to discern the types of teachers who are involved in PDS activities and the factors that are associated with participation. Because the research is based on a limited number of observations at only one PDS site, it should be considered primarily exploratory and descriptive. Yet, it does offer some interesting insights that warrant further investigation, and future studies could use a variety of PDS sites (as noted above) and a larger number of cases to permit more detailed and sophisticated multivariate analyses. Furthermore, the findings may have practical implications for the schools and the teachers who work with PDSs: By knowing the types of teachers who are likely to get more involved in PDS activities, university participants and school administrators can develop more effective strategies to target and recruit teachers for PDS activities and to educate them about the purposes and benefits of such partnerships.

Table 1
Survey Respondent's Characteristics (N = 42 *)

Gender                  Female            36 (85.7%)

Race/Ethnicity          White             41 (97.6%)

Highest Level of
Education Completed     Bachelor's        24 (57.1%)
                        Specialist's       3 (7.1%)

Grade                   Pre-K or K         6 (14.3%)
                        Second             4 (9.5%)
                        Fourth             5 (11.9%)
                        Special Area       9 (21.4%)

Age                     Mean              43.8

Years Taught            Mean              15.8

Years at the School     Mean              10.8

Gender                  Male               6 (14.3%)

Race/Ethnicity          Of color           1 (2.4%)

Highest Level of
Education Completed     Master's          15 (35.7%)

Grade                   First              4 (9.5%)
                        Third              3 (7.1%)
                        Fifth              6 (14.3%)
                        Exceptional Ed.    5 (11.9%)

Age                     Median

Years Taught            Median

Years at the School     Median

* Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.


Table 2
Level of Involvement in the PDS Partnership

                         Highly          Somewhat
                         Involved        Involved

Subjective Level of      5 (11.9%)       25 (59.5%)
Involvement (N = 42)

                         High            Average
                         Involvement     Involvement

Objective Level of       14 (23.3%)      22 (36.7%)
Involvement (N = 60)

Objective Level of       11 (26.2%)      14 (33.3%)
Involvement (N = 42)

                         Barely          Not
                         Involved        Involved

Subjective Level of      10 (23.8%)      2 (4.8%)
Involvement (N = 42)

                         Minimal         No
                         Involvement     Involvement

Objective Level of       12 (20.0%)      12 (20.0%)
Involvement (N = 60)

Objective Level of       11 (26.2%)      6 (14.3%)
Involvement (N = 42)


Table 3
Subjective Level of Involvement by Objective Level
of Involvement (N = 42)

                           Subjective Level of Involvement

                      Highly     Somewhat    Barely      Not
                      Involved   Involved    Involved    Involved

Objective Level of Involvement

High Involvement      2 (4.8%)   9 (21.4%)   0 (0.0%)    0 (0.0%)
Average Involvement   2 (4.8%)   8 (19.0%)   4 (9.5%)    0 (0.0%)
Minimal Involvement   1 (2.4%)   4 (9.5%)    5 (11.9%)   1 (2.4%)
No Involvement        0 (0.0%)   4 (9.5%)    1 (2.4%)    1 (2.4%)

Gamma = .499, sign. .002


Table 4
Level of Involvement in the PDS Partnership by Respondents' Demographic
Characteristics (N = 42 *)

                       Subjective Level of Involvement

                       Highly          Somewhat
                       Involved        Involved

Teachers' Characteristics

Gender:
  Female                5 (13.9%)      22 (61.1%)
  Male                  0 (0.0%)        3 (50.0%)

Grade Taught:
  Primary               1 (5.9%)       14 (82.4%)
  Intermediate          3 (27.3%)       4 (36.4%)
  Other                 1 (7.1%)        7 (50.0%)

Highest Level of Education Completed:
  Bachelor's            4 (16.7%)      15 (62.5%)
  Master's              0 (0.0%)        8 (53.3%)
  Specialist's          1 (33.3%)       2 (66.7%)

Age                    r = .225
How Long Taught        r = .082
How Long at School     r = .176

                       Barely          Not
                       Involved        Involved

Teachers' Characteristics

Gender:
  Female               8 (22.2%)       1 (2.8%)
  Male                 2 (33.3%)       1 (16.7%)

Grade Taught:
  Primary              2 (11.8%)       0 (0.0%)
  Intermediate         4 (36.4%)       0 (0.0%)
  Other                4 (28.6%)       2 (14.3%)

Highest Level of Education Completed:
  Bachelor's           4 (16.7%)       1 (4.2%)
  Master's             6 (40.0%)       1 (6.7%)
  Specialist's         0 (0.0%)        0 (0.0%)

Age
How Long Taught
How Long at School

                       Objective Level of Involvement

                       High            Average
                       Involvement     Involvement

Teachers' Characteristics

Gender:
  Female               10 (27.8%)      13 (36.1%)
  Male                  1 (16.7%)       1 (16.7%)

Grade Taught:
  Primary               7 (41.2%)       5 (29.4%)
  Intermediate          2 (18.2%)       5 (45.5%)
  Other                 2 (14.3%)       4 (28.6%)

Highest Level of Education Completed:
  Bachelor's            5 (20.8%)       9 (37.5%)
  Master's              4 (26.7%)       4 (26.7%)
  Specialist's          2 (66.7%)       1 (33.3%)

Age                    r = .052
How Long Taught        r = .054
How Long at School     r = -.023

                       Minimal         No
                       Involvement     Involvement

Teachers' Characteristics

Gender:
  Female               9 (25.0%)       4 (11.1%)
  Male                 2 (33.3%)       2 (33.3%)

Grade Taught:
  Primary              3 (17.6%)       2 (11.8%)
  Intermediate         4 (36.4%)       0 (0.0%)
  Other                4 (28.6%)       4 (28.6%)

Highest Level of Education Completed:
  Bachelor's           6 (25.0%)       4 (16.7%)
  Master's             5 (33.3%)       2 (13.3%)
  Specialist's         0 (0.0%)        0 (0.0%)

Age
How Long Taught
How Long at School

* Totals may not equal 42 due to missing data on some items.
Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.


Table 5
Level of Involvement in the PDS Partnership by Respondents' Level of
Understanding of and Comfort With PDSs (N = 42 *)

                         Understanding of PDSs

                   Excellent    Good         Fair        Poor
Of what a PDS is   14 (34.1%)   22 (53.7%)   4 (9.8%)    1 (2.4%)
Of PDS goals       12 (29.3%)   22 (53.7%)   5 (12.2%)   5 (4.9%)

                      Level of Comfort With PDS

Very                                                   Very
Comfortable   Comfortable   Neither    Uncomfortable   Uncomfortable

25 (61.0%)    11 (26.8%)    4 (9.8%)   1 (2.4%)        0 (0.0%)

                             Subjective Level     Objective Level
                             of Involvement       of Involvement

Understanding of what        .500   (.034) **     .021   (.917)
  a PDS is
Understanding of what        .593   (.007) **     .118   (.579)
  the goals of a PDS are
Level of comfort             .587   (.007) **     .047   (.833)
  with the PDS

* Totals may not equal 42 due to missing data on some items.
Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

** Significant at the. 05 level or below.


Table 6
Level of Involvement in the PDS Partnership by Respondents' Rating of
the Importance of PDS Goals and the Extent to Which the PDS Is
Meeting the Goals (N = 42 *)

                   Rating of the Importance of PDS Goals

                   Very
                   Important      Important      Neutral

Increasing         32 (84.2%)      1 (2.6%)       1 (2.6%)
achievement

Implementing       16 (43.2%)     12 (32.4%)      5 (13.5%)
best practices

Developing         16 (42.1%)     16 (42.1%)      3 (7.9%)
partnerships

Developing a       18 (48.6%)     10 (27.0%)      5 (13.5%)
communication
network

Providing          23 (60.5%)      9 (23.7%)      1 (2.6%)
professional
development

                                   Very
                   Unimportant     Unimportant

Increasing          0 (0.0%)        4 (10.5%)
achievement

Implementing        1 (2.7%)        3 (8.1%)
best practices

Developing          1 (2.6%)        2 (5.3%)
partnerships

Developing a        1 (2.7%)        3 (8.1%)
communication
network

Providing           1 (2.6%)        4 (10.5%)
professional
development

                   Extent to Which the PDS Is Meeting the Goals

                   Strongly                      Neither Agree
                   Agree          Agree          nor Disagree

Increasing          8 (22.2%)     16 (44.4%)      7 (19.4%)
achievement

Implementing        9 (26.5%)     19 (55.9%)      5 (14.7%)
best practices

Developing         15 (41.7%)     14 (38.9%)      6 (16.7%)
partnerships

Developing a       15 (42.9%)     10 (28.6%)      9 (25.7%)
communication
network

Providing          23 (63.9%)     10 (27.8%)      2 (5.6%)
professional
development

                                   Strongly
                   Disagree        Disagree

Increasing          4 (11.1%)       1 (2.8%)
achievement

Implementing        0 (0.0%)        1 (2.9%)
best practices

Developing          0 (0.0%)        1 (2.8%)
partnerships

Developing a        0 (0.0%)        1 (2.9%)
communication
network

Providing           0 (0.0%)        1 (2.8%)
professional
development

                                Subjective Level   Objective Level
                                of Involvement     of Involvement

Rating of the Importance
of PDS Goals:

  Increasing achievement        .299 (.377)        .413 (.223)

  Implementing best practices   .695 (.000) **     .503 (.004) **

  Developing partnerships       .688 (.000) **     .398 (.057)

  Developing a                  .592 (.001) **     .391 (.043) **
  communication network

  Providing professional        .453 (.045) **     .314 (.151)
  development

Extent to Which the PDS
Is Meeting the Goals:

  Increasing achievement        .475 (.005) **     .018 (.933)

  Implementing best practices   .642 (.007) **     .542 (.016) **

  Developing partnerships       .575 (.012) **     .305 (.146)

  Developing a                  .577 (.005) **     .402 (.053)
  communication network

  Providing professional        .166 (.538)        .316 (.205)
  development

* Totals may not equal 42 due to missing data on some items.
Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

** Significant at the .05 level or below.


Table 7
Respondents' Perceptions of Themselves and Their Practices as
Educators (N = 42*)

                          Strongly
                           Agree          Agree        Disagree

Effective                27 (65.9%)     14 (34.1%)     0 (0.0%)
Capable                  31 (75.6%)     10 (24.4%)     0 (0.0%)
Efficacy                 23 (56.1%)     16 (39.0%)     2 (4.9%)
Self Standards           33 (80.5%)      8 (19.5%)     0 (0.0%)
Student Standards        33 (80.5%)      8 (19.5%)     0 (0.0%)
Confident                23 (56.1%)     17 (41.5%)     1 (2.4%)
Learner                  33 (80.5%)      7 (17.1%)     0 (0.0%)
Cooperative Learning     16 (39.0%)     21 (51.2%)     0 (0.0%)
Whole Groups             19 (46.3%)     13 (31.7%)     2 (4.9%)
Small Groups             22 (55.0%)     12 (30.0%)     1 (2.5%)
Individual Students      18 (43.9%)     16 (39.0%)     1 (2.4%)
Portfolios                9 (22.2%)     20 (48.8%)     2 (4.9%)
Anecdotal Records        10 (25.0%)     19 (47.5%)     1 (2.5%)
Running Records          11 (26.8%)     17 (41.5%)     1 (2.4%)
Integrative Learning     18 (43.9%)     17 (41.5%)     0 (0.0%)
Guided Reading           19 (46.3%)     11 (26.8%)     1 (2.4%)
Technology               16 (40.0%)     17 (42.5%)     1 (2.5%)
Multiage Groups           6 (14.6%)     12 (29.3%)     7 (17.1%)
Intelligences            14 (35.0%)     14 (60.0%)     1 (2.5%)

                         Strongly        Not
                         Disagree       Appl.

Effective                0 (0.0%)      0 (0.0%)
Capable                  0 (0.0%)      0 (0.0%)
Efficacy                 0 (0.0%)      0 (0.0%)
Self Standards           0 (0.0%)      0 (0.0%)
Student Standards        0 (0.0%)      0 (0.0%)
Confident                0 (0.0%)      0 (0.0%)
Learner                  0 (0.0%)      1 (2.4%)
Cooperative Learning     0 (0.0%)      4 (9.8%)
Whole Groups             0 (0.0%)      7 (17.1%)
Small Groups             0 (0.0%)      5 (12.5%)
Individual Students      0 (0.0%)      6 (14.6%)
Portfolios               0 (0.0%)     10 (24.4%)
Anecdotal Records        1 (2.5%)      9 (22.5%)
Running Records          2 (4.9%)     10 (24.4%)
Integrative Learning     0 (0.0%)      6 (14.6%)
Guided Reading           0 (0.0%)     10 (24.4%)
Technology               1 (2.5%)      5 (12.5%)
Multiage Groups          2 (4.9%)     14 (34.1%)
Intelligences            0 (0.0%)      1 (2.5%)

* Totals may not equal 42 due to missing data on some items.
Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Berry, B., & Catoe, S. (1994). Creating professional development schools: Policy and practice in South Carolina's PDS initiatives. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 176-202). New York: Teachers College Press.

Book, C. (1996). Professional development schools. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 194-210). New York: Macmillan.

Castle, J., & Hunter, R. (1997). Exploring "frontline" views: Veterans' perceptions of one professional development school after four years. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 43(4), 177-191.

Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (1998). Methods that matter: Six structures for best practice classrooms. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.

Houston, W., Hollis, L., Clay, D., Ligons, C., & Roff, L. (1999). Effects of collaboration on urban teacher education programs and professional development schools. In D. Byrd & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Research on professional development schools (pp. 6-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kroll, L., Bowyer, J., Rutherford, M., & Hauben, M. (1997). The effect of a school-university partnership on the student teaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(1), 37-52.

Miller, L., & O'Shea, C. (1994). Partnership: Getting broader, getting deeper. NCREST reprint series. New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Moore, K., Hopkins, S., & Tullis, R. (1991). Professional development schools: Classroom teacher perceptions. Teacher Education and Practice, 7(1), 45-50.

Morris, V., & Nunnery, J.A. (1993). Teacher empowerment in a professional development school collaborative: Pilot assessment. Memphis, TN: Memphis State University, Center for Research in Educational Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 678)

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Draft standards for identifying and supporting quality professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

Powell, J., & McGowan, T. (1996). In search of autonomy: Teachers' aspirations and expectations from a school-university collaborative. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(3), 249260.

Rafferty, C. (1993). Professional self-efficacy: Preparing teachers for professional development schools. Contemporary Education, 64(4), 226-229.

Sandholtz, J., & Dadlez, S. (2000). Professional development school trade-offs in teacher preparation and renewal. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(1), 7-29.

Schverak, A., Coltharp, C., & Cooner, D. (1998). Using content analysis to evaluate the success of a professional development school. Educational Forum, 62(2), 172-177.

Teitel, L. (1994). Can school-university partnerships lead to the simultaneous renewal of schools and teacher education? Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 245-252.

Tichenor, M., Everett, D. D., & Heins, E. (2003). The evolution of a professional development school: Teacher perceptions across two years. Research in the Schools, 10(1), 11-20.

Yerian, S. Y., & Grossman, P. L. (1993, April). Emerging themes on the effectiveness of teacher preparation through professional development schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

Zeichner, K. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 296-307.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Diane Everett Mercedes Tichenor Elizabeth Heins Stetson University