Service-learning feedback to teacher candidates.

Abstract

Teaching preparation increasingly requires teacher candidates to conduct service-learning that most often occurs in schools. Some scholars suggest this might be more effective when conducted in community-based settings. Limited literature exists examining the type of feedback teaching candidates receive upon conducting service learning in community-based settings. Three teaching candidates received feedback from university and community-based agency personnel. In general, the university supervisor focused on technical aspects of teaching while the program director focused on the tone and types of interactions that occurred with the youth.

Introduction

Service learning (SL) is a pedagogical strategy that combines community service with academic learning. Teacher education programs are increasingly including service learning components as part of their structure (Erickson & Anderson, 1997). In part, this is because SL is considered effective toward helping teaching candidates develop certain dispositions and skills relevant to effective teaching, such as cultivating a sensitivity to issues of diversity, race, culture (Boyle-Baise, 1998; O'Grady & Chappell, 2000), and compassion for others (Pothoff, Dinsmore, Walsh, Ziebarth, & Eifler, 2000). While limited literature exists addressing teacher education SL, evidence has emerged supporting its positive impact on teaching candidates' teaching skills (LaMaster, 2001), preparation for teaching within increasingly diverse schools (Watson, Crandall, Hueglin & Eisenman, 2002), and awareness of students' positive characteristics and needs as well as commitment to teaching (Root, Callahan & Sepanski, 2002a).

While most teacher preparation programs use school-based sites for SL experiences, community-based organizations (CBO's), particularly those whose focus or operation is situated in diverse neighborhoods, offer a viable, perhaps better alternative toward fostering the intended outcomes within the participating teacher candidates (Mahan, Fortney & Garcia, 1983). As suggested by Zeichner & Melnick (1996), school-based SL may not offer teaching candidates the opportunity to contend with issues of diversity and advocacy because the schools themselves do not have structures in place to do so. Further, it is well documented that teaching candidates enter teaching preparation programs with stable beliefs about teaching given the extensive "apprenticeship of observation" they have experienced during their K-12 years (Lortie, 1975). These beliefs have a great impact on their teaching conduct because, for one, they underlie the degree to which they feel their students have the capacity to learn. To alter deep set beliefs that might not lead to effectively serving the students they will come to teach, Root et al. (2002b) suggests that teacher education programs use community-based sites to complete teaching preparation SL experiences. The use of these types of sites can help teaching candidates see students as members of their communities, enhance greater sensitivity toward their needs, and better understand how to design and deliver instruction respective of their experience (Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000; Root, Callahan & Sepanski, 2002b).

Upon conducting SL, teaching candidates typically engage in varied forms of reflection and are assessed in multiple ways according to the criteria set forth by the University Supervisor (US). One means of assessment is direct observation of instruction conducted by the US for the purpose of gauging teaching competency. Another means of assessment is the same but conducted by personnel from the CBO. Very limited work has assessed the perception that a CBO has of university personnel who complete SL experiences within their contexts. Ferrari & Worrall (2000), though, determined that these assessments could be generated, and that that the emergent information is useful toward strengthening SL partnerships. Further, and related specifically to teacher preparation, Lamaster (2001) determined that in general, teaching candidates appreciate the feedback they receive during SL as they perceive it to be authentic. The purpose of this narrative is to extend this dialogue by looking at the feedback provided to teaching candidates during a teaching preparation program SL experience from CBO personnel, specifically the Program Director (PD), and comparing it to that provided by the US. The intent is to describe how the feedback is similar and different, thus perhaps illustrating further evidence of the value of using SL in CBOs to foster the instructional competencies of teaching candidates. Toward the global goal of developing competent teachers, regularly observing teaching candidates deliver instruction and providing subsequent feedback can aid their professional growth (O'Sullivan, 2003), and conceivably contribute to the alteration of deep set beliefs that otherwise might lead to not serving students effectively.

Community-Based Teacher Preparation SL

SL is a required course of a Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) program offered at a large, urban university on the West Coast of the United States. Regarding the experience the following occurrence is drawn upon, each teaching candidate was required to conduct three sessions of physical activity instruction a week over the course of an academic term at a CBO whose mission is to provide youth development programming to underserved, urban youth. Physical activities are one aspect of the organization's scope. The CBO was selected by the US for this SL experience for the diverse youth population it serves and the positive reputation of the PD. The US familiarized the teaching candidates with the CBO during the first class meeting of the term along with introducing and describing the pedagogical strategy of SL.

Each teaching candidate met separately with the CBO's PD to determine what type of physical activity instruction the candidate was going to conduct. In addition, the PD also provided further information about the CBO. The decision that resulted represented collaboration between the CBO and the candidate that took into consideration the needs of the youth the organization served and the particular physical activity teaching specialties of the candidate. As such, each candidate had the opportunity to deliver instruction that matched their interest to an expressed need of the CBO. Each physical activity instructional session lasted approximately one hour, and included both boys and girls. In addition, the teaching candidates also attended a weekly, on-campus seminar led by the US. The CBO's PD observed each teaching candidate twice a week and the US observed each once a week. The US prompted the PD to offer feedback to the candidates in a manner similar to that of the CBO's staff. Both the PD and the US offered feedback to each teaching candidate following each instructional session. As well, the PD and the US also regularly communicated with each other about the instruction delivered by the teacher candidates. During these conversations, the US probed the PD for details about the PD's descriptions and assessments of the candidates' conduct in an attempt to ensure for accuracy and objectivity. A pen portrait of three teaching candidates who were involved in this SL and a summary of the type and tone of feedback given to each by the PD and the US follow.

Pat

Pat taught soccer to a group of 10 youth aged 6-13. This included skill development and team play. The skills addressed included those necessary to engage in soccer; e.g., kicking, trapping, punting, dribbling, passing. Team play included offensive and defensive strategies, and modified, or lead-up games to full-sided soccer. The US's feedback focused on Pat's efforts to design and deliver instruction appropriate to the developmental abilities of the students. Toward this, Pat presented skill tasks along a progression and offered each child more challenging tasks upon successfully accomplishing the initial offering. In addition, the team play games that were presented also were mindful of the developmental abilities of the youth. This meant many small sided games (i.e., 2 vs. 2, 3 vs. 3, etc) where the focus was practicing specific skills in game-like situations. The US assessed Pat's instruction to be very competent considering the consistency with which the youths' developmental needs were taken into consideration when lessons were designed and delivered. This is considered a hallmark of effective physical education instruction.

The PD's feedback revolved around the degree to which the youth were perceived to enjoy the activities, and how much they were able to engage in 'real' games of soccer. It was acknowledged that skill development work was important, and that because of this the youth experienced noticeable improvement but it also was regularly expressed (and requested) that more session time be provided to just "divide up and play." The primary reason for this was considering how important soccer is to the culture of the youth primarily served in this CBO. Deeply imbedded into the social structure of their culture, the CBO supervisor wanted Pat to make sure the youth enjoyed playing so they would be able to engage with their community as much as possible.

Chris

Chris taught tennis to a group of 14 youth aged 12-15. Included was instruction in the basic ground strokes and game play. For most, this was their first experience playing tennis. Only a few indicated that they had had a brief introduction in school physical education classes. The US consistently offered feedback that revolved around Chris's lesson design, specifically making sure the tasks offered corresponded to the developmental abilities of the students. Toward this, Chris was encouraged to broaden the manner in which tasks were modified such that the youth would be able to realize success (i.e., using lighter and larger balls as they are easier to track for those who have underdeveloped hand-eye coordination).

The PD's feedback predominantly revolved around the tone and focus of Chris' interactions with the youth. The feedback also consistently addressed Chris' delivery style. The PD encouraged Chris to work to make a personal connection to each youth by showing an interest in each as a person. Also mentioned was respecting the group's perception of this game and working harder to connect it to each individual's context. Toward instructional delivery, the PD suggested Chris pay more attention to the energy projected. The youth possessed varied degrees of language comprehension but positively and negatively responded to instruction in large part as determined by how enthusiastically it was presented. In general, Chris was perceived to be too serious and controlling, and not grasping the difficulties this particular population demonstrated regarding the game of tennis.

Alex

Alex taught volleyball and cooperative games to a group of 14 youth aged 6-9. The US's feedback focused on the degree to which Alex was demonstrating the ability to both design and deliver appropriate instruction. More specifically, the US addressed with Alex lesson plan design, skill progression, skill assessment, and class management. These components of instruction were addressed consistently because throughout the SL experience they were not satisfactorily demonstrated.

The PD's feedback focused on how Alex interacted with the youth and the general preparation undertaken prior to delivering instruction for each session. The PD consistently encouraged Alex to appropriately connect with the youth. Specifically, the PD was concerned that Alex made comments to the youth that disrespected their 'neighborhood.' While giving Alex the benefit of the doubt, it was expressed that any comments about social issues must be very clear so the youth understand the precise meaning of the communication. Additionally, the PD questioned Alex's preparation/planning process as sessions consistently seemed to lack structure and purpose. The PD's message to Alex was that the perceived lax planning showed disrespect to the youth who deserved better.

Implication

Looked at collectively, the nature of the feedback provided to the teaching candidates by the US tended to focus on technical aspects of instruction while and the PD tended to focus on the tone and type of interactions they had with the youth. While this may not be surprising given the predominant, contextual professional responsibilities of the US and the PD, it does illuminate the degree to which SL in community-based settings can contribute to the development of teaching candidates' instructional competencies.

In these cases, the teaching candidates received feedback that, simply said, focused both on the technical side of teaching and the interactive side. If not for the context in which this SL was conducted, it is likely that these teaching candidates would otherwise not have received the scope of feedback they did. This is because their delivery was overseen by professionals whose observational tendencies represented varied focal points. It is beyond the scope of this narrative to thoroughly assess the influence that the collective feedback of the US and PD had on altering the teaching behavior of the teaching candidates, but it is reasonable to contend that it provided food-for-thought for the teaching candidates regarding both the technical and interactive sides of teaching.

The adage "it takes a village" comes to mind when considering the contribution that community-based SL can make toward preparing teachers for the increasingly diverse schools that many will find themselves teaching. For one, most who enter teacher preparation programs are white and have limited experience interacting with perspectives from marginalized groups (Zeichner, 1993). With increasingly widened cultural and social distances between teachers and students (U.S. Department of Education, 1997), teaching candidates need to understand how gaps can be lessened. Personnel from community organizations can serve as "cultural brokers, or links to community members and activities, and as aides to understanding local issues and problems" (Boyle-Baise & Sleeter, 2000, p. 37). For another, many teaching preparation program professionals have limited opportunities to observe teaching candidates due to time constraints and other responsibilities. For those programs that include SL, CBO personnel might be considered valuable in this process and, as exemplified above, provide pertinent feedback toward the development of teaching competencies. As suggested by Watson, etal (2002) "Preparing physical educators for the 21st century is a multifaceted task. Teachers must not only be prepared in the content of the discipline, but must also be able to work with diverse populations in diverse settings, possess the ability to communicate effectively ..." (p. 52). It seems that the structure of this SL experience was beneficial in fostering the teaching candidates' awareness of these aspects of teaching conduct.

References

Boyle-Baise, M. (1998). Community service-learning for multicultural education: An exploratory study with preservice teachers. Equity and Excellence in Education, 31,52-60.

Boyle-Baise, M. & Sleeter, C. (2000). Community-based service learning for multicultural teacher education, Educational Foundations, 14, 33-50.

Erickson, J. & Anderson, J. (Eds.) (1997). Learning with community: Concepts and models for service-learning in teacher education. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Ferrari, J. & Worrall, L. (2000). Assessments by community agencies: How "the other side" sees service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 35-40.

LaMaster, K. (2001). Enhancing preservice teachers filed experiences through the addition of a service-learning component. Journal of Experiential Education, 24, 27-33.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

Mahan, J., Fortney, M. & Garcia, J. (1983). Linking the community to teacher education: Toward a more analytical approach. Action in Teacher Education, 5, 1-10.

O'Grady, C. & Chappell, B. (2000). With, not for: the politics of service-learning in multicultural communities. In C. Ovando & P. McLaren (Eds.), The politics of multiculturalism and bilingual education: Students and teachers caught in the cross fire (pp. 208-224). Boston: McGraw Hill.

O'Sullivan, M. (2003). Learning to teach physical education. In S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education: Applying research to enhance instruction (2nd ed.) (pp. 275-294). Champaigne IL: Human Kinetics.

Pothoff, D., Dinsmore, J., Walsh, T., Ziebarth, J. & Eifler, K. (2000). Preparing for democracy and diversity: The impact of a community-based field experience on preservice teachers' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 79-92.

Root, S., Callahan, J. & Sepanski, J. (2002a). Service-learning in teacher education: A consideration of qualitative and quantitative outcomes, In A. Furco & S. Billig (Eds.) Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy (pp. 223-243). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Root, S., Callahan, J. & Sepanski, J. (2002b). Building teaching dispositions and service-learning practice: A multi-site study. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Spring, 50-60.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Minorities in higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Watson, D., Crandall, J., Hueglin, S. & Eisenman, P. (2002). Incorporating service-learning into physical education teacher education programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73, 50-54.

Zeichner, K. (1993). Educating teachers for cultural diversity. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Zeichner, K. & Melnick, S. (1996). The role of community field experiences in preparing teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M.L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 176-196). New York: Teachers College.

Anne Larson, California State University, Los Angeles 

Anne Larson is assistant professor of kinesiology. Her teaching-research interests include pedagogical caring, service-learning, and underserved youth.