This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 04 October 2014, At: 12:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

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

Professional development school graduateperformance: Perceptions of school principalsSandy Watson a , Ted Miller a , Linda Johnston a & Valerie Rutledge aa The University of Tennessee , ChattanoogaPublished online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Sandy Watson , Ted Miller , Linda Johnston & Valerie Rutledge (2006) Professional development schoolgraduate performance: Perceptions of school principals, The Teacher Educator, 42:2, 77-86, DOI: 10.1080/08878730609555395

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730609555395

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Professional Development School GraduatePerformance: Perceptions of School Principals

Sandy Watson, Ted Miller, Linda Johnston, and Valerie RutledgeThe University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Abstract

The literature provides numerous studies pertaining to the effectiveness ofProfessional Development Schools (PDSs) on teacher candidate prepared-ness, new teacher confidence and competence, and job satisfaction, as per-ceived by PDS graduates themselves. Lacking in the literature are studiesthat ask employers (school principals) to compare and contrast pedagogi-cal knowledge, behaviors, and skills of their PDS graduate and non-PDSgraduate employees (classroom teachers). This study examines perceptionsof45 school principals regarding performance ofPDS and non-PDS pre-pared teachers in 19 competencies across three areas of pedagogical skill,behavior, and knowledge. Both quantitative and qualitative data analy-ses are included. The study supports the value of the PDS as perceived byprincipals familiar with graduates of one program.

A recent reform in teacher education is the development of amodel of collaborative effort between teacher education programsand P-12 schools known as the Professional Development School(PDS). First crafted by the Holmes Group, the structure of a PDShas been described as an approach to teacher education reform thatplaces both colleges of education and school people in a reciprocaland collaborative relationship for successful implementation (HolmesPartnership, n.d.). The transformational nature of the PDS allows fora greater emphasis on a field-based approach to teacher education.Local education agencies (LEAs) indicate that new teachers who weretrained in PDSs are increasingly better prepared, possibly due to theincreased number of programmatic hours experienced in classroomteaching (Ridley, Hurwitz, Hackett, & Miller, 2005).

The PDS has been likened to a teaching hospital in the clinicalexperience of medical students (Darling-Hammond, 1989; Goodlad,1990). In a PDS setting, teaching interns are immersed in the prac-tice and culture of teaching for an extended period of time (1 semes-ter to 9 months). This experience usually takes place long before the

77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

student teaching experience commences; thus, PDS students gainknowledge early in their educational preparation that will help themdetermine if teaching is the appropriate career for them. Cochran-Smith (1994) posited that the PDS experience creates "learningopportunities that are different from and richer than the opportuni-ties either the school or the university can provide alone" (p. 149).Teitel (1992) compared the PDS experience to a traditional teachingprogram and stated that a PDS experience is "more intense, morecollaborative and more practitioner oriented" (p. 70).

In a typical PDS setting, preservice teachers work side by sidewith P—12 faculty all day, every day, for at least a full semester. Dur-ing this time the preservice teachers plan and deliver instruction,design curriculum, assess student progress, manage classrooms, attendprofessional development functions and faculty meetings, and partic-ipate in the myriad other activities that characterize the work of aclassroom teacher. This activity is all accomplished under the supervi-sion of cooperating teachers and administrators and takes place priorto the semester in which candidates complete their student teachingrequirement. Teaching candidates thus enter their 1st year of teachinghaving already experienced the day-to-day professional requirementsplaced upon a teacher, with the added advantage of having beenmentored by professionals. Although non-PDS participants benefitfrom numerous practicum experiences as components of various edu-cation courses, these experiences are much shorter in duration thanthose in a PDS and occur in a variety of different schools. PDS stu-dents have the advantage of a semester-long, complete immersionexperience.

How Effective Are PDS Programs?Abdal-Haqq (1998) listed four major goals of the PDS initiative:

(a) to develop, test, refine, and disseminate practices and structuresthat improve, advance, and support student learning and well-being;(b) to prepare new teachers and other school-based educators; (c) tosupport the professional development of practicing teachers andother school-based educators, and; (d) to conduct applied inquirythat supports and advances student and educator learning. Some evi-dence exists to support the efficacy of these goals, as several studieshave indicated the positive impact PDSs have on the acquisition ofpedagogical skills, knowledge, and behaviors by preservice teachers(Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Cochran-Smith, 1994; Goodlad, 1990; Rein-hartz & Stetson, 1999; Reynolds, 2000; Teitel, 1992). Kelly, Stetson,and Stetson (1997) indicated these collaborative efforts between uni-

78

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

versify schools of education and public schools ultimately produce anincreased number of preservice teachers who are more "competent,confident, satisfied on the job and less likely to leave the profession"(p. 3).

Despite comments linking the PDS experience to more compe-tent and confident preservice teachers, relatively little research hasbeen published that examines differences in the effectiveness of non-PDS and PDS-prepared teachers. Reynolds, Ross, and Rakow (2002)compared PDS and non-PDS graduates on measures of teacherretention, teaching effectiveness, and professional preparation levels.Although their findings indicated no difference between the twogroups in regard to teacher retention, PDS graduates were found tobe "better prepared than non-PDS graduates to show sensitivity toethnic and cultural differences among students, reflect on teachingand student learning, and work cooperatively with colleagues"(p. 301).

Neubert and Binko (1998) identified a variety of areas in whichPDS graduates are more effective classroom teachers than are theirtraditionally trained counterparts. These areas include classroommanagement and discipline, use of technology, and the ability toreflect on one's teaching. Studies by Cobb (2001) and Flynn (2001)indicated that PDS graduates perceive themselves to be positiveagents of change in a school culture, and Sandholtz and Dadlez(2000) concluded that the strength of the PDS program is its abilityto prepare graduates for easy entry into the teaching profession.

Flynn (2001) found that graduates of PDS programs observe andparticipate in best teaching practices and have the ability to developvery good teaching strategies that can be transferred into the teachingcontexts. Flynn also found that PDS graduates were often hired byparticipating PDS schools. This finding has implications for PDSgraduates in that these candidates are potential change agents withintheir schools. It also suggests that PDS sites view PDS teacher candi-dates as potential employees within the school. Flynn also concludedthat PDS programs offer a means to socialize teachers into the cultureof collaborative, reflective, learning-centered teaching.

Abdal-Haqq (1998) indicated the need for further research intothe impact of the PDS on practicing teachers. Abdal-Haqq conclud-ed from the research that has been published that "principals andschool districts consider PDS graduates to be attractive hires, thatgraduates perform well on state licensing exams and in the classroom,and are more likely to 'hit the ground running' when they begin pro-fessional practice" (p. 5).

79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no, 2, Autumn 2006

The PDS Program at UTCThe University of Tennessee at Chattanooga's (UTC) Profession-

al Development School Network is now in its 1lth year. The firstPDS at UTC was organized in 1994 to provide students with anearly and broad field experience so they might better understand theculture and organization of schools and determine if their choice ofprograms was a good fit. In the program, students are assigned full-time (every day, all day, for a full semester) to a PDS I school, andtenure-track education professors deliver courses on-site through ateam teaching approach. Activities related to coursework are prac-ticed by students in their respective classrooms. Four schools partici-pate in this junior year experience, and each site works through anon-site coordinator and an advisory council to monitor and evaluatethe PDS experience. The university employs a field placement coor-dinator who interfaces directly with school leaders to determineplacements based on a student's certification area and a school'scapacity for the placements.

The purpose of the current study was to measure perceptions ofschool principals regarding performance of their respective teachers,based on whether the teachers did or did not participate in a PDSprogram at UTC. More specifically, we wished to determine the prin-cipals' perception of teachers' performance in several dimensions ofpedagogy: critical knowledge, instructional skills, and behavioralareas. All principals were from schools in the Hamilton CountyDepartment of Education (HCDE) in the Chattanooga area.

Method

Survey InstrumentThe survey used in this study was designed to generate attitudi-

nal information from Chattanooga area school principals concerningtheir perceptions of teachers' performance within the teachers' specif-ic school settings. The survey was designed so that principals mightcompare the performances of both PDS participating and PDS non-participating students across a broad realm of significant pedagogicalskills as previously described. The knowledge, skill, and behavioralareas are listed in Table 1. (To avoid any possibility of a serial positioneffect, these pedagogical knowledge, skill, and behavioral componentswere randomly organized in the survey.) These critical areas wereselected because tliey are integral components of the Interstate New

80

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

Table 1Critical Knowledge, Skill, and Behavioral Areas

KnowledgeSubject matterDifferentiated instructional knowledgeKnowledge concerning instructional strategiesKnowledge of assessmentLiteracy knowledgeResearch and theoretical knowledge

SkillsTechnological skillsWritten and oral communication skillsCommunity relationship skillsClassroom management and organizational skillsProfessional leadership skills

BehaviorsProfessional behaviorProfessional reflection abilities

Teacher Assessmentand Support Con-sortium (INTASC,1992) principles ofmodel standards.INTASC consists of"a consortium of stateeducation agenciesand national educa-tional organizationsdedicated to thereform of prepara-tion, licensing, andon-going professionaldevelopment of teach-ers" (p. 2). INTASCstandards serve to aid

in the development of effective teachers who are "able to integratecontent knowledge with the specific strengths and needs of studentsto assure that all students learn and perform at high levels" (p. 3).

In completing the survey, respondents were first asked to individ-ually provide demographic information. This included the grade lev-els of the school at which they held a principalship at the time of thestudy, the number of UTC education graduates who had studenttaught at their school, and the number of those UTC education grad-uates who had participated in UTC's Professional DevelopmentSchool.

The second and largest part of the survey consisted of a scaledresponse mechanism (Likert-type) composed of a 6-point rating scalewith which the attitude of the respondent was measured on a contin-uum from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A middle or neutralcategory was omitted to deter "fence sitting" by respondents. Numer-ical values were assigned to responses as follows: strongly disagree (1),moderately disagree (2), disagree (3), agree (4), moderately agree (5), andstrongly agree (6). One section of ratings asked respondents to evalu-ate the teachers who had attended a PDS at UTC in each of the criti-cal areas mentioned previously. The second section asked each par-ticipant to evaluate the teachers in their schools who did not attenda PDS at UTC in the same critical areas.

The final portion of the survey consisted of a series of open-ended questions. Respondents were asked to provide suggestions forthe improvement of UTC's PDS and teacher education programs and

81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

to describe their overall perceptions of the preparedness of UTC PDSparticipants. The survey concluded with a request for additionalcomments.

Participants and ProcedureThe survey was administered at an HCDE principals' meeting in

the spring of 2005. Consisting of a total of 86 schools, HCDEencompasses 17 high schools, 22 middle schools, and 47 elementaryschools. For a variety of reasons, several schools in the district gener-ally do not have interaction with UTC student teachers. (As exam-ples, HCDE houses the state's Virtual High School, other schoolssuch as the technical institutes are highly specialized, and a MiddleCollege is operated in conjunction with a local junior college. Stillother schools are quite remote from campus, and students often donot elect to travel to these schools.) Of the 61 principals who individ-ually completed and submitted surveys, 16 checked "no" to question3 (Are you familiar with UTC's PDS I program?). Their surveys wereomitted. This left 45 intact and useful surveys, representing 45% ofthe total schools in the system and 80% of the 56 schools that haveaccepted PDS students as student teachers.

Results

Tabulation of ResponsesAnalysis of data began with an itemization of demographic data.

The responses of the participants were tabulated for each area of eval-uation for teachers who had participated in a PDS and for those whohad not. Mean and standard deviations of the responses were calcu-lated and a dependent t test was conducted for each of the 19 Likert-type scale items. The open-question responses were qualitativelyanalyzed by categorically grouping comments according to contentacross participants, using the coding component of the qualitativesoftware MAXqda (2001).

Scaled ResponsesTable 2 provides the data used to compare the principals' ratings

of PDS and non-PDS participants. Rough comparison of the datareveals a trend in that all items on the scale were rated higher for thePDS participants. Dependent t-test analyses for the 19 items con-firmed that these observed differences were statistically significant(p's < .01). The effect sizes displayed in the table also revealed the

82

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

Table 2Comparisons of Principal Ratings for PDS and Non-PDS Participants

Understand the central concepts andprocesses of the subject matter they teach

Use knowledge about individual differ-ences to plan instruction

Use knowledge about individual differ-ences to deliver instruction

Use a variety of instructional strategiesto promote student achievement

Use a variety of instructional strategies topromote student engagement in learning

Use a variety of formal and informalassessments to evaluate classroom learning

Demonstrate competency via studentstandardized test score data

Support and expand student literacy skills

Use alternative theoretical perspectivesand research to guide instructional deci-sion making

Use technology in the planning anddelivery of instruction

Model effective written communicationskills

Model effective oral communication skills

Foster relationships with the home, school,and community to support studentachievement

Demonstrate competency in classroommanagement skills

Display adequate classroom organizational

Create and maintain a safe and productivelearning environment

Demonstrate a willingness to assumeleadership/extracurricular roles

Display appropriate standards of profes-sional behavior

Demonstrate evidence of reflective prac-tice with regard to personal performance

PDSM(SD)

4.50(1.66)

4.43 (1.62)

4.36 (1.61)

4.50 (1.65)

4.60 (1.73)

4.41 (1.64)

4.00 (1.52)

4.47(1.66)

4.15 (1.47)

4.97 (1.85)

4.36 (1.36)

4.47 (1.65)

4.15 (1.57)

4.69 (1.82)

4.39 (1.65)

4.54 (1.68)

4.63 (1.73)

4.63 (1.71)

4.76 (1.81)

Non-PDSM(SD)

3.70 (1.57)

3.73 (1.55)

3.52 (1.45)

3.58 (1.46)

3.58 (1.51)

3.63 (1.52)

3.54 (1.45)

3.89 (1.62)

3.43 (1.42)

4.15 (1.72)

3.73 (1.56)

3.86 (1.60)

3.60 (1.51)

3.47 (1.62)

3.54 (1.47)

3.91 (1.60)

3.86(1.58)

4.00 (1.64)

3.89 (1.62)

t(445)

6.25*

6.23*

7.88

7.16

8.35

6.12

4.71

4.38

5.38

6.79

5.54

5.33

4.04

8.77

7.88

5.17

5.31

4.60

6.86

d

.49

.44

.55

.59

.63

.49

.31

.35

.48

.46

.43

.37

.46

.73

.54

.38

.46

.38

.51

83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

differences were meaningful; using Cohen's (1965) classificationguidelines, the effects were identified as 3 strong, 14 medium, and 2weak. The threat to validity imposed by Type I error in these analyseswas controlled to a small degree by adopting the p < .01 criterion forsignificance.

Summary of Principal Responses to Open-Ended QuestionsPrincipals were asked to list suggestions for improving UTC's

PDS and teacher education programs, state their overall perceptionsof the preparedness of UTC PDS participants versus preparedness ofnon-PDS participants, and provide additional comments pertainingto the PDS program at UTC. In analyzing this section of the survey,a qualitative software program (MAXqda, 2001) was used to lexicallysearch the text for recurring themes. This software allows for the cod-ing (stringing) of selected text segments, followed by the constructionof a hierarchical structure of identified key elements of the text.

A list of the revealed thematic responses (comparison of PDSgraduates and non-PDS graduates) of principals follows, along withan account of the number of principals who mentioned the sametheme. Items in which at least five principals offered similar conclu-sions were as follows:

• PDS graduates seem to be more capable/competent teacherscompared to their non-PDS graduate colleagues (9).

• PDS graduates are better prepared to enter the teaching profes-sion than are non-PDS graduates (9).

• PDS graduates seem to be more comfortable in the classroomthan are non-PDS graduates (5).

• Participating in the UTC PDS program is a valuable/positiveexperience (9).

Discussion

The results of this study are supportive of the view that teacherswho are trained through PDS programs are judged by principalsto be more capable than graduates of similar programs that do notinclude a PDS experience. Differences in ratings of knowledge, skills,and behaviors on 19 comparisons between PDS and non-PDS gradu-ates were all statistically significant. Of the 19, 3 were judged to havelarge effect sizes and 14 were judged to have medium effect sizes.This finding represents a difference in perception that is difficult toignore.

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

Both of the low effect sizes and two of the three high effect sizeswere found in the knowledge area of the survey. It can be speculatedthat principals in their role are better able to judge differences in thisarea. This speculation is somewhat supported by the qualitative datathat found nine principals expressing the belief that PDS graduatesseem to be more competent and better prepared teachers than arenon-PDS graduates.

The results of the current investigation are generally in line withfindings noted previously from the literature. Specifically, the princi-pals' ratings of the candidates support the findings of Kelly, Stetson,and Stetson (1997), that PDS graduates are "more competent confi-dent teachers" (p. 3), and of Flynn (2001), that teachers who are PDSgraduates are better able to develop good teaching strategies.

Conclusion

The results of this study are in agreement with the literature sup-porting the positive value of the PDS experience. Overall, PDS stu-dents in this study were rated higher than were non-PDS graduatesin the knowledge, skills, and behaviors suggested in the literature aspedagogical benefits of PDS programs (e.g., Flynn, 2001; Sandholtz& Dadlez, 2000) or that are a part of reform in licensure agreements(INTASC, 1992). Thus, the current study offers an additional ave-nue of support for the generalized procedures of PDS training andextends the literature to indicate the value placed upon PDS trainingby school principals—those individuals usually associated with thedevelopment and retention of school faculties. Future research mightdocument the processes by which this enhancement of the teachercandidate occurs and may also focus upon those areas of teachercompetence most affected by participation in a PDS.

References

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

Cobb, J. B. (2001). Graduates of professional development school programs:Perceptions of the teacher as change agent. Teacher Education Quarterly,28, 89-107.

Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). The power of teacher research in teacher education.In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educationalreform (Ninety-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study ofEducation, pp. 142-165). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4

The Teacher Educator, vol. 42, no. 2, Autumn 2006

Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychological research. In B. B. Wol-man (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology (pp. 95—121). New York:McGraw-Hill

Darling-Hammond, L. (1989). Accountability for professional practice. TeachersCollege Record, 91(1), 59-80.

Flynn, R. (2001, April). So what type of teachers are they? Graduates of a PDSteacher preparation program 3—6 years later. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455209)

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nations schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Holmes Partnership, (n.d.). Origins of The Holmes Partnership (1987-1997).

Retrieved August 30, 2006, from http://www.holmespartnership.org/history.html

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Modelstandards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment, and development: Aresource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers.

Kelly, J., Stetson, R., & Stetson, E. (1997, April). Effects of traditional and pro-fessional development school preservice training models on teacher attrition afterthree years. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Associa-tion Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED408256)

MAXqda [Computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI Software.Neubert, G. A., & Binko, J. B. (1998). Professional development schools: The

proof is in the performance. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 44—46.Reinhartz, J., & Stetson, R. (1999). Teachers as leaders: A question or an expec-

tation? In D. M. Burd & D. J. Mclntyre. Research on professional develop-ment schools. Teacher education yearbook (Vol. VII, pp. 157-172).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Reynolds, A. (2000). NEA teacher education initiative seven-site replication studyof teacher preparation: Year four cross-site)'cross-year technical report. Unpub-lished report submitted to the National Center for Innovation, NationalEducation Association.

Reynolds, A., Ross, S., & Rakow, J. (2002). Teacher retention, teaching effec-tiveness and professional preparation: A comparison of professional devel-opment school and non-professional development school graduates.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 289-303.

Ridley, D. S., Hurwitz, S., Hackett, M. R., & Miller, K. K. (2005). ComparingPDS and campus-based preservice teacher preparation: Is PDS-basedpreparation really better? Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 46—56.

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

Teitel, L. (1992). The impact of professional development school partnershipson the preparation of teachers. Teaching Education, 4(2), 77-85.

86

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

2:59

04

Oct

ober

201

4