williams, p., peters, g. b., & fifolt, m. (2014)

Williams et al. Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2014 89

__________

Author Contact: Pamela Williams, PhD, Supervisor of Elementary Math and Science Curriculum and Instruction,

Jefferson County Board of Education, 2100 18th Street So., Birmingham, AL 35209. (205) 379-2234 (office).

[email protected]. Gary Peters, PhD, Associate Professor of Educational Leadership, Department of Human

Studies, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 60 Lakeside Road, Warrior, AL 35180. (205) 876-4617.

[email protected]. Matthew Fifolt, PhD, Associate Director of the Evaluation and Assessment Unit, Center for the

Study of Community Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 912 18th Street So., Birmingham, AL 35294.

(205) 500-1878. [email protected]

© 2014 Delta State University

Delta Journal of Education ISSN 2160-9179

Published by Delta State University

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

An Examination of the Relationship between

Candidate Support Providers and Candidates

Pursuing National Board Certification

Pamela Williamsa, Gary B. Petersb, and Matthew Fifoltc

aJefferson County Board of Education

bUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham

cUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between Candidate Support Providers

(CSPs) and candidates regarding the ways in which CSPs fostered reflective practices among

candidates pursing National Board Certification. Investigators used a multiple case study

methodology for this qualitative research. Five CSPs and five candidates from an urban school

district in Alabama participated in this study. Consistent with qualitative research, this study

utilized multiple data source including: (a) semi-structured interviews, (b) direct observations,

(c) journal entries, (d) participant artifacts, and (e) an online questionnaire. The findings of this

research revealed that CSPs utilized strategies that enhanced NBC candidates’ use of reflective

mailto:[email protected]





practices. The study also found that National Board requirements were conducive to promoting

reflective practices of candidates. These findings are consistent with the findings from previous

studies regarding National Board Certification (Goldhaber & Anthony, 2005; Park & Oliver,

2008).

Keywords: national board certification; reflection; candidate support providers

______________________________________________________________________________

An Examination of the Relationship between Candidate Support

Providers and Candidates Pursuing National Board Certification

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has certified approximately

91,000 teachers since its inception in 1987 (NBPTS, 2010). National Board Certification is the

highest certification that a classroom teacher can achieve (NBPTS, 2008). The National Board

for Professional Teaching Standards began in 1987 with a grant from the Carnegie Corporation.

The goal was to develop a way to identify and recognize what was termed as “accomplished

teaching” (NBPTS, 2010, p. 5). The vision of the organization was to increase the quality of

teaching and learning (NBPTS, 2010).

Parks (2008) described the process of achieving National Board Certification (NBC) as

painstaking and challenging. In order to achieve certification, teachers must submit four

portfolio entries that demonstrate accomplished teaching (NBPTS, 2008). Achieving NBC,

status usually takes teachers one to two years, but for many, this arduous process can take as

many as three years to complete (NBPTS, 2008). Many states now offer incentives for achieving

NBC. As teachers complete the requirements for National Board Certification, they are required

to reflect on their teaching practice, curriculum decisions, and assessment techniques.

Candidates must also reflect on the quality of their students’ work and performances as

candidates complete portfolio entries (NBPTS, 2008).

According to NBPTS (2010), there are many types of candidate support systems in the

United States. Although the NBPTS does not sponsor these programs, the organization

recognizes their value to the candidate as well as the NBC process. The NBPTS recommends

that individuals who provide support to candidates also be practicing National Board Certified

teachers (NBCTs); these individuals are called Candidate Support Providers (CSPs). Candidate

Support Providers work with candidates throughout their process of completing the requirements

for certification. Candidate Support Providers can increase the probability that a candidate’s

involvement in the NBC process will result in a high quality professional development

experience (NBPTS, 2010).

Statement of the Problem

According to the National Board for Teaching Standards, one major priority for CSPs is

to encourage candidates to think critically and reflect on their instructional practice (NBPTS,

2010). Unrath (2007) noted that the role of reflection in NBC is prominent throughout the



process. According to the experts, educators who demonstrate analytical and reflective practice

achieve higher student learning outcomes (Danielson, 2008; Glickman, 2002). Reflection allows

teachers to question their teaching procedures and techniques and subsequently make decisions

about their teaching practice (Schön, 1987).

Previous researchers of NBPTS have documented the important role of reflection in the

process of NBC (Park, Oliver, & Johnson, 2007; Park & Oliver, 2008; Unrath, 2007). Park et al.

(2007) suggested that teacher interactions triggered by the National Board process enhance

reflection on their teaching practice. The research literature is replete with examples of how the

process of NBC enhances reflection and the reflective practice of teachers. However, there is a

gap in the literature regarding what reflection entails and how CSPs can encourage reflection

among teachers in preparing for NBC.

Methodology

Theoretical Perspective

According to Wolcott (2001), the theoretical perspective is an “important facet of the

research process” (p. 77). This current study employed the following theories: reflection

(Dewey, 1916; Hall, 1987; Kolb, 1984; Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005), transformational learning

(Mezirow, 1991), and mentoring (Dennen, 2002; Gibson, 2005; Kram, 1983). The combination

of ideas and beliefs of the aforementioned theorists has led to the development of techniques and

strategies that foster and encourage reflection.

This current investigation explored the experiences of elementary teachers who

completed the requirements to achieve National Board Certification (NBC). The candidates

worked with CSPs to reflect on various aspects of their teaching practices. Previous work on

reflective thought and reflective practice provides researchers and practitioners alike with a

profound understanding of how reflection occurs and how to identify it in a teacher’s practice

(Dewey, 1916, 1933; Mezirow, 1995; Schön, 1983, 1987). These theorists noted that reflection

is a learner-centered, cognitive process in which the learner is engaged in the experience.

Further, the theorists suggested that the learner examines his/her experience in order to

hypothesize possible explanations or plans of action.

Schön (1983, 1987) posited the primary theory that supported this current research.

Although Dewey’s ideas (1916, 1933) offer explanations on the development of thought and

reflection, Schön’s work provides this research the necessary foundation for understanding the

importance of reflective educational practice. Specifically, Schön’s ideas of reflection-on-action,

reflection-in-action, and reflection-for-action framed the significance of this current study.

Accordingly, reflection creates growth in individuals. As candidates complete the requirements

for NBC, CSPs guide candidates’ thinking and candidates reflect on their teaching practices to

complete their portfolios. Schön called this process reflection-on-action. Reflection-on-action is

the practice that best describes the type of reflection that candidates engage in for NBC and

serves as the basis for this current research.

Research Questions



1. How do Candidate Support Providers facilitate reflection?

2. How do Candidate Support Providers demonstrate an awareness of the various types

of reflection?

3. How does the National Board Certification process promote reflection?

Sampling Methods

We used purposeful sampling as the primary sampling strategy for this investigation

(Creswell, 2007, Hatch, 2002, Lincoln & Guba, 1995), and selected participants based on

homogenous and criterion sampling methods (Creswell, 2007). We utilized these techniques to

gather relevant information and to develop deeper insights regarding the research topic.

Participants in this study were either CSPs or candidates pursuing National Board Certification

(NBC), with all of the participants employed in the selected school district. We conducted this

investigation with approval by the selected school system and the University of Alabama at

Birmingham Internal Review Board.

Once we obtained approvals, we sent recruitment letters explaining the study and its

purpose to district personnel responsible for the CSPs. This individual was the director of the

school system’s professional development department, and she agreed to serve as the gatekeeper

for this research. According to Creswell (2007), the gatekeeper serves as the “initial contact that

directs the researcher to the participants” (p. 125).

Participants

We recruited 10 participants for this multiple case study, including five Candidate

Support Providers (CSPs) and five candidates. According to Creswell (2007), the size of the

sample determines the amount of detail and description for each case. That is to say, the smaller

the number, the greater the possibility of obtaining a large amount of information and detailed

perspectives on the research question. Since the purpose of this multiple case study was to

explore how CSPs fostered reflection with their candidates, we selected multiple partner sets of

CSPs and candidates. We considered paired CSPs and candidates as individual units of analysis

for this study (Yin, 2003).

Data Collection Instruments

In order to achieve data triangulation, we collected multiple types of data for this study

including (a) MIDAS Questionnaire, (b) face-to-face interviews, (c) follow-up interviews [via

email or phone], (d) observations, (e) participant journals [CSPs and candidates], and (f)

artifacts. We developed and used two interview protocols for this investigation, one for

candidates and one for CSPs. Candidates and CSPs participated in one face-to-face interview

and one follow-up interview each. We audio-recorded face-to-face interviews and logged these

recordings into a data collection record. We interviewed candidates and CSPs separately and

conducted follow-up interviews by either phone or email. CSPs and candidates also responded

to a journal prompt during the timeframe of the study.



Candidate journals ranged from two to four entries, and CSP journals ranged from two to

five entries. Candidates and CSPs also provided copies of documents that showed examples of

feedback provided to candidates by their corresponding CSPs. Redactions of information

pertaining to the candidates’ portfolios occurred in the presence of the candidate and CSP. We

observed CSPs and candidates once as they worked together during one of the system support

days for candidates using an approved observation protocol. Candidate and CSP observations

lasted between 45 and 60 minutes each. Researchers collected all data between the months of

January and August 2011, and employed rigorous methods for data security and storage (Stake,

1995). Additionally, we maintained a document log for all data collection processes.

Table 1

Summary of CSPs Data Collected

CSPs*

MIDAS

Score

1st

Interview Follow-up Observation

Journal

Entries Artifacts

Betty 60 Face-to-face Email 60 minutes 2 Entry

Lisa 61 Face-to-face Email 65 minutes 3 Entry

Tina 52 Face-to-face Email 50 minutes 2 Entry

Cathy 84 Face-to-face Phone 60 minutes 2 Entry

Angie 77 Face-to-face Email 60 minutes 4 Entry

*Names for CSPs are pseudonyms.

Table 2

Summary of Candidates Data Collected

Candidates

*

MIDAS

Score

1st Interview

Follow-up

Observatio

n

Journal

Entries

Artifacts

Kelly 73 Face-to-face Phone 60 minutes 2 Entry

Willetta 34 Face-to-face Email 65 minutes 5 Entry Debra 64 Face-to-face Phone 60 minutes 2 Entry Paula 47 Face-to-face Email 50 minutes 2 Entry Mark 67 Face-to-face Email 60 minutes 3 Entry

*Candidate names are pseudonyms.

Summary

We selected 10 participants for this study. We conducted face-to-face interviews with

participants and followed-up with them via phone or email. We observed candidates and CSPs

during scheduled support days, and utilized an iterative process of open coding to develop

themes and sub-themes. To establish trustworthiness and credibility of the data, we utilized the

following verification techniques: audit trail; member-checking; rich, thick description; and



triangulation of data. We observed the highest standards of ethical consideration for protection

of human subjects, consistent with best practices in qualitative research.

Findings

Candidate Support Provider Themes

Four major themes and 17 subthemes emerged from data collection and analysis of

candidate interviews and journals as well reflections from direct observations. The four major

themes included (a) Questioning, (b) Focusing Candidates’ Thinking, (c) The National Board

Process and Reflection, and (d) Facilitation of Reflection by CSPs. The following sections

describe each theme and subtheme using participant data. Table 3 provides a summary of

Candidate Support Provider themes and subthemes.

Table 3

Summary of Candidate Support Providers’ Themes and Subthemes

Questioning

Focusing

Candidates’

Thinking

The National Board

Process and

Reflection

Facilitation of

Reflection by CSPs

Clarifying Questions Focusing on Goals The Experience of

CSP Analogies

Thought Provoking

Questions

Focusing on

Standards

Importance of

Reflection Writing Activities

Leading Questions Focusing on

Student Learning

Becoming a Better

Teacher

Sharing Personal

Experiences

Questions about

Teaching Practices

Ability to Enhance

Decision-Making

Listening to

Candidates Think

Aloud

Cognitive Coaching Video-Assisted

Reflection

Summary of Candidate Support Provider Themes

The themes that emerged from CSP data collection and analysis describe how CSPs fostered

reflective practice among candidates; specific strategies included various forms of questions to

prompt and promote thinking among candidates. Candidate Support Providers also focused

candidates’ thinking when describing lessons or activities by having candidates identify goals,

cite standards, and provide evidence of student learning. Candidate Support Providers described

the role of reflection as “very important,” a “necessity for successful teaching,” and “enhancing

the ability to make decisions.” Finally, CSPs identified watching and discussing candidate

videos as an effective way to encourage their candidates to reflect on particular teaching

practices.



Candidate Themes

Five themes and 17 subthemes emerged from data collection and analysis of candidate

interviews, journals, and observations. The five major themes included (a) Focusing Candidates’

Thinking, (b) The National Board Process and Reflection, (c) Motivation and Support, (d)

Questioning, and (e) Facilitation of Reflection by the CSP. The following sections describe each

theme and subtheme using data from the participants. Table 4 provides a summary of candidate

themes and subthemes.

Table 4

Summary of Candidate Themes and Subthemes

Focusing

Candidates’

Thinking

The National

Board

Process and

Reflection

Motivation

and Support

Questioning

Facilitation of

Reflection by

CSPs

Understanding the

Standards

The

Experience

of the

Candidates

Portfolio

Assistance

Clarifying

Questions

Video-Assisted

Reflection

Identifying the

Goals of Lessons

Becoming a

Better

Teacher

Availability

Thought

Provoking

Questions

Making Decisions

Evidence of Student

Learning

Areas of

Improvement Feedback

Open-Ended

Questions

Providing

Feedback

Developing Lessons

Becoming

More

Reflective

Cross-Case Analysis

To explore how the Candidate Support Providers fostered reflection, four themes

emerged from the cross-case analysis of interviews, observations, and artifacts collected from

CSPs and candidates. The four major themes included (a) Questioning, (b) Focusing Candidates’

Thinking, (c) Reflection Facilitated by the CSP, and (d) The National Board Process and

Reflection. We conducted the cross-case analysis to identify similarities and differences among

candidates and CSPs regarding their perceptions of fostering reflective practice among

candidates. Table 5 provides a summary of themes and subthemes from the cross-case analysis.

We attributed subthemes to either candidates or CSPs; we did not attribute subthemes to

candidates or CSPs if articulated by both groups of participants.



Table 5

Cross-Case Analysis: Themes and Subthemes (Candidates and CSPs)

Questioning

Focusing Candidates’

Thinking

Facilitation of

Reflection by CSPs

The National

Board Process

and Reflection

Clarifying Questions Focusing on Goals Watching

Candidates Videos The Experience

Thought Provoking

Questions Focusing on Standards Analogies (CSPs)

Importance of

Reflection (CSPs)

Leading Questions

(CSPs)

Focusing on Student

Learning

Writing activities

(CSPs)

Becoming a

Better Teacher

Open-ended Questions

(candidates)

Understanding the

Standards

(candidates)

Sharing Personal

Experiences (CSPs)

Ability to

Enhance

Decision-Making

(CSPs)

Cognitive Questions

(CSPs)

Identifying the Goals

of the Lessons

(candidates)

Listening to

Candidates

Thinking Aloud

(CSPs)

More Reflective

(candidates)

Questions about

Teaching Practices

(CSPs)

Evidence of Student

Learning (candidates)

Making Decisions

(candidates)

Areas of

Improvement

(candidates)

Developing Lessons

(candidates)

Feedback

(candidates)

Questioning

Similarities. Data compared between the two datasets (cases) revealed that both

candidates and CSPs used questions during their sessions together. Candidates and CSPs

identified the use of clarifying and thought-provoking questions as a method CSPs utilized to

encourage candidates to think about candidate teaching practices. Candidate Support Providers

described experiences of asking clarifying questions to encourage candidates to “explain” their

thinking. Candidates also provided examples of situations in which CSPs asked them to clarify

or explain their work or thinking. CSPs and candidates shared examples of the clarifying

questions that CSPs used during work sessions. Participants used words such as clarify,

questions, why, and explain to describe these types of questions.

Candidates and CSPs both identified the use of thought-provoking questions to foster

reflection. They used terms such as in-depth, promote, think, prompt, and thought to depict

thought-provoking questions as an aid to reflection.



All of the participants (candidates and CSPs) provided evidence of CSPs’ use of

questions to aid in candidates’ reflective practices, and both candidates and CSPs described the

use of clarifying and thought-provoking questions during interviews. Candidates and CSPs

shared several examples of how CSPs questioned candidates to encourage candidates to think

and to reflect upon their teaching as they completed the requirements for their portfolios.

Candidates and CSPs shared common perspectives regarding how CSPs focused

candidates’ thinking throughout the NBC process. For example, CSPs and candidates said that

they believed that CSPs intentionally focused candidates’ thinking on goals, standards, and

student learning in an effort to facilitate reflective practice among candidates. Candidates and

CSPs also provided examples in which CSPs encouraged candidates to think about goals,

standards, and student learning during work sessions.

Differences. Although candidates and CSPs provided examples of clarifying questions

and thought-provoking questions, CSPs were more descriptive of and intentional in their use of

questioning during the process. Candidate Support Providers also provided evidence of their use

of leading questions, cognitive coaching, and questions about teaching practices. Candidate

Support Providers described how they used questions with candidates and provided several

illustrations to demonstrate the purpose of their questions. For example, Betty said that she used

questions to encourage “deep thought.” Similarly, Cathy noted that she used “thought-

provoking questions” to encourage her candidate to “think deeper.”

Focusing Candidates’ Thinking

Similarities. All of the participants identified the strategy of focusing candidates’

thinking as a way for CSPs to encourage candidate reflection. Consistent across interviews,

observations, and artifacts, CSPs encouraged candidates to focus on goals, standards, and student

learning. According to the participants, focusing candidates’ thinking was a way in which

candidates and CSPs discussed lessons, activities, and portfolio ideas.

Candidates described situations in which their CSPs asked them to “think about” or

“identify” goals as they discussed curriculum or planned lessons. CSPs said that they

encouraged their candidates “to narrow” their thinking by “focusing on their goals.” Cathy

noted that on one occasion her candidate had the realization that her lesson plans did not have

any goals associated with them.

Perspectives on how CSPs focused candidates’ thinking were similar among all

participants. CSPs and candidates said that they believed CSPs intentionally focused candidates’

thinking on goals, standards, and student learning in an effort to facilitate candidates’ reflective

practice. Candidates and CSPs provided examples of candidates being encouraged to think about

goals, standards, and student learning during work sessions.

Focusing candidates’ thinking about the standards was also evident in the perspectives of

candidates and CSPs. Mark described how his CSP “consistently reminded me to focus on

standards.” Willetta’s CSP encouraged her to “focus and learn” the standards as she reflected

on her work for certification. Descriptions of this theme were consistent among CSPs and



candidates. For example, Betty said, “I encourage my candidate to outline the standards.”

CSPs also shared the belief that candidates should learn the standards in order to demonstrate

evidence of accomplished teaching.

Focusing candidates’ thinking about student learning and achievement was the final

major similarity across cases. Four candidates and three CSPs provided information on how

CSPs encouraged candidates to focus on student learning as candidates completed requirements

for their portfolios. Participant data demonstrated a consistent use of the terms “student

learning” or “student achievement” by CSPs and candidates. Both candidates and CSPs

provided examples of how candidates were encouraged to reflect on student learning before,

during, and after lessons.

Differences. Focusing on lesson planning was the only difference that emerged within

the theme of focusing candidates’ thinking. Candidate data revealed that CSPs intentionally

encouraged candidates to “think about” or “focus” on their lessons or planning their lessons.

Candidates identified experiences of discussing and planning lessons with their CSPs and used

terms such as planning, think, lesson, and instruction as they discussed and reflected on lessons

with CSPs. Finally, candidates shared experiences to illustrate how CSPs encouraged them to

think about their lessons and how candidates planned their lessons during work sessions.

Facilitation of Reflection by CSPs

Similarities. Both candidates and CSPs provided descriptions of how candidates were

able to reflect on their teaching after viewing their videos. CSPs discussed how videos helped

candidates to see themselves and their practices. Betty said that having candidates view

themselves “makes my job easy” because the videos helped candidates “critique” themselves.

Similarly, candidates cited examples of making decisions or changing their thinking after

viewing their videos or based on reflective discussions with their CSPs.

Differences. A major difference between perspectives of the candidates and CSPs was

the ways in which CSPs used techniques and strategies to facilitate reflective practice. For

example, two CSPs described how they used analogies to help candidates think about and reflect

on teaching practices. Lisa said that she used analogies, “to keep from telling the candidate that

something is wrong.” Lisa indicated her preference for candidates to “reflect” and “learn” for

themselves. Angie, however, said that she used “a visual” to help candidates “reflect” on their

teaching practices.

Three CSPs also provided candidates with writing activities to aid in their reflective

practice. Writing activities included outlining standards, practicing writing prompts, and having

candidates respond to CSP questions. Cathy suggested that the prompts “provide the candidates

with practice.”

Candidate Support Providers shared their own personal NBC experiences with candidates

to support the candidates’ reflective practice. Specifically, CSPs provided examples of mistakes,

success stories, and special moments with their candidates. According to the CSPs, the purpose

of sharing experiences with candidates was to help candidates reflect on their own teaching



practices. Lisa said that she shared her personal experiences with candidates to help them better

understand what it means to develop reflective practice.

Candidate Support Providers specifically used the terms listen and hear to describe the

process of listening to candidates discuss their portfolios and to gauge candidates’ thinking.

Betty’s statement about using “what candidates bring to the table,” was an appropriate metaphor

for how CSPs used listening as a way to help candidates reflect on their own instructional

practice.

Differences within this theme also existed among candidate perspectives related to how

CSPs facilitated reflection. Candidates described how CSPs helped them think about

“decisions” or “changes” they would make based on their reflection of various components of

lessons or activities. Three candidates provided statements that described how CSPs helped

them make decisions including the use of prompts to facilitate better decision-making.

Candidates also discussed how CSP feedback aided their reflective practice. Overall,

candidates described CSP feedback as beneficial. Specifically, Willetta described the feedback

she received from her CSP as “constructive criticism.”

Candidate Support Providers and candidates provided similar perspectives regarding

reflective activities facilitated by CSPs. For example, both candidates and CSPs identified

‘watching candidate videos’ as a means of promoting reflective practice. The differences within

this theme between candidates and CSPs included (a) analogies, (b) writing activities, (c) sharing

of personal experiences, (d) listening to candidates’ thinking, (e) making decisions, and (f)

feedback.

The National Board Process and Reflection

Similarities. Both candidates and CSPs shared their experiences of pursuing certification

during interviews. Candidates noted varied experiences; some cited difficulties while others

focused on the ways in which the process had helped them. Four of the CSPs’ experiences were

positive; CSPs described how the process of NBC had been beneficial to them. Lisa, on the

other hand, described the certification process as “very difficult” and the cause of her “two

nervous breakdowns.”

Descriptions of becoming a better teacher were also similar between candidates and

CSPs. Candidate Support Providers used the term “accomplished” to describe how the NBC

process had helped them become practitioners that are more reflective. Candidates used the term

“better teacher” to describe the result of the certification process for them. Candidates suggested

that they were better teachers because the process had improved their reflective practice, ability

to make decisions, and capacity to evaluate student work.

Candidates and CSPs shared similar perspectives of their experiences with the NBC

process and its role in their development as teachers. Both described the process as being

difficult and tiring. Candidates and CSPs also used the phrase “a better teacher” or “an

accomplished teacher” as they described how the process had affected them.



Differences. While candidates and CSPs all described experiences in which the process

of NBC had made them better teachers, only CSPs shared perspectives on the importance of

reflection in the process. Two of the CSPs used the term “key” when describing the role of

reflection in the NBC process. According to Angie, reflection “is what makes a master or

accomplished teacher.” CSPs also articulated the importance of reflection and its ability to

enhance a teacher’s decision-making ability.

Candidate Support Providers expressed differing perspectives on the connection between

reflective practice and decision-making. CSPs used the term “change” to describe how

reflection influenced their teaching practices. Betty described how she helped her candidate

understand that reflection involves “making a change” in her teaching.

Candidates’ responses were more personal than those of CSPs; candidates described how

they personally benefited from becoming more reflective practitioners as compared to how

reflective practice as required by the NBC process generally enhances teaching. Three

candidates used the term “reflect” as they discussed their reflective practice. Candidates also

discussed the ways in which the NBC process helped them identify areas of improvement in their

teaching practices. Candidates Paula and Kelly specifically said that the process helped them

identify areas of improvement in their teaching practices.

Summary of Findings

We collected data to explore how CSPs fostered and encouraged reflection among

candidates pursuing National Board Certification (NBC). In this section, we provide a detailed

summary of the findings based on candidate and CSP perspectives of reflection and the NBC

process. We identified emergent themes from this multiple case study using thick, rich

descriptions with direct quotes from participants, observations, and artifacts. The four major

themes that emerged from CSP data were (a) Questioning, (b) Focusing Candidates’ Thinking,

(c) The National Board Process and Reflection, and (d) Facilitation of Reflection by CSPs. The

five major themes that emerged from candidate data were (a) Motivation and Support, (b)

Focusing Candidates’ Thinking, (c) The National Board Process and Reflection, (d) Questioning,

and (e) Facilitation of Reflection by CSPs. In the cross-case analysis, four themes emerged from

the combination of CSP and candidate data; these cross-case themes were (a) Questioning, (b)

Focusing Candidates’ Thinking, (c) The National Board Process and Reflection, and (d)

Facilitation of Reflection by CSPs. We compared themes in terms of similarities and differences.

Table 6 provides a summary of the major strategies CSPs used to foster reflection among

candidates.



Table 6

Major Strategies /Techniques Used by CSPs to Foster Reflection

Strategy Examples Purpose/ When Used

Questioning

Clarifying Questions

Leading Questions

Open-Ended Questions

Thought-Provoking Questions

Cognitive Coaching

Discussions of lessons and

entries

Planning and reviewing lessons

Identifying activities

and assessment prompts

Focusing Candidates’

Thinking

Setting goals for lessons

Understanding the standards

Developing/creating lessons

Identifying Student

Achievement

Discussing Lessons

Identifying strategies for

Entries

Assessing student work

Identifying evidence of student

learning

Watching Candidates’

Videos

Analogies Visual aids

Helping candidate relate and

understand / making connections

Sharing Personal

Experiences

Examples of CSPs’ successes/

failures

Help candidate think and make

connections

Listening to

Candidates’ Thinking

Discussions

To find out what the candidate is

thinking/ understanding of

candidate’s thoughts

Conclusion

Each year the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certifies

thousands of teachers in the United States. Researchers have demonstrated that certified teachers

have developed an increased ability to think reflectively about their teaching practices. Many

states provide support for teachers pursuing National Board Certification by providing them with

mentoring support programs. This multiple case study provided evidence to demonstrate how

Candidates Support Providers (CSPs) in a school system in Alabama mentored and fostered

reflective practice among candidates seeking NBC. CSPs questioned, focused candidates’

thinking, and used self-selected strategies to encourage reflection. Findings from this current

investigation provide further evidence of the role of reflection in the NBC process. Finally,

CSPs identified multiple opportunities to engage candidates in reflection based on NBC

requirements of candidate portfolios.



References

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications

Danielson, L. (2008). Making reflective practice more concrete through reflective decision

making. The Educational Forum, 72, 129-137.

Dennen, V. P. (2002). Cognitive apprenticeship in educational practice: Research on scaffolding,

modeling, mentoring, and coaching as instructional strategies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),

Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum , 813-828.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York: Collier Books, Macmillan.

Gibson, S. (2005). Developing knowledge of coaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 14 (2), 63-

74.

Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Hall, G. (1987). Strategic sense: The key to reflective leadership in school principals. Paper

presented at the Reflection in Teacher Education Conference. Houston TX:

Hatch, A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

Engals Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance

professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 47-71.

Kram, K. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy Management Journal, 26 (4), 608-

625. Publications, Inc.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education, 32 (1), 3-

24.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1995). Theory of transformational learning. Albany, NY: In Defense of the

Lifeworld.

Mezirow, J. (1998). Transformational learning and social action: A response to Inglis.Adult

Quarterly, 49(1), 70-72.

NBPTS. (2010) Guide to national board certification. Retrieved from

http://www.nbpts.org/resources/publications

NBPTS. (2008). National board for professional teaching standards guidelines for ethical

candidate support. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/what_teachers.pdf

Park, S., & Oliver, S. (2008). National board certification (NBC) as a catalyst for teachers'

learning about teaching: The effects of the NBC process on candidate teachers PCK

development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 812-834.

Park, S., Oliver, J., & Johnson, T., (2007) Colleagues’ roles in the professional development of

teachers: Results from a research study of National Board certification. Teaching and

Teaching Education, 23(4), 368-389

Schön, D., (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY:

Basic Books.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

http://www.nbpts.org/resources/publications

http://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/what_teachers.pdf



Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Unrath, K. (2007). The impact of reflective portfolio on national board certified art teachers.

Visual Arts Research, 33 (1), 100-109.

Wolcott, H. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. London, England: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

williams, p., peters, g. b., & fifolt, m. (2014)

Documents