University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EXPLORING THREE OUTCOMES OF ONLINE TEACHER PREPARATION:
TEACHING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, CRITICAL REFLECTION,
AND VOLUNTARY COLLABORATION

by
Jennifer Tomiko Mary Trapp

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

DECEMBER 2015

Copyright 2015 Jennifer Tomiko Mary Trapp
ii
Copyright page
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to Drs. Helena Seli and Kimberly
Hirabayashi for guiding me through the ups-and-downs of the research and writing processes.
Dr. Seli, in particular, provided constant support, feedback, and encouragement, believing in me
even in times of self-doubt. She is a role model and inspiration. Thank you to Dr. Eugenia
Mora-Flores for serving on my committee, providing valuable insight, and being the scholar-
practitioner I aspire to become. I am also indebted to the MAT program faculty who graciously
facilitated survey distribution.
I am grateful to have shared this journey with many amazing colleagues who have both
challenged and energized me, showering me with compassion and love, and inspiring me at
every turn with their visions for a better tomorrow. Katherine Stopp, thank you for being my
academic partner and friend; I am a better person because of you.
To my daughters, Matea Mae and Belén Tomiko, it is a privilege to be your mama. Your
hugs and kisses, questions and creativity, and boundless energy inspire me each and every day.
Jason, my dearest husband, thanks for being my partner in life and knowing my heart. And
finally, Mom and Dad, you know this is for you.

iv
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. vii
Chapter One ........................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ............................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 6
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 7
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two...................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11
The Current State of PK-12 Education in the United States ......................................... 12
Changing Student Population. ................................................................................. 12
Disparate Educational Experiences and Learning Outcomes. ................................. 12
A Focus on Teacher Education. .................................................................................... 17
Diversity and Social Justice. ......................................................................................... 18
Measures. ................................................................................................................. 21
Critial Reflection ........................................................................................................... 21
Defining Critical Reflection in Teacher Education. ................................................ 22
Challenges to Developing Reflectivity in Preservice Teachers. .............................. 25
Measures. ................................................................................................................. 28
Voluntary Collaboration. .............................................................................................. 29
Definition of Informal or Voluntary Collaboration. ................................................ 29
Importance of Collaboration.. .................................................................................. 30
Challenges Facing Collaboration. ............................................................................ 32
Importance of Collaboration in Teacher Education. ................................................ 32
Measures. ................................................................................................................. 33
Online Learning ............................................................................................................ 34
Growth of Online Learning. ..................................................................................... 35
Online Learning in the 21
st
Century......................................................................... 36
Developing a Common Lexicon. ............................................................................. 38
Benefits of Online Learning ..................................................................................... 39
Challenges of Online Learning.. .............................................................................. 42
Conclusion: Online Learning in Teacher Education ..................................................... 47
Chapter Three.................................................................................................................... 48
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 48
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 48
v
Research Design............................................................................................................ 49
Population and Sample ................................................................................................. 49
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants. .............................................................. 50
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 51
Diversity and Social Justice. ..................................................................................... 51
Critical Reflection. .................................................................................................... 52
Voluntary Collaboration. .......................................................................................... 52
Procedure and Data Collection ..................................................................................... 52
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 53
Chapter Four ..................................................................................................................... 54
Descriptive Statistics of Repondents ............................................................................ 54
Participant Demographics: Age. ............................................................................... 54
Participant Demographics: Relationship Status ........................................................ 55
Participant Demograpics: Employment Status. ........................................................ 55
Reasons for Selection of Program Delivery Method. ............................................... 56
Analysis of Results ....................................................................................................... 57
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................. 57
Research Question 2. ................................................................................................ 58
Beliefs about voluntary collaboration ................................................................... 59
Voluntary collaboration behaviors ........................................................................ 59
Modes of voluntary collaboration. ........................................................................ 60
Research Question 3. ................................................................................................ 63
Chapter Five ...................................................................................................................... 65
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 65
Discussion of Demographic Characteristics of Participants by Delivery Mode. ...... 66
Discussion of Diversity and Teaching for Social Justice .......................................... 67
Discussion of Voluntary Collaboration. ................................................................... 68
Discussion of Critical Reflection as a Predictor of Teaching for Social Justice ...... 69
Implications................................................................................................................... 70
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 72
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 73
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 75
References ......................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 93
Appendix D ....................................................................................................................... 95

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant demographics: Age ........................................................................................51
Table 2: Data analysis summary ....................................................................................................53
Table 3: Participant demographics: Age ........................................................................................54
Table 4: Participant demographics: Relationship status ................................................................55
Table 5: Participant demographics: Employment status ................................................................56
Table 6: Reasons for selection of program delivery method .........................................................57
Table 7: Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test results: Teaching for social
justice ............................................................................................................................................58
Table 8: Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test results: Beliefs about voluntary
collaboration ..................................................................................................................................59
Table 9: Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test results: Voluntary collaboration
behaviors ........................................................................................................................................60
Table 10: Chi-square test results: In-person .................................................................................61
Table 11: Chi-square test results: Phone or text ............................................................................61
Table 12: Chi-square test results: Email of discussion board .......................................................62
Table 13: Chi-square test results: Social media ............................................................................62
Table 14: Chi-square test results: Viedo-conferencing .................................................................62
Table 15: Linear regression of beliefs about critical reflection as a predictor of beliefs about
social justice teaching ....................................................................................................................63
vii
Abstract

The rapid growth of online learning has caused sweeping changes in higher education. In
response to increasing student demand and the wider availability of technological resources,
colleges and universities have begun offering individual courses and entire programs online. In
the field of teacher education, specifically, institutions are launching hybrid and online teacher
preparation programs striving to adequately prepare teachers to educate diverse student
populations amid a backdrop of historical and pervasive educational inequities. However,
because there is little research on effective online learning practices for teacher preparation, this
study sought to explore the efficacy of the online instructional format in nurturing beliefs and
behaviors related to the following competencies: commitment to diversity and social justice,
engagement in critical reflection, and active participation in collaborative professional
communities.
This study yielded no statistically significant differences between synchronous online and
traditional on-campus preservice teachers’ beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and teaching
for social justice, and voluntary collaboration. Additionally, results established a significant
predictive relationship between beliefs and behaviors associated with critical reflection and
social justice teaching. These findings have important implications in the field of online teacher
preparation.
1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
The widespread racial and ethnic transformation occurring in the United States in recent
decades is reflected in the diverse student population attending the country’s primary and
secondary schools. These demographic changes are coupled with well-documented disparities in
the educational experiences and outcomes of minority youth (Darling-Hammond, 2007). As a
result, schools and teachers have been challenged to meet the complex needs of students from
diverse backgrounds while adequately preparing them for success in the twenty-first century
through rigorous and equitable educational experiences. This important mission has placed
increased pressure on teacher preparation programs to equip future educators with the skills and
dispositions needed to teach students from all backgrounds (Banks et al., 2005; Darling-
Hammond, 2006). To this end, teacher education programs seek to immerse teacher candidates
in experiences to develop an actionable awareness of diversity and commitment to social justice
(Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2011; Enterline, Cochran-Smith, Ludlow, & Mitescu, 2008; Grant &
Gibson, 2011), to engage them in the practice of critical reflection (Howard, 2010; Rodgers,
2002), and to establish the behavior of collaboration (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness,
Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005), in addition to a host of other goals. Developing
professional competencies in these areas are priorities for teacher preparation programs
committed to equipping and empowering educators to teach with an equity lens. With the
growth of online learning in higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2014), it is important to study
the degree to which online teacher education programs are able to nurture beliefs and behaviors
related to the aforementioned competencies.

2
Background of the Problem
Between the years 2040 and 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau (Ortman & Guarneri, 2009)
predicts the “majority-minority crossover” will occur, the point at which the minority (non-
white, including Hispanic) population becomes the numeric majority of the American
population. This dramatic demographic shift is also reflected in projections of public school
enrollment changes calculated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Hussar &
Bailey, 2014). Between the years 2011 and 2022, NCES projects public elementary and
secondary enrollment will increase by 2% for Black students, 33% for Hispanic students, 20%
for Asian/Pacific Islander students, and 44% for students who identify as two or more races.
Meanwhile, the White student population is expected to decrease by 6% during the same time
period. Supporting these projections, U. S. Census Bureau (2012) data indicate that as of July 1,
2011 50.4% of children under age one were minorities. As of 2012, 24% of children under the
age of 18 attending American schools had at least one foreign-born parent and in 2011, 22% of
school-aged children spoke a language other than English in their homes (Federal Interagency
Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2013). With its large multi-generational immigrant
population, 2,685,899 public school students in California, or 43.1% of the state’s total public
school enrollment, spoke a language other than English at home as of spring 2013 (California
Department of Education, 2013). These dramatic demographic shifts have impacted schools in
the United States and challenged educational institutions to meet the needs of diverse student
populations. Most schools, however, have yet to successfully respond to the challenge and
promise, resulting in striking disparities between minority students’ educational experiences and
outcomes compared to their White peers (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
3
Given the substantial demographic changes and documented evidence of disparate
educational experiences, educators must confront the social, political, and economic inequities
that deny minority students access to rigorous academic coursework and the social capital
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997) they need to succeed in school and beyond. However, a significant gap
persists between the homogenous American teaching force and the increasingly diverse student
population, creating a “demographic imperative” (Banks, 1995). In fact, data from the 2011-
2012 Schools and Staffing Survey (Goldring, Gray, & Bitterman, 2013) validate claims about
cultural disconnects between students and teachers. Among public school educators, the
overwhelming majority (82%) were non-Hispanic White, while only 8% and 7% were Hispanic
and non-Hispanic Black, respectively (Goldring, Gray, & Bitterman, 2013). Seventy-six percent
of the teaching force is female (Goldring, Gray, & Bitterman, 2013) and the majority of teachers
come from middle class, monolingual backgrounds (Banks et al., 2005).
Although these data point to a cultural mismatch between teachers and students, resulting
in different lived experiences, cultural knowledge, and points of view, and efforts to diversify the
teaching force should be pursued, it is far too simplistic to blame the current educational crisis on
the racial and ethnic composition of teachers. Hence, teacher preparation programs have sought
to equip educators with the skills, knowledge, and dispositions needed to teach underserved
populations such as racial/ethnic and linguistic minorities, and students with special needs. In
describing the “demographic urgency” (p. 81), Sleeter and Milner IV (2011) propose two levels
of action: “(1) teachers in teacher education programs (who are mainly white and female) need
to be (better) prepared to meet the needs of racially and ethnically diverse learners; and (2)
teacher education programs need to be more persistent and innovative in selecting, recruiting,
and inducting a more diverse teaching force” (p. 81). This study is focused on the first effort, but
4
it should be noted the author fully supports research and programs related to the second though
they extend beyond the scope of this study.
To prepare teacher candidates to teach diverse populations, many teacher educators and
teacher education programs conceptualize diversity from a multicultural, social justice
orientation (Grant & Gibson, 2011). From this perspective, “a multicultural approach begins by
asking what the purposes of schooling are in a pluralistic society and to work backward to
articulate what and how students should be taught and what corresponding skills, dispositions,
and knowledge teachers need” (Grant & Gibson, 2011, p. 25). To this end, teacher preparation
programs should seek to build preservice teachers’ cultural competence, while deepening their
understanding of multicultural education (Gay, 2004), equipping them with the skills necessary
to enact culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and equity pedagogies (Banks & Banks,
1995), and reinforcing their commitment to social justice (Nieto, 2005).
Building cultural competence and the capacity to teach for social justice entail deliberate
and active engagement in the reflective process. Reflection, according to Carol Rodgers (2002),
is an iterative process requiring the teacher to “confront the complexity of students and their
learning, of themselves and their teaching, their subject matter, and the contexts in which all
these operate” (p. 864). Reflection is considered an essential professional practice for teachers,
and especially important in relation to diversity. Critical reflection, more specifically, situates
the reflective process within moral, political, and ethical contexts of schooling by challenging
teachers to “critically reflect on their own racial and cultural identities and to recognize how
these identities coexist with the cultural compositions of their students” (Howard, 2010, p. 223).
Critical reflection is a central component of culturally relevant pedagogy (Howard, 2010;
Ladson-Billings, 1995).
5
Based on the work of John Dewey, Rodgers (2002) conceptualizes reflection as an
interactive process occurring within a community that values the personal and intellectual growth
of all its members. This view of reflection as a collaborative endeavor is consistent with the
conception of teaching as a fundamentally collaborative profession, positioning teachers in a
professional community (Hollins, 2011). Accordingly, effective teacher education programs
prepare teachers “to learn from and contribute to one another as members of a professional
community” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p.83). Although schools often require teachers to
formally collaborate with colleagues and allocate time within existing structures to support such
work, a significant amount of informal collaboration among teachers occurs on a regular basis.
Casual hall conversations, voluntary collective planning efforts, guidance and mentoring from
colleagues and informal meetings about students are examples of vital informal collaborative
practices that improve teacher practice and strengthen schools. Hence, teacher candidates need
to develop the dispositions and skills necessary to voluntarily collaborate in a variety of
capacities as teaching professionals.
Just as students and schools have changed, so too, have the methods of preparing future
teachers. Many institutions of higher education, for example, are migrating courses or entire
programs to online platforms and recent data provide ample evidence of this trend. In 2012,
86.5% of higher education institutions surveyed offered online courses, while 62.4% offered
completely online programs (Allen & Seaman, 2013). It can be reasonably expected that the
delivery of teacher education programs have made this shift as well. In fact, a recent survey by
the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education found that 73.7% of member
school respondents offered distance education courses in 2010 (as cited in Liu, 2013).
Additionally, as new technologies emerge, a variety of platforms for online learning have been
6
introduced with some programs entirely asynchronous in nature, others synchronous, or live
sessions, like the program in this study, and still others blending synchronous and asynchronous
components. However, although there has been significant research on distance education and
online learning in recent decades, few studies focus specifically on teacher preparation, resulting
in limited guidance for administrators and teacher educators as they transition to online learning
environments (Dell, Hobbs, & Miller, 2008).
In summary, teacher preparation programs are striving to adequately prepare teachers to
educate increasingly diverse student populations amidst a backdrop of historical and pervasive
educational inequities. To better serve diverse youth, teacher education programs aim to foster
in their teacher candidates three specific competencies: commitment to diversity and social
justice, engagement in critical reflection, and active, voluntary participation in collaborative
professional communities. In response to growing demand for online learning opportunities in
teacher education, some programs or program components are being offered online. Because
there is little research on effective online learning practices for teacher preparation, this study
seeks to explore the efficacy of this format in nurturing beliefs and behaviors related to the
competencies outlined above.
Statement of the Problem
It is imperative that teachers are prepared to enter classrooms ready to create learning
environments and experiences that effectively engage students from diverse backgrounds. While
there are studies that assess the development of beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and
social justice, critical reflection, and collaboration in on-ground teacher preparation programs,
there is a dearth of research exploring their development in online settings. Specifically, there is
7
a lack of research that studies the outcomes of the same teacher education program offered via
different modes of delivery.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to assess the beliefs and behaviors among preservice teachers
enrolled in either a synchronous online or a traditional on-campus version of a Master of Arts in
Teaching program fulfilling state licensure requirements for a teaching credential. Specifically,
this study investigates the dimensions of social justice teaching, critical reflection, and voluntary
collaboration in teacher education.
Research Questions
This study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. Is there a difference in preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity and social justice by
program delivery method?
2. Is there a difference in preservice teachers’ voluntary collaboration beliefs, behaviors,
and frequency by program delivery method?
3. Do beliefs and behaviors related to critical reflection predict beliefs about diversity and
social justice, controlling for program delivery method, among preservice teachers?
Significance of the Study
The answers to the research questions are highly relevant to the field of teacher education
because they explore the development of beliefs and behaviors related to three critical areas of
teacher preparation. These data and accompanying analyses can inform the decision-making of
teacher educators and programs as they strive to prepare effective teachers of diverse student
populations. Furthermore, as online learning grows in teacher education, it is important to
investigate whether the method of delivery impacts desired outcomes.
8
Methodology
A quantitative approach was employed to explore the possible relationship between
preservice teachers’ beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and social justice, critical
reflection, and voluntary collaboration in two different delivery formats: synchronous online and
face-to-face on-campus. Quantitative analyses determined whether statistical differences or
predictive relationships existed between groups. Data was gathered via surveys that included
valid and reliable instruments such as the Learning to Teach for Social Justice survey (Enterline,
Cochran-Smith, Ludlow, & Mitescu, 2008) and the Groningen Reflection Ability Scale (Aukes,
Geertsma, Cohen-Schotanus, Zwierstra, & Slaets, 2007) as well demographic questions. Surveys
were administered online via Qualtrics. All data were analyzed in SPSS using statistical tests
such as t-test, chi-square, and regression.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following terms are defined.
Teacher education: This term encompasses a variety of preparation and professional
development programs. In this study, the term will be used synonymously with teacher
preparation and will represent traditional, university-based teacher education programs that
prepare teacher candidates for state licensure in on-ground/on-campus (face-to-face), online, or
hybrid (blended) instructional formats.
Social justice: According to Sleeter (2009, as cited in Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2011),
social justice in teacher education comprises three strands:
(1) supporting access for all students to high-quality, intellectually rich teaching that
builds on their cultural and linguistic backgrounds, (2) preparing teachers to foster
democratic engagement among young people, and (3) preparing teachers to advocate for
9
children and youth by situating inequities within a system of socio-political analysis. (p.
352)
Critical reflection: Howard (2010) offers the following description of critical reflection:
critical reflection is a personal and challenging look at one's identity as an individual
person and as an active professional . . . [it] must be sensitive and considerate to the lived
experiences that people bring to their current time and space . . . It is a process of
improving practice, rethinking philosophies, and becoming effective teachers for today's
ever-changing student population. (p. 228)
Voluntary collaboration: In relation to teacher education, this term refers to the voluntary
nature of collaborative activities that occur within a professional community of teachers.
Online learning: A form of distance education in which both instruction and content are
delivered primarily over the internet.
Organization of the Study
The first chapter of this study situates teacher education within the context of online
learning, and focuses on the critical dimensions of diversity and social justice, critical reflection,
and voluntary collaboration. An overview of the proposed study and accompanying research
questions are presented, and the significance of the study is established. This chapter also
describes the research methodology and key terms.
Chapter two presents a detailed synthesis of research in the field of online learning from
its historical roots to its current iteration. The benefits and challenges of online learning are
discussed. Next, literature addressing the areas of diversity and social justice, critical reflection,
and voluntary collaboration in teacher education is presented.
10
Chapter three describes the methodology employed in this study. The sample,
instrumentation, research design, and data collection process are discussed. Additionally, this
chapter outlines the data analysis procedures as well as the strengths and weaknesses of this
study.
Chapter four reviews the results gleaned from data analysis.
Finally, chapter five offers a detailed discussion of these results, implications,
suggestions for future research, and study limitations.

11
CHAPTER TWO
Introduction
Preparing preservice teachers to successfully teach in diverse classrooms has benefits
extending beyond their future classrooms and schools. Educators equipped with strong
pedagogical, content, and cultural knowledge can directly affect change in society through
education. Accordingly, teacher education programs bear tremendous responsibility to prepare
skilled, competent, and passionate educators who are committed to their students and
communities, and approach their work with a social justice lens.
This chapter begins by presenting recent data and literature related to teacher preparation.
The review commences with a description of the current demographic characteristics of
elementary and secondary students in the United States and documented educational disparities
that have plagued American schools. The impact of these data in the teacher preparation context
is then explored. Next, three specific dimensions of teacher preparation are presented: 1)
Diversity and Social Justice, 2) Critical Reflection, and 3) Collaboration. Each of these represent
essential competencies of effective teachers. Relevant literature is highlighted and measures
used to assess each construct are described.
The latter half of the chapter opens with a historical overview of the development of
online learning from its roots through today. Important terminology is defined, and the benefits
and challenges of online learning are described. The chapter closes by connecting online
learning to teacher education in relation to the three dimensions listed above.

12
The Current State of PK-12 Education in the United States
Changing Student Population
America’s elementary and secondary student population has been rapidly diversifying in
recent years, reflecting changes in the overall population of the United States (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2011). According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 16% of the American population identified
themselves as Hispanic or Latino, 13% as Black/African American, and 5% as Asian, while a
declining proportion identified as White, 64% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). By 2021, the U.S.
Department of Education projects that minority youth will represent the majority of students
enrolled in pre-K-12 education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013) These data
indicate that the United States is experiencing a marked demographic shift and its institutions
must adapt to meet the demands of an increasingly diverse population. America’s public
schools, in particular, are responsible for providing a rigorous and democratic education to
diverse student populations, regardless of their status as autonomous, voluntary (immigrant), or
involuntary (nonimmigrant) minorities (Ogbu & Simons, 1998).
Disparate Educational Experiences and Learning Outcomes
At the most basic level, minority youth often have limited access to high-quality
educators and academic programming. According to the U.S. Department of Education Office
for Civil Rights (2014c), Latino students were two times as likely and Black students were four
times as likely as their White peers to attend schools where 80% or fewer of teachers met
licensing requirements during the 2011-2012 school year. Data from the same ED OCR (2014c)
document reports “an average salary gap of $1,913 between teachers in high schools serving the
highest percentage of Black and Latino students and schools in the same district serving the
lowest percentage of Black and Latino students” (p. 6). Likewise, nearly a quarter of school
13
districts “with two or more high schools reports a teacher salary gap of more than $5,000
between high schools with the highest and the lowest Black and Latino student enrollments” (p.
1).
In addition to limited access to the highest quality teachers, minority youth often attend
schools that fail to offer rigorous coursework and enriching academic experiences. The ED OCR
Data Snapshot on College and Career Readiness (2014a) points out that of the high schools with
the highest percentages of Black and Latino students, only 66% offer Chemistry and 74% offer
Algebra II. Only 47% of American Indian and Native Alaskan high school students attend
schools offering a full range of math and science courses (ED OCR, 2014a). Following a similar
trend, although Black and Latino students make up 37% of the high school population, they
represent only 27% of students enrolled in one or more Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and
only 18% of students passing an AP exam with a qualifying score of 3 or higher (ED OCR,
2014a). Finally, White and Asian students are significantly overrepresented and Latino and
Black students are significantly underrepresented in gifted and talented education (GATE)
programs. While composing 55% of students attending school with GATE programs, White and
Asian students account for 70% of students enrolled in GATE programs. In contrast, Latino and
Black students represent 40% of enrollment at schools offering GATE programs, but account for
only 26% of all students enrolled in GATE programs (ED OCR, 2014a).
From the beginning of their schooling careers, minority youth encounter hegemonic
structures that perpetuate systems of oppression and exclusion. The rise in “zero-tolerance”
policies, for example, which seek to permanently exclude students from the education system
disproportionately affect students of color and special education students (Evans & Lester,
2012). To curb violent activities, urban schools have turned to zero-tolerance policies that jump
14
to suspension (Vavrus & Cole, 2002). However, the implementation of such policies is
subjective, resulting in unequal distribution of disciplinary consequences among student
populations. Skiba, Horner, Chung, Rausch, May and Tobin (2011) observed in their study of
over 400 American schools that African American and Latino students had higher rates of office
discipline referrals and were overrepresented in exclusionary punishment outcomes such as
suspension and expulsion. Welch and Payne (2012) also found that schools employed harsher
punishments to deal with student misbehavior as their proportion of Black students increased.
During the 2011-2012 school year, black children comprised 18% of the preschool population,
yet represented 42% of children suspended once and 48% of children receiving more than one
out-of-school suspension (ED OCR, 2014b). The disproportionate use of exclusionary practices
continues throughout primary and secondary school where white students composed 51% of total
enrollment and 31% of multiple out-of-school suspensions, in contrast to black students who
represented 16% of total enrollment and 42% of multiple out-of-school suspensions (ED OCR,
2014b). These data indicate that use of the harshest forms of discipline is correlated with the
racial composition of a schools’ student body. In essence, students of color are being subjected
to more severe disciplinary actions throughout their schooling experiences compared to majority
group peers.
Raible and Irizarry (2010) describe school officials’ growing preoccupation with
behavior management and reliance on systems of regulation and punishment. This results in
tension between conflicting educational paradigms that emphasize disciplining over educating
students, and vice versa. When educators are overly focused on discipline for behavior
management, even well-intentioned school-based interventions can exacerbate situations rather
than offering solutions. For example, Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier and Valentine’s (2009)
15
study of African American and Caucasian youth in 53 Missouri counties revealed that the higher
out-of-school suspension rates of Black students versus White students was “positively and
significantly related to relative referral rates into the juvenile justice system” (p. 1014).
Consequently, students of color can become further disillusioned with school and
disenfranchised in the learning community by the unequal dispensing of disciplinary
consequences, leading to early school leaving and an increased probability of early contact with
the criminal court system.
Barbarin (2010) asserted that school failure can indeed lead students to prison. Arguing
that forces beyond the control of African American boys propel them from school to prison,
Barbarin declares that “material deprivation, ethnic denigration, and racial exclusion combine to
maintain highly segregated communities and poorly functioning schools, high unemployment,
low social capital, financial marginality, disproportionate police surveillance leading to high
arrests, and more severe treatment by the criminal justice system” (p. 84). Institutional
discriminatory practices in schools marginalize minority youth, while punitive disciplinary
practices further exclude them the educational community.
Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeier, and Valentine (2009) also explore the interconnectedness
of disproportionate minority contact with school discipline systems and the juvenile justice
systems. Their analysis of schools in Missouri revealed that African-Americans were more
likely than their White peers to be subject to out-of-school suspensions for the same infractions.
The authors also assert that punitive, exclusionary school discipline practices encourage future
delinquent behavior, thereby contributing to disproportionate minority contact in the justice
system. As a result, the schools’ policies serve as a conduit to the school-to-prison-pipeline. A
combination of social, political, and economic factors combine with repressive school
16
characteristics, such as the absence of equity pedagogy, to create a school-to-prison pipeline in
which a disproportionate amount of minority youth are pushed out of school and into the juvenile
justice system. According to the Alliance for Excellent Education (2006, as cited in Raible &
Irizarry, 2010), approximately 75% of state inmates, 60% of federal inmates, and nearly seven
out of ten jail inmates have yet to complete high school. The relationship between school and
prison is even more problematic for students of color. While Latinos and African Americans
comprise a quarter of the U.S. population, they account for three quarters of the total prison
population (Raible & Irizarry, 2010). Although these data do not offer a causal relationship
between school failure and incarceration, a connection between the two can be inferred.
Beyond the structural inequities in schools, poverty exacerbates disparities in the
educational experiences of minority students. Recent data indicates that poverty
disproportionately affects minority groups. In The Condition of Education 2013 (Aud et al.,
2013), Aud and her colleagues reported that 39% of Black children, 36% of American
Indian/Alaska Native, 34% of Hispanic children, 30% of Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
children, and 22% of children of two or more races lived in poverty for the 2010-2011 school
year. White and Asian children, however, displayed the lowest rate of poverty, 13% and 12%,
respectively for the same time period. The intersection of poverty and race/ethnicity is also
evident at the school level where minority students are concentrated in high-poverty schools. In
the 2009-2010 school year, 46% of Black, 45% of Hispanic, and 35% of American
Indian/Alaska Native students attended high-poverty elementary schools, compared with 7% of
White students (Aud et al., 2012). This trend continued at the secondary school level, where
21% of both Hispanic and Black students and 17% of American Indian/Alaska Native students
attended high-poverty public schools, but only 2% of their White peers were enrolled in high-
17
poverty schools. Living in and/or attending schools with high poverty rates increases the
complexity of equitably educating minority youth in the United States.
The increasing diversity of today’s student population combined with entrenched
structural inequities require intentional decision-making and action at every level to ensure all
students have equitable access to challenging and culturally relevant educational opportunities.
Central to achieving this aim is the preparation of effective teachers.
A Focus on Teacher Education
Schools are envisioned as pluralistic and democratic places that honor and accommodate
diversity; they are also seen as vital for promoting social justice, for furthering social
reconstruction, and for cultivating pluralistic dispositions and commitments among future
teachers . . . Teacher education, in turn, helps to instill multicultural perspectives, values,
and practices; it encourages preservice teachers to develop a multicultural knowledge
base; it cultivates a commitment to social justice; it encourages teachers to question the
purposes of education and who education serves and to enact an alternative version in
their classrooms and schools. A multicultural approach asks teachers and teacher
educators to move beyond simply naming the “demographic imperative” and
demographic differences in achievement, retention, and engagement. Instead, a
multicultural approach begins by asking what the purposes of schooling are in a
pluralistic society and to work backward to articulate what and how students should be
taught and what corresponding skills, dispositions, and knowledge teachers need. (Grant
& Gibson, 2011, p. 25)
The excerpt above articulates the fundamental role of teacher education in a diverse
society. Grant and Gibson (2011) propose that the purposes of schooling in democratic and
18
pluralistic society first be articulated; from there the skills, knowledge, and dispositions of
teachers can be distilled. Teacher preparation, in turn, should provide ample opportunities for
teacher candidates to question multicultural perspectives, construct cultural knowledge, and
enact multicultural pedagogies. Preservice teachers must be adequately prepared to teach in
diverse classrooms while actively challenging traditional deficit views of minority groups
(Darling-Hammond, 2006) and dismantling power structures that have restricted the educational
advancement of minority groups. In this context, the following three sections explore beliefs and
behaviors related to diversity and social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration—
all essential aspects of teacher preparation.
Diversity and Social Justice
Many teacher education programs proclaim social justice as a core value. In fact,
Darling-Hammond (2006) identified “educating for equity” as a central mission of successful
teacher education programs. To prepare graduates to educate for equity, these programs placed
teacher candidates in diverse fieldwork settings, operated from an ecological view of human
development, integrated multicultural issues and strategies throughout the program, exhibited an
ongoing commitment to social action, and demonstrated an openness to grapple with issues of
race and class (Darling-Hammond, 2006). More specifically, Sleeter (2009, as cited in Cochran-
Smith & Fries, 2011) states
Social justice in teacher education can be conceptualized as comprising three strands:
91) supporting access for all students to high-quality, intellectually rich teaching that
builds on their cultural and linguistic backgrounds, (2) preparing teachers to foster
democratic engagement among young people, and (3) preparing teachers to advocate for
19
children and youth by situating inequities within a systemic socio-political analysis. (p.
352)
With teaching for social justice as the aim, developing multicultural competencies in
teacher candidates is imperative because minority youth often find themselves attending schools,
learning from teachers, and studying curriculum that are not reflective and inclusive of their
home cultures. Over time, students become alienated and disempowered, leading to
disengagement with the learning process and withdrawal from the school community. To
address this critical issue, Banks and Banks (1995) propose equity pedagogy to educate and
empower all students and faculty to critically examine existing power structures and actively
participate in democratic society. Equity pedagogy entails systemic change that extends beyond
classroom teaching and curriculum, to include teacher education programs, professional
development, and school restructuring (Banks & Banks, 1997). While acknowledging that
educational change invariably occurs at the complex intersection of political, social, and
economic contexts (Banks & Banks, 1997), school communities - and by extension society -
must nevertheless engage in honest reflection, careful data analysis, and widespread reform to
create learning institutions that prepare all students for successful futures.
Social justice is an integral component of multicultural education. Banks (1983) states
that true multicultural education requires total school transformation. Educational equality
cannot only be viewed in terms of input, or school investment and resources, and output, or
educational outcomes. Rather, the learning process that occurs in between input and output must
also be examined as a measure of equity (Banks, 1983). School variables affecting the learning
process can promote or prevent minority achievement. Unfortunately, school reform efforts
often overlook issues of diversity (Banks & Banks, 1997).
20
According to Bennett (2001), the emphasis on equity is a direct response to school
settings that consistently produce differential educational outcomes for minority youth. Equity
pedagogy, therefore, strives to reform entire educational communities, “especially the hidden
curriculum that is expressed in teacher attitudes and expectations for student learning, grouping
of students and instructional strategies, school disciplinary policies and practices, school and
community relations, and classroom climates” (Bennett, 2001, p. 183). The thrust of research in
this area seeks to deconstruct school structures that prevent minority youth from accessing equal
educational opportunities.
Gay (2004) examined the development and transformation of approaches to multicultural
education since the landmark Supreme Court case, Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954.
Although the Brown decision resulted in the eventual, painful legal desegregation of schools,
ingrained discriminatory practices, racist ideology, and exclusionary curriculum persisted at the
expense of students of color. Moving beyond the mere inclusion of minority voices in textbooks
and curriculum reform, proponents of multicultural education pursued a pedagogical approach to
ensure academic excellence for all students. Gay (2004) notes the shift towards equity pedagogy
grew from a focus on what to teach to how to teach diverse student populations (p. 206). The
coexistence of multicultural education and equity pedagogy is necessary to facilitate what Gay
(2004) refers to as “holistic and systemic educational reforms” (p. 207) that transform policy into
equitable educational practice, and have resulted in the development of culturally responsive
teaching.
As conceptualized by Banks and Banks (1995), equity pedagogy is not simply a set of
instructional strategies to engage students of color. Instead, genuine equity pedagogy demands
the dismantling of existing discriminatory institutional practices and challenges the deep
21
structure of schools that often transmit the hidden curriculum (Banks & Banks, 1995). Banks,
Cookson, Gay, Hawley, Irvine, Nieto, . . . and Stephan (2001) propose a framework of 12
essential principles for implementing schoolwide equity pedagogy. Most applicable is the first
principal about teacher learning which states, “Professional development programs should help
teachers understand the complex characteristics of ethnic groups within U.S. society and the
ways in which race, ethnicity, language, and social class interact to influence student behavior”
(p. 197). Lastly, because teacher-student interaction is a critical component of quality education
and since research indicates teachers often have lower expectations for minority students (Gay,
1975), it is imperative that pre-service and in-service teachers have sufficient opportunities to
learn and practice culturally relevant pedagogy (Banks et al., 2001) as a foundation for social
justice teaching.
Measures
Two relevant measures have been developed to examine post-secondary students’ value
and awareness of diversity. First, Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini (1996)
created an Openness to Diversity/Challenge scale which seeking to assess an “individual's
openness to cultural, racial, and value diversity…[and] the extent to which an individual enjoys
being challenged by different ideas, values, and perspectives (p. 179). Enterline, Cochran-Smith,
Ludlow, and Mitescu (2008) designed the Learning to Teach for Social Justice-Beliefs (LTSJ-B)
survey specifically designed to measure change in the social justice beliefs of teacher candidates.
Both instruments were developed from the view that diversity is an asset.
Critical Reflection
Although teacher education programs, teacher educators, and literature from the field
emphasize the importance of reflection in teaching, an established definition of reflection
22
remains elusive. Even more disconcerting is the dearth of comprehensive, longitudinal studies
that identify effective practices for developing reflectivity in preservice teacher candidates.
While reflectivity remains a widely lauded trait in the teaching profession, the concept and
practice of reflection have yet to be concretely articulated and operationalized. What follows is a
review of literature on teacher reflection that seeks to define the term, with an emphasis on
critical reflection, and describe challenges to developing reflection in preservice teachers.
Defining Critical Reflection in Teacher Education
In the teaching profession, the notion of reflection can historically be traced back to John
Dewey. Nearly every research article and position piece consulted for this study cite Dewey’s
work and refer to his formative contributions to the development of reflection as an essential
teaching practice. Dewey believed that effective teaching entailed a reflective component
beyond the scope of technical expertise (Zeichner, 1981-1982). He posited that “reflection is an
active, persistent, and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of
the grounds supporting it and future conclusions to which it lends” (Dewey, 1933, p. 6, as cited
in Yost, Sentner & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000, p. 39). According to Dewey, teaching, therefore,
encompasses more than a set of mechanical strategies to be mastered. Educators are expected to
honestly reflect on their actions and beliefs as they strive to continuously improve their teaching
practice. This conception situates reflection at the heart of teaching and ongoing professional
growth.
From Dewey’s perspective, reflective thinking differed from casual thought in its
intentionality. While he considered thinking a natural function, he determined that rigorous
reflective thought included processes and practices that could be taught and developed over time
(Jones & Jones, 2013). Moreover, Dewey identified three attitudes or dispositions that are
23
critical for teachers to nurture in order for meaningful reflection to occur: openmindedness,
responsibility, and wholeheartedness (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Teachers at all experience
levels need to possess and grow these three prerequisite attitudes to deepen their reflective
processes.
Dewey and recent scholars have expanded the idea of reflection to extend beyond
consideration and analysis of classroom practice and pedagogical decisions. They introduced the
concept of critical reflection to incorporate aspects of situated reflection that examine and
deconstruct the social and political contexts of schooling in addition to the practical aspects of
teaching. As Smyth (1989) explains:
Locating or situating teaching in a broader cultural, social, and political context amounts
to engaging in critical reflection about the assumptions that underlie those methods and
classroom practices. Regarded this way, teaching becomes less of an isolated set of
technical procedures, and more of a historical expression of shaped values about what is
considered to be important about the nature of the educative act . . . [critical reflection]
means starting with reality, with seeing the injustices of reality’s limits, and beginning to
overcome reality by reasserting the importance of learning. (p. 7).
Sustained critical reflection, what Yost, Sentner, and Forlenza-Bailey (2000) consider the highest
level of reflection, “involve[s] reflection on the assumptions underlying a decision or act and the
broader ethical, moral, political, and historical implications behind the decision or act” (p. 41).
When educators engage in critically reflective processes, they must examine the lived
experiences and assumptions they bring to the classroom, evaluate how that personal knowledge
interacts with the broader context of schooling and ultimately impacts their teaching decisions.
The goal of such authentic reflection is to construct “a more equitable, just, and democratic
24
society” (Dinkelman, 2000, p. 199), potentially resulting in individual cognitive change (Yost,
Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000).
Critical reflection is situated within a social reconstructionist framework. It allows
educators the agency to interpret and construct new knowledge and behaviors (Shandomo, 2010)
that can transform the schooling experiences of all children in society. As Hamlin (2010)
clarifies, “a social reconstructionist orientation requires that pre-service teachers reflect on issues
which extend beyond the boundaries of the classroom and consider the social consequences of
the school curriculum and their methodology as well as their effectiveness” (p. 169). Hence,
critical reflection from this lens requires educators to investigate the possible ramifications of
their personal beliefs and professional decisions in light of existing school structures and the
broader context of society. Considering the inequities that have plagued the American public
school system and the increasingly diverse student population, engaging in critical reflection
from a social reconstructionist perspective is imperative to prevent the perpetuation of disparate
schooling opportunities and outcomes for certain student populations.
Reflective action and reflective teaching are associated with both reflection and critical
reflection. Dewey explicitly distinguished between routine action and reflective action. While
routine action is guided by impulse, external authority, tradition, and circumstance (Zeichner &
Liston, 1987) and is passive in nature, reflective action expresses the dispositions of open-
mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness through an active, earnest problem-solving
cycle (Hatton & Smith, 1995). Reflective action entails the constant, intentional self-evaluation
of beliefs and practice; “it is a holistic way of meeting and responding to problems, a way of
being as a teacher” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996, p. 9).
25
A more comprehensive definition of reflective teaching that incorporates Dewey’s
dispositions of openmindedness, responsibility and wholeheartedness, as well as the critical
nature of reflection have reframed the discussion of reflective teaching (Zeichner & Liston,
1987). Reflective teaching, as defined by Zeichner and Liston (1996), “ entails a recognition,
examination, and rumination over the implications of one’s beliefs, experiences, attitudes,
knowledge, and values as well as the opportunities and constraints provided by the social
conditions in which the teacher works” (p. 33). Teachers must, therefore, move beyond relying
on personal impulse and external authority (Shandomo, 2010), to instead search both inwardly
and outwardly to examine the complex interaction of personal knowledge, practical theories,
pedagogical decision-making, and societal constructs.
To foster the development of reflectivity in preservice teachers, teacher education
programs should assume an inquiry orientation. An inquiry approach to reflection encourages
educators to view learning as a continual process of growth and development occurring
throughout the teaching career (Yost et al., 2000). A teacher preparation program based on
inquiry “elicits and rewards initiative and critical thought at all levels of the organization and
provides students with opportunities for independent decision-making with regard to their
education and teaching” (Zeichner & Liston, 1987, p. 28). This type of environment facilitates
collaborative relationships and empowers both preservice teachers and teacher educators to
reflect deeply on their processes of knowing, learning, and teaching as a matter of professional
responsibility. An inquiry orientation facilitates engagement in critical reflection.
Challenges to Developing Reflectivity in Preservice Teachers
Although numerous attempts have been made to develop the reflective capacity and
skills of preservice teachers, teacher educators and teacher education programs face many
26
obstacles and have experienced limited documented success. Perhaps one of the main challenges
to developing reflection has been created and perpetuated by the field of education itself. While
the historical roots of reflection in teaching and associated concepts are widely discussed, as
reviewed in the previous section, a philosophical and actionable framework for reflection has yet
to materialize. As Francis (1995) explains,
failure to anchor the [reflective] approach adopted in a clearly articulated philosophy can
contribute to preservice teacher confusion . . . only when a firm base is established can
the focus move from reflection as a nebulous concept to identifying criteria by which its
components and value can be ascertained. (p. 239).
Many teacher education programs aim to promote critical reflection through practices and
experiences that challenge teacher candidates’ practical theories and build reflective skills,
however, these experiences are often housed in isolated program components and disconnected
from a larger, comprehensive framework of reflection.
An additional level of confusion stems from research and scholarship in the area of
reflective practice that fails to clarify the concept of reflection and identify effective methods for
facilitating reflection in preservice teachers. Roskos, Vukelich, and Risko (2001), for example,
conducted a comparative analysis of 54 reflection studies and discovered a lack of coherence
between methods and theoretical frameworks and insufficient data to substantiate claims.
Although “well-intentioned and effortful, the work nonetheless failed to sharpen the edges of the
reflection construct for research purposes and offered little in the way of a pedagogy of reflection
for teacher education” (p. 599). Without an accepted theoretical framework for reflection in the
field, it will remain an elusive intellectual practice in need of comprehensive investigation,
definition, and implementation.
27
At the policy level, the standards and accountability movements of the past two decades
have in some ways inhibited teacher reflection in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment within the larger social context. The focus on pacing instruction to cover standards
in time for high-stakes testing limits the time and opportunity for educators to engage in
meaningful critical reflection about the curriculum, pedagogical decisions, and their moral
dimensions (Ward & McCotter, 2004). State- and federally-mandated curricula and assessments
force teachers into a position of improving test outcomes for accountability purposes rather than
reflecting on their implications for student learning and social justice in the contexts of schooling
and society. This orientation impacts preservice teacher education programs by pushing
individual candidate reflection to focus narrowly on the technical aspects of classroom practice,
as opposed to the context of teaching, which contradicts efforts to promote critical reflection
(Nagle, 2009).
From the perspective of individual preservice teachers, many enter teacher education
programs with preconceptions about the teaching profession. Having years of experience as
students, preservice teachers often view the essential responsibilities of teachers from a technical
and practical standpoint, failing to acknowledge the reflective nature of teaching (Hatton &
Smith, 1995). These beliefs are especially strong and difficult to challenge and change. As
Parkinson (2009) states, “becoming a reflective practitioner requires realignment of the
preservice teacher’s orientation and attitude toward the role of professional teachers” (p. 798).
Preservice teachers, therefore, must “unlearn” their preconceived notions before acknowledging
the need for reflection in teaching (Gore, 1987).
Often, preservice teachers, especially those participating in fieldwork or student teaching
experiences are overwhelmed and consequently, do not typically engage in reflection on their
28
own (Francis, 1995). Instead, they focus on practical aspects of their daily teaching experiences
like time management, lesson preparation and development, and classroom management (Moore,
2003). This survival mode presents a formidable challenge to teacher educators who intend to
promote critical reflection which takes time and sustained metal and emotional effort.
Furthermore, preservice teachers frequently have previous schooling experiences devoid
of reflective opportunities. Consequently, up to this point in their academic and intellectuals
journeys, they have not developed the prerequisite metacognitive skills necessary to engage in
critical reflection. Without sufficient educational preparation for reflective thinking, “many
students’ epistemological views are extremely narrow and focus largely on discrete information
and right answers. This mindset is diametrically opposed to the type of thinking required of a
reflective practitioner” (Yost et al., 2000). Hence, when asked to engage in critical reflection,
Romano (2005) observed that preservice teachers often only make connections to preconceived
ideas of teaching and learning usually derived from their own schooling experiences and fail to
relate classroom experience to theory and research presented in coursework. Similarly, Bean and
Stevens (2002) witnessed preservice teachers basing their surface-level reflections on personal
beliefs, uncritical references to course readings, and dominant societal ideologies.
Measures
Several measures have been developed to assess levels of adult reflection in various
contexts (Kember, 2000; Leung & Kember, 2003; Peltier, Hay & Drago, 2005; Sobral, 2000).
Measures specific to teachers have also been deigned (Larrivee, 2008; Ward & McCotter, 2004).
This study used Groningen Reflection Ability Scale (GRAS) developed by Aukes, Geertsma,
Cohen-Schotanus, Zwierstra, and Slaets (2007). Although originally developed to measure
29
medical students’ reflective abilities, the GRAS was adapted in this study for the teacher
education context.
Voluntary Collaboration
The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of relevant literature relating to
voluntary collaboration. The concept is described as well as its characteristics and outcomes.
Next, collaborative learning’s relationship to sociocultural and constructivist learning theories is
explored, followed by an explanation of the pressure exerted by employers on higher education
institutions to develop collaborative competencies in graduates. The multitude of benefits
resulting from collaboration are also outlined. The section closes by reviewing the challenges
limiting further progress in collaboration and recent surveys designed to measure collaboration in
higher education.
Definition of Informal or Voluntary Collaboration
Developed from cooperative learning practices in the K-12 setting, collaborative learning
entered higher education in the late 1980s (Cabrera, Crissman, Bernal, Nora, Terenzini, &
Pascarella, 2002). However, as cooperative pedagogies have grown in prominence, collaborative
learning has become an umbrella term used to describe a variety of approaches to learning,
including peer teaching in which more advanced students teach less advanced students (Boud,
Cohen, & Sampson, 1999). For the purposes of this paper, collaboration is conceptualized as a
restructuring of the classroom “away from the traditional lecture” (Cabrera et al., 2002, p. 20).
Collaboration in this context is directly related to Boud et al.’s (1997) description of peer
learning as “the use of teaching and learning strategies in which students learn with and from
each other without the immediate intervention of a teacher” (p. 117). In this sense, collaboration
is student-centered, decentralizing the traditional role of the instructor, while encouraging
interaction and reflection (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
30
Identifying the characteristics and outcomes of collaboration is critical to understanding
its application in higher education. Johnson and Johnson (1999), for example, list five essential
elements of cooperation: 1) positive interdependence, or the belief that one cannot succeed
without in isolation and mutual benefit is gained from all group members’ work; 2) individual
accountability which requires group members be held individually accountable for their work
contributions; 3) face-to-face promotive interaction, whereby “individuals promote each other's
success by helping, assisting, supporting, encouraging, and praising each other's efforts to
achieve” (p. 71); 4) social skills; and 5) group processing. Boud (2001), on the other hand,
articulates the learning outcomes of collaborative learning. Working with others; critical inquiry
and reflection; communication and articulation of knowledge, understanding, and skills;
managing learning and how to learn; and self and peer assessment are among the learning
outcomes posited by Boud (2001). Although focused on involuntary or formal collaboration,
such descriptions of the characteristics and proposed learning outcomes provide a framework for
further discussion of collaboration.
Importance of Collaboration
Collaboration fits within sociocultural and constructivist epistemology (Bonk &
Cunningham, 1998; Fisher & Baird, 2005). The view that learners construct knowledge through
active interaction with others is supported by prominent sociocultural and constructivist theorists,
such as Dewey, Vygotsky, and Bruner (Huang, 2002). As Huang (2002) explains, “for social
constructivists, learning should involve interaction with other people or environments, which
foster potential development through instructors’ guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers” (p. 33). Hence, collaboration is a critical component of constructivist approaches to
31
education, and instructional strategies like collaborative learning need to be consistent with
related learning goals (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998).
Pressure exerted from employers has prompted post-secondary institutions to reevaluate
their pedagogy and align it to work force demands (Boud et al., 1997). Employers are
demanding that students graduate with a broader range of skills including collaborative
competencies, and Boud et al. (1997) offer peer learning as a strategy to promote this new type
of learning outcome. One specific example of industry’s influence on higher education
pedagogy is the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology’s new competencies which
include the abilities “to function on multidisciplinary teams” and “to communicate effectively”
(Terenzini, Cabrera, Colbeck, Parente, & Bjorkland, 2001). Clearly, students need to learn from
collaboration and learn to collaborate (Hernández, González, & Muñoz, 2014).
The importance of collaboration lies in the many benefits experienced by learners who
actively participate in collaborative processes. According to Johnson and Johnson (1999), for
example, cooperative learning “results in process gain (i.e., more higher-level reasoning, more
frequent generation of new ideas and solutions), greater transfer of what is learned within one
situation to another (i.e., group to individual transfer), and more time on task than does
competitive or individualistic learning” (p. 72). In addition to individual benefits, collaboration
has the potential to impact society. Results from a study conducted by Cabrera et al. (2002)
found that college students’ openness to diversity was positively influenced by collaborative
learning. Moreover, collaborative pedagogies maximize student learning, challenge students to
confront preconceptions, while promoting citizenship and responsibility in democratic society
(Cabrera et al., 2002).
32
Collaborative learning is an important pedagogy in the online environment as well.
Walker and Fraser (2005) found that the Interaction and Collaboration dimension of their
learning environment survey was related to positive student outcomes and student satisfaction.
In addition, collaboration can help students to form social bonds, to motivate students, to develop
identity, to establish group accountability, and to deepen understanding of content in online
settings (Fisher & Baird, 2005). Hence, the collaborative nature of some online learning
environments can increase student retention rates (Fisher & Baird, 2005).
Challenges Facing Collaboration
In challenging the traditional paradigm of education, sociocultural and constructivist
theories call for the increased integration of collaborative learning tools (Bonk & Cunningham,
1998). However, many challenges hinder the implementation of collaborative practices in higher
education. There is an overall lack of pedagogical guidance for effective integration of
collaborative learning tools (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). Complicating this knowledge gap is
the fact that faculty would require time and training to redesign courses and learn collaborative
teaching practices (Terenzini et al., 2001). Assessment poses yet another problem for
collaborative learning (Boud et al, 1997). Although Boud et al. (1997) assert that assessing
collaborative learning is important because it can increase the value students place on
collaboration while recognizing student commitment to collaborative processes, the formal
assessment of peer learning can be detrimental and undermine the goals of peer learning (Boud,
1999).
Importance of Collaboration in Teacher Education
The ability to effectively collaborate with all stakeholders is an essential skill teachers
must develop and master. In fact, collaboration and collegiality are hallmarks of professional
33
learning communities that promote both reflection and continual teacher learning to develop
teacher knowledge (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle
(1999), by working together in communities of practice, “both new and more experienced
teachers pose problems, identify discrepancies between theories and practices, challenge
common routines, draw on the work of others for generative frameworks, and attempt to make
visible much of that which is taken for granted about teaching and learning” (p. 293). In fact, the
ability to collaborate in a learning community is one of the Five Core Propositions of the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (National Board for Professional Teaching,
n.d.). Clearly, working together with colleagues, families, and communities both formally and
informally is an important professional practice for teachers.
Measures
Several studies have attempted to measure various aspects of collaboration in higher
education. Terenzini et al. (2001) proposed the Classroom Activities and Outcomes Survey
which gathered student opinions about engineering course characteristics including
collaboration. Walker and Fraser (2005) developed the Distance Education Learning
Environments Survey (DELES) which also featured a scale measuring interaction and
collaboration. Finally, Lee and Tsai (2011) designed the Participant Perception Inventory-
Internet versus Traditional Learning (PPI-IvT) questionnaire to evaluate three aspects of
learning, one being collaboration, based on students’ perceived capability, experience, and
interest. The development of these instruments illustrates the widespread integration of
collaboration in traditional and online contexts as well as the challenges associated with
analyzing the outcomes of collaborative approaches to learning. However, robust measures of
34
voluntary collaboration have yet to be validated in the context of teacher education. Hence, an
instrument was developed and pilot tested for use in this study.
Online Learning
The theory of disruptive innovation has significant explanatory power in thinking through
the challenges and changes confronting higher education. Disruptive innovation is the
process by which a sector that has previously served only a limited few because its
products and services were complicated, expensive, and inaccessible, is transformed into
one whose products and services are simple, affordable, and convenient and serves many
no matter their wealth or expertise. The new innovation does so by redefining quality in
a simple and often disparaged application at first and then gradually improves such that it
takes more and more market share over time as it becomes able to tackle more
complicated problems (Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011, p. 2).
The disruptive innovation in higher education referred to by Christensen, Horn, Caldera,
and Soares (2011) above is online learning. This innovation is disrupting traditional paradigms
in postsecondary education, challenging the status quo by changing the nature and delivery of
courses, and expanding access to a wider student population. As with all disruptive innovations,
online learning faced initial resistance by the education establishment; concerns about its quality
and sustainability were abundant (Christensen, Horn, Caldera, & Soares, 2011). However, as the
field continues to evolve and improve, online education has proven to be a viable platform for
learning, transforming higher education in the process. Though questions of quality still persist
(Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, 2010), the growth of online learning has certainly disrupted the
higher education.
35
This section seeks to trace the historical development of online learning from its
beginning as correspondence education though its current computer- and Internet-based
conception. The present state of online learning is described, focusing on online offerings and
enrollment, student demographics, and strategic planning. Because online education is an
emerging field, key terminology and concepts are defined. The next section explores many of
the potential benefits of online learning proposed in the research literature. At the institutional
level, these benefits include increased capacity to expand course offerings and reduce costs while
diversifying the student population. Online learning affords students greater flexibility, and
more opportunities to interact with instructors while simultaneously developing technological
skills and experiencing higher levels of motivation and engagement. Nevertheless, online
education also faces many challenges. Hence, the subsequent section reviews the inconsistencies
in research on online learning, the struggle to determine educational quality in online
environments, the lack of faculty preparation and time to develop and teach online courses, the
persistently high attrition rates, the confounding role of discipline and effort in online learning,
and the potential of online education to exacerbate existing inequities.
Growth of Online Learning
Online learning is an extension of efforts to spread educational opportunities to a wider
audience. Facilitated by continued technological advancements and increased demand, online
learning has become a viable platform enabling institutions and students to overcome traditional
barriers to education such as geographic distance and time. Distance education (DE) has grown
from its rudimentary beginnings and will continue to evolve to meet the changing demands of
online learning in the twenty-first century and beyond.
36
Distance education in the United States traces its roots to correspondence education
facilitated by the postal service beginning in the early 1700s (Walker & Fraser, 2005). Lou,
Bernard, and Abrami (2006) categorize the development of DE beginning with postal
correspondence into five phases based on the work of Nipper (1989, as cited in Lou et al., 2006)
and Taylor (2001, as cited in Lou et al., 2006). According to Nipper, the print-based model of
correspondence education represents the first generation of DE. The second generation of DE
began with the 1969 establishment of the Open University and is characterized by the integration
of audio and visual resources like television broadcasts, radio, and videocassettes with print
materials. The development of hypertext and the use of teleconferencing are characteristics of
the third generation. Recently, Taylor (2001, as cited in Lou et al., 2006) attributed flexible
learning via computer-mediated communication and courses available on the Internet to the
fourth generation of DE, and online interactive multimedia and resources to the fifth generation.
Beginning with generation three, DE has shifted away from authoritarian and isolated learning
typical of correspondence courses (Bernard et al., 2009) and toward more communicative,
flexible, and interactive learning experiences (Lou et al., 2006).
Online Learning in the 21
st
Century
Online course enrollments have surged in recent years in K-12 and postsecondary
environments as institutions have rapidly expanded their online course offerings. Perhaps due to
the economic recession and the challenging job market, enrollment in higher education has
increased significantly, with demand for online classes and programs surpassing that for
traditional offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2010). As a result, institutions of higher education have
strategically integrated online courses and certificate and degree programs to an increasingly
diverse student population.
37
The rapid growth of online learning has impacted all levels of education in the United
States. For example, a report published by the International Association for K-12 Online
Learning (Wicks, 2010) estimates during the 2009-2010 school year, 1.5 million K-12 students
participated in online or blended learning. Christensen, Johnson, and Horn (2008, as cited in
Kim & Frick, 2011) predict that by 2019, half of high school classes will be available online.
The pace of online learning growth in higher education is staggering. According to a US
Department of Education report (Parsad & Lewis, 2008), by the 2006-2007 school year, 97% of
two-year degree granting community colleges offered online classes, outpacing all other
postsecondary institutions. Data from Allen and Seaman’s (2014) comprehensive survey of
more than 2,800 college and university administrators indicated that 7.1 million higher education
students were enrolled in at least one online course, and 33.5% of higher education students were
taking at least one online course in 2013. In 2012, 86.5% of higher education institutions
surveyed offered online courses, while 62.4% offered completely online programs (Allen &
Seaman, 2013).
Interestingly, differences in the demographic characteristics of students who enroll in
online versus face-to-face courses and programs have been observed by researchers. Using data
from the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Chen, Lambert, and Guidry
(2010) found that racial and ethnic minorities and part-time students were more likely to take
postsecondary online courses. Because online learning provides flexibility, more students are
able to combine job- and family-related responsibilities with higher education (Picciano,
Seaman, & Allen, 2010), expanding opportunities to nontraditional and historically
disenfranchised groups (Xu & Jaggars, 2011).
38
Looking towards the future, higher education institutions have widely incorporated online
learning into their strategic plans over the past decade. According to Allen and Seaman (2014),
66% of chief academic leaders in higher education stated that online learning was critical to their
long-term strategy in 2013, a slight decrease from the previous year. With a majority of chief
academic officers acknowledging the necessity of including online learning in their institutions’
plans for the future, it appears that this avenue for learning has solidified its long-term place at
many institutions.
Developing a Common Lexicon
Because the field of distance education is an emerging one, a variety of terms have been
used to describe online learning. Bernard et al. (2009) provide examples of terminology
including distance education, online learning, Web-based learning, and networked learning.
Moreover, in describing “the impressive breadth of multimedia formats,” Clark & Feldon (2005,
p. 3) believe that it is important to clearly define the terms. Hence, this section seeks to clarify
critical terms to be used for the remainder of this study.
Programs can be classified into the following categories based on their characteristics.
 An online course is conducted strictly through the Internet (Chen, Lambert, &
Guidry, 2010) and does not typically have traditional face-to-face interactions (Allen
& Seaman, 2014).
 In a hybrid or blended course, both face-to-face and online components are used for
instructional purposes (Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, 2010). Generally, there are fewer
face-to-face meetings because a majority of the content is delivered online (Allen &
Seaman, 2014). Picciano, Seaman, and Allen (2010) claim that hybrid courses are
gaining in popularity in higher education.
39
 A face-to-face or traditional course is tied to a physical location and no technology is
used for instructional purposes (Allen & Seaman, 2014; Chen, Lambert, & Guidry,
2010).
The nature and timing of online interaction need further programmatic definition. In a
synchronous learning environment, students must be interacting online via two-way
communication with the instructor at the same time (Campbell, Gibson, Hall, Richards, &
Callery, 2008; Lou et al., 2006). Examples of synchronous environments are videoconferencing
and live chatting (Wicks, 2010).With asynchronous learning, students can participate online at
different times (Campbell et al., 2008). Online discussion boards, email, message boards, and
podcasts are examples of asynchronous communication tools that facilitate learning (Wicks,
2010). It is important to emphasize that the courses examined in this study were intentionally
designed to be synchronous learning environments in which students and instructors interacted
through live videoconferencing and the use of additional instructional technologies and learning
platforms enabling real time communication and collaboration.
Benefits of Online Learning
Both institutions and students can benefit from online education. By offering online
learning courses and programs, higher education institutions have increased capacity for
expanded class offerings, greater potential for cost-savings, and improved ability to attract more
diverse student bodies (Brown, 2012; Castle & McGuire, 2010; del Valle & Duffy, 2009).
Students, on the other hand, appreciate the flexibility of online learning, increased interaction
with instructors, and the development of technological skills, while researchers (Campbell et al.,
2008; Clark & Feldon, 2005; Robinson & Hullinger, 2010) have reported higher levels of student
motivation and engagement (Chen, Lambert, and Guidry, 2010; Lou et al., 2006).
40
Online learning affords postsecondary institutions greater flexibility in course scheduling
and offerings. Brown (2012) claimed that online classes allowed colleges the opportunity to
offer more courses especially at peak times, thereby easing overcrowding. Del Valle and Duffy
(2009) add that online learning is a way for colleges to boost their enrollment without increasing
the size and capacity of their physical premises. This ability to grow course offerings and
student enrollment thereby increasing revenue without major infrastructure projects is appealing
to higher education administrators.
In addition to offering more courses to a larger student population, online learning has the
potential to bolster revenue for institutions of higher education. Online learning can be a cost-
effective method of delivering course content to a wider audience (Castle & McGuire, 2010).
With the economy still recovering from the recent recession, many colleges and universities view
online education as a potential income generator.
With diversity as a key priority, online learning provides postsecondary institutions
opportunities to increase the diversity of their student populations by expanding access to
learners who may not have the time or ability to attend college in a traditional way. As Gurin,
Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) explain, “colleges that diversify their student bodies and
institute policies that offer genuine interaction across race and ethnicity provide the first
opportunity for many students to learn from peers with different cultures, values, and
experiences” (p. 336). Extending access to nontraditional and historically disenfranchised
students through online learning is one way of pursuing educational equity and fostering the
growth of a diverse student body.
Furthermore, online learning enables students to flexibly fit coursework into their daily
lives without being “tied to a specified venue and/or timetable” (Campbell et al., 2008, p. 751).
41
For many students, online learning is their only route to pursue higher education. According to
del Valle and Duffy (2009), “these are students who are time restricted by work
requirements…cannot afford the residential or commuting costs, or who are house bound with
children, with a disability, or other constraints” (p. 129). Thus, the flexibility afforded by online
education is a major benefit to students with limited options and resources.
Another benefit of online learning is the increased frequency and intimate nature of
interaction between faculty and students, which can positively impact student learning. In the
online environment, Clark and Feldon (2005) posit that increased interaction between students
and instructors can enhance the students’ value of the class and persistence to finish the course.
Synthesizing the work of several distance education theorists, Lou et al. (2006) support this
view, stating that “student-instructor interaction facilitates student learning by providing not only
cognitive guidance and feedback, but also motivational and emotional support” (p. 145). Chen,
Lambert, and Guidry’s (2010) study also found a positive relationship between technology use
and measures of student engagement. Because both synchronous and asynchronous online
learning includes a variety of platforms and tools to facilitate interaction between faculty and
students, this increased contact and communication can potentially enhance the educative
experience.
Finally, one of the many benefits of online learning is the opportunity for students to
further develop technology-related skills and confidence accessing online resources. From an
analysis of 2007 NSSE data, Robinson & Hullinger (2010) concluded that an important benefit
of online learning was the development of expertise in computer and information technology.
Chen, Lambert, and Guidry (2010) found that college students enrolled in online or hybrid
courses used online learning tools and technologies for both instructional and learning purposes
42
more frequently that their peers taking traditional face-to-face classes. Developing and
practicing essential computer- and technology-related capacities is an added benefit of online
learning since technological expertise is important for success in postsecondary coursework as
well as the work force.
Challenges of Online Learning
As an emerging field, online learning faces many challenges. Fraught by inconsistencies
in research methodology and results, determining the educational quality of online learning
remains an elusive quest. Meanwhile, many online instructors do not have adequate preparation
or time to develop and teach online courses. Institutions and researchers alike struggle to
understand unusually high student attrition rates in online courses and to determine the impact of
self-discipline and effort in online education. Finally, institutions of higher learning must ensure
that extending the opportunity to engage in post-secondary education to disenfranchised groups
does not result in further educational segregation.
While online learning is rapidly expanding in education systems throughout the world,
research on distance education has failed to keep pace with its widespread implementation
(Walker & Fraser, 2005). Of the existing research, most compares online learning courses with
traditional face-to-face courses. Bernard et al. (2009), however, claim that researchers should
focus their efforts on studies comparing distance education courses with other distance education
courses. Lou et al. (2006) support a shift in the research “to investigate how different media can
be effectively used to support a variety of sound instructional strategies for more effective
student-content, student-student, and student-instructor interaction, and more effective learning”
(p. 168). Yet, after observing that most studies evaluating online education can be assigned to
three categories according to students’: 1) outcomes, 2) attitudes about learning, and 3)
43
satisfaction with online learning; Robinson and Hullinger (2008) believe that evaluation should
focus on the totality of the online learning experience through the lens of engagement.
Since there is much disagreement over evaluation methods for online learning, it remains
difficult to determine the quality of educational experiences. While a strong majority of chief
academic officers surveyed in 2012 viewed learning outcomes for online courses as good as or
better than face-to-face classes, the majority of teaching faculty did not believe that their
institutions had the tools necessary to adequately assess online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2013).
In fact, data from a survey of faculty at sixty-nine colleges (Picciano, Seaman, and Allen, 2010)
indicate that “70% view online learning as inferior or somewhat inferior to face-to-face learning”
(p. 25). Inability to assess the quality of student learning in the online environment poses a
challenge for the future development of online learning.
This confusion in the research community has resulted in conflicting findings. Chen,
Lambert, and Guidry (2010) noted that research on technology and learning outcomes has
yielded mixed results. For example, Rabe-Hemp, Woollen, and Humiston (2009) found that
students in the online section of a course were more involved in class discussions, more
reflective in their learning strategies, and more invested in preparing for the course compared to
their peers enrolled in the on-campus, face-to-face section of the same class. In contrast, Castle
and McGuire (2010) reported that students taking traditional courses had the highest self-
assessment of learning, followed by those enrolled in hybrid offerings, with online students
showing the lowest self-assessment of learning. Picciano, Allen, and Seaman’s (2010) meta-
analysis demonstrated that hybrid environments resulted in better student outcomes. Without
established methods for measuring the effectiveness of online education in supporting student
learning, inconsistencies will continue to emerge from the research.
44
Further complicating the field is Clark and Feldon’s (2005) claim that there is no
evidence of learning benefits from multimedia integration that cannot be attributed to non-
multimedia factors, and although students may be initially motivated by multimedia courses, that
enthusiasm does not translate into more learning. These contentions are bolstered by Castle and
McGuire’s (2010) assertion that content is the most important component of any course
regardless of delivery method and Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, and Schmid’s (2011)
belief that technology may be better suited to support student achievement rather than deliver
content.
Another challenge is the fact that instructors teaching in online learning environments
need more time, as well as specialized knowledge and skills to develop effective curriculum and
instructional methods. Faculty members must spend more time and expend greater effort when
teaching online classes compared to teaching traditional face-to-face classes because course
development is a lengthier process and teaching online is more time-consuming (Picciano, Allen,
& Seaman, 2010). Castle and McGuire (2010) note that faculty need “reeducation” to teach
online and operate in the “new emerging educational paradigm” (p. 39). Furthermore, Mishra
and Koehler (2006) propose a new set of skills and knowledge they call Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) that instructors should acquire in addition to other
areas of expertise. Reorienting and supporting faculty to teach effectively in online learning
environments is a significant challenge facing institutions of higher learning.
In addition, distance education courses have historically struggled to retain students,
resulting in higher attrition rates than on-ground courses. Levy (2007) reported that even before
the Internet, historic dropout rates for correspondence and distance education courses ranged
from 25% to 60%. More recently, online learning courses have reported dropout rates between
45
25% and 40%, compared to 10% to 20% in face-to-face courses (Levy, 2007). Chief academic
officers at higher education institutions have also observed this alarming trend with 27.2% of
these leaders indicating that retention was a greater problem for online courses than it was for
traditional courses in 2004 (Allen & Seaman, 2014). This number rose significantly in 2013 to
40.6% (Allen & Seaman, 2013), demonstrating growing concern about students’ lack of
persistence in online classes.
Although it is difficult to determine whether differences in the student population or the
online nature of the course or a combination of both factors possibly contribute to higher dropout
rates, researchers have uncovered a few commonalities among online students who do not
complete courses. Picciano, Seaman, and Allen (2010) note that because “students who are most
attracted to online learning are likely balancing several major activities (education, jobs, and
families)…their personal circumstances will influence their decision to continue in a course or
not” (p. 27), therefore making them more at-risk of dropping out. Consistently, lack of time and
lack of motivation have been attributed to higher online attrition rates (Kim & Frick, 2011), with
students more likely to drop out if they do not have strong family and organizational support
(Park & Choi, 2009). Complicating this problematic situation, data from Aragon and Johnson’s
(2008) study indicate that while 34% of community college students cited personal or time
constraints as the main reason for dropping out of an online course, an additional 46% of learners
stated that issues with course design, delivery methods, and instructor communication or
struggles with technology and the online tutorial for the course management system as reasons
for their failure to complete the course. Clearly, there is evidence that the personal
characteristics of distance learners and the online learning environment somehow contribute to
unusually high attrition rates for online courses, highlighting the need for further research and
46
development of resources and support services for this unique student population and the faculty
serving them.
Yet another challenge facing online learning is the growing concern that some students
may not have the self-discipline necessary to complete online courses or may in fact believe that
these courses involve less work. Allen and Seaman’s (2014) survey data supports this view with
the majority (68.9%) of postsecondary academic leaders indicating that online courses require
students to exert more discipline than face-to-face classes. Clark and Feldon (2005) further
assert that although students might be initially interested in and attracted to multimedia learning,
students often reduce the amount of effort they expend in learning because they may believe that
these classes entail less work. However, in their study of learners enrolled in online teacher
professional development courses at a large university, del Valle and Duffy (2009) found that
most learners effectively employed learning strategies in the distance education environment,
with fewer than 20% of students struggling to regulate their learning in terms of time
management. This complicated conversation about the relationship among discipline, effort, and
online learning will persist in the online education community.
Finally, as previously discussed, online education has the potential to democratize higher
education by expanding access to historically disenfranchised students. However, in the current
state of online learning, the real possibility exists that these same learners who now have an
avenue to post-secondary education might be further confined by what Chen, Lambert, and
Guidry (2010) call “unintended educational segregation” (p. 1230). If minority, working, and
part-time students who are attracted to online learning opportunities at disproportionately high
rates do not receive sufficient support services, including academic and technological assistance
as well as access to on- and offline resources, the quality of their online education is uncertain,
47
resulting in another form of school segregation (Chen, Lambert, & Guidry, 2010). Thus, online
learning has the potential to both help and hinder efforts to promote educational equity in higher
education institutions.
Conclusion: Online Learning in Teacher Education
The extent of online learning’s disruptive force is evident in postsecondary institutions’
expanded course and program offerings driven by technological advances and greater student
demand in difficult economic times. Online master’s degree programs in education for
credentialed teachers are already on the rise. In fact, U.S. News & World Report listed 208
schools offering accredited online master’s in education programs (as cited in Liu, 2013).
Moreover, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (Ludwig, Kirshstein,
Sidana, Ardila-Rey, & Bae, 2010) reported that 71.7% of member institution survey respondents
claimed to offer distance learning courses in education. In terms of teacher preparation, online
learning has the potential to diversify the teaching force by providing increased access to
preparation programs to a wider population of potential educators, including those who are
geographically isolated (Dell, Hobbs, & Miller, 2008). However, administrators harbor concerns
about the quality of online teacher preparation programs and reservations about hiring online
graduates, fearing they will be ill-prepared to teach effectively (Faulk, 2010; Faulk, 2011).
Therefore, as online learning continues to expand in teacher education, more research needs to be
conducted to evaluate its effectiveness, particularly in the areas of teaching for social justice,
critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration.

48
CHAPTER THREE
Introduction
Teacher preparation programs are challenged to prepare competent and skilled future
educators ready to enter diverse and complex learning environments. This mission is
compounded by the growth of distance education in higher education and efforts to incorporate
online learning into teacher education. However, because little research exists about the effects
of online education on teacher preparation, the purpose of this study is to examine preservice
teachers’ beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and social justice, critical reflection, and
voluntary collaboration, and to determine if there are significant differences between
synchronous online versus traditional on-campus learning environments. The preservice
teachers surveyed in this study were enrolled in a Master of Arts in Teaching program fulfilling
state licensure requirements for a teaching credential. The following sections present the
research questions and an overview of the research methodology. The latter describes the
sampling procedure and population, instrumentation, and protocol for data collection and
analysis.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1. Is there a difference in preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity and social justice by
program delivery method?
2. Is there a difference in preservice teachers’ voluntary collaboration beliefs, behaviors,
and frequency by program delivery method?
3. Do beliefs and behaviors related to critical reflection predict beliefs about diversity and
social justice, controlling for program delivery method, among preservice teachers?
49
Research Design
This study employed a quantitative, non-experimental design that uses correlational data
gathered from self-report surveys. This design is appropriate because it allows for examination
of potential differences in the beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and social justice, critical
reflection, and voluntary collaboration of preservice teachers enrolled in synchronous online or
on-campus teacher preparation courses. Quantitative analyses using SPSS determined whether
statistical differences or predictive relationships existed.
In the first research question, the independent variable is program delivery method, either
online or on-campus and the independent variable is beliefs about diversity and social justice.
The second research question’s independent variable is again program delivery method, while
the dependent variable is the beliefs about, behaviors related to, and frequency of voluntary
collaboration. The independent variable for the final research question is beliefs and behaviors
related to critical reflection and the dependent variable is beliefs about diversity and social
justice.
Population and Sample
The population for data collection is graduate students enrolled in either the synchronous
online or face-to-face on-campus versions of the Master of Arts in Teaching program leading to
teacher licensure and a master’s degree at West Pacific University. Located in an expansive
urban area on the west coast, West Pacific University is a large, top-tier research institution.
The school of education at West Pacific University has a particular focus on urban education.
Hence, the program is a one-year intensive teacher credential and master’s program designed to
prepare primary and secondary teachers for urban classrooms. Annually, approximately 165
students are enrolled in both delivery formats with the majority enrolled in the online platform.
50
Data was gathered from preservice teachers enrolled in a Guided Practice course, the
fieldwork portion of teacher preparation required to obtain a teaching credential. Students are
expected to collaborate as part of this course to reflect upon and develop their teaching abilities.
Prior to reaching the Guided Practice courses, students took a course focused on critical
reflection and practiced engaging in the critical reflection process by examining themselves, as
well as past and present conditions in education. Hence, collaboration, critical reflection, and
pressing educational issues, such as diversity, are emphasized throughout the program.
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants
A total of 45 preservice teachers (N = 45) completed the entire survey. The majority of
respondents were enrolled in the online delivery format (n = 30; n = 15 for on-campus). This
was expected because this university’s online cohort of teacher candidates is significantly greater
than its on-campus cohort. The response rate for online Guided Practice students was 73% (n =
30/41) and 94% (n = 15/16) for on-campus students.
Results of descriptive statistics yielded meaningful information about the entire sample’s
gender and ethnicity. In terms of gender, 56% of respondents were female (n = 25), while 44%
were male (n = 20). Participants reported diverse ethnic backgrounds: 36% White (n = 16), 34%
Hispanic/Latino (n = 15), 14% Asian (n = 6), 11% two or more races (n = 5), and 5% Black or
African American (n = 2).
Although the majority of respondents reported being 25-29 years of age (n = 24, 54%),
there was a range of ages (22-56) represented in this study (N = 44, M = 28.86, SD = 7.49).

51
Table 1
Participant demographics: Age
Instructional Delivery Method
Age Online % On-Campus % Total %
20-24 5 17.2 6 40 11 25
25-29 16 55.2 8 53 24 54
30-34 2 7 0 0 2 5
35-39 1 3.4 0 0 1 2
40+ 5 17.2 1 7 6 14
Total 29 15 44

Instrumentation
Surveys were distributed to all preservice teachers enrolled in Guided Practice. In
addition to items from the instruments described below, participants answered demographic
questions. Demographic information collected included: age, gender, racial/ethnic group,
employment status, relationship status, undergraduate major, previous graduate degree, levels of
parental education, volunteer/work experience in schools, previous education courses, courses
taken in multicultural studies, public/private/home-school K-12 experience, description of home
community, and comfort level with technology used in online learning. The following sections
describe the instruments used to measure the three focus constructs.
Diversity and Social Justice
Beliefs related to diversity and social justice were measured with the Learning to Teach
for Social Justice-Beliefs (LTSJ-B) instrument, a 12-item scale developed by Enterline, Cochran-
Smith, Ludlow, and Mitescu (2008). Cronbach’s Alpha was not reported in the original study, so
a pilot test was conducted with students enrolled in a master’s level diversity course. The pilot
produced a Cronbach’s Alpha of .83, while the present study’s Cronbach’s Alpha was .78.
Sample items include statements such as: 1) An important part of learning to be a teacher is
examining one’s own attitudes and beliefs about race, class, gender, disabilities, and sexual
52
orientation; and 2) Issues related to racism and inequity should be openly discussed in the
classroom.
Critical Reflection
Beliefs and behaviors related to critical reflection were measured using the Groningen
Reflection Ability Scale (GRAS) (Aukes, Geertsma, Cohen-Schotanus, Zwierstra, & Slaets,
2007). Developed for medical students, the scale contains 23 items to assess levels of personal
reflection. In the original study, the scale was administered twice and Cronbach’s Alphas were
reported as .83 and .74, respectively. Modifications were made to make the language applicable
to teacher preparation and critical reflection. Cronbach’s Alpha for the revised scale used in this
study was .88. Sample items from the scale include: 1) I take a closer look at my own habits of
thinking; and 2) I want to know why I do what I do.
Voluntary Collaboration
A new instrument was developed to assess the beliefs, behaviors, and frequency of
voluntary collaboration in preservice teachers. The scale was developed through collaboration
with fellow doctoral students and faculty chairs. Items for this measure were designed to explore
the voluntary nature of collaboration. The measure was piloted in a graduate level course in
education. Cronbach’s Alpha from the pilot test was .93 and .95 in this study. The following
statements are sample items from the instrument: 1) It is important to collaborate with my peers
in this program even if it is not required, and 2) I believe that teaching and learning from each
other is important to succeed in this program.
Procedure and Data Collection
Prior to survey distribution, approval from the Institutional Review Board, followed by
program approval was gained. A working timeline was established to guide the distribution and
53
collection of surveys. Surveys were distributed electronically via email to teacher candidates
enrolled in Guided Practice sections. Prior to completing the survey, preservice teachers were
informed that their responses were anonymous, and they would not receive any benefits for
completing the survey nor a penalty for electing not to participate. The survey took
approximately 5-10 minutes for participants to complete.
Data Analysis
Survey data was downloaded from Qualtrics and preliminary statistical analyses were
conducted using SPSS. The table below lists the variables, their levels of measurement, and
corresponding statistical tests for each research question.
Table 2
Data Analysis Summary
Research Question IV Level of
Measurement
DV Level of
Measurement
Statistical
Test
1. Is there a difference in
preservice teachers’ beliefs
about diversity and social
justice by program delivery
method?
Program
delivery
method
Nominal Beliefs about
diversity and
social justice
Interval

Independent
samples t-
test
2. Is there a difference in
preservice teachers’ voluntary
collaboration beliefs, behaviors,
and frequency by program
delivery method among?
Program
delivery
method
Nominal Voluntary
collaboration
Interval (Beliefs) Independent
samples t-
test
Interval
(Frequency)
Independent
samples t-
test

Nominal
(Behaviors/types)
Chi square
3. Do beliefs and behaviors
related to critical reflection
predict beliefs about diversity
and social justice, controlling
for program delivery method
among preservice teachers?
Reflection Interval Beliefs about
diversity and
social justice
Interval

Simple
Regression

54
CHAPTER FOUR
Descriptive Statistics of Respondents
All survey participants enrolled in both online and on-campus Master of Arts in Teaching
programs answered 15 demographic questions as part of the survey. Nonparametric analyses
were conducted on the information gathered from survey responses. Pearson’s Chi-square tests
did not reveal significant differences with regard to program delivery method, online or on-
campus, as cross-tabulated with participant age, relationship status, and employment status. In
addition, differences were also noted in participants’ reasons for selection of program delivery
method.
Participant Demographics: Age
The majority of participants enrolled in the Master of Arts in Teaching credential
program, regardless of program delivery platform, reported being in the 25-29 age range (n = 24,
54%). A greater percentage of respondents age 30 or older were enrolled in the online cohort (n
= 8, 28%) than in the traditional on-campus program (n = 1, 7%). Conversely, a higher
percentage of on-campus participants fell into the youngest age range, 20-24, (n = 6, 40%) as
compared to students in the online program (n = 5, 17%). However, findings from a Chi-square
analysis did not show significant differences in participant age between groups, 
2
(15, N = 45) =
13.87, p = .53. See Table 3 for information on participant demographics by age.
Table 3
Participant demographics: Age
Instructional Delivery Method
Age Online % On-Campus % Total %
20-24 5 17.2 6 40 11 25
25-29 16 55.2 8 53 24 54
30-34 2 7 0 0 2 5
35-39 1 3.4 0 0 1 2
40+ 5 17.2 1 7 6 14
Total 29 15 44
55
Participant Demographics: Relationship Status
Pearson’s Chi-square analysis again failed to reveal significant between group differences
in the area of relationship status, 
2
(2, N = 45) = 4.14, p = .13. Although the majority of both
online and on-campus participants reported their relationship status as single (n = 30, 67%), on-
campus students were more likely to be single (n = 13, 87%) than their online counterparts (n =
17, 57%). In addition, the percentage of students identifying as married or in a domestic
partnership was different, though not significantly, between delivery platforms. Forty percent of
online participants self-identified as being married or in a domestic partnership (n = 12), while
only 13% of on-campus respondents reported being married or in a domestic partnership (n = 2).
None of these differences were determined to be significant. See Table 4 for information on
participant demographics by relationship status.
Table 4
Participant demographics: Relationship status
Instructional Delivery Method
Marital Status Online % On-Campus % Total %
Single

17 57 13 87 30 67
Married/
Domestic Partner

12 40 2 13 14 31
Separated/
Divorced

1 3 0 0 1 2
Widowed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 30 15 45

Participant Demographics: Employment Status
In terms of employment status, the majority of both online and on-campus participants
indicated that they were not employed at the time of the survey (n = 26, 59.1%). However, 48%
of online students (n = 14) reported working part- or full-time compared to 27% of on-campus
56
students (n = 4). Notably, five online participants (17%) claimed to be employed full-time while
enrolled in the MAT program while no on-campus students indicated full-time employment
status. Nevertheless, these differences were found not to be significant based on Chi-square
analysis, 
2
(2, N = 45) = 3.43, p = .18. See Table 5 for information on participant demographics
by employment status.
Table 5
Participant demographics: Employment status
Instructional Delivery Method
Marital Status Online % On-Campus % Total %
Not currently
working

15 52 11 73 26 59.1
Working part-time

9 31 4 27 13 29.5
Working full-time 5 17 0 0 5 11.4
Total 29 15 44

Reasons for Selection of Program Delivery Method
Participants had the opportunity to identify the reasons why they selected either the
online or on-campus program delivery method. Significant between group differences were
observed in the areas of geographic reasons, 
2
(1, N = 45) = 26.67, p = .00, and instructional
considerations, 
2
(1, N = 45) = 6.43, p = .01. Geographic reasons were an important factor in
program selection for 69% of online students (n = 20), while only 27% of on-campus
respondents (n = 4) echoed the same concern. Ninety-three percent of traditional on-campus
students (n = 14) claimed instructional considerations influenced their selection of program
delivery method. In contrast, only 14% on online preservice teachers (n = 4) cited instructional
considerations. See Table 6 for information on participant reasons for selection of program
delivery platform.

57
Table 6
Reasons for Selection of Program Delivery Method
Instructional Delivery Method
Reasons Online % On-Campus %
Scheduling

12 41 2 13
Geographic reasons

20 69 4 27
Family responsibilities 8 28 1 7

Professional responsibilities 8 28 1 7

Instructional considerations 4 14 14 93
Total participants: Online, n = 29; On-campus, n = 15
In summary, survey data revealed no significant differences between online and on-
campus participants in the areas of age, relationship status, and employment status.
Additionally, the majority of online students cited geography as a significant factor for their
selection of program delivery method. On-campus respondents, on the other hand,
overwhelmingly chose instructional considerations as a reason for selecting their program
delivery mode. Both of these finding were determined to be significant.
Analysis of Results
Survey data was collected via the self-report instruments to explore the three dimensions
of teacher education described in previous chapters. Data were analyzed to answer the research
questions proposed in Chapter 1. The following section presents quantitative findings in
response to the three research questions.
Research Question 1: Is there a difference in preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity
and social justice by program delivery method?
This research question sought to investigate whether differences exist in preservice
teachers’ beliefs related to diversity and social justice between program delivery methods. An
independent samples t-test was conducted to compare participants’ beliefs about teaching for
58
social justice in synchronous online and on-campus program delivery formats. Independent
samples t-test results and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test results: Teaching for social justice
Group Statistics
Program
Format
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Mean Social
Justice
Online 30 4.2296 .53082 .09691
On-campus 15 4.0500 .49381 .12750

Independent Samples Test
Levene’s test
for Equality
of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
.084 .773 1.094 43 .280 .17963 .16414 -.15139 .51065

There was no significant difference in scores for online (M = 4.23, SD = .53) and on-
campus (M = 4.05, SD = .49) delivery methods; t(43) = .28, p = .280. The results suggest that no
differences exist in students’ beliefs about teaching for social justice between the two learning
platforms. These findings provide strong evidence that preservice teachers can develop positive
beliefs about diversity and social justice teaching in both on-campus and online learning
environments.
Research Question 2: Is there a difference in preservice teachers’ voluntary collaboration
beliefs, behaviors, and frequency by program delivery method?
The examination of potential differences in online and on-campus MAT students’ beliefs,
behaviors, and frequency of voluntary collaboration is the focus of this research question.
59
Beliefs about voluntary collaboration. To compare participants’ beliefs about
voluntary collaboration in both instructional delivery settings, an independent samples t-test was
performed. See Table 8 for independent samples t-test results and descriptive statistics.

Table 8
Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test results: Beliefs about voluntary
collaboration

Group Statistics
Program
Format
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Voluntary
Collab Mean
Online 30 4.3778 .66513 .12144
On-campus 15 4.5556 .49868 .12876

Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
.701 .407 -.913 43 .366 -.17778 .19476 -.57056 .21500

The scores for online (M = 4.38, SD = .67) and on-campus (M = 4.56, SD = .50)
participants; t(43) = -.913, p = .366, indicated that no between group differences could be
identified. These results suggest that there are no significant differences in preservice teachers’
beliefs about voluntary collaboration between the online and on-campus cohorts. In other words,
online and on-campus students both placed a high value on voluntary collaboration.
Voluntary collaboration behaviors. An independent samples t-test was again
conducted to determine whether between group differences existed in voluntary collaboration
behaviors as measured by the frequency with which participants engaged in acts of voluntary
collaboration. See Table 9 for descriptive statistics and results of the independent samples t-test.

60
Table 9
Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-test results: Voluntary collaboration behaviors

Group Statistics
Program
Format
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Voluntary
Collab Mean
Online 30 3.07 1.081 .197
On-campus 15 3.47 1.598 .413

Independent Samples Test
Levene’s Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std.
Error
Differen
ce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
5.647 .022 -.875 21 .392 -.400 . .457 -1.352 .552

Based on the scores for online (M = 3.07, SD = 1.08) and on-campus (M = 3.47, SD =
1.60) learning settings; t(21) = -.875, p = .392, no differences were found. These results suggest
that significant between group differences were not observed in preservice teachers’ voluntary
collaboration behaviors across instructional delivery platforms. Both online and on-campus
students engaged in voluntary collaboration beyond what was required for the course at high
frequency levels, averaging 1-2 times per month or more.
Modes of voluntary collaboration. Further analyses were performed to determine if
between group differences existed in the modes through which preservice teachers voluntarily
collaborated. Chi-square tests were conducted to find out if there were differences in students’
engagement in the following modes of voluntary collaboration by program delivery method: in-
person, via phone or text, via email or discussion board, via social media (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter), and via videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Adobe Connect).
Chi-square test results suggest a significant relationship exists between online and on-
campus program delivery methods for in-person voluntary collaboration, 
2
(1, N = 45) = 28.80,
61
p < .001. This indicates, as might be expected, that on-campus preservice teachers were more
likely to engage in in-person voluntary collaboration than their online counterparts. See Table 10
for chi-square test results.
Table 10
Chi-square test results: In-person

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sd)
Pearson Chi-Square 28.800
a
1 .000
N of Valid Cases 45
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.00.

Significant differences were not found between groups in voluntary collaboration via
phone or text, 
2
(1, N = 45) = .194, p = .660, suggesting that online and on-campus students
collaborated voluntarily through phone or text messaging at similar rates. See Table 11 below
for chi-square test results.
Table 11
Chi-square test results: Phone or text

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sd)
Pearson Chi-Square .194a

1 .660
N of Valid Cases 45
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.33.

No differences were identified between program delivery groups in voluntary
collaboration via email or discussion board, 
2
(1, N = 45) = .511, p = .475. This finding implies
that the delivery platform did not significantly influence students’ decision to use email or
discussion boards to voluntarily collaborate. See Table 12 for chi-square test results.

62
Table 12
Chi-square test results: Email or discussion board

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sd)
Pearson Chi-Square .511a

1 .475
N of Valid Cases 45
a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.00.
Chi-square test results again did not identify significant differences between online and
on-campus preservice teachers in voluntary collaboration via social media (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter), 
2
(1, N = 45) = 1.800, p = .180. Hence, students’ use of social media to collaborate
did not vary based between instructional delivery platforms. See Table 13 for chi-square test
results.
Table 13
Chi-square test results: Social media

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sd)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.800a

1 .180
N of Valid Cases 45
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.00.

Lastly, no between group differences were found in voluntary collaboration using video-
conferencing (e.g., Skype, Adobe Connect), 
2
(1, N = 45) = .711, p = .399. Although video-
conferencing was used throughout the online course, students in both online and on-campus
programs elected to use it as a vehicle for voluntary collaboration. See Table 14 for chi-square
test results.
Table 14
Chi-square test results: Video-conferencing

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sd)
Pearson Chi-Square .711a

1 .399
N of Valid Cases 45
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.33.
63
Research Question 3: Do beliefs and behaviors related to critical reflection predict beliefs
about diversity and social justice, controlling for program delivery method, among
preservice teachers?
This research question was designed to investigate the possible relationship between
students’ beliefs about critical reflection and social justice. Specifically, the purpose of this
question was to determine whether beliefs and behaviors related to the construct of critical
reflection predict beliefs about social justice teaching. To answer this question, a linear
regression was performed. This statistical test established a significant predictive relationship
between beliefs and behaviors related to critical reflection and beliefs about diversity and social
justice, regardless of course format. In other words, high scores in the in the areas of critical
reflection could predict high scores on the diversity and social justice teaching instrument. It is
important to note that only the critical mean was predictive while no differences were found
between program delivery platforms. See Table 15 for details regarding the linear regression of
critical reflection beliefs and behaviors as a predictor of beliefs about diversity and teaching for
social justice.
Table 15
Linear regression of beliefs about critical reflection as a predictor of beliefs about social
justice teaching
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant)
Program Format
1.130
-.098
.736
.139

-.090
1.779
-.704
.083
.485
Crit. Ref. Mean .725 .166 .556 4.365 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Social Justice Mean

In summary, this chapter reported the results of quantitative data analyses conducted to
answer the three research questions pursued in this study. Next, results from initial statistical
analyses provided an overview of the sample’s major demographic characteristics. Significant
64
differences were not found in the categories of age, relationship status, and employment status
between online and on-campus students. This was inconsistent with current research literature
stating that students enrolled in the online program were more likely to be older, married or in a
domestic partnership, and employed. Participants’ reasons for program delivery method
selection, however, differed between groups with on-campus students selecting instructional
considerations as their primary criterion, while online students cited geographic reasons.
The research questions were then presented individually with accompanying quantitative
results and findings. The first research question explored whether differences existed between
online and on-campus preservice teachers’ beliefs about diversity and social justice. No
significant differences were found between groups in relation to beliefs about teaching for social
justice. The second research question sought to investigate potential differences between online
and on-campus students’ beliefs, behaviors, and frequency of voluntary collaboration. Results
from independent samples t-tests showed no significant differences in preservice teachers’
beliefs and behaviors about voluntary collaboration across instructional delivery platforms. As
predicted, Chi-square tests revealed significant between group differences for in-person
voluntary collaboration with on-campus students engaging in this mode of voluntary
collaboration more frequently than their online counterparts. Finally, the third research question
explored whether beliefs and behaviors related to critical reflection could predict beliefs about
diversity and social justice. Linear regression analysis established a significant predictive
relationship between beliefs and behaviors about critical reflection and beliefs about teaching for
social justice across program delivery formats.
65
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion
This chapter provides an overview and discussion of results in the context of preservice
teacher education across two delivery platforms: synchronous online and traditional on-campus.
The chapter opens with a comparison of participants’ relevant demographic characteristics to
existing research in the field of online higher education. Next, results related to three important
constructs in preservice teacher education are discussed. The chapter concludes with a
discussion of implications, recommendations for future research, and limitations.
The purpose of this study was to explore three well-established constructs related to
preservice teacher preparation: diversity and teaching for social justice, voluntary collaboration,
and critical reflection. In response to both the changing demographic composition and needs of
the student population in the United States (Hussar & Bailey, 2014; Ortman & Guarneri, 2009;
U. S. Census Bureau, 2012) and the rapid growth of online programs in higher education (Allen
& Seaman, 2014), this study sought to better understand the development of beliefs and
behaviors related to these constructs in the synchronous online and traditional on-campus version
of a teacher preparation program. Current research about online learning in higher education
provides insights on the general characteristics of online learners, program design, attrition rates,
and the like (Allen & Seaman, 2013), but significant inconsistencies persist in the research
literature about program quality and outcomes. As the availability of online teacher credential
programs grows annually (Liu, 2013), a need for research on its effectiveness in fostering the
growth of the three aforementioned constructs is evident. The research questions posed in this
study were created in response to this gap in the research literature.

66
Discussion of Demographic Characteristics of Participants by Delivery Mode
The survey used in this study included a series of demographic questions intended to
explore the similarities and differences of student profiles across online and on-campus
preservice teacher preparation programs. In addition, understanding the student composition of
the online cohort of teacher candidates was necessary to draw comparisons as well as
contradictions to existing research examining the characteristics of online students.
Studies of online learning participants have consistently found differences in the
demographic characteristics of online learners and their traditional on-campus peers (Campbell
et al., 2008; Chen, Lambert, and Guidry, 2010; del Valle and Duffy, 2009; Picciano, Seaman, &
Allen, 2010; Xu & Jaggars, 2011). Online learners are more likely to be older, to be members of
historically disenfranchised and underserved groups, and to have professional and familial
responsibilities than their on-campus counterparts (Campbell et al., 2008; Chen, Lambert, and
Guidry, 2010; del Valle and Duffy, 2009; Picciano, Seaman, & Allen, 2010; Xu & Jaggars,
2011). Interestingly, no significant differences were found between the demographic
characteristics of online and on-campus teacher candidates in this study. While the online
students were more likely to be older; married, in a domestic partnership, or divorced; and
employed on a part- or full-time basis, differences between groups were not determined to be
significant. These findings indicate that perhaps the student compositions of online programs
vary by program focus and terminal degree.
Significant between group differences were found in the participants’ stated reasons for
selection of program delivery platform. The on-campus preservice teachers overwhelmingly
selected instructional considerations as their primary motivation for enrolling in the traditional
on-campus program. The majority of online students, on the other hand, cited geographic
67
reasons as an important factor in deciding their instructional delivery format. Although
geographic considerations have been noted in previous research (del Valle and Duffy, 2009;
Picciano, Seaman, & Allen, 2010), this observation is significant considering the uniqueness of
individual teacher preparation programs and the degree to which they are designed to fulfill
specific local, state, regional, or national credentialing requirements.
Discussion of Diversity and Teaching for Social Justice
The results of this study did not find statistically significant between group differences in
preservice teachers’ beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and social justice. Teacher
candidates in both the on-campus and online cohorts exhibited a high likelihood to value and
engage in social justice teaching. This is a significant finding given the context of America’s
demographic shift (Hussar & Bailey, 2014; Ortman & Guarneri, 2009; U. S. Census Bureau,
2012) and the well-documented educational disparities (Darling-Hammond, 2007) entrenched in
the current school system. Pre-service teachers should, therefore, be equipped to serve diverse
student populations and enact equity pedagogy (Banks et al., 2005; Cochran-Smith & Fries,
2011; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Enterline, Cochran-Smith, Ludlow, & Mitescu, 2008; Grant &
Gibson, 2011).
Currently, there is little research exploring the ability of online teacher education
programs to prepare teacher candidates to work in diverse educational settings and to approach
teaching with a social justice perspective. This study suggests that it is possible to foster the
development of the beliefs and behaviors necessary to enact social justice teaching in the
synchronous online learning setting. Although there are legitimate concerns about the potential
lack of intimacy and accountability in online education, the results indicate that conditions can
be created in the synchronous online environment to successfully facilitate meaningful
68
educational experiences that promote awareness of diversity and understanding of equity
pedagogy. These conditions include creating a virtual classroom climate characterized by
mutual respect, shared vision and accountability, safety, risk-taking, open-mindedness, and
reflection—the same positive, inclusive learning environment intentionally created in a
traditional face-to-face classroom.
Discussion of Voluntary Collaboration
Effective teachers understand the collaborative nature of teaching and are able to build
constructive relationships within professional communities of educators (Darling-Hammond,
2006; Hollins, 2011). Voluntary collaboration, as defined in this study, refers to the voluntary
nature of collaborative activities that occur within a professional teaching community. More
precisely, it encompasses collaborative engagement beyond that which is required to fulfill the
duties of a teaching position.
Data from this study show promising results for online teacher preparation in the area of
voluntary collaboration. Significant differences in preservice teachers’ beliefs about voluntary
collaboration were not identified between the different delivery formats. This indicates that both
online and on-campus students valued voluntary collaborative practices employed during the
program. Similar results were found with regard to teacher candidates behaviors related to
voluntary collaboration. Online and on-campus respondents engaged in voluntary collaborative
activities at similar participation levels. These findings suggest that beliefs and behaviors
associated with voluntary collaboration can be successfully developed in synchronous online
learning environments.
This study also explored the modes by which students enrolled in the teacher credential
program voluntarily collaborated with members of their respective learning communities.
69
Preservice teachers in online and on-campus cohorts both used the following methods to
voluntarily collaborate with no observed between group differences: phone or text, email or
discussion board, social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), and videoconferencing (e.g., Skype,
Adobe Connect). Predictably, a significant difference was found between online and on-campus
participants use of in-person communication to voluntarily collaborate. The on-campus students
were significantly more likely to voluntarily collaborate in-person than their online counterparts
for whom in-person communication may not have been an option due to geographic limitations
with the potential of international students being enrolled in the online program.
Discussion of Critical Reflection as a Predictor of Teaching for Social Justice
The need for teachers to regularly engage in reflection is well-established in education
literature (Dewey, 1933; Rodgers, 2002; Zeichner, 1981-1982). However, in response to the
previously discussed demographic changes sweeping across the United States, the structural
inequities entrenched in American schools, and the disparate educational outcomes of minority
youth, teachers need to engage in reflection on a more critical level. Critical reflection extends
beyond daily classroom practices and dilemmas to incorporate an examination of the larger
social, political, and economic contexts in which school systems operate (Dinkelman, 2000;
Howard, 2010; Smyth, 1989; Yost et al., 2000). Such reflection is at the heart of teaching for
social justice which integrates culturally responsive and equity pedagogies (Banks & Banks,
1995; Howard, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nieto, 2005). To this end, many teacher
preparation programs aim to develop teacher candidates’ capacity for critical reflection in
conjunction with a social justice orientation and keen awareness of diversity (Grant & Gibson,
2011).
70
To further explore the connection between critical reflection and social justice teaching,
the final research question in this study examined whether a predictive relationship existed
between preservice teachers’ beliefs about behaviors related to critical reflection and their beliefs
about diversity and social justice teaching. A significant predictive relationship was established
between the constructs of critical reflection and teaching for social justice. These results suggest
that in both synchronous online and traditional on-campus teacher preparation settings, the
development of teacher candidates’ beliefs and behaviors associated with critical reflectivity
could have an influence on their attitudes about diversity and social justice.
Implications
Findings from this study yielded important information about one synchronous online
teacher preparation program’s ability to develop beliefs and behaviors related to the constructs of
diversity and teaching for social justice, voluntary collaboration, and critical reflection. Given
the dearth of research in these areas, this section outlines the potential implications of this study
for online teacher education. Considering the pressing need to prepare future teachers to work
collaboratively in diverse schooling environments and the rise of online teacher preparation
programs, the following recommendations are aimed at teacher educators, administrators, and
designers of online learning to create experiences promoting social justice teaching, voluntary
collaboration, and critical reflection:
 Strong beliefs about diversity and social justice teaching, as well as high levels of
engagement in critical reflection and participation in voluntary collaboration were
found in preservice teachers enrolled in both online and on-campus cohorts. These
findings demonstrate that capabilities and beliefs related to these three essential areas
of teacher education can be developed in synchronous online teacher preparation
71
programs, such as the one examined in this study, to the same degree as in traditional,
on-campus programs. Therefore, synchronous online learning platforms can
successfully prepare teachers for diverse and challenging educational environments,
at least in construct areas researched in this study.
 Teacher preparation programs should ensure all students have full facility with
traditional (face-to-face, phone, texting, etc.) and online modes of communication,
especially those that promote collaboration. Teacher educators should regularly
model and incorporate the use of both synchronous and asynchronous collaborative
platforms and tools, encouraging students to use various methods to voluntarily
collaborate with colleagues beyond what is required for coursework and professional
development. As this study demonstrated, preservice teachers used a wide variety of
methods to voluntarily collaborate regardless of program delivery platform and all of
those methods should be encouraged as meaningful forms of communication and
collaboration in a professional learning community.
 This study established a predictive relationship between beliefs about critical
reflection and beliefs and behaviors related to teaching for social justice. Fostering
the growth of critical reflectivity is an essential practice that challenges preservice
teachers to consider issues related to diversity and social justice in education.
Engagement in critical reflection and teaching for social justice, therefore, are
interdependent practices that should be developed simultaneously throughout teacher
preparation programs and across delivery platforms.

72
Recommendations for Future Research
The rapid expansion of online courses in higher education and, specifically, the increase
of online teacher education programs highlight the need for further studies examining the ability
of online delivery platforms to adequately facilitate the development of successful future
educators. Further research is needed to compare preservice teachers’ growth in the areas of
diversity and social justice, voluntary collaboration, and critical reflection in both traditional on-
campus and synchronous online programs. Future investigations should expand beyond the
current study’s quantitative one-time data collection design to include longitudinal and
qualitative studies. Longitudinal and qualitative data would provide different lenses with which
to evaluate online teacher preparation programs focusing on the three constructs. Additionally,
since beliefs and behaviors associated with social justice teaching, voluntary collaboration, and
critical reflection develop over time, longitudinal studies are needed to measure preservice
teachers’ growth throughout the duration of their preparation programs and beyond. Growth
comparisons can then be made between online and on-campus cohorts to determine whether or
not significant differences exist.
The online program examined in the present study is unique in the field of online
education because of its intentionally-designed synchronous nature. Synchronous online
platforms enable students and instructors to interact in real time, often using videoconferencing
technology to simulate traditional classroom engagement. Further studies are needed to compare
the outcomes of synchronous verses asynchronous online teacher education programs with those
of traditional on-campus programs. In terms of critical reflection, diversity and social justice,
and voluntary collaboration, research is needed to determine the degree to which synchronous
73
and asynchronous online courses are able to grow future teachers’ capacities in these important
areas.
Specific online learning technologies also require further study to determine which
platforms, tools, and resources most ably assist preservice teachers’ development in the three
construct areas. Because beliefs, behaviors, content, and skills are unique to individual
professions and fields of study, research focusing on the employment of online learning
technologies to achieve teacher preparation outcomes would enable informed decision-making
and course design. Selection of appropriate online learning technologies enables teacher
educators and online learning designers to maximize teacher candidates’ growth and
development. Special attention should be given to the development and employment of
technology tools likely to be used by teachers once they enter the profession.
Finally, since demographic differences did not emerge between online and on-campus
participants in this study, further large-scale quantitative inquiry is necessary. Such research can
determine whether observed differences between online and on-campus learner characteristics in
undergraduate education, largely the focus of current research, are also found in post-
baccalaureate programs. This information is needed to design resources to help all students
succeed in online learning environments generally, yet specifically tailored to address the needs
of individual programs’ student populations.
Limitations
Several limitations result from the design of this study. First, it is a correlational study,
preventing the identification of causal relationships. Data analyses were only able to determine
whether the dependent and independent variables were related, but could not conclude that the
changes in dependent variables were a result of independent variables.
74
A second potential limitation is the social desirability bias resulting in teacher candidates
providing answers they believed to be socially desirable and in line with the program’s goals.
The researcher was unable to ensure that survey respondents responded honestly. An important
observation related to this limitation is that the online and on-campus programs were
intentionally designed to be the same in terms of content, rigor, and sequence. All preservice
teachers took courses focusing on critical reflection and diversity prior to enrolling in Guided
Practice, and these courses required students to practice collaboration. Consequently, students in
both online and on-campus cohorts knew explicitly the program’s goals, values, and practices
which aligned with the research questions explored in this study.
In terms of beliefs about diversity and social justice, it is possible that preservice teachers
across delivery platforms already valued diversity and intended to teach for social justice prior to
entering the program. It can be assumed that students researched teacher training options and
considered how the foci of this particular program aligned with their personal beliefs about
education and society.
Although every attempt was made to maximize participation in the research study, self-
selection bias could have been a limitation if the preservice teachers who chose to complete the
survey did not represent the population of teacher candidates enrolled in the program. However,
this study did produce high response rates: on-campus 94% (n = 15/16) and online 73% (n =
30/41).
Finally, this study used a one-time data collection design and information about whether
students were enrolled in Guided Practice A or Guided Practice B was not collected. Since
preservice teachers’ beliefs and behaviors related to the constructs explored in this study do
change over time, it is expected that their responses at a later point in the teacher preparation
75
program might have yielded different results. In this case, a longitudinal study would be
beneficial, perhaps even extending into the first years of their teaching careers and beyond.
Conclusion
In recent years, the rapid expansion of online learning has coincided with the urgent need
to prepare educators to successfully teach in diverse learning environments. Developing positive
beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and social justice teaching, voluntary collaboration, and
critical reflection are central components of teacher education programs committed to addressing
the unique needs of students in American schools and beyond. This study examined whether
differences existed between pre-service teachers enrolled in an on-campus and synchronous
online teacher preparation program at the same university in the three construct areas mentioned
above. Survey results revealed that differences did not exist between on-campus and on-line
students beliefs about diversity and teaching for social justice, with both cohorts exhibiting
strong, positive beliefs about diversity and social justice teaching. On-campus and on-line
students both expressed favorable beliefs about voluntary collaboration, engaging in voluntary
collaboration with similar frequency and using similar modes of communication, except for in-
person collaboration which was more likely for on-campus students. Finally, beliefs and
behaviors about critical reflection were found to be significantly predictive of beliefs related to
diversity and teaching for social justice across delivery platforms. Cumulatively, these results
support the promise of synchronous online teacher education programs to effectively prepare
future educators in the areas of teaching for social justice, voluntary collaboration, and critical
reflection.

76
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States,
2010. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group.
Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United
States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from
http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
Aragon, S. R., & Johnson, E. S. (2008). Factors influencing completion and noncompletion of
community college online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 146-
158.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., & Zhang, J.
(2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The
condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Aukes, L. C., Geertsma, J., Cohen-Schotanus, J., Zwierstra, R. P., & Slaets, J. P. J. (2007). The
development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education.
Medical Teacher, 29, 177-182.
77
Banks, J. A. (1983). Multiethnic education and the quest for equality. The Phi Delta Kappan,
64(8), 582-585.
Banks, J. (1995). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J.
Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp.
3–24). Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.
Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of
multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 152-158.
Banks, C. A. M., & Banks, J. A. (1997). Reforming schools in a democratic pluralistic society.
Educational Policy, 11(2), 183-193.
Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., . . . McDonald, M.
(2005). Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do
(pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J. W., &
Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and
learning in a multicultural society. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 196-198, 200-203.
Barbarin, O. A. (2010). Halting African American boys’ progression from pre-K to prison:
What families, schools, and communities can do! American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
80(1), 81-88.
Bean, T. W., & Stevens, L. P. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for preservice and inservice
teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205-218.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217.
78
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance
education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Binks, E., Smith, D. L., Smith, L. J., & Joshi, M. (2009). Tell me your story: A reflection
strategy for preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 141-156.
Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist,
and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk
& K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for
literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boud, D. (2001). Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J.
Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other
(pp. 1-20). London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D., Anderson, G., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1997). Developing assessment for peer
learning. Research and Development in Higher Education, 20, 117-25.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-426.
Brown, J. L. M. (2012). Online learning: A comparison of Web-based and land-based courses.
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(1), 39-42.
Cabrera, A. F., Crissman, J. L., Bernal, E. M., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T.
(2002). Collaborative learning: Its impact on college students’ development and
diversity. Journal of College Student Development, 43(1), 20-34.
California Department of Education (2013). Facts about English Learners in California.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
79
Campbell, M., Gibson, W., Hall, A., Richards, D., & Callery, P. (2008). Online vs. face-to-face
discussion in a web-based research methods course for postgraduate nursing students: A
quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 750-759.
Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. J. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online,
blended, and face-to-face learning environments Implications for sustainable education
delivery. International Education Studies, 3(3), 36-40.
Chant, R. H., Heafner, T. L., & Bennett, K. R. (2004). Connecting personal theorizing and
action research in preservice teacher development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(3),
25-42.
Chen, P. D., Lambert, A. D., & Guidry, K. R. (2010). Engaging online learners: The impact of
web-based learning technology on college student engagement. Computer & Education,
54, 1222-1232.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Caldera, L., & Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting college: How
disruptive innovation can deliver quality and affordability to postsecondary education.
Center for American Progress and Innosight Institute. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535182.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia
learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 97-
115). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2011). Teacher education for diversity. In A. F. Ball & C. A.
Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 339-361). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
80
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationship of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. In Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249-306).
Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research—The flat earth
and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future.
Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shilman, L. (2005). The
design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do
(pp. 232-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
del Valle, R., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Online learning: Learner characteristics and their
approaches to managing learning. Instructional Science, 37(2), 129-149.
Dell, C. A., Hobbs, S. F., & Miller, K. (2008). Effective online teacher preparation: Lessons
learned. MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 4(4), 602-610.
Dinkelman, T. (2000). An inquiry into the development of critical reflection in secondary student
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 195-222.
Dome, N., Prado-Olmos, P., Ulanoff, S. H., Garcia Ramos, R. G., Vega-Casteneda, L., &
Quiocho, A. M. L. (2005). “I don’t like not knowing how the world works”: Examining
preservice teachers’ narrative reflections. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 63-83.
81
Etscheidt, S., Curran, C. M., & Sawyer, C. M. (2012). Promoting reflection in teacher
preparation programs: A multilevel model. Teacher Education and Special Education,
35(1), 7-26.
Enterline, S., Cochran-Smith, M., Ludlow, L. H., & Mitescu, E. (2008). Learning to teach for
social justice: Measuring change in the beliefs of teacher candidates. The New Educator,
4(4), 267-290.
Evans, K. R., & Lester, J. N. (2012). Zero tolerance Moving the conversation forward.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 48(2), 108-114.
Faulk, N. T. (2010). Online teacher education—what are the results. Contemporary Issues in
Education Research, 3(11), 21-28.
Faulk, N. T. (2011). Perceptions of Texas public school superintendents regarding online
teacher education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(5), 25-30.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2013). America’s children: Key
national indicators of well-being, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/index.asp
Fisher, M., & Baird, D. E. (2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-
regulation, and retention. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88-107.
Francis, D. (1995). The reflective journal: A window to preservice teachers’ practical
knowledge. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3), 229-241.
Gay, G. (2004). Beyond Brown: Promoting equality through multicultural education. Journal
of Curriculum and Supervision, 19(3), 193-216.

82
Goldring, R., Gray, L., & Bitterman, A. (2013). Characteristics of public and private
elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011–12
schools and staffing survey (NCES 2013-314). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Gore, J. M. (1987). Reflecting on reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 33-39.
Grant, C., & Gibson, M. (2011). Diversity and teacher education: A historical perspective on
research and policy. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher
education (pp. 19-61). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Griffin, M. L. (2003). Using critical incidents to promote and assess reflective thinking in
preservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 207-220.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-367.
Hamlin, K. D. (2010). Beginning the journey: Supporting reflection in early field experience.
Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 5(2), 167-179.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(1), 33-49.
Hernández, N., González, M., & Muñoz, P. (2014). Planning collaborative learning in virtual
environments. Comunicar, 21(42), 25-32.
Hollins, E. (2011). The meaning of culture in learning to teach. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson
(Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 105-130). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
83
Howard, T. C. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical reflection. In F. W.
Parkay, G. Hass, & E. J. Anctil (Eds.). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing
quality educational programs (9
th
edition) (pp. 222-229). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning
environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.
Hussar, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2014). Projections of education statistics to 2022 (41
st
ed.).
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into
practice, 38(2), 67-73.
Jones, J. L., & Jones, K. A. (2013). Teaching reflective practice: Implementation in the teacher-
education setting. The Teacher Educator, 48, 73-85.
Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of
reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381-395.
Kim, K., & Frick, T. W. (2011). Changes in student motivation during online learning. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 1-23.
Knapp, N. F. (2012). Reflective journals: Making constructive use of the “apprenticeship of
observation” in preservice teacher education. Teaching Education, 23(3), 323-340.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 465-491.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341-360.
84
Lee, S. W.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated
learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional
learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 905-914.
Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2003). The relationship between approaches to learning and
reflection upon practice. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 61-71.
Levy, Y. (2007). Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Computers &
Education, 48, 185-204.
Liu, M. (2013). Disrupting teacher education. Education Next, 13(3), 27-31.
Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate
distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 14-176.
Ludwig, M., Kirshstein, R., Sidana, A., Ardila-Rey, A., & Bae, Y. (2010). An emerging picture
of the teacher preparation pipeline. American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Preparation. Retrieved from http://www.aacte.org/
Mishra, P., & Koehler, K. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher
Education, 54(1), 31-42.
Nagle, J. F. (2009). Becoming a reflective practitioner in the age of accountability. The
Educational Forum, 73, 76-86.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The five core propositions. (n.d.) In
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Retrieved May 10, 2014 from
http://www.boardcertifiedteachers.org/about-certification/five-core-propositions
85
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cge.asp.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact of school
discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. Social Science
Quarterly, 90(4), 1003-1018.
Nieto, S. (Ed.). (2005). Why we teach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance and some implications for education. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Ortman, J. M., & Guarneri, C. E. (2009). United States Population Projections: 2000 to 2050.
United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/analytical-document09.pdf
Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or
persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217.
Parkinson, P. T. (2009). Field-based preservice teacher research: Facilitating reflective
professional practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 798-804.
Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2006-07. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences
on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The Journal
of Higher Education, 67(2), 174-195.
Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The reflective learning continuum: Reflecting on
reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(3), 250-263.
86
Picciano, A. G., Seaman, J., & Allen, I. E. (2010). Educational transformation through online
learning: To be or not to be. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(4), 17-35.
Rabe-Hemp, C., Woollen, S., & Humiston, G. S. (2009). A comparative analysis of student
engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings. The
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 207-218.
Raible, J., & Irizarry, J. G. (2010). Redirecting the teacher’s gaze: Teacher education, youth
surveillance and the school-to-prison-pipeline. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26,
1196-1203.
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student
engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Romano, M. E. (2005). Preserrvice teachers’ reflections on observed “bumpy moments in
teaching: Implications for teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 40(4), 257-277.
Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Risko, V. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: A
critical review of literacy and general teacher education studies. Journal of Literacy
Research, 33, 595-635.
Shandomo, H. M. (2010). The role of critical reflection in teacher education. School-University
Partnerships, 4(1), 101-113.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is
not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality
in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107.
87
Sleeter, C. E., & Milner IV, H. R. (2011). Researching successful efforts in teacher education to
diversify teachers. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher
education (pp. 81-103). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Smyth, J. (1989). Developing and sustaining critical reflection in teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 40(2), 2-9.
Sobral, D. T. (2000). An appraisal of medical students’ reflection-in-learning. Medical
Education, 34, 183-187.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What
forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order
meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.
Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J. M., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2001).
Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students' reported learning gains. Journal
of Engineering Education, 90(1), 123-130.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). 2010 census show America’s diversity. Retrieved from
http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn125.html.
U.S. Census Bureau (2012). Most children younger than age 1 are minorities, Census Bureau
reports. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-90.html
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014a). Civil rights data collection: Data
snapshot (college and career readiness). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-college-and-career-readiness-
snapshot.pdf
88
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014b). Civil rights data collection: Data
snapshot (school discipline). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014c). Civil rights data collection: Data
snapshot (teacher equity). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-teacher-equity-snapshot.pdf
Vavrus, F., & Cole, K. (2002). “I didn’t do nothin’”: The discursive construction of school
suspension. The Urban Review, 34(2), 87-110.
Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing
distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education
learning environments survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8, 289-308.
Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 243-257.
Welch, K., & Payne, A. A. (2012). Exclusionary school punishment: The effect of racial threat
on expulsion and suspension. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(2), 155-171.
Wicks, M. (2010). A national primer on K-12 online learning: Version 2. International
Association for K-12 Online Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.inacol.org/resources/publications/inacol-reports/
Xu, D., & Jaggers, S. S. (2011). The effectiveness of distance education across Virginia’s
community colleges: Evidence from introductory college-level math and English
courses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 360-377.
89
Yost, S. Y., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, S. (2000). An examination of the construct of
critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21
st
century.
Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-49.
Zeichner, K. M. (1981-1982). Reflective teaching and field-based experience in teacher
education. Interchange, 12(4), 1-22.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard
Educational Review, 56(1), 23-48.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

90
Appendix A
Demographic Questions

Please answer the following demographic questions:
1. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Other (please specify)

2. What is your age in years?

3. What is your current employment status?
a. Not currently working
b. Working part-time
c. Working full-time

4. Please choose indicate your ethnicity.
a. Hispanic/Latino
b. American Indian or Alaska Native
c. Asian
d. Black or African American
e. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
f. White
g. Two or more races
h. Other – text

5. Please indicate your relationship status
a. Single
b. Married/Domestic Partner
c. Separated/Divorced
d. Widowed

6. What is the highest level of education either of your parents has completed?
a. Primary or less
b. Middle school
c. Some high school
d. High school diploma/GED
e. Some college
f. Associate Degree/Certificate
g. Bachelor’s Degree
h. Graduate Degree

7. How did you complete the majority of your K-12 education?
a. Public school
b. Private school
c. Homeschool
91

8. How would you describe the location in which you completed the majority of your K-12
education?
a. Rural
b. Suburban
c. Urban

9. What was your undergraduate major?

10. Do you have a previous graduate degree?

11. How many education courses you have taken in higher education?
a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3+

12. How many diversity or multicultural courses you have taken in higher education?
a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3+

13. I am currently working
a. Part-time (# of units)
b. Full-time (# of units)

14. Are you taking this program online or on-campus?

15. Why did you choose to take this format? (check all that apply)
a. Scheduling
b. Instructional considerations (e.g., preferred method of instruction, quality of
instruction, access to instructor)
c. Geographic reasons
d. Family responsibilities
e. Professional responsibilities
f. Other: Text answer

16. How many online courses have you taken previously in higher education?

17. Describe your comfort level using the technology required for this program.
a. Uncomfortable
b. Somewhat comfortable
c. Comfortable
d. Very comfortable

92
Appendix B
Learning to Teach for Social Justice Scale

Enterline, S., Cochran-Smith, M., Ludlow, L. H., & Mitescu, E. (2008). Learning to teach for
social justice: Measuring change in the beliefs of teacher candidates. The New Educator,
4(4), 267-290.

Respond to the following statements regarding your beliefs about teaching.

Likert response categories: Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Uncertain = 3, Agree = 4,
Strongly Agree = 5.
1. An important part of learning to be a teacher is examining one’s own attitudes and beliefs
about race, class, gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation.

2. Issues related to racism and inequity should be openly discussed in the classroom.

3. For the most part, covering multicultural topics is only relevant to certain subject areas,
such as social studies and literature. (REVERSE)

4. Good teaching incorporates diverse cultures and experiences into classroom lessons and
discussions.

5. The most important goal in working with immigrant children and English language
learners is that they assimilate into American society. (REVERSE)

6. It’s reasonable for teachers to have lower classroom expectations for students who don’t
speak English as their first language. (REVERSE)

7. Part of the responsibilities of the teacher is to challenge school arrangements that
maintain societal inequities.

8. Teachers should teach students to think critically about government positions and actions.

9. Economically disadvantaged students have more to gain in schools because they bring
less into the classroom. (REVERSE)

10. Although teachers have to appreciate diversity, it’s not their job to change society.
(REVERSE)

11. Whether students succeed in school depends primarily on how hard they work.
(REVERSE)

12. Realistically, the job of a teacher is to prepare students for the lives they are likely to
lead. (REVERSE)
93
Appendix C
Groningen Reflection Ability Scale (GRAS)

Aukes, L. C., Geertsma, J., Cohen-Schotanus, J., Zwierstra, R. P., & Slaets, J. P. J. (2007). The
development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education.
Medical Teacher, 29, 177-182.

To what extent do these descriptions apply to you?

Likert response categories: Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Uncertain = 3, Agree = 4,
Strongly Agree = 5.

Self-reflection
1. I take a closer look at my own habits of thinking.
2. I want to know why I do what I do.
3. I find it important to know what certain rules and guidelines are based on.
4. I want to understand myself.
5. I am aware of the emotions that influence my thinking and behavior.
6. I am able to view my own behavior from a distance.
7. I test my own judgments against those of others.
8. I can see an experience from different standpoints.
9. I am aware of the cultural influences on my opinions.

Empathetic Reflection
10. I am aware of the possible emotional impacts of information on others.
11. I can empathize with someone else’s situation.
12. I am aware of my own limitations.
13. I reject different ways of thinking. (REVERSE)
14. Sometimes others say that I do overestimate myself. (REVERSE)
15. I am able to understand people with different cultural, religious, and linguistic
backgrounds.
16. I am aware of the broader social, cultural, and political implications of my actions.

94
Reflective Communication
17. I do not like to have my standpoints discussed. (REVERSE)
18. I sometimes find myself having difficulty in illustrating an ethical standpoint.
(REVERSE)
19. I am accountable for what I say.
20. I take responsibility for what I say.
21. I am open to discussion about my opinions.
22. I sometimes find myself having difficulty in thinking of alternative solutions.
(REVERSE)
23. I do not welcome remarks about my personal functioning. (REVERSE)

95
Appendix D
Voluntary Collaboration Scale

Please answer the following questions in the context of your experience in this course.
Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Likert response categories: Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Uncertain = 3, Agree = 4,
Strongly Agree = 5.

1. It is important to collaborate with my peers in this course even if it is not required.
2. I believe that teaching and learning from each other is important to succeed in this course.
3. It is important to both give and receive peer feedback related to work in this course.

For the next two questions, think about your voluntary collaboration with your peers. By
voluntary collaboration, we mean collaborative activities that are NOT initiated or facilitated by
the instructor or required for the course or course assignments.

On average, how often do you voluntarily collaborate with your peers in this course?

1. Not at all
2. 1-2 times per semester
3. 1-2 times per month
4. 1-2 times per week
5. More than twice a week

In what ways did you voluntarily collaborate in this course/program? (check all that apply)
 Not applicable
 In person
 Via Phone or Text
 Via Email or discussion board
 Via Social Media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
 Via Videoconferencing (e.g., Skype, Adobe Connect, etc.)
 Other (please indicate below)
 Text entry

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The rapid growth of online learning has caused sweeping changes in higher education. In response to increasing student demand and the wider availability of technological resources, colleges and universities have begun offering individual courses and entire programs online. In the field of teacher education, specifically, institutions are launching hybrid and online teacher preparation programs striving to adequately prepare teachers to educate diverse student populations amid a backdrop of historical and pervasive educational inequities. However, because there is little research on effective online learning practices for teacher preparation, this study sought to explore the efficacy of the online instructional format in nurturing beliefs and behaviors related to the following competencies: commitment to diversity and social justice, engagement in critical reflection, and active participation in collaborative professional communities. ❧ This study yielded no statistically significant differences between synchronous online and traditional on-campus preservice teachers’ beliefs and behaviors related to diversity and teaching for social justice, and voluntary collaboration. Additionally, results established a significant predictive relationship between beliefs and behaviors associated with critical reflection and social justice teaching. These findings have important implications in the field of online teacher preparation.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Stop, dismantle and reimagine teacher preparation programs: an examination of racial justice practices of beginning preservice teachers…

PDF

Examining student beliefs and behaviors in online and on-campus courses: measuring openness to diversity, voluntary peer collaboration, and help seeking

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings

PDF

Integrating technology in teaching: beliefs and behaviors of practicing teachers from traditional and online teaching programs

PDF

Reconstructing teacher preparation: a residency model

PDF

Strategies for inclusion of students with autism: an online professional learning curriculum for general education teachers

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

A comparison of student motivation by program delivery method: self-efficacy, goal orientation, and belongingness in a synchronous online and traditional face-to-face environment

PDF

Preparing teachers for social emotional learning driven instruction and practice

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Developing a critical consciousness toward culturally responsive teaching through critical reflection: A professional development curriculum for elementary teachers

PDF

4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

What are teacher beliefs about social emotional learning in a synchronous webcam-enabled online higher education learning environment?

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Teaching academic and behavioral skills through arts-based programming: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

Asset Metadata

Creator Trapp, Jennifer Tomiko Mary (author)

Core Title Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 09/28/2015

Defense Date 05/18/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaboration,critical reflection,Distance education,distance learning,diversity,education,educational equity,OAI-PMH Harvest,online education,online teacher education,online teacher preparation,preservice teachers,social justice education,synchronous teacher education,teacher collaboration,teacher dispositions,teacher preparation,teacher reflection,teaching,teaching for social justice,voluntary collaboration

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email miyake@usc.edu,trapp.jennifer@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-188580

Unique identifier UC11276432

Identifier etd-TrappJenni-3955.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-188580 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TrappJenni-3955.pdf

Dmrecord 188580

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Trapp, Jennifer Tomiko Mary

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA