University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE ABILITY OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS TO
APPLY ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS PEDAGOGY IN GUIDED PRACTICE

by

Christine Caro Levinson

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

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Christine Caro Levinson
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Aron Levinson, and my mother,
Ernestine Caro, whose immense support gave me the courage to accomplish my dream.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to acknowledge my chair, Dr. Sandra Kaplan, who encouraged
me to be a better educator, writer, and critical thinker. It was truly an honor to work with
one of the greatest American scholars of our time. Second, I am deeply thankful for Dr.
Ronnie Ephraim, my co-chair, whose expertise in all things MAT@USC was
immeasurable. This process could not have been possible without her insight, support,
and optimism. I also want to thank Dr. Robert Keim, my other committee member, for
his kindness and guidance throughout this experience.
I thank my cohort mates Shelly, Cynthia, Melissa, and Vicki who made this roller
coaster experience bearable, worthwhile, and satisfying to the very end.
I am incredibly grateful for the love and support I received from my family and
friends throughout this journey. I must thank my parents, Alex and Ernestine Caro, and
my siblings, Danielle and Jo. I am deeply indebted to my mother for her tremendous
help whenever I needed it.
I am especially appreciative of my husband, Aron Levinson, for his unwavering
support from day one of my decision to follow through with this degree. Finally, I must
thank my children, Isaac and Isabella, for their unconditional love and patience with their
mom. Years from now, you will understand that all of this was done for the both of you.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 4
A Rise in Online Studies and Online Teacher Education 7
Purpose and Importance of the Study 9
Conceptual Framework 10
Methodology 11
Definition of Terms 13
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 16
The Guided Practice Experience 17
The Role of Guiding Teachers 18
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 21
The History of Pedagogical Content Knowledge 22
The Transformation of PCK 26
Perceptions of Online Teacher Education 28
The Problems of Transfer 31
The Divide between Theory and Practice 31
Prior Knowledge 33
Valuing the Methods and Theories Coursework 34
The Relevancy of Knowledge on the Student Teaching Experience 35
The Influence of High Stakes Testing on Student Teaching 37
Fidelity of Implementation 41
Conclusion 45

v

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 47
Research Design 49
Instrumentation and Data Collection 51
Observations 51
Surveys 54
Interviews 55
Research Sample 56
Research Site 58
Data Analysis 58
Expert Panel and Pilot Study 59

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS 61
Methodology 63
Population 67
Profiles 67
Mary 71
Maria 73
James 74
Wendy 76
Presentation of Findings for Research Question #1 78
Theme 1: The Degree of Instructional Support Received 81
Summary of Theme 1 94
Theme 2: The Degree of Freedom to Plan and Implement Lessons 95
Summary of Theme 2 104
Synthesis of Findings using Cross Case Analysis 105
Presentation of Findings for Research Question #2 107
Summary 115

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 117
Summary of Findings 118
Question 1 119
Findings for Question 1 120
Question 2 122
Findings for Question 2 124
Implications and Recommendations 125
Limitations of the Study 129
Recommendations for Future Research 130

REFERENCES 134

APPENDICES 144
Appendix A: Student Teacher Pedagogy Questionnaire 144
Appendix B: Teacher Candidate Interview 150
Appendix C: Fidelity of Implementation for Socratic Seminar 152
Appendix D: Fidelity of Implementation for Gallery Walk 153
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: A Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action 26

Table 2: Questions That Underlie Courses in Content-Specific Pedagogy 27

Table 3: Data Collection 52

Table 4: Strategies Taught in EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and
Language Arts

53

Table 5: Interview Questions by Factor 64

Table 6: Strategies Taught in EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and
Language Arts

65

Table 7: Data Collection 66

Table 8: Candidate Profiles 68

Table 9: Teaching Load for Teacher Candidates 69

Table 10: Roles and Responsibilities of Guided Practice Participants 70

Table 11: School Demographics Placement 1 - EDUC 568A 77

Table 12: School Demographic Placement 2 – EDUC 568B 78

Table 13: Data Collection for Research Question 1 79

Table 14: Evidence of Support in PrePlanning Videos 90

Table 15: Support from Guiding Teachers Based on Strategies 92

Table 16: Support from Guiding Teacher from Survey Question #3 and
Interview

94

Table 17: Summary of Findings for Theme 1 95

Table 18: Usefulness of Strategies 102

Table 19: Usefulness of the Strategies at the School Site by Participant 104

Table 20: Summary of Findings for Theme 2 105

vii

Table 21: Summary of responses from interviews 106

Table 22: Causal Chain 107

Table 23: Data Collection for Research Question 2 107

Table 24: Percentage of fidelity for strategy instruction 110

Table 25: Research Question 1 Summary of Themes, Findings, Literature,
Implications & Recommendations

119

Table 26: Research Question 2 Summary of Themes, Findings, Literature,
Implications & Recommendations

123

viii

ABSTRACT
Guided Practice, also referred to as student teaching, is a traditional component of
teacher education that prepares teacher candidates for the complexities of the classroom.
Teacher candidates learn pedagogical instructional strategies in their coursework and
apply them during their classroom experiences. While guided practice continues to be an
integral part of teacher education, several factors affect the teacher candidates’ ability to
implement the strategies with a high degree of fidelity. In this mixed methods study,
four teacher candidates enrolled in the online Masters of Art in Teaching program
(MAT@USC) at the University of Southern California were interviewed, surveyed, and
observed to determine their perceptions of the factors that affect their ability to
implement the strategies learned from their online secondary English Language Arts
pedagogy course in their guided practice experiences. Second, the study examined
teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies with fidelity. Results indicated
that the degree of support received from the teacher candidates’ guiding teachers, also
known as cooperating or master teachers, has the greatest impact on the candidates’
ability to implement the strategies during the guided practice experience. Additionally,
the degree of freedom to plan and implement their own lessons determines the teacher
candidates’ ability to implement the strategies. In regards to fidelity of implementation,
the study found that the school context, such as the culture, attitude, and organizational
characteristics, can enhance or impede the candidates’ ability to implement the strategies
with a high degree of fidelity. The findings suggest the need for teacher candidates to be
paired with knowledgeable, supportive, and well-trained guiding teachers who
understand and support the university’s core values in an effort to develop effective
ix

classroom teachers. Moreover, teacher candidates require knowledge in how to navigate
school contexts to better serve their students.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Guided Practice, also known as student teaching or field experience, is a rite of
passage for most teacher candidates (White, 1989) entering the teaching profession, and
only recently have teacher education programs made any profound changes in the way in
which teacher candidates are introduced to the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2006). In
a traditional program, teacher candidates, also referred to as student teachers, are
instructed in the theory and pedagogy from university professors and expected to transfer
the knowledge gained into their student teaching experience in an effort to shape their
professional practice (Zeichner, 2010). The problem of transfer has been notably evident
in the research (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Joram & Gabriel, 1998), but several factors
continue to exacerbate the problem, leading many to wonder if the concept of transfer is a
possibility in teacher preparation.
Teachers’ beliefs about the relevancy of and prior knowledge about the
pedagogical practices introduced in coursework can hamper the ability to transfer
pedagogy to the student teaching experience (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Joram &
Gabriel, 1998). In addition, the rise of high stakes testing that permeates local schools
has forced teachers to implement test-based strategies versus the social-constructivist
approach valued by many teacher education programs (Anderson and Stillman, 2010). In
addition, guiding teachers, commonly referred to as cooperating teachers, continue to
complain that students come bearing their university knowledge from coursework that is
not relevant or practical to real-world teaching (Koerner, 1992) or that the university
program did not adequately prepare teacher candidates to teach in the classroom (Faire,
1994 as cited in Al-Bataineh, 2009). The lack of coherence between what teacher
2

candidates learn in classrooms and how it is applied to the act of teaching is a perennial
problem in teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 1991). To make matters more
complicated, the rapid growth of online teacher education programs has left many
scholars and school officials to question whether online programs can effectively prepare
prospective teachers for the demands of the classroom (Faulk, 2010).
This study focused on the online Master of Arts in Teaching program at the
University of Southern California (MAT@USC). The purpose of this study was to
determine teacher candidates’ perceptions and beliefs about their ability to implement the
instructional strategies learned in their online pedagogy course (EDUC 535: Teaching
Secondary English and Language Arts) and to identify the factors that affected their
ability to implement the strategies during their guided practice (student teaching)
experiences in Guided Practice A (EDUC 568A) and Guided Practice B (EDUC 568B).
The study also sought to determine teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies
with fidelity. The findings of this study can not only inform future teacher preparation
practices for the MAT@USC, but will add to the current literature on how to effectively
prepare teacher candidates in an online teacher education program for the demanding and
often complex task of teaching in urban schools.
Background of the Problem
Pre-service teachers face huge demands to teach and support a wide variety of
learners (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Teachers must not only be prepared to work with a
diverse group of students, but also be able to make complex decisions that rely on many
types of knowledge to produce outcomes that demonstrate high student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2006). According to Darling-Hammond (2006), the population
3

within the classrooms most beginning teachers will enter demonstrates the complexity of
the skills and knowledge required today:
In the classrooms most beginning teachers will enter, at least 25% of students live
in poverty and many of them lack basic food, shelter, and health care; from 10%
to 20% have identified learning differences; 15% speak a language other than
English as their primary language (many more in urban settings); and about 40%
are members of racial/ethnic “minority” groups, many of them recent immigrants
from countries with different educational systems and cultural traditions (p. 301).

Adequately preparing teachers to implement effective instruction has become a
national imperative. According to The National Council for Accreditation on Teacher
Education (2010), “The education of teachers in the United States needs to be turned
upside down (p. ii)” The NCATE Blue Ribbon panel asserts that teachers must be
prepared to equip students with the 21
st
century skills and advocates teacher education
reform that focuses less on “academic preparation and coursework loosely linked to
school-based experiences” (NCATE, 2010) Although the panel proposes programs that
are more fully grounded in clinical practice, the message is clear. It is critical that
teacher education programs create opportunities for teacher candidates to improve
teaching performance outcomes in conjunction with closer relationships between
universities and the local schools they serve (NCATE, 2010).
In a 2009 speech to the Teacher’s College at Columbia University, Secretary of
Education, Arne Duncan called for a revolutionary change stating that “departments of
education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21
st

century classroom.” Duncan also cited the controversial Levine report (2006) that
surveyed teacher education graduates about their teacher preparation programs. The
4

report revealed that 61% of teacher education alumni did not feel they received adequate
preparation for today’s classrooms (Levine, 2006).
Reform efforts currently underway highlight that quality teaching is central to the
academic achievement of students and that teacher education plays an essential part in
shaping quality teaching (Wang, Odell, Klecka, Spalding, & Lin, 2010). However, as
Hansen (2008) points out, significant disagreements exist among teacher educators,
teachers, administrators, policy-makers, researchers, and others regarding the purposes of
teacher education. The widespread disagreements range from conceptions of learning,
such as constructivism versus behaviorism, to core values of teacher preparation, such as
social justice versus a democratic education (Cochran-Smith, et al., 2008), and to the
length and type of field experiences (Spooner, Flowers, Lambert, & Algozzine, 2008)
have created what scholars define as “endless tinkering” (Russell, McPherson, & Martin,
2001) to teacher education. The differences that exist do not imply that teacher
educators need to take an absolutist or relativist standpoint, as Hansen (2008) implies, but
rather that they need to “cultivate an open mind toward multiple views of educational
purpose” (p. 23). Through dialogue, we can effect change that embodies what is valued
in teacher education for today’s growing and diverse population.
Statement of the Problem
The complexities of teaching require teacher education to provide students with
effective skills and knowledge to prepare pre-service teachers for the classroom (Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005). A basic problem in teacher education is restructuring
how to connect theory and practice in such a way that teachers are able to handle multiple
aspects of the classroom using the information gained from their coursework (Korthagen,
5

Loughran, & Russell, 2006). Traditional approaches to teacher education have favored
the “transmission model” whereby the experts transmit knowledge to students with the
expectation that teachers will transfer the knowledge to the classroom (Korthagen &
Kessels, 1999; Zeichner, 2010). When this model is in effect, teacher candidates
experience frustration when the daily demands of teaching are met resulting in some
teachers to dismiss their university courses as “irrelevant, superficial, and even useless”
(Russell, McPherson, & Martin, 2001). Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981) have suggested
a “washing out” of teacher education once teacher candidates enter field experience
resulting in a gap between university coursework and practice. The gap between theory
and experience has led teachers to believe that the real learning takes place during their
student teaching experience (Russell et al., 2001). Russell et al (2001) assert, “Unless
beginning teachers are challenged to question their images and understanding of their
role as classroom teachers, they fail to see past the actions of teaching to the pedagogical
foundations that inform the ability to think like a teacher” (p. 42). Teachers’ perceptions
of what is worth learning can affect what is actually retained from coursework and
implemented during the field experience (Russell et al, 2001).
Zeichner (2010) identified the problem of disconnect between what students are
taught in campus courses and how that translates to the university-based field
experiences. University supervisors and teacher candidates often struggle to implement
the learned pedagogy during student teaching experience due to a mismatch between the
student teacher’s ideals and the classroom teacher’s philosophy. Studies have found that
teacher candidates are most influenced by their classroom mentors and tend to follow the
familiar pedagogical practices of the guiding teacher in an effort to please him or her,
6

often disregarding what was taught in university coursework (Anderson & Stillman,
2010; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2006).
As a result of No child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002), high stakes testing also plays
a profound role in dictating what is and is not taught during the student teaching
experience. Today’s schools face tremendous pressure from No Child Left Behind
(NCLB, 2002) to raise student achievement scores. Subsequently, low performing
schools have turned to teaching test taking strategies, or “drill and kill,” in an effort to
meet the demands. Ferguson and Brink (2004) point out that some educators believe that
at-risk children require activities that stress direct instruction, workbooks, and drills.
Teacher candidates whose program emphasizes social constructivism face great anxiety
trying to implement practices that do not align with the school culture. To appease their
frustrations and to assimilate to the school culture, they often abide by the school’s
philosophy to maintain a stress-free environment during a time when new teaching can
be most stressful (Ferguson & Brink, 2004).
The methods in which students are introduced to pedagogical practices can affect
the transfer of theory and pedagogy. Teachers in this study were obtaining their
Secondary English Language Arts teaching credential and master’s degree at the
University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. The Master of Arts in
Education (MAT@USC) program is a blended site-based and online program through the
online Master of Arts in Teaching program at USC (MAT@USC). The program is
structured to provide candidates with opportunities to complete assignments online as
well as attend class in a synchronous online setting. Teacher candidates meet live on
camera once per week with their professor and classmates using an online platform
7

provided by 2Tor, the creator of the online learning management system (LMS).
Candidates complete their teaching assignments at a school site during Guided Practice A
and B. Students also complete asynchronous tasks such as viewing media that
corresponds to coursework and responding to discussion and reflection questions before
and after class. Syllabi for on-campus courses are identical to the online format, with
students required to meet the same coursework and classroom expectations (MAT@USC
Facts). Since its beginning in 2009, the MAT@USC has grown exponentially, enrolling
100 teachers in 2009 and nearly 1700 teachers in 43 states and 25 countries (MAT@USC
Facts) in 2012.
A Rise in Online Studies and Online Teacher Education
The use of online education has dramatically grown over the last ten years but
continues to be a much contested debate among policy makers, school officials, and
universities who worry that online courses for teacher preparation cannot adequately
provide teachers with the knowledge and skills necessary to be an effective educator or
prepare teachers for the complexities of classroom instruction (Faulk, 2010; Faulk, 2011;
Huss, 2007).
Notwithstanding concerns, researchers have continued to identify the benefits of
online learning and its appeal to college and graduate level students, but empirical
evidence is still limited regarding the effectiveness of online learning versus face to face
instruction. What was once reserved for business students or individuals interested in
gaining new knowledge about a subject of interest has now branched to all areas of
learning, including degrees and credentials that can be acquired online. According to
Choy, McNickle, and Clayon (2002), online learners found learning from home a
8

convenient way to work and learn at their own pace. In addition, student surveys
revealed their satisfaction with online learning due to the significant amount of support
received online nearly 24 hours a day, seven days a week (Choy, McNickle, & Clayon,
2002). Feedback and communication were highly regarded in online learning
environments, and in some cases, were more prevalent in online learning than classes
taken on the university campus (Choy, McNickle, & Clayon, 2002).
The use of online education shows no signs of slowing down. According to a
report conducted by the Babson Survey Research Group, over 5.6 million students were
taking at least one online course during the fall 2009 term; an increase of nearly one
million students reported from the previous year (Allen & Seaman, 2010). The report,
which received survey responses from more than 2,500 colleges and universities, found
that sixty-three percent of universities believe that online learning was a critical part of
their institutions’ long term strategy. Due to the economic downturn, the need for face to
face courses has decreased while increasing the call for online courses and programs
(Allen and Seaman, 2010).
For these reasons, university teacher preparation programs have taken advantage
of the interest of consumers and added online teacher credentialing programs to their
repertoire of student learning. However, in spite of online programs’ best efforts to
provide quality online education equivalent to on-ground counterparts, critics and
scholars remain doubtful that an online teacher education program can create effective,
pedagogically prepared individuals who will improve student achievement (Faulk, 2010;
Faulk, 2011; Huss, 2007). The growth in online learning has led many to question the
9

rigor and validity of online courses and whether online courses can produce similar
outcomes in student knowledge and achievement.
Purpose and Importance of the Study
Teacher education is currently seeking effective ways to ensure teachers are
adequately prepared to instruct a diverse group of students (Darling-Hammond &
Bransford, 2005). The skills and knowledge required for teachers is varied. Pedagogical
content knowledge is viewed as one of the formative skills that every teacher must
possess in order to successfully impart subject matter knowledge to students (Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Shulman, 1987). However, the transfer of pedagogical
content knowledge learned from coursework to the classroom differs depending on
numerous factors such as whether students perceive the information as relevant or useful
(Clark & Lampert, 1986; Korthagen & Kessels,1999) and how the pedagogy is
implemented and replicated at the school site (Dane & Schneider, 1998). The purpose of
this study was to explore the factors that influence the transfer of pedagogy taught from
an online pedagogy course to the guided practice experience and to identify the degree to
which teacher candidates can implement the strategies with fidelity.
The importance of this study lies in providing insight into how teacher educators
can best support new teachers in their acquisition of new knowledge and skills developed
during online preservice coursework. With limited empirical research examining the
effectiveness of online teacher education, and even less so on the guided practice or field
work experience with an online component, this study aimed to contribute to the
literature on how online teacher preparation shapes teaching practices. Additionally, this
study may serve as a resource to online teacher educators who struggle to make
10

knowledge learned from the teacher preparation courses practical and relevant for
everyday use in the classroom. By examining the factors that affect the transfer of
coursework to the student teaching experience, teacher educators can use the results from
this study to incorporate issues of prior beliefs, relevancy, high stakes testing, or other
factors identified by the research into their planning practices for preservice course
studies. This study may help teacher educators identify whether the pedagogy taught in
their coursework is relevant to the schools and communities in which they serve and
whether teacher candidates can implement the strategies with fidelity. As such, two main
research questions guided this study:
1. How do teacher candidates perceive their ability to transfer instructional
strategies taught in an online secondary English language arts pedagogy course to
the guided practice experience?
a. What factors affect the transfer of the instructional strategies taught in
the online secondary English language arts pedagogy course to the guided
practice experience?
2. To what degree can teacher candidates implement the instructional strategies
taught in the online secondary English language arts pedagogy course to the
guided practice experience with fidelity?
Conceptual Framework
Cognitive learning theory focuses on the change in mental structures that people
exhibit as they acquire new knowledge and skills (Parkay, Antcil, & Hass, 2010). Eggen
and Kauchak (2007) identified the following principles that support the cognitive
learning theories:
11

1. People are mentally active in their attempts to understand how their world
works.
2. Learning and development depend on learners’ experiences.
3. Learners construct – they do not record - knowledge in an attempt to make
sense of those experiences.
4. Knowledge that is constructed depends on knowledge that learners already
possess.
5. Learning is enhanced in a social environment.
6. Learning requires practice and feedback.
Cognitive learning theory is grounded in the work of Piaget (1952) and Vygotsky
(1978) who believed that “individuals seek information that helps them understand
questions, modify their understanding based on new knowledge, and change their
behavior in response to their increased understanding” (Eggen & Kauchak, 2007).
Learning is also based on previous knowledge and experiences constructed prior to the
new learning. For example, as Lortie (1975) pointed out that pre-service teachers
experience an “apprenticeship of observation” in which they base their knowledge on the
years of experience they had as a student. Finally, Donavan and Bransford (2005)
highlight that learning is an active process. Using cognitive theory, teacher educators
need to acknowledge students’ attempt to make sense of their experiences and help them
confront inconsistencies through practice and feedback.
Methodology
This mixed methods study focused on a random sampling of four teacher
candidates enrolled in the online Master of Art in Teaching (MAT@USC) program at the
12

University of Southern California (USC). The population sample consisted of teacher
candidates seeking a secondary English Language Arts teaching credential. Each
participant was enrolled in the online pedagogy course EDUC535: Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts during the fall of 2011 and subsequently enrolled in Guided
Practice A (EDUC 568A) and Guided Practice B (EDUC 568B). A description of the
courses is as follows:
EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts
“EDUC 535, Secondary English prepares teacher candidates to research, design,
implement and refine courses which are engaging, challenging, and
individually/group responsive standards-based learning experiences in the study
of language arts. This course proceeds from the assumption that all students,
including those at educational disadvantage, learn best from instruction that is
accelerated rather than remediative, reflecting high-level thinking and content for
learners at all levels” (EDUC 535 Pedagogy: Secondary English Syllabus).

EDUC 568A/B: Guided Practice “Guided Practice is a two-part course designed
to provide candidates with te opportunities to apply theory into classroom
application and gain understanding of the teaching-leaning process in varied
contexts. Candidates will apply learning theories, content knowledge, and the
pedagogical repertoire of skills acquired in previous courses and threaded
throughout the program as the basis for decision-making to positively affect
student learning and outcomes. The building of teacher expertise in Guided
Practice is a developmental process that continues for 20 weeks in both Guided
Practice parts A and B” (EDUC 568A Guided Practice-Part A Syllabus).

Quantitative and qualitative methodology was utilized to uncover the factors that
influence the ability to transfer pedagogical instructional strategies gained from the
online pedagogy course to the guided practice experience, and to determine the degree of
fidelity with which these are implemented. This study began by observing pre-recorded
class sessions of teacher candidates in the course titled EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts to determine which strategies were taught in the course.
Observations were conducted in the online forum using the MAT@USC platform,
13

Learning Management System (LMS) developed by 2tor. The course (EDUC 535) was
observed for the ten-week length of the course. Observations of the online class provided
insight into the pedagogical strategies that teacher candidates were expected to utilize in
their guided practice experience.
Second, the study employed a Likert-style survey after teacher candidates
completed their guided practice experience to uncover their beliefs and values regarding
the pedagogy, the relevancy of the pedagogy to their school setting, the influence of high
stakes testing on the implementation of the pedagogy, and the support received from their
guiding teacher to measure the ability to transfer each of the 24 instructional strategies
taught in the online pedagogy course to the guided practice experiences.
Third, sixty-minute phone interviews were used to determine additional beliefs,
perceptions, and factors that influenced the transfer of instructional strategies not
accessed in the surveys.
To identify which strategies were implemented during guided practice and to
what extent the teacher candidate was able to effectively use the strategy with fidelity,
videotaped observations of teacher candidates teaching at their school sites during
Guided Practice A and Guided Practice B were conducted. A cross-section of videotaped
observations of teacher candidates’ preplanning sessions with their guiding teachers was
used to triangulate the data in an effort to support and strengthen the findings.
Definition of Terms
Asynchronous learning. Learning that occurs with a time lag between the presentation of
instructional stimuli and student responses (Means, Tomaya, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones,
2010).
14

Guiding teacher. The teacher of record who supervises the student teacher during his or
her guided practice experience.
Fidelity of Implementation. The extent to which the critical components of an intended
program are present when the program is enacted (Century, Rudnick, & Freeman, 2010).
Online learning. Learning delivered using technology via the internet (Palloff & Pratt,
2001).
Online teacher education. A teacher education program with a large majority of the
coursework being done by electronic means via computer technology (Faulk, 2011).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge. According to Shulman (1987), “Pedagogical content
knowledge represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of
how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented, and adapted to the
diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction.”
Guided Practice. The culminating field experience in teacher preparation in which the
student teacher “gradually assumes total teaching responsibility under the joint
supervision of a cooperating teacher, who is the teacher of record, and a university
supervisor” (Huling, 1998).
Synchronous learning. Instruction occurs in real time whether in a physical or virtual
place (Means et al., 2010).
Transfer of learning. The concept of acquiring new information or skills and applying it
to new situations or contexts.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of this study is offered in four chapters. Chapter 2 details the
major themes of the dissertation through a comprehensive literature review. The chapter
15

begins with an introduction and discusses the major themes of this research: the guided
practice experience; the role of cooperating teachers; a definition of pedagogical content
knowledge as it relates to the purpose of this study; the perceptions of online education;
the problems of transfer including the student teacher’s knowledge prior to entering a
teacher preparation program, the value placed on the methods and theories acquired from
coursework, and the relevancy of the knowledge learned from coursework to the field
work. In addition, chapter 2 will address the relationship between program coherence
and transfer, the influence of high stakes testing, and the evaluative tools used to
determine fidelity of implementation from coursework to practice.
Chapter 3 features a description of the research methodology necessary to analyze
data in this mixed methods study. Multiple sources of data are included to analyze the
factors that contribute to the transfer of pedagogical content knowledge gained from an
online course to the guided practice experience. Data include surveys and interviews
with teacher candidates, observations of the online pedagogy course (EDUC 535), videos
of teacher candidates teaching at the school sites during Guided Practice A and B, and
videos of preplanning sessions between teacher candidates and their guiding teachers.
Chapter 3 also discusses the research questions, the participants chosen for this study,
and a site description.
Chapter 4 reports the findings of this study organized by research question and
includes a brief reflection of initial insights gleaned from the findings.
Chapter 5 addresses the conclusions of this study with a summary of findings,
limitations of this study, implications for practice, and a discussion of future research that
is needed as a result of the findings from this study.
16

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Teacher preparation programs are designed to ensure that novice teachers receive
quality education to address the complexities of the classroom (Darling-Hammond &
Bransford, 2010). Guided practice, also referred to as student teaching or field
experience, is one component among many that shapes and informs a new teacher’s
professional practice. The problem identified in the research is the consistent inability to
transfer the knowledge gained to the student teaching practicum (Korthagen & Kessels,
1999), specifically the content area pedagogy that is critical to a teacher’s performance
and student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Shulman, 1987).
Several forces can attribute to the lack of transfer such as the teacher’s prior knowledge
or beliefs or the value and relevancy of the new skills gained from the course (Clark &
Lampert, 1986; Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). In addition, the support of the guiding
teacher, high stakes testing, and the ability to implement the strategies with high level of
fidelity all play a crucial role in the development of the new knowledge and skills.
The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that affect four teacher
candidates’ ability to implement the strategies learned from their online pedagogy course
and apply them to the guided practice experiences using data culled from interviews,
surveys, and observations. This dissertation also determined the teacher candidates’
ability to implement the strategies at their school site placements with fidelity. Research
was conducted using the online Masters of Art in Teaching program (MAT@USC) at the
University of Southern California. This study adds to the literature on the factors that
influence the transfer of pedagogy learned in teacher education programs to the student
teaching placement and on the ability to implement the strategies with fidelity. The study
17

serves to better inform university teacher preparation programs in the development and
support of their teacher candidates.
The Guided Practice Experience
Guided practice, also known as student teaching or field experiences, is
considered by many educators to be the single most important experience in a teacher’s
pre-service education (Head, 1992) and is often described as a “rite of passage” in which
teacher candidates transition from one social group to another (White, 1989). In order to
become a member of the teaching profession, White (1989) notes that teachers must
successfully demonstrate the “specialized practices, knowledges, and beliefs” of
teaching. In his examination of student teaching as an initiation into the profession,
Head (1992) described teachers as in a “betwixt and between” state of professional
growth in which individuals must separate their previous roles as students and embark on
the role of the teacher.
During the guided practice experience, the student teacher gradually assumes total
responsibility of the classroom duties under the supervision of a coordinating teacher and
a university supervisor (Huling, 1998). Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) expand
on the role of the guided practice experience as one in which teacher candidates are
“supported by purposeful coaching from an expert cooperating teacher in the same
teaching field who offers modeling, co-planning, frequent feedback, repeated
opportunities to practice, and reflection upon practice while the student teacher gradually
takes on more responsibility” (p. 409). The problem is that the experience can range
from a passive environment in which the student teacher sits in the back of the room to
grade papers, to a “trial by fire” scenario where the teacher is left to his/her own accord
18

with little coaching, coplanning or conceptual framework by which to guide teaching
(Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) outlines
standards to identify the role of student teaching. Standard 3.b Design, Implementation,
and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice defines the target goal as
follows:
Field experiences allow candidates to apply and reflect on their content,
professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions in
a variety of settings with students and adults. Both field experiences and clinical
practice extend the unit’s conceptual framework into practice through modeling
by clinical faculty and well designed opportunities to learn through doing (Unit
Standards in Effect, 2008).

Guided practice is a critical component of a teacher educator’s professional
training. Guided practice allows teachers the opportunity to develop the pedagogical
knowledge and skills necessary for the grade level and content area for the students they
will serve (NCATE, 2008). When designed well, field experiences can help pre-service
teachers develop the competencies necessary to begin a successful career in teaching
(NCATE, 2008).
The Role of Guiding Teachers
Guiding teachers, traditionally known as cooperative teachers or master teachers,
have as much, if not more, influence on the teacher candidate than any other person in
pre-service teacher education (Anderson, 2007/2009; Emans, 1983; McIntyre, 1984 as
cited in Koerner, 1992). Guiding teachers are often considered the most effective
educators on campus (Killian & Wilkins, 2004), and, therefore, asked to guide new
teachers to enhance the profession (Head, 1992).
19

Anderson’s (2009) study of the impact of guiding teachers on the teaching
perspectives of teacher candidates found that 28% of teacher candidates’ dominant
perspectives, behaviors, and beliefs changed significantly after the student teaching
practicum. Thirteen percent of teacher candidates consistently cited their cooperating
teacher’s influence on their growth. Anderson (2007) also notes that only one student
teacher identified his or her university supervisor as having any impact on development.
Student teacher responses also indicated that the teacher candidates did not find
interactions with their university supervisors as valuable as they did their interactions
with the cooperating teacher. The study indicates the influence of guiding practice
teachers on the ability of teacher candidates to transfer the pedagogical practices during
the practicum experience.
Zeichner (2010) posits that it is very common for guiding teachers to know very
little about the specific methods and coursework that their teacher candidates have
completed at the university. Experienced teachers often base their knowledge on
“practical knowledge” or the knowledge developed over many years of experience
(Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004). In his study, Koerner (1992) reported that experienced
classroom teachers disregarded “university ideas” that they felt were not relevant to the
real work of the classroom. In addition, Koerner’s (1992) work found that guiding
teachers often felt threatened when the student teacher proposed new ideas for instruction
and believed that they should be the source of ideas of instruction since they had invested
so much in their classrooms. Research also found that “threatening and stressful
situations” arose when teacher candidates were placed in classrooms where there was
20

great disparity between the philosophy of the guided teacher and the methods advocated
by the university program (Ferguson & Brink, 2004).
In their study of characteristics of highly effective cooperating teachers, Killian
and Wilkins (2004) found that the most effective cooperating teachers were less
concerned than others in having teacher candidates duplicate their teaching, adding to the
research that a flexible guiding teachers are an important characteristic in supporting
novice teachers (Nguyen, 2008) Recent evidence suggests, however, that a teacher
candidate with extensive knowledge in a new area of learning stemming from the
university coursework may consider implementing the pedagogy from her coursework in
an effort to form, develop, and understand her own teaching practice (Gwynn-Paquette &
Tochon, 2002) but may face resistance from the guiding teacher due to a number of
factors such as the need for control, perceived risks such as time constraints, and the
potential for problems to arise concerning classroom management. The competing
agendas can create conflict between the teacher candidate and the guiding teacher.
Gwynn-Paquette and Tochon (2002), who studied preservice teachers’ ability to
incorporate cooperative learning strategies into the classroom, found that, when guiding
teachers had a pre-existing interest or belief in the strategies, a level of self-confidence,
and perceived the advantages of the cooperating strategies for their students, they were
more supportive in allowing their teacher candidate to implement the strategies.
Previous studies reported that an effective guiding teacher can enhance the quality
of a new teacher’s growth and development (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Nguyen, 2008;
Rajuan, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007). Nguyen’s (2008) study of five Vietnamese first
born generation American women during their preservice teaching placements found that
21

supportive environments helped guide the team of teachers to shape their teacher beliefs,
practice, and assumptions about teaching through “inquiry based discourse.”
Data from several sources find that a supportive environment is a critical indicator
in the success of the guided practice experience. Supportive environments have been
defined as the guiding teacher’s ability to initiate the following:
1) Articulates observable, measurable, and specific feedback supported by
concrete models, demonstrations, or examples to achieve desired outcomes
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Nguyen, 2008).
2) Collaborates with teacher candidates on lesson planning creating an
environment where experts and novices are partners of shared knowledge
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Nguyen, 2008).
3) Uses critical inquiry and reflective dialogue to help teacher candidates
explicate their teaching and assist them in identify problems in teaching
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Gwynn-Pacquette & Tochon, 2002; Nguyen, 2008).
4) Exhibit flexibility with regard to the teaching practices they allow teacher
candidates to implement (Kahn, 2001).
Finally, several studies revealed that guiding teachers who take on mentoring
responsibilities report a higher level of reflection concerning their own practice and make
changes to their teaching practices as a result of their interaction with the teacher
candidate (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Nguyen, 2008).
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge is an essential component of the knowledge and
skills required by teacher educators (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). The
22

NCATE standards clearly identify the acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge as
an integral part of the field experience. Currently, NCATE standards for professional
practice identify the standards for pedagogical content knowledge for teacher candidates
as follows:
Teacher candidates reflect a thorough understanding of the relationship of content
and content-specific pedagogy delineated in professional, state, and institutional
standards. They have in-depth understanding of the content that they plan to teach
and are able to provide multiple explanations and instructional strategies so that
all students learn. They present the content to students in challenging, clear, and
compelling ways, using real-world contexts and integrating technology
appropriately. Candidates in advanced programs for teachers have expertise in
pedagogical content knowledge and share their expertise through leadership and
mentoring roles in their schools and communities. They understand and address
student preconceptions that hinder learning. They are able to critique research and
theories related to pedagogy and learning. They are able to select and develop
instructional strategies and technologies, based on research and experience, that
help all students learn” (NCATE, 2008).

Notably, the standards mirror Shulman’s (1987) work on pedagogical content
knowledge, demonstrating Shulman’s influence on teachers’ professional practice
discussed in the subsequent section.
The History of Pedagogical Content Knowledge
The blending of content and pedagogy has been an underlying concept in teacher
education since the normal schools developed during the latter half of the 19
th
century.
Bullough (2001) describes the development of pedagogical content knowledge as a
struggle wrought with “political, sociological, and conceptual” problems. The issue of
what teachers should know and be able to do was first brought to light at the 1907
conference of the National Education Association. Speeches noted that “college
graduates who lacked pedagogical training did not know how to manage classrooms or
work with children effectively” (Bullough, 2001). Parr, the then president of the
23

National Education Association Department of Normal Schools, “laid the seeds of PCK”
when he stated, “An analysis of the process of teaching shows that there is a special
knowledge in each subject that belongs to instruction” and that subject matter is arranged
in a specific order that supports the learning mind (Bullough, 2001).
Decades later, Shulman (1987) was the first scholar noted for successfully
bringing pedagogical content knowledge to the forefront of teacher education. Shulman
(1987) noted that an elaborate knowledge base exists for teaching and that teachers must
be equipped to transform the knowledge gained from teacher education into the
classroom. In his 1985 Presidential Address, Shulman outlined the knowledge necessary
for teachers to teach subject matter comprehensibly. Shulman (1986) believed teachers
should possess content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, curricular knowledge, and
other various forms of knowledge.
Shulman’s (1986) description of content knowledge is derived from Schwab’s
(1962) work on substantive and syntactic knowledge and how knowledge is organized in
the mind of the teacher (Schwab, 1962 as cited in Deng, 2007). Shulman stressed that
understanding the content area goes beyond knowing substantive knowledge, or the
major facts and concepts of the discipline, and pressed teachers to also possess syntactic
knowledge, or knowing the “rules” of the discipline. With this knowledge, the teacher
has the ability to use the syntax of the academic field to support or negate the worthiness
of a topic within the discipline.
In his speech, Shulman (1986) introduced pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
to the educational community with wide regard. Shulman (1986) described PCK as
knowledge that goes beyond subject matter and focuses on the knowledge of subject
24

matter for teaching. His initial description of PCK emphasized the teacher’s ability to
provide alternative representations of the content to make it comprehensible to students.
According to Deng (2007), Shulman’s design of representations is derived primarily from
Bruner’s (1960/1966) belief that academic disciplines provide the primary source for
subject matter knowledge, and that the disciplines require conversion into three models
of representation: enactive, iconic, or symbolic representations. Shulman (1986) defines
representations as “the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations,
and demonstrations” (p.9) that originate from research and “the wisdom of practice.” In
addition, PCK also addresses student preconceptions, conceptions, and misconceptions
providing teachers with the ability to transform student knowledge using multiple
representations. According to Shulman (1987), student success depends on the teacher’s
ability to “transform understanding, performance skills, and desired attitudes or values
into pedagogical representations and actions” (p.7). Shulman (1987) later defined
pedagogical content knowledge as “the blending of the content and pedagogy into an
understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, represented,
and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for
instruction” (p.8). Although Shulman’s definition provided educators with the
foundation for understanding pedagogical content knowledge, Segall (2004) notes that
the definition can take multiple representations, and how one defines pedagogy
determines the pedagogy that emerges from teaching.
Shulman (1986) also recognizes the importance of curricular knowledge, or the
teacher’s knowledge of the instructional materials and programs available for use in the
classroom. Cochran, DeRuiter, and King (1993) point out novice teachers’ reliance on
25

textbooks and curricular materials without a coherent framework to present information.
As a result, teachers make broad pedagogical decisions without accessing students’ prior
knowledge, abilities, or learning strategies necessary to make the content
comprehensible. Shulman’s (1987) model of pedagogical reasoning aims to help novices
transform the teaching materials intended to support teachers into an action plan to help
students comprehend new material.
Shulman’s (1987) model for pedagogical reasoning is a five-step cycle that
includes comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection and new
comprehensions (Table 1). Using the model can provide teachers with a curricular
framework in which to develop lessons grounded in pedagogical content knowledge.
Shulman (1987) confirms that the model can be used cyclically or in varying order to
meet the needs of the context of learning. However utilized, the model establishes the
abilities necessary “to enact a complete act of pedagogy” (Shulman, 1987, p. 19).

26

Table 1: A Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action
Comprehension
Of purposes, subject matter structures, ideas within and outside
the discipline
Transformation
Preparation: critical interpretation and analysis of texts,
structuring and segmenting, development of a curricular
repertoire, and classification of purposes
Representation: use of a representational repertoire which
includes analogies, metaphors, examples, demonstrations,
explanations, and so forth
Selection: choice from among an instructional repertoire which
includes modes of teaching, organizing, managing, and
arranging
Adaptation and Tailoring to Student Characteristics:
consideration of conceptions, perceptions, misconceptions, and
difficulties, language, culture, and motivations, social class,
gender, age, ability, aptitude, interests, self-concepts, and
attention
Instruction
Management, presentations, interactions, group work,
discipline, humor, questioning, and other aspects of active
teaching, discovery or inquiry instruction, and the observable
forms of classroom teaching
Evaluation
Checking for student understanding during interactive teaching
Testing for student understanding at the end of lessons or units
Evaluating one’s own performance, and adjusting for
experiences
Reflection
Reviewing, reconstructing, reenacting, and critically analyzing
one’s own and the class’s performance, and grounding
explanations in evidence
New
comprehensions
Of purposes, subject matter, students, teaching, and self
Consolidation of new understandings, and leanings from
experience

The Transformation of PCK
Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008) argue that years after Shulman’s work on
pedagogical content knowledge, the bridge between knowledge and practice is still
underdeveloped and “inadequately understood as a theoretical concept” (p. 389).
According the Ball et.al (2008), PCK still lacks a clear definition and empirical evidence
to support its usefulness, and significant differences exist on how PCK is interpreted and
27

used in the classrooms. This argument is supported by the number of researchers who
have used Shulman’s foundational work to build similar frameworks for pedagogical
content knowledge (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2005; Cochran et al. 1993;
Hashweh, 2005; Ball, et al., 2008).
Grossman, Shoenfeld, and Lee (2005) define pedagogical content knowledge as
“the ability to anticipate and respond to typical student patterns of understanding and
misunderstanding within a content area, and the ability to create multiple examples and
representations of challenging topics that make the content accessible to a wide range of
learners” (p. 201). The authors outlined a set of six questions to help teacher education
programs bridge the link between pedagogy and subject matter (Table 2). The six
questions are intended to help teacher education programs design a rich learning
experience whereby teacher candidates learn to engage in curriculum design, analyze
curriculum materials, and design classroom activities to make subject matter learning
comprehensible and meaningful.
Table 2: Questions That Underlie Courses in Content-Specific Pedagogy
Q1
How do we define the subject matter? What are the central concepts and
processes involved in knowing the subject matter? According to whom? Are
there competing definitions of the subject matter? According to whom? What
are the consequences of multiple definitions of subject matter? How do national
and state standards or frameworks define both the content and what it means to
know the content?
Q2
What are the different purposes for teaching the subject matter in public schools?
Why is the subject important for students to study? What aspects of the subject
are most important? Are there different purposes for teaching the subject matter
depending on the age of the students?
Q3
What do understanding and performance look like with regard to this subject
matter? What are the different aspects of understanding and performance? What
are students likely to understand about the subject matter at different
developmental stages? How do student understanding and proficiency develop?
How can instruction support the development of student understanding and
proficiency?
28

Table 2, Continued
Q4
What are the primary curricula available to teach the subject matter? What
definitions of the subject are imbedded within the curriculum materials? How are
curricula aligned with national and state standards? How are they articulated
across grade levels? How can teachers use curriculum materials effectively to
support student learning?
Q5
How do teachers assess student understanding and performance within a subject
matter domain? What tools are most useful for assessing student competence?
How do teachers use the results of these assessments to inform instruction?
Q6
What are the practices that characterize the teaching of a particular content? What
practices and approaches have been shown to be effective in promoting student
learning? Are there practices that are particularly effective with specific groups of
learners? What representations, examples, analogies are particularly useful in
helping students grasp particular concepts or ideas?
(Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2005).

Perceptions of Online Teacher Education
Limited empirical evidence to support the implementation of online teacher
education (Faulk, 2010) has stirred many perceptions about the quality of such programs
to effectively teach novice teachers. Such perceptions prompted the U.S. Department of
Education to conduct a meta-analysis contrasting online and face-to-face instruction from
1996 to 2008 (Means, Tomaya, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones, 2010). Although the report
noted that a small number of studies have been conducted in order to adequately identify
the effectiveness of online education versus face-to-face instruction, its findings reveal
the potential benefits for universities considering an online program. In the review of 50
studies, researchers found that students in online conditions performed modestly better,
on average, than those learning the same material through face to face instruction. In
addition, the data revealed that instruction combining online and face-to-face elements
had a larger advantage relative to purely face to face instruction than did purely online
instruction. Finally, the analysis demonstrated that the use of collaborative learning in an
29

online environment versus working independently yielded significantly positive effect
sizes (Means et al., 2010).
Graduate students have also weighed in on the benefits of online learning. In his
study, Braun (2008) surveyed 90 students enrolled in a graduate program in education on
their perceptions of online learning. Fifty students were enrolled in a hybrid course
where they met with the professor online every other week and on campus for six hours
on alternating weeks. The remaining 40 students were enrolled in a purely online course.
Braun (2008) found that 89 % of teachers strongly believed that online education had a
strong impact on their teaching. In addition, 77% of respondents said that online courses
were much more demanding than, and as rigorous, as traditional on-campus courses.
Despite the positive responses from students, concerns continue to arise from
critics who feel that students learn best from face to face interaction with their instructors
and other students, especially in regards to teacher education. Recent evidence suggests
that principals and superintendents are concerned with pre-service teachers who receive
their credentials from an online teacher education program (Faulk, 2010; Faulk, 2011;
Huss, 2007). Huss (2007) and Faulk (2011) conducted the first systematic studies on the
perceptions of principals and superintendents concerning teacher education. Using a
survey, Huss (2007) assessed the attitudes of 75 middle school principals in Indiana,
Kentucky, and Ohio. The study revealed that principals were concerned that the
strategies used to address pedagogical knowledge may be compromised in an online
format. One principal’s comment reflects the growing unease that teacher candidates
taught in an online environment would demonstrate a limited ability to use research-
based practices to meet the needs of a diverse group of adolescents:
30

I want middle grades teachers who are ready to execute things like exploration,
cooperative learning, problem-based learning, and social instruction. I’m not sure
an online candidate has experienced these strategies in sufficient proportions to be
able to implement them successfully with pre-adolescent students (Huss, 2007).

Principals also expressed their dismay over a pre-service teacher’s ability to gain
the social aspects of teaching from an online program whereby teachers acquire
cooperative and collegial skills. One principal commented, “There are interpersonal skills
and interactions that are of value to students that cannot be replicated in online studies”
(Huss, 2007).
Faulk (2010/ 2011) found similar results in his studies of principal and
superintendents’ perceptions of online teacher education. Faulk’s (2010/ 2011) studies
identified a definite negative opinion toward online teacher education. In his study,
sixty-eight percent of principals did not have confidence that online teacher education
would prepare teachers for the diverse and special needs of students, and seventy-nine
percent of superintendents displayed moderate to strong reservations in hiring teachers
trained through an online program (Faulk, 2011).
While previous findings report a low perception of online teacher education, some
studies indicate that the learning outcomes for online courses are commensurate with
those for face to face courses. Caywood and Duckett’s (2003) study measuring the
learning outcomes of teacher candidates taking an online course in behavior management
suggests that pre-service teachers can apply what they learn from online courses to their
classrooms. In the study, 76 students enrolled in an online course on behavior
management were compared to 75 students taking the same course on-campus. Results
indicated no significant differences in the learning outcomes of students. In addition,
31

ratings of teacher candidates by master teachers showed high scores in the area of
behavior management, suggesting that students were able to apply online knowledge for
use in their classrooms (Caywood & Duckett, 2003).
The current study looks at the effectiveness of the online course used to instruct
pre-service teachers on the pedagogy of secondary English language arts. This course is
instrumental in the development of the pedagogical practices for pre-service teachers, as
they are also expected to transfer and implement this knowledge with fidelity to their
student teaching experience. The following section identifies additional factors that may
contribute to the transfer of university coursework to the student teaching experience.
The Problems of Transfer
The problem of transferring knowledge gained from university coursework to the
student teaching experience has been well documented (Korthagen and Kessels, 1999).
Korthagen and Kessels (1999) outline three primary reasons for the lack of transfer in
teacher education programs: 1) prior knowledge or preconceptions prior to teaching 2)
student resistance to the theories based on necessity of knowing such theories, and 3) the
relevancy of the new knowledge to the student teaching experience. Other factors
contributing to transfer include program coherence between the university and the
schools in which teacher candidates are placed and the influence of high stakes testing.
The following section addresses the potential factors that influence the transfer of
knowledge and skills gained from a teacher education program.
The Divide between Theory and Practice
A considerable amount of literature has been published on the divide between
theory and practice (Moore, 2003; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Cochran-
32

Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Zeichner, 2010). Teacher education has traditionally applied
what Zeichner (2010) calls the “application of theory” in which teacher candidates learn
the theories or methods during coursework and are sent to schools to apply what was
learned. In 1981, Ross asserted that, even when field experiences are linked to the
learning principles gained from university coursework, much is left to chance regarding
what is learned. Students may apply a principle or theory to the classroom setting with
little awareness as to why they are doing so or what the principle really means (Ross,
1981). Thirty years later, Darling Hammond (2006) referred to this lack of connection as
the “Achilles heel” of teacher education and addressed the dilemma of integrating
theoretically based teacher education with classroom experience. She concludes,
“Traditional versions of teacher education have often had students taking batches of
front-loaded course work in isolation from practice and then adding a dollop of student
teaching to the end of the program” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 307).
Moore’s (2003) study of 77 pre-service teachers enrolled in a 3-week language
arts field practicum examined how constructivist-learning principles taught in the
university classroom helped guide beginning teachers in their instructional decision-
making. Moore’s (2003) study revealed that teachers were more concerned with
procedural concerns of time management, lesson planning, and classroom management
versus the theoretical or practical frameworks learned from their university course work.
In addition, Moore’s study demonstrated the pre-service teachers’ propensity to adopt the
practices of mentor teachers regardless of whether they were in conflict with the theory
or practice in the university classroom rather than risk disapproval of the mentor teacher.
Grossman, Valencia, and Hamel (1997) found a similar pattern of rejecting university
33

theories discovering that even when programs made concerted efforts to help students
develop pedagogy and understanding of how students learn, it was often abandoned once
pre-service teachers were placed in their field experiences to focus on classroom
management.
Prior Knowledge
Prior knowledge plays an essential role in the comprehension and learning of new
ideas. Piaget’s (1952) influential work on schema building laid the foundation for the
idea that teachers possess prior knowledge that influences their understanding of how
students learn. All teachers begin a teacher education program with preconceptions
gained from their own experiences that have a direct impact on how information is
perceived, learned, and later used in application. Korthagen and Kessels (1999) assert
that teacher candidates own experiences and the way in which they learned subject matter
influences the way they teach. Bruner (1996) described teachers as possessing a “folk
pedagogy,” meaning that they construct their own belief of what constitutes good
teaching based on their personal experiences and cultural beliefs. According to Joram
and Gabriele (1998), prior beliefs that remain unaddressed can form obstacles to
instruction because they assume that newly learned information will be assimilated into
prior schemas.
In their study, Joram and Gabriele (1998) identified a set of beliefs that pre-
service teachers have about learning in the context of educational psychology. The first
belief is that “university courses have little to offer prospective teachers” and that field
experience is more valuable to the learning of the profession (Joram & Gabriele, 1998).
Teacher candidates also believed that professional skills are less likely to be gained as a
34

result of coursework. Joram and Gabriele (1998) describe the second belief as the ability
to become a good teacher by copying past teachers. In his sociological study, Lortie
(1975) refers to this as the “apprenticeship of observation” in which teacher candidates
often overlook the ways in which universities prepare students to teach. According the
Joram and Gabriele (1998), teacher candidates presume there is a causal relationship
between the way their past teachers’ taught them and their own learning of what
constitutes effective pedagogy. Joram and Gabriele’s (1998) study examined how
coursework affected pre-service teachers’ beliefs after completing an educational
psychology course. Fifty seven percent of students surveyed felt their views of teaching
had changed significantly after being asked to examine prior beliefs at various junctures
throughout the course using reflective activities. This study reflects the need for teacher
candidates to examine their beliefs as it relates to the content of the course in order to
“restructure and fine-tune” existing knowledge (Joram & Gabriele, 1998).
Valuing the Methods and Theories Coursework
A second problem impeding transfer is what Korthagen and Kessels (1999)
describe as the “feed forward” problem in which a student teacher resists the leanings
from an education course if it is not practical or does not align with their prior knowledge
and beliefs (Katz, Raths, Mohanty, Kurachi, & Irving, 1981 as cited in Korthagen and
Kessels, 1999). In order for transfer to occur, students must see value in the study of
theories or pedagogies as it relates to their personal goals (Korthagen and Kessels, 1999).
Numerous studies have attempted to explain beginning teachers’ resistance to
instructional practices presented in methods courses (Grossman, Valencia, Evans,
Thompson, Martin, and Place, 2000). Grossman et al. (2000) describe a high school
35

teacher who felt his methods course was not practical, and, therefore, adopted the
curriculum from a workshop he attended during his student teaching experience that
closely aligned with his personal view of writing instruction. In a similar study, Agee
(1998) identified a methods instructor who challenged his students to think differently
than the way they were taught. In his efforts to transform his students’ thinking, the
students became uncomfortable and confused about how to make the instructor’s ideas fit
with their own views of teaching. Their resistance to their instructor’s methodology
decreased their conceptual understanding.
The Relevancy of Knowledge on the Student Teaching Experience
A final problem that impedes the transfer of knowledge is what Clark and
Lampert (1986) refer to as the “nature of the relevant knowledge” (p. 28). If knowledge
is not relevant to school experiences in which teacher candidates are placed, the
knowledge gained from coursework is quickly replaced by what they already know
through priori experiences. According the Clark and Lampert (1986), “teachers need
quick and concrete answers to situations in which they have little time to think. This
knowledge is different from what teacher educators offer” (p.29) thereby creating a gap
between theory and practice (Russell, McPherson, and Martin, 2001). Meuwissen (2005)
examined student perceptions of how the methods he taught in his social studies
pedagogy class met the needs of his pre-service teachers. Through seminar-style
discussions, Meuwissen’s (2005) students identified the shortcomings in preparing them
for the realities of schooling stating that the beginning teacher practices do not reflect
what was learned as a student. Meuwissen’s (2005) study highlights the importance of
36

methods instructors to serve as a liaison between the school and university to help
students “illuminate connections between purpose and practice” (p. 257).
The Relationship of Program Coherence to Transfer
Scholars have identified program coherence as a strong indicator of transfer.
Extremely strong coherence between the university and school setting can create a
seamless experience of learning to teach (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Coherence is
defined as “the degree to which central ideas regarding teaching and learning are shared
by all individuals involved in educating teachers and the degree to which learning
opportunities are both organized conceptually and logistically (Grossman, Hammerness,
McDonald, & Ronfeldt, 2008). According to Hammerness, (2006) coherent programs
result in more powerful learning for students.
In her study, Hammerness (2006) examines the conceptual coherence of a teacher
education program by investigating a variety of program documents such as syllabi,
observations, interviews, and documentation of key faculty and student coursework. The
study also identified evidence in student teaching practices to measure coherence from
university coursework to field experiences. Hammerness (2006) found that teacher
candidates worked with a common understanding because of the programs’ shared vision
evidenced by shared texts across courses, the design of assignments to build conceptual
understandings of key ideas, and a clinical experience with articulation of student
coursework to the classroom experience. Darling-Hammond (2006) emphasized that
coursework in highly successful programs are carefully sequenced, grounded in strong
theory of learning to teach, and intersect with other courses taken during the program.
Darling-Hammond argues, “When well-supervised practicum and student teaching
37

experiences preceded or are conducted jointly with coursework, studies find that students
are better able to connect theoretical learning to practice, more comfortable and confident
in learning to teach, and more able to enact what they are learning in ways that are
effective for students” (Darling-Hammond & Bratz-Snowden, 2005, p. 34).
Additional research identified three major factors that contribute to coherence
(Grossman, et al., 2008). The study, which measured student perceptions of coherence
using surveys of New York City pre-service teachers from 15 institutions, identified three
factors that contribute to coherence: 1) The selection of cooperating teachers can
influence the ability to transfer what was learned in course work to the field experience,
2) The number of meetings required between teacher candidates, supervisors, and
program faculty and 3) The methods course and its link to the field work. In sum, more
contact between the university and the school site led to more perceived coherence by
pre-service teachers (Grossman et al., 2008).
The Influence of High Stakes Testing on Student Teaching
Federal policies have imposed most states in the United States to conduct some
type of test to measure outcomes on student achievement. The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 created an accountability system that rewards and sanctions schools based on
student achievement on high stakes tests (NCLB, 2002). Annual academic assessments
were intended to provide federal, state, and local school officials with data to improve
academic achievement of all students and close the achievement gap. Schools that do not
meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) are subject to corrective action if they fail to make
progress. The accountability-driven climate (Anderson & Stillman, 2010) has teachers
feeling a great deal of pressure to improve test scores and limit their instructional
38

practices in favor of teaching test taking strategies (Dooley & Assaf, 2009). The
dichotomy between what teacher educator programs espouse and the influx of high stakes
testing to measure student learning has caused a critical dilemma in teacher education
(Dooley & Assaf, 2009).
Many researchers find that tests play an influential role in dictating teacher
candidates’ instruction (Anderson & Stillman, 2010; Booher-Jennings, 2005; Brown,
2009/2010; Dooley & Assaf, 2009; and Massey, 2006). Teachers are more likely to
observe scripted or mandated curriculum as part of their field experiences (Lloyd, 2007)
than the learner-centered, culturally relevant pedagogy valued in their teacher education
programs (Brown, 2009). Haberman (1992) asserts that high stakes testing exacerbates
the “pedagogy of poverty” which encompasses a variety of teaching acts notably found in
urban schools:
giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making and reviewing
assignments, monitoring seat work, giving and reviewing tests, assigning and
reviewing homework, settling disputes, punishing noncompliance, marking
papers, and giving grades (p. 16).

In an updated version of his work, Haberman (2010) contends that the pedagogy of
poverty continues to pervade classrooms throughout the nation. Teacher candidates also
cite the prevalence of test-taking pedagogies (Anderson & Stillman, 2010) during their
preservice experience.
In a 2009 study, Brown studied nine pre-service teachers who were instructed in
the National Research Council’s (NRC) model of teaching as outlined in the text How
People Learn: Brain Mind Experience and School (2000). The NRC model advocates
for student centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered
39

classroom environments. Brown (2009) found that pre-service teachers who entered field
experience reported not seeing the strategies that their teacher educators offered them in
regards to the NRC model to address the high-stakes learning requirements. The study
found that preservice teachers could identify the components required to teach for
understanding but struggled to understand how to put those practices in place.
Similarly, pre-service teachers in Brown’s (2010) study were instructed on the
essential components of the state’s mandated curriculum in their pre-service courses, and
how to adapt the curriculum using “learner-centered” ways such as adapting curriculum
using strategies that met the needs of the students and their individual differences.
Brown (2010) found that during field experiences, pre-service teachers witnessed “the act
of teaching as an act of test preparation.” The pre-service teachers observed the pressure
to teach to the test and struggled to see how they could get beyond it.
Dooley and Assaf (2009) compared fourth grade language arts teachers’ beliefs
and practices as they encountered high stakes testing and accountability from different
contexts. The two teachers in the study believed in creating rich, engaging-text based
atmospheres that promote social interactions between students, but the context in which
they taught dictated the type of instruction they were able to implement. The study
indicated that both teachers implemented different practices into daily instruction.
Teacher A, who worked in a mostly white suburban school where there was a 98%
passing rate on the state mandated standardized assessment, was able to integrate
balanced literacy practices such as literature circles, authentic group discussions, asking
students to make connections to the reading, accessing prior knowledge, and providing
access to vocabulary. Teacher B, who worked in an urban school setting with Mexican
40

and Mexican-American students with a 65% passing rate on the same test, focused
mainly on test based pedagogies and comprehension strategies in response to the
pressures her principal and district administrators were facing to get kids to pass grade
level texts.
Anderson and Stillman’s (2010) study of pre-service teachers examines the
opportunities and constraints to teaching and learning in urban high-needs schools. The
study found that teacher candidates perceived the role of district provided pacing plans
with an absence of formative assessments as an obstacle in learning how to implement
the teacher education program framework of inquiry-based or interdisciplinary teaching
valued in their coursework to their student teaching experience. According to Anderson
and Stillman (2010), participants frequently observed their cooperating teachers delivery
of mandated curriculum and were expected to follow the scripted curriculum themselves
rather than develop their own subject matter knowledge to guide the curriculum.
Anderson and Stillman’s (2010) study also uncovers how cooperating teachers
discourage teacher candidates from using student-centered, constructivist practices taught
from their coursework in favor of the state mandated curriculum. In return, the
researchers found that the teacher candidates uncritically accepted their cooperating
teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and rarely challenged those conceptions with the
knowledge gained from methods courses completed in their teacher education program,
even defending the “test prep pedagogies” used in the classroom they observed. The
study highlights the influence of the cooperating teacher on student teaching practices,
and how they can shape the pedagogical practices discussed in the next section.
41

The rise in test taking strategies as valid curriculum is often supported by
teachers’ beliefs that “good teaching” is reflected in test scores. Booher-Jennings (2005)
report that teachers continue to use test-based strategies based on the fear of judgment by
peers. Teachers felt that colleagues’ judgment about their professional competence was
based on their students’ test scores (Booher-Jennings, 2005).
Fidelity of Implementation
The term “fidelity of implementation” is widely used in the educational field of
professional development and evaluation as a means of measuring what strategies,
practices, and programs achieve success. Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a
particular program gives school leaders a means to determine if a program is “working”
(Protheroe, 2008). When programs or strategies do not succeed in the school setting,
questions arise as to why implementation was not effective.
A growing number of definitions describing fidelity of implementation have
permeated the literature. In their pioneering work, Dane and Schneider (1998) referred to
fidelity of implementation as “program integrity” and defined it as “the degree to which
programs are implemented as planned” (p. 23). Century et al (2010) redefined the
concept as “the extent to which the critical components of an intended program are
present when that program is enacted” (pg. 31). The National Center on Response to
Intervention (2009) defines fidelity of implementation as:
Fidelity refers to the accurate and consistent provision or delivery of instruction in
the manner in which it was designed or prescribed according to research findings
and/or developers’ specifications. Five common aspects of fidelity include:
adherence, exposure, program differentiation, student responsiveness, and quality
of delivery” (RTI Glossary of Terms, 2009).
42

The way in which researchers measure fidelity also varies among studies with no
set measure of fidelity identified in the literature (Ruiz-Primo, 2006). Dane and
Schneider (1998) conducted a review of 162 studies examining the extent to which
inconsistencies in fidelity and dosage can compromise the potential effectiveness of
programs. They found that only 39 of the 162 studies measured program integrity. They
also identified five aspects of program integrity prevalent in the literature. They state,
“Five aspects of fidelity have been identified in the literature, though the definitions and
labels assigned to these aspects vary considerably and are often not consistent with the
terms used in the present review” (pg. 39). Dane and Schneider (1998) add that each
component represents an important aspect of program delivery.
1. Adherence: the extent to which program elements are delivered as prescribed in
the program manuals.
2. Exposure or dosage – the measurement of the number of times the program
was implemented, the length of the program session, and the frequency of
which program components were implemented.
3. Quality of delivery – the measure of how the program components were
delivered, not directly related to the implementation of the content of the given
program, but rather a measure of such things as the facilitators enthusiasm
during the training of program concepts, the facilitator’s preparedness and
attitudes toward the program.
4. Participant responsiveness – a measure to how the participants respond to the
program components, which can include a level of interest, engagement,
enthusiasm, and participation.
43

5. Program differentiation – a check of essential program components to ensure
that each participant received the same program components to safeguard
against the dilution of program components.
Building on the work of Dane and Schneider (1998), Century et al (2010)
identified a multistep process of measuring FOI that focuses on identifying the critical
components of the program also known as “fidelity criteria” (Mowbray, Holter, Teague,
and Bybee, 2003). Mowbray et al. (2003) assert that “the development and use of valid
fidelity criteria is now an expected component of quality evaluation practice” (pg. 316).
They add, “Establishing fidelity criteria and being able to measure adherence enables
treatments to be more standardized, consistently researched, and replicated” (pg. 317).
A variety of methods exist for identifying the critical components. Critical
components can be derived by reviewing written materials to identify critical program
elements, interacting with program developers to determine their perceptions of the
salient program elements, and a discussion with the users, or teachers, of the intended
program to identify which critical indicators they believed would lead to the desired
outcomes (Ruiz-Primo, 2006; Century et al., 2010). Once the critical indicators are
identified, researchers develop a “grain size” to narrow the critical indicators from the
above sources (Century et al., 2010) and a “degree of deviation” that describes how much
implementers can modify the critical indicator and still achieve the desired results (Ruiz-
Primo, 2006) Century et al.’s study (2010) created specific subcategories of critical
indicators such as procedural, educative, pedagogical, and student engagement under the
broader categories of structure and instructional critical components as described in the
work of Mowbray et al. (2003) and Lastica and O’Donnell (2007).
44

Observational techniques are the most widely used instrumentation for measuring
fidelity of implementation. For example, Ruiz-Primo’s (2006) research included 12
schools from 11 districts in six states on the quality of implementation of the
“Foundational Approaches in Science teaching” (FAST) and its effect on student
performance. Video cameras were provided to teachers in the study to videotape
themselves using the FAST components. Researchers observed the videos in search of
the critical indicators of the FAST program during implementation. Hamre, Justice,
Pianta, Kilday, Sweeney, Downer, and Leach (2009) also measured fidelity of adherence
using videotaped observations of teachers implementing MyTeachingPartner literacy
strategies and language activities used with preschoolers. Researchers measured
adherence using a checklist of the critical components of the curriculum.
Factors affecting fidelity of implementation have been well documented. Fixen
(2006), for example, posits that “dissemination of information by itself does not lead to
successful implementation” (p. 21). Research conducted by the U.S department of
Education on the Prevalence and Implementation Fidelity of Research-Based Prevention
Programs in Public Schools of identified three factors as having an effect on the fidelity
of implementation. The factors included school characteristics, the quality and amount of
training received by implementers, and district characteristics. Bauman, Stein and Ireys,
(1991) identified the following factors that affect the ability to implement with fidelity.
1) Complexity. The more complex in terms of the number of steps, difficulty, or
coordination to implement the strategy, the less likely it will be implemented
with fidelity.
45

2) Program Ambiguity. When the aims and goals of the program are poorly
articulated, program implementation can be difficult.
3) Intensity of the Intervention. The power of the program to accomplish its
goals may be a result of the population it serves, and its ability to comply,
cooperate and participate in the program.
4) Sponsorship. If the program is sponsored or funded by an agency whose goals
do not align with the characteristics of the intended settings.
5) Site Characteristics. The staff (such as size, availability, and experience) and
organizational characteristics (such as the authority structure and usual
procedures) must be in alignment with the planned program to be
implemented. A program that worked in one school site may not work in
another due to site characteristics.
A final effect on a program’s ability to implement with fidelity is the degree to
which the program components are adapted. Mowbray et al. (2010) describe what
researchers have termed the “profidelity versus adaptation” debate. While some
researchers believe program components must be strictly adhered to and copied as
closely as possible (Szulanski & Winter, 2002 as cited in Mowbray et al, 2010), others
argue that program implementers should be allowed a degree of freedom to adapt the
program components to local circumstances (Mowbray et al., 2010).
Conclusion
The future of online teacher education rests in its ability to prove its worth and
rigor to policy makers, principals, superintendents, and faculty at universities across the
country. Online teacher education is merely one factor among many that account for the
46

ability to transfer knowledge to the classroom. The methods employed for this research
study will contribute to this phenomenon of transfer in an effort to uncover how to best
support teachers as they transfer from student to student teacher.

47

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
During the online pedagogy course taken by teacher candidates in the
MAT@USC, teacher candidates are taught content specific pedagogical strategies to
build pedagogical content knowledge and aid student learning, understanding, and
achievement. Shulman (1986) described pedagogical content knowledge as the teacher’s
ability to provide alternative representations of the content to make it comprehensible to
students. In chapter 2, the factors that contribute or inhibit the transfer of pedagogy
taught online to the student teaching experience were identified to lay the foundation for
an in-depth analysis of how those factors affect the application or transfer of the
pedagogical strategies during the guided practice experience and the extent to which
teacher candidates can implement the strategies with fidelity. Those factors include:
1. The effectiveness of online teacher education coursework (Means et al., 2010).
2. A teacher’s knowledge or beliefs about the pedagogy (Korthagen & Kessels,
1999).
3. The relevancy of the knowledge learned and its applicability to the student
teaching experience (Clark & Lampert, 1986).
4. The teacher candidate’s values placed on methods and theories taught by the
university (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999).
5. The coherence that exists between the program coursework and the field
experience (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Hammerness, 2006; and
Zeichner, 2010).
6. The influence of school culture (Ferguson & Brink, 2004) and high stakes
testing (Dooley & Assaf, 2009).
48

7. The guiding practice teacher’s experience, training and philosophy (Tigchelaar
& Korthagen, 2004).
Since multiple factors can influence a teacher candidate’s ability to apply the
strategies during the student teaching experience, it is important to discover the most
pertinent factors and address them prior to a teacher candidate’s entry into the classroom.
The purpose of this study was to help educators identify the factors that affect the transfer
of instructional strategies taught in teacher preparation coursework to classroom
application. In particular, the findings will assist MAT@USC teacher educators to help
teacher candidates apply the strategies taught in their online pedagogy course (EDUC
535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts) to their Guided Practice A (EDUC
568A) and Guided Practice B (EDUC 568B) experiences, and assist teacher candidates in
implementing the strategies with fidelity.
For this research study, Mary, Maria, James and Wendy (pseudonyms) were
observed during the course titled Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts.
Teacher candidates’ videotaped lessons were extracted from each candidate’s guided
practice courses: EDUC 568 A and B. Teacher candidates were enrolled in Teaching
Secondary English and Language Arts in the spring of 2011, which was the third
semester of their course sequence. The duration of the course was ten weeks. The course
descriptions are as follows:
EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts
“EDUC 535, Secondary English prepares teacher candidates to research, design,
implement and refine courses which are engaging, challenging, and
individually/group responsive standards-based learning experiences in the study
of language arts. This course proceeds from the assumption that all students,
including those at educational disadvantage, learn best from instruction that is
49

accelerated rather than remediative, reflecting high-level thinking and content for
learners at all levels” (EDUC 535 Pedagogy: Secondary English Syllabus).

EDUC 568A/B: Guided Practice
“Guided Practice is a two-part course designed to provide candidates with te
opportunities to apply theory into classroom application and gain understanding
of the teaching-leaning process in varied contexts. Candidates will apply learning
theories, content knowledge, and the pedagogical repertoire of skills acquired in
previous courses and threaded throughout the program as the basis for decision-
making to positively affect student learning and outcomes. The building of
teacher expertise in Guided Practice is a developmental process that continues for
20 weeks in both Guided Practice parts A and B” (EDUC 568A Guided Practice-
Part A Syllabus).

To direct the purpose of this study, the following research questions were established:
1. How do teacher candidates’ perceive their ability to transfer instructional
strategies taught in an online secondary English language arts pedagogy course
to the guided practice experience?
a. What factors affect the transfer of the instructional strategies taught in
an online secondary English language arts pedagogy course to the
guided practice experience?
2. To what degree can teacher candidates implement the instructional strategies
taught in the online secondary English language arts pedagogy course to the
guided practice experience with fidelity?
Research Design
This study utilized qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative
research examines someone else’s experiences in order to tell a story, allowing the
researcher to get as close enough to the circumstances in an effort to capture what is
happening (Patton, 2002). Qualitative research methods were used to develop descriptive
case studies for each of the teacher candidates in the study. Yin (2008) states that “a case
50

study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon in depth and within its real-
life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
clearly evident” (p. 621). In addition, Yin (2008) posits that the goal of a case study is to
“illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were
implemented, and with what result (Schramm, 1971, emphasis added)” (p. 613). Since
an important aspect of the research involves the teachers’ perceptions of what was taught
in their online pedagogy course, Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts, and
how the strategies were applied during the guided practice experiences, the development
of detailed case studies in which the voices of the teacher candidates emerge is the most
appropriate research method. Quantitative surveys were used to measure the factors that
affected the teacher candidates’ ability to implement each of the 24 strategies presented
in the online pedagogy course (EDUC 535).
This study employed a multiple-case study research design. Yin (2008) notes that
“multiple cases are often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore
more robust (Herrriott & Firestone, 1983)” (p. 1292). For each case, data consisted of
surveys, interviews, and video observations. The diverse sources allowed for cross-case
pattern analysis using the individual case studies.
This study was also commensurate with applied research. According to Patton
(2002), “[t]he purpose of applied research is to contribute knowledge that will help
people understand the nature of a problem in order to intervene, thereby allowing human
beings to more effectively control their environment” (p. 217). Applied research
contributed to the understanding of the unique phenomenon of transfer of strategies to the
guided practice experience. Patton (2002) posits that “applied researchers are able to
51

bring their unique insights and experience into any recommendations that may emerge
because they get especially close to the problems under study during fieldwork” (p. 217).
Because the researcher analyzed interviews, observations, and other forms of qualitative
data, applied research served as a catalyst to understanding the issue under study.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
This study utilized a mixed methods data triangulation approach to examine the
primary research questions. Yin states that “mixed methods research can permit
investigators to address more complicated research questions and collect a richer and
stronger array of evidence than can be accomplished by any single method alone” (p.
1476). Qualitative research was used to analyze a deeper understanding of what occurs
during the process of transferring or implementing the instructional strategies taught
online to guided practice using surveys, interviews, videotaped observations. Because
this research was also interested in measuring the factors that affect teacher candidates’
ability to implement each of the 24 strategies taught in EDUC535: Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts a quantitative research Likert-style survey was used. A data
matrix was created to demonstrate how data was collected and organized according to the
research question (Table 3).
Observations
The study included videotaped observations of 1) the online pedagogy course
(EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts) 2) each teacher
candidate’s videotaped classroom instruction during Guided Practice A and B, and 3) a

52

Table 3: Data Collection
Research Question Data Sources Instrumentation

1. How do teacher candidates
perceive their ability to transfer
instructional strategies taught in an
online secondary English language
arts pedagogy course to the guided
practice experience?
a. What factors affect the
transfer of the instructional
strategies taught in the online
secondary language arts
pedagogy course to the guided
practice experience?

Teacher
Candidates

Interviews

Observations: Teacher
Candidates’ Videotaped lessons
from EDUC 568A: Guided
Practice A and EDUC 568B:
Guided Practice B

Observations: Preplanning
Videos from EDUC 568A:
Guided Practice A and EDUC
568B: Guided Practice B

Surveys

2. To what degree can teacher
candidates implement the
instructional strategies taught in the
online secondary English language
arts pedagogy course to the guided
practice experience with fidelity?

Teacher
Candidates

Observations: Online Class
EDUC535: Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts

Observations: Teacher
Candidates’ Videotaped lessons
from EDUC 568A: Guided
Practice A and EDUC 568B:
Guided Practice B

Observations: Preplanning
Videos from EDUC 568A:
Guided Practice A and EDUC
568B: Guided Practice B

Interviews

cross-section of videotaped preplanning sessions between teacher candidates and guiding
teachers. The data included videotaped observations of the course Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts to examine the occurrences of the course and determine the
specific pedagogical strategies the teacher candidates were taught and expected to
53

transfer to their guided practice experience. The teacher candidates videotaped classroom
instruction was observed to identify which strategies they were able to implement and the
extent to which they implemented the strategies with fidelity. Table 4 illustrates the
strategies taught by the professor during the online pedagogy course. Videotaped
preplanning videos were used to triangulate the data and strengthen findings resulting
from the interviews and teacher candidates’ classroom instruction observations.
According to Patton, direct observation allows the observer to “better understand and
capture the context in which people interact” (p. 262). Guskey (2000) asserts, “Direct
observations can provide valuable evidence on important aspects of participants’ use of
their new knowledge and skills” (p. 193).
Table 4: Strategies Taught in EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and Language
Arts
1. Advanced Organizers 13. Post Its
2. Categorizing Questions 14. Say Mean Matter
3. Chunking Texts 15. Socratic Seminar
4. Concept Categorizing 16. Modeling and Demonstrating
5. Directed Reading Sequence 17. Mentor Texts
6. DRTA 18. Sentence Models
7. Fishbowl 19. Write Around
8. Gallery Walk 20. Writer’s Workshop
9. Language Experience Approach 21. Reader’s Workshop
10. Margin Notes 22. Vocabulary Scales
11. Matrices 23. Using Music and Art with Writing
12. Out Out Predictions

Once the pedagogical strategies were identified, the researcher developed critical
indicators for each strategy to be used for observation purposes to measure adherence of
the pedagogical strategies (see Appendices C-H). For the purposes of this study, the
researcher will define fidelity in terms of the teacher candidate’s ability to adhere to the
critical components of each strategy as described by Dane and Schneider (1998).
54

Developing critical indicators is an essential component in assessing fidelity of
implementation (Century, Rudnick, & Freeman, 2010). Guskey (2000) defines critical
indicators as those actions and behaviors that “determine participants’ use of new
knowledge and skills” (p. 188). Critical indicators are also defined as the essential
features that must be measured to determine whether elements of an intervention or
strategy are present or not (Century et al., 2010). Critical indicators were developed for
this study based on course content, instruction, and a review of the course resources
available to students such as instructions on how to use the strategy.
Adjustment of critical indicators was based on a review of course materials and
information presented in EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts.
Once the critical indicators were narrowed, an observation protocol was developed for
each strategy and used when a teacher showed evidence of implementing the strategy
during Guided Practice A (EDUC 568A) and Guided Practice B (EDUC 568B). Each
strategy included the critical indicators and a section where the researcher indicated the
number of strategies implemented with a corresponding percentage to measure the
fidelity to adherence. McIntyre, Gresham, DiGennaro, and Reed (2007) note the
importance of collecting treatment integrity data to accurately determine the extent to
which treatments are carried out and to strengthen any inferences made as a result of the
study data.
Surveys
Surveys were administered to teacher candidates after they completed their
guided practice experiences. The survey identified the teacher candidates’ perception of
using each of the 24 instructional strategies taught in the online pedagogy class and his or
55

her ability to transfer the strategies to the guided practice placements. More specifically,
teacher candidates were asked to rate their preparation to teach the strategies, the value
they placed on each strategy, the relevancy of each strategy to the school placement
setting, the support received from their guiding practice mentors to use the strategies, and
the degree they were able to implement the strategy during the student teaching
placement using a Likert style survey (Appendix A).
Interviews
Sixty-minute phone interviews of teacher candidates were used to determine the
perceptions and the factors that affected their ability to transfer the instructional strategies
to the student teaching experience. According to Patton (2002), “The purpose of
qualitative interviewing is to capture how those being interviewed view their world, to
learn their terminology and judgments, and to capture the complexities of their individual
perceptions and experiences” (p. 348). Teacher candidate interviews were intended to
uncover the perceptions of teacher candidates in relation to their understanding of the
pedagogy taught in the online course. This research utilized a combination of two
interview protocols developed by Patton (2002): the interview guide and standardized
open-ended interview. Patton (2002) describes the interview guide as a list of questions
or issues prepared by the researcher that will be explored during the interview. The
Standardized Open-Ended interview allowed the researcher to carefully develop each
question and ask participants to answer the questions using the same standardized
approach to ensure a highly focused interview (Patton, 2002). Combining the two
approaches facilitated a wider range of responses gathered during the interview. Patton
(2002) states that two approaches offer “flexibility in probing and in determining when it
56

is appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth, or even to pose questions about
new areas of inquiry that were not originally anticipated in the interview instrument’s
development” (Patton, 2002, p. 347).
Using Guskey’s (2000) approach to questioning, the interviewer began with a
broad open-ended question to assess the teacher candidate’s ability to transfer the
strategies introduced in the online course. In his work on evaluating professional
development, Guskey (2002) asserts that “starting with an open-ended question allows
participants to express their concerns honestly and present their particular case for use
and nonuse of the innovation” (p. 194). Following the open ended question, the
interview sought responses using the interview guide with a set of focused questions
related to the factors that affect transfer. The interviewer incorporated standardized
open-ended interview questions to gain systematic information on the factors that were
associated with their ability to transfer the pedagogical strategies to the guided practice
experience. Where appropriate, the interview switched from the interview guide and
standardized interview questions to explore additional topics or issues not addressed in
the standardized questions (Appendix B). Interviews took place over the phone and were
recorded using the web service www.freeconferencecall.com.
Research Sample
Participants in this study were selected from a population of teacher candidates
enrolled in the MAT@USC program who planned to teach secondary English language
arts. For this study, each participant was given a pseudonym, and the names assigned
were Mary, Maria, James, and Wendy. Teacher candidates selected from two online
sections of EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts taught by the
57

same professor. Teachers from this group were included in this study to examine how
teacher candidates were able to transfer the pedagogy learned from their online course
and transfer it to their student teaching experience. In order to control for the types of
strategies learned during the course and the way in which information was delivered to
students, the researcher selected participants who were taught by the same pedagogy B
professor.
The sampling strategy used for this qualitative research study was a small
purposeful random sampling aimed at selecting information-rich cases (Patton, 2002).
Purposive sampling is the process of selecting a sample that is believed to be
representative of a given population (Patton, 2002). According to Patton (2002), “the
logic and sampling of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information-rich cases for
study in-depth” (p. 230). Participants for this study were selected based on criterion
sampling. First, participants were selected on the basis that they were teacher candidates
for the English language teaching credential, and the focus of this study was to examine
the pedagogical strategies taught in EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary English and
Language Arts. Participants were selected from a population of approximately 48
students enrolled in two sections of the Secondary English language arts course taught by
the same professor. Students were purposefully chosen from this course due to the
availability of the archived courses accessible on the LMS. Participants were contacted
via email to request permission to participate in the study. Four students responded and
agreed to participate in the study. While small purposeful sampling cannot be
generalized to the entire population of students enrolled in the MAT@USC, this
technique will yield in-depth information to help the researcher understand the
58

phenomenon under study. The study was approved by Institutional Review Board (IRB)
in October of 2011. Participants were contacted by email to voluntarily participate in the
study. Participants were notified of the researcher’s intentions to survey and interview
them at the end of their guided practice course. In addition, the researcher notified
participants about the use of their guided practice videos for research purposes.
Research Site
The research took place at the University of Southern California located in Los
Angeles, California. The academic program used for research was the online Master of
Arts in Teaching (MAT@USC) which currently serves approximately 1,200 students
both internationally and across the United States. The program places special emphasis
on preparing teachers to work with diverse students in urban schools (Master of Arts in
Teaching [MAT], n.d.). Students can complete a teaching credential and master’s degree
in approximately thirteen months of full time instruction. Teacher candidates are
enrolled in a variety of courses divided into four categories: foundations, teaching
methods, language and literacy, and supervised field experience and student teaching
(MAT, n.d.). According to the USC Rossier School of Education website, “The
MAT@USC combines online instruction with on-the-ground field based experience at a
school in a student’s local area” (MAT, n.d.). Courses are taught in a synchronous
environment or an environment where students meet live in a face to face online
environment using the Learning Management System developed by 2tor.
Data Analysis
Patton (2002) describes the challenge of qualitative analysis lies in “making sense
of massive amounts of data” (pg. 432). It involves sifting through data to identify
59

patterns and determine what is meaningful versus what is insignificant (Patton, 2002).
The major strategy used for this data analysis was Patton’s (2002) analytic framework
approach in which data was sorted in response to each of the research questions and
analyzed according to emergent themes. The researcher began by analyzing each teacher
candidate’s responses from the standardized interviews and organizing them question by
question. Once organized, the researcher determined which responses were similar in
meaning and grouped those responses under each of the critical themes that emerged
from the data.
In addition, a logical analysis was used to analyze the responses from the
interview, surveys, and the guided practice video observations. According to Patton
(2002), the logical analysis allows the researcher to identify emergent patterns that were
represented as themes or categories. The themes for this study were derived using
deductive analysis which Patton (2002) describes as data analyzed based on an existing
framework. For this study, the existing framework was derivative of the major factors
that affected the teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategy during their student
teaching experience. Data was cross-classified based on the different dimensions “to
generate new insights about how the data can be organized and look for patterns that may
not have been immediately obvious in the initial, inductive analysis” (Patton, 2002, p.
468).
Expert Panel and Pilot Study
Surveys, interview questions, and the observation protocol were reviewed by
faculty members from the MAT@USC program. The faculty members reviewed the
questions and provided feedback for revisions to improve the content validity of all
60

instrumentation practices. The online pedagogy class observation protocol was also
piloted using a similar online class to determine how to protocol could serve as an
effective tool in data collection.

61

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS
Guided practice, also synonymous with student teaching, is a “rite of passage” for
teacher candidates (White, 1989) who desire to enter the teaching profession. Yet, only
recently have programs made any profound changes to the way in which teacher
candidates are introduced to the classroom (Darling-Hammond, 2006). In a traditional
teacher education program (TEP), teacher candidates are instructed in the theory and
pedagogy from university professors and expected to transfer the knowledge gained into
their student teaching experience in an effort to shape their professional practice
(Zeichner, 2010). The problem of transfer has been notably evident in the research
(Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Joram & Gabriel, 1998). Teacher candidates are expected
to acquire content pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1986) and apply it to their guided
teaching practices. Several factors, such as the degree of support from the guiding
teacher-- a term traditionally referred to as the cooperating or mentor teacher-- continue
to exacerbate the problem leading many to wonder if the concept of transfer is a
possibility in teacher preparation. Moreover, if transfer of the strategies from coursework
to real world teaching placements is a possibility, the question arises whether teacher
candidates can implement the strategies they learned from their coursework with a high
degree of fidelity. The National Center on Response to Intervention (2009) defines
fidelity as:
the accurate and consistent provision or delivery of instruction in the manner in
which it was designed or prescribed according to research findings and/or
developers’ specifications. Five common aspects of fidelity include: adherence,
exposure, program differentiation, student responsiveness, and quality of delivery
(RTI Glossary of Terms, 2009).
62

Fixsen and Blasé (2006) posits that training and dissemination of information
alone does not lead to successful implementation, yet many teacher education programs
rely on a “transmission” model of instruction (Freeman, 1989) to help teacher candidates
acquire new instructional strategies. The focus of this study is an attempt to determine
the factors that affect the transfer of instructional strategies to the guided practice
experience, and to identify the degree of fidelity in which teacher candidates can
demonstrate during their student teaching placement.
Chapter 4 presents the data derived from surveys and interviews containing
questions designed to provide information about the perceived experiences, thoughts,
beliefs and facts pertaining to the participants’ ability to transfer the strategies learned
from their online English Language Arts pedagogy course and apply them to their student
teaching assignment. Teacher observations were also examined to determine each
teacher’s ability to implement the strategies with fidelity. To this end, the following
research questions were addressed:
1. How do teacher candidates perceive their ability to transfer instructional
strategies taught in an online secondary English language arts pedagogy course
to the guided practice experience?
a. What factors affect the transfer of the instructional strategies taught in
the online secondary English language arts pedagogy course to the
guided practice experience?
2. To what degree can teacher candidates implement the instructional strategies
taught in the online secondary English language arts course to the guided
practice experience with fidelity?
63

As part of this study, four teacher candidates from the MAT@USC online teacher
education program were interviewed, observed, and surveyed. The study conducted
observations of the online pedagogy course EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and
Language to identify the specific strategies taught to teacher candidates. Teacher
candidates provided interviews and surveys to uncover their perceptions on the factors
that influenced their ability to implement the strategies. The study included videotaped
lessons and preplanning sessions with their guiding teachers in EDUC568A: Guided
Practice and EDUC 568B Guided Practice to support and strengthen statements made in
the interviews.
Methodology
This mixed methods study was conducted to ascertain four participants’
perceptions of their ability to transfer the strategies they learned from their online course
EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts to their student teaching
experiences. The study sought to identify the factors that affected teacher candidates’
ability to implement the instructional strategies during their student teaching experience.
Also, the study determined the degree of fidelity teacher candidates were able to
implement the strategies they were able to utilize during each of their student teaching
placements.
Data collected from this mixed-methods study was primarily dependent on
qualitative interviews of each participant conducted after completing 20 weeks of student
teaching. Sixty-minute phone interviews were conducted using a semi-structured
interview guide (Patton, 2002). Interview questions were reflective of the literature on
factors that affect transfer (Table 5).
64

Table 5: Interview Questions by Factor
Factor Interview/Survey Questions Literature
Support To what extent did your guiding
practice mentor teacher support the
strategies you implemented in your
class?
The guiding practice teacher’s
experience, training and
philosophy (Tigchelaar &
Korthagen, 2004).
Principal To what extent did your school
principal support the strategies that
you implemented?
Organizational characteristics
effect on implementation
(Bauman, Stein, & Ireys, 1991).
High
Stakes
Testing
To what extent did high stakes
testing affect the use of the strategies
in the classroom?
The influence of school culture
(Ferguson & Brink, 2004) and
high stakes testing (Dooley &
Assaf, 2009)

Relevancy To what extent were the strategies
useful to the school site you where
you were teaching? What specific
strategies were most useful? Why?
The relevancy of the knowledge
learned and its applicability to
the student teaching experience
(Clark & Lampert, 1986)
School
Curriculum
To what extent did the school
curriculum affect the use of the
strategies
The “narrowing of the
curriculum” (Crocco &
Castigan, 2007)
Learning
Online
To what extent do you think learning
the strategies online helped or
hindered your ability to implement
the strategies in your classroom?
The effectiveness of online
teacher education coursework
(Means et al, 2010)

The survey was conducted to determine teacher candidates’ perceptions of their
ability to transfer each of the 24 strategies learned in the online course, Teaching
Secondary English and Language Arts, to their guided practice experiences. Surveys
were administered after two of the participants (Mary and Maria) had completed Guided
Practice A and B. The survey responses for these participants only reflect their second
teaching placement during Guided Practice B. The other two participants (James and
Wendy) were surveyed after completing their first student teaching assignment in Guided
Practice A. The names of the teacher candidates are pseudonyms selected by the
researcher. The survey questions were designed using a Likert style scale and created to
reflect the factors that affect transfer as described in the literature for each instructional
65

strategy they learned in EDUC 535. The goal of the survey was to determine which
factors affected the use of each strategy. Table 6 identifies the strategies measured in the
surveys and taught in the online course.
Table 6: Strategies Taught in EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English and Language
Arts
1. Advanced Organizers 13. Post Its
2. Categorizing Questions 14. Say Mean Matter
3. Chunking Texts 15. Socratic Seminar
4. Concept Categorizing 16. Modeling and Demonstrating
5. Directed Reading Sequence 17. Mentor Texts
6. DRTA 18. Sentence Models
7. Fishbowl 19. Write Around
8. Gallery Walk 20. Writer’s Workshop
9. Language Experience Approach 21. Reader’s Workshop
10. Margin Notes 22. Vocabulary Scales
11. Matrices 23. Using Music and Art with Writing
12. Out Out Predictions

Qualitative data also consisted of data collected from several observations of
varying type. Ten class sessions of the online pedagogy class: Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts were observed to determine which strategies were taught to
teacher candidates. Observations included the videotaped lessons and preplanning
lessons students submitted for their Guided Practice A and B courses. The videotaped
lessons showed teacher candidates teaching in their classrooms. The average video was
45 minutes in length. The average preplanning video was 30 minutes. To triangulate the
data, a cross-section of teacher candidates’ videotaped preplanning sessions with their
guiding teachers was selected to provide additional evidence to support the teacher
candidates’ interview comments. The preplanning videos showed the guiding teacher
and teacher candidate discussing the lesson the teacher candidate planned to teach. Four
planning videos were randomly selected for each candidate. Two videos were from
66

Guided Practice A and two videos were from Guided Practice B. Table 7 depicts how
the data was collected for each research question by participant and the number of videos
observed for each candidate. Due to course changes from the Fall term to the Spring
Term regarding the amount of videos required for student submission, Mary and Maria
received 4 more observations than did James and Wendy.
Table 7: Data Collection
Research
Question 1
Research
Question 1
Participant Online
Pedagogy
Course
Observations
Interviews Surveys Guided
Practice Pre-
Planning
Videos with
GTs
Guided Practice
Videotaped
Lessons
GPA GPB GPA GPB GPA GPB
Mary X X - X 2 2 8 4
Maria X X - X 2 2 8 4
James X X X - 2 2 4 4
Wendy X X X - 2 2 4 4
Note. Numbers under GPA and GPB denote number of observed videos.
“Thick, rich description” was used as a foundation for analyzing and reporting the
findings (Patton, 2002). The data was analyzed using a cross case analysis in which the
answers to different participants were grouped together to analyze different perspectives
on the issues presented (Patton, 2002). Using the interview guide, answers from different
participants were grouped by topics and then coded to retrieve “chunks” of related
information associated with the specific research question (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Next, the phrases, words, and blocks of text were grouped into corresponding themes that
emerged from the data (Patton, 2002). The themes are presented in the findings section
of this chapter.
67

The organization of this chapter will begin with a summary of the profiles of each
candidate. The profiles are included to provide a shared understanding of each of the
participants and their individual circumstances before and during student teaching. Next,
the findings will address the research questions sequentially. The themes that emerged
from the data for each question will be included with reference to data sources where
applicable to substantiate claims. Triangulation of the data was used strengthen and
illuminate the findings (Patton, 2002). Each theme will be supported by interviews,
videotaped observations of teacher candidates pre-planning with guiding teachers,
videotaped observations of teacher candidate lessons submitted to Guided Practice A and
B, and written pre and post lesson reflections submitted for guided practice courses when
applicable. The second research question focuses on the degree of fidelity teacher
candidates were able to demonstrate their use of the strategies learned in the language
arts pedagogy course (EDUC 535). The response to research question 2 will also be
extracted from videotaped lesson observations produced in Guided Practice A and
Guided Practice B and interviews. Finally, a brief summary of the findings will be given.
Population
Profiles
The sample population was composed of four teacher candidates (TCs) enrolled
in the Masters of Art in Teaching (MAT) program at the University of Southern
California. To acquire participants, 24 teacher candidates from two sections of
Teaching Secondary English Language Arts (EDUC 535) taught by the same professor
were contacted via email to ask for volunteers to participate in this study. Only four
responded and agreed to participate. Although the sample size is small, Patton (2002)
68

posits that “studying information-rich cases yields insights and in-depth understanding
rather than empirical generalizations” (p. 230). While studying a few critical cases
cannot be generalized, logical generalizations can be made from the depth of evidence
derived from each participant (Patton, 2002).
At the time of this study, two of the participants (Mary and Maria) had completed
Guided Practice A (EDUC 568A) and Guided Practice B (EDUC 568B). The other two
participants (James and Wendy) had completed Guided Practice A (EDUC 568A) and
were currently enrolled in Guided Practice B (EDUC 568B). The interview data was
taken seven weeks into their 10 week guided practice course. To gain a more detailed
picture of each participant in the study, Table 8 describes the profile of each teacher
candidate.
Table 8: Candidate Profiles
Teacher
Candidate
Race/Ethnicity Number of
Years Taught
Grade
levels/Subjects
Taught in GPA
(Placement 1)
Grade
Levels/Subjects
taught in GPB
(Placement 2)
Mary White 0 7
th
ELA 10
th
ELL/
10
th
Honors
Maria Latina 0 7
th
ELA 11
th
ELA
James Latino 0 7
th
ELA 10
th
ELA
Wendy White 0 7
th
ELA 10
th
ELA

It is evident from tables 11 and 12 that participants had two student teaching
placements, one middle school and one high school. The MAT@USC serves teachers
who are across the United States and abroad, and participants in this study represent a
variety of locations within northern and southern California, and one participant was
located in South Carolina. School demographics also vary by location. The table
69

represents high instances of Latino students in the Los Angeles area, and more white
students in northern California and South Carolina.
Teachers enrolled in Guided Practice A for 10 weeks in their first placement. In
EDUC 568A: Guided Practice, teacher candidates were required to observe the guiding
teacher the first week, and gradually increase teaching responsibilities from two periods
four days per week to three full days of teaching responsibilities in the final weeks of the
course (Table 9). The second placements consisted of 10 weeks with a similar teaching
load (Table 9). Each teacher candidate was assigned a guiding teacher at the school site.
Table 10 indicates the roles and responsibilities for teacher candidates, guiding teachers,
and the guided practice professors and is provided to highlight the expectations for
participants in the course to act with and among each other.
Table 9: Teaching Load for Teacher Candidates
Mary and Maria James and Wendy
Week Teaching Load in
EDUC 565A
Guided Practice
Spring 2011
Teaching Load in
EDUC 565B
Guided Practice
Fall 2011
Teaching Load
in
EDUC 565A
Guided Practice
Fall 2011
Teaching Load
in
EDUC 565 B
Guided
Practice
Spring 2012
1 Observation only Observe and
PrePlan
Observe and
PrePlan
Observe and
PrePlan
2 2 periods
4 days/week
2 lessons/week 2 lessons/week 2 lessons/week
3 2 periods
4 days/week
4 lessons/week 4 lessons/week 4 lessons/week
4 2 periods
4 days/week
6 lessons/week 4 lessons/week 6 lessons/week
5 3 periods
4 days/week
6 lessons/week 6 lessons/week 6 lessons/week

70

Table 9, Continued
6 3 periods
4 days/week
8 lessons/week 6 lessons/week 8 lessons/week
7 3 periods
4 days/week
8 lessons/week 8 lessons/week 8 lessons/week
8 3 periods
4 days/week
1 full day of
instruction
8 lessons/week
8 lessons/week 1 full day of
instruction
8 lessons/week
9 2-3 full days 2 full days on
instructions
8 lessons/week
2 full days of
instruction
2 full days on
instructions
8 lessons/week
10 2-3 full days 2 full sequential
days of instructions
2 full days of
sequential
instruction
2 full
sequential days
of instructions

Table 10: Roles and Responsibilities of Guided Practice Participants
Activity Teacher
Candidate
Guided Practice
Teacher (site
based)
Guided Practice
Instructor
Participate in Planning X X Answers questions and
supports Teacher
Candidates in their
lesson construction
Teach Lessons X X
For TC to
observe and
learn from

Participate in
Reflection
X X X
Complete weekly
written documentation
after observation of
video or classroom
lesson
May do this
when asked by a
peer, or if there
is a peer at same
school/classroom
X X
Submit a Learning Plan
weekly consisting of
planning, teaching and
reflective videos and a
written component
X
Attend Weekly Seminar X Whenever
possible, when
affiliated with
the LMS.
X
Facilitates with GP
teachers and TC

71

Table 10, Continued
Attend Weekly Guided
Practice Faculty
Meeting
Welcomed if
they can give
the time and are
affiliated with
LMS
X
Complete end of
semester documentation
(see attached)
X
-Submit all
lessons from 5
All Days
-Submit an end
of session
professional
reflection
X
3-sentence
assessment of
TC

Grade Teacher
Candidates
(Credit/Non-Credit)
X X
In consultation with GP
Teacher
Keep a portfolio of all
lesson plans
X X
Keep a file on each
student, with all
feedback given to that
student, essential
emails and any other
pertinent dialogue the
is exchanged

The following profiles are intended to give a shared understanding of who the
participants were and how their experiences varied.
Mary
Mary is a new teacher who values her students’ learning experiences and
frequently analyzes ways in which she can improve her practice. Mary began her career
teaching English as a foreign language in Europe. She worked primarily with students
who were enrolled in the English program in order to improve their English speaking
skills with their customers. Prior to enrolling in the MAT@USC, Mary began her
teaching credential program at a university intern program. Mary’s response from her
survey stated that she was not successful at finding an intern position and decided to
72

enroll in the MAT@USC program so she could build her resume with the hope of finding
a teaching position. She also noted that the rolling start date for the online courses made
it possible for her to attend immediately without too much concern for childcare for her
daughter (Mary, personal communication, December 19, 2011/January 2, 2012).
Mary’s first teaching assignment during Guided Practice A was at a middle
school located in northern California near the University of California, Berkeley.
According to the 2011 Annual Performance Index Report (API), the school population
consisted of 39% white students, 31% Asian students, 14% Hispanic students, 8% Black
students, and 2% Filipino students. The report also showed that 19% of students were
considered socioeconomically disadvantaged and 24% English language learners. The
school wide 2011 API score was 887 (Table 11).
Because the school is located next to the university, Mary described the graduate
student parents as “notoriously busy.” She stated, “Even though they understand the
importance of education and even though they value learning and they read with their
kids, and have all these experiences, the kids are not necessarily hovered over as they
would be in an affluent neighborhood.” She described the students as well behaved and
the school as traditional.
Mary’s second teaching assignment during guided practice B was at a high school
in northern California. According to the API report, the school population consisted of
39% Hispanic students, 26% Black students, 14% Asian students, 7% Filipino students,
and 9% White students. Of the 566 students reported for API, 19% were considered
socioeconomically disadvantaged and 24% were English language learners. The school
wide 2011 API score was 664 (Table 12).
73

Mary described the high school as having a real world instructional focus. Within
the school, there was a school of law, school of business, school of technology, and a
school of health careers, among others. According to Mary, the school embraced the real
world communities by securing local speakers in an effort to help students connect their
learning to the program of study.
Maria
Maria had no prior teaching experience and enrolled in the MAT@USC program
because the focus on urban education was of great interest to her. In addition, she stated
that the online courses were appealing to her as a student (Maria, personal
communication, December 17, 2011).
Maria’s first teaching assignment during guided practice A was at a charter
middle school located in Los Angeles, CA. API reports demonstrate that the Los
Angeles charter school consists of a total enrollment of 392 students. The demographics
of the school are 94% Latino and 4% Asian. The report also states that 95% of students
are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged with 59% of students designated as
English learners. The school wide 2011 API score was 917 (Table 11).
Maria described the charter school as a very “tight-knit community” where the
teachers are team oriented and have a mantra that she described as “we work together as
a team.” According to Maria, the school is based on the four pillars of integrity, love,
excellence, and service with a focus on college success. She described the teachers as
dedicated professionals who are respectful of the whole child, taking into consideration
their emotional and academic needs.
74

Maria’s second student teaching assignment during guided practice B took place
at a high school in Long Beach, CA. With a student population of 3,043, the
demographic data consisted of 47% Latino students, 27% White students, 12% Black
students, and 9% Asian students (API). The school wide 2011 API score was 739 (see
Table 12). Mary described the high school as having a large faculty of nearly 100
teachers, and many electives and courses available to students. She described the
teachers’ interactions with students as “casual” and the school mission as a goal to teach
“critical thinking skills.” However, Maria stated that she believed the skills or goals were
very broad in nature, unlike the specific focus at the Los Angeles charter school where
she was previously placed.
James
James is a Latino male who expressed that he always wanted to be a Trojan. He
stated in his interview that his goal was to be part of USC during graduate school, and
thus chose the MAT@USC program because the dual master’s degree plus credential
was appealing. In addition, he felt the pace of the program would allow him to complete
his credential as quickly as possible so he could begin work as a full time teacher (James,
personal communication, December 18, 2011/February 26, 2012). Prior to enrolling in
the program, James worked as a lead tutor for AVID, a college readiness program whose
mission is to “close the achievement gap by preparing students for college and success in
a global society” (AVID, n.d).
James was placed at a charter high school in Eagle Rock, California. The API
data reports that of the 290 students enrolled, the population consisted of 50% Latino
75

students, 28% White students, 10% Black students, 4% Filipino students, and 3% Asian
students. The school wide API score was 877 in 2011 (see Table 11).
James described the school’s mission as students owning their learning. In
addition, he stated that the instruction was strictly student led where teachers act as
advisors. James explained that teachers were not supposed to provide definitive
responses or answers to student questions. He described it as a “sink or swim mentality
where the students really had to struggle on their own to find answers.”
James taught 10
th
grade English Language Arts at a Los Angeles high school for
his second student teaching placement. The school population consisted of 1500
students with 95% Latino students, and 1 % of Black and 1% of White students.
According to the California school report, Eighty-four percent of students participated in
free or reduced priced lunch and 57% were considered socioeconomically disadvantaged.
The 2011 API score was 637 (Table 12).
Prior to his placement, James graduated from the high school and returned to the
school as an AVID tutor while completing his bachelor’s degree. James characterized
the school as focused on increasing scores for high stakes testing. The school was
currently in the process of applying to become an International Baccalaureate school in
an effort to avoid a public school choice bid to replace governance of the school
(LAUSD Public School Choice Motion, n.d.). Although the school is focused on high
stakes testing, James commented that his guiding teacher did not subscribe to the
school’s mission and instead encouraged the use of novels and critical thinking activities
in place of the “short articles” and the intense focus on grammar and writing to increase
essay writing performance scores. James stated, “For me, it’s too narrow of a focus on
76

getting high scores at the cost of sacrificing these kids’ abilities to develop authentic
critical thinking skills.”
Wendy
Prior to enrolling in the MAT@USC, Wendy was a teacher’s assistant at the
University of South Carolina in the anthropology department where she was given
autonomy to teach pre-designed lessons in the introductory anthropology course on
culture classes. She described the lessons more like lectures than lessons, and now
creates workshops for the university based on student interests and needs, such as using
APA styles in writing. According to her survey, Wendy chose to enroll in the
MAT@USC program to improve her teaching skills and further her career (Wendy,
personal communications, January 4, 2011/March 1, 2012).
Wendy was placed at an International Baccalaureate middle school in South
Carolina during her Guided Practice A course. According to the South Carolina State
Department of Education, the middle school has an enrollment of 859 students. The
school demographics consist of 52% white students, 30% Latino students, and 15%
Black students (Table 11). Limited English Proficient students accounted from 23% of
students (South Carolina State Department of Education, n.d.). The No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) report states that AYP was not met
with 24 of the 29 objectives not met (South Carolina Department of Education, n.d.)
According to Wendy, the focus of the middle school was to teach kids to have “a
global perspective and to be that citizen and individual who can not only interact on a
social level within their own realm, but on a global basis.” She described the school as
very progressive and open, but lacking support and neglect for English language learners.
77

She explained the very strict movement of not speaking Spanish or any other language in
the classroom.
Wendy’s second student teaching placement was at a high school located in the
same district as her first placement. The high school enrolled 291 students with 59%
White, 17% Black, and 23% Hispanic students. According to the South Carolina AYP
report, the school did not meet AYP requirements, meeting 15 of the 23 objectives
(NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress, n.d.).
Wendy also described the school as heavily “test centered” with a “skill and drill”
approach to teaching. She stated, “It’s very test-centered. Sit in your desk. We’re going
to review the skill, and then you’re going to look at the skill and apply the skill.”
According to Wendy, the test taking environment did not allow her to design lessons on
her own accord.
Note:
1
South Carolina schools do not report API scores. AYP findings are presented.

Table 11: School Demographics Placement 1 - EDUC 568A
Location
Placement 1
Enrolled
Students
School Demographics 2011
API/AYP
Mary Albany, CA 887 39% White
14% Hispanic
8% Black
2% Filipino
887 API
Maria Los Angeles,
CA
392 94% Latino
4% Asian
917 API
James Eagle Rock,
CA,
290 50% Hispanic
28% White
10% Black
4% Filipino
3% Asian
877 API
Wendy Hilton Head,
South Carolina
859 52% White
30% Hispanic
15% Black
AYP
Not Met
1

78

Table 12: School Demographic Placement 2 – EDUC 568B
Location
Placement 2
Enrolled
Students
School Demographics 2011
API/AYP
Mary Richmond, CA 566 39% Hispanic
26% Black
14% Asian
9%White
7% Filipino

664 API
Maria Long Beach,
CA
3,043 47% Hispanic
27% White
12% Black
9% Asian
739 API
James Los Angeles,
CA
1500

95% Hispanic
1% Black
1%White
637 API
Wendy Hilton Head,
South Carolina
291

59% White
23% Hispanic
17% Black
AYP
Not Met
1

Note:
1
South Carolina schools do not report API scores. AYP findings are presented.
Presentation of Findings for Research Question #1
Research Question 1 asked, how do teacher candidates’ perceive their ability to
transfer pedagogical practices taught in an online secondary language arts course to the
student teaching experience? What factors affect the transfer of the pedagogical practices
taught in an online secondary language arts pedagogy course to the student teaching
experience?

79

Table 13: Data Collection for Research Question 1
Research Question Data Sources Instrumentation
1. How do teacher candidates
perceive their ability to transfer
instructional strategies taught in an
online secondary English language
arts pedagogy course to the guided
practice experience?

a. What factors affect the transfer
of the instructional strategies
taught in the online secondary
English language arts pedagogy
course to the guided practice
experience?
Teacher
Candidates

Interviews

Observations: Teacher
Candidates’ Videotaped
lessons from EDUC 568A:
Guided Practice A and EDUC
568B: Guided Practice B

Observations: Preplanning
Videos from EDUC 568A:
Guided Practice A and EDUC
568B: Guided Practice B

Surveys

The first research question examined teachers’ perceptions of their ability to
transfer the strategies they learned in their online course, Teaching Secondary English
and Language Arts to their guided practice experiences. The second sub-question
examines the particular factors that affect their ability to transfer the strategies to their
guided practice experiences. Ten class sessions of Teaching Secondary English and
Language Arts were first observed to determine the strategies that were taught to teacher
candidates. These strategies were then used to create the survey. The survey included a
Likert style scale to determine the factors that affected the ability to implement each of
the 24 strategies. An interview was conducted in order to determine the overall factors
and perceptions that affected the transfer of strategies without regard to individual
strategies. Questions posed included items such as “To what degree did your guiding
teacher support the strategies you learned from EDUC535: Teaching Secondary English
and Language Arts?” and “To what extent were the strategies useful to the school site
80

where you were teaching?” All questions stemmed from the literature on the factors that
affect transfer (Table 5).
Additional factors emerged from the interviews such as classroom management
and the type of curriculum the school subscribed to as having an effect on the teacher
candidates’ ability to transfer and implement the strategies they learned from the online
pedagogy course. In an effort to triangulate the data and corroborate comments from the
interviews, the study included a cross section of videotaped observations of the guiding
teacher and teacher candidate planning lessons. Four videos were observed for each
candidate; two in Guided Practice A and two in Guided Practice B. Videos were
extracted from the coursework in Guided Practice A and B. The preplanning videos
demonstrate teacher candidates and guiding teachers discussing the proposed lesson with
regard to topics such lesson sequence and expected learning outcomes. The study sought
videotaped evidence to support the teacher candidates’ comments and extracted dialogue
between teacher candidates and guiding teachers.
Content analysis was conducted to identify “core consistencies and meanings”
and extract patterns and themes among participants’ interview responses (Patton, 2002).
Deductive analysis was used in accordance with the literature on the factors that affect
the transfer of instructional strategies to the student teaching experience. Interview
responses were first coded according to the factor. Inductive analysis followed and was
used to determine patterns within each factor to extract the themes. Finally, using a
logical analysis, the interview comments were “cross-classified to generate new insights
about how the data can be organized and to look for patterns that may not have been
immediately obvious in the initial, inductive analysis” (Patton, 2002).
81

Two themes emerged from the deductive and inductive analysis. Themes
included 1) the degree of instructional support received from guiding teachers and 2) the
degree of freedom to plan and implement lessons. Both themes contribute to the teacher
candidates’ ability to use the strategies during their placements. Following these themes
is a cross-case casual analysis in which the researcher conducted a comparative analysis
of all cases in the sample (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Theme 1: The Degree of Instructional Support Received
Teacher candidate interviews provided abundant details on how guiding teachers
provided instructional support during the guided practice placements. All four
participants’ comments suggest that when given support and feedback from their guiding
teachers on ways to use or improve the strategy, they were more likely to use the
strategies taught from the online course. One teacher candidate (Maria) explicitly
defined support as:
1) Providing constant feedback after each lesson (constructive feedback, suggest
ways in which teacher candidate can further develop their skills).
2) Allowing the teaching candidate to have some "creative freedom" as to how
they want to teach. This can be done by delegating a project and then allowing
the teacher candidate to be responsible for lesson planning, etc with the
approval and guidance of master teacher.
3) Making sure the teacher candidate has access to any tools, books, etc that will
assist their candidate to improve their teaching.
4) Communicate on a daily basis.
5) Seeking ways in which the teacher candidate can get involved in school
activities, establishing a connection with parents (one of my master teachers
allowed me to be present during parent teacher conferences)” (Maria, personal
communication, May 2, 2012).

Teacher candidates each described instances of support in various contexts that
contributed to their ability to implement the strategies learned from the online course
Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts. For example, Mary described using
82

most of the strategies that she was taught in her online course due to the support from her
guiding teacher during her first student teaching assignment. In one instance, she
described her mentor as “thrilled and surprised” when her students completed a Socratic
seminar with her group of seventh graders. When the strategy went awry, she and her
guiding teacher would reflect on ways to improve upon her practice. She stated, “And
when they didn’t [get the strategy] we could look at what went right, what went wrong,
what could be tweaked, or what it is that they don’t know how to do.”
Participants (James and Maria) also described instances where their guiding
teacher would sit down during class and take notes, and then offer their “warm and cool”
feedback and insights on how to improve for the following day. Melissa’s comment
summarizes how the feedback led to improved teaching practices and the ability to
transfer the strategies:
When I was doing things in the lesson that really weren’t making the lesson
productive as they could be, or if there were things she thought I could improve
upon, she would always tell me, and she would always be very supportive about
it.

This finding is in agreement with Gwynn-Paquette and Tochon (2002) who found that
expert coaching and moral support are essential to fostering the development of
preservice teachers’ ability to innovate new strategies into their teaching practices.
Wendy and James characterized their guiding teachers as especially helpful
during planning sessions. Wendy described planning sessions in which she would present
a strategy she wanted to teach and her guiding teacher would offer appropriate
modifications concerning behavior or students’ learning needs. She stated, “If something
went wrong in one class, we’d talk about the next lesson and how I could change it and
83

modify it so that it would be more productive and more engaging for the students.”
James described his guiding teacher as taking his ideas and giving him a “focus” to
identify areas to assess students in their learning. This finding corroborates the ideas of
Borko and Mayfield (1995) who found that cooperating teachers who believed that they
could and should play an active role in their student teacher’s learning, conducted longer
and more frequent conferences and provided more extensive feedback.
All four teacher candidates discuss their guiding teachers’ flexible attitudes and
desire to learn about the new strategies as a factor contributing to their ability to
implement the strategies they learned from their online course. More specifically, James
and Maria discussed their Guiding teachers’ desire to “learn as much about the
strategies” as possible to improve their own practice. James described his guiding
teacher in his second student teaching experience as wanting to use the new strategies to
address classroom management issues she was trying to fix as a result of taking a leave of
absence prior to his entry to the classroom. He stated, “The issues weren’t really being
resolved and she figured that the strategies that I would come with from USC would sort
of help solve some of those issues.” Wendy described her guiding teacher as
“progressive” and “open.” She stated, “She really utilized me as a student teacher for her
own learning, like to learn the new strategies herself” – a comment reflective of teachers
who capitalize on new teacher knowledge stemming from the teacher education program.
The present finding is consistent with research on the professional growth opportunity
and benefits that result from a cooperating teacher’s encounter with the student teacher
(Landt, 2004). Researchers found that cooperating teachers made changes to their
regular teaching practices and believed they were more reflective about their teaching as
84

a result of their work with the student teacher (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Russell &
Russell, 2011).
The guiding teacher’s knowledge and familiarity with the strategies also
improved their ability to use the strategies and focus discussions on how to improve the
strategy for use with the specific population of students. Mary and Maria both recall
their guiding teacher’s knowledge or awareness of the strategies as a reason why they
were able to implement the strategies from the online course. This finding contradicts
Zeichner’s (2010) assertion that cooperating teachers know very little about the specific
methods and coursework that their teacher candidates have completed in their university
coursework, but is in accordance with the findings from Wilson (1996) who found that
the more cooperating teachers know about what preservice teachers have learned in their
university program coursework, the more they can support their teacher candidates.
Mary added that even when her guiding teacher was not familiar with the strategy, she
was still “willing to try”. In one instance, she described her guiding teacher as “leery” of
students moving around for the gallery walk, but “she would tell me her concerns in
advance, and try to mitigate any off task behavior.” Mary says they often combined the
strategies that she had learned online with the strategies the guiding teacher already
knew. This latter comment suggests that a guiding teacher’s flexibility and desire to
improve her own practice can improve the chances of new strategies being introduced
during the guided practice assignments as indicated by researchers (Feiman-Nemser,
2001; Graham, 2006; Russell & Russel, 2011).
Finally, participants’ comments suggest that developing a good relationship with
the guiding teacher over the course of the assignment is key in the ability to plan lessons
85

using the strategies. Mary recounted the positive relationship she developed with her
guiding teacher over the ten week period that led to her ability to take some ownership
over the classroom. Mary pointed out that her guiding teacher did not “want to be my
friend” and made it very clear at the first meeting that she wanted to “teach” her and
wanted to make the relationship “as open and explicit” as possible. When asked if her
guiding teacher allowed her freedom to implement strategies, she stated, “At first she
would say no, so I didn’t push it. And then, as I understood the students better,
understood her concerns better, I tried to mediate whatever it was that she anticipating
would be the problem. Then I was able to do more things.” Mary’s comments suggests
that building a relationship with the guiding teacher set the stage for her ability to try new
strategies while being able to address her guiding teacher’s concerns. This finding
supports previous research on the importance of maintaining open and flexible
communication and a collaborative environment during the student teaching assignment
as discussed by Graham (2006) in her research on successful field experiences.
Although participants’ comments described support as a key ingredient in using
the strategies, all of the participants overwhelmingly attributed a lack of support as
preventing them from using any of the strategies they learned from their online course.
Each participant experienced a lack of support in one of their two student teaching
placements. Lack of support was described as receiving little or no feedback or as
instances when teacher candidates felt “inadequate” due to frequent disruptions during
teaching. Mary, for example, voiced her disappointment at the lack of feedback she
received, revealing that her guiding teacher never looked at her lessons or watched her
teach until she had prompted him to do so. Maria described her feedback as “in-depth”
86

in the beginning but then described it as “very casual” as the weeks progressed with
comments such as “Oh yeah, that was good.” Likewise, Wendy felt “inadequate” with
her teaching skills during her second teaching placement, but said she received a “4” on
every evaluation. She stated, “I was like, ‘Come on. Give me something. Like what can
I do to make this situation better?’” These statements demonstrate that a perceived lack
of support and feedback impeded teacher candidates from implementing the strategies.
This present finding is consistent with other research (Killian and Wilkins, 2009) on the
importance of providing “corrective objective feedback” to resolve issues early. Killian
and Wilkins (2009) found that less effective cooperating teachers avoided feedback.
Nguyen (2008) also found that cooperative teachers who communicated specific
feedback supported by concrete examples or demonstrations, with regard to a teacher
candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, established a more supportive environment.
Two of the four participants commented on the resistance from guiding teachers
to use the strategies. Mary described her guiding teacher as not open to using new
strategies with the Advanced Placement students she taught. She stated, “I knew they
could do it. He thought they could do it too, but he had this thing about his AP classes,
and he basically did not want me to teach them.” At her second teaching assignment,
Maria described her guiding teacher as having her own agenda and expecting Maria to
follow her lead. For example, when she presented the idea of using the Socratic seminar
with the tenth grade students, the teacher dismissed her suggestion, stating that she would
rather Maria follow what was already in place. In another instance, Maria offered to
develop a problem for an upcoming test they had planned to give students to which her
guiding teacher replied “not to worry about it.” She interpreted the exchange as “this is
87

the test I have given them. I’ve always given this test. This is the test you’re going to
give them. This is what I’m doing. Watch closely, and then you do it.” Maria described
the guided practice experience as feeling “handicapped,” and added, “I felt like my little
wings were cut, or my ideas were not appreciated or valued.” These comments validate
the current research finding that guiding teachers who are not open to or resistant to new
teaching practices inhibit teacher candidates from implementing the strategies acquired
from university coursework (Koerner, 1992; Ferguson & Brink, 2004). The findings are
also in agreement with Clarke and Jarvis-Selinger’s (2004) research which found that the
“transmission model” of teaching is more commonly found in secondary classrooms.
They posit, “Those who adopt a Transmission perspective in their work with teacher
candidates face significant challenges. In the absence of a broadly accepted knowledge
base upon which to draw, there is the danger that these teachers assume that their
personal beliefs about teaching and learning constitute the disciplinary knowledge for the
profession.”
Two teacher candidates voiced their dissatisfaction with the guiding teachers
“taking control” of the classroom while the teacher candidate was teaching. In doing so,
the teacher candidates were discouraged from implementing the strategies. Mary and
Wendy both recounted frustrating experiences in which the guiding teacher would
interrupt their teaching to “take over the lesson” (Wendy) thereby “splitting authority”
(Mary). Mary described her guiding teacher as “sabotaging” any lesson she put together.
She attributed her frustration to planning with her mentor, revealing that she would
present the lesson at least 3 days prior to teaching it and receive approval “without much
input.” This is corroborated by her pre-lesson reflection where she writes, “Not that I
88

mind my guiding teacher’s hands off approach, but he doesn’t have much to say, and
when he does say something-I have no idea if he really knows what he’s talking about.”
She added that, during the live lesson, the guiding teacher would interject to add his
opinion. The videotaped lessons validate her comments on two occasions. In one
instance, the guiding teacher states he is “piggybacking” on what the teacher candidate
said and proceeds to provide direction to students on how to complete the task. Wendy
described an occasion when her guiding teacher abruptly stopped her lesson to put on a
“60 minute video on homelessness.” Graham’s (2006) study found friction and
frustration occurs between the teacher candidates and guiding teachers when guiding
teachers believe that students are not receiving adequate instruction thus feeling the need
to step in and help. Mary and Wendy described these actions as creating a “split in
authority” (Mary) with Wendy stating that she felt the guiding teacher’s actions
“discouraged the kids not to like me.” The frustration described by both teacher
candidates led them to stop using the strategies. This behavior is confirmed in Mary’s
lesson videos where she takes noticeably less chances in terms of activity driven
strategies from her first video to the last. She remarked, “It just became really clear that
I would be working hard for something that there would be very little.” Researchers
describe these experiences as a mismatch between expectations among teacher candidates
and cooperating teachers (Rajuan, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007). Teacher candidates seek
support and expect cooperating teachers to demonstrate “personal characteristics of a
positive nature” (Rajuan, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007) that include “trust” and providing a
“safe environment in which the student can experiment in order to undergo the process of
discovering their personal expression in the classroom” (p. 235). When these
89

expectations are not met, teacher candidates are left with discouraging emotions about
the experience as well as the profession. Rajuan et al. (2007) research suggests that the
conflict stems from the guiding teacher’s struggle with “dual loyalty”, defined as loyalty
to their teacher candidates and to the pupils they teach, as one factor that may contribute
to their unsupportive nature. Teacher candidates who are not aware of “dual loyalty”
mistakenly misinterpret the lack of support to allow them to experiment with new
practices as a “neglect of their needs” (p. 239).
Observations
Video observations of teacher candidates’ planning sessions with their guiding
teachers demonstrate varying degrees of support and feedback from guiding teachers that
affect their ability to implement the strategies. Seven of the 16 planning videos
corroborate with teacher candidates’ perceptions that guiding teachers who provide
support affect the ability to implement the strategies. Evidence is seen through the
guiding teachers’ use of reflective questioning, advice on improving instruction, and
suggestions for managing the classroom (Table 14). Research suggests that effective
support teachers ask probing, open-ended questions to learn what the novices understand
and encourage teachers to explicate their practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Nguyen
(2009) also found that support teachers who offer specific feedback accompanied by
“concrete suggestions” for improvement created a more supportive environment for
novice teachers. Observation data was collected after coding the interviews to find
evidence to support teacher candidates’ interview comments. The frequencies of the total
number of statements for each category (reflective questioning, advice on improving
instruction, and suggestions for managing the classroom) were calculated for each
90

teacher candidate. A higher frequency was considered to be an indication of strong
support in each category.
Candidates who stated they received more support from guiding teachers to
implement the strategies showed a higher incidence of the guiding teacher using
reflective questioning, offering advice and feedback to improve instruction, and in some
cases, addressing potential issues with classroom management. Observation data
illustrates guiding teachers actively engaging teacher candidates in the conversation
through the use of reflective questioning such as, “How many connections do you expect
students to make and what evidence will demonstrate that? (Maria) and “How will you
help them to identify the theme? (James). Guiding teachers’ suggestions on how to
improve instruction included “modeling” (Maria), creating graphic organizers (James),
“making directions more explicit” (Mary) and creating rubrics (Maria) or checklists of
expectations (Wendy). Advice on how to manage the classroom is offered with regard to
grouping students (Mary), allotting time to activities (Wendy), and preparing to address
particular students who may require additional attention.
Table 14: Evidence of Support in PrePlanning Videos
GT asks
reflective questions
GT offers advice on how
to improve instruction
GT offers suggestions
for classroom
management
GPA GPB GPA GPB GPA GPB
Mary 2 0 4 2 2 2
Maria 2 0 10 0 0 0
James 2 3 1 7 1 0
Wendy 5 3 7 2 6 0

One observation particularly highlighted a high degree of support for the teacher
candidate in using the strategies learned from the online pedagogy course. Wendy’s
planning session with her first guiding teacher demonstrates the guiding teacher’s ability
91

to provide feedback on the proposed lesson to improve the planned activity. In the video,
Wendy discusses her desire to use the gallery walk to help students understand cause and
effect. The guiding teacher asks several open-ended questions to access Wendy’s
understanding and process of the activity: “What do you want students to be able to
understand about cause and effect from this lesson?” “Tell me about your read aloud.”
“What specifically do you want your ELL (English Language Learners) to get out of this
lesson? What words do you need to include or define so that students understand?” The
questions lead to a more dynamic discussion on how to achieve the desired results and
both collaborate on how to best approach the gallery walk. The guiding teacher suggests
using a clip board to monitor learning, and reminds Wendy to “think about logistics with
middle school students” by being “proactive” and thinking ahead of time with regards to
how she plans to set up each station. She also suggests having students create a T Chart
to establish a cause and effect relationship and provides an example of how that may look
on student papers. She states, “This will show you who gets it and who doesn’t.” As
evidenced by the frequency of tallies, Wendy’s guiding teachers’ questions, comments,
and feedback demonstrate a strong degree of support for the use of the strategies
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Nguyen, 2009).
Survey
Teacher candidate survey responses corroborate with interview comments on the
amount of support they received from their guiding teachers as a factor that affected their
ability to implement each of the strategies. All four teacher candidates indicated that the
more support they received from their guiding teacher, the more likely they were able to
use the strategies during their student teaching. According to the survey, which reflects
92

guided practice B for Mary and Maria and Guided Practice A for James and Wendy, six
of the 24 strategies (25%) scored at somewhat supported: advanced organizer, chunking
texts, scaffolding challenging texts, using models, writer’s workshop, and reader’s
workshop. Seventy five percent of the strategies were not supported by the guiding
practice teachers at the school site (Table 15). The strategies that teacher candidates
report as being supported are strategies that teacher candidates spoke of as already being
used at the school site, such as the reader’s and writer’s workshop at Wendy’s school site
and the Socratic Seminar and margin notes at James’s first teaching placement. Table 15
indicates which strategies were supported according to survey responses. Survey
responses were collected and analyzed using Qualtrics.
Table 15: Support from Guiding Teachers Based on Strategies
Statistic Min
Value
Max
Value
Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
Modeling and
Demonstrating
1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
Reader's Workshop 1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
Writer's Workshop 1 4 2.33 2.33 1.53
Advanced Organizer 1 3 2 0.67 0.82
Chunking Texts 1 4 2 2 1.41
Scaffolding Challenging
Texts
1 3 2 0.67 0.82
Directed Reading
Sequence
1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
DRTA 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Margin Notes 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Say Mean Matter 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Socratic Seminar 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Categorizing Questions 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Concept Categorizing 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Fishbowl 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Gallery Walk 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Ideation and Organization 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Language Experience
Approach
1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
93

Table 15, Continued
Out Out 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Outlining Arguments 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Mentor Texts 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Sentence Models 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Write Around 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Vocabulary Scales 1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5
Using music, art with
writing
1 2 1.25 0.25 0.5

Table 16 represents the mean percentage of support for each candidate on all the
instructional strategies in the online pedagogy course. These individual results are highly
reflective of the teacher candidates’ comments from interviews and videos, and echo
research on how support for preservice teachers plays a pivotal role in the ability to apply
university coursework (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Nguyen, 2009). Maria, who indicated she
was not supported for 58% of the strategies, also recalled a “follow my lead” ideology at
her second school site that prevented her from designing her own lessons to include the
strategies. James reported 100% not supported at his first placement due to the highly
structured environment that did not allow deviation from the Socratic Seminar method
that is described in more detail in the proceeding section on the degree of freedom to plan
and implement lesson. He believed his guiding teacher wanted to support him, but could
not due the school’s curricular model.

94

Table 16: Support from Guiding Teacher from Survey Question #3 and Interview
Name Not
Supported
Somewhat
Supported
Supported Very
Supported
Mean Interview Comments
Mary
1
- 100% - - 2.0 “He just sits there.
He never offers
anything. Or he’ll
agree with me in
front of the camera
and then later
undermine anything
that it is that I’m
doing.”
Maria
1
58% - 38% - 1.7 “I definitely had a lot
of frustrations in that
particular area. I felt
like I couldn’t really
blossom. Like my
wings were cut or my
ideas were not
appreciated or
valued. ”
James
2

100% - - - 1.0 “I think he [the GT]
wanted to try them
out; he just wasn’t
willing to stick out
his neck for me and
try to push for me to
try new things”
Wendy
2
.08% 75% 16% 1.5 “I would say she [the
GT] was my biggest
advocate.”
1
Survey reflects support during Guided Practice B
2
Survey reflects support during Guided Practice A
Summary of Theme 1
Table 17 shows a summary of the findings for the first theme culled from
interviews, observations, and surveys. The theme was derived using inductive analysis
of the data to determine patterns that could be categorized as a theme.

95

Table 17: Summary of Findings for Theme 1
Findings Theme
Supportive guiding teachers…
The degree of instructional support
received determines candidates’ ability to
implement the strategies.

Offer feedback during planning
sessions
Are Flexible
Express a desire to learn from teacher
candidates
Are knowledgeable of strategies
Develop positive, collaborative
relationships

Theme 2: The Degree of Freedom to Plan and Implement Lessons
Teacher candidate interviews provided in-depth explanations on how freedom to
plan and implement lessons was an essential factor in the ability to use the strategies
learned in Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts. Three of the four
participants cited their freedom to plan and deliver lessons with the guiding teacher’s
assistance as a central factor in their ability to transfer and implement the strategies.
Maria and James commented that their guiding teachers were completely open to them
coming into the classroom and having creative license over the lessons. James described
an environment where he “could do anything and everything.” Given the autonomy to
create lessons greatly contributed to Maria’s use of the strategies when appropriate.
Maria stated,
She basically said, ‘Run with it! You are in charge of any activity that you want
to do.’ And I jumped on that because it allowed me to really feel like I’m a
student teacher. Like I can make my own decisions, and I can do this or that.

The amount of freedom teacher candidates received was also dependent upon
how teachers planned curriculum at each school site. Three of the four teachers
described the guiding teachers’ ability to design and implement teacher created
96

curriculum while still adhering to state standards or structured guidelines put in place by
the school district or English department. For example, Maria explained that teachers at
her first teaching assignment had “a lot of freedom” and were encouraged to use novels
and outside texts such as articles. Lessons adhered to the standards, but teachers were
not required to utilize a textbook or maintain a pacing plan. James also described a
flexible curriculum in his second student teaching placement in which tenth grade
teachers were required to use the book, “Night,” and have students write a research
paper, but the way in which individual teachers approached the book was left to their
own creative devices. Kahn’s (2001) research of 20 cooperating teachers is consistent
with these findings. Kanh (2001) found that cooperating teachers attributed their success
with teacher candidates as a result of their flexibility. One cooperating teacher in the
study reported,
I’m flexible and things don’t have to be done a certain way for me and I’m
willing to allow the student teacher to experiment and fail. And I think that by
being able to let them experiment, they can learn more about their
strengths…there has to be some flexibility for them to be successful (p.51).
The degree of structure with regard to the curriculum contributed greatly to
teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies during their student teaching
experience. Jerald (2006) described a “narrowing of the curriculum” as having an effect
on what teachers can and cannot teach. Two of the four participants described having to
adhere to specific curriculum models or guidelines that prevented or inhibited them from
implementing the strategies they learned in EDUC 535. This was most commonly
represented by James’ interview comments. For example, James’ first student teaching
placement subscribed to the intensive use of the Socratic Seminar as model for
instructing students. He described the school as “student-centered learning” where
97

students “own their learning” and where teachers act as “supervisors rather than
teachers.” He added, “And we’re not supposed to give any sort of definitive response or
answer to anything. It was a sink or swim mentality where the students had to struggle
on their own to find the answers.”
James says that what was taught in the program in terms of strategies that engage
students with the text was vastly different than the school’s mission. He stated, “They
refer to those strategies as being too schooly.” James stated that because the curriculum
was “student centered” with a focus on individuals, it was difficult for him to implement
any strategies that consisted of collaborative group work. He described an occasion
when he wanted to recreate a Puritan courtroom and ask students to decide if Hester
Prynne was a sinner for the book “The Scarlet Letter.” However, he explains that he was
prohibited from doing the activity citing that the activity would deflect the school’s
mission of focusing on “individual student success.” He states, “They were very, very
strict on what I could and could not do.”
With the exception of the margin notes strategy and a modified version of the
Socratic seminar that was used daily, James stated that because the strategies did not
align with the school’s mission, they were not relevant or useful to the school site. James
remarked that he knew the principal was highly familiar with the strategies since she was
a professor at the teacher education program in which he was attending, but she was not
supportive of using the strategies he learned in his online pedagogy course. He stated,
“My lesson plan would be presented to her, and she would tell me straight out, ‘you can’t
do this. We don’t do this kind of stuff here. No group work allowed.’” James pointed
out that he believed his guiding teacher wanted to use the strategies, but was also
98

prevented from supporting James since the strategies did not align with the school’s
instructional focus. He stated, “I think he wanted to try them out, but he just wasn’t
willing to stick out his neck for me and try to push for me to try new things.”
Wendy also described the use of two distinct curriculum structures at both of her
school sites that inhibited her ability to use the strategies with varying degree. At her
first teaching assignment, Wendy described the school curriculum as being heavily
influenced by a school-wide literacy model. According to Wendy, the daily routine of
the literacy model had to be implemented. The routine consisted of a “community
meeting” in which teachers presented the lesson and purpose for the day along with the
essential questions, a read aloud in which teachers read a book aloud to students and
conducted a metacognitive think aloud on the newly acquired skill presented in the
community meeting, a mini-lesson on the skill for the day followed by a reader’s or
writer’s workshop. She noted that she was able to use some strategies during the writer’s
workshop such as modeling, margin notes, the gallery walk, and using music and art with
writing. Because of the described routine, she stated, “The whole class period can’t just
be taken up by the Socratic Seminar, or fishbowl, or gallery walk.”
James and Wendy’s comments on the degree of structure they were expected to
follow are also supported by research conducted by Crocco and Costigan (2007) who
argue:
As a result of the curricular and pedagogical impositions of scripted lessons,
mandated curriculum, and narrowed option for pedagogy, new teachers find their
personal identity thwarted, creativity undermined, and ability to forge
relationships with students’ diminished (p. 513).

99

Mary and Wendy also commented on a structure that resulted from an emphasis
on high stakes testing that affected their ability to implement the strategies. Mary stated
that high stakes testing affected the use of the strategies “100 percent” during her second
student teaching assignment citing the heavy alignment with the textbook and pacing
plan to increase test scores. Although she was given the freedom and flexibility to
supplement the textbook with strategies she learned from her online pedagogy course,
she cited the pacing guide as making it difficult but “doable.” Wendy described a similar
high stakes testing atmosphere of “skill and drill.” These findings are consistent with
other research which found that high stakes testing has disabled preservice teachers
ability to use the expertise acquired during their teacher education programs (Anderson &
Stillman, 2010; Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Dooley & Assaf, 2009).
The degree to which teacher candidates were given freedom to design and
implement lessons was observed in the videotaped preplanning lessons with the teacher
candidates and their guiding teachers and in the videotaped lessons submitted by each
candidate for review and feedback in Guided Practice A and Guided Practice B. James,
for example, cited a high degree of freedom in his second placement, and his videotaped
lesson on stereotypes is a strong indication that James was given absolute freedom to
implement the strategies he desired. James’ lesson utilized a video clip on Mexican
American stereotypes to “stimulate student interest” in the topic of “the power of
stereotypes” in the novel Night, according to his post-lesson written reflection. The
video depicted two Caucasian women making slanderous remarks replete with expletive
language on their views of Mexican Americans. James asked students to identify the
stereotypes of Mexican Americans using a graphic organizer. He followed the video
100

with the write around strategy in which he asked students to respond to questions
regarding the video such as “What about the stereotypes is offensive to you?” and “In
what ways is this offensive to the immigrant community?” Students responded to
questions and shared their written replies with their group. James video choice and use
of the write around strategy demonstrates a high degree of freedom in his student
teaching placement. This finding supports existing research that when given freedom to
design lessons, teacher candidates are more likely to implement the strategies from their
college education programs (Costigan, 2008). Teachers in Costigan’s (2008) study also
reported a high degree of professional satisfaction when given autonomy to design their
own lessons for their population of students.
Teacher candidates preplanning videos also demonstrate a high degree of
structure that affects their ability to utilize the strategies. Maria, who indicated a “high
stakes testing” atmosphere in her second teaching placement, stated that she was not
permitted to plan, design, or implement lessons of her choosing, and instead was asked to
follow or mimic what her guiding teacher was already teaching. While this was
evidenced in each of the preplanning videos observed for this study, it was most notable
in one particular instance. In the video, Maria is observed asking the guiding teacher
questions about how he approaches instruction. The guiding teacher clearly dominates
the conversation explicating what he has done in the past and how Maria should approach
the lesson with comments such as “show students the compare/contrast essay prompt”
and “give them an example of what to put in each area” with reference to the graphic
organizer. He also provides a summary of the short stories he plans to use and discusses
his pattern for asking questions to students. Maria voices one suggestion in the video to
101

“use an overhead” to which her guiding teacher replies, “I don’t. I’m not a gadget guy.”
No collaboration is observed between the teacher candidate and the guiding teacher in the
lesson planning video. Similarities exist in the attitudes expressed by Maria in this study
and those described by Costigan (2008) who found that a lack of teacher autonomy
created a “washing out” of the theories and practices learned in college coursework
“causing new teachers to replicate traditional and commonsense modes of teaching” (p.
97).
While Wendy’s structured “literacy model” is evident in all four of her
videotaped lessons in guided practice B (community meeting, read aloud, mini lesson,
and readers/writers workshop) she can be observed using the gallery walk as part of her
mini lesson on cause and effect. Wendy’s video supports her interview comments on her
ability to use the strategies within the limits of the school’s structured literacy model.
Finally, the survey corroborates with the teacher candidates’ responses that the
structure of the school’s curriculum has an effect on the relevancy or usefulness of the
strategies to the school in which teacher candidates were placed. The term usefulness is
defined as beneficial or valuable to the school culture, student population, or classroom
setting of the strategies. Teacher candidates were asked which instructional strategies
were most were useful at their school placement settings during Guided Practice A for
Wendy and James and Guided Practice B for Mary and Maria.
The results indicate that the following strategies were found somewhat useful:
chunking texts, DRTA, gallery walk, outlining arguments, say mean matter, scaffolding
challenging texts, Socratic seminar, using models, write around, writer’s workshop,
reader’s workshop, and using music and art with writing. The remainder were not useful
102

to the school site: Advanced Organizer , Categorizing questions, Concept Categorizing,
Directed reading Sequence, Fishbowl, Ideation and Organizing, Language Experience
Approach, Margin Notes , Out Out, Mentor Texts, Sentence models, vocabulary scales
(Table 18).
Table 18: Usefulness of Strategies
Strategy Min Value Max Value Mean Variance Standard
Deviation
Chunking Texts 1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
Outlining Arguments 1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
Scaffolding Challenging
Texts
1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
Socratic Seminar 1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
Write Around 1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
Using music, art with
writing
1 4 2.5 1.67 1.29
DRTA 1 3 2.25 0.92 0.96
Say Mean Matter 1 3 2.25 0.92 0.96
Gallery Walk 1 4 2 2 1.41
Modeling and
Demonstrating
1 4 2 2 1.41
Writer's Workshop 1 4 2 2 1.41
Reader's Workshop 1 4 2 2 1.41
Advanced Organizer 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Categorizing Questions 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Concept Categorizing 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Directed Reading Sequence 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Fishbowl 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Margin Notes 1 3 1.75 0.92 0.96
Ideation and Organization 1 2 1.5 0.33 0.58
Language Experience
Approach
1 2 1.5 0.33 0.58
Out Out 1 2 1.5 0.33 0.58
Mentor texts 1 2 1.5 0.33 0.58
Sentence Models 1 2 1.5 0.33 0.58
Vocabulary Scales 1 2 1.5 0.33 0.58

103

Table 19 indicates the percentage of strategies useful or relevant to the school site
by participant. The survey results support teacher candidates’ comments that the
usefulness or relevancy of the strategies was dependent upon the degree of freedom
teacher candidates received to plan lessons. For example, James’ interview comments
indicated a high degree of curricular structure that affected his ability to use the
strategies. His survey response supports his comments with 100% of the strategies not
relevant to the school site. In addition, Mary and Maria’s comments signified an
influence of high stakes testing that influenced their ability to implement the strategies.
Mary’s results indicate she found 100% of the strategies “somewhat useful” while Maria
found 67% of the strategies “not useful” due to her inability to create lessons and the
“follow my lead” teaching environment she was asked to replicate. These findings
corroborate with research that suggests that when teachers are forced to teach in
mandated ways, their college education courses were found not valuable (Costigan,
2008).

104

Table 19: Usefulness of the Strategies at the School Site by Participant
Name Not
Usefu
l
Somewha
t Useful
Useful Very
Useful
Mean Interview Comments
Mary
1
- 100% - - 2.0 “If I had to work
something into the tiny
window of time, I could do
it with this one thing that
they can benefit from.”
Maria
1
67% - 33% - 1.7 “It was kind of like, ‘Look
at what I’m doing and
repeat this.’”
James
2
100% - - - 1.0 “They were very, very
strict on what I could and
could not do.”
Wend
y
2

- 25% 33% 41% 2.4 “You’re whole class just
can’t be taken up by a
Socratic Seminar. You
have to include the
community meeting,
essential question
discussion, the read aloud,
the mini-lesson, and the
reader’s and writer’s
workshop”
1
Survey reflects Guided Practice B
2
Survey reflects Guided Practice A

Summary of Theme 2
Table 20 shows a summary of the findings for the second theme gathered from
interviews, observations, and surveys. The theme was derived using inductive analysis to
determine patterns that emerged from the data and then categorized into a theme.

105

Table 20: Summary of Findings for Theme 2
Findings Theme
Amount of freedom dependent on structure of
school curriculum.

Some strict instructional practices embedded in
school mission.
The degree of freedom to plan and
implement lessons determines the
teacher candidates’ ability to
implement strategies.

Synthesis of Findings using Cross Case Analysis
Table 21 represents a summary of responses collected from the interviews. Each
category (support, guiding teacher’s awareness of strategies, high stakes testing,
structured curriculum, and strategies relevant to school site) was determined from the
themes that emerged from the data. Yes or no responses were determined based on
teacher candidate interviews. For example, if the teacher candidate stated they were
supported by the guiding teacher, the chart indicates a “yes” response. If the candidate
stated that they were not supported by their guiding teacher, the chart indicates a “no”
response. Using this table, a cross case analysis was conducted and a causal chain was
determined (Table 22). Miles and Huberman (1994) describe cross-case causal
networking as a “comparative analysis of all cases in a sample, using variables estimated
to be the most influential in accounting for the outcome or criterion” (p. 228). The causal
chain is designed to simplify assumptions about what leads to what (Miles and
Huberman, 1994).

106

Table 21: Summary of responses from interviews
Support GT
Awareness
of Strategies
High
Stakes
Testing
Structured
Curriculum
Strategies
Relevant to
School Site
GPA GPB GPA GPB GPA GPB GPA GPB GPA GPB
Mary yes no yes ns
1
no yes no no yes no
Maria yes no yes ns
1
no no no no yes no
James
no yes yes yes yes no yes no no yes
Wendy yes no yes ns
1
no yes yes yes yes no
Note.
1
Teacher candidates indicated they were not sure (ns).
The responses indicate that teacher candidates received more support and
feedback if the guiding teacher was aware of the strategies and offered them freedom to
plan their lessons thereby making the strategies from the online pedagogy course relevant
and useful to the school site. For example, Maria, who indicated that her guiding teacher
during Guided Practice A was supportive, also indicated that the guiding teacher was
aware of the strategies and gave her freedom to design and implement lessons of her
choosing without the influence of high stakes testing hereby making the strategies
relevant to the school site in which teacher candidates were placed. Similar patterns are
present for Mary, James, and Wendy who described supportive guiding teachers in at
least one of their student teaching placements.
Conversely, teacher candidates who indicated that their guiding teachers did not
provide adequate support (Wendy-GPB) also indicated that their guiding teachers were
either not aware of the strategies, or the teacher candidates were not certain if they knew
the strategies since they were not allowed to utilize them during their student teaching
assignment. Moreover, if teacher candidates perceived a high degree of influence
regarding high stakes testing, the school also demonstrated a more structured curriculum
which affected their ability to implement the strategies during their student teaching
107

assignment. These factors combined led to a less supportive environment with the
guiding teacher.
Table 22: Causal Chain
GT
Aware of
Strategies
Flexible
Curriculum
Strategies
Relevant to
School Site
Support
from
Guiding
Teacher

GT Not
Aware of
Strategies

Structured
Curriculum

High
Stakes
Testing
No
Support
from
Guiding
Teacher

Presentation of Findings for Research Question #2
To what degree can teacher candidates implement the pedagogical practices
taught in the online secondary language arts course to the student teaching experience
with fidelity?
Table 23: Data Collection for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 Source Instrumentation
To what degree can teacher
candidates implement the
instructional strategies taught in
the online secondary English
language arts pedagogy course to
the guided practice experience
with fidelity?
Teacher
Candidates
Observations: Online Class
EDUC535: Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts

Observations: Teacher Candidates’
Videotaped lessons from EDUC
568A: Guided Practice A and
EDUC 568B: Guided Practice B

Observations: Preplanning Videos
from EDUC 568A: Guided Practice
A and EDUC 568B: Guided Practice
B

Interviews

This question was posed to determine the extent to which teacher candidates were
able to adhere to the steps in implementing each strategy based on the instruction they
108

were given in their online class. Dane and Schneider (1998) define adherence as whether
the intervention was delivered as it was designed or written and the extent to which the
core components were present or not. Research suggests that information about critical
components be taken from “program developers, written materials produced by
developers, and those involved in the implementation of the program” (Leithwood and
Montgomery, 1980 as cited in Century, Rudnick, and Freeman, 2010). For this study,
critical components for each strategy were primarily extracted from written materials or
documents available to teacher candidates on the course site with step by step directions
on how to implement the strategy. Observations of EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts were used to supplement the documents in an effort to
accurately identify critical components for each strategy.
Once the critical components were established, an observation protocol was
created. The presence or absence of each step was monitored during observations.
Fidelity was calculated by dividing the total number of steps implemented by the total
number of steps identified by the course documents and observations. Research has
noted that not all fidelity criteria are measurable with the same reliability and that
“process criteria may be more difficult to measure reliably, but more significant in terms
of program effects” (Mowbray, Holter, Teague, & Bybee, 2003).
Using the observation protocol designed for each strategy, teacher candidates
were able to implement strategies with 76% fidelity. Fidelity was based on the
participant’s ability to adhere to core components of each strategy. Core components
were determined from explicit step by step instructions for implementing the strategy as
indicated from resources available to students, and from the instruction from the online
109

pedagogy course when applicable. The strategies used by teacher candidates for their
guided practice course included directed reading sequence, gallery walk, DRTA, concept
attainment, using music and art with writing, and the Socratic Seminar. The gallery walk
was videotaped on four occasions by three teacher candidates, and the Socratic seminar
was used three times by three participants. Table 24 indicates which strategies were used
by each teacher candidate and the percentage of fidelity with respect to adherence.
For this study, thirty-nine videos of classroom instruction were observed. Of the
39 videos, twelve consisted of evidence of teacher candidates implementing a strategy
taught from their online course, Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts.
Twelve of Mary’s submitted guided practice videos were observed. Mary submitted
eight videos during Guided Practice A, and four videos in Guided Practice B. Of the 8
videos submitted in Guided Practice A, Mary implemented six strategies that she was
taught in the online pedagogy course, Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts.
Table 24 illustrates that of the 6 strategies she taught, she was able to implement with
81% fidelity. Of the ten videotaped lessons observed in Maria’s Guided Practice A and
B, only one strategy taught was evident. Maria implemented the Socratic Seminar with
58% fidelity. James also submitted four videos in Guided Practice A and four videos in
Guided Practice B. In Guided Practice A, James submitted four videos demonstrating a
highly modified Socratic seminar with 2 % fidelity and margin notes with 100% fidelity.
James submitted only one video demonstrating the write around strategy he learned from
his online pedagogy course. Wendy submitted four videotaped lessons for Guided
Practice A and four videotaped lessons in Guided Practice B. Two videos, one from each
110

course, showed evidence of using a strategy taught from the online course with 100%
fidelity for her use of the gallery walk.
Two major findings emerged from the observations of the teachers in their
attempt to implement lessons during their student teaching experiences. First, teacher
candidates were able to implement the core components for each of the strategies with
only slight adaptations in an effort to meet the needs of students or the classroom
environment. Second, the school context, with regard to the culture, attitude, and
organizational characteristics such as strong administrative support, must be receptive to
the strategies for teachers to facilitate a high degree of fidelity of implementation.
Table 24: Percentage of fidelity for strategy instruction
Strategy Mary Maria James Wendy
GPA GPB GPA GPB GPA GPB GPA GPB
Concept
Attainment
100% - - - - - - -
Directed Reading
Thinking Activity
(DRTA)
66% - - - - - - -
Directed Reading
Sequence
100% - - - - - - -
Gallery Walk 75% - - - - - 100% 100%
Margin Notes - - - - 100% - - -
Socratic Seminar 50% - 58% - 2% - - -
Write Around - - - - 66% 66% - -
Using Music and
Art with Writing
- 100% - - - - - -

Observations demonstrate that teacher candidates are able to implement strategies
with a high degree of fidelity and adherence to critical components with only minor
adaptations to the strategy. For example, Mary’s videos demonstrate occasional
modifications or deviations from the fidelity of implementation checklist for each
strategy, but the critical components are adhered to in all of the strategies implemented.
111

When implementing the Socratic seminar, Mary implemented 6 of the 12 steps indicated
on the checklist (see Appendix C). The steps she excluded did not make a considerable
difference in the ability to implement with fidelity. For example, Mary did not present an
overview of the Socratic seminar to students, collect Socratic seminar entry slips, prompt
questions and ask students to refer to their seminar notes, or ask post seminar reflection
questions. However, she implemented the major components of the strategy with regard
to presenting the guidelines, preparing students for the seminar using notes from their
text, arranging desks in a circle, and keeping track of participation.
In a similar circumstance, Mary implemented the Directed Reading Thinking
Activity (DRTA) with 66% fidelity adhering to 6 of the 9 steps indicated on the checklist
(see Appendix G). She demonstrated implementation of the critical components such has
selecting an appropriate text, preparing and posing prediction questions to students,
asking them to write and discuss their responses, and then debriefing the responses. The
components omitted (charting responses or students confirming responses before moving
to the next questions) did not appear to affect the outcomes of the lesson and strategy.
Wendy implemented the gallery walk with 100% fidelity on two occasions, one in
Guided Practice A and one in guided practice B. She used the strategy to help students
determine cause and effect using inferences and context clues (Guided Practice A) and to
examine supporting details using inferences (Guided Practice B). During the strategy
implementation (Guided practice A), Wendy provided extensive scaffolding prior to
beginning the activity that was not addressed on the fidelity checklist. For example,
Wendy provided students with definitions and examples of cause and effect, utilized a
read aloud as an added method to ensure students’ understanding of cause and effect, and
112

modeled how to identify inferences from a text to determine cause and effect. She admits
in her post lesson reflection in guided practice B that the lesson did not go as well as
planned, stating the need to modify the strategies to meet students’ needs. She writes,
The structure of this lesson and its content need to be geared more toward the
type of students involved in these classes. The content must be changed to
something the students are more interested in and the structure of the activity
needs to be broken down into smaller chunks and more modeling so the students
can master the gallery walk strategy.
This comment demonstrates Wendy’s acknowledgement that strategies may require
modification to meet the needs of the student population while maintaining the strategies
critical components.
Maria and Wendy’s ability to implement the strategies with minor adaptations
and still be successful in delivering the intended outcomes is congruent with current
research (Bauman, Stein, & Ireys, 1991). While some researchers believe critical
components of a program should be replicated exactly as taught or intended (Blakely,
Mayer, Gottschalk, Schmidt, & Davidson, 1987) to preserve fidelity, others argue that
appropriate adaptations are acceptable as long as they do not contradict with the critical
elements (Price, Friedland, Choi, & Caplan, 1998 as cited in Mowbray et al., 2010) Also
noted in the research is the idea of accommodating “local circumstances” (Mowbray et
al., 2010) as Wendy did when she added scaffolding techniques to improve student
understanding. Researchers found that when implementers are allowed a degree of
flexibility in exercising their judgment and expertise, they are more engaged and
motivated in executing the required task (Mowbray et al, 2010).
The observations demonstrate that, when the school is receptive to the strategies,
teacher candidates are more likely to implement the strategies with a high degree of
113

fidelity. For example, Maria implemented the Socratic seminar with 58% fidelity with
more than half of the major components were administered. During the observation, it
was apparent that the strategy had been implemented prior to videotaping the lesson.
Therefore, students did not require an introduction to the Socratic Seminar or added
reminders about the guidelines as indicated on the checklist. The video demonstrated
students who were highly knowledgeable and skilled at using the strategy. Maria noted
in her interview that students regularly used the Socratic seminar, and it was evident in
student responses and inquiries to each other. For example, students supported their
opinions with evidence from the text and posed questions to one another without
prompting. In addition, students addressed fellow classmates using appropriate academic
language. This observation and Maria’s statements from the interview demonstrate that
the Socratic Seminar was in alignment with the school’s mission and was thus easily
transitioned from her online pedagogy course to the guided practice experience.
James’ use of the margin noting strategy was a regular school wide practice and
he was able to implement the strategy with 100% fidelity. James noted that this was the
only strategy he was able to implement during his student teaching assignment. Of the
four videotaped lessons used for this research, three of James’ videos demonstrated the
use of margin noting. In an effort to maintain validity, the researcher only documented
one of the three videos utilizing margin notes.
James did not explicitly provide directions on margin noting in the videotaped
lessons, but provides an explanation of his intentions in his written lesson plan that aligns
with the strategy checklist. James stated that “the margin noting is meant to provide
students with a practical strategy to organize their evidence and establish specific
114

connections to interpret” the characters. He added, “The margin noting will encompass
personal reactions to the text, clarifying questions to clear up textual confusion, and
noting how that evidence relates to individual student ideas.” James also used margin
notes to help students clarify the meaning of individual words. As evidenced in the
videos, students use the margin notes during debriefing sessions in which they share their
findings.
These findings further support the idea that higher fidelity will occur if the
characteristics of the school context are in close alignment with the intended program
strategies (Bauman, Stein, & Ireys, 1991). Researchers stress the importance of program
developers to identify the characteristics of the school site that will make the
implementation “hospitable” and viable for implementation (Bauman, Stein, & Ireys,
1991).
James’ experience is an example of how organizational characteristics can affect
the degree of fidelity implementation. James also implemented the Socratic seminar, but
his fidelity rate was 2%. In his interview, James commented that teachers at his school
site regularly used what he believed was a “modified” version of the strategy. As
observed in the video, James excluded the major components of the Socratic seminar.
For example, James does not act as facilitator by allowing the students to take ownership
of the conversation. James is seen often summarizing student responses and asking
students questions to maintain the conversation such as, “What do you think about what
student X says about…?” James does not interject his opinions, but rather acts as the
leader to the discussion prompting students to respond to other students or asking them to
provide evidence from the text to support their opinions.
115

James also indicated in the interview that he was aware of the deviations he was
making to the strategy, stating,” Students could lead the discussion for the most part, but
when they couldn’t, I could step in.” He also pointed out that he was instructed by his
guiding teacher not to write anything in terms of who was participating. He adds, “It was
just a little different. It was based on the Socratic method of thinking and reading, but it
wasn’t a legitimate one.” This finding is in agreement with Bauman, Stein, and Ireys
(1991) who suggest that organizational characteristics can have a complex effect on the
degree of transfer. They posit, “The nature of the organization’s “culture” such as
flexibility, innovativeness, and acceptance of change are important” (p. 629). According
to James’ interview statements, the school was clearly not “flexible” in allowing him to
implement the strategy as he was originally taught in his online pedagogy class.
Summary
In summary, Chapter 4 began with an explanation and purpose of the study. After
describing the population and presenting a brief profile of the participants, data was
presented in accordance with the themes most prevalent in the data and supported by
literature in the field of teacher education.
The themes in research question 1 centered on the major factors that affected the
teacher candidate’s ability to implement the pedagogical strategies during student
teaching. Themes included 1) the degree of instructional support received from guiding
teachers, and 2) the degree of freedom to plan and implement lessons. Research question
2 analyzed fidelity of implementation based on the teacher candidate’s ability to adhere
to the critical components of the strategies introduced in their online course. The study
found that teacher candidates exhibited a high degree of fidelity with adherence to the
116

critical components. School contexts, such as the attitude, culture and organizational
structure of the school site, can have an effect on the degree of fidelity. A thorough
discussion of the findings will be offered in chapter five.
117

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Teacher education has long been attacked for not adequately preparing teachers
for the demands of the 21
st
century, with many believing that traditional teacher
education programs approaches are “broken” and antiquated (Duncan, 2009; Darling-
Hammond, 2010). The MAT@USC has turned this belief upside down by delivering an
award winning synchronous online teacher education program to 1,500 teachers in 45
states and 25 countries (Thompson, 2011). Although their efforts to transform teacher
education have been recognized, problems continue to manifest in all teacher education
programs. One question relates to the pedagogical content knowledge the teacher’s
education programs imparts to novice teachers that will be readily accepted and aligned
with the school sites in which teacher candidates will enter (Cochran-Smith, 1991).
Researchers have identified several factors that affect the transfer of the strategies such as
prior knowledge (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999), the relevancy of the knowledge learned
in teacher preparation programs (Clark & Lampert, 1986), the influence of school culture
(Dooley & Assaf, 2009), and the guiding teacher’s experience and training (Tigchelaar &
Korthagen, 2004). Moreover, if teacher candidates are able to implement the strategies
they learned from their online pedagogy class, the issue of fidelity arises and whether or
not teachers can adhere to the critical components (Dane & Schneider, 1998) as indicated
in their online coursework. This study set out to determine what factors affect teacher
candidates’ ability to implement the strategies that are taught in an online pedagogy
course (EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts) to their student
teaching experiences in Guided Practice A (EDUC 568A) and Guided Practice B (EDUC
568B). This study also sought to understand the degree to which teacher candidates
118

could implement the strategies they learned from their online pedagogy course with
fidelity.
To direct the research for this study, the following research questions were asked:
1. How do teacher candidates’ perceive their ability to transfer instructional
strategies taught in an online secondary English language arts pedagogy course
to the guided practice experience?
a. What factors affect the transfer of the instructional strategies taught in an online
secondary English language arts pedagogy course to the guided practice
experience?
2. To what degree can teacher candidates implement the instructional strategies
taught in the online secondary English language arts pedagogy course to the
guided practice experience with fidelity?
This chapter provides a brief summary and discussion of the findings related to
the factors that affect teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies taught from
their online pedagogy course (EDUC 535) to their student teaching experiences in
Guided Practice A and Guided Practice B. It will also offer suggestions for teacher
education programs related to guided teacher selection, training, and support as supported
by the findings. Finally, the limitations and recommendations for future research will be
presented.
Summary of Findings
This mixed methods study interviewed, observed, and surveyed four teacher
candidates after they completed their guided practice teaching experiences. Tables 25
119

and 26 illustrate a summary of findings, themes, supporting literature, and implications
and recommendations resulting in the findings from this study.
Question 1
How do teacher candidates’ perceive their ability to transfer instructional
strategies taught in an online secondary language arts pedagogy course to the student
teaching experience? What factors affect the transfer of the instructional strategies taught
in an online secondary language arts pedagogy course to the student teaching experience?
Table 25: Research Question 1 Summary of Themes, Findings, Literature, Implications
& Recommendations
Themes Findings Literature Implications and
Recommendations
The degree of
instructional
support received
determines teacher
candidates’ ability
to implement the
strategies.

The more support and
feedback received, the
more likely teacher
candidates will
implement strategies.

Guiding teachers offer
feedback during
planning sessions.
Guiding teachers are
flexible and express a
desire to learn from
the teacher candidates
to improve their own
practice.
Guiding teachers who
are knowledgeable or
familiar with the
strategies encourage
and support strategy
implementation.
Expert coaching and
moral support are
essential to preservice
teacher development
(Gwynn-Paquette &
Tochon, 2002; Borko
& Mayfield, 1995).

Guiding teachers
provide explicit
feedback (Killian &
Wilkins, 2009;
Nguyen, 2008).

Guiding teachers
become more
reflective about their
own teaching when
working with
preservice teachers
(Borko & Mayfield,
1995; Russell &
Russell, 2011).

Guiding teacher’s
knowledge of
university
coursework (Wilson,
1996).
Teacher candidates
need to be paired with
knowledgeable,
supportive, and well-
trained guiding
teachers who
understand and support
the university’s core
values.

Provide regular
collaboration between
guided practice
professor, guiding
teacher, and teacher
candidate.

Provide initial training
and ongoing support for
guiding teachers.

Selective process for
choosing guiding
teachers.

Create networking
opportunities for
guiding teachers.

120

Table 25, Continued
The degree of
freedom to plan and
implement lessons
determines teacher
candidates’ ability to
implement strategies.
Amount of freedom is
dependent on structure
of school curriculum.
Narrowing of the
curriculum (Anderson
& Stillman; Crocco &
Costigon, 2007;
Jerald, 2006

Sixty-minute interviews were conducted by phone after teacher candidates had completed
Guided Practice A (EDUC 568A) and Guided Practice B (EDUC 568B) to determine
each candidates’ perception of his/her ability to transfer and implement the strategies
they learned from their online pedagogy course (EDUC 535 Teaching Secondary English
and Language Arts). Videotaped observations of classroom teaching for each teacher
candidate and a cross-section of observations of preplanning sessions between guiding
teachers and teacher candidates were used to corroborate teacher candidate comments on
the amount of support and feedback they received or the degree of freedom they had in
designing and implementing their own lessons. Teacher candidates also completed a
survey using a Likert style scale to determine teachers’ perceptions to transfer and
implement each of the 24 strategies learned in their online pedagogy course (EDUC 535).
Findings for Question 1
The first theme that emerged from the data (interviews, videotaped observations
of classroom lessons and preplanning sessions and surveys) was that the teacher
candidates’ ability to implement the strategies they learned from their online pedagogy
course was dependent upon the degree of support received from the guiding teachers.
Broadly, these findings are supported by research on the importance of expert coaching
and moral support in the development of preservice teachers (Gwynn-Paquette &
121

Tochon, 2002). Data from the present study affirms that guiding teachers play an
influential role in the teacher candidate’s professional practices (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
The results of this investigation show a significant number of findings to support this
theme.
First, interviews, videotaped preplanning observations, and surveys indicate that
supportive guiding teachers offer regular objective feedback buttressed with specific
examples, models, or demonstrations on how to improve instruction. Participants in this
study spoke of their guiding teachers’ ability to offer specific feedback that improved
their instruction. Observations show guiding teachers asking reflective questions in an
effort to help students explicate their teaching. Research reports the importance of
developing guiding teachers who are knowledgeable and skilled in supporting new
teachers in a variety of circumstances that arise in the classroom and helping teachers
confront problems and learn from them rather than simply easing them into the system
(Rajuan, Beijaard & Verloop, 2007) Extensive feedback has also been identified as a
critical component in the teacher candidate’s development (Borko and Mayfield, 1995).
The study also found that developing a positive mentor-mentee relationship fostered
teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies learned from their university
coursework thus creating a collaborative environment from which to develop their
practice. According to Nguyen (2009), developing a positive, collaborative relationship
creates a trusting, supportive environment conducive to receiving constructive
performance feedback (Nguyen (2009).
Teacher candidates characterized supportive guiding teachers as knowledgeable
of the strategies learned in the online pedagogy course, “flexible” in their willingness to
122

implement new strategies presented by the teacher candidate, and expressive of a desire
to learn from their teacher candidates to improve their own practice. These findings are
consistent with research on exemplary mentor teacher practices (Feiman-Nemser, 2001;
Wilson, 1996; Russell and Russell, 2011).
A second theme that emerged from the data for research question 1 concerns the
degree of freedom that teacher candidates received to plan and implement their own
lessons. If teacher candidates could design and implement their own lessons rather than
following a mandated school curriculum, they were more likely to implement the
strategies learned from their online pedagogy course. Freedom to plan was dependent
upon the school site’s structure of the curriculum. For example, three of the four teacher
candidates described a flexible curriculum in which they could plan lessons using novels
predetermined by the English department. Two of the four participants indicated that a
strict curricular structure at the school site influenced their ability to implement the
strategies. These findings are supported by research stating that the lack of teacher
autonomy creates a “washing out” of theories and practices presented in university
coursework (Costigan, 2008; Dooley & Assaf, 2009; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981).
Question 2
To what degree can teacher candidates implement the instructional strategies
taught in the online secondary language arts pedagogy course to the student teaching
experience with fidelity?

123

Table 26: Research Question 2 Summary of Themes, Findings, Literature, Implications
& Recommendations
Themes Findings Literature Implications and
Recommendations
School context
affects fidelity of
implementation.
Teacher candidates
able to implement
core strategy
components with
only slight
adaptations.

Culture, attitude,
and organizational
characteristics of
school site can
enhance or impede
fidelity of
implementation.
Appropriate
adaptations are
acceptable to
accommodate the
“local
circumstances”
(Mowbray et al.,
2010).

Identifying school
site characteristics
(Bauman, Stein, &
Ireys, 1991).
Teacher candidates
require knowledge in
how to navigate
school contexts to
better serve their
students.

Regularly discuss
“interaction effects”
with teacher
candidates to
determine fit of
strategies and options
for modifications
(Bauman, Stein, &
Ireys, 1991) to meet
the needs of the school
site.

Data for the second research question consisted of 39 videotaped observations of
teacher candidates’ classroom instruction submitted for Guided Practice A and B.
Videotaped lessons were viewed to identify strategies taught from the online pedagogy
course and implemented during the student teaching placement. Of the 39 videos, only
12 videos showed teacher candidates implementing a strategy learned from their online
pedagogy course (EDUC 535). To determine the degree to which teacher candidates
could implement the strategy with fidelity, an observation protocol consisting of a
checklist of critical components for each strategy was used. Critical components for each
strategy were established based on documents available for teacher candidates with step
by step directions on how to implement the strategy. Fidelity was based on the ability to
124

adhere to the steps of the strategy. Teacher candidate interviews were used to
corroborate the findings from the video observations when applicable.
Findings for Question 2
The observations of teacher candidates’ classroom lessons and interviews show
that teacher candidates can implement the strategies with a high degree of fidelity (76%)
when the school context, culture, and attitude are in alignment with the Rossier School of
Education’s teacher education program. Participants adhered to the critical components
of the strategies and made only slight modifications to their implementation in an effort
to meet the needs of the students taught. This finding is commensurate with research on
allowing educators the ability to adapt the strategies to “local circumstances” in an effort
to reflect and respond to the needs of all members of the target population (Mowbray,
Holter, Teague & Bybee, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
A second finding that emerged from the data indicated that if a school site’s
context such as the attitude, culture, and organizational characteristics were not in
alignment with the strategies taught by the online pedagogy course, then implementation
was less likely to occur and fidelity was low. For example, James’ first student teaching
assignment was indicative of this phenomenon. James was able to implement the
Socratic seminar but his fidelity score was low (2%) due to the mismatch between the
school site’s mission and beliefs about how students should be instructed and the Rossier
School of Education’s pedagogical beliefs about developing good teachers who “know
that teaching is not just a series of unrelated activities, but rather is purposeful, based
upon the teacher’s knowledge about how students learn and the assignments that best
create learning opportunities” (MAT White Paper, n.d.) Bauman, Stein and Ireys’ (1991)
125

research supports this finding stating that key stakeholders within the school site must be
considered when implementing new strategies or procedures in an effort to create a
collaborative partnership.
Implications and Recommendations
Based on the results from this dissertation study, several implications and
recommendations are offered to all teacher education programs. First, teacher education
programs should foster a collaborative environment between all parties that affect the
growth and development of the teacher candidates, namely between the guided practice
professor, the guiding teacher, and the teacher candidate (Borko & Mayfield, 1995).
Second, teacher education programs need to employ a selective process when choosing
guiding teachers to ensure an ideal match between the teacher education program’s
ideology and the guiding teacher’s philosophy on supporting preservice teachers (Killian
& Wilkins, 2009). Third, teacher education programs should create an online forum or
network to train and support guiding teachers throughout their mentorship to improve and
strengthen the teacher education community (Bullough, 2005).
The results of this study indicate that teacher candidates require a supportive
environment in which to develop and grow professionally. This notion requires all
parties communicate regularly to close gaps between the university’s teacher education
program philosophy and the school site’s mission and goals for its students. Teacher
candidates cited support from their guiding teacher as the primary factor in creating
conditions that allowed them to implement the strategies learned from their teacher
education program. However, in cases where the strategies could not be used due to
strict curricular requirements from the school site, guided practice professors were called
126

to intervene and provide support for teacher candidates when their guiding teacher could
not. When problems did arise, teacher candidates felt they did not have solutions,
strategies, or support to resolve the issues. It was unclear from teacher candidates’
comments the extent to which all parties gathered regularly to seek solutions to these
problems. Research has indicated the importance of creating a collaborative environment
between the university’s guided practice professor, the guiding teacher, and the teacher
candidate (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Graham, 2006). It is clear that more collaboration
needs to exist between all parties to ensure that even when teacher candidates are in a
school setting that does not align with the philosophy of the teacher education program,
discussions occur regularly to mitigate or assist teacher candidates in navigating the
arrangements in a professional manner.
In the MAT@USC online teacher education program, it is suggested that guiding
teachers commit to joining the weekly online seminars for Guided Practice A and B with
guided practice professors and teacher candidates. During the seminar, each may
contribute their content area knowledge and expertise and create a “team” environment in
pursuit of improving the instructional practices for all involved. The online seminar
would also create a safe environment where all parties can discuss progress, curricular
requirements, and dilemmas in practice, as Graham (2006) described in her research.
Finally, it should be recognized that guiding teachers assume one of the most influential
roles in the growth of a teacher candidate. We must compensate them accordingly for
their additional time and efforts (Anderson & Stillman, 2011). With that, it is suggested
that guiding teachers be rewarded for their time and commitments to the university and
the teacher candidate. When money cannot be offered, guided practice mentors should
127

receive university credit for their participation as they demonstrate their commitment to
improving their personal and professional practice.
The results of this research also support the idea that, while every teacher
candidate deserves the support necessary to thrive in his/her environment, not all guiding
teachers are prepared to support teacher candidates. As research suggests, not all guiding
teachers have the knowledge, expertise, patience, or mentoring skills to effectively
nurture and support novice teachers (Russell & Russell, 2011). Therefore, the next
recommendation of the study calls for teacher education programs to create a selective
process for choosing, assigning, training, and supporting guiding teachers in order to
guarantee support for teacher candidates. Just as TEP programs employ a selective
process in choosing teacher candidates; it would behoove teacher education programs to
implement rigorous application process to ensure that teacher candidates will be
supported throughout their student teaching experience, and that they will receive
adequate feedback and monitoring to improve their practice. The application process
could include an interview, a videotaped lesson of the prospective guiding teacher, and a
corresponding written lesson plan to demonstrate their skills in basic teaching practices.
Since guiding teachers have a direct influence on the teacher candidates’ instructional
growth (Anderson 2007/2009), a proper screening process will assure that the guiding
teachers possess the content and pedagogical knowledge in their field and their
motivations align with the mission and goal of the university.
Once guiding teachers are selected, it cannot be assumed that they have the
expertise to effectively support new teachers. The complex process of supporting new
teachers requires adequate initial training and extensive long term support (Freeman,
128

1989). Since the practice of learning to support new teachers is an ongoing process
versus a one-day training, it would serve university teacher education programs well to
create an online forum or network where all guiding teachers can meet to share their
experiences, joys, and frustrations while also seeking suggestions and feedback for
improving mentoring skills. Networking with like-minded mentors from around the
nation can provide mentors with professional growth and development to improve their
performance as mentors (Bullough, 2005). In an effort to familiarize guiding teachers
with the content area strategies that teacher candidates are taught in their teacher
preparation coursework, teacher education programs could use the networking platform
to offer a variety of resources, documents, and videos with examples of strategies in use
accompanied by related professional development articles.
It should be noted that while these recommendations are for the teacher education
population at large, the Rossier School of Education’s MAT@USC already employs
many of these recommendations with success. For example, all guiding teachers
currently attend an orientation to become familiar with the MAT@USC program’s roles
and expectations, and the program is in the process of developing extensive training and
on-going networking for its guiding teachers (R. Ephraim, personal communication,
April 11, 2012). Guiding teachers in the MAT@USC are compensated $500 per quarter
and can receive continuing education credits for their services with the teacher candidate
(R. Ephraim, personal communication, April 11, 2012). In addition, the MAT@USC has
a highly selective process that includes an interview, lesson plan, and a rubric to select
guiding teachers among14 requirements such as “willing to be collaborative with the
USC instructor in the education of the candidate” and who “values openness about
129

allowing [the candidates] to practice what they have learned and are learning in the
program” (Guiding Teacher Requirements, n.d.). Finally, in an effort to maintain
communication with guiding teachers, course coordinators conduct regular meetings with
guiding teachers to monitor each teacher candidate’s progress. Guiding teachers are also
invited to attend the weekly guided practice seminar (R. Ephraim, personal
communication, April 11, 2012). The changes the Rossier School of Education seeks are
promising. Yet, as the findings of this study reveal, they too must strive to achieve
improvements to ensure that all teacher candidates are supported by highly trained
guiding teachers who have a “positive impact on any students learning, under any
conditions, and who can demonstrate that impact” (MAT@USC White Paper, n.d.).
Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations in conducting the research of this study. First, a
small sample of teachers was used based on their desire to volunteer in this study. Of the
24 teacher candidates contacted, only four responded, resulting in the inability to
generalize the findings to other populations. Patton (2002) posits that, while studying a
small number of participants cannot be generalized, logical generalizations can be made
from the depth of evidence derived from each participant. A second limitation of this
research concerns the time in which students completed the online pedagogy course
(EDUC 535: Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts) and began teaching in
their Guided Practice A course. Two of the participants (James and Wendy) did not take
Guided Practice A until four months after completing EDUC: 565 Teaching Secondary
English and Language Arts. The four month gap between the online pedagogy class and
Guided Practice A could account for the lack of strategy implementation by the teacher
130

candidates since they were not learning the strategies and expected to utilize them. A
third limitation is exhibited in the use of two separate sections of EDUC565: Teaching
Secondary English and Language Arts. Although the two sections were instructed by the
same professor, with identical syllabi, the researcher observed only one of the sections to
determine which strategies were introduced to the teacher candidates. It was determined
that the professor had approached instruction in a similar manner. A fourth limitation
relates to the fidelity of implementation checklists designed to measure adherence. The
checklists were based on the class resources and documents available in the online
pedagogy class (EDUC 535). The researcher included all steps in the strategy
description. However, some steps could have been omitted which could have affected the
degree to which teachers could implement with fidelity. For example, the Socratic
seminar called for teacher candidates to describe the Greek philosopher Socrates and his
contribution to the idea of this strategy. Because some teachers had already used the
strategy with their students, it was not necessary to repeat this part of the checklist. The
researcher included every description included in the strategy instruction to monitor how
closely teacher candidates would implement all levels of strategy implementation as
defined by the resources.
Recommendations for Future Research
Several recommendations based on this study’s methodology, findings, and
limitations can be made. First, a larger sample size is ideal to provide more data that can
be generalized to other populations. Second, inclusion of guiding teachers would
behoove the investigation by adding a level of depth to the current research. Guiding
teachers perceptions of the strategies taught in the online pedagogy course, their
131

knowledge of the coursework, and their beliefs about supporting preservice teachers
could reveal other variables at play in the teacher candidates’ ability to implement the
strategies from their online pedagogy course. Third, future research on this topic should
include the course curriculum developers of the online pedagogy course, the pedagogy
professors to determine how their online instruction may have affected teacher
candidates’ ability to implement the strategies at their school site, and guided practice
professors to verify how they supported teacher candidates and collaborated with the
guiding teacher.
Although this study utilized participants in an online teacher education program,
it did not directly measure the effects of an online teacher education program on the
teacher candidates’ ability to implement strategies learned from the online pedagogy
course. Therefore, more research on this topic needs to be undertaken before the
association between online education and its effect on using the strategies in the
classroom can be fully understood. It is interesting to note that, although not discussed in
the findings, all four teacher candidates resoundingly agreed in their interviews that their
online education had no bearing on their implementing the strategies. One intern (Mary)
articulated the difference between an on campus intern program she had been enrolled in
prior to the MAT to her experiences in the MAT@USC. She remarked that she learned
the steps for the strategies in a similar manner but felt she did not acquire them any better
in one environment versus the other. Two of the candidates added that their ability to use
the strategies in practice confirmed their understanding of the strategies learned online.
This finding, while preliminary, suggests that further studies which take these variables
into account will need to be addressed. Furthermore, it could conceivably be
132

hypothesized that, regardless of the manner in which teacher candidates received
instruction (online versus on ground), the findings of this study reveal that similar issues
concerning the degree of support and freedom to implement the strategies learned from
coursework continue to pervade many teacher education programs, and, thus, must be
addressed to effectively support candidates during their guided teaching experiences.
In summary, the present research has made a first step toward investigating the
factors that affect a teacher candidate’s ability to implement the strategies taught online
during the student teacher experience. In addition, the study examined teacher
candidates’ ability to implement the strategies with fidelity with regard to adherence.
The researcher believed the findings of this study reinforced existing research and will
contribute to the current literature as one of the first studies to highlight an online teacher
education program.
The major findings in this study are as follows:
1) Teacher candidates indicated that the degree of support, flexibility, and
freedom to plan and implement lessons were integral factors in their ability to
transfer and implement the strategies learned in their online pedagogy course
Teaching Secondary English and Language Arts to their Guided Practice A
and Guided Practice B teaching experiences.
2) Teacher candidates were able to implement the strategies with a high degree of
fidelity, but the school context with regard to the culture, attitude, and
organizational characteristics contribute to the degree to which teachers are
able to implement the strategies with fidelity.
133

In summary, the present dissertation uncovered several important factors that affect
teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies learned from their online pedagogy
course to the guided practice experience. As a consequence of this study, teacher
education needs to reinforce support structures that extend beyond the university to the
school sites where teacher candidates are placed. This study found that guiding teachers
are the most influential factor in supporting the Rossier School of Education’s online
teacher education program. As such, it is imperative that teacher education programs
create a collaborative environment that trains and supports guiding teachers for the
mentoring responsibilities in which they are tasked. Cultivating a network of guiding
teachers will not only directly improve novice teachers’ professional practice, but will
encourage the teaching community at large to reflect on their own practices in an effort to
enact the change necessary to transform the teaching profession.

134

REFERENCES
Al-Bataineh, A. (2009). An examination of pre-service teacher preparedness: A
cooperating teacher perspective. International Journal of Learning, 16(5), 231-249.
Retrieved from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=47479251&site=
eds-live
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States,
2010 | The Sloan Consortium. The Sloan Consortium | Individuals, Institutions and
Organizations Committed to Quality Online Education. Retrieved April 16, 2012,
from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences
Anderson, D. (2007). The role of cooperating teachers' power in student teaching.
Education, 128(2), 307. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1436185611&Fmt=7&clientId=5239&RQT=3
09&VName=PQD
Anderson, D. (2009). The Impact of Cooperating Teachers on the Teaching Perspectives
of Student Teachers. International Journal Of Learning, 16(1), 119-133.
Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2010). Opportunities to teach and learn in high-needs
schools: Student teachers’ experiences in urban placements. Urban Education,
45(2), 109-141. doi:10.1177/0042085909354445
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What
makes it special?(report) Retrieved from
http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.usc.edu/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A188422895&sou
rce=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=usocal_main&version=1.0
Bauman, L. J., Stein, R. E. K., & Ireys, H. T. (1991). Reinventing fidelity: The transfer of
social technology among settings Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/BF00937995
Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W. S., Roitman,
D. B., & Emshoff, J. G. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the
implementation of public sector social programs Springer Netherlands.
doi:10.1007/BF00922697
Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "educational triage" and the texas
accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), pp. 231-268.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/3699376
135

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university
supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518.
doi:10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8
Brown, C. P. (2009). Helping Preservice Teachers Learn to Teach for Understanding in
this Era of High-stakes Early Education Reform. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 36(5), 423-430. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10643-009-0303-6
Brown, C. P. (November/December 2010). Children of reform: The impact of high-
stakes education reform on preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(5), 477-491. doi:10.1177/0022487109352905
Bullough, R. V. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge circa 1907 and 1987: A study in
the history of an idea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(6), 655-666. doi:DOI:
10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00022-1
Braun, T. (2008). Making a Choice: The Perceptions and Attitudes of Online Graduate
Students. Journal Of Technology & Teacher Education, 16(1), 63-92.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Caywood, K., & Duckett, J. (Spring 2003). Online vs. on-campus learning in teacher
education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 26(2), 98-105.
doi:10.1177/088840640302600203
Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of
implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge.
American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199-218. doi:10.1177/1098214010366173
Choy, S., McNickle, C, & clayton, B. (2002). Learner expectations and experiences: An
examination of student views of support in online learning. National Center for
vocational education and research. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from
http://www.NCVER.edu/au/research/proj/rrOFO1.pdf.
Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27-31.
doi:10.1177/002248718603700506
Clarke, A., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. (2005). What the teaching perspectives of cooperating
teachers tell us about their advisory practices. Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(1), 65-78. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.11.006
136

Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An
integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-
272. doi:10.1177/0022487193044004004
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
42(2), 104-118. doi:10.1177/002248719104200204
Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D. J., & Association of Teacher
Educators. (2008). Handbook of research on teacher education : Enduring questions
in changing contexts. New York; [Manassas, VA]: Routledge ; Co-published by the
Association of Teacher Educators.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Costigan, A. T. (2008). Canaries in the Coal Mine: Urban Rookies Learning to Teach
Language Arts in "High Priority" Schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 85-
103.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The Narrowing of Curriculum and Pedagogy in
the Age of Accountability. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535.
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early
SECONDARY PREVENTION: ARE IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTS OUT OF
CONTROL? Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23-45
Darling-Hammond, L. (May/June 2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314. doi:10.1177/0022487105285962
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hammond, L., & Snowden, J. C. (2005). A good teacher in every classroom: preparing
the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deng, Z. (2007). Transforming the subject matter: Examining the intellectual roots of
pedagogical content knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(3), 279-295.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2007.00386.x
Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn. Washington, D.C.: National
Academies Press.
137

Dooley, C. M., & Assaf, L. C. (2009). Contexts matter: Two teachers' language arts
instruction in this high-stakes era. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(3), 354-391.
doi:10.1080/10862960903133743
Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2006) Educational psychology: windows on classrooms.
Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Prentice Hall.
Faulk, N., EdD. (2011). Perceptions of texas public school superintendents regarding
online teacher education. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(5), 25.
Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2358594501&Fmt=7&clientId=5239&RQT=3
09&VName=PQD
Faulk, N. (2010). Online teacher education--what are the results. Contemporary Issues in
Education Research, 3(11), 21-28. Retrieved from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=53579155&site=
eds-live
Faulk, N. T. (2011). Perceptions of texas public school superintendents regarding online
teacher education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(5), 25-30. Retrieved
from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60877302&site=
eds-live
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001).Helping novices learn to teach. Journal of Teacher Education,
52(1), 17. Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com.libproxy.usc.edu/ic/bic1/AcademicJournalsDetailsPage/Aca
demicJournalsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Journals&disableHighlighting=f
alse&prodId=BIC1&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CA69200059&userG
roupName=usc13562&jsid=db66c95159a6eda46ccafb3e7145dfc1
Ferguson, J., & Brink, B. (2004). Caught in a bind: Student teaching in a climate of state
reform. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(4), 55-64. Retrieved from HTML:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e8aff
0fe8a48e18e4df67c2cab028e2e240e482479ab5df1e6ea60e843f1ffc82&fmt=HPDF:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e8aff
0fe8a48e18e4df67c2cab028e2e240e482479ab5df1e6ea60e843f1ffc82&fmt=P
Fixen, D., & Blase, K. (2006). The National Implementation Research Network. FPG
Child Development Institute. Retrieved April 17, 2012, from
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/detail.cfm?resourceID=110
Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development and decision making: A model of
teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly,
23, 27-45
138

Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of
cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1118-1129. doi:DOI:
10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.007
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. M., McDonald, M., & Ronfeldt, M. (September/October
2008). Constructing coherence. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 273-287.
doi:10.1177/0022487108322127
Grossman, P., Shoenfield, A., & Lee, C. In Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds).
Teaching subject matter. In Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 201-231). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grossman, P., Valencia, S., Evans, K., Thompson, C., Martin, S., Place, N., & National
Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, A. Y. (2000). Transitions
into Teaching: Learning To Teach Writing in Teacher Education and Beyond.
Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S., & Hamel, F. (1997). Preparing language arts teachers in a
time of reform. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds), A handbook for teaching
literacy through the communicative and visual arts. New York: MacMillan.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Corwin Press.
Gwyn–Paquette, C., & Tochon, F. (2002). The Role of Reflective Conversations and
Feedback in Helping Preservice Teachers Learn to Use Cooperative Activities in
their Second Language Classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 204.
Haberman, M. (1992). The pedagogy of poverty vs. good teaching. Education Digest,
58(1), 16. Retrieved from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=9211300965&sit
e=eds-live
Haberman, M. (2010). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan, 92(2), 81. Retrieved from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=54311158&site=
eds-live
Hammerness, K. (2006). From coherence in theory to coherence in practice. Teachers
College Record, 108(7), 1241-1265. Retrieved from HTML:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e8aff
0fe8a48e18e4df67c2cab028e2e29bf00a270c53b1be408eb0b004f9c416&fmt=HPDF

139

Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., Pianta, R. C., Kilday, C., Sweeney, B., Downer, J. T., &
Leach, A. (2010). Implementation fidelity of MyTeachingPartner literacy and
language activities: Association with preschoolers’ language and literacy growth.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(3), 329-347.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.002
Hansen, David (2008). Values and purpose in teacher education. In Cochran-Smith, M.,
Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D. J., & Association of Teacher Educators (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teacher education : Enduring questions in changing
contexts (pp. 10-25). New York; [Manassas, VA]: Routledge ; Co-published by the
Association of Teacher Educators.
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of
pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11(3), 20.
Head, F. A. (1992). Student teaching as initiation into the teaching profession.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23(2), pp. 89-107. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195949
Huling, L., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and,Teacher Education. (1998). Early
field experiences in teacher education. ERIC digest Retrieved from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED429054&site
=eds-live
Huss, J. A. (2007). Attitudes of middle grades principals toward online teacher
preparation programs in middle grades education: Are administrators pushing
"delete"? RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 30(7), 1-13. Retrieved
from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ801117&site
=eds-live
Jerald, D. (2006). The Hidden Costs of Curriculum Narrowing. Issue Brief. Center For
Comprehensive School Reform And Improvement.
Joram, E., & Gabriele, A. J. (1998). Preservice teachers' prior beliefs: Transforming
obstacles into opportunities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(2), 175-191.
doi:DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00035-8
Kahn, B. (2001). Portrait of success: cooperating teachers and the student teaching
experience. Action In Teacher Education, 22(4), 48-58.
Kessels, J. P. A. M., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1996). The relationship between theory and
practice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25(3), pp. 17-22. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176664
140

Killian, J. E., & Wilkins, E. A. (2009). Characteristics of Highly Effective Cooperating
Teachers: A Study of Their Backgrounds and Preparation. Action In Teacher
Education, 30(4), 67-83.
Koerner, M. E. (1992). The cooperating teacher: An ambivalent participant in student
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 46-56.
doi:10.1177/002248719204300107
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing
the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), pp. 4-17.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176444
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for
teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8),
1020-1041. doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022
Landt, S. M. (2004). Professional Development of Middle and Secondary Level
Educators in the Role of Cooperating Teacher. Action In Teacher Education, 26(1),
74-84.
Lastica, J., & O’Donnell, C. (2007). Considering the role of fidelity of implementation in
science education research: Fidelity as teacher and student adherence to structure.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Levine, A. (2006). Will universities maintain control of teacher education? Change,
38(4), 36. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1087704511&Fmt=7&clientId=5239&RQT=3
09&VName=PQD
Lloyd, G. M., & . (2007). Strategic compromise: a student teacher's design of
kindergarten mathematics instruction in a high-stakes testing climate. Journal of
Teacher Education, 58(4), 328+. Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com.libproxy.usc.edu/ic/bic1/AcademicJournalsDetailsPage/Aca
demicJournalsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Journals&disableHighlighting=f
alse&prodId=BIC1&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CA168284249&user
GroupName=usc13562&jsid=9ff9350055bd7816f69b6cde71011197
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher; a sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Massey, D. D. (2006). “You Teach for Me; I've Had It!” A First-Year Teacher's Cry for
Help. Action In Teacher Education, 28(3), 73-85.
141

Master of arts in teaching (MAT) and teaching credential program- Rossier school of
education. (n.d.). Rossier School of Education. retrieved June 23, 2011, from
http://rossier.usc.edu/academic/masters/mat/index.html.
McIntyre, L., Gresham, F. M., DiGennaro, F. D., & Reed, D. D. (2007). Treatment
Integrity of School-Based Interventions with Children in the "Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis" 1991-2005. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(4), 659-
672.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of
Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning. Structure, 15, 93. Center for
Technology in Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.hakoled.org.il/webfiles/fck/File/tikshuv_usa.pdf
Meuwissen, K. W. (2005). Maybe someday the twain shall meet: Exploring
disconnections between methods instruction and "life in the classroom". The Social
Studies, 96(6), 253. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=982979421&Fmt=7&clientId=5239&RQT=30
9&VName=PQD
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.: Sage.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of
Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42. doi:10.1177/0022487102238656
Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity Criteria:
Development, Measurement, and Validation. (W. P. Vogt, Ed.)American Journal of
Evaluation, 24(3), 315-340. Sage Publications. Retrieved from
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098214003000572
National Center on Response to Intervention (2009) RTI glossary of terms. Retrieved
from http://www.rti4success.org/RTIGlossary.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat 1425
(2002).
Nguyen, H. T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices,
and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student
teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25(5), 655-662. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.001
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The
Realities of Online Teaching. The Internet and Higher Education (Vol. 5, p. 204).
Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/dp/0787955191
142

Parkay, F. W., Anctil, E. J., & Hass, G. (2010). Curriculum leadership : Readings for
developing quality educational programs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M. Q., & Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International
Universities Press.
Protheroe, N. (2008). The Impact of Fidelity of Implementation in Effective Standards-
Based Instruction. Principal, 88(1), 38-41.
Rajuan, M., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The Role of the Cooperating Teacher:
Bridging the Gap between the Expectations of Cooperating Teachers and Student
Teachers. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership In Learning, 15(3), 223-242.
Ruiz-Primo, M., & National Center for Research on Evaluation, S. A. (2006). A Multi-
Method and Multi-Source Approach for Studying Fidelity of Implementation. CSE
Report 677. National Center for Research On Evaluation, Standards, And Student
Testing (CRESST).
Russell, T., McPherson, S., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Coherence and collaboration in
teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De
l'Éducation, 26(1), pp. 37-55. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602144
Russell, M. A. (2011). Mentoring Relationships: Cooperating Teachers' Perspectives on
Mentoring Student Interns. Professional Educator, 35(1), 16-35.
Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of
content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489-504.
doi:DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.006
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4-14. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175860
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Assessment for teaching: An initiative for the profession. The Phi
Delta Kappan, 69(1), 38-44. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/20403526
Shulman, L. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical
knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129-135.
doi:DOI: 10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00057-X
143

Spooner, M., Flowers, C., Lambert, R., & Algozzine, B. (2008). Is more really better?
examining perceived benefits of an extended student teaching experience. The
Clearing House, 81(6), 263. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1543377311&Fmt=7&clientId=5239&RQT=3
09&VName=PQD
Tigchelaar, A., & Korthagen, F. (2004). Deepening the exchange of student teaching
experiences: Implications for the pedagogy of teacher education of recent insights
into teacher behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(7), 665-679. doi:DOI:
10.1016/j.tate.2004.07.008
Unit Standards in Effect 2008. (n.d.). NCATE: Home. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from
http://www.ncate.org/Standards/NCATEUnitStandards/UnitStandardsinEffect2008/t
abid/476/Default.aspx
Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (May/June 2009). Complex
interactions in student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304-322.
doi:10.1177/0022487109336543
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, J., Odell, S. J., Klecka, C. L., Spalding, E., & Lin, E. (November/December
2010). Understanding teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(5), 395-402. doi:10.1177/0022487110384219
White, J. J. (1989). Student teaching as a rite of passage. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 20(3), pp. 177-195. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195633
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 59-64. Retrieved from HTML:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e8aff
0fe8a48e18e4df67c2cab028e2e2606053285d577ecff99d65a36cedbd21&fmt=HPDF
Zeichner, K. (January/February 2010). Rethinking the connections between campus
courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99. doi:10.1177/0022487109347671
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher
education 'washed out' by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3),
7-11. doi:10.1177/002248718103200302

144

APPENDIX A
Student Teacher Pedagogy Questionnaire

Q1 Gender
 Male (1)
 Female (2)

Q2 Age
 18-25 (1)
 26-35 (2)
 36-45 (3)

Q3 How many years have you taught prior to entering the MAT@USC program?
 O (1)
 1-3 (2)
 3-5 (3)
 more than 5 (4)

Q4 Please state the name of the school and location of your student teaching placement.

Q5 Please indicate which section of Pedagogy B you are enrolled in.
 Pedagogy A (1)
 Pedagogy B (2)

Q6 Please indicate the grade level of students you are teaching in your student teaching
assignment.
 Grades 6-8
 Grades 9-10
 Grades 11-12

145

Q7 Please describe why you chose to enroll in the MAT@USC program.

Q8 To what degree do were you taught the following strategies in your pedagogy B course?
Not Taught Somewhat Taught Taught Very Taught
Advanced
Organizer
   
Concept
Attainment
   
Concept
Categorizing
   
Directed Reading
Sequence
   
DRTA    
Gallery Walk (6)    
Ideation and
Organization
   
Language
Experience
Approach
   
Out Out    
Outlining
Arguments
   
Say Mean Matter    
Scaffolding
Challenging Texts
   
Socratic Seminar    
Use Models    
Write Around    
Writer's Workshop    
Reader's Workshop    
Vocabulary Scales    

146

Q9 To what degree do you value each of the following pedagogical strategies?
Not Valued (1) Somewhat Valued
(2)
Valued (3) Very Valued (4)
Advanced
Organizer
   
Concept
Attainment
   
Concept
Categorizing
   
Directed Reading
Sequence
   
DRTA    
Gallery Walk    
Ideation and
Organization
   
Language
Experience
Approach
   
Out Out    
Outlining
Arguments
   
Say Mean Matter    
Scaffolding
Challenging Texts
   
Socratic Seminar    
Use Models    
Write Around    
Writer's Workshop    
Reader's Workshop    
Vocabulary Scales    

147

Q10 To what degree do you believe the following pedagogical strategies were useful to your
school placement setting?
Not Valued (1) Somewhat Valued
(2)
Valued (3) Very Valued (4)
Advanced
Organizer
   
Concept
Attainment
   
Concept
Categorizing
   
Directed Reading
Sequence
   
DRTA    
Gallery Walk    
Ideation and
Organization
   
Language
Experience
Approach
   
Out Out    
Outlining
Arguments
   
Say Mean Matter    
Scaffolding
Challenging Texts
   
Socratic Seminar    
Use Models    
Write Around    
Writer's Workshop    
Reader's Workshop    
Vocabulary Scales    

148

Q11 To what degree did your guiding teacher support the use of the following pedagogical
strategies?
Not Supported (1) Somewhat
Supported (2)
Supported (3) Very Supported
(4)
Advanced
Organizer
   
Concept
Attainment
   
Concept
Categorizing
   
Directed Reading
Sequence
   
DRTA    
Gallery Walk    
Ideation and
Organization
   
Language
Experience
Approach
   
Out Out    
Outlining
Arguments
   
Say Mean Matter    
Scaffolding
Challenging Texts
   
Socratic Seminar    
Use Models    
Write Around    
Writer's Workshop    
Reader's Workshop    
Vocabulary Scales    

149

Q12 Were you able to implement the following pedagogical strategies during your student
teaching experience? If you were not able to implement, please provide a reason in the
corresponding text box.
Able to Implement Not Able to Implement
Advanced Organizer  
Concept Attainment  
Concept Categorizing  
Directed Reading Sequence  
DRTA  
Gallery Walk  
Ideation and Organization  
Language Experience Approach  
Out Out  
Outlining Arguments  
Say Mean Matter  
Scaffolding Challenging Texts  
Socratic Seminar  
Use Models  
Write Around  
Writer's Workshop  
Reader's Workshop  
Vocabulary Scales  

150

APPENDIX B
Teacher Candidate Interview
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education
Interview Guide (Patton, 2002, p. 343)
Present teacher with their own copy of the interview protocol. Each teacher is to read along with
the researcher as she reads aloud each research question. The teacher candidate will then be
prompted to provide a response based on the questions asked. For some questions, the teacher
candidate may be prompted to refer to their survey completed prior to the interview. Answers
will be recorded by the researcher on the researcher’s copy of the interview guide. Teacher
responses will be also be tape recorded to ensure researcher reliability.
Name____________________________________________________________________
Age________ Grade Level___________ Gender (circle one): Male Female
Question Response
I would like to speak with you about your
ability to take what you learned in your
pedagogy B class and apply the strategies to
your guided practice experience. What are
your thoughts on that?

What strategies do you remember learning in
your pedagogy B course? You may refer to
your survey.

What do you think made them so memorable?
To what extent to do you contribute your
understanding of the strategies to your
professor’s instruction?

To what extent do you attribute your learning
of the strategies to your own experiences as a
student?

How prepared did you feel to use the strategies
in your guided practice classroom?

Which strategies did you use during your
student teaching?

Were you able to implement the strategies
exactly as they were taught? What
modifications did you make? Why?

To what extent did your guiding practice
mentor teacher support the strategies you
implemented in your class?

To what extent do you believe your guiding
practice mentor was proficient with the

151

strategies you learned in your online pedagogy
course?
To what extent did your school principal
support the strategies that you implemented?

To what extent do you believe your principal
was familiar with the strategies your learned in
your online pedagogy course?

To what extent were the strategies useful to the
school site you where you were teaching?
What specific strategies were most useful?
Why? If they were not useful, what factors
impeded the use of the strategies?

To what extent did high stakes testing effect
the use of the strategies in the classroom?

What strategies do you believe are valuable to
your students’ learning experiences?

What strategies do you believe are not relevant
to your students’ learning experience?

What new strategies have you learned that you
think should be added to the repertoire of
strategies taught in the online pedagogy class?

Were any of the strategies taught in your online
course familiar to you from your own
experiences as a student?

To what extent do you think learning the
strategies online helped or hindered your ability
to implement the strategies in your classroom?

What prior knowledge did you have about any
of the strategies taught in the online course?

Prior to Ped B, were any of the strategies
introduced in your other courses?

Did you resist using any of the strategies with
your students?

Which of the strategies did you use for the
PACT? Why did you choose that strategy?

Overall, to what extent did the online pedagogy
B course influence your ability to transfer the
strategies learned to your guided practice
teaching experience?

This concludes our interview. Is there anything you would like to add about your ability to
transfer strategies to your student teaching?
I want to thank you for taking the time to talk to me. Your experiences have provided valuable
information for my study. I appreciate your participation?

152

APPENDIX C
Fidelity of Implementation for Socratic Seminar
The following treatment steps were completed by marking a checkmark in the
corresponding box.
Day 1
 Teacher presents the Socratic Seminar to students by giving an overview of
Socrates, the Greek philosopher for whom the strategy is named after.
 Teacher presents the guidelines
o Be prepared to participate
o Don’t raise hands
o Invite others into the discussion
o Refer to the text
o Comments must be appropriate/respectful/focused
o Listen to and build on one another’s comments
 Teacher reminds students that her job is to facilitate and ensure that the guidelines
are met.
 Teacher instructs students to prepare for the Socratic Seminar by reading and
responding to the pre-seminar question created by the teacher.
 Students are told that only those who complete the slip will be allowed to
participate in the seminar.
Day 2
 Teacher collects the Socratic Seminar Entry Slips
 Desks arranged in a circle.
 Students given post-it notes to keep track of their participation. Students mark a
tally for every comment.
 Teacher reviews guidelines.
 Teacher prompts question and asks students to refer to their seminar notes.
 Teacher asks evaluative questions after 8-10 minutes
 Teacher asks post seminar reflection questions after 3-5 more minutes (What are
your thoughts on the seminar? Did you learn anything new? What was different
for you in this discussion compared to other discussions?)
Evaluation:
# of steps completed: ____________ % of steps completed: _____________________
Teacher modifications made during strategy implementation:
Observation Notes:
153

APPENDIX D
Fidelity of Implementation for Gallery Walk

The following treatment steps were completed by marking a checkmark in the
corresponding box.
 Teacher pre-selects multiple artifacts (i.e. pictures/documents/etc.) for students to
view and posts them around the room.
 Teacher describes the step in completing gallery walk and expectations.
 Students walk around the room and write notes for each artifact based on
teacher’s instruction (i.e. Bulleted notes, descriptions, etc.)
 Once the charts are full, the student and teacher discuss their notes.

Evaluation:
# of steps completed: ____________ % of steps completed: _____________________
Teacher modifications made during strategy implementation:

Observation Notes:

154

APPENDIX E
Fidelity of Implementation Concept Attainment
The following treatment steps were completed by marking a checkmark in the
corresponding box.
 Teacher selects a concept for study
 Teacher identifies attributes of the concept
 Teacher develops a set of examples and non-examples to be presented to students
 Teacher presents examples and non examples
 Teacher asks students to label the examples as examples and non examples based
on current thinking
 The class discusses the concept and the process

Evaluation:
# of steps completed: ____________ % of steps completed: _____________________
Teacher modifications made during strategy implementation:

Observation Notes:

155

APPENDIX F
Fidelity of Implementation for Directed Reading Sequence
The following treatment steps were completed by marking a checkmark in the
corresponding box.
 Teacher selects a pre-selected reading selection and directs all members of the
group to read
 Teacher describes the roles for the group discussion using a smaller chunk of text
1. Paraphraser will paraphrase what was in the selection
2. Verifier will verify what is said but must refer to the text during the
paraphrase and make sure all members have marked the text for reference
during the larger discussion.
3. Squeezer will orally condense the information and compose a sentence
which summarizes the information
4. Writer will write the sentence on a sheet of paper and ensure all
members of the group have the sentence recorded.
 At the next reading selection, the roles shift and the jobs move to the next person.
Therefore #1 becomes the writer #2 becomes the paraphrase #3 verifies and
corrects while referring to the text #4 will dictate the summary sentence

 Teachers modifies the strategy by establishing a word limit, addresses writing
skills in terms of word choice, or alters the length of the selection to create an
added difficulty to the task.
Evaluation:
# of steps completed: ____________ % of steps completed: _____________________
Teacher modifications made during strategy implementation:

Observation Notes:

156

APPENDIX G
Fidelity of Implementation for Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA)
The following treatment steps were completed by marking a checkmark in the
corresponding box.
 Teacher selects a text that has been prepared in sections.
 Teacher has prepared questions ready to pose prior to students reading each
section that require students to anticipate action/information
 Post a question that leads students into the text. Chart their responses.
 Teacher has students read a section in order to confirm or revise their responses.
 Teacher debriefs each response and asks students to find evidence for their
analysis.
 Teacher asks new question.
 Above cycle repeats.
 Teacher asks students to prepare notes for an essay.
Evaluation:
# of steps completed: ____________ % of steps completed: _____________________
Teacher modifications made during strategy implementation:

Observation Notes:

157

APPENDIX H
Fidelity of Implementation for Write Around
The following treatment steps were completed by marking a checkmark in the
corresponding box.
 Teacher selects a text that students can read in a group. More difficult texts used
if this is the second or third reading.
 Students read the text and then take margin notes.
 When students have read the text, the teacher asks them to pass their paper to the
person next to them.
 The above process continues until the paper returns to the owner.
 Teacher discusses with students which aspects were mentioned most frequently
and why, their observations on the text
 Teacher asks students to discuss their experience with the strategy – how it
impacted their interaction with the text.
Evaluation:
# of steps completed: ____________ % of steps completed: _____________________
Teacher modifications made during strategy implementation:

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Guided practice, also referred to as student teaching, is a traditional component of teacher education that prepares teacher candidates for the complexities of the classroom. Teacher candidates learn pedagogical instructional strategies in their coursework and apply them during their classroom experiences. While guided practice continues to be an integral part of teacher education, several factors affect the teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies with a high degree of fidelity. In this mixed methods study, four teacher candidates enrolled in the online Masters of Art in Teaching program (MAT@USC) at the University of Southern California were interviewed, surveyed, and observed to determine their perceptions of the factors that affect their ability to implement the strategies learned from their online secondary English Language Arts pedagogy course in their guided practice experiences. Second, the study examined teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies with fidelity. Results indicated that the degree of support received from the teacher candidates’ guiding teachers, also known as cooperating or master teachers, has the greatest impact on the candidates’ ability to implement the strategies during the guided practice experience. Additionally, the degree of freedom to plan and implement their own lessons determines the teacher candidates’ ability to implement the strategies. In regards to fidelity of implementation, the study found that the school context, such as the culture, attitude, and organizational characteristics, can enhance or impede the candidates’ ability to implement the strategies with a high degree of fidelity. The findings suggest the need for teacher candidates to be paired with knowledgeable, supportive, and well-trained guiding teachers who understand and support the university’s core values in an effort to develop effective classroom teachers. Moreover, teacher candidates require knowledge in how to navigate school contexts to better serve their students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

An analysis of the selection and training of guiding teachers in an urban teacher education program

PDF

Beliefs and perceptions of DPRK teachers of English towards CLT instruction and factors that influence program implementation

PDF

MAT@USC and Latino English language learners

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

The transfer of online instruction to TESOL candidates' perceived self-efficacy of teaching English language learners

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners

PDF

Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

Ensuring faculty success in effective online instruction

PDF

Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color

PDF

Supporting administrators in successful online co-curriculum development: a promising practices study of contributing factors

PDF

Investigating the enactment of professionald development practices in a high performing secondary school setting: a case study examining the purpose, process, and structure of professional development

PDF

Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

Asset Metadata

Creator Levinson, Christine Caro (author)

Core Title Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 06/13/2012

Defense Date 04/24/2012

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

Tag cooperating teachers,English language arts,fidelity of implementation,guided practice,guiding teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,online,pedagogy,preliminary teachers,student teaching,Teacher education

Language English

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Ephraim, Ronnie (committee member), Keim, Robert G. (committee member)

Creator Email christinelevinson@gmail.com,clevinso@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-46843

Unique identifier UC11289243

Identifier usctheses-c3-46843 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LevinsonCh-886.pdf

Dmrecord 46843

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Levinson, Christine Caro

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