Joe: Thank you for initiating the PDS in our high school. It has been the most exciting thing that has happened to me in years. I must admit I was among the skeptics when you introduced the idea, but my student teacher is more confident than any I've had before, and my work with the university professors has given me a whole new outlook on what I'm doing. The PDS has been great for me. Thanks. Bruce
The positive sentiments in this unsolicited notefrom a teacher to his principal are typical of the views expressed by educators involved in Professional Development Schools (PDSs). The PDS approach connects university faculty and school-based clinical faculty to prepare new teachers and enhance the practice of experienced ones. Anecdotal results show that participants in these partnerships typically are positive about working together. But are these warm feelings sufficient evidence to defend the efforts required to create and maintain professional development schools?
This question was forcibly brought to our attention in May 1995 when the Maryland Higher Education Commission mandated that "every teacher candidate . . . do an extensive internship in a specially designed Professional Development School" (p. 2) and that "school-university partnerships must address the initial preparation and continuing education needs of teaching interns, beginning teachers, and experienced educators at various stages of their careers" (p. 11). Specifically, these partnerships were to be reciprocal, with university faculty participating in the schools. Faculties were to provide on-site courses and seminars for teacher candidates and experienced teachers, participate in school improvement and site-based research projects, and serve on mentoring and assessment teams (p. 20).
This mandate presented a serious challenge to our secondary education department, because our teacher candidates are liberal arts majors who add teacher certification requirements (32 credits) to their college programs. Because these students were still completing courses in their majors, we had limited control over the time they could spend in secondary schools. And we were proud of the quality of our graduates' teaching performance, based on feedback from their supervising teachers and subsequent employers. We wanted to know whether the Professional Development School model would indeed improve the performance of our teacher candidates.
A research review by Teitel (1996) revealed very few published evaluations of Professional Development Schools. Attitudinal studies have shown positive results in terms of "expectations or satisfaction with the PDS" (Teitel, 1996, p. 29), but only one study (Stallings 1991) used multiple quantitative and qualitative measures to determine the effects of a PDS on the classroom performance of teacher candidates. Given the high regard for graduates of our current program and the limited evidence showing the superiority of the PDS, our department was reluctant to accept the state's mandate without further investigation.
Rather than immediately place our 100-plus teacher candidates in an untested arrangement, we set out to test the efficacy of the secondary Professional Development School. Our faculty agreed to establish a pilot PDS with a local high school to determine whether this approach would improve the performance of our teacher candidates and serve the needs of experienced educators.
Evaluating the Professional Development School
The PDS (experimental) group in our pilot study consisted of 11 teacher candidates who were enrolled in their discipline-specific methods classes and who voluntarily enrolled in a three-credit internship course, held at our PDS site, Eastern Technical High School in Baltimore County, Maryland, on Tuesday mornings. The internship course focused on three performance outcomes associated with classroom teaching: classroom discipline, use of technology, and reflection. We selected these goals because our faculty believed they were best learned in the real world of schools, and previous teacher candidates had cited classroom discipline and technology use as areas in which they wanted more preparation.
The internship course, team-taught by one of our department faculty and a member of the PDS humanities department, was conducted in a "teaching hospital" format. Each session began with an overview of the focus for the day, followed by visits to classrooms to observe, assist, or guest-teach, and ended with a reflective discussion with the host classroom teachers and other clinical faculty and staff. During the final weeks of the course, interns worked with the clinical faculty members with whom they would perform their student teaching the next semester. The course also included peer coaching for the teacher candidates.
To enhance the educational environment at the PDS site, teacher candidates participated in service projects at the school. Their contributions included tutoring individual students who had not yet passed mandatory state tests, accompanying classes on field trips, and attending site-based management meetings.
Eight provisional teachers at the high school also participated in the internship course. Because the PDS site is a magnet school for students interested in technical fields, some faculty with specific expertise (such as engineers, graphic designers, and chemical technicians) are hired directly from the workplace without teacher certification. These teachers were released each Tuesday to take the internship course and do team planning, peer coaching, and reflection activities.
Our comparison (control) group included 10 teacher candidates who were enrolled in their discipline-specific methods courses, but did not volunteer for the internship course. To verify that our PDS and control groups were comparable entering their student-teaching semester, we analyzed the grade point averages of the two groups in their academic majors, their education coursework, and overall. We found no significant differences between groups on any of the grade point measures, thereby confirming that the selection process had not resulted in one group being academically superior. Like the PDS group, members of the comparison group did their first student teaching experience in a high school, but not at the Professional Development School site.
We made requests to school systems to place at least one PDS and one comparison group student teacher in the same school for their middle school (second) student teaching experience to control for location variables. We matched 10 of the 21 students in four different school districts and hired an outside assessor to observe each of the PDS and comparison teacher candidates in our study. The assessor understood that we were conducting a "program assessment," but was not privy to the purpose of assessing the PDS experience, nor did he know the identity of either PDS or comparison-group students.
We wrote and field-tested rubrics for the performance outcomes of classroom discipline, technology use, and reflection. To ensure validity and reliability, our outside assessor was trained in the use of the rubrics and interview questions. We informed the teacher candidates in both groups that the outside assessor would observe them as part of our program assessment during their middle school (second) student teaching experience. Additionally, we collected qualitative data through open-ended surveys and structured interviews with teacher candidates, supervising teachers, provisional teachers, school personnel, and university faculty.
A Demonstrated Difference
During a two-week period near the completion of their second student teaching experience, the outside assessor observed and interviewed each PDS and comparison student teacher. Rubric scores ranged from a low rating of 1 to a high rating of 4 on each of the performance outcomes: classroom discipline, technology, and reflection. The quantitative results revealed that the PDS interns were performing at a "competent" (rubric level 3) level, while the comparison group from our regular program were performing at a "minimally satisfactory" (rubric level 2) level.Analysis of the qualitative data also confirmed that the PDS experience was a positive one for all involved. The following comments are indicative of those involved in the PDS:
Teacher candidate: "The PDS experience gave me extended time (three-fourths of a year) with my high school classes, and the course we took here focused on discipline, technology, and reflection. As a result, I had time to develop and become confident with my classroom management style, and I had time to try a variety of technologies even before I went to my second experience in a middle school... I enjoyed learning how to reflect. I know now how important it is to my continued growth."
Supervising teacher: "I've had three student teachers before from your regular program. None of these previous student teachers had the high degree of self-confidence, management skills, or professional demeanor of this PDS intern. She knew the culture of this school and my classes' personalities, and she had support from her PDS cohort. Consequently, she began to teach on her second day with me. Being here almost a complete academic year, she had a much more realistic picture of what was expected."
Provisional teacher: "This experience provided me with a rare opportunity to meet and work with colleagues during the regular school day. The course and instructors provided a sheltered forum—a place where we felt confident raising questions and expressing concerns. It was an environment where we could take risks. Watching other teachers, their teaching techniques, and their interaction with students was invaluable to me."
University faculty member: "Tailoring instruction to meet the needs of students, factoring in the curriculum ideas brought by interns and the high school faculty, and hearing the perspectives of support personnel caused all of us to take a critical stance—to maximize our reflection and minimize our assumptions—toward issues of curriculum and instruction."
Improving Teacher Learning
The PDS internship was more effective than the regular program in preparing teacher candidates to maintain classroom discipline, use technology effectively for instruction, and reflect on their teaching. Additionally, the PDS provided the participating school with professional development, including an on-site course for their provisional teachers, and assistance with school improvement goals through teacher-candidate service projects.
Interviews and surveys of university and school professionals and high school students confirmed that the PDS had a positive impact on the high school. Respondents were nearly unanimous that it had enhanced the cur-riculum of the school and made relevant professional development opportunities available to school personnel.
As a result of the study, our university department decided to expand the PDS internship to other school sites. We feel confident we can replicate the internship course and thereby strengthen the preparation of our teacher candidates. And because Professional Development Schools are collaborative, reciprocal arrangements, we can individualize professional development for school personnel to better meet the curricular needs at each new site.
