Cultivating Communities of Practice Report on Initiatives in the City Colleges of Chicago Early Childhood Education Programs under a Grant from the Robert R. McCormick Foundation 2009-2011

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Contextualization ............................................................................................................................ 4 Overview of Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 5 Summary Initiative Activities ......................................................................................................... 6

Professional Development .............................................................................................................. 6 Introduction to Teacher Research ............................................................................................... 6 Ethics/Oversight Strategies ......................................................................................................... 7 CCCECE Newsletter ................................................................................................................... 7

Teacher Research Projects .............................................................................................................. 7

Conferences..................................................................................................................................... 8 Self-Study Survey ........................................................................................................................... 8

Curriculum Work ............................................................................................................................ 9

Resource library and AV equipment............................................................................................... 9

Conclusions and Outcomes/Recommendations .............................................................................. 9 Appendix A: Contextualization–Aristotle’s Categories of Human Activity ................................ 11

Appendix B: Cultivating Communities of Practice – Literature Review by Lynne Sabas, Ph.D.

(Research Consultant) .............................................................................................................. 12 Appendix C: Sample of Newsletter .............................................................................................. 21

Appendix D: Teacher Research Project for Academic Program Students – Case Study Strategy

by Carrie Nepstad, M.S. (HWC) .............................................................................................. 27

Appendix E: Teacher Research Project – Jump, Frog, Jump by William O'Donnell, M.S. (MXC)

.................................................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix F: Teacher Research Project –Teacher Research; What Is It? by Irma Ortega, M.A.

(Daley College) ........................................................................................................................ 31

Appendix G: Survey – City Colleges of Chicago Child Development Lab Center Research

Project ....................................................................................................................................... 33

3

Introduction

The overarching purpose of the project “Creating Communities of Practice” is to

develop increased efficacy among the academic components and the lab centers of the

Child Development Programs across the District of the City Colleges of Chicago (CCC)

by cultivating integration and cohesion.

The City Colleges of Chicago Early Childhood Education (CCCECE) programs

serve students, children, and families across the City of Chicago by means of two major

components: the Academic Programs and the Lab Centers for Young Children. The

Academic Programs offer Associate Degrees and Advanced Certificate programs in

Child Development at six of seven citywide campuses. Estimated enrollment in Child

Development courses is about 1000 students per semester (in 2010-11), with 17 faculty

and an estimated 30 adjunct faculty at all campuses. The Lab Centers for Young

Children, located at five campuses, served 204 children ages 3-5, and 190 families in

2010-11. Professional practitioners at the sites include one director per site, and a total

of 11 teachers and 14 teacher assistants. The Lab Centers support the education,

training, and development of students at CCC in terms of observations and field

placements. The Lab Centers also provide care and learning experiences to the

children they serve. Shareholder groups encompassed in the CCCECE programs are

academic program students and faculty, lab center teachers and directors, and children

and families within the communities of each campus.

Primary research questions that were developed as a starting point for the

initiatives were:

How do we develop new knowledge and practices to cultivate increased

integration and cohesion among the academic components and the lab centers

of CCCECE?

How do we create opportunities and forums to share new knowledge/practices?

Sub-questions that emerged from the primary questions were:

What are Communities of Practice (CoPs) in the field of Early Childhood

Education?

How can we cultivate CoPs in the Child Development Programs of CCC?

What can we learn about the lab centers and the relationships among the lab

centers and the academic programs?

How can we foster a more effective synergy between the lab centers and the

academic programs?

How can we develop connections between our academic programs and the field?

In terms of possible approaches to developing synergy within the CCC Child

Development Program, three key assumptions arose as points of departure from which

the project would unfold. These are that

4

cultivating Communities of Practices (CoPs) are a key element for achieving the

purpose of the research project, which is to develop a more successful

integration, cohesion, and efficacy among the academic components and the lab

centers across the District.

developing reflective practices are an intrinsic element of this cultivation.

teacher research projects are an essential mode for integrating reflective

practices with meeting standards pertaining to learning outcomes and for

collaborative discovery of new knowledge in service of the programs.

The majority of the key initiatives of the overall project emerged from professional

development; these were events and related outreach intended to stimulate and to

support teacher inquiry projects, as well as participation in conferences. A major theme

of the initiatives was self-study, which emerged through the reflective component of the

teacher research projects and also by means of a pilot self-study.

Contextualization

In order to contextualize the overall project within the larger field of education and

to provide rationale for our orientations/methods, the following background material

presents brief overview of action research, of the constructivist approach, and of

constructs of knowledge.

The research questions demonstrate that the nature of the overall project is

action research, and best addressed from a constructivist, emergent approach.

According to Thomas Schwandt (2001), the primary intention of action research is

improvement and involvement. Involvement means inclusive participation of

practitioners in planning, observation documentation of data, action, and reflection.

Improvement means changing a situation involving specific social practices in order to

enhance understanding of or agency in practice, and/or to remake the practice (3-4).

The constructivist approach is one key component in action research. Schwandt

characterizes the constructivist approach as the invention of “concepts, models, and

schemes to make sense of reality.” As new experience and information accumulates,

these constructions are tested and modified. Because construction takes place in socio-

culturally determined contexts, it is mediated by means of shared concerns (30-31).The

constructivist approach is therefore process-based, and the design of these processes

is emergent in that new knowledge influences how the process unfolds.

A useful preliminary orientation to the project emerges from constructs

associated with knowledge activities as characterized by Aristotle, which have been

further developed in terms of education by Habermas and Gadamer. Here, we are

concerned with two of the three modes proposed by Aristotle: the productive mode and

the practical mode. The third mode, referred to as theory by Aristotle, is excluded from

5

this discussion, because in Aristotle’s conceptualization it is concerned with absolute

truths. Appendix A provides a schematic for these activities.

Aristotle designates the productive mode of knowledge activities as poiesis. The

intention of productive activity has to do with making or fabrication, and the knowledge

required for, or that governs, this activity is separable from the user of that knowledge.

The knowledge necessary to carry out the productive mode is techne; that is, a

specialized constellation of skills that bring about the intended outcome. The productive

mode of knowledge is essentially a means-ends project. In educational contexts,

productive knowledge is concerned with activities such as creating a rubric, or guiding a

class discussion or activity.

Practical activity, praxis, on the other hand, is concerned with one’s role in

society in relation with other humans. Unlike poiesis, in which the end is separable from

the means, in praxis the purpose of the activity is realized in the doing and is therefore

inseparable from it. The form of knowledge needed for praxis is phronesis; that is, the

knowledge and wisdom called for by living mindfully in the pursuit of human good. In

educational contexts, this form of activity would be manifested in guiding a class in

reflective activities, or in designing service-learning projects that link academic pursuits

with larger social embedment.

More recently, social critics and philosophers H. Gadamer and J. Habermas have

offered further useful clarifications to conceptualizations of productive and practical

activity applicable to trends in present-day education. According to Schwandt , these

thinkers identify

a …troubling and dangerous feature of modernity (that) is the assimilation of

praxis (the practical domain of personal and social affairs) into techne. Roughly,

this is the equivalent to treating every human situation in which practical-moral

judgment is required (e.g., in teaching, managing, and providing health care or

social services) as presenting a technical problem to be solved by the application

of knowledge generated via method (208).

Schwandt’s observation marks a significant aspect of the research project; which

is the role of reflective practices linked with action research in the current intersections

of the cultural landscapes of the Child Development Programs and the Lab Centers of

CCC.

Overview of Literature Review

The methodological approaches for the project began with a delimited literature

search to establish some background for the project, specifically searching for case

studies of similar projects. Refer to Appendix B for the Literature Review.

6

Summary Initiative Activities

The activities undertaken to develop CoPs among the Child Development

Programs included professional development events and workshop sessions, teacher

research projects, participation in conferences, outreach in the form of a newsletter, a

pilot self-study survey, curriculum work on the 10 core Child Development courses, and

building an AV resource library for each campus.

Professional Development

Seven professional development events took place between February and May

of 2010. The purpose of these events was to provide forums for new learning and

practice that were guided by special consultants from the larger field of early childhood

development. These forums centered on topic areas of teacher research, connecting

practice with ethics, and developing oversight practices for practicum students.

Introduction to Teacher Research

The teacher research initiative began with an event at Erikson Institute on 19

February 2010, convened by project leader Carrie Nepstad. The presenter was

consultant Debra Murphy, Professor & Program Coordinator at Cape Cod Community

College, adjunct faculty at Wheelock College, and doctoral candidate at Lesley

University. Murphy has been the Executive Director of “As We Grow Preschool” in

Barnstable, MA for over 30 years. She is a Peer Reviewer for the NAEYC Early

Childhood Associate Degree Accreditation system. Her expertise includes applications

of the Reggio Emilia Approach, and her doctoral work is in creating Communities of

Practice using the Teacher Research methodology. Participants included CD faculty,

Lab Center directors and teachers, as well as CCC Practicum students and one

graduate student from Erikson Institute. Presentation content included contextualization

of teacher research within a constructivist perspective, an overview of the Reggio Emilia

approach to early childhood education, orientation to reflective practices, as well as

methodological approaches for developing research questions, collecting data and

documentation, and interpreting and implementing findings. Associated activities gave

participants the opportunity to develop potential teacher research projects.

Further professional development focused providing an orientation to teacher

research for the teachers and directors in the Lab Centers. These events, also

convened by Carrie Nepstad and led by consultant Debra Murphy, took place at each

Lab Center of the District (Malcolm X College on 3 March 2010, Kennedy-King College

on 4 March, and at Olive Harvey and Daley Colleges on 5 March; and on 16 April at

Truman College, with a follow-up visit to Daley the same day. Another event that

7

focused on the Reggio approach and reflective practices, as well as the use of

technology in documentation, took place at Malcolm X College on April 15 2010.

Ethics/Oversight Strategies

The event, which took place on 7 May, 2010 at Erikson Institute, was intended to

engage faculty and lab center staff in practices around the topics of professional ethics

and of oversight in the academic programs. Presenter Nancy Freeman Ph.D. is an

Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of South Carolina.

Freeman co-wrote “Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator: Using the NAEYC Code of

Ethics” 1999 and 2005. Freeman co-presented with colleague Sherry King who is the

Director of the USC Children’s Center which serves as a lab school for ECE students.

Child Development faculty and Lab Center teachers and directors participated in this

event. Nancy Freeman’s presentation/practicum focused on how to use the National

Association for the Education of Young Children’s Code of Ethical Conduct to guide

professional practice and teacher research. King presented strategies in place at USC

that familiarize students with professional protocols and procedures as they take part in

their practicum in classroom settings.

CCCECE Newsletter

23 editions of the CCCECE newsletter have been distributed since September 2009.

The newsletter is disseminated to all full-time and adjunct faculties in the Child

Development programs throughout City Colleges, Lab center directors, teachers, and

staff, campus and District Administration, as well as Academic Advisory Councils, and

other members of the field of Early Childhood Education in the city of Chicago as well

as surrounding areas and outside the state. Newsletter topics include updates about

projects within CCC Child Development as well as issues and events in the greater ECE

field. In addition to direct e-mail, the CCCECE newsletter has been a primary method of

communication within the CCCECE community.

Teacher Research Projects

Teacher research initiatives unfolded within the contexts of several areas. In the

academic program, Harold Washington College faculty member Carrie Nepstad

assigned students the teacher research project presented in Appendix D. The project

presented in Appendix E, by Malcolm X College faculty member William O’Donnell,

sought to integrate the academic program practicum students with activities in the lab

center in a nature exploration. Appendix F presents a teacher research project by Daley

8

College Lab Center lead teacher Irma Ortega that explored a challenging situation

between two children within a lab center classroom.

Conferences

American Educational Research Association Annual Conference (30 April-4 May,

2010, Denver, Colorado)

Presentations attended included topics of self-study in student teaching, social

justice in education, a case study in social epidemiology in youth, action research

in teaching, and new technologies for documentation.

ECE Professional Development/Networking event included the ECE Special

Interest Group meeting.

The University of San Diego School of Leadership and Education Sciences

Action Research Conference (13-14 May 2011)

Presentations topics included collaborative action research, current and

emerging constructs of the meaning of education in global contexts, the interface

of Japanese cultural constructs within U.S. educational contexts, and case

studies in developing a faculty inquiry group.

Carrie Nepstad and Lynne Sabas made a poster presentation, which was

accompanied by a handout on the CCCCDP project, “Cultivating Communities of

Practice in the Child Development Programs of the City Colleges of Chicago.”

Components of the poster presentation are in Appendices D-F.

Jennifer Asimow, in partnership with Cathy Main from UIC and Kathleen

Sheridan from NLU: “Developing and Supporting Effective Early Childhood

Teachers Online: What our Research Tells Us” presented at the NAEYC National

Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development in Providence, RI.

http://preparingeceteachers.weebly.com/

Carrie Nepstad, in partnership with Ben Mardell from Lesley University in

Cambridge Massachusetts, and Debra Murphy from Cape Cod Community

College. “ACCESS to Shared Knowledge and Practices Keynote: Creating and

assessing powerful experiences in early childhood classrooms”.

Self-Study Survey

In order to explore various aspects of the programs’ cultures (for example,

perceptions roles and norms in programs), a pilot self-study instrument (Appendix G)

was adapted from a survey by Hyson et al. (2009). Additional possible data gathering

instruments for future self-study could include structured and open-ended interviews,

and participant observation. The survey may also be adapted for data gathering from

Child Development faculty and administrators, and from practicum students. This tool

may be used

9

to promote a clearer understanding of aspects of the current program culture

through the perceptions of the groups of participants.

to develop a perspective on changes that could initiate more integrated

communities of practice within the CCC Child Development Program and Lab

Centers.

to establish a starting point for comparative longitudinal data sets that may be

gathered in the future in order to describe change over time.

to provide a forum for reflection among the shareholders of the responding

group.

Curriculum Work

This work began as a continuation of the curriculum revision work that had been

done prior to this grant cycle. The ten core courses were reviewed and revised in fall

2009 by a District-wide Child Development Curriculum Committee with representation

from each campus and Carrie Nepstad as the Chair. In 2010 when the National

Association for the Education of Young Children announced the revision of the

Professional Preparation Standards it was decided that the CCC Child Development

course objectives and student learning outcomes needed further revision in order to

reflect the revised standards. During the 2010-2011 academic year, as part of the

CCCECE reflection on field placements, the Curriculum Committee reviewed and

revised all required field hours for the AAS degree.

Resource library and AV equipment

Each campus now has an updated resource library with DVDs, CD ROMs and

books that support ongoing interest in positive guidance strategies, building learning

communities, the Reggio Emilia Approach, supporting children who exhibit challenging

behaviors, communicating with families, and ECE content areas. These materials will be

used in the adult classrooms for the academic program and in the training rooms of the

lab centers and will serve as long-term resources for the entire community. In addition

to building the resource libraries for each campus, document scanners and digital

cameras were purchased for each academic program and lab center in order to further

the reflective work described in this project including documentation techniques such as

scanning student work and creating digital portfolios for young children and also for

Child Development students in the academic programs.

Conclusions and Outcomes/Recommendations

Case studies of programs similar to those of CCCECE programs show that lack

of time, as well as institutional structures, can be seen as significant barriers to

participation in CoPs. Our delimited self-study corroborated the negative effects of these

10

factors on lab center teachers. Case studies suggested that programs that support

collaborative activities (such as structuring schedules to include time for collaborative

activities), and that not only encourage but also reward teacher collaboration offer

greater benefits for the stakeholders. For our study, therefore the time organization and

character of workloads in programs, as well as institutionally mandated changes, may

be identified as significant elements to be considered in terms of strengthening the

programs. In addition, case studies showed that advocacy at all levels of the institutional

system is an essential measure for developing CoPs, as well as cultivating

reflectiveness among all stakeholders in order to facilitate comfort with change and

trust-building.

Taking into account what was learned from the case studies, we concluded that

we could plant seeds in terms of practice for making learning visible and making voices

heard by means of

cultivating reflective practices

using reflective practices to promote trust relationships among the stakeholders

developing and supporting teacher research

Further questions for implementation of what we have learned are

How can reflective practices and teacher research are integrated into the

programs? How will these changes be implemented

o At the time of initialization?

o Over the long term (taking into consideration anticipated and unanticipated

changes)?

How will the efficacy of the changes be tracked?

How long will the initial implementation period be, and what sort of follow-up will

take place at the end of the period in order to make recommendations for further

projects?

Our study provided strong evidence for teacher inquiry as a way to creatively

synthesize the contributions of all members of the Community of Practice that this

project sought to cultivate. We feel that reflective practices and teacher research work

together in synthesis as seeds to germinate this cultivation. By continued support of

reflection by means of the survey piloted in our study, and by encouraging new teacher

research projects, it will be possible to better integrate the shareholders’ endeavors for

the City Colleges of Chicago Early Childhood Education programs.

Appendix A: Contextualization–Aristotle’s Categories of Human Activity

Category of

ACTION

THEORY KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES

PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY

(POIESIS)

PRACTICAL ACTIVITY

(PRAXIS)

Key

characteristics

Separated from

Practical and productive

life of the polis:

o the life of individuals

in society

o the realms of

morality

ethics

political life

education

Under the firm control of an objective, impersonal

method

Has to do with making or fabrication

Knowledge required for (or that governs) this

activity is separable from the user of that

knowledge

Participation is by volition and involves duration

Form of activity that has to do with the conduct of one’s

life/affairs as a member of society

About doing the right thing & doing it well in interactions

w/fellow humans.

Aim (end) of activity is realized in the doing.

Participation cannot be set aside at will

Concerned with

o the timely

o the local

o the particular

o the contingent

Requisite

knowledge

? TECHNE- craftsmanship:

Kind of knowledge possessed by an expert in a

specialized craft- a person who understands the

principles underlying an object or a state of

affairs (e.g., a house, a table, a safe journey, a

state of being healthy.

Materials and tools (including methods) = means

used by maker to bring about the ends

(product/result). Techne = means

PHRONESIS – neither an exclusively technical nor

cognitive capacity, but bound up w/ the kind of person one

is and is becoming.

Acquired moral-practical knowledge about how to live

rightly

Deployed in one’s interactions w/ fellow humans

Demands intellectual and moral disposition toward right

living & the pursuit of human good

Referred to as deliberative excellence, practical

wisdom/reason; assoc. cognitive virtues: understanding,

judgment, interpretation

Intended

outcome or

aim

To yield knowledge of

necessary and eternal

truths; such knowledge is

not possible in the polis

because of its inherently

changeable and uncertain

nature

Product or result that is separable from the one

who produces

Doing good by means of being and becoming

Adapted from Schwandt, Thomas A. Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (2nd ed), p 206-208.

12

Appendix B: Cultivating Communities of Practice – Literature

Review by Lynne Sabas, Ph.D. (Research Consultant)

The objective of the literature review was to discover studies that would serve as

contextualizing knowledge for the project. Basic research questions that oriented our

search were

What are some models, strategies, practices, self-studies or action research

within academic contexts similar to the City Colleges of Chicago Child

Development programs that can be discovered in the case-study literature?

How are knowledge and practice developed and shared in Communities of

Practice (CoPs)/ Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)?

How can our programs make use of models, practices, and other approaches

developed within these communities?

Strategies, Process, Challenges, and Outcomes

The literature search was initiated from an interdisciplinary approach, and

therefore the search was guided by the perspective that the Child Development

Programs at CCC are cultures, and that the literature could yield some contextualization

and insights for implementing the project by means of that perspective. The initial

intention of the review was to locate case studies of similar research projects in

programs similar to that of CCC, and to compare and contrast these studies to create

models of possible approaches to the CCC project.

The literature review sought to provide evidence for one of our assumptions for

the project: the importance of cultivating CoPs to support the goals of the project, and to

delineate the essential role in terms of this cultivation of reflective practices in concert

with teacher inquiry. In addition, it looked for some models and tools of investigation for

use on our project.

The first task was to locate the project in a broader context by reviewing The

Early Childhood Program Standards established by the National Association for the

Education of Young Children, as well as other information provided by the organization

("Overview of the NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards," 2008) This website

also provided a directory of NAEYC accredited programs. The program literature and

newsletters from the Child Development Program of Harold Washington College of

CCC, and consultations with faculty member Carrie Nepstad also supported

contextualizing the project.

Strategies for the review of the literature sent it into three directions. Websites of

NAEYC-accredited programs that seemed similar to CCCs program (Certificate and

Associate Degrees, urban, multiple sites) were surveyed, with the objective of seeking

reports of institutionally sponsored research projects that could be case studies.

13

Another direction pursued was a traditional aggregated database search (e.g. ERIC,

EBSCO, etc.) for full-text articles. A third direction was to scan specialized on-line

collections, such as those in Child Care & Early Education Research Connections.

The literature research process yielded useful challenges. The first strategic

direction, to seek out case studies within program websites, resulted in little material

that was applicable to the project, because website content was mainly intended as

informational sources for families and communities. The second direction, the classic

database search, revealed the immensity of publications on topics dealing with

communities of practice or learning communities in the field of Early Childhood

Development education. In addition, identification of pertinent search terms (keywords,

descriptors, and identifiers) that could focus the search often tended to the opposite

outcome in that many terms had similar meanings (e.g., student teachers, practicum

students). However, some useful literature emerged from the second strategy, as well

as the more focused and delimited collections found in the field-specific websites. In the

latter cases, it was decided not to make use of articles that were available for a fee

through subscription-only collections. Another challenge was that the case studies

found on program change were located in contexts not parallel to CCCs program, for

example, in K-12 practicum settings, or in programs outside of the U.S.

As the literature review developed, combinations of several key subject search

term yielded the most useful results; these were: child development education, action

research, and communities of practice. The search found evidence of a shift in how

subject categories assigned to literature between 1999 and 2010. For example, a

search of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) database for the period

1999-2000 yielded 1,961 hits for the subject search term “action research,” 595 for the

term “learning community,” and 39 for “communities of practice.” A similar search for the

period 2001-2010 yielded 2,123 for “action research,” 659 for “learning community,” and

377 for “communities of practice.” This may indicate that the term “communities of

practice,” with its implications of plurality, may be gaining purchase over the more

monolithic notion of “learning community.”

In order to understand how CoPs and PLCs are structured and how they function

to support change, Blankenship and Ruona (2007) conducted a literature review and

identified three models of PLCs and three models of CoPs derived from key articles

surveyed in their review. Categories of comparison included: theory base, membership,

leadership, organizational culture, and knowledge sharing. PLCs were seen to

consistently draw from learning organizational theory, while CoPs were more eclectic,

drawing from situated cognition, knowledge management theory, or social learning

theory.

Membership varied among the models; participation could be voluntary,

mandated, or a condition of employment status. It is notable that CoPs tend to delimit

membership to a group of individuals working together for a common purpose within the

14

organization, while in the case of PLCs the community tended to be defined as the

entire organization, and therefore the membership tended to be more institution-

focused, rather than purpose-focused.

Leadership in PLCs tended to be externally stronger when compared with CoPs,

emerging from managers or principals. CoP leadership was more varied, informal,

egalitarian, and distributed. Leadership could be situated both within and without the

community. Organizational culture among the models emphasized shared vision, trust,

and collaboration. These aspects could be either explicit or implicit. Blankenship and

Ruona state that “(c)ulture and norms are major determinants of the extent to which

knowledge creation and organizational learning can occur” (2007, n.p.). Knowledge

sharing among the models tended to take place in terms of formal structures, such as

team meetings, reflective dialogues, and the application of protocols or located

collaborations such as on-line groups. The authors point out that the models they

investigated do not indicate whether knowledge development extended from the group

into the larger organization.

Blankenship and Ruona point out that their literature review revealed that PLCs

tended to place emphasis on leadership and the larger institutional setting of the group.

CoPs, on the other hand, tended to stress the social features of learning in the

development of new knowledge, with less attention paid to leadership or culture outside

of the community.

Knowledge development within PLCs and CoPs also vary in focus. PLC models

tended to place emphasis on formal structures or protocols, such as teams or peer-

coaching situations, in order to share knowledge both within and outside of the group;

CoPs tended to focus on knowledge sharing within the community, with less emphasis

on the larger institutional context. Based on their literature review, Blankenship and

Ruona identify a difference between PLCs and CoPs in terms of focus. PLC models

tend to give importance to institutional elements and organization, and leadership. CoP

models tended to focus on improvement of practices within the group.

The salient aspects of CoP/PLC models identified by Blankenship and Ruona,

with the exception of theoretical grounding, serve as an organizational device to discuss

other literature review in this project. The aspects of membership and leadership are

included as relational roles in the dynamic of community building. The concepts of

institutional and program culture will be elaborated by means of additional literature, as

well as knowledge and practice in terms of collaboration within and beyond groups

Another critical aspect of program culture has to do with the how the program

negotiates change initiated from outside of the program itself; for example, as a result of

institutionally mandated accreditation issues, or policy changes, or changes in program

structure or personnel, and the relationship between these negotiations and CoPs.

Although the CoPs in Gallucci’s study (2003) were elementary school teachers in

changing districts, the research yields some useful insights into how CoPs deal with

15

standards-based reform. Galluci conceptualizes the CoP as “the locus of (a)

engagement in the actions of teaching, (b) interpersonal relations, (c) shared

knowledge, and (d) negotiation of meaning of work” (p. 4). With regard to strengthening

CoPs among teachers, the author observes that lack of time, as well as institutional

structures, were cited as significant barriers to participation in CoPs (p. 15). Conversely,

schools that provide support for collaborative activities (such as structuring schedules to

include time for collaborative activities), and that not only encourage but also reward

teacher collaboration, will benefit from the development of CoPs. Galluci’s ideas may

also be extended from teacher CoPs to program-defined CoPs that include participants

from the faculty and the practicum students, as well as administration. For our study,

therefore, the time organization of workloads in programs, as well as institutionally

mandated changes, may be identified as significant elements to be considered from an

ethnographic self-study perspective.

One more element of the ethnographic perspective is the construct of norms

within the workplace. Little’s study (1982), conducted as a focused ethnography, was

based on data in the forms of semi-structured interviews and observations in various

settings in the schools. Categories of collegial work practice characteristics were

developed from an inventory of work practices gained from the data. These categories

were: range of interactions, location of interactions, frequency, focus and concreteness,

relevance, and reciprocity. The study incorporates characteristics of participants (status,

knowledge and skill, and social or role competence) as key factors in developing norms

of collegiality. Another factor considered by the study was the role of expectations with

regard to both norms of collegiality and for norms of continuous improvement in the

workplace. When supported by actual experience, norms failed to coalesce to support

the development of cohesive CoPs. This observation will help to bring attention to

similar dynamics of stated vs. actual norms that may be a salient component of our self-

study.

A key area of concern in our project is integration between the academic

component and the lab component of the Child Development Programs at CCC.

Stremmel et al. (2003) present a case study of re-envisioning their laboratory school as

a collaborative community based on research and teaching. The program that served as

a case study for the research, Virginia Tech Child Development Lab School, differs from

the CCC program in that lab school teachers in the Virginia Tech program are graduate

students; however, the study nevertheless provides some useful observations on the

role of teacher research. This study described the process of change, which the authors

identify as a paradigm shift, which was intended to form stronger connection between

working with theory in the academic aspect of their program and teacher preparation in

the lab aspect. This paradigm shift was guided by a social constructivist perspective

inspired by the Reggio Emilia Approach, and looked to cultivate a CoP that included

teachers as researchers, as well as shared leadership. A practicum course, initially

16

designed to focus on developing student teacher skills, such as communication and

time and classroom management and supervision, evolved toward an inquiry-based

model that sought to generate new knowledge. This new knowledge emerged from an

action research project, which involved a process of developing a research question

(theorizing), making use of methods of discovering possible answers to the question

(researching), and considering the project as a model for developing curriculum

(reflection). A significant outcome of the research projects was that it brought together

faculty, lead teachers, practicum students, and administrators in a collaborative inquiry.

The presentations and teacher talks that emerged led the authors to adapt the position

in their program “…that research was something that teachers do as part of their

program. Thus, teaching is seen more than action and activity, it is also reflection and

speculation” (2003, p. 102).

An additional important aspect of Stremmel et al’s study is the reconfiguration of

staff to promote a shared leadership. In this aspect, the paradigm shift involved moving

away from the traditional leadership model as a top-down, hierarchical model and

toward a collaborative model. This model of shared leadership included shared

responsibility for six areas identified by a group of faculty, teachers, and administrators.

These areas were administration, research, curriculum, professional learning, outreach,

and creating community. In keeping with the Reggio approach, the CoP developed in

this program sought to include interactive partnerships among faculty, teachers,

students, parents and children (2003, p. 108).

Cutler et al. (2009) describe a similar paradigm shift within the early childhood

education program and laboratory school at South Dakota State University over a

period of seven years. The authors formed an inquiry group in which to reflect on the

changes that had taken place, and to identify trends within the process. These trends

were “(a) recasting the image of the teacher and reevaluating the process of teaching

and learning, (b) valuing dialogue, (c) cultivating a reflective mindset, (d) valuing outside

perspectives, and (e) building meaningful relationships” (p. 404). This reshaping of the

program involved a transition from a more conventional technical approach (intended to

equip prospective teachers with skill sets and strategies) toward an inquiry–based

approach, inspired by the Reggio approach, emerging from reflective practices,

whereby students would be able to engage in ongoing learning from their teaching.

The authors discovered that recasting the image of the teacher involved

gradually moving away from the dualistic notion that there is a right and a wrong way to

teach, and toward an understanding of the role of teacher as not the locus of authority

but as the facilitator of questions. This shift also involved modifying the traditional model

of education as the acquisition of knowledge in the form of content/subject matter

toward a focus on the learner and her or his process of construction (p. 407).

A refashioned model of teacher image was supported by a move toward valuing

a dialogic mode within the CoP, shifting the character of the questions about practice

17

from “Why?” to “How?” The researchers utilized a method of discourse developed by

Brown and Isaacs (2005), the World Café technique, which facilitates discourse among

participants of different perspectives. This technique encouraged equitable involvement

among faculty and students in discourse that challenged and opened perspectives,

allowing for cross-pollination that would create spaces in which ideas could grow

beyond those originating with an individual participant (Cutler, et al., p. 411).

Cultivating a more reflective mindset also served to change the mindset of

teaching “the right way” and to establish a more experimental perspective. Cutler et al.

describe the uncertainty that students first expressed when they were encouraged to

include written reflection into assignments and classroom activities that included the use

of the first person, which is often regarded in traditional academia as unscholarly.

Faculty also had difficulty with a shift in orientation toward reflective practices. The

authors acknowledge, in keeping with findings of Senge et al. (1999), that “deep

changes in how individuals think cannot be achieved through compliance; they must be

individually chosen as a value in order to see visible change” (p. 412). In addition,

faculty noted that the daily responsibilities of teaching left little time available for

reflection (p. 412). The issue of cultivating a more reflective mindset was implemented

by incorporating journaling and building established time for collaborative discussion

into the weekly schedule.

The authors invited five professionals who use Reggio-inspired practices to visit

their program, in order to incorporate perspectives from outside of their program.

Among the practices offered by these professionals were: proposing provocations that

surprised the teaching team because these were not negatively (as expected by the

team), but positively framed, and a workshop on the use of “thick documentation” in

order to construct a richer, more multivalent, portrayal of teaching/learning situations.

The fifth significant trend in program change identified by Cutler et al. is building

relationships. This trend was seen as an outcome brought about by the four other

trends in the discussion groups, participants reflected on hierarchical and democratic

characteristics of thinking and came to three understandings. These were: first, that

advocacy at all levels of the institutional system is an essential measure for developing

a new identity within the larger institutional context; and, second, that cultivating

dialogue among faculty has created openness to new ideas. The third understanding

had to do with the acculturation of students, which established a hierarchical model in

higher education as a norm. As faculty themselves adapted to initial feelings of

discomfort with reflectiveness and resulting transparency, students in turn were able to

begin to adapt to new norms in how they regarded the education process. This in turn

led to heightened levels of trust among all participants (pp. 414-415).

Cutler et al. conclude by pointing out that a key element gained from their

experience with program change is a heightened sense of comfort with change itself.

They have learned to acknowledge that there is no point of “arrival” in the evolution of

18

teaching practices; instead, it is cyclic- as new students joint in the process, they in turn

become contributing participants in the process of teaching and learning (pp. 414-415).

In addition to articles, several recently published books were included in the

literature review. Collaborative Action Research: Developing Professional Learning

Communities (2008), a collection of articles edited by Stephen P. Gordon, identifies the

primary partnership relationship between the university and of the school and each

article explores an aspect of these roles. Although the school setting in this collection is

a K-12 case study in Texas State University’s School Improvement Network and

therefore outside of the early child education context of the CCC programs, several

articles nevertheless offer useful directions for developing this relationship, in that

institutional culture is included as a critical factor.

Another volume, The Reflective Educator’s Guide to Classroom Research:

Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn through Practitioner Inquiry (Dana & Yendol-

Hoppey, 2009), offers further support to the role of teachers as researchers in the

communities of practice paradigm. The authors take a hands-on approach to the

process of teacher research, offering specific but flexible strategies for teacher research

projects.

Conclusions and Implications/Applications of the Literature Review for the Project

The literature review provided supportive corroboration of our assumptions for

the project: the importance of cultivating CoPs, and the essential role of reflective

practices in this cultivation and in teacher research. In addition, it provided some models

and a tool for reflection and inquiry for use in our project.

A key theme emerging from the literature on aspects of CoPs is the concept of

reflectiveness. Borgia and Schuler define reflective practice as “the mindful review of

one's actions specifically, one's professional actions… [which] requires concentration

and careful consideration as teachers seek patterns and relationships that will generate

meaning within the investigation” (1996). Gordon states that “(r)eflection is a critical

aspect of education on many different levels” (2008, p. xi). Dana and Yendol-Hoppey

extend the notion of reflection into teacher inquiry: “Teacher inquiry invites intentional,

planned reflection heightening your focus on problem posing” (2007, p. 7).

A second key theme is the role of cultivating reflective discourse among all

participants associated with the program: faculty, laboratory teachers, practicum

students, directors and other administrators, children, and families. Finally, there is a

consensus that the inclusion of teacher research as an intrinsic program component is

an effective mode for developing reflective practices, generating new knowledge, and

sustaining collaboration among all participants in the community.

19

References

Blankenship, S. S., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2007). Professional Learning Communities and

Communities of Practice: A Comparison of Models, Literature Review. Paper

presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International

Research Conference in The Americas.

Borgia, E. T. & Schuler, D. (1996). Action Research in Early Childhood Education. ERIC

Digest, ERIC Identifier ED401047

Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café : shaping our futures through

conversations that matter (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

Cutler, K. M., Gilkerson, D., Bowne, M., & Stremmel, A. (2009). Change within a

Teacher Education Program and Laboratory: A Reflective Commentary. Journal

of Early Childhood Education, 30, 404-417.

Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). The reflective educator's guide to classroom

research : learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Gallucci, C. (2003). Theorizing About Teachers' Responses to Reform: The ROle of

Communities of Practice. An Occasional Paper. Seattle, WA.: Center for the

Study of Teaching and Policy.

Gordon, S. P. (2008). Collaborative action research : developing professional learning

communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hyson, M., Tomlinson, H. B., & Morris, C. A. S. (2009). Quality Improvement in Early

Childhood Teacher Education: Faculty Perspectives and Recommendations for

the Future. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 11(1).

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of

Social Success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3).

Overview of the NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards. (2008). from

http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/OverviewStandards.pdf

Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage Publications.

Senge, P. M. (1999). The dance of change : the challenges of sustaining momentum in

learning organizations (1st ed.). New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Stremmel, A. J., Hill, L. T., & Fu, V. R. (2003). An Inside Perspective of Paradigm Shifts

in Child Development Laboratory Programs: Bridging Theory and Professional

Preparation. In B. A. McBride & N. E. Barbour (Eds.), Bridging the Gap between

Theory, Research and Practice: The Role of Child Development Laboratory

Programs in Early Childhood Education. (Vol. 12). Amsterdam, Boston, London:

Elsevier JAI.

20

Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Dana, N. F. (2007). The reflective educator's guide to mentoring :

strengthening practice through knowledge, story, and metaphor. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press a Sage Pub. Co.

21

Appendix C: Sample of Newsletter

First edition

City Colleges of Chicago ECE Newsletter

Building Communities of Practice September, 2009

In This Issue

Save the Date! 11/05/09

Reflective Practices

Teacher/Action Research: A

Proposal to the CCC/ECE

Community

Save the Date!

11/05/09

Professional

Development

Seminar

Teacher/Action

Research Forum

In partnership with National Louis

University's Center for Practitioner

Research & Erikson Institute

Please join us

for a stimulating

evening!

Light refreshments will be

Greetings to the CCC/ECE community!

My name is Carrie Nepstad and I am an Assistant Professor of Child

Development at Harold Washington College.

For the past several years the CCC Child Development Associate

Degree Programs and Lab Centers have been working on an ongoing

improvement project funded by the McCormick Tribune Foundation.

This initiative involved professional development for faculty as well as

lab center directors, teachers, and staff. It also involved a complete

revision of the 10-core courses in the AAS degree offered across the

District.

We are in a new stage of development with this initiative! At this

point, we are working together to review the Associate Degree

Programs as well as to review and develop policies and procedures in

our Lab Centers in order to support student learning. The goal is to

build "communities of practice" within our system so we can work

together to serve CCC students and our community of young children

and families.

This will involve 4 professional development seminars during the

2009-2010 academic year, a monthly newsletter, a curriculum review,

and a focus on Reflective Practices within the Lab Centers and the

adult classrooms. This will require all of us to think about how our

various roles serve child development students and ultimately young

children and their families.

I look forward to your ongoing input - here's to a productive year!

Carrie

PS Please forward this e-mail to your colleagues and community

partners by clicking the "forward e-mail" button below. thank you

22

provided.

Location:

Harold Washington College 30 E.

Lake Street, room 1115

Time:

6:30-8:30pm

Date:

11/05/09

Quick Links

Learning from Young

Children in the Classroom:

The Art & Science of

Teacher Research

Voices of Practitioners:

Teacher Research in Early

Childhood Education

NAEYC publication

Faculty Curriculum

Advisory Committee

Daley, JoAnn Burnside

KKC, Benita Hunter

HWC, Carrie Nepstad

MXC, William O'Donnell

Truman, Bonnie Muirhead

Human Services/CDA, Mary

Kaleta

Curriculum Consultant,

Jennifer Asimow

Please contact

Carrie Nepstad at

cnepstad@ccc.edu or call 312-

553-6095

Reflective Practice

In speaking with Lab Center Directors

and fellow faculty within the District and

across the country, it is clear to me that

Reflective Practice is important in all

areas of our field.

In an effort to address this, the 2009-

2010 Initiative will focus on developing

reflective practices within our adult

classrooms as well as our lab centers. This is a key element of

professionalism and it is something we can all strive to engage in

ourselves and to support in others.

One method of Reflective Practice that we are going to explore in our

PD seminars and in ongoing committee-work, is Teacher/Action

Research.

You are all invited to participate in the CCC/ECE first annual book

study! The book is called Learning from Young Children: The Art and

Science of Teacher Research by Daniel R. Meir & Barbara Henderson.

You can go to the "Quick Links" in the right-hand column for the

Amazon link. I think you will find it to be a very useful resource.

Happy Reading!

Teacher/Action Research: A Proposal Let's do a

research project together!

As quoted in the NAEYC publication, Voices of Practitioners, "(i)n

Teacher Research, teachers engage in the systematic study of their

own practice. Deeply involved in the daily lives of young children and

their families, teachers provide a critical insider perspective through

publishing their investigations and reflections on life in their

classrooms".

This is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to learn a new skill

together. We can all benefit from learning the methods of teacher

research in order to learn about the growth & development of

students of all ages. It is also a useful tool for reflective supervision

within the ECE setting and for assessment practices within the adult

classroom.

I am on the Steering Committee for Voices and we are currently in the

process of exploring how Associate degree faculty can partner with

23

ECE teachers to do teacher research projects, write about them, and

submit them for publication. With our Initiative emphasis on Teacher

Research this year, I want to encourage CCC faculty, along with Lab

Center directors and teachers to work together on a teacher research

project. We could do several projects across the District on a similar

theme such as:

"How can we support diverse learners?"

What do you think? If you are interested in participating, please send

me an e-mail at cnepstad@ccc.edu

Also, we are planning a Voices breakfast meeting at the NAEYC

conference this November in Washington, DC. If you are attending the

conference and would like to participate in the breakfast meeting with

the Voices editorial staff, please let me know right away.

Engaging in Inquiry

I recently took my CD 143 "Science

and Math for the Young Child"

students on a field trip to the Oak

Street Beach. We were working on a

long-term project about water and the

field trip was a culminating experience

where students wrote observations,

drew pictures, and took photographs

of the trip. They then prepared a

documentation panel for the classroom and a small group of students

responsible for the labs in this unit prepared a newsletter and sent it to their

classmates.

Please send me examples of your Adventures in Inquiry! cnepstad@ccc.edu

24

Spring 2011 edition

CCCECE Newsletter

Building a Community of

Inquiry & Practice February 22, 2011

ATTENTION:

Our next Meeting is:

(new date & time)

Friday 03/18/11

10am-noon

MXC

The last meeting of

the semester is:

Friday 04/29/11

1:00-3:00pm

MXC

We had a

great

meeting

in January! I look

forward to seeing you

all in March and April.

Teacher Research

Initiative

This semester we are

trying a TR Project in the

CD 201 class "Observation

and Management of Child

Behavior". This project

was designed using the

principles learned from

Debra Murphy during our

professional development

Greetings!

I want to thank each member of the CD Curriculum Advisory

Committee. I truly appreciate their responsiveness to

requests for information and feedback on various drafts of all

revised documents. We have reviewed and revised all 10

core courses twice, and in some cases three times over the

past year. The goal has been to streamline our student

learning outcomes and more clearly align them to the

NAEYC/ECADA standards for professional preparation.

We have been proactive in revising the syllabi to include the

revised standards. Last year, I announced that the revised

standards include a 6th standard. However, the final version

of the standards now includes a 7th standard. Yes, 7!

The good news is that the 7th standard is about field

experiences, which is something the Curriculum Committee

has been working on for the past year - we were ahead of

NAEYC on this particular piece.

Please download the newly revised standards for your own records. It is important to review and to begin to think about revising your key assessments to include the updates.

25

on Teacher Research last

year. It also stems from

feedback from directors

and teachers in the field

about the need to prepare

students to work with

young children who

exhibit "difficult"

behaviors.

The assignment is a case

study of one child. After

doing several

observations in the

classroom, students select

the child for the case

study based on observed

behavior that they find

challenging in some way.

Students are cautioned

that they cannot label the

child in any way. Instead,

they must describe

observed behavior

objectively.

The goal of the TR project

is to collect data on when

& where this child is

successful in the

classroom. This is a

complete turnaround from

what many students

expect to do because it

emphasizes strengths

rather than

weaknesses.

Please take a look at the

assignment description,

and let me know what you

think.

I am interested in

feedback from Lab Center

Directors and Teachers as

well as fellow-faculty.

So far, the students are

very interested in the

assignment. I'll keep you

posted as they begin

collecting data. I've

already noticed a

difference in the way they

refer to their observations

It was nice to see everyone at our meeting in January. We

spent time reviewing the work that the Curriculum

Committee has been doing to revise the required field hours

for each course as well as the pre-requisites for the 10 core

courses.

We also reviewed the Student Resource Book that has been

distributed across the District. The feedback has been

positive from students but in conversations with each other,

it became clear to faculty in the meeting that we need to

have consistent graduation requirements for all AAS Degrees

in Child Development offered across the District, and that

this will be a focus for our continued work this semester.

We will not be meeting on February 25th as I will be at the

State ACCESS meeting in Bloomington-Normal.

I look forward to seeing you March 18, 10am-12pm at MXC.

take care, Carrie

Professional Development Survey Results

Last semester, I sent out a survey to see what professional development topics are of most interest

to you. There were 7 respondents. The Results:

71.4% chose "Play" as the number one answer Second place was a 3-way tie between: Technology

Classroom Management Stress & Trauma

To share: I've been reviewing a textbook called

"Play at the Center of the Curriculum, 5th edition" by Van Hoorn, Nourot, Scales, and Alward. It is a Pearson textbook. I don't see an exact fit to

any courses I personally teach, but it has been a useful resource for designing lessons and

assignments on play. Also, I was looking through some materials for a class the other day and came across a book from my

graduate studies, "Play in the Lives of Children" by C. S. Rogers

and J.K. Sawyers. It is a NAEYC publication and I have the 1988 edition so it's a classic! I have really

26

- something seems to

change in their attitudes

when they begin to think

of themselves as teacher

researchers.

Stay Tuned!

Associate Degree Early

Childhood Teacher

Educators: ACCESS To

Shared Knowledge &

Practices

ACCESS is the Specialized

Professional Association

for Associate Degree

faculty in Early Childhood

Education.

Attention Faculty:

if you are interested in

joining ACCESS, or if you

haven't yet renewed your

membership for 2011,

please send me your

completed application

form.

*The grant will pay for the

membership fee for this

year.

found it to be useful and worth going back to when

planning lectures/class activities on play. Do you have resources to share?

Please send me an e-mail cnepstad@ccc.edu

Announcement:

Jan Stepto-Millett has resigned from CCC.

Carrie Nepstad will serve as Manager of the McCormick

grant until the grant cycle ends June 30, 2011

Faculty Curriculum

Advisory Committee

Daley, JoAnn Burnside

KKC, JoLynn McCray

HWC, Jennifer Asimow

MXC, William O'Donnell

Truman, Bonnie Muirhead

OHC, Kate Connor

Carrie Nepstad Project Manager

312-553-6095

cnepstad@ccc.edu

27

Appendix D: Teacher Research Project for Academic Program

Students – Case Study Strategy by Carrie Nepstad, M.S. (HWC)

Question: When and where does this child exhibit positive, appropriate

behavior(s)?

Sub-questions: What is the child interested in? What engages him/her (materials,

activities)? What staff does the child connect with? What children does the child

make productive contact with? When is the child relaxed? When is the child

smiling? When is the child successfully communicating with others?

Data Collection:

o Classroom Maps: Make a classroom map

template and make several copies and attach to

a clipboard. Make sure it has a place for the

date and time, a place for comments, and

includes all major areas of the classroom. Use

a green marker or sticky dots to indicate

wherein the classroom you observe positive

behavior of the child. Jot down the time by each

mark. Collect data a day at a time for each

map. Collect at least two maps over a three

week period, but three or four maps a week will

give you more data.

o Photograph documentation: Take photographs

of the child in positive play and engagement

whenever you can, but strive to get at least five photographs a week over at

least three weeks. Try to jot down notes (anecdotal records) for each

photograph as soon as you can after taking the picture. Sticky notes work well

for this.

o Detailed observations: Record as much as you can about any positive

engagement of the child whenever you see it, no matter how short the

duration. What does he/she

say/ do? Who else is involved?

What are they doing? What are

the positive aspects of the

target child’s behaviors?

o Reflections: Gather, display,

and discuss your collected data

once a week, with at least one

colleague if possible (note: it

28

does not have to be someone who works with the child). What do you notice?

What trends do you see? Record your reflections, noting what data supports

your findings.

Conclusions and Next-Steps: Assemble and organize your data for display in a

notebook, folder, poster board, power point, or report. Write at least one

paragraph about what you have learned in regard to your question and sub-

questions. How will you use this information to strengthen this child’s

opportunities for success in your classroom? How could this information be

helpful to the child’s family? Create an action plan that involves expanding the

aspects of your program that support this

child’s development. Involve as many of

your colleagues as possible in this process.

Share your data and findings with your

colleagues. Record feedback and any new

ideas generated in your discussion.

29

Appendix E: Teacher Research Project – Jump, Frog, Jump by

William O'Donnell, M.S. (MXC)

Narrative Description

This project came about as a collaboration between Ms. Sofia Pekar, the lead teacher

at the Child Development Lab Center, and I. We were brainstorming for ways we could

integrate our two programs. We wanted to find "common ground" for both her children

in the Lab Center and my adult students in the college program. We'd been creating

different learning opportunities and doing projects together for a while, but we wanted to

do something bigger and over a longer time line as a way of building a learning

community. So, we decided on frogs. Why? Sofia had planned on doing an extended

literacy lesson based on the book Jump, Frog, Jump and in my CD 143 -- Math and

Science for Young Children course we had undertaken in-depth, integrated curriculum

studies about butterflies and fish in the past and were looking for our next study. So we

decided to both study frogs and share our work/study/documentation with each other.

We both collected picture books, non-fiction books, and periodicals about frogs for the

students and children to use during the month-long

study. College students came into the classroom

and read selected books. We bought tadpoles and

began the life-cycle study, observing

and documenting the changes taking place (very

slow metamorphosis). Both groups learned songs

about frogs like "Five Green and Speckled Frogs".

Gross motor activities like leap frog were

introduced. Play frogs were used as manipulatives

for counting and sorting. Lily pads were we placed

in the water table. Arts and crafts activities about

frogs. And at the center was the book, Jump Frog, Jump. The teachers and children

read the book a lot. Daily. And they were learning the sequence of the story and

making their own fold-out books.

It was all prelude to the play the children

performed during the Week of the Young Child,

aptly titled, "Jump Frog, Jump". The college

students created the set for the play and helped

with costumes. They acted as ushers for the

30

play. The children's parents were invited as well as people from the college. It went

beautifully.

This project really benefitted the teachers, students, and children. The students got

valuable experience working with an

integrated curriculum and saw

its direct application in an early

childhood classroom. The teachers in

the lab center benefitted from

having the college program contribute

ideas and develop the on-

going curriculum. I, the college

teacher, got the opportunity to be back

in the EC classroom again and

constructively apply a course to real-

life work with children, as well as

collaborate with the classroom

teacher. The children got to interact with students and teachers outside their

classroom, who brought experiences that

otherwise, would not have happened.

31

Appendix F: Teacher Research Project –Teacher Research; What

Is It? by Irma Ortega, M.A. (Daley College)

Narrative Description

Teacher research is a process, which allows you to develop knowledge or

understanding of something in the classroom that you want to change. Teachers may

want to change for example children's aggressive behavior, but in order to do that you

must take several steps in order to achieve what you want to change.

When I was approached with this project last year, I felt confident that I could do this.

First I had to have a question for my research, I immediately thought of a situation that

was escalating in the room between two boys who were being aggressive with each

other. This problem made me feel frustrated, and the whole situation became more

complicated when a parent of one of the boys was becoming involved in the situation

which was making things more problematic in the classroom. However I also wanted to

prove to the parents what my concerns were for one of the boys in terms of his fine

motor skills and how we could help him become more proficient in his writing ability.

First I had to come up with a hypothesis and a question as well as a conclusion.

My research question was, "How can I change this aggression between the boys and at

the same time change the parent's perception about the other child?” I hear everyday in

the room, Johnny is a bad boy and I would respond because this was not true.

For this teacher research I chose to collect data by writing anecdotal notes everyday

and also creating a classroom map of all the learning areas. The purpose of this was to

track where the behavior was occurring.

I had to use three different colored

markers to track the incidents, which

were color-coded in order to be able to

see where the aggression was

happening and what time of the day it

was happening. By implementing these

methods of observation and gathering

pieces of evidence, I was able to see

where the incidents were occurring most

often. This helped me to plan on making

changes between the two boys. I used

pictures to show and document the

32

change over the eight week period. I also saved writing samples of the child's writing

which I shared during the Parent Teacher Conference with the family.

Along the way, I talked with Debra Murphy [Cape Cod Community College, consultant

for the CDPCCC project] and she suggested that I focus on when the one boy was

successful in the classroom rather than focusing on when the aggression occurs. This

changed my perception of the child.

I used all this quantitative information that I gathered to plan, and make changes based

on what was happening. I was able to also to provide positive outcomes when the time

was done. It was a successful process

because the problem was not apparent

anymore between the boys.

From all these findings and the

information I was able to gain knowledge

and understanding and apply it in

another setting with other situations.

33

Appendix G: Survey – City Colleges of Chicago Child Development

Lab Center Research Project

Will you please help us to understand your current experience at your site?

All responses are confidential.

Please read the following descriptions. Which mode(s) best reflects your current

experience at your site? Please place a checkmark next to it/them.

_ Change mode: “We are responding to new external requirements.”

_ Implementation or maintenance mode: “We are putting into practice what we have

developed.”

_ Survival mode: “We are barely keeping our heads above water in terms of our

responsibilities.”

_ Fatigue mode: “We are too tired or overwhelmed to think about innovation or

improvements.”

_ Conflict mode: “Energy is mostly going into interpersonal conflicts or issues about

who is responsible for what.”

_ Building mode: “We are able to invest time and energy in improving our program.”

_ Celebration mode: “We feel our quality improvement efforts are getting results and

we are energized to do more.”

(adapted from Hyson, et al., 2009)

Please give some details or additional information that will help us to understand your

experience of this mode.