• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Using Case Study Analysis and Case Writing to Structure Clinical Experiences in a Teacher Education Program

Posted on: Thursday, 20 October 2005, 06:00 CDT

By Floyd, Deborah M; Bodur, Yasar

Abstract

This study reports on the design and results of a two-semester study on the use of case study analysis and case writing in clinical experiences in an undergraduate teacher education program. Findings indicated that structured experiences with case studies and case writing increase preservice teachers' informed decision making on educational issues.

The Office of Educational Research and Improvement and the United States Department of Education recently commissioned a review of high-quality research on five questions concerning teacher preparation (Wilson, Floden, and Ferrini-Mundy 2002). One of the questions dealt with the kinds, timing, and amount of clinical training that best equips preservice teachers for classroom practice. In their summary, Wilson et al. (2002) noted numerous studies which showed that both novice and experienced teachers see clinical experiences as a powerful-sometimes the single most powerful-element in their teacher preparation. Another theme that emerged was that "field experiences lead to more significant learning when activities are focused and well structured" (Wilson et al. 2002,195).

These comments prompted two teacher educators to design a longitudinal study to determine the impact that case study analysis and case writing had on preservice teachers during tjwo semesters of clinical experiences in a teacher education program. The professional growth of preservice teachers between the first and second semesters when analyzing and writing cases was explored.

Purpose of case Study Analysis and case Writing

Case study analysis and case writing were used to introduce preservice teachers to the complex nature of elementary classrooms and encourage multiple perspectives and informed decision making. case studies in teacher education are a medium for bringing classroom complexity into college classrooms in written form. Lawrence (1953, 215) described a good case study as "the vehicle by which a chunk of reality is brought into the classroom to be worked over by the class and the instructor. A good case keeps the class discussion grounded upon some of the stubborn facts that must be faced in real-life situations." Good cases have a core of ambiguity that may promote different interpretations from people of different backgrounds (Hansen 1997). Such ambiguity, Dewey (1929) suggested, may provoke anxiety as preservice teachers try to understand and interpret classroom events and make informed judgments about actions to take. Wasserman (1994, 604) stated that "effectively carried out, case method teaching is an approach that allows students to grow away from their desperate need to know-with certainty-the right answers and toward a healthier, more mature tolerance for ambiguity about educational practice."

In this study, case study analysis refers to the teacher education method of examining cases written on different aspects of teaching, learning, teachers, learners, classrooms, and schools. case writing is an educational technique that requires preservice teachers to write their own case study by selecting a significant classroom problem, event, or issue, and providing important details on the selected problem. Open cases are ones that identify and describe a problem, but leave the resolution to the reader's judgment. Closed cases are ones that include a solution to the problem in the body of the case.

Related Literature

The complexity and uncertainty Of teaching have contributed to a shift away from the technical approach to teacher education. The use of case methods as a pedagogical tool for educating teachers gained interest after Lee Shulman's 1985 American Educational Research Association address in which he urged teacher educators to develop a pedagogy of cases (in Darling-Hammond and Hammerness 2002; Levin 2002). Research suggested that many preservice teachers find the theories and concepts learned in university classrooms too abstract to help them address problems they encounter in real classrooms (Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, and Shulman 2002). To bridge the gap between theory and practice, teacher education programs have adopted approaches such as case study analysis and case writing.

Research has shown that case study analysis and case writing facilitate preservice teachers' reflection on teaching. Floyd (1992) reported that the case study analysis method established a problem- posing, dialogical, and empowering environment by presenting preservice teachers with problematic situations that arise in teaching. These situations were embedded contextually with no one right answer. This format allowed preservice teachers to define problems, identify alternatives, choose a course of action, plan for implementation, and consider the possible consequences of a given action. The results of the study showed that preservice teachers constructed multiple perspectives, considered contextual factors in decision making, and acknowledged and examined beliefs about teaching and learning (Floyd 1992). The case study approach facilitated the social construction of knowledge about teaching and learning. More recently, Kreber (2001) proposed that experiential learning using case studies fostered higher-level learning, such as critical thinking ability and self-direction.

Other research has focused on how writing cases helps facilitate reflection among preservice teachers (Florio-Ruane 1990; Harrington 1991; Kleinfeld 1991; Reichelt 2000). Providing preservice teachers with the opportunity to write their own cases allows them to freely express personal beliefs (Kagan and Tippins 1991). Writing also gives teachers the opportunity to construct and reconstruct their experiences and understandings in ways that weren't available to them during the original experience (Shulman 1991). case writing and subsequent discussion of identified problems and issues from the author's and others' perspectives enable teachers to explore multiple views. case discussions serve as catalysts for changes in thinking even when no disagreement or conflict exists. Listeners to discussions, as well as talkers, can learn from the case if ideas trigger internal cognitive conflict (Levin 1995). Discussions also may motivate preservice teachers to talk more freely about sensitive issues that are generally too personal to discuss (Shulman 1991).

Case study analysis and case writing have been used with preservice and in-service teacher groups in different subject areas, including math education (Manouchehri and Enderson 2003), science education (Herreid 2004), special education (Elksnin 2001), and elementary education (Floyd 1992; Good win 2002; Levin 2002; Mastrilli and Sardo-Brown 1999). These methods also have been used with beginning preservice teachers (Floyd 1992), student teachers (Hammerness et al. 2002), and novice teachers (Mastrilli and Sardo- Brown 2002). These studies reported positive outcomes as a result of case study analysis and case writing, ranging from the promotion of critical reflection to helping student teachers think like expert teachers. Alexandrowicz (2001) found that constructed cases were a powerful tool in accomplishing course objectives, and that preservice teachers became more adept in understanding the individual, sociocultural, and educational needs of diverse people.

Program Overview

The Elementary Education program at a major university in the southeastern portion of the United States requires a total of 66 credits and is organized into four semesters and two courses. Elementary education majors enter the program in cohort groups and progress through three semesters of course work and then one semester of internship. The first semester is composed of 16 hours of course work that emphasizes diversity. The clinical experience portion of the program provides vicarious experiences through the use of case study analyses in the classroom and approximately 79 hours of field work with a child in an English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program.

The second semester course work is composed of 16 hours and focuses on the role of the teacher and the act of teaching. The field component includes approximately 79 hours in an elementary classroom for observation and application of what has been learned in university classes.

The third semester focuses on planning effective instruction. Intensive field-based experiences are coordinated with a block of math, science, reading, and testing/evaluating second-language methods courses. This field experience runs four full weeks in the elementary classroom. Within the last 14-hour semester, preservice teachers intern and take an on-campus course that deals with ethics, management, and safety.

Using case Study Analysis and case Writing in Clinical Experience Courses

Case study analysis and case writing were used in both the first and second semesters of this university's elementary education program. In the first semester, preservice teachers in the clinical experience class met weekly for one hour on campus and spent six hours a week for seven weeks and one full week in their assigned field placement. During the field placement, each university preservice teacher shadowed his or her designated ESOL student, worked with small groups of children, and occasio\nally worked with the entire class. These activities introduced preservice teachers to the school's culture and helped them focus on strategies and methods for teaching, observing, and learning about the individual child.

All the case studies analyzed in the classroom centered around diversity, encompassing dealing with special needs children, meeting the needs of students within an inclusive classroom, dealing with parents and children of different religious orientations, and specifically working with ESOL children. Preservice teachers were asked to read the cases prior to class and to cite problems, possible solutions, and outcomes that might occur based on their solutions. Numerous times preservice teachers were asked to role- play, either a role they chose or an assigned role. During these role-plays and class discussions, preservice teachers acknowledged that multiple perspectives existed, whether or not their original views changed. Some preservice teachers were frustrated by discussing multiple perspectives and just wanted to be told the correct answer. Each time a problem was identified, a discussion ensued about the best sources to use to make informed decisions. This was done intentionally to prepare preservice teachers for writing their own case studies and to encourage them to use the existing teacher education knowledge base.

Preservice teachers also were asked to write their own cases. By developing cases based on experiential education, preservice teachers were prompted to make professional decisions based on direct observation, interaction, and practice with children and school staff members within the contexts in which they operated. This experience taught future teachers about inequities in schools and prepared them to teach populations that are culturally and linguistically diverse (Alexandrowicz and Kujawa 1998; Anderson and Guest 1993; Root and Batchelder 1994; Root 1997; Siegel 1994; Sullivan 1991).

The following steps prepared them for their writing:

* an article that described the process involved in writing educational cases was provided (Hansen 1997);

* cases and classroom narratives were shared;

* differences between open and closed cases were examined;

* informational packets on using library databases and finding journal articles in the university library were distributed;

* individual assistance on finding proper literature was offered; and

* feedback on cases was given before final versions were submitted.

In addition to these steps, instructors and preservice teachers engaged in continual dialogue throughout the semester about the cases.

Preservice teachers were not told what the topic of their case study should or would be. They were told to observe and interact within their assigned placements and write about what they questioned, what bothered them, what wasn't resolved in their minds at the end of the week, or what interested them. They also were told that their cases could be open-ended or closed-ended.

The assignment in the syllabus read as follows:

Write and share a case study. You are to create your own case study following the examples used in class. These will be the basis for small group discussions during the next to the last class meeting. Your case study may follow the format of the case studies we've discussed in class or you can be creative (write it as a journal entry or news report, etc.). However you elect to tell your story, it should contain these three features:

1. Detailed description of the event or problem.

2. Key issues or questions for discussion.

3. Suggested readings (include an annotated bibliography with at least five references related to your case).

As you identify your "problem" and develop your case, discuss your ideas with your supervising teacher. He or she can be a collaborator in this process. Keep a record of these interactions within the context of your learning log.

Confidentiality was emphasized strongly. Preservice teachers were told to use pseudonyms for children, schools, and teachers. All conversations that occurred in the university classroom were to remain in the classroom.

Preservice teachers were encouraged to share the topics on which they were writing their cases with their supervising teachers. Some topics, such as improper use of the English language by the supervising teacher, were difficult to discuss, which made it even more important for preservice teachers to access the professional body of knowledge. Preservice teachers who found case development discussions appropriate with their supervising teachers documented these conversations. Borko and Putnam (1998,50) stated, "The opportunity to write and share a case can support the development of teachers as a community of learners who practice framing problems, generating various solutions to those problems, choosing among alternative solutions, and reflecting on implications of their choice."

To guide preservice teachers in their selection of professional literature, a rubric (Table 1) that specified appropriate sources was provided. The rubric emphasized the timeliness, credibility, and relevance of the resources.

Table 1: Rubric for Selecting References for Case Studies

In the second semester, the focus was on the teacher and the act of teaching. Subjects discussed in the field experience class related to effective teachers-personal and professional attributes- and effective teaching-classroom management, teacher expectations, instructional techniques, and motivation. Preservice teachers were required to participate in an elementary school classroom for 36 hours and one full week as part of their preparation. During their field visits, preservice teachers observed specific teacher behaviors, interacted with children, taught smallor whole-group lessons, and kept a reflective journal. In addition to field hours, the class met one hour weekly on campus.

The instructors of the first- and second-semester clinical experiences collaborated and decided to integrate a more rigorous professional literature component to the second semester case studies. Preservice teachers were required to write closed cases so that they would become more inquiry-oriented and make informed decisions founded on the knowledge base of teaching. As in the first semester, preservice teachers could select the topic of their cases.

An ethics review was not conducted as part of this study because regular course assignments were used as data. However, in future case study usage or research, the teacher educators involved in this study recommended that there be an ethics review due to the sensitive issues which arose in some cases, such as unprofessional teacher behaviors.

Data Sources

Sixty-three first-semester and 63 second-semester cases that were written by the same group of preservice teachers were used in this study. The preservice teachers who were part of this study were representative of the common preservice teacher profile in the United States: predominantly European-American and middle-class females. Only three males and four non-European-American preservice teachers were in the group. The study participants were placed in classes that differed in socioeconomic status from the general population of the school.

The clinical experience course instructors in both the first and second semesters analyzed the data based on the following agreed- upon criteria:

* type of case: open or closed;

* content of case;

* appropriate selection of professional literature; and

* overall quality of the case.

The two instructors agreed that the professional literature cited would be considered appropriate if it fit the rubric in terms of timeliness, content match, peer review, and author credentials. Preservice teachers were required to use a minimum of five references, including a mix of online sources, journals, books, and interviews. Overall quality was determined by the appropriateness and number of references used, along with the inclusion of descriptions and contextual information to help readers identify the problem or problems.

Though first- and second-semester cases were analyzed separately, the instructors shared and discussed the results of their analyses. After the analyses were completed, instructors reanalyzed their findings together to determine the growth of preservice teachers in developing their first- and second-semester cases.

First-Semester cases

Though preservice teachers identified a variety of problems or topics about which to write, they seemed to be influenced by their placement with ESOL children. In the first semester, preservice teachers' topics could be classified under four categories:

* child-related issues (30 preservice teachers);

* teacher-related issues (5 preservice teachers);

* effectiveness of a program or the effects caused by a program not being offered (16 preservice teachers); and

* general issues (12 preservice teachers).

Child-related cases included topics such as children with ADD/ ADHD, bipolar disorder, mainstreaming special needs children, disruptive children, and ESOL children. The number of teacher- related cases was limited and dealt with topics such as the cultural bias of a teacher and teacher burnout. cases that focused on program effectiveness or the effects of not having a program included ESOL pull-out programs, physical education, DARE, and multiage classrooms. General issues included topics such as standardized testing, parental involvement, field participants as change agents, and school volunteers. Twenty of the cases were written on issues related to ESOL. The large number of child- and ESOL-related cases indicated that case topics were strongly influenced by the first- semester clinical experience.

Of the 63 cases submitted in the first semester, 56 contained appropriate references and met the required number of varied references. In many cases, even more references were used. Preservice teachers who used inappropriate \references cited popular journals rather than professional journals. Twenty-nine preservice teachers incorporated information from their references in the body of their cases. Seventeen preservice teachers solidly integrated references in their cases by using quotes and citations, while 12 preservice teachers used a limited amount of reference information.

Thirty-four preservice teachers attached field notes correlated directly to their cases. Some field notes contained interviews with teachers. However, the majority of field notes chronicled their decision-making process as they mulled over their problem.

The originality, relevance, and development of the case, as well as the integration of literature and field notes, were factors in evaluating the quality of the cases. According to the given criteria, nine cases were considered excellent, 17 cases were considered very good, and the remaining cases were considered average.

second-Semester cases

Of the 63 submissions in the second semester, 59 qualified as cases and were analyzed. The remaining four were more like research papers that explored different phenomena in education, such as substitute teaching, the importance of physical education, and effective teaching.

The topics of the 59 cases were categorized as follows:

* child-related issues (39 preservice teachers);

* teacher-related issues (15 preservice teachers); and

* general issues (5 preservice teachers).

Of the 39 cases with a child-related focus, 24 were on learning disabilities such as ADD, ADHD, Asperger's syndrome, Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD), dyslexia, and autism. The other 15 cases explored subjects such as students from single-parent homes, students from foster homes, students whose mothers committed suicide, disruptive students, tomboys, and early puberty.

Fifteen preservice teachers wrote cases on teachers. Ten of the 15 cases had a classroom management focus. One case dealt with the teacher's hidden role, such as when one teacher tried to help her student by seeking help for the student's mother. The other four cases dealt with overly eager parents, teacher burnout, religious comments by a teacher, and the effective use of recess by a teacher.

Five cases were classified under general issues. These cases dealt with classroom meetings, the effects of war on children, use of differential feedback on motivation, retaining students, and irresponsible intern behavior.

Preservice teachers were asked to use professional information from at least four resources, particularly in the closing section of their cases. The average number of references for the entire sample was 4.84. Seven preservice teachers used less than the requested number of resources. However, most preservice teachers exceeded the requested number. Preservice teachers cited 115 journal articles, 73 books, and 63 Web sites as references in their cases. Other reference entries included personal communication with a teacher, ERIC documents, book chapters, and encyclopedia entries. Thirteen preservice teachers used one type of reference; 46 used various sources.

The same criteria were used to judge the quality of the second- semester cases as those in the first semester. Twenty-eight cases were considered excellent, 15 cases were considered very good, and the remaining 16 cases were considered average.

Growth from First Semester to Second Semester

Analysis of both semesters' cases evidenced that preservice teachers made progress in several areas. The quality of their cases improved considerably. The number of cases that were considered excellent or very good increased from 26 to 43, an indication that preservice teachers could better identify relevant issues, observe and incorporate important details, and select and integrate more appropriate literature in their cases in the second semester compared to their first semester.

Topics explored in the second-semester cases were more varied than those in first-semester cases. In the first semester, preservice teachers wrote cases on 26 different topics compared to 37 topics in the second semester. The differences in selected case topics were mostly in teacher- and child-related cases.

Only five cases involved teacher-related issues during the first semester, compared to 15 cases during the second semester, which indicated that preservice teachers' view of the classroom had expanded. The number of cases involving children in the second semester also increased dramatically. Most first-semester child- related cases were on classroomrelated issues such as disruptiveness and learning disabilities. second-semester cases dealt with social issues that affect children's lives in and out of school.

The increase in the integration of appropriate literature in cases between semesters was noteworthy. This improvement may have occurred because preservice teachers were required to incorporate professional literature in their second-semester cases while that was optional in the first semester. Preservice teachers in the second semester integrated the literature in their cases very well, especially in the closing portions of their cases.

Conclusions

The importance of clinical experiences in future teachers' training is well established. The findings from this study indicated that case study analysis and case writing are effective clinical experiences methods.

Case study analysis is an excellent way to bring issues related to students, teachers, and schools into college classrooms. Preservice teachers had the opportunity to analyze these cases collaboratively with classmates who offered multiple perspectives. Preservice teachers also learned what a case study looks like and how one can best write a case for analysis. A study conducted by Doebler, Roberson, and Ponder (1998) showed that the analysis of responses to case studies was helpful in tracking the development of preservice teachers as they encountered teaching problems and arrived at reasonable and informed solutions to those problems. Doebler et al. (1998, 358) reported that preservice teachers developed a "progressive sophistication of response," which supported the case study as a vehicle for decision making, problem solving, and professional growth.

Case writing based on significant events observed in classrooms during clinical experiences provided a focus to preservice teachers' time in classrooms. The improvement in the quality of cases from the first semester to the second semester demonstrated that the continuous use of case study analysis and case writing during clinical experiences is beneficial. The increase in the variety of topics explored in case writing was evidence that preservice teachers with longer clinical experiences were better able to see different aspects of classroom life and became more skilled at seeing students as members of society as well as of their classroom. The literature on case studies and case writing indicated that employing these methods in clinical experiences courses contributed to this positive change. For example, Hammerness et al. (2002) reported findings based on their analysis of cases written by preservice teachers. They (Hammerness et al. 2002) found that preservice teachers moved from naive thinkers to expert-like thinkers as a result of reading theory in context, writing cases, and receiving constant feedback from course instructors.

Both reading and writing cases help create a bridge between practice and theory. Writing closed cases served two purposes: getting a better understanding of the problem (practice) and basing decisions on professional literature (theory). The quality of the cases in this study indicated that preservice teachers used the professional literature while developing and closing their cases. The sources of information showed that preservice teachers had a good grasp on where to look for information. Increased quality in the development of the cases from the first semester to the second semester indicated that preservice teachers were able to consider more details about the problem, issue, or event.

The continuous use of case writing during first- and second- semester field experiences resulted in the exploration of a great number of topics related to teaching. When combining the cases written during both semesters, the number of topics preservice teachers studied increased dramatically. Because all preservice teachers shared cases with their classmates, everyone had the opportunity to hear about a variety of issues related to their future profession.

Certain patterns in these cases can be helpful in identifying preservice teachers' misconceptions, knowledge gaps, and strengths. For example, the number of cases written on children indicated that preservice teachers pay close attention to children. However, the absence of cases on topics such as curriculum and teacher-parent relationships warns that preservice teachers may not perceive a classroom with its complete complexity.

Case studies and case writing help make the connection between academic knowledge and classroom practice. This study, which evaluated the outcome of using both tools, proved that case study analysis and case writing are promising methods to structure the clinical experiences of preservice teachers.

Novice and experienced teachers see clinical experiences as a powerful-sometimes the single most powerful-element in their teacher preparation.

Many preservice teachers find the theories and concepts learned in university classrooms too abstract to help them address problems they encounter in real classrooms.

Case writing and subsequent discussion of identified problems and issues from the author's and others' perspectives enable teachers to explore multiple views.

Both reading and writing cases help create a bridge between practice and theory.

The increase in the variety topics explored in case writing was evidence that preservice teachers with longer clinical experienc\es were better to see different aspects of classroom life.

Case study analysis and case writing are promising methods to structure the clinical experiences of preservice teachers.

The case study analysis method established a problem-posing, dialogical, and empowering environment by presenting preservice teachers with problematic situations that arise in teaching.

References

Alexandrowicz, V. 2001. Community service learning in culturally diverse settings as a springboard for student constructed case studies. Education 121(4): 761-67.

Alexandrowicz, V., and E. Kujawa. 1998. Community service learning: A critical approach for preparing teachers in a linguistically diverse society. Paper presented at the California Council on the Education of Teachers Conference, October 29-31, San Diego, CA.

Anderson, J., and K. Guest. 1993. Linking campus and community: Seattle University's service internship for preservice teachers. Paper presented at the National Service Learning Conference, April 23-26, Minneapolis, MN.

Borko, H., and R. T. Putnam. 1998. The role of context in teacher learning and teacher education. In Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing teachers to enhance student success in and beyond school, ed. The Ohio State University College of Education in partnership with Bowling Green State University, 35-74. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Darling-Hammond, L., and K. Hammerness. 2002. Toward a pedagogy of cases in teacher education. Teaching Education 13(2): 125-35.

Dewey, J. 1929. The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. New York: Milton-Balch.

Doebler, L. K., T. G. Roberson, and C. W. Ponder. 1998. Preservice teacher case study responses: A preliminary attempt to describe program impact. Education 119(2): 349-58.

Elksnin, L. K. 2001. Implementing the case method of instruction in special education teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education 24(2): 95-107.

Florio-Ruane, S. 1990. Creating your own case studies: A guide for early field experience. Teacher Education Quarterly 17(1): 29- 42.

Floyd, D. M. 1992. Coming to know: Prospective elementary teachers' thinking and the case study approach. Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Goodwin, A. L. 2002. The case of one child: Making the shift from personal knowledge to professionally informed knowledge. Teaching Education 13(2): 137-54.

Hammerness, K., L. Darling-Hammond, and L. Shulman. 2002. Toward expert thinking: How curriculum case-writing prompts the development of theory-based professional knowledge in student teachers. Teaching Education 13(2): 219-43.

Hansen, A. J. 1997. Writing cases for teaching: Observations of a practitioner. Phi Delta Kappan 78(5): 398^03.

Harrington, H. 1991. The case as method. Action in Teacher Education 12(4): 1-10.

Herreid, C. F. 2004. Can case studies be used to teach critical thinking? Journal of College Science Teaching 33(4): 12-14.

Kagan, D. M., and D. J. Tippins. 1991. How teachers' classroom cases express their pedagogical beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education 42(4): 281-91.

Kleinfeld, J. 1991. Wrestling with the angel: What student teachers learn from writing cases. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, April 3-7, Chicago, IL.

Kreber, C. 2001. Learning experientially through case studies? A conceptual analysis. Teaching in Higher Education 6(2): 217-28.

Lawrence, P. R. 1953. The preparation of case material. In The case method of teaching human relations and administration, ed. K. R. Andrews, 215-24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Levin, B. B. 1995. Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and experience in teacher's thinking about cases. Teaching and Teacher Education 11(1): 63-79.

Levin, B. B. 2002. Dilemma-based cases written by preservice elementary teacher candidates: An analysis of process and content. Teaching Education 13(2): 203-18.

Manouchehri, A., and M. C. Enderson. 2003. The utility of case study methodology in mathematics teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly 30(1): 113-35.

Mastrilli, T., and D. Sardo-Brown. 1999. Elementary student teachers' cases: An analysis of dilemmas and solutions. Action in Teacher Education 21(1): 50-60.

Mastrilli, T., and D. Sardo-Brown. 2002. Novice teachers' cases: A vehicle for reflective practice. Education 123(1): 56-62.

Reichelt, M. 2000. case studies in L2 teacher education. ELT Journal 54(4): 346-53.

Root, S. 1997. School based service: A review of research for teacher educators. In Learning with the community: Concepts and models for service learning in teacher education, ed. J. Erickson and J. Anderson, 42-71. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education, in cooperation with the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Root, S., and T. Batchelder. 1994. The impact of service- learning on preservice teachers' development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 4-8, New Orleans, LA.

Shulman, J. H. 1991. Revealing the mysteries of teacher-written cases: Opening the black box. Journal of Teacher Education 42(4): 250-62.

Siegel, S. 1994. Community service learning: A component to strengthen multicultural teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 4-8, New Orleans, LA.

Sullivan, R. 1991. The role of service-learning in restructuring teacher education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Teacher Educators, February 16-20, New Orleans, LA.

Wasserman, S. 1994. Using cases to study teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 75(8): 602-11.

Wilson, S. M., R. E. Floden, and J. Ferrini-Mundy. 2002. Teacher preparation research: An insider's view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education 53(3): 190-204.

Deborah M. Floyd is an Assistant Professor in Elementary Education at Florida State University. Her research interests include case study methodology, math and science teaching and learning, and preservice teacher education.

Yasar Bodur is a visiting Assistant Professor in Elementary Education at Florida State University. His research interests include multicultural education and preservice teacher education. He teaches courses in multicultural education, elementary curriculum, and content area reading.

Copyright Kappa Delta Pi Fall 2005

Source: Educational Forum, The

More News in this Category