Search

Preparing for high-stakes licensure exams can be daunting for teacher candidates and particularly intimidating for aspiring teachers who speak English as a second language, those with exceptionalities, and members of historically marginalized communities (Petchauer, 2015; Nettles et al., 2011; Tyler, 2011). University-based teacher educators are well positioned to support teacher candidate populations enrolled in or seeking to enroll in teacher education programs. This study explored preservice teachers' experiences engaging in study groups within a supportive learning community. The study groups were facilitated by university-based teacher educators leveraging socio-cognitive strategies to help preservice teachers navigate a high-stake licensure exam. The findings show students who engaged in these study group sessions reported higher affect levels, found the study group structure relevant, and articulated specific strategies for navigating the test in the future.

Early childhood and early childhood special education programs have predominantly been separate teacher preparation programs that prepare novice teachers for general or special education settings. However, with a growing shift toward inclusion, as well as a shortage of educators with training to teach all children, there is a need for teacher preparation programs to prepare all early childhood educators to support all children and engage all families. This article describes one institute of higher education's integrated program and the program's process to align coursework with both the "Professional Standards and Competencies for Early Childhood Educators" and "Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators." We do this by discussing (a) the landscape of teacher education and integrated programs, (b) one IHE's integrated program history, (c) our process for embedding standards, and (d) next steps.

The effects of instructing kindergarten students (five-year-old in their first year of public school) on patterning were tested. Up to nine students in each class were randomly assigned to three groups in each of six classes, i.e., as many as three from a class in each group. One group received instruction on complex patterns similar to those employed by other researchers with first graders. Another group was instructed in early literacy, and another in early mathematics. For each group, the experimental instruction was scheduled in a counterbalanced order for 15 minutes in the morning, five days per week for most of the school year. When tested in late May-early June, the children taught patterning scored significantly better on a test of patterning. There were no significant differences on tests of mathematics and early literacy. However, there were correlations between the children's patterning scores and some literacy scales.

To determine whether patterning instruction was as useful or more useful than other forms of instruction, kindergarten children (age five) were taught either patterning or early literacy or mathematics or social studies in matched sessions. Instruction was conducted in 15-minute sessions from November through mid-April. Posttests on patterning, mathematics, early literacy, and three executive functions showed that the children taught patterning became significantly better at patterning than those in the other instructional conditions. No differences were found between the children taught mathematics, early literacy, or social studies. Correlational analyses indicated that the relations of patterning ability, working memory, and inhibitory control to mathematics achievement were similar. Cognitive flexibility was not very strongly related to any other measure and the executive functions were relatively independent of each other for the children who were age five.

A test of the effectiveness of patterning instruction was conducted with 140 first-graders. First, 383 first-graders from 20 classes were screened on a patterning test. The eight in each class who scored worst were given individual 15-minute lessons on patterning or reading or mathematics or social studies three times weekly for a period of 6 1/2 months. Test results for 140 children still available in May showed that the children receiving patterning instruction were generally superior on a patterning test. They also scored significantly higher on the Woodcock-Johnson (W-J) III Mathematics Concepts Scale 18A than children who received mathematics, reading, or social studies lessons. On the W-J III Mathematics Concepts Scale 18B, children who received either patterning or mathematics instruction scored significantly higher than those who received social studies instruction. There were no significant differences on the W-J III Applied Problems Scale 10, nor on three W-J III reading scales. These results suggest that instruction on understanding patterns can substantially improve 1st-graders' understanding of mathematical concepts. Such outcomes may be specific to the sort of children, primarily minority children from diverse ethnic backgrounds, who were participants in this study. (Contains 3 tables.)

Background: Children ordinarily begin their formal education at the age when the great majority of them are capable of understanding the role of addition and subtraction in changing number. In determining critical differences they can apply the oddity principle--the first "pure" abstraction that children ever develop--understanding that when all but one item are alike on some dimension, it is the relation between items, not their absolute qualities, which determines which belongs to a different set, i.e. is "odd". They are also capable of inserting items into a unidimensional series, a form of abstraction which develops a bit later. Children slow to develop such abilities often experience difficulty understanding classroom instruction in the first year of school. Purpose: The purpose of the research was to teach children oddity, insertions and conservation and compare their subsequent literacy and numeracy with that of children taught literacy and numeracy directly. All children develop oddity, insertions and conservation through unstructured interaction with the environment, but some do so belatedly, after patterns of school failure have been established. Is it worthwhile to spend classroom time teaching these thinking abilities? This research was designed to test whether teaching them produced better academic achievement than equal time spent teaching academic material. Programme: Teachers can use a wide variety of common objects to teach in an efficient and structured way the abstractions 5 year olds ordinarily learn less efficiently in their daily lives. This method, called a "learning set" approach, is easily applied by teachers or assistants without the need for special training. Sample: The participants were culturally diverse 5 year olds, generally of low socio-economic status, enrolled in five urban schools. Students from 25 classrooms were screened to determine whether they already understood the concepts which were to be taught. The final sample had 82 boys and 74 girls. Fifty-two were Hispanic/Latino, 36 African American, 33 White US born, 21 Mideastern, 7 East African, 3 Asian Indian, 2 West African, and 2 East Asian. Design and methods: In an experimental design, the children were randomly assigned to one experimental and three control groups. The former were taught number conservation, the oddity principle, and how to insert objects into a series. One control group was taught numeracy: recognition and identification of numbers, counting by 1s, 5s, or 10s, and other aspects of numeracy. Another control group was taught literacy: upper and lower case letters, letter sounds, rhyming and blending. A third control group was taught social studies: family structure and activities, the major senses and body parts, community resources, mapping and citizenship. The instruction was conducted from October through February. In May and June, the children were tested on oddity, insertions, number conservation, literacy and numeracy. Numeracy was measured with the Woodcock-Johnson III and literacy with the "Stanford early school achievement test". Research instruments were used to measure the cognitive concepts. Results: The children taught the three thinking abilities outscored the control children on tests of these concepts. They surpassed the literacy control group in numeracy and matched it in literacy, surpassed the numeracy group in literacy while matching it in numeracy, and surpassed the social studies group in both. Conclusions: Small group lessons on the oddity principle, insertions into series and number conservation may benefit kindergartners who lack these concepts. Mastery of these abstractions may enable them to understand academic subject matter which they would otherwise have difficulty comprehending. (Contains 3 tables.)