Spring 2017 | Spotlight #1
MUSE Program at UC Berkeley: Re-Centering Teachers in Teacher Education
Situated at the University of California, Berkeley, is Multicultural Urban Secondary English, a program whose goal is to train preservice teachers to be asset-minded, advocacy-driven, and access-oriented in their approach to students’ literacy development within urban schools. This AAA framework draws from critical pedagogy in English education (Morrell, 2005), culturally-responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Gay 2010), and fluency with digital technologies as a central component of literacy education (New London Group 1996; Beach, 2011; Hicks & Turner, 2013). The framework guides decisions about courses and experiences throughout the two-year credential and Master’s program. What is crucial in bridging these concepts from theory to practice, though, is the integration of practitioners in the design phase, implementation, and iterations of research. That’s where the framework comes alive. And it’s the focus of this quarter’s Teacher x Research Spotlight.
Drawing from its 15-year legacy, the MUSE program is able to reach out to a robust network of teachers, academic coaches, and administrators who have interacted with the program. Program Director, Dr. Lanette Jimerson, saw an opportunity when she took over the program 2 years ago and thus along with Faculty Director Dr. Jabari Mahiri, initiated the redesign of the technology course. Rather than teaching technology as standalone content, the focus became integrating technological skills and habits of mind, such as malleability (Boykin & Noguera, 2011), media literacy (Thoman & Jolls, 2004), and learner disposition across literacy content and pedagogy. Additionally, the course includes several entry points to expose preservice teachers to the intricacies of developing and exercising technological pedagogical content knowledge through practitioner demonstrations (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Experienced practitioners are invited to guest lecture and enact their digital pedagogy for candidates. Teacher demonstrations aim to convey not only the methods but rationale of practitioners’ pedagogical interventions for a teacher audience (Lieberman & Wood, 2003). Preservice teachers assume the role of secondary students during the demonstrations and engage the lessons accordingly before debriefing the lessons as teacher candidates.
Over the two years the course has expanded to not only include practitioners demonstrations but to also include a recent graduate. In the current iteration of the technology course, an alumna from two years ago and a current full time high school classroom teacher, serves as a teaching assistant. She works alongside the course instructor, Cherise McBride—a doctoral student, co-facilitating portions of the course, collecting data, and consulting with preservice teachers on their final projects. Together, the instructor and assistant guide the teacher candidates through co-constructing the knowledge necessary to blend the theories presented in the course with the realities encountered in a) their student placements, b) the high school of the teaching assistant, and c) the classrooms where the course instructor has taught. That’s an intersection of ELD (English Language Development), urban, suburban, secondary-university, well-resourced, and under-resourced classrooms that come to bear on the teacher candidates’ formulations of translating theory into practice.
MUSE Program at UC Berkeley: Re-Centering Teachers in Teacher Education
Situated at the University of California, Berkeley, is Multicultural Urban Secondary English, a program whose goal is to train preservice teachers to be asset-minded, advocacy-driven, and access-oriented in their approach to students’ literacy development within urban schools. This AAA framework draws from critical pedagogy in English education (Morrell, 2005), culturally-responsive pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Gay 2010), and fluency with digital technologies as a central component of literacy education (New London Group 1996; Beach, 2011; Hicks & Turner, 2013). The framework guides decisions about courses and experiences throughout the two-year credential and Master’s program. What is crucial in bridging these concepts from theory to practice, though, is the integration of practitioners in the design phase, implementation, and iterations of research. That’s where the framework comes alive. And it’s the focus of this quarter’s Teacher x Research Spotlight.
Drawing from its 15-year legacy, the MUSE program is able to reach out to a robust network of teachers, academic coaches, and administrators who have interacted with the program. Program Director, Dr. Lanette Jimerson, saw an opportunity when she took over the program 2 years ago and thus along with Faculty Director Dr. Jabari Mahiri, initiated the redesign of the technology course. Rather than teaching technology as standalone content, the focus became integrating technological skills and habits of mind, such as malleability (Boykin & Noguera, 2011), media literacy (Thoman & Jolls, 2004), and learner disposition across literacy content and pedagogy. Additionally, the course includes several entry points to expose preservice teachers to the intricacies of developing and exercising technological pedagogical content knowledge through practitioner demonstrations (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Experienced practitioners are invited to guest lecture and enact their digital pedagogy for candidates. Teacher demonstrations aim to convey not only the methods but rationale of practitioners’ pedagogical interventions for a teacher audience (Lieberman & Wood, 2003). Preservice teachers assume the role of secondary students during the demonstrations and engage the lessons accordingly before debriefing the lessons as teacher candidates.
Over the two years the course has expanded to not only include practitioners demonstrations but to also include a recent graduate. In the current iteration of the technology course, an alumna from two years ago and a current full time high school classroom teacher, serves as a teaching assistant. She works alongside the course instructor, Cherise McBride—a doctoral student, co-facilitating portions of the course, collecting data, and consulting with preservice teachers on their final projects. Together, the instructor and assistant guide the teacher candidates through co-constructing the knowledge necessary to blend the theories presented in the course with the realities encountered in a) their student placements, b) the high school of the teaching assistant, and c) the classrooms where the course instructor has taught. That’s an intersection of ELD (English Language Development), urban, suburban, secondary-university, well-resourced, and under-resourced classrooms that come to bear on the teacher candidates’ formulations of translating theory into practice.
Between the opportunity to delve into theoretical constructs, ask critical questions, and compare expertise, the instructors and practitioners are hoping to expand the boundaries of teacher education. It’s a model that offers pre-service teachers a deep well from which to draw as they imagine their roles as teachers--not just as disciplinarians or presenters of curriculum, but design thinkers, early adopters on the technology adoption cycle (Rogers, 1996), scholars, and activists--ultimately responsible for creative interventions in response to their students’ social and emotional needs alongside their academic ones.
"It's a practice and research orientation that offers a depth of purpose and challenge commensurate with the variety presented by the profession."
Initial findings evidence that the redesign is proving fruitful. So far, preservice teachers who have completed the redesigned course have gone on to perform as teacher leaders in terms of technology integration within literacy development. One acquired a classroom set of Chromebooks for the entire department by committing to and completing an optional digital literacy training. Another credential candidate successfully petitioned school administrators to adopt a school hashtag for use on the 2000+ student campus.Yet another began to lead technology-related professional development for colleagues, despite being a first year teacher.
In these ways, alumni of the MUSE program offer unique contributions to their professional environments, an outcome that aligns with the program director’s vision of the role of teacher education. Dr. Lanette Jimerson offered this insight: “As a leading public university, UC Berkeley is situated to train and prepare the next generation of teachers to have an impact on both their local and extended contexts. As a research university, our work bears implications for the field, secondary students and their families.
It’s a practice and research orientation that offers a depth of purpose and challenge commensurate with the variety presented by the profession. The bottom line remains: teachers thrive when presented with conceptualizations and models of teaching that are relevant and responsive to the needs of the diverse environments that are taking shape before us; models that embrace change as an opportunity for learning.
In these ways, alumni of the MUSE program offer unique contributions to their professional environments, an outcome that aligns with the program director’s vision of the role of teacher education. Dr. Lanette Jimerson offered this insight: “As a leading public university, UC Berkeley is situated to train and prepare the next generation of teachers to have an impact on both their local and extended contexts. As a research university, our work bears implications for the field, secondary students and their families.
It’s a practice and research orientation that offers a depth of purpose and challenge commensurate with the variety presented by the profession. The bottom line remains: teachers thrive when presented with conceptualizations and models of teaching that are relevant and responsive to the needs of the diverse environments that are taking shape before us; models that embrace change as an opportunity for learning.
References
Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300-314.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching (Vol. 35). Teachers college press.
Mahiri, J. (2011). Digital tools in urban schools: Mediating a remix of learning. University of Michigan Press.
McBride, C., Jimerson, L., Mahiri, J., (Forthcoming). We don’t do this work alone: How practitioner demos develop digital praxis in teacher education. In Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an era of Change. A. Lopez and E. Olan, (Eds.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Morrell, E. (2005). Critical English education. English Education, 37(4), 312-321.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
educational review, 66(1), 60-93.
Thoman, E., & Jolls, T. (2004). Media literacy—A national priority for a changing world. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 18-29.
Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. ASCD.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300-314.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching (Vol. 35). Teachers college press.
Mahiri, J. (2011). Digital tools in urban schools: Mediating a remix of learning. University of Michigan Press.
McBride, C., Jimerson, L., Mahiri, J., (Forthcoming). We don’t do this work alone: How practitioner demos develop digital praxis in teacher education. In Transformative Pedagogies for Teacher Education: Moving Towards Critical Praxis in an era of Change. A. Lopez and E. Olan, (Eds.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Morrell, E. (2005). Critical English education. English Education, 37(4), 312-321.
The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
educational review, 66(1), 60-93.
Thoman, E., & Jolls, T. (2004). Media literacy—A national priority for a changing world. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 18-29.