Georgia Association of Teacher Educators Vol.34 Issue 2

Table of Contents

Letter from the President of GATE Page iii

By Natasha Ramsay-Jordan

Letter from the Editor-in-Chief of GATEways to Teacher Education Page v By Forrest R. Parker III

Removing the Obstacles: Educator Perceptions and Practices of an Alternative Page 1 Education Model

By Joan Ferguson Whitehead, Gwen Scott Ruttencutter, and Nicole P. Gunn

Wait! You’re Both Teaching Us?!: Co-teaching in Higher Education Page 17

By Heather M. Huling, Kathleen Crawford, and Catherine Howerter

Friend or Foe: Pre-service Teachers' Perceptions of AI Page 40

By Rebecca Cooper, Tashana Howse, Samantha Mrstik, and Joye Cauthen

Towards Students’ Understanding of Doctoral Retention: A Chutes and Page 59 Ladders Approach

By Jennifer M Lovelace

Examining Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives of Equity-Based Page 93 Instruction in Mathematics

By Cliff Chestnutt and Andrea Crenshaw

Navigating Uncertainty: Using Relational Leadership to Guide Page 108 Teacher Preparation Faculty and Staff Through an Unknown Era

By Joseph R. Jones and Gayle Ramirez

Resource Section:

College Assistance Migrant Program Handbook Page 119

By Rosalyn Martinez and James Martinez

A Letter from the President of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators (GATE)

Dear Gateways to Teacher Education readers and contributors,

Welcome to the Fall 2025 issue of the Gateways to Teacher Education journal, the official journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators (GATE). As an affiliate of the National Association of Teacher Educators, the GATE organization works diligently to improve education in the state of Georgia, empower teachers, and enhance the teaching and learning experiences within educator preparation programs across the state. As GATE’s president, I am most grateful for your ongoing efforts to help us deliver timely, informative, and meaningful content to the GATE community, members, and readers. I am especially pleased that our readership and reach continue to grow, greater than ever, with this and other journal entries readily available online.

Like each year past, we are committed to sharing diverse perspectives on education, highlighting the breadth and scope of critical issues impacting education. From confronting how preservice teachers navigate AI to a focus on equity-based instruction, this current issue of GATEways includes works focused on student retention, school reform models to address graduation rates, and relational leadership as a guide for preparation programs. I hope each article encourages further discussions and collaborations across disciplines.

In addition to this and other research publications in the Gateways to Education journal, GATE’s social media pages, including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram, continue to expand, and we hope this can provide additional platforms to share information and news of interest to our GATE community. I invite you to like, follow, and share educational news and content on each of our social media platforms.

Let me also take this opportunity to extend a heartwarming invitation to you and your colleagues to register and attend GATE’s upcoming 2026 Conference to be held on St. Simon’s Island in Sea Palms on February 19 and 20, 2026. The theme for this year’s conference is GATE Strong: Shaping the Future of Education Together. Whether you are new to GATE or a regular conference attendee, we would love for you to join us at our annual conference in Sea Palms and hear about the great work being done within the various Georgia institutions of higher education, and also engage in dialogue with K-12 educators. 2026 is a great year to hear about the wonderful work you are doing and engage in conversations about how we can all take our ambitions to the next level. Exciting!

Notably, GATE’s achievement could not have been possible without the continuous support, interest, and contributions of its members and community, the efforts of the editor, and the executive committee. On behalf of our entire team, we thank you for all you have done and continue to do for GATE. We hope that this journal, and its subsequent editions, can play some role in your scholarly journey and that you consider becoming part of GATEways' legacy by submitting your manuscript for publication.

Best,

Dr. Natasha Ramsay Jordan President, Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

(GATE)

Message from the Editor-in-Chief of the GATEways to Teacher Education Journal

Dear Readers,

It is a joy to greet you again as Editor-inChief of GATEways to Teacher Education, the peer-reviewed journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators (GATE). Now entering my second year in this role, I remain deeply grateful for the trust of our community and inspired by the quality, relevance, and heart our authors and reviewers bring to the work of preparing excellent, equity-centered educators.

This issue continues our commitment to publishing scholarship that is both rigorous and useful in practice. You’ll find studies that illuminate persistent challenges, descriptive accounts of innovative coursework and field experiences, and reflective pieces that stretch our thinking about what teacher education can—and should—be. I hope you will read, cite, and share these articles with colleagues, candidates, and partners in your local schools.

Over the past year, we have focused on three priorities:

1. Clarity and Support for Authors. We’ve refined our author guidelines, added template resources, and strengthened developmental feedback for emerging scholars and practitioner-authors.

2. Launching an Editorial Board. We are establishing a diverse, service-oriented Editorial Board to guide journal strategy, uphold scholarly standards, and mentor authors and reviewers. Board members

will help shape special topics and support timely, transparent editorial processes. We invite nominations and self-nominations from across our P–20 community.

3. Timely, Transparent Processes. We have tightened editorial timelines and improved communication at each stage of review and revision.

Looking ahead, we welcome submissions that advance the conversation in teacher education empirical studies, program innovations, partnerships with P–12 schools, policy analyses, and practitioner scholarship grounded in evidence. We are especially interested in work that centers diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging; field-based learning; effective assessment of candidate competencies; technologyenhanced teaching and mentoring; and strategies that sustain the educator workforce.

If you are interested in serving as a reviewer—or proposing a themed section or special issue—please reach out. GATEways thrives because of educators who are willing to read generously, offer candid and caring critique, and champion scholarship that lifts both research and practice.

GATEWAYS

My sincere thanks to our authors for entrusting us with your work; to our reviewers for your faithful labor; to Vicki Pheil, the copy editor for the GATEways Journal; and to the leadership of GATE for steadfast support of this journal’s mission.

Thank you for being part of the GATEways community. I look forward to the scholarship and dialogue ahead.

Cheers,

Forrest R. Parker III, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief, GATEways to Teacher Education

Removing the Obstacles: Educator Perceptions and Practices of an Alternative Education Model

Joan Ferguson Whitehead,1 Gwen Scott Ruttencutter,2 & Nicole P. Gunn 2

1 Independent Researcher

2 Valdosta State University

ABSTRACT

Although access to education in the United States has improved for students across race, class, ethnicity, and gender, not all demographic groups’ progress has kept pace with access (Mujic, 2015). In the past two decades, more high school dropouts have been enrolled in public schools serving predominantly African American and Hispanic students of low socioeconomic status (Mujic, 2015). This portraiture study involved interviewing and observing six participants in an established nontraditional educational setting. This study examined the model of restorative justice practices at The Academy, a nontraditional high school in an urban southeastern RESA district of Georgia, through the voices of six educators. National, state, and local education systems may benefit from these findings by identifying mechanisms and practices that can help support graduation rates across the country. School districts and individual schools may also benefit from these findings and adopt the strategies employed to support the graduation rates for the students they serve.

Removing the Obstacles: Educator Perceptions and Practices of an Alternative Education Model

Across the United States, schools have expanded access to education, yet deep inequities remain. Nowhere are these inequities more visible than in urban districts serving Black and Brown students from low-income families. Although educational access has improved, opportunity has not been evenly distributed. Persistent gaps in graduation rates, college readiness, and life outcomes are not randomly occurring; rather, these outcomes are linked to systemic racism, poverty, and exclusionary practices that continue to disenfranchise students of color (LadsonBillings & Tate, 1995; Stevenson, 2019).

For teacher educators, these inequities are not abstract. They shape the daily realities of preservice and in-service teachers who are called to work in diverse schools, often without the preparation of frameworks to dismantle the structures that harm students. The problem is not simply academic underachievement, but the broader cycle of educational disenfranchisement leading toward mass incarceration, commonly referred to as the school-toprison pipeline (Balfanz, 2007; USDOE OCR, 2014). To disrupt this cycle, teacher professional development programs must highlight models of liberatory education approaches that affirm student identities, build authentic relationships, and resist

deficit narratives (Freire, 1970; hooks, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995).

This study examined the model of restorative justice practices at The Academy, a nontraditional high school in an urban southeastern RESA district of Georgia, through the voices of six educators. Using portraiture methodology, the study highlights how these educators employ relational, culturally sustaining, restorative practices that challenge systemic inequities and offer pathways toward graduation. The findings speak not only to alternative schools but also to all teacher educators and practitioners seeking to cultivate liberatory spaces for historically marginalized youth.

To understand the importance of this model of restorative justice, this study drew on three interconnected frameworks: Critical Race Theory (CRT), Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT), and the school-to-prison pipeline. CRT offers a perspective for analyzing how race and racism remain woven into educational systems, often influencing which students receive support and which students face discipline (LadsonBillings & Tate, 1995). Through counterstorytelling and critique of so-called raceneutral policies, CRT helps expose how systems continue to marginalize students of color. RCT complements this by highlighting the transformative potential of relationships. Grounded in the idea that growth occurs through connection rather than isolation, RCT provides a framework for understanding how affirming, empathetic relationships can foster resilience, particularly for students who have been marginalized by traditional schooling (Comstock et al., 2008; Miller, 1976).

Finally, the school-to-prison pipeline frames the broader social consequences of exclusionary school practices. This

framework draws attention to the disproportionate use of suspension, expulsion, and law enforcement in schools serving Black and Brown youth, and how these practices intersect with race, poverty, and disability to funnel students out of education and into incarceration (Balfanz, 2007; USDOE OCR, 2014). Together, these frameworks guide this portraiture study that focused on the voices of six educators working within The Academy. Their stories provide insight into how relational practices, cultural awareness, and structural critique can coalesce to transform a school, creating not just a place of learning but also a space of possibility.

Purpose

This study examined how educators at The Academy, a nontraditional high school in an urban southeastern RESA district, perceived and implemented an alternative education model aimed at supporting graduation rates for African American and Hispanic students from low-income backgrounds. Approved by the State Department of Education and aligned with the Georgia Performance Standards (GaDOE, 2020), The Academy implemented an alternative curriculum model that incorporates restorative practices and flexible pathways, allowing students to work toward graduation requirements at their own pace. Student progress was assessed through the Georgia Milestones End-of-Course exams. Although a four- year graduation plan was encouraged, individualized pathways allowed for additional time and faculty support when necessary.

Research Questions

1. What are the life and career experiences of educators who implemented a nontraditional high school reform model

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

to improve graduation rates at an identified urban school district serving predominantly African American and Hispanic students from low-income families?

2. What strategies did educators use to implement a nontraditional high school reform model to improve graduation rates in this context?

3. What were the barriers, if any, educators encountered while implementing this model?

Theoretical Frameworks

To explore how an alternative curriculum model might break these patterns, we used interconnected frameworks: Critical Race Theory (CRT), Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT), and the larger context of the school-to-prison pipeline.

Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) serves as a powerful lens for examining how race and racism are not relics of the past but are deeply embedded in the fabric of educational systems. CRT challenges scholars and practitioners to interrogate race-neutral policies and practices that often sustain systemic inequities, and it centers counter-storytelling as a tool for disrupting dominant narratives. This framework helped investigate how the experiences of students of color, and the educators who serve them, are shaped by structures that normalize White cultural values while marginalizing other cultures’ values.

Relational-Cultural Theory (Comstock et al., 2008; Miller, 1976) offers a complementary lens, emphasizing the transformative power of relationships.

Although traditional models of development often celebrate autonomy and independence, RCT recognizes that growth occurs in and through connection. This framework is particularly relevant in educational settings where students may arrive carrying the weight of trauma, marginalization, or mistrust. RCT affirms the importance of educators who build mutual, empathic, and growth-fostering relationships to counteract disconnection and alienation.

Ultimately, the school-to-prison pipeline offers a crucial context for understanding why alternative education is important. This term describes the systemic pattern in which students, particularly those who are Black, Brown, poor, or disabled, are pushed out of school through exclusionary discipline policies and into the juvenile or criminal justice system (Balfanz, 2007; USDOE OCR, 2014). These patterns are exacerbated by zero-tolerance policies and school policing practices that criminalize behavior rather than address underlying needs. In this study, the alternative curriculum model is considered not simply as a programmatic intervention, but as a potential site of resistance to these broader structural forces.

Literature Review

Understanding the landscape of nontraditional high school education for marginalized youth necessitates a thorough examination of the historical, cultural, and systemic factors that have shaped traditional schooling in the United States. Since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), education policy and practice have promised equity yet consistently failed to deliver just outcomes for Black and Brown students. Although access to education has expanded, deeply ingrained disparities in performance, discipline, and opportunity persist. The literature suggested that these gaps are not

merely academic; they are structural, societal, and deeply personal, reflecting a system that was never designed with all students in mind.

Mass Incarceration and Educational Disenfranchisement

The backdrop of this study is a system in which exclusionary school practices mirror broader patterns of criminalization. Black and Brown students are disproportionately suspended, expelled, and referred to law enforcement, often for behaviors that draw minimal discipline for White peers (USDOE OCR, 2014). These patterns accelerate school disengagement and feed into the nation’s unprecedented incarceration rates (Stevenson, 2019). Nearly 70% of incarcerated youth suffer from mental illness, yet few receive adequate care (Goncalves et al., 2016).

For teacher educators, this reality underscores the urgency of preparing future teachers who can recognize the signs of trauma, resist punitive reflexes, and employ restorative practices. Teacher education must confront not only curriculum and instruction but also the carceral logics embedded in schooling that push students out rather than pull them in.

Historical and Structural Barriers

The inequities shaping today’s schools are not new. Since Brown v. Board of Education (1954), education policy has promised equity yet consistently failed to deliver just outcomes for Black and Brown students. Schools have too often privileged Eurocentric values and pathologized students of color (Roediger, 2005; Wells, 2018). African American boys have been misdiagnosed, misplaced, and misunderstood disproportionately suspended

and tracked into special education (Tatum, 2005).

For teacher preparation programs, these histories remind us that preservice teachers enter classrooms shaped by narratives that frame some students as deficient. Without explicit training in culturally sustaining pedagogy, educators risk perpetuating those same biases.

The Promise and Power of Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory offers one way to address these inequities by exposing how racism remains embedded in education. CRT centers counter-storytelling, highlighting the lived experiences of students and educators of color as valid sources of knowledge (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). In teacher education, CRT challenges future teachers to interrogate race-neutral policies, recognize microaggressions (Pierce, 1970), and resist deficit-based thinking. By elevating counternarratives, CRT prepares educators to disrupt racialized structures in their own practice.

Relational-Cultural Theory and the Power of Connection

Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT) complements CRT by emphasizing the role of authentic relationships in human growth. Rather than valuing independence and autonomy above all, RCT asserts that development occurs through connection, empathy, and mutuality (Comstock et al., 2008; Miller, 1976). For many marginalized students, past experiences with schools have fostered mistrust and disconnection. RCT highlights the importance of teachers who can build trust, validate student identities, and foster resilience through connection. In teacher education, this means equipping

preservice teachers with relational competencies alongside content knowledge.

Toward Liberatory Education

Together, CRT and RCT point toward liberatory education, a pedagogy that resists oppression, affirms cultural identity, and restores dignity. Freire (1970) described liberation as education that empowers learners to read both the word and the world. Bell hooks called for an “engaged pedagogy” rooted in care and justice. Ladson-Billings (1995) argued that culturally relevant pedagogy prepares students to succeed academically while affirming cultural competence and consciousness.

For teacher educators, the call is to prepare teachers to deliver standards-based instruction and to create classrooms where marginalized students feel seen, valued and empowered. Alternative modules like The Academy provide real-world laboratories of liberatory practice, offering insights into how teachers can resist deficit narratives and reimagine education as a site of possibility.

Method

This qualitative study employed portraiture methodology (LawrenceLightfoot & Davis, 1997) to capture educator’s lived experiences and practices at The Academy, a nontraditional high school designed for students at risk of dropping out. Portraiture was selected because it blends empirical rigor with narrative sensibility, enabling the researcher to document both the struggle and strengths of educational practice. Portraiture, as described by Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997) is marked by five defining hallmarks. The first is the aesthetic whole, which requires the researcher to weave the account

with balance, rhythm and coherence so that the final narrative reads as artful and empirical. The second is goodness, a deliberate search for strengths and possibilities while acknowledging tensions and contradictions that give the story depth. A third hallmark is voice, where participants’ words are not reduced to fragments but presented in extended quotes and story-like vignettes that allow their perspective to resonate. The fourth is relationship, which purports that portraits are co-constructed; they emerge from trust, reciprocity, and the shared effort between researcher and participant. Finally, portraiture values emergent themes, encouraging meaning to surface through inductive analysis rather than through categories imposed by the researcher. Together, these hallmarks guide the portraitist in creating narratives that are authentic and deeply human.

In this study, these features guided the design and analysis. “Goodness” was shown in how educators described resilience and transformation, not just challenges. “Voice” was preserved through direct quotes and crafted vignettes. The “aesthetic whole” was achieved by weaving individual portraits with cross-case themes. Relationships of trust built during interviews shaped the candor of responses, and emergent themes were developed through multiple analytic cycles.

Setting

The study took place in a Title I school district in urban Georgia, where 100% of students qualify as low-income (Georgia Department of Education, 2020). The district enrolls approximately 23,000 students from Pre-K through 12th grade. Its demographics are 73% African American, 18% White, 5% Hispanic, 2% Asian/Pacific

GATEWAYS

Islander, and 2% multiracial. Historically, the district has faced persistent challenges, including graduation rates below the state average and college and career readiness rates among the lowest in Georgia.

The Academy, the site of this study, serves middle and high school students referred from six feeder schools. It offers a blended learning model that integrates faceto-face instruction, digital platforms, and peer collaboration. Students follow personalized learning plans tailored to their goals and needs. The school also uses the Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) framework to foster a safe, supportive climate that emphasizes prosocial behavior.

Staff at The Academy includes 28 educators: 22 African American, five White, and one Asian. Their educational credentials range from bachelor's degrees (36%) and master's degrees (36%) to education specialists (21%) and doctoral degrees (7%) (BCSD, 2021). Staff effectiveness is evaluated using the state's Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) and Leader Keys Effectiveness System (LKES).

Since its founding in 2014, The Academy has expanded its offerings to include a Twilight program, Personalized Learning Center (PLC), and Youth Build program, supporting students in smallgroup, community-focused environments. These initiatives reflect the school’s commitment to equity, access, and belonging.

Participants

Purposeful sampling was used to identify six educators with deep experience in The Academy model. Participants included the principal/director, the Positive

Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS) coach, media/technology teacher, Edgenuity coordinator, math teacher, and social worker. All had at least three years of experience in the model and consistently strong performance evaluations.

Each participant was invited through email and personal contact from the lead author. All six consented to participate. Pseudonyms were assigned to protect identities.

Data Collection

Data collection occurred over a fourmonth period during the 2021-2022 school year. Sources included:

• Interviews: Each participant was interviewed two times, using a semistructured interview, ranging from 45-75 minutes, conducted in person or via secure video conferencing.

• Observations: Eight on-site visits totaling approximately 20 hours. Observations included classroom walkthroughs, PBIS meetings, and informal interactions in hallways and common areas.

• Artifacts: School documentations, wall displays, bulletin boards, student work samples, and digital learning platforms.

• Researcher memos: Reflexive notes captured after each interaction, documenting impressions, analytic insights, and positionality considerations.

Interviews explored participants' professional histories, instructional philosophies, and experiences working with nontraditional students. Observations

focused on classroom culture, relational practices, and evidence of restorative and culturally sustaining pedagogy.

Data Analysis

Analysis followed a thematic cycle consistent with portraiture. In the first cycle of coding, in vivo coding was used to generate codes directly from the participants' own language (Saldana, 2013). During the second cycle, these codes were organized into axial categories that emphasized recurring patterns as well as important contradictions. From there, the categories were refined into themes that aligned with the study’s guiding frameworks of Critical Race Theory, Relational-Cultural Theory, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Once themes were established, individual vignettes were crafted for each educator, carefully highlighting their voices, the context of their work, and their distinctive contributions. Finally, the six portraits were woven together into a cross-case narrative, creating what Lawrence-Lightfoot and Davis (1997) have described as the “aesthetic whole.”

Analytic memoing was used throughout to track decisions and capture reflexivity. Negative case analysis was employed to ensure that disconfirming evidence was considered, such as examples where restorative practices did not resolve conflict. NVivo software (Version 12) was used to manage data.

Researcher Positionality

The lead author is a Black woman with professional experience in urban education. Her identity shaped both access and interpretation. Shared cultural background and professional knowledge facilitated rapport with participants, while also

requiring reflexivity to guard against overidentification. Memoing and peer debriefing were used to check assumptions and maintain analytic transparency.

The second author, who served as dissertation chair in the latter stages, is a white Jewish woman who has taught preservice teachers about cross-cultural awareness, culturally responsive pedagogies, and disrupting the school-to-prison pipelines.

The third author, who served as a dissertation reader, is a Black woman whose teaching and mentoring of diverse student populations inform her equity-centered perspective. Her lived experiences as a woman of color in higher education and commitment to critical qualitative inquiry shaped her contributions in aligning the conceptual framework with the findings and supporting reflexive dialogue throughout the analysis.

Trustworthiness and Credibility

The study incorporated several strategies designated to enhance credibility and trustworthiness. The first author engaged in continual reflexivity to identify and interrogate her subjectivities, while memoing about these subjectivities. Next, the first author engaged in a bracketing interview before initiating data collection. The first author also maintained an audit trail documenting each step of data collection and the analytical decisions that shaped the analysis. After data collection, the first author used member checking by sending each participant their respective transcript for review and revision, as the participant deemed necessary; then, the first author sent each participant their respective portrait for review and incorporated any feedback to confirm the accuracy of the

accounts. In addition, drafts of the findings were shared with two colleagues experienced in qualitative research, providing opportunities for peer debriefing and external insight. Finally, negative case analysis was employed deliberately including counterexamples and moments where themes did not fit neatly, which added nuance and complexity to the overall interpretation.

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Valdosta State University Institutional Review Board and the participating district’s research office. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Pseudonyms were assigned, and data were stored securely on passwordprotected devices. Care was taken to present portraits in ways that honored participants’ voices while safeguarding confidentiality.

Results

Employing a portraiture methodology (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997), this study examined how educators at The Academy, a nontraditional high school in an urban southeastern RESA district, perceived and implemented an alternative education model aimed at supporting graduation rates for African American and Hispanic students from low-income backgrounds While each educator brought a distinct background and lens to their practice, they collectively envisioned education as a vehicle for healing, liberation, and justice.

Educator Portraits

Below we present a portrait for each participant.

Dr. Martin (Principal/Director)

Dr. Martin spoke with the quiet confidence of someone who had seen too many young people slip through the cracks. As principal, he framed his role less as enforcing rules and more as “building bridges back to trust.” He described attending student court hearings, making late-night phone calls to parents, and even driving students to interviews. “Leadership here is not about a title,” he said. “It’s about showing up when others don’t.” For him, success meant watching a student who once avoided school walk across the graduation state with a smile.

Ms. Daniels (PBIS Coach)

Ms. Daniels carried an energy that filled the room. She was the first to remind students that “behavior is communication” and the last to dismiss a child for acting out. Her role as PBIS coach meant she often mediated conflict, but she approached each situation with patience. “We don’t punish first; we listen,” she explained. She shared how restorative circles transformed a tense fight into an opportunity for peer accountability. While she admitted that not every circle ended neatly, she insisted that the process taught students to see themselves as part of a community that valued their voices.

Mr. Thompson (Media/Technology Teacher)

In Mr. Thompson’s classroom, technology was a tool for storytelling, not just skill practice. He encouraged students to use digital platforms to create projects that reflected their lives. “When they see themselves on screen, they realize their story has weight,” he said. One of his proudest moments was watching a student produce a short film about her neighborhood that was later showcased at a community event.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Though he acknowledged the challenges of limited resources and outdated equipment, he believed that giving students creative agency was one of the most powerful motivators for learning.

Ms. Lopez (Edgenuity Coordinator)

Ms. Lopez balanced structure with empathy as she guided students through online coursework. She often sat side by side with students, explaining a concept, then stepping back to let them regain confidence. “I remind them this isn’t about rushing, it’s about finishing,” she explained. Many of her students had been told they were behind, but she reframed pacing as personal progress. For her, the moment of pride came not in test scores but in a student’s realization that “I can do this.” That shift in mindset, she believed, was the true foundation for graduation.

Mr. Carter (Math Teacher)

Mr. Carter understood the weight math carried as both a gatekeeper and a fear for many students. “They come in already convinced they can’t,” he said. His approach was to dismantle that fear by breaking problems into small, meaningful steps and celebrating incremental victories. He often told students, “Math is just another language, and you already speak more than one.” His classroom became a place where mistakes were reframed as practice. Still, he acknowledged the frustration of balancing test preparation with relational teaching, a tension he navigated daily with persistence and humor.

Ms. Green (Social Worker)

For Ms. Green, the role of social worker meant far more than connecting students to services. She described herself as “the

listener in the gaps,” someone who caught stories others might miss. She helped students navigate homelessness, food insecurity, and family conflict, yet she never saw them as defined by those challenges. “They are resilient in ways most adults wouldn’t survive,” she reflected. She often sat with students in silence, offering presence rather than answers. For her, the most liberating act was reminding students that they were more than their circumstances and worthy of futures filled with possibility.

These portraits reflect the unique perspectives of each educator and their shared belief that students deserve affirmation, opportunity, and care. Taken together, their voices form the foundation for cross-case themes that emerged from the data.

Key Themes

We identified the following themes from the data:

From Hopeless to Hopeful: Redefining Success through Restorative Practice –

Educators described moving away from punitive discipline and toward restorative practices that emphasized care, accountability, and growth.

Disruptive Deficit Narratives – Teachers actively challenged deficit views of alternative school students, affirming their brilliance, resilience, and potential.

Centering Student Voice and Identity –

Participants highlighted the importance of culturally relevant lessons and opportunities for students to share their stories, identities, and agency.

Educators as Transformational Leaders –Staff emphasized that their work extended

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

beyond academics to include advocacy, mentorship, and systemic change.

Cross-Case Themes

Through analysis of the six educator portraits, four central themes were constructed to reflect the values, strategies, and philosophies guiding their work at The Academy. These themes demonstrate how educators responded to student needs while

also challenging systemic injustices embedded in traditional educational structures. Each theme is closely aligned with the study’s conceptual framework, comprising Critical Race Theory (CRT), Relational-Cultural Theory (RCT), and the school-to-prison pipeline, which together shaped both the analysis and the attitude of the school community.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Theme Definition Participant Quote Framework/RQ Link

From Hopeless to Hopeful: Redefining Success through Restorative Practice

Educators shifted away from punitive discipline toward restorative practices that emphasized care, accountability, and growth.

“We don’t suspend first. We sit down, talk, and ask what’s really going on. Nine times out of ten, it’s something deeper.”

RQ2 (Strategies): Illustrates how educators implemented relational practices. RCT: Connection and empathy fostered resilience. Pipeline: Disrupts exclusionary practices leading to incarceration.

Disruptive Deficit Narratives

Centering Student Voice and Identity

Teachers challenged dominant views that framed alternative school students as deficient, instead affirming their brilliance and potential.

Educators designed culturally relevant lessons and created opportunities for students to express their stories, identities and agency.

Educators as Transformational Leaders

Staff saw their role as extending beyond academics to include advocacy, mentorship, and systemic change.

“These are not throwaway kids. They’re some of the smartest, most intuitive learners I’ve ever met.”

“When they write about their lives, they start to see that their stories matter.”

“I’m not just a math teacher.

I’m a mentor, a counselor, a lifeline some days.”

RQ3(Barriers/Challenges):

Pushback against systemic deficit framing. CRT: Counterstorytelling to resist racialized assumptions.

RQ2 (Strategies): Shows how pedagogy affirms cultural identity. CRT + RCT: Culturally sustaining and relational approaches support liberatory education.

RQ1 (Experiences):

Demonstrates how educators perceive their roles. CRT + RCT + Pipeline: Educators resist structural neglect through radical care and advocacy.

From Hopeless to Hopeful: Redefining Success through Restorative Practice

At The Academy, success was not measured by test scores or rigid compliance, but by growth in emotional, relational, and academic areas. Educators actively worked to shift students away from punitive cycles and toward practices rooted in care, reflection, and accountability. Their use of restorative frameworks emphasized understanding of the roots of student behavior rather than defaulting to exclusion.

Disrupting Deficit Narratives

Educators at The Academy made a deliberate effort to push back against dominant narratives that frame alternative education as a place for students who are broken, unruly, or incapable. Instead, they described their students as brilliant, creative, and full of promise. They refused to let past labels or academic histories dictate students’ potential.

Centering Student Voice and Identity

Empowering students to speak their truths and see themselves reflected in their learning was a cornerstone of practice at The Academy. Educators took intentional steps to affirm student identity and create space for student agency. Lessons were personalized, culturally relevant, and often co-designed with students themselves.

Educators as Transformational Leaders

Participants consistently described their work as extending beyond the classroom. They served as mentors, case managers, liaisons, and advocates, building bridges between students and the institutions that so often failed them. Their leadership was grounded in proximity and a refusal to accept educational neglect as inevitable.

Discussion

The findings shared from this study illuminate how educators at The Academy conceptualized their roles, implemented practice, and challenged dominant narratives within alternative education. Their responses to the needs of marginalized youth were not only personal and pedagogical, but also deeply political. In addressing the three research questions, these educators positioned themselves at the intersection of care, resistance, and transformation, underscoring what it means to lead with both strategy and heart.

Reimagining the Educator’s Role: Advocacy, Restoration, and Relational Presence

In response to the first research question, which explores how educators perceive their roles in supporting students’ academic and personal growth, participants consistently described themselves as more than just instructors. They saw themselves as advocates, mentors, and stabilizers—adults who reliably showed up in students’ lives to affirm their worth, listen without judgment, and provide pathways back to trust. This aligns with the principles of RelationalCultural Theory, emphasizing mutual empathy and emotional attunement as essential to learning (Comstock et al., 2008; Miller, 1976).

Educators made it clear that emotional safety was not a luxury but a prerequisite for academic success. They met students where they were, academically, socially, and emotionally, recognizing that many carried trauma from past schooling experiences, poverty, or systemic neglect. These practices align with the trauma-informed approaches advocated by Souers and Hall (2016) and respond to what McGee and Stovall (2015)

GATEWAYS TO

have identified as the racial traumas produced when students are forced to navigate systems designed without them in mind.

Within a Critical Race Theory framework, these educators embodied what Dixson et al. (2005) called a “ground-level resistance,” using their daily interactions to interrupt deficit narratives and rehumanize students often pathologized in mainstream educational discourse.

Cultivating a Culture of Connection: Relational Structures as Resistance

The second research question inquired about how educators foster a positive school culture. At The Academy, this culture was not accidental; it was intentionally designed through structures that emphasized connection, care, and shared accountability. Restorative circles replaced punitive discipline. Personalized learning plans honored students’ unique journeys. Regular data meetings allowed staff to reflect, adjust, and respond collaboratively. And emotionally safe classrooms offered spaces where students could be seen and heard.

These practices reflect the core commitments of Relational-Cultural Theory, which frames growth as a product of connection, not control. In contrast to the zero-tolerance policies critiqued by Balfanz (2007) and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2014), educators at The Academy approached conflict as an opportunity to build rather than break relationships. This was not just a matter of tone; rather this was a deliberate rejection of the carceral logics embedded in traditional school discipline policies. Educators leveraged these relational strategies to resist the punitive cultures that dominate many alternative schools. Their

classrooms became spaces of belonging, coregulation, and cultural affirmation, aligning with what Ladson-Billings (1995) described as culturally relevant pedagogy rooted in justice and joy.

Reframing the Narrative: Challenging Myths of Deficiency

In response to the third research question, regarding how educators challenge dominant narratives about alternative education, participants offered compelling counter-stories that reimagined The Academy not as a last-chance placement but as a place of opportunity and excellence. Through language, actions, and pedagogical choices, they actively broke down the stereotype that students in alternative settings are deficient or disengaged.

This form of resistance is central to Critical Race Theory, which elevates counter-storytelling as a method for exposing and contesting racialized assumptions (Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995). Educators at The Academy rejected the notion that their students were broken. Instead, they spoke of resilience, potential, and promise. Their classrooms affirmed student identity, and their leadership made room for students to communicate, create, and lead.

By reframing alternative education as a space for healing, growth, and affirmation, these educators also disrupted the trajectory of the school-to-prison pipeline. Rather than replicating the exclusionary practices that push students out, they cultivated systems of care that pulled students back in.

Limitations

As with all qualitative research, this study is bound by its context and scope. The

Academy is a unique environment with a strong culture of care, visionary leadership, and district-level support. These conditions were central to the school’s success but may not be easily replicated in other settings.

The study also focused solely on the perspectives of six educators. Although this aligns with the portraiture methodology, it does not capture the voices of students or families who directly experience the model. Including those perspectives in future studies could provide a more comprehensive view of the school’s impact.

Finally, the lead researcher’s identity as a Black woman with experience in urban education shaped the access and interpretation. This positionality enriched the analysis and also required reflexivity to guard against over-identification. Member checking, peer debriefing, and an audit trail were employed to support credibility.

Recommendations

The findings from this study suggest several pathways for practice, policy, and research that can strengthen alternative education and inform teacher education.

For Educators and Teacher Educators

Teacher preparation and professional development should move beyond technical training to include culturally sustaining pedagogy, trauma-informed practice, and relational competencies. Preservice teachers need opportunities to examine deficit narratives, practice restorative approaches, and learn how to affirm student identity. Embedding case studies from alternative schools like The Academy into teacher education programs can help future educators imagine what liberatory practice looks like in action.

For School and District Leaders

District leaders must ensure that alternative schools are not treated as lastchance placements but as innovation hubs. Adequate funding, smaller class sizes, and access to mental health support are critical. Leadership programs and specialized licensure pathways should be developed for educators working in nontraditional settings, given the unique demands of these environments.

For Policymakers

Policy must recognize the complexity of alternative education. Funding formulas should reflect the multiple needs of students who enroll in these schools, and accountability systems should value relational trust, student agency, and emotional growth alongside academic outcomes. Policymakers can also support legislation that reduces reliance on exclusionary discipline and promotes restorative frameworks.

For Families and Communities

Families and communities are essential partners in sustaining alternative models. Schools should create regular opportunities for families to engage in restorative practices, leadership activities, and curriculum planning. Community organizations can extend the work of schools by providing wraparound services such as housing, health care, and workforce training.

For Researchers

This study demonstrates the value of portraiture in elevating educator voice. Future research should expand this lens to include students and caregivers, whose experiences would enrich understanding of

alternative schooling. Longitudinal studies are also needed to track the long-term academic, social and emotional outcomes of students in culturally sustaining, traumainformed alternative schools.

Conclusion

The educators at The Academy provide a counter-story to the deficit narratives that too often surround alternative schools. Their portraits reveal teachers and leaders who act like builders of trust and advocates for justice. They remind us that liberatory education is not an abstract theory but a daily practice of care, relationship, and affirmation. They are not simply teachers; they are builders of trust, architects of belonging, and agents of change. Their work is grounded in the belief that relationships, cultural affirmation, and restorative practices are not luxuries but necessities for students who have been historically marginalized.

This study reaffirms the potential of alternative education when reimagined through a critical, relational, and justicecentered lens. By embedding the principles of Critical Race Theory, Relational-Cultural Theory, and a refusal to accept the inevitability of the school-to-prison pipeline, these educators offer a model for transformative schooling. The Academy is not a last chance; it is a new beginning. Their stories remind us that systems can be redesigned, healing is possible, and every student deserves a space where they are seen, known, and prepared to thrive.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). School-to-prison pipeline. https://www.aclu.org/issues/racialjustice/race-and-inequalityeducation/school-prison-pipeline

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2021). Children in poverty by race and ethnicity in the United States. Kids Count Data Center. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tabl es/44-children-in-poverty-by-race-andethnicity

Balfanz, R. (2007, August). Locating and transforming the low performing high schools which produce the nation’s dropouts. Paper presented at Turning Around Low-Performing High Schools: Lessons for Federal Policy from Research and Practice, Washington, DC.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

https://www.oyez.org/cases/19401955/347us483

Comstock, D., Hammer, T. R., Strentzsch, J., Cannon, K., Parsons, J., & Salazar II, G. (2008). Relational-cultural theory: A framework for bridging relational, multicultural, and social justice competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 279–287.

https://doi.org/10.1002/j.15566678.2008.tb00510.x

Dixson, A. D. & Rousseau Anderson, C. K. (2005). And we are still not saved: Critical race theory in education ten years later. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 7-27

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Georgia Department of Education. (2020). Georgia Milestones Assessment System https://www.gadoe.org/CurriculumInstruction-andAssessment/Assessment/Pages/GeorgiaMilestones-Assessment-System.aspx

Goncalves, L. C., Endrass, J., Rossegger, A., & Dirkzwager, A. E. (2016). A longitudinal study of mental health symptoms in young prisoners: Exploring the influence of personal factors and the correctional climate. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-0160803-z

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003 465

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, J. H. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. Jossey-Bass.

McGee, E. O., & Stovall, D. (2015). Reimagining critical race theory in education: Mental health, healing, and the pathway to liberatory praxis. Educational Theory, 65(5), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12129

Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Beacon Press.

Mujic, J. A. (2015, October). Education reform and the failure to fix inequality in America. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar chive/2015/10/education-solvinginequality/412729/

Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. In F. Barbour (Ed.), The Black seventies (pp. 265–282). Porter Sargent.

Roediger, D. R. (2005). Working toward whiteness: How America's immigrants became White: The strange journey from Ellis Island to the suburbs Basic Books.

Souers, K., & Hall, P. (2016). Fostering resilient learners: Strategies for creating a trauma-sensitive classroom. ASCD.

Stevenson, B. (2019). Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. One World.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection: Data snapshot (school discipline) https://ocrdata.ed.gov/assets/downloads/ CRDC-School-Discipline-Snapshot.pdf

Wells, A. S. (2018). Diverse neighborhoods, diverse schools? Benefits, barriers, and policy solutions to more integrated schools. Teachers College Press.

Wait! You’re Both Teaching Us?!: Coteaching in Higher Education

Heather M. Huling,1 Kathleen Crawford,1 and Catherine Howerter 2

1 Georgia Southern University

2 Texas Woman’s University

Abstract

This study explores co-teaching in higher education, specifically in an undergraduate literacy methods course. Traditionally employed in special education, co-teaching involves instructor collaboration to support diverse learners. In the context of this study, two elementary educators co-taught a Language Arts Methods course, modeling the practice for pre-service teachers. After modeling this practice for a semester, students completed a Qualtrics survey with qualitative and quantitative measures. The results showed strong student support for coteaching, citing increased engagement, exposure to multiple perspectives, and enhanced instructor accessibility. Key advantages included a dynamic learning environment and improved collaboration. The findings suggest co-teaching enhances teacher preparation and classroom dynamics, recommending its continued use in higher education. Future research should further examine co-teachers’ perspectives and the long-term impact on educators and students.

Introduction

Initial certification teacher education is meant to prepare pre-service teachers for their future classrooms through content

delivery, methods instruction, and field experiences in the K-12 setting. As teacher educators, we are responsible for preparing pre-service teachers through developing their content knowledge and pedagogical practices in our courses (Polly, 2022). One way we can do this is by modeling a variety of appropriate instructional strategies in our courses for our pre-service teachers, and one trend is to use a co-teaching model in higher education (Salifu, 2021). Co-teaching refers to the collaboration that occurs between a general education teacher and a special education teacher working together to meet the needs of a diverse group of students, including those with disabilities in general education settings (Friend, 2008). Coteaching is an instructional strategy that is typically taught and modeled in special education courses or within dual certification programs, where pre-service teachers are obtaining a general education and special education certification.

For this study, the co-teaching strategy was modeled in an elementary education and dual certification course, Elementary Language Arts Methods, by two general education elementary teacher educators. The purpose of this research was to examine elementary education pre-service teachers’ experiences with and perceptions of coteaching in higher education; thus, our

GATEWAYS TO

research question was: What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions and experiences with instruction in a co-taught elementary language arts methods course? In our study, we focused on the importance of modeling co-teaching at the higher education level.

This study aims to expand upon the existing research on modeling co-teaching for pre-service teachers. Morelock et. al. (2017) found that the modeling of coteaching practices in higher education was underrepresented within the literature, indicating the need for continued research. Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory highlights the importance of modeling in the learning process. According to this theory, individuals often learn by observing others, particularly when they are new to a role or skill. Proving the value of co-teaching in higher education, Hurd and Weilbacher (2017) found that pre-service teachers are more likely to be prepared for co-teaching when it is modeled for them. Kelly (2018) also described the benefits for teacher educators in providing more opportunities for collaboration, growth, efficiency, and mentorship between faculty.

Literature Review

As stated previously, co-teaching is a collaborative approach in which a general education teacher and a special education teacher work together to support a diverse group of students, including those with disabilities, within general education classrooms (Friend, 2008). There are six models of co-teaching: one-teach/oneobserve, one-teach/one-assist, station teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching (Friend, 2021). “The practice of coteaching is a platform that can increase a variety of teaching and learning approaches through utilizing the expertise of more than one tutor [instructor] in the room and,

therefore, support individuals in their own way of engaging with the class” (Sweeney, 2021, p. 55). Chitiyo and Brinda (2018) state the following as benefits of co-teaching: Coteaching reduces the instructional fragmentation for students with disabilities, which might occur if they are moved from one classroom to another, ensuring consistency in their learning process. In higher education settings, university-level students in co-teaching settings indicate an appreciation for multiple perspectives, communication styles, and pedagogical practices from the instructors (Rooks et al., 2022). This union of two instructors creates an environment in the classroom where students feel comfortable with at least one, if not both, instructors (Rooks et al., 2022; Sweeney, 2021). Instructors are able to build relationships with students to create safe spaces in the classroom and best support the diverse needs of their students (Loertscher & Zepnik, 2019; Sweeney, 2021). It has also been shown that when students are engaged in co-teaching settings, there is greater student engagement, retention, and overall success (Kelly, 2018; Kerr, 2020; Sweeney, 2021).

A study completed by Chitiyo and Brinda (2018), when they surveyed 77 teachers, concluded that 44% of participants had learned about co-teaching through university training, suggesting that more than half of the teachers surveyed had no university training in co-teaching (p.47). Almost all the participants, 96%, acknowledged that they understood what coteaching is, yet only half of the participants, 50%, indicated that they were confident in using co-teaching. The findings from this study shed light on the urgent need for teachers to be adequately prepared in coteaching.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Co-teaching has been shown to improve the quality of teaching and student engagement in the higher education setting (Hurd & Weilbacher, 2017; Kerr, 2020; Loertscher & Zepnik, 2019). Morelock et al. (2017) noted that collaboration in planning and instruction showed increased effectiveness for both teachers and students. Engagement, academic achievement, and modeled pedagogy were among the benefits to the student population when taught in cotaught settings (Kerr, 2020; Loertscher & Zepnik, 2019). Faculty members collaborate and create respectful partnerships, share multiple perspectives and experiences, and provide individualized instruction based on student needs (Hurd & Weilbacher, 2017; Scherer et al., 2020).

Methodology

This mixed-methods study is based on a survey (Appendix A) from a co-taught Elementary Language Arts (ELA) Methods course where the authors sought to investigate pre-service teachers’ experiences and perceptions in a co-taught class at the university level. A survey was developed by the authors specifically for this study to gather pre-service teachers’ perceptions and experiences related to instruction in a cotaught course. The survey consisted of ten items, including a combination of Likertscale, open-ended, and illustrative response formats (see Appendix A). While the survey was not piloted or formally validated prior to data collection, its development was informed by relevant literature on coteaching and teacher preparation (e.g., Friend, 2014; Murawski & Dieker, 2013). The authors acknowledge this limitation of the study. The authors obtained approval from the University Institutional Review Board (IRB) to survey pre-service teachers enrolled in the ELA Methods course. The first two authors taught the ELA methods

course, and at the conclusion of the semester, the third author administered the survey to both co-taught classes. Of the 91 pre-service teachers enrolled in the course, 64 pre-service teachers were present in class and gave consent to participate.

Context

In this study, participants were preservice teachers enrolled in a collaborative ELA Methods course at a rural, mid-sized university situated in the southeastern United States. The course convened twice weekly over a span of 17 weeks. The first two authors were responsible for planning and teaching all four sections of the ELA course. The co-teachers of the course were current Elementary Education program faculty who frequently taught the ELA Methods course in previous semesters. The two instructors had also previously guest lectured in each other’s courses and collaborated on course content and activities. To facilitate the co-teaching approach, classes were merged in a large classroom during the first and second time slots as scheduled in the university course platform. In Table 1, the authors provide contextual information about the ELA Methods course the study took place in, including class time, number of students, and assigned instructor.

Table 1 Course Contextual Information

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Throughout the semester, the first two authors collaboratively planned and implemented the ELA curriculum, employing a variety of co-teaching models as outlined by Cook and Friend (1995), with the primary model being team teaching. Team teaching, where both instructors share equal responsibility in teaching the class (Cook & Friend, 1995), was the natural selection for the co-teachers as they both share expertise in the content and methods related to the course material. This course was taught during two time slots (12:30 and 2:00) over a 15-week semester period to approximately 90 pre-service teachers (see Table 1). The pre-planned course content and assignments were identical between both course times as the co-teachers created and used a common syllabus. Interactive teaching methodologies were planned for and employed to actively engage pre-service teachers, with the instructors sharing instructional responsibilities equitably during all class sessions. The co-teachers shared the teaching time equitably within the course times, and each instructor was responsible for grading the assignments for the students listed on their individual rosters. Both instructors maintained office hours that coincided with the pre-service teachers' schedules as well as individual appointments upon request. Upon completion of the semester, the three-part survey was administered to examine pre-service teachers' perceptions and experiences with the co-teaching approach.

Participants

During the final week of the semester, an invitation to participate in the co-teaching study was extended to all pre-service teachers enrolled across the four sections of the course. Among the total 91 pre-service teachers, 64 provided consent and completed all segments of the survey. However, 15 pre-

service teachers chose not to submit the third part of the survey, which involved providing an illustration. Predominantly falling within the traditional college age range of 19-23, these demographics closely resembled those of the wider elementary education program at the university, encompassing approximately 250 preservice teachers.

Participants were at the midpoint of their junior year and had been admitted to the Teacher Education Program at the university, with their course of study leading to certification in grades PreK-5th grade and a Bachelor’s degree in Elementary Education. Prior to enrolling in the ELA Methods course, participants completed two field experiences: one involving 50 hours in a PK-5 classroom and the other consisting of 30 hours in a different PK-5 classroom. Throughout the duration of the ELA course, participants engaged in a third field placement totaling 150 hours. Within each of these field placements, pre-service teachers were placed in diverse classrooms, many of which involved working under the supervision of a clinical supervisor/mentor teacher who was in a co-teaching setting. Additionally, within the pre-service teachers’ field placement during the semester, they are required to co-plan and co-teach a read-aloud lesson.

Data Collection and Analysis

This mixed-methods study used both qualitative and quantitative approaches in the survey. The qualitative data came from open-ended questions and visual responses, while the quantitative data was gathered using a linear rating scale. In the final week of the semester, the third author administered the survey (Appendix A), which consisted of three sections: 1) openended questions, 2) linear scale/rating

questions, and 3) illustrations. The survey instrument included questions and prompts that were adapted from King-Sears, Brawand, and Johnson (2019) and are grounded in the literature on co-teaching (King-Sears et al., 2019). The first two parts of the survey investigated the pre-service teachers’ experiences and perceptions of coteaching in an elementary Language Arts Methods course. The third part, illustration analysis, mirrored the work of King-Sears, Brawand, and Johnson (2019), where the researchers examined patterns in the position of students and teachers in the classroom.

All three authors ensured consistency and trustworthiness through a collaborative analysis process to establish inter-rater reliability. To ensure inter-rater reliability, the authors initially coded the survey responses separately, and the team then collaborated to identify overarching themes (Merriam, 2009). By independently coding the open-ended responses and illustrations through an inductive approach then engaging in discussions about their findings, it allowed the researchers to refine the coding scheme and agree on consistent codes and emerging themes. Contradictions were discussed and explored collectively to maintain consistency across data analysis. This approach enhanced the credibility and dependability of the themes as described in the findings. This collaborative commitment to inter-rater reliability and consistency ensured the trustworthiness of this study.

Any identifying information from the open-ended questions or illustrations was redacted to ensure confidentiality. Within the survey instrument, the authors were able to gather three sets of data that explored the pre-service teachers’ perceptions of the coteaching experience. Using three distinct data sets enabled the authors to engage

thoroughly with the research and identify thematic connections across the sets, thereby facilitating data triangulation and enhancing the study’s trustworthiness (Amankwaa, 2016; Saldaña, 2016). The authors’ analysis and coding of the open-ended responses were validated through consistent patterns observed in the illustrations and the Likertscale ratings. Consequently, the triangulation of open-ended responses, Likert scale items, and visual illustrations served to confirm the findings through collaborative analysis by the co-authors.

To analyze the results of the first part of the survey, the authors began by using inductive analysis, as no pre-set codes were created based on the research question (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Saldaña, 2016). Each researcher individually read through the open-ended question responses and used holistic coding to analyze participants' perceptions and experiences with coteaching. Saldaña (2016) explains that holistic coding is useful when trying to identify basic issues "as a whole" rather than line-by-line coding (p.166). All three authors independently read through the entire data set, identifying segments of participants’ responses that were aligned with the research questions and creating initial codes. Initial codes included sorting the data into positive and negative experiences with co-teaching. The authors then met to share initial codes with each other, pattern matched the codes to narrow down a list of codes for all to use, and completed a second cycle of coding (Saldaña, 2016). The second cycle of coding was used to produce our main themes as delineated in the findings sections.

To analyze the results of the second part of the survey, the authors identified numerical trends and patterns in the dataset, as well as any outliers, using the three linear

scales and rating questions. These three questions allowed students to provide a numeric rating of their perceptions of the coteaching within the course. The authors computed responses in percentages and then compared them to the emerging themes from the qualitative data.

The directions to the final part of the survey, illustrations of co-teaching in practice, were as follows: Please use the paper and markers to create a picture that represents what a camera would see or hear when your teachers teach. You may use images, speech bubbles, labels, etc., to best represent your vision. To analyze part three of the survey, the authors independently examined the pre-service teachers’ illustrations and looked for patterns in the positions of pre-service teachers and the two teachers’ positions in the classroom to identify which models of co-teaching were most represented. The authors also analyzed trends in words or phrases used in labels and speech bubbles, and once those patterns were identified, the authors collaborated to create initial codes and formulate themes (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

The findings from the data analysis were organized into two categories based on the instrument: survey analysis findings and illustration analysis findings. Reporting in this style allowed for deeper understanding and connections of the themes that emerged from the qualitative data in the survey, as well as the illustration data in the drawings.

Findings

Survey Analysis

The research question for this study was: What are pre-service teachers’ perceptions and experiences with instruction in a cotaught elementary language arts methods

course? In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the pre-service teachers’ perceptions and experiences, we developed a survey comprised of ten questions (see Appendix A). The participants were also asked to create an illustration that represented their view of their co-teaching experience as part of the survey. The authors critically analyzed all data sets individually and collectively. The results are presented below by common themes noted in the data analysis. Common themes noticed across the survey and illustration included benefits of co-teaching, a positive classroom learning environment, and modeled effective coteaching strategies.

Benefits of Co-Teaching

Among the survey and illustration responses, the benefits of co-teaching were most frequently mentioned or rated highly among the data, specifically noting the support and accessibility and multiple perspectives. The responses reveal that 97.1% rated their recommendation as 4, indicating the highest level of support for co-taught classes. Both the mode and median ratings were 4, indicating a common agreement on the benefits and appreciation of co-teaching.

Support and Accessibility.

Being one of the most cited benefits of co-teaching from the data, support, and accessibility from the co-teachers were evident in their open responses, illustrations, and Likert scale data. Having increased support from two instructors in the classroom made the pre-service teachers feel more secure and confident in their learning. It allowed opportunities for more questions to be answered and feedback to be provided in a timely manner.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Survey responses highlighted the benefits of the co-teaching approach and how it contributed to the students’ success, particularly the support provided by having two educators, which fostered a sense of security and confidence among students. One student noted, "There was always someone there to help me if I needed it.” Moreover, the increased accessibility and availability of teachers ensured that students' questions were addressed more efficiently, further enhancing their overall experience. Students expressed that teacher support was crucial, emphasizing the value of teachers being available to answer questions and provide assistance throughout lessons. Out of 64 responses, 98.3% of the students rated the helpfulness as 4, indicating the highest level of assistance and support. Both the mode and median ratings were 4, emphasizing a strong consensus among participants regarding the benefits of having two instructors present.

Multiple Perspectives

Another benefit noted in co-teaching from the participants was the use of multiple perspectives. The students noted appreciation in hearing the same content and information explained from different viewpoints based on the different experiences and expertise of each instructor. This is believed to contribute to deeper understanding and more comprehensive learning experiences based on the data.

According to the data, the presence of two teachers allowed the students to gain a broader understanding of the content, as they were exposed to multiple perspectives, with one respondent stating, "I have more than one perspective in the content area being taught." Additionally, students perceive co-teaching as beneficial for their learning experience, with one remarking,

"Having two professors offers even more information about a specific topic." Another student highlighted the advantage of receiving multiple perspectives: "You get to hear the same content from two teachers who might explain it a little differently.” Students appreciated the diverse perspectives from both instructors, as reflected in quotes like, "I love being able to hear from two different perspectives. If I don't quite get something when it's explained the first time, the other is able to provide an explanation I understand." Having the two instructors allows for more understanding across student learning as they are able to have content explained in multiple ways and various times throughout a lesson if needed.

Positive Learning Environment

Another theme noted among the survey and illustration responses is the positive learning environment, specifically noting the engaging aspects of the classroom, the interactive creative activities, and positive relationships within the classroom. The responses indicate that 85% of the students expressed enthusiasm for engaging and effective practices, highlighting the supportive classroom atmosphere and interactive activities.

Engagement in the Classroom

After analyzing the data, it was noted that the lively, engaging atmosphere in the co-taught classroom created a positive learning environment for the students. The students noted that they found it enjoyable to have two instructors as it brought additional energy to the classroom. The dynamic interaction between teachers also made the learning experience more enjoyable and engaging, with a participant commenting, "It made things so much fun,

and it gave a different atmosphere to the class!" A most prominent pattern from this data that emerged was the sense of fun and enjoyment in the co-taught classroom. One student mentioned, "It's really fun and it brings more energy to the classroom," while another student stated, "It helps to make class more engaging and upbeat!"

Interactive Creative Activities

The use of interactive and creative activities was noted in the data frequently in both the survey and illustrations. Students noted that it emphasized the positive energy in the classroom by catering to different learning styles and allowed for collaboration among students and co-teachers. The variety of teaching methods and activities kept students engaged and motivated them to learn the content in meaningful ways.

Creativity and enjoyment were also significant factors, with themed sessions and various activities enhancing the learning experience. Hands-on methods, such as interactive journals and anchor charts, were commonly used to facilitate active learning through direct engagement with the content. Additionally, variety and choice, through activities such as gallery walks and "this or that" exercises, appealed to diverse learning preferences and increased student engagement.

From the data, the most frequently cited activities within the open response survey question were "turn and talk" mentioned 22 times, interactive journals 15 times, and anchor charts 14 times. These interactive activities add to student engagement and understanding of the content, while also opening opportunities for creativity and collaboration. The illustrations supplemented these findings with drawings that depicted the co-teachers and their

instructional strategies, along with positive characteristics such as words and drawn facial expressions. Collaborative learning strategies, such as "turn and talk", “tell me time”, and group work, were frequently highlighted within the illustrations for encouraging peer interaction and idea exchange.

Positive Relationships

Students noted that the positive relationships within the course were a contributing factor to the learning environment and the overall co-teaching experiences. The co-teachers created a supportive and motivating environment for students that emphasized positive energy and open communication, where students could feel comfortable asking questions and participating in class. Fifty-five responses highlighted the importance of a positive atmosphere, praising instructors for their lively personalities and engagement. Comments such as "they should continue to be silly and engage with the students" and “they have great synergy” emphasized the role of engagement and the positive relationship between the students and coteachers in the classroom.

When analyzing the students’ level of motivation when instructed using the coteaching approach, a generally positive attitude was revealed, with some variability. Out of 64 responses, 77.8% rated their motivation as 4, reflecting a high level of motivation in co-teaching settings. The mode of the ratings was also 4, showing the common occurrence of this high level of motivation. One can assume some of the high motivation ratings are connected with the positive relationships built between the students and co-teachers.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Effective Co-Teaching Practices

A final theme noted from the data was the effective co-teaching practices the students witnessed within the co-taught classroom. Two specific practices that the participants discussed in the data were clear role divisions within the co-taught class and the collaboration between the co-teachers, as indicated by collaboration, noted 58 times, and equal participation between instructors, noted 51 times.

Clear Role Divisions

Students noted in both the survey results and in the illustrations the division of roles between co-teachers. This included how content was delivered, instructional activities, the different co-teaching models used, and the organization and flow of the lessons. The data highlighted the division of delivery of content/information during the lesson with comments such as, "they bounce back and forth very cohesively," highlighting the effectiveness of the collaborative, team-teaching approach. Forty-seven of the illustrations included two professors, of which 29 drawings show the two professors on opposite sides of the room, 16 of the drawings show the two professors standing together in front of the room, and one showed the two professors in the front and back of the room. This further indicates how the co-teachers are seen as differing roles within a variety of settings in the classroom.

Collaboration between Co-Teachers

One major theme noted from the data regarding the co-teaching practices modeled was the apparent collaborative nature of the co-teachers. The interactions between the two instructors were highlighted as a

strength and a key contributor in understanding the co-teaching model.

Additionally, students appreciated the collaborative learning environment, as observing the teamwork between teachers served as a model for their future teaching practices. One student remarked, "We got to see collaborations that may happen once we are in our own classroom." Comments such as "they work well together," "they bounce off each other's ideas," and "their relationship allows them to communicate effortlessly" highlight the success of this collaborative nature in enhancing their teaching approach. This collaborative partnership, where "someone is always available to ask questions to and get feedback from," illustrates the effective relationship between the co-teachers modeled for their students.

Challenges/Areas for Improvement

While most of the data yielded very positive responses for the co-teaching practices explored in the course, the data did illustrate areas that need to be addressed as challenges or areas of improvement. These include initial perceptions of co-teaching, class size, and specific practices used in the co-taught course.

A few respondents reported negative or neutral experiences, feeling that co-teaching made the semester more challenging or did not contribute positively to their success. As one student expressed, "In this particular class, I do not think it affected my learning outcomes." When considering the class size in this particular co-taught course of about 90 students, another student notes, "It can be more difficult because there are a lot of students in the class," indicating a potential issue with individualized attention in a larger setting.

GATEWAYS

Another suggestion for improvement included diversifying class routines to maintain interest and simplifying Slideshow presentations to avoid overwhelming students towards the end. This could be attributed to lower levels of motivation, as noted in the 11.1% of participants who rated their motivation as three, indicating moderate motivation, and the 1.9% who rated it as two, suggesting a lower level of motivation.

Overall, the survey results indicate that the co-teaching approach yielded exceptionally positive outcomes for students. The primary benefits identified include increased support, exposure to diverse perspectives, enhanced collaborative learning, elevated engagement, and improved accessibility to instructors. Students expressed appreciation for the collaboration between the two co-teachers, their individual strengths, and the engaging classroom environment they created. Effective pedagogical practices, such as collaborative learning activities, interactive methodologies, and varied instructional approaches, significantly contributed to student success and engagement. A majority of the respondents rated the presence of two instructors in the classroom as highly advantageous and strongly recommended that future classes incorporate co-teaching.

Students demonstrated high levels of motivation within this environment and reported overwhelmingly favorable experiences, with numerous commendations regarding the positive influence the cotaught class had on them as future teachers. It is recommended that the collaborative approach between co-teachers continue, emphasizing interactive and engaging activities while building and sustaining a positive classroom culture. Addressing minor areas for enhancement based on student feedback may further refine the coteaching experience. Overall, the data suggest that co-teaching is a highly effective instructional strategy that promotes student engagement, collaboration, and positive educational outcomes.

Illustration Analysis

For the illustrations, participants were asked to “Use the provided paper and markers to create a picture that represents what a camera would see or hear when your teachers teach. You may use images, speech bubbles, labels, etc. to best represent your vision.” There were 56 illustrations submitted out of 64 participants, seven of which included only words (see Table 2).

Two teachers Different modules of direct instructions two each in each module, opposite sides of the room with teachers and students

Forty-seven of the illustrations included two professors (see Figures 1 and 2), two included one professor, and seven included only words. Two of the illustrations indicated a drawing of an elementary classroom, and these were eliminated from the analysis. Twenty-nine of the drawings show the two professors on opposite sides of the room (see Figure 1), 16 of the drawings show the two professors standing together in front of the room (see Figures 3 & 4), while only one showed the two professors in the front and back of the room. These all indicate some form of team teaching. There are 19 drawings that indicate some sort of small group work, which shows station teaching and collaboration among students.

1

4 Two professors together.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

The analysis of the illustrations indicated a perception of collaboration between the two professors. Based on these results, the pre-service teachers saw the professors modeling team teaching. There appears to be a mutual respect and parity between the professors. This indicates that pre-service teachers were able to experience a true coteaching environment, which will hopefully translate into future co-teaching settings. Overall, the results based on the analysis of the responses to the survey and the illustrations highlighted positive perceptions related to co-teaching. The participants noted positive perceptions related to the idea of co-teaching, benefits of having two instructors, and the collaborative nature of the instructional practices and activities of the co-teachers. The illustrations supplemented these findings with drawings that depicted the co-teachers and their instructional strategies, along with positive characteristics such as words and drawn facial expressions. These findings can be

used to provide implications for future research and potential opportunities for more co-teaching practices in higher education.

Findings Summarized

As demonstrated through the survey responses, including both the Likert-scale and open-ended questions, as well as the participant illustrations, three key themes consistently emerged: the benefits of coteaching, the creation of a positive learning environment, and the modeling of effective instructional practices. These themes were evident across all data sources, reflecting strong alignment between students’ written reflections and their visual representations. To provide a clear and cohesive summary of these findings, Table 3 below presents a synthesized overview of the results from all three data sets.

Table 3 Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Co-Teaching: Key Themes, Findings, and Quotes

Theme Key Findings

Benefits of Co-Teaching

Positive Learning Environment

97.1% rated their recommendation as “4” (highest level), indicating strong overall endorsement of co-teaching.

98.3% rated support/helpfulness as “4.”

Students emphasized increased availability of two instructors for timely feedback and assistance.

Students valued hearing explanations from different instructors, leading to deeper understanding and richer perspectives.

85% expressed enthusiasm for the overall classroom atmosphere engaging, supportive, and energetic.

Co-teaching brought additional energy and enjoyment, making lessons more upbeat and lively.

Frequent mentions of “turn and talk,” interactive journals, and anchor charts.

Illustrations supported evidence of collaborative, hands-on learning.

Student–teacher rapport and instructor synergy were frequently noted as impacting motivation and comfort in class.

Effective Co-Teaching Practices

Students observed strong co-teaching strategies, including clear role division and coordination between instructors.

Illustrations and comments highlighted structured roles and spatial organization (e.g., teachers on opposite sides, small-group zones).

Observed teamwork and seamless interaction between instructors served as a model for future co-teaching practices.

Representative Quotes

“There was always someone there to help me if I needed it.”

“There was always someone there to help me if I needed it.”

“Teachers were available to answer questions and provide feedback.”

“You get to hear the same content from two teachers who might explain it a little differently.”

“I love being able to hear from two different perspectives.”

“It made things so much fun, and it gave a different atmosphere to the class!”

“It helps to make class more engaging and upbeat!”

“It brings more energy to the classroom.”

“Turn and talk,” “interactive journals,” and “anchor charts” were mentioned frequently. Illustrations included visuals of collaboration.

“They should continue to be silly and engage with the students.”

“They have great synergy.”

“They bounce back and forth very cohesively.”

“They work well together.”

Derived from illustrations showing co-teachers positioned strategically around the room.

“They bounce off each other's ideas.”

“Their relationship allows them to communicate effortlessly.”

“We got to see collaborations that may happen once we are in our own classroom.”

Implications for Practice & Future Research

The findings from this study have several significant implications for the design and implementation of co-taught courses in higher education settings, specifically in teacher education programs. The overwhelmingly positive feedback from pre-service teachers suggests that coteaching is not only a viable instructional strategy but one that enhances the learning experience in unique ways. The increased support, exposure to diverse perspectives, and collaborative learning opportunities provided by having two instructors in the classroom are particularly noteworthy. It is anticipated that the integration of these elements combined contribute to a more dynamic and engaging learning environment by creating opportunities for active participation, personalized feedback, and a deeper understanding of course content. Based on the research, the data reveal that the dual perspectives and varied teaching styles of the co-instructors not only keep students more engaged but also help cater to different learning styles (Hurd & Weilbacher, 2017; Scherer et al., 2020). The co-teaching approach enhances students' ability to connect theory with practice, which, in turn, fosters greater confidence in their own teaching abilities and better prepares them for the complexities of the classroom.

One of the key implications is the potential for co-teaching to serve as a model for collaboration in future classrooms, which aligns with Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory focus on modeling. Pre-service teachers observed and valued the teamwork between their instructors, which may influence their own approach to collaboration with colleagues in their professional practice. This aligns with the

growing emphasis on collaborative teaching models in K-12 education (Hurd & Weilbacher, 2017; Kerr, 2020; Loertscher & Zepnik, 2019; Rooks et al., 2022), suggesting that integrating co-teaching into teacher preparation programs can serve as a model for incorporating the various coteaching models (Friend, 2021) in the classrooms of future teachers. Additionally, the data indicates that co-teaching can play a critical role in enhancing student motivation and engagement through the instructors’ energy and individual personalities. The variety of instructional methods and the presence of two instructors contributed to a more stimulating and supportive learning environment, which in turn led to higher levels of student motivation, success, and “double the support” and “double the fun.”

However, the study also highlights areas for potential improvement when co-teaching in higher education. While the majority of feedback was positive, a few participants noted challenges related to class size, indicating that larger class sizes may minimize the effectiveness of individualized attention and personalized support (Kelly, 2018). Additionally, some students pointed out the need for more streamlined instruction, suggesting that, at times, the coordination between co-teachers could lead to overlapping content or unclear transitions between activities. These insights suggest that while co-teaching is beneficial, careful consideration must be given to not only the content of the course but also the logistics of class management, including maintaining an optimal student-to-teacher ratio and ensuring that instructional roles are clearly defined. Moreover, the clarity and coherence of instructional delivery should be a priority, with strategies in place to minimize redundancy and ensure that both instructors are effectively complementing one another. This approach will help ensure that the

benefits of co-teaching are maximized, making the learning experience more efficient, cohesive, and conducive to the overall learning experience.

In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of co-teaching in higher education, it is recommended that future research also examine the experiences and perceptions of the co-teachers. This would allow for a deeper insight into the dynamics of co-teaching partnerships, the challenges and successes encountered, the logistics of planning and scheduling, and how these experiences influence teaching practices and student outcomes. Additionally, conducting longitudinal studies to track the long-term effects of co-teaching on both teachers and students could provide valuable insights into how co-teaching partnerships evolve over time and their lasting impact on educational outcomes. Finally, exploring how different co-teaching models are implemented across various disciplines and their specific outcomes could further enhance an understanding of which models are most effective in diverse educational contexts.

Limitations

While this study offers positive implications for co-teaching in higher education settings, specifically in teacher education, the findings may not be generalizable to all teacher education programs. One notable limitation of this study is the unique institutional context in which it was conducted. The instructors received strong administrative support, including both the opportunity and resources to co-teach and engage in collaborative research. However, this level of institutional backing is not guaranteed across teacher education programs, where some may face constraints such as limited faculty availability, smaller student cohorts, and

scheduling challenges that make co-teaching logistically difficult to implement.

Another limitation is that the experiences of the participants in this study may differ from those in other settings and contexts, limiting the broader applicability of the results. The study also relied on selfreported data from the pre-service teachers, which can introduce bias. Participants may overstate positive experiences or underreport challenges due to social desirability bias or fear of negative repercussions.

There is also a lack of longitudinal data; the study captured perceptions and experiences at the conclusion of one semester, which may not reflect changes in attitudes or effectiveness over the course of the entire program or into the participants' future teaching careers. Additionally, the absence of a control group limits the ability to compare these outcomes with those from traditional, non-co-taught courses. This limits the ability to isolate the specific impact that co-teaching had on the students’ experiences.

Additionally, the variation in the implementation of co-teaching could affect the consistency of the findings presented. Factors such as the co-teachers’ individual teaching styles, personalities, and perspectives, as well as the levels of collaboration and previous experience with co-teaching, could also influence the outcomes and student experiences in the cotaught courses. Finally, the questions in the survey may not have captured the full range of experiences and perspectives regarding the students’ experiences with co-teaching; it is possible that some important insights could have been overemphasized or underemphasized. Addressing these limitations in future research could help strengthen the understanding of co-teaching

effectiveness and its impact on future teachers.

Conclusion

The results of this study strongly advocate for the continued use and expansion of co-teaching in higher education settings, particularly within teacher education programs. Based on the findings, co-teaching offers a dynamic framework that fosters a collaborative environment, highlighting a cooperative coteacher relationship and enriched learning experiences for pre-service teachers. By engaging multiple perspectives and teaching styles, co-taught courses create a more inclusive and responsive classroom, addressing diverse learning needs and preparing future educators to navigate complex classroom dynamics. The study highlights the critical role of collaboration, not only between co-teachers but also with students, as a cornerstone of effective teaching practices. By consistently incorporating student feedback, co-teaching can adapt to evolving educational challenges, ensuring that the approach remains relevant and impactful. Moreover, the emphasis on engagement and support within co-taught environments helps build a sense of community, encouraging active participation and strengthening students' connection to the material. As higher education continues to evolve, it is essential to continuously refine co-teaching practices, incorporating innovative strategies and evidence-based approaches. This study reveals that co-teaching is a highly engaging practice that, when executed effectively, can significantly enhance the quality of courses taught in higher education, particularly in teacher education. By prioritizing collaboration, engagement, and diverse perspectives, co-teaching has the potential to not only support future educators but also to

reshape both teaching practices and the future of learning across educational contexts.

References

Amankwaa, L. (2016). Creating protocols for trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 23(3), 121–127.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Chitiyo, J., & Brinda, W. (2018). Teacher preparedness in the use of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms. Support for Learning, 33(1), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/14679604.12190

Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publishing.

Friend, M. (2008). Co-teach! A manual for creating and sustaining classroom partnerships in inclusive schools. Marilyn Friend, Inc.

Friend, M. (2014). Co-teach! Building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools (2nd ed.). Marilyn Friend, Inc.

Friend, M. (2021). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (9th ed.). Pearson.

Hurd, E., & Weilbacher, G. (2017). You want me to do what? The benefits of co-teaching in the middle level. Middle Grades Review, 3(1).

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Kelly, A. (2018). Co-teaching in higher education: Reflections from an early career academic. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(2), 181-188. 10.29311/jlthe.v1i2.2798

Kerr, K. (2020). Teacher development through coteaching outdoor science and environmental education across the elementary-middle school transition. Journal of Environmental Education, 51(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.20 19.1604482

King‐Sears, M. E., Brawand, A., & Johnson, T. M. (2019). Acquiring Feedback from Students in Co‐Taught Classes. Support for learning, 34(3), 312-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/14679604.12262

Loertscher, D. V., & Zepnik, J. (2019). Coteaching revisited: The replication study. Teacher Librarians, 47(1), 40–47. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ13 48949.pdf

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey Bass, Inc. Publications.

Morelock, J. R., Lester, M. M., Klopfer, M. D., Jardon, A. M., Mullins, R. D., Nicholas, E. L., & Alfaydi, A. S. (2017). Power, perceptions, and relationships: A model of coteaching in higher education. College Teaching, 65(4), 182-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.20 17.1336610

Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2013). Leading the co-teaching dance: Leadership strategies to enhance team outcomes. Council for Exceptional Children.

Polly, D. (2022). Preparing quality teachers: Advances in clinical practice. Information Age Publishing.

Rooks, R. N., Scandlyn, J., Pelowich, K., & Lor, S. (2022) Co-teaching two interdisciplinary courses in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 16(2), https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2022.1 60208

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

Salifu, I. (2021). Exploring coteaching as a trend in higher education. College Teaching, 69(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.20 20.1838426

Scherer, H. H., O’Rourke, M., SemanVarner, R., & Ziegler, P. (2020). Coteaching in higher education: A case study of instructor learning. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v3i1.3 7

Sweeney, M. K. (2021). Creating a safe space: Co-teaching as a method to encourage learning and development in the higher education classroom. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 9(1), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1 030572

Appendix A

Co-teaching Survey

Welcome to our research study! We are interested in understanding elementary education preservice teachers’ experiences with and perceptions of co-teaching in higher education. You will be asked to answer some questions about it. Your responses will be kept completely confidential.

The study should take you around 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study. By clicking the button below, you acknowledge: 1) your participation in the study is voluntary, 2) you are 18 years of age, and 3) you are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation at any time for any reason.

1. I am a student in the:

a. Elementary Education Program

b. Dual Certification Program

2. How did the co-teaching approach contribute to your success as a student?

3. Imagine you are talking to the students who will have your co-teachers for this same class next semester. What would you tell them about what it’s like to have two professors teaching at the same time?

4. Describe the top three activities or practices your co-teachers do that engage you the most.

5. Describe what you feel is the biggest or best teaching strength(s) of each of your coteachers.

6. When considering the co-teaching approach, what practices should the instructors continue? Why?

7. When considering the co-teaching approach, what practices should the instructors consider changing or revising? Why?

8. On a scale of 1-4 (1 being not helpful at all and 4 being extremely helpful), how helpful is it to have two instructors in the same classroom?

9. On a scale of 1-4 (1 being definitely not and 4 being definitely yes), would you recommend future classes be co-taught?

10. Rate yourself on a scale of 1-4 (1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree) on the following statement: I have more motivation to learn when instructed using the coteaching approach.

11. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding your experience with co-teaching this semester?

12. Please use the paper and markers to create a picture that represents what a camera would see or hear when your teachers teach. You may use images, speech bubbles, labels, etc. to best represent your vision - be creative! Do NOT include your name on your illustration. Submit this illustration to __________ before you leave.

Thank you for completing this survey!

Friend or Foe: Pre-service Teachers' Perceptions of AI

Rebecca Cooper 1, Tashana Howse 1 , Samantha Mrstik 2, & Joye Cauthen 1

1 Georgia Gwinnett College

2 University of West Georgia

Abstract

This study explores perceptions and usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) among preservice educators. A total of 45 participants, predominantly in their first year (57.8%) and aged between 20-25 years (35.6%), provided insights into their understanding and application of AI. The majority (84.4%) are aware of AI, describing it as advanced computer technology capable of mimicking human intelligence. Despite this awareness, only 6.7% used AI in the classroom, primarily for lesson planning and generating ideas. The survey reveals a cautious approach towards AI, with 91.1% of educators not allowing students to use AI in the classroom, citing concerns over potential misuse. Additionally, 59.1% of respondents have not inquired about their school's policy on AI. Many educators recognize AI's potential to save time and enhance lesson planning but express reservations about over-reliance on AI and its impact on creativity and originality. Some educators plan to use AI for generating ideas and organizing information but emphasize the importance of teaching students to use AI responsibly. Concerns about AI's accuracy, potential for plagiarism, and the need for human oversight are prevalent. The findings suggest a need for more comprehensive training and clear guidelines to integrate AI

effectively in educational settings, balancing its benefits with ethical considerations.

Key Words: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Educational Programs, Online Education

Introduction

Researchers at a medium-sized liberal arts school in the southern United States have been preparing pre-service teachers in online teaching and learning since 2016. The premise for this initiative was a requirement from the state's Professional Standards Commission, the teacher accrediting agency in the state, that Schools of Education prepare pre-service teachers to teach online. This work began by incorporating technology tools into education courses (Cooper et al., 2017), but evolved into a Technology Integration Project, where preservice teachers created an online course using a Learning Management System (LMS) (Cooper et al., 2024; Cooper et al., 2019) to the Digital Age Teaching Seminar (Cooper et al., 2020), where they write an online lesson plan, and finally to the revision of this class to incorporate Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Literature Review

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in educational settings has gained

increased attention as it holds potential for transforming America's classrooms. Kaplan and Haenlein (2019) provide a comprehensive theoretical backdrop for understanding the transformative potential of AI in education. They discuss how AI technologies can enhance educational processes by offering personalized learning experiences, automating administrative tasks, and providing data-driven insights into student performance. This theoretical framework described the importance of AI as a tool for innovation in education, capable of reshaping how educators teach, and students learn. Kong, Cheung, and Zhang (2022) highlight the importance of equipping educators with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively integrate AI into their teaching. Their research emphasizes the need for comprehensive AI literacy programs that not only focus on technical skills but also on ethical considerations and the pedagogical implications of AI. By fostering AI literacy among educators, these programs aim to prepare them to navigate the complexities of AI technologies and leverage them to enhance educational outcomes.

Despite the promising potential of AI in education, several challenges and barriers hinder its widespread adoption. Mehrabi, Morstatter, Saxena, Lerman, and Galstyan (2021) identify issues related to bias and fairness in AI as significant obstacles. These challenges stem from the potential for AI systems to perpetuate existing biases present in training data, leading to unfair outcomes in educational contexts. Such concerns can impact educators' willingness to adopt AI technologies, as they fear intensifying inequalities or compromising the integrity of educational processes. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort to develop AI systems that are transparent, accountable, and designed with fairness in

mind. The work by Southgate, Smith, and Cheers (2018) on AI and emerging technologies in schools provides empirical evidence on the integration challenges and opportunities within K-12 education. It highlights the importance of understanding educators' perceptions and the need for targeted support to facilitate AI integration. By addressing these perceptions, providing necessary resources, and training, educators can be prepared to leverage AI's benefits while being mindful of its risks.

The study of AI integration in education emphasizes the need for methodological approaches to effectively capture the complexities and nuances of this emerging field. Laupichler, M., Aster, A. Schirch, J., and Raupach, T. (2022) provide a comprehensive overview of the methodological approaches employed in AI literacy research. Their work emphasizes the importance of adopting diverse research designs that can accommodate the multifaceted nature of AI in education. For instance, mixed- methods approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative data are particularly effective in providing a holistic understanding of AI's impact on education. Such designs allow researchers to explore the measurable outcomes of AI integration and the contextual and experiential factors that influence its adoption and effectiveness. Additionally, the work by Southgate et al. (2018) on AI and emerging technologies in schools provides empirical evidence on the integration challenges and opportunities within K-12 education. Their research highlights the importance of longitudinal studies to track the evolution of AI literacy over time and assess the long-term impacts of AI integration on educational practices.

Given these multifaceted considerations, this study adds a crucial layer for teacher preparation by examining pre-service

teachers' understanding of AI components, its potential, and challenges. As pre-service teachers prepare to enter classrooms where AI integration may vary, capturing their perceptions of AI use is essential. This research aims to provide insight into the diverse situations they may encounter during field experiences and support them in understanding the complexities that come with implementing AI.

Research Questions

Based on the literature review and the growing need to understand pre-service teachers' perspectives on AI integration in education, this study was guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: What are pre-service teachers' current levels of awareness and understanding of artificial intelligence technologies?

RQ2: How do pre-service teachers currently use AI tools in their personal and professional contexts, and what barriers prevent more widespread adoption in classroom settings?

RQ3: What are pre-service teachers' attitudes and perceptions regarding the potential benefits and risks of AI integration in K-12 education?

RQ4: To what extent are pre-service teachers aware of institutional policies regarding AI use, and how does this awareness influence their classroom practices?

RQ5: What specific concerns do pre-service teachers have about AI implementation in educational settings, and how do these concerns vary across different demographic groups?

Methods

This study occurred in Spring of 2024 and involved pre-service teachers in middle grades, secondary, and special education who took the Digital Age Teaching Seminar during Fall 2023 or Spring 2024 or were student teachers of two of the researchers. The institutional IRB approved this study. All student participants signed a consent form. Data were gathered through a Qualtrics (2024) survey during Spring 2024 including both qualitative and quantitative data. All files are protected via password and multifactor authentication.

Participant Information

Participants were recruited through convenience sampling from existing course enrollments and student teacher placements.

Demographic Characteristics:

The sample represented diverse backgrounds with 57.8% first-year students and 42.2% second-year students in their education programs. Age distribution showed 35.6% aged 20-25 years, representing the largest cohort, with additional participants across all age ranges up to 50 years (17.8%). Gender distribution was predominantly female (88.9%), with 6.7% male and 4.4% preferring not to answer. Racial and ethnic diversity included 44.4% White participants, 17.8% African American, 17.8% Hispanic, 8.9% Asian, 8.9% Multi-race, and 2.2% preferring not to answer.

Academic Programs:

Participants represented various teaching specializations including 67% Special Education majors, 13% High School English, 9% Middle Grades Social Studies/English Language Arts, 7% Middle

Grades Math/Science, and 4% High School History. Teaching placements spanned grades K-12 across diverse subject areas including mathematics, science, English language arts, social studies, and special education settings.

Survey Design

The survey instrument was researcherdesigned specifically for this study.

Instrument Development:

The survey was developed by the research team based on literature review findings and consultation with education technology experts. Questions were designed to capture multiple dimensions of AI engagement including awareness, usage patterns, attitudes, policy knowledge, and demographic characteristics.

Question Types:

The survey incorporated multiple question formats:

• Likert-scale items for measuring attitudes and agreement levels (e.g., "AI is only used for cheating," "The use of AI could be beneficial to in class and online teaching and learning")

• Multiple-choice questions for categorical responses (e.g., demographics, usage patterns, policy awareness)

• Open-ended questions for qualitative insights into definitions, experiences, and concerns about AI

• Yes/No/Maybe response options for binary and tri-level categorical variables

The final survey consisted of 32 questions administered through the Qualtrics platform.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection occurred during Fall 2023 and Spring 2024 through an anonymous online Qualtrics survey. Participants were invited via email with informed consent information clearly stating the voluntary and anonymous nature of participation. The survey remained open for four weeks to maximize response rates. No incentives were provided for participation, and participants could withdraw at any time. The survey was created by two researchers who are experts in educational technology and have been teaching and researching on the topic of pre-service teachers and educational technology for 10 years (see Appendix A).

Data Analysis Procedures

Quantitative Analysis: Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data were reported in tables under results.

Qualitative Analysis: Open-ended responses underwent systematic thematic analysis

1. Initial Processing: Responses were initially processed using Microsoft Copilot (2024) to identify preliminary themes and patterns across large volumes of text data.

2. Theme Development : Final themes were organized into conceptual categories addressing each research question, with representative quotes selected to illustrate key findings.

Results from quantitative and qualitative analyses were integrated to provide comprehensive responses to each research

question. Results and data were summarized with the use of AI (Microsoft, 2024).

Results

AI Awareness and Knowledge (RQ1)

The investigation into pre-service teachers' awareness and understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies revealed a multifaceted landscape, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative insights. Table 1 reveals that a significant majority of participants, 84.4%, demonstrated a high level of awareness regarding AI technologies.

This suggests a widespread recognition of AI's presence and relevance in contemporary education. However, qualitative analysis revealed varying depths of understanding. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses illuminated four primary conceptual frameworks:

Technical/Functional Understanding: Participants demonstrated sophisticated understanding of AI capabilities. Representative quotes include:

• "Artificial intelligence is advanced computer technology that has the ability to adapt to new information."

• "A computer-based system that is meant to mimic human like responses while

having the knowledge of the world in its system."

• "AI is a computer systems [sic] that is capable of performing complex tasks that historically only human [sic] could do."

Tool-Based Understanding: Participants viewed AI primarily as assistive technology:

• "A digital tool that can complete various amounts of requests."

• "An online place where all sources are stored. You can 'ask' an internet 'persona' a question and it will pull from the internet sources to answer."

• "As a tool to aid when you need help with creating images or get blocked when writing, it can help save time doing a basic level task."

Learning-Oriented Understanding: Some participants emphasized AI's research and learning capabilities:

• "Artificial intelligence is a tool that can be used for many things such as note taking or with help on research. It can give you a starting point for your research."

Comprehensive Understanding: Others recognized AI's broad capabilities:

• "AI is artificial intelligence which can complete tasks for you or help make them simpler in some way. This often involves scanning tons of internet sources which a single person would not be able to do."

The convergence of high quantitative awareness with diverse qualitative perspectives underscores the necessity for

targeted AI literacy education within teacher preparation programs. Such initiatives should aim to deepen both the breadth and depth of AI understanding among future educators, addressing technical knowledge, practical applications, and ethical considerations to prepare them for effective integration of AI in educational settings. While these findings highlight the importance of comprehensive AI literacy, it is equally important to examine how preservice teachers’ awareness and understanding of AI are reflected in their actual classroom practices. The following section explores the extent to which preservice teachers engage with students about AI and incorporate AI technologies into their instructional approaches, considering how their conceptualizations of AI translate into classroom practice and student engagement.

Limited Student Discussions

:

Despite 84.4% of pre-service teachers reporting personal awareness of AI, 77.8% indicated that they had not discussed AI with their students. Among those who had, the conversations were often pragmatic and focused on responsible use. For example, one teacher shared, “I told them that I know they are going to use it and they're not good at trying to hide it.” Another noted, “I have told students that while it is beneficial in retrieving information, it is not their own unique work.”

Controlled Implementation:

Only a small proportion of pre-service teachers (6.7%) reported using AI in classroom settings, and an even smaller percentage (2.2%) allowed students to use AI. In these cases, implementation was highly structured and closely monitored. As one respondent explained, “Used for teachers in all things lesson-planning. Used

for students to help generate ideas, but never to supplement their own original work.” Another added, “As help and support. It could also be used as a way for students to fact-check (even as the example of fact checking) but not an 'end all, be all' source.”

Overall, the data reveal a notable gap between pre-service teachers’ personal awareness of AI and their willingness or ability to engage students in discussions or practical applications of AI in the classroom. While most pre-service teachers recognize the relevance and potential of AI, their classroom practices remain cautious and limited, with few actively integrating AI into instruction or allowing students to use these tools. When AI is addressed, it is typically within a framework of responsible use and academic integrity, rather than as a means for creative or collaborative learning. These findings suggest that, despite growing familiarity with AI among future educators, there remains a need for more robust support, training, and clear guidelines to empower pre-service teachers to confidently and effectively incorporate AI into their teaching practices.

Current AI Usage Patterns (RQ2)

The analysis of pre-service teachers' engagement with artificial intelligence (AI) tools reveals both the extent of current usage and the challenges impeding broader adoption in educational settings. The data presented in Tables 2 through 4 highlight a notable disparity between pre-service teachers' personal and professional use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Specifically, 58% of respondents reported using AI in personal contexts, whereas only 6.7% had utilized AI in classroom settings. This indicates a substantial implementation gap, with very low variability in classroom usage.

Table 2 Used AI in the Classroom

Table 3 AI for lesson planning Used AI for Lesson Planning (Q14)

Table 4 Any Use of AI

used any form of AI (20)

Among personal users, ChatGPT emerged as the dominant platform, utilized by 38.9% of AI users, followed by Google AI at 16.7%, and Bing at 5.6%. Qualitative responses highlighted specific use cases:

• "I have used ChatGPT by entering my lesson plan content, grade level, and learning objectives for college classes assignments."

• "I have put the standard in there and asked for ideas to engage students, I especially use it in science and social studies."

Despite personal usage, professional implementation faced significant obstacles:

Institutional Uncertainty: Policy awareness showed substantial variability, with teacher policy knowledge and student policy knowledge indicating widespread uncertainty. Only 20.5% confirmed their schools allowed AI use for teachers, while 9.1% reported student AI permissions.

Pedagogical Concerns: Qualitative analysis revealed three primary barrier themes:

Academic Integrity Fears: "That AI can be helpful when generating ideas or brainstorming, but it is never okay to supplement AI created work for their own work."

Over-dependence Concerns: "I have told them it is not good to get reliant on AI and encouraged them to do their own work."

Quality Control Issues: "That AI is beneficial to get quick facts but, is not a good source to use for projects and papers as it cannot be cited."

The findings reveal a clear personalprofessional usage gap, with barriers primarily centered on institutional uncertainty and pedagogical concerns about academic integrity.

Attitudes and Perceptions Toward AI in Education (RQ3)

The data reveal complex and nuanced attitudes among pre-service teachers regarding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in K-12 education. As

indicated in table 5, despite implementation barriers, participants exhibited cautious optimism about AI's benefits. Notably, 47% believed AI could be beneficial in classroom and online teaching contexts, and an additional 45% responded "maybe."

Table 5 Perceptions of Benefits of AI

The qualitative data from pre-service teachers underscore the multifaceted role of artificial intelligence (AI) in enhancing educational practices, particularly in lesson planning, personalized learning, and fostering creativity.

Efficiency and Planning Support:

• "I use it to try and change up what we do in the classroom, so things feel fresh. I plug in a standard and am able to generate ideas for a lesson plan based off the results given."

• "Lesson plan idea generation, DOK question generation, project planning ideas, scaling text to a reader's reading level, generating test questions, creating assessments, creating review games."

Personalized Learning Enhancement:

• "AI should be used in schools for personalized learning. Having lessons cater to the needs of students can promote their engagement, improve

learning outcomes, and accommodate students with learning disabilities."

• "AI can be beneficial in the class or online as it can allow students to get quick background knowledge on the content being covered. It can also allow they to have definitions and information fairly quickly versus having to read various sources which are time consuming."

Creative Inspiration:

• "I have used it when I don't know where to start on a project. It has given me some ideas to explore and complete on my own."

• "It helps with writers blocking and igniting creativity."

When specifically asked about AI's potential for abuse versus usefulness, responses in table 6 are nearly evenly distributed, with 56% expressing concern that AI could be "abused" in schools, compared to 44% who believed it would be "useful." Moreover, uncertainty about AI implementation in schools (Table 7) was high, with 56% responding "maybe."

Table 6 Perceptions Whether AI is Abused or Useful

AI Would Be Abused or Useful (Q27) n %

Table 7 Perceptions of Use of AI in Schools

Qualitative responses revealed nuanced concerns related to creative, social, and ethical concerns and implications.

Creativity and Implementation Concerns:

• "I think although AI can give you answers and possibly allow a student to cheat, I think used in the write way, it can help the brainstorming process and be used as a starting point not an end result."

• "I think as an example or assignment prompt but students should trust and utilize their own creativity."

Ethical and Social Implications:

• "I believe it is a wrong time to talk about AI in the schools if we care about equality. So many students cannot afford the internet and food..."

• "I feel that there is a gray area. How could someone know for sure? I know of someone who says a professor accused her of using AI to cheat but she insisted she wasn't. I think our knowledge of AI should be extensive before we use it to catch cheaters."

While pre-service teachers recognize AI's potential to enhance educational practices, they advocate for its use as a supportive tool that complements human

instruction. They emphasize the importance of ethical considerations, equitable access, and the preservation of critical thinking skills in the face of technological advancements.

Policy Awareness and Institutional Support (RQ4)

Analysis of survey responses (Tables 8) revealed notable gaps in awareness of institutional policies regarding AI use. When asked whether their school allows teachers to use AI, the majority nearly 60%— reported that they had not inquired about their school’s policy. Only about one in five respondents indicated that their school permits teacher use of AI, while an equal proportion reported that their school does not allow it.

Table 8 Campus Allow Teacher Use of AI

In table 9, a similar pattern emerged regarding policies for student use of AI. Over 60% of pre-service teachers had not asked about their school’s policy on student AI use. Fewer than 11% reported that their school allows students to use AI, whereas nearly 30% stated that student use of AI is not permitted at their institution.

Table 9 Campus Allowing Student Use

Despite these policy knowledge gaps, it is evident that in Table 10 that pre-service teachers generally did not view AI solely as a tool for academic dishonesty. Almost all respondents—over 96%—disagreed with the statement that AI is only used for cheating, indicating a broadly positive or at least open-minded attitude toward the potential uses of AI in education.

Table 10 Pre-service Teacher Perceptions of AI Use

Overall, the quantitative and qualitative data highlight a substantial lack of awareness regarding institutional policies on AI among pre-service teachers, with most respondents either unsure of or uninformed about their school’s official stance. This uncertainty may contribute to the cautious approach observed in their classroom practices. These findings demonstrate substantial policy awareness gaps that may be contributing to the low classroom implementation rates observed in research question 2.

Demographic Variations in AI Concerns (RQ5)

Qualitative responses illustrated the relationship between policy uncertainty and implementation hesitancy:

• "AI should only be used through the strict facilitation of teachers and preset inputs for the AI."

• "GCPS does not currently pay for Turnitin, and therefore it is difficult for teachers to catch AI usage. My mentor teacher uses some type of free software, but she says it is really difficult to confidently say that yes a student used AI."

Analysis of survey and qualitative data revealed that pre-service teachers’ concerns about AI implementation in educational settings are shaped by demographic factors such as age, experience level, and subject area. Younger participants were particularly concerned about academic integrity, often emphasizing the importance of students completing their own work. First- year preservice teachers generally expressed more apprehension about AI, with some advocating for a complete ban on its use in schools. Concerns also varied by teaching area. General education candidates emphasized the need for teacher oversight and control, highlighting the possible risk of students cheating.

Age-Related Patterns: Analysis revealed age-related differences in AI concerns:

• Younger participants expressed concerns about academic integrity: "Do not let AI do your work for you"

• Experienced participants focused on detection challenges: "its very difficult. I feel specific software would need to be

developed for cheating to be caught effectively"

• Older participants emphasized implementation challenges: "I am not sure how I would use AI in school. I do not know enough about the programs to say yes or no."

Experience Level Differences: First- year students expressed different perspectives compared to second-year students:

• First- year focus: "I don't believe that AI should be used in schools."

• Second- year perspective: "It should be used primarily by teachers only"

Subject Area Variations: Analysis by teaching area revealed distinct concern patterns:

• General educators emphasized control: "AI can be really beneficial in the classroom, but the teachers will have to monitor to make sure they are not cheating."

• Special education candidates highlighted accessibility: "In special education, students who previously lacked skills to search the internet for information can use AI as a guide, even by using pictures."

Overall, the findings indicate that demographic factors particularly age, experience level, and subject area shape pre-service teachers’ concerns and preferences regarding AI implementation. Younger and less experienced teachers are more likely to focus on academic integrity and express hesitancy, while older and more experienced teachers are concerned with practical implementation and detection challenges. Special education candidates are

more attuned to the accessibility benefits of AI, whereas general educators emphasize the importance of monitoring and control. These patterns suggest that tailored professional development and policy guidance may be needed to address the diverse concerns and needs of pre-service teachers as they prepare to integrate AI into their future classrooms.

Summary of Open-Ended Responses on Survey

In addition to the quantitative data, open-ended survey responses offered further insight into pre-service teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices regarding AI. When asked to define artificial intelligence, respondents commonly described it as a tool capable of completing tasks, generating information, and assisting with various activities. For those who had discussed AI with students, the conversations typically emphasized AI’s usefulness for generating ideas or brainstorming, while cautioning that it should not replace students’ original work.

Among the small number of pre-service teachers who reported using AI in the classroom, the primary applications included generating ideas for lesson plans, creating assessments, and developing test questions. Similarly, when planning lessons, AI was most often used as a source of inspiration for new activities and instructional approaches. In rare instances where students were permitted to use AI, it was generally limited to generating ideas or examples, rather than completing assignments.

Respondents also identified several potential benefits of AI in both in-person and online teaching contexts, such as generating study guides, providing quick access to information, and supporting personalized learning. Overall, pre-service

teachers viewed AI as a valuable tool for lesson planning and idea generation, but expressed reservations about its use for student work, underscoring the importance of maintaining academic integrity and originality.

In summary, the results reveal that preservice teachers possess a foundational understanding of artificial intelligence and are beginning to explore its applications within educational contexts. While AI is primarily utilized as a tool for lesson planning, idea generation, and providing quick information, there remains a cautious approach to its integration into student learning activities. The open-ended responses further highlight both the perceived benefits and the hesitations surrounding AI use, particularly regarding academic integrity and the need for responsible implementation.

These findings underscore a gap between awareness and practical classroom integration, suggesting that pre-service teachers require additional support, guidance, and opportunities to develop confidence and competence in using AI effectively. The following discussion will further interpret these results and consider their implications for teacher education and future classroom practice.

Discussion

The current research mirrors other research as focusing on skills and knowledge of AI has been the focus of most studies of AI in K-12 schools (Burgsteiner at el., 2016; Touretzky et al., 2019; Chiu, 2021). The demographic data provide a balanced view of novice and experienced participants' perspectives on AI as students in year one and two of their teacher education program were surveyed. Their

broad understanding underscores the growing awareness of AI's capabilities among future educators thus suggesting a need for more integration and acceptance of AI tools in education. As part of a global strategic initiative, K-12 classrooms are covering AI topics which were previously only taught and discussed in higher education. AI education at the K-12 level is cultivating an understanding and ability to embrace emerging technologies by future generations thus inspiring future AI users, ethical designers, software developers, and researchers (Pedro et al., 2019; Chiu, 2021).

Thus far, these studies have focused primarily on identifying AI content knowledge, skills, and tools for effective student learning (Yau et al., 2023). There is a need for broader research with studies providing a teacher's perspective as teachers' conceptions of teaching influence how well and efficiently an initiative can be implemented (Zhang & Liu, 2014).

Implications for Research

Due to the fast-moving nature of AI technology development, AI education for K-12 students is becoming essential. Understanding teachers' perspectives is important when creating strong AI education programs in K-12 settings (Yau, et al., 2023). Although this study is limited to a small, convenience sample from one institution in the Southeastern United States, 84.4% pre-service teachers may know a little about AI; however, 93.3% of those same pre-service teachers report not using it in their classrooms. In addition, 58% of the pre-teachers in this study reported they have not discussed the use of AI for teaching with their administration.

AI education in K-12 is not wellresearched, and most K-12 teachers have

little experience or training in this area of technology. Recent published literature has focused on identifying AI content knowledge and learning outcomes. These findings may be useful serving as guidelines for schools to develop AI curriculum (Yau, et al., 2023). Implementing AI education in K-12 schools has been challenging as there is a lack of qualified teachers with this training (Yau et al., 2023). Many teachers tasked with teaching AI have not received formal training in AI technology. If a teacher has knowledge gaps in this area it may inhibit classroom practice and curriculum choice (Chiu & Chai, 2020; Yau et al., 2023). Including AI in education signifies a profound shift from traditional teaching approaches providing structured learning experiences and assistance for various educational needs. Nevertheless, this implementation introduces difficulties, particularly the necessity for thorough training for educators. The incorporation of AI signifies a fundamental change and introduces a new age in learning and teaching approaches (Walter, 2024).

Shifts in pedagogical methods and educator roles can be attributed to the integration of AI in teacher education (Cavalcanti et al., 2021). Today AI technologies such as deep learning generative AI, intelligent tutoring systems, and automated grading are transforming teaching and learning (Celik, 2023). Teachers are uniquely positioned to be the driving force behind the next stage of AI growth in education. Integrating AI into future classrooms poses significant challenges in several areas: technology, teachers and students, and social ethics (Zhang et al, 2023). Understanding preservice teachers' perspectives on AI in education will offer valuable insight (Zhang et al, 2023). Based on this research and a review of the literature, current researchers

have been continuing to research and apply new ways of preparing pre-service teachers to teach in blended and online learning environments (Mrstik et al., 2021). AI is rapidly changing the educational landscape. Based on this study, the Digital Age Teaching Seminar will continue to evolve to add more AI training and practical applications for pre-service teachers. It will provide AI certifications, AI tools for comparison, as well as requiring pre-service teachers to reflect on how and why they and their future students will use AI while considering the ethical implications without losing the critical 21st Century skills that all students must possess.

Implications for Policy

Results indicate significant interest in AI's potential benefits, coupled with concerns about misuse. By addressing these concerns through clear policies, responsible use of education, and investment in detection tools, AI can become a powerful ally in enhancing educational outcomes. With any innovation, there are implications for policy. K-12 schools are just beginning to consider AI policies for teachers and students. Policymakers must navigate the balance between leveraging AI's potential to enhance learning and safeguarding against cheating and misinformation. Guidelines that ensure AI tools are used to complement and enhance teacher practice rather than replace the invaluable human element in education must be established.

Though higher education has recognized the importance of AI with certificate and professional degree programs, younger students can benefit from AI technology (Delaine et al 2016; Yau et al., 2023). To educate the next generation as intelligent machines become more pervasive and global, there is a need to prepare all K-12

students with basic and advanced AI knowledge (Chiu & Chai, 2020; Touretzky et al., 2019; Yau et al., 2023). Studies on K12 AI in education can provide valuable information to help guide academia, policymakers, and practitioners (Yau et al., 2023).

References

Cooper, R., Coleman, T., Farah, A., & Page, K. (2017). What the tech? Preparing teacher candidates for 21st century learners. GATEways to Teacher Education, 28(1), 50-57.

Cooper, R., Farah, A. & Mrstik, S. (2020). Preparing teacher candidates to teach online: A case study of one college's design and implementation plan. International Journal on E-Learning, 19(2), 125-137. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 25, 2021. from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/2 09810/

Cooper, R., Mrstik, S., Glenn-White, V. (2019). What the tech? 2.0: Continuing to prepare pre-service teachers for the 21st century learners. GATEway, 30(1) 53-59, https://issuu.com/gaate/docs/gateways_f all_2019

Cooper, R., Mrstik, S., Cauthen, J., & Schreffler, J., (2024). Preservice teachers learning to teach online: Developing teacher leaders. International Journal for Leadership in Learning, 24(1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.29173/ijll44

Burgsteiner, H., Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Irobot: Teaching the basics of artificial intelligence in high schools. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 4126-4127).

Cavalcanti, A. P., Barbosa, A., Carvalho, R., Freitas, F., Tsai, Y.-S., Gašević, D., & Mello, R. F. (2021). Automatic feedback in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education 2.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100 027

Celik, I. (2023). Towards intelligentTPACK: An empirical study on teachers' professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.10746 8.

Chiu, T. K. F. (2021). A holistic approach to the design of artificial intelligence (AI) education for K-12 schools. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 65(5), 796-807.

Chiu T. K. F., & Chai, C. S. (2020). Sustainable curriculum planning for artificial intelligence education: A selfdetermination theory perspective. Sustainability, 12(14), 5568. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145568

Delaine, D. A., Williams, D. N., Sigamoney, R., & Tull, R. G. (2016). Global diversity and inclusion in engineering education: Developing platforms toward global alignment. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 6(1), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v6i1.5372

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08. 004

Kong, S.-C., Cheung, W. M.-Y., & Zhang, G. (2022). Evaluating artificial intelligence literacy courses for fostering conceptual learning, literacy, and empowerment in university students: Refocusing to conceptual building. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.10 0223

Laupichler, M. C., Aster, A., Schirch, J., & Raupach, T. (2022). Artificial intelligence literacy in higher and adult education: A scoping literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 3 (4) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100 101

Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607

Microsoft. (2024). Copilot (Version 1.0) [Large language model]. Microsoft Corporation.

Mrstik, S., Cooper, R., & Schreffler, J. (2021). Leadership in technology: One educational preparation program's journey for teaching educational technology to teacher candidates. In E. Langran & D. Rutledge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE Interactive Conference (pp. 205-211). Online, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/2 20248/

Pedró, F., Subosa, M., Rivas, A., & Valverde, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable development. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf 0000366994

Qualtrics software [Computer software]. (2024). https://www.qualtrics.com.

Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., & Cheers, H. (2018). Immersed in the future: A roadmap of existing and emerging technologies for career exploration. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 8(1), 1-14.

Touretzky, D., Gardner-McCune, C., Breazeal, C., Martin, F., & Seehorn, D. (2019). A year in K-12 AI education. AI Magazine, 40(4), 88-90. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v40i4.528 9

Walter, Y. (2024). Embracing the future of artificial intelligence in the classroom: The relevance of AI literacy, prompt engineering, and critical thinking in modern education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21

Yau, K. W., Chai, C. S., Chiu, T. K. F., Meng, H., King, I., & Yam, Y. (2023). A phenomenographic approach on teacher conceptions of teaching artificial intelligence (AI) in K-12 schools. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 1041-1064.

Zhang, C., Schießl, J., Plößl, L., Hofmann, F., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: A multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-02300420-7

Zhang, F., & Liu, Y. (2014). A study of secondary school English teachers' beliefs in the context of curriculum reform in China. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 187-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688135059

40

Appendix A

Perceptions of AI: Survey

1. Please indicate that you consent to completing this survey. This survey is anonymous. Your name or work location will not be collected. This survey will not result in any punitive action because of using Al. This survey is to see how you use Al to support your teaching.

2. Please indicate your major:

A. Middle Grades Math/Science

B. Middle Grades SS/ELA

C. HS Bio

D. HS Chemistry

E. HS Math

F. HS History

G. HS Political science

H. HS English

I. Special Education

3. Please indicate your year in the education preparation program:

A. Year1

B. Year2

4. Please indicate your age range:

A. 20-25

B. 26-30

C. 31-35

D. 36-40

E. 41-45

F. 46-50

G. Over 50

5. Please indicate the grades and subjects you currently teach with your Mentor Teacher:

6.

Please indicate how you identify:

A. He

B. She

C. They

D. Other

E. Prefer not to answer

7. Please indicate your race:

A. White

B. African American

C. Asian

D. Hispanic

E. Multi-race

F. Prefer not to answer 8. Do you know what Artificial Intelligence (Al) is?

9. How would you define Al? 10. Have you talked to your students about Al? Yes Maybe No

11. If you have talked to your students about Al, what have you told them? 12. Have you used Al in the classroom? Yes Maybe No 13. If you have used Al in the classroom, how have you used it?

14. Have you used Al to plan a lesson?

No Maybe Yes

15. If you have used Al to plan a lesson, how have you used it?

16. Have you allowed your students to use Al in the classroom?

Yes

Maybe No

17. If you have allowed your students to use Al in the classroom, how have you allowed them to use it?

18. Does your school allow you to use Al?

Yes

No

I have not asked

19. Does your school allow your students to use Al?

Yes

No

I have not asked

20. Have you ever used any form of Al?

No

Maybe Yes

21. Al is only used for cheating. Agree Disagree

22. What type of artificial intelligence have you used?

A. ChatGPT

B. Bing

C. Google Al

D. Other

23. If you chose other in the question above, please indicate what other Al tools you have used.

24. The use of Al could be beneficial in class and online teaching and learning.

Yes

Maybe No

25. Can you give an example of how Al can be beneficial in class or online teaching and learning?

26. Did you know Al can generate practice study guides and practice questions?

No

Maybe

Yes

27. Do you feel that if Al was used in school, it would be abused or useful?

Abused

Useful

28. Do you believe that teachers can effectively catch students using Al to cheat? Why or why?

29. Should Al be used in schools?

Yes No

Maybe

30. Why and how should Al be used in schools?

31. What do you wish your administrator knew about the benefits that you get from using Al to study?

32. Any additional thoughts (optional).

Towards Students’ Understanding of Doctoral Retention: A Chutes and Ladders Approach

Jennifer M Lovelace Columbus State University

Abstract

The study of student retention has been the focus of decades’ worth of research and practice in higher education. One group that has, over the last two decades, become more prevalent in the current literature is doctoral students. Doctoral students pose a challenge to retention researchers for many reasons –doctoral students are often more experienced, educated, prepared, and mature than their undergraduate counterparts. The increase in experience and education brings with it a complex set of characteristics that make understanding and predicting doctoral student retention extremely challenging. This article provides an overview of the study that led to the development of a comprehensive, adaptable, and fluid model of doctoral student retention. Further, this article introduces a model of doctoral student retention and provides the foundation on which students in these College of Education doctoral programs (specifically Adult Education, Higher Education Administration, and Educational Leadership programs) can begin to understand the influences on their retention and attrition decisions. Suggestions for further study include broadening the participate pool and generalizing findings to more diverse student populations.

Keywords: doctoral retention; doctoral attrition; doctoral student success; retention model

Introduction

Student retention has been a major focus of higher education research and practice for several decades (Bean, 1979; Kember, 1995; Tinto, 1998; Zhou & Okahona, 2016). Many researchers (e.g., Bean, 1979; Kember, 1995; Tinto, 1998) have spent their academic careers studying student retention among students at various levels of postsecondary education and from various student populations (Banwo et al., 2024; Kleinberg & Marsh, 2025; Niehues et al., 2025; Razmi et al., 2021; Schwager et al., 2015; Stanton et al., 2021; Tinto, 1998). Early retention research formed the foundation for decades worth of expanded retention research in higher education (Bean, 1985; Cabrera et al., 1992; Stewart et al., 2016; Tinto, 1975). Researchers have studied students longitudinally (Bean, 1979; Tinto, 1998); students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds (Schwager et al., 2015); first generation students (Stanton et al., 2021); student athletes (Niehues et al., 2025); and many other types and groups of students.

One demographic group that, until recently, has been underrepresented in the

retention research, is graduate students, particularly doctoral students (Felder & Barker, 2013; Zhou & Okahana, 2016). As early as the 1970s and 1980s, Vincent Tinto (1975) recognized that the barriers leading to graduate student dropout varied considerably from those of their undergraduate counterparts. He understood that the progression of graduate students to higher levels of cognitive, emotional, and social development had a profound impact on the factors that influence their persistence to degree completion.

For example, graduate programs can often be draining, not only financially, but mentally, spiritually, and emotionally (Lovelace, 2015). For more than three decades, retention research has shown that 40-60% of students that begin a doctoral program will drop out prior to finishing that program (Barnes & Randall, 2012; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Mensah, 2023; Sowell et al., 2008; Webber & Burns, 2021). Graduate student populations are generally smaller than the undergraduate population at the same institution so it makes sense that institutions would devote more time and resources to studying retention among their larger undergraduate populations. However, compared to undergraduate students, masters and doctoral students often reflect the institution’s commitment to scholarly research and academics and are therefore more costly to institutions (Loes, et al., 2024). Additionally, doctoral students tend to consume university resources – advisor time and attention, researcher equipment and facilities, library resources – faster than any other student population (Kluever, 1995).

Despite the growing interest in and volume of doctoral retention research, the staggering 40-60% attrition rate remains unaffected (Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Garner, 2010). Many researchers

narrow their focus to individual student groups or institutional factors (i.e., advisor relationship, discipline differences, or student characteristics (Channing et al., 2023; Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1995; Patsalia et al., 2024; Webber & Burns, 2021). Research consistently shows that the success of doctoral students varies depending on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the department or program, the advisor, the discipline, the characteristics of the student, personal and professional obligations, or intrinsic motivation (Golde, 2000; Ivankova & Stick, 2007; Joy et al., 2015). The number of factors that could potentially impact the completion of the doctoral degree is virtually endless; thus, the difficulty in researching and understanding this specific student population persists.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework Guiding the Study

Many retention models account for the more well-known factors in student retention (i.e., students’ education level, advisor match) but fail to account for the fluid motion and complex relationship between these factors, especially those present in doctoral student experiences (see Bean’s Model of Student Attrition, 1985; Kember’s Model of Dropout, 1995; and Tinto’s Student Integration Model, 1975, 1998). For example, researchers have found that, at certain points in the pursuit of the doctoral degree, the student’s advisor, or chair, can be one of the most influential and motivating factors for the student (Barnes et al., 2010; Herman, 2011; Lovelace, 2015). At a different junction in that same program for that same student, the advising relationship can pose a significant threat to degree completion (Barnes et al., 2010; Lovelace, 2015; Lovitts, 2001; Schlosser et al., 2003). The question then becomes, how is this accounted for in current models of

student retention? The problem is not with the current models of retention, it is with the lack of adaptability and fluidity of current models.

The failure of existing student retention models to adequately explain or predict the complexities of doctoral students is relatively unexamined in the literature. Graduate students face many of the same successes and failures as their undergraduate counterparts, but the intensity and complexity of doctoral level academics and research adds a level of fluidity to the retention research that current models do not or have not considered. With the fluid interaction of factors impacting graduate student retention, a model of retention that can help students understand their journey to completion while helping administrators track, predict, and assess the progression of doctoral students is needed.

Retention Researchers and Existing Models

There have been many significant retention researchers but three have been significant enough to form the foundation for most of our current models and understandings of retention – Vincent Tinto, John Bean, and David Kember. Tinto’s earliest work describes college persistence as the result of the interactions between the student and the institution (Tinto, 1975). In this model (see Figure 1), Tinto (1993) provides variables that would impact student persistence such as background characteristics, initial goals and institutional commitments, academic and social integration, subsequent goal and institutional commitments, and withdrawal decisions. In his early work, Tinto posited that attrition occurs when there is a discrepancy between these student variables and the institution itself (Tinto, 1993).

Figure 1 Tinto’s Student Integration Theory (Tinto, 1975)

Many of Tinto’s findings, though studied at the undergraduate level, can be generalized to graduate students as well. Tinto’s work has added significant value to the field of retention research for many years and has been the foundation for an expanding body of literature on student retention and attrition (Cabrera et al., 1993). The weakness in Tinto’s early research is the lack of attention paid to factors that are external to the institution itself (Bean, 1985; Cabrera et al. 1992). Other researchers sought to account for these weaknesses by expanding Tinto’s research and developing more comprehensive models of retention and attrition.

John Bean (1985) expanded Tinto’s early work by developing a student attrition model based on organizational turnover. Bean’s model (see Figure 2) compares the factors that influence a worker to leave a corporation to the factors that influence a student to leave an institution (Loes et al., 2024). While Tinto’s model focused primarily on factors internal to the university (i.e., student affairs, student engagement), Bean’s research focused on factors external to the institution (i.e., familial obligations or

employment commitments) (Cabrera et al., 1992). Bean’s research, and the resulting attrition models (1979; 1985; 1990) sought to understand not only the factors both internal and external to the institution, but also the student attitudes and beliefs that shape their actions and behaviors. Based on Bean’s research, Cabrera et al. (1992) found that matching internal or institutional characteristics and external or individual characteristics led to higher satisfaction and consequently higher persistence rates.

Figure 2 Bean’s Model of Student Attrition (Bean, 1985)

Up until this point, retention research had focused almost exclusively on the traditional undergraduate student. In the mid-1990s, David Kember (1995) began to explore the factors that impact the retention of non-traditional students. Kember’s theory incorporated the institutional factors of Tinto’s research, the external factors of Bean’s research, and added the complexity of factors facing the adult or non-traditional learner (i.e., familial obligations, work

commitments, academic history). Kember’s model (see Figure 3) also incorporated both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors impacting student persistence.

Figure 3 Kember’s Model of Drop-out (Kember, 1995)

Methods

With nearly half of all entering doctoral students failing to complete their degrees, a comprehensive model of graduate retention is needed to help both students and institutions understand the phenomenon. Research points to a variety of barriers that influence the doctoral student’s ability to persist to degree completion. Among these factors are the advisor relationship (Zhao et al., 2007), support systems (Thompson, 2008), external obligations (Ivankova & Stick, 2007, employment (Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1992), and student integration or isolation (Holmes et al., 2009). The advising relationship at the doctoral level has been

described as the most significant motivator a student can have in completing their degree (Zhao et al., 2007). Thompson (2008) found that while completing the doctoral degree, students depend on support from family, friends, and peers more so than undergraduate students. Most research also points to the isolating nature of the dissertation writing phase as a primary contributing factor in doctoral student attrition (Holmes et al., 2009; Mensah, 2023). Additionally, students in graduate programs are more likely to experience significant familial or financial stresses that may further hinder progress through their programs (Ehrenberg & Mavros, 1992; Gardner & Holley, 2011; Mensah, 2023; Roy et al., 2021).

Given the complexity of factors influencing doctoral student retention and the gaps in the current research, this study sought to identify patterns in the relationship between these factors by interviewing doctoral students and recent doctoral graduates. While research points to a variety of factors that impact doctoral student retention, a qualitative approach to exploring the interplay and relationship of these factors will help students and institutions better understand their ability to persist through a doctoral program. The use of quantitative measures in higher education serves a multitude of purposes including the allocation of funding and resources, statistical analysis, and institutional or departmental rankings (Olbrecht et al., 2016). There is undoubtedly value in the use of quantitative measures to explore retention and attrition at all levels; however, research indicates that many disciplines within higher education operate within educational silos (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2019) with their own systems and procedures that vary greatly from other disciplines. While quantitative measures provide a broad

understanding of the various factors that impact doctoral retention, the depth of inquiry possible with a qualitative approach will allow for a more in depth understanding of the individual factors and their relationship to one another.

Qualitative Approach Rationale

The diversity of both academic discipline and institutional types within graduate education adds an additional layer of complexity to understanding doctoral student retention. A quantitative study may be able to account for multiple disciplines and institution types but is unlikely to provide an in-depth look into a particular subgroup of students in a particular discipline or at a specific type of institution. To achieve the level of depth desired for this study, the researcher employed an ethnography approach to qualitative inquiry. Ethnography, according to Creswell (2013) seeks to evaluate a group of individuals, a culture-sharing group, who are likely to have shared experiences, patterns of behavior, and beliefs. Further, the characteristics of ethnography include the development of a complex description of a culture sharing group, identifying patterns of group activity, and starting with a theory and drawing from cognitive science to understand ideas and beliefs (Creswell, 2013). For this study, the researcher makes the assumption that not only are there shared experiences and patterns within a doctoral program but that they differ by not only discipline but institution type (i.e., research institutions, liberal arts institutions, social science fields, hard science disciplines). Based on the assumption that practices and experiences will differ based on institution and discipline, this researcher chose to select participants from one broad discipline (College of Education) at one type of institution (public, four-year research

institution). Within the College of Education, participant degrees included Adult Education, Higher Education Administration, and Educational Leadership. Research shows that student integration and socialization at the graduate level primarily happens within the student’s department (Golde, 1998; Patsalia et al., 2024) and that these individual socialization practices lead to a sense of community or culture within a graduate program (Rockinson-Szapkiw et al., 2019).

Qualitative inquiry, by design, sacrifices the breadth of the investigation (i.e., studying doctoral students across multiple disciplines or institutions) for the depth of the investigation (i.e., studying doctoral students in one discipline from one institution) to begin to understand the complexities of the factors that influence doctoral student retention and attrition. This study sought to identify specific gaps in existing research that may help researchers and administrators understand the “why” of the more significant doctoral attrition phenomenon.

Recruitment

This study sought participants within the College of Education at one public landgrant institution in the Southeastern United States. The College of Education includes three departments and one school. The researcher sought participants who were nearing the end of their doctoral studies or who had recently graduated with their PhD. The selected college includes programs in K-12 education, physical education, exercise science, higher education, adult education, sports management, and special education and rehabilitation. Narrowing the focus of this study to doctoral students within the College of Education reduces the study to a group of students who share patterns,

policies, procedures, advising structure, faculty, and student service structures which all help achieve the goals of ethnography.

The researcher contacted the head of each of the four departments within the chosen college to request assistance in identifying individuals who met the participation requirements. The department response yielded approximately 40 potential participants. The researcher contacted the 40 potential participants to explain the purpose of the study and request participation. Fifteen of the 40 potential participants responded to the recruitment email expressing a willingness to participate. Of those 15 respondents, ultimately 12 participants (see Table 1) opted to participate and followed through with scheduling a time for an interview. The three who declined to participate did so because of scheduling conflicts or lack of availability.

Table 1 Participant Demographics

Participant* Status Gender

Alice Graduate Female

Bailee Graduating Soon Female

Charleigh Graduate Female

Danielle ABD Female

Elaine Graduate Female

Frederick Graduate Male

Georgia Finishing Coursework Female

Harrison Graduate Male

Isabella Graduate Female

Jenny Finishing Coursework Female

Karis ABD Female

Lacey ABD Female

*All participant names are pseudonyms

Data Collection

The researcher worked with participants to schedule interviews at a time and place convenient to the interviewee. Each participant was provided an informed consent form and given an opportunity to ask questions prior to interview participation. Interviews were scheduled during a two-week period and lasted between 30-60 minutes each.

This qualitative study was guided by four research questions.

1. What are the barriers to completion of the graduate degree?

2. What are the motivators to completion of the graduate degree?

3. How do students perceive their ability to complete their doctoral degree?

4. What are the relationships among barriers, motivators, and graduate student’s perceived ability to complete doctoral programs?

The researcher used a semi-structured interview protocol developed from existing literature but allowing for emergent design as the interview progressed (see Table 2). Each interview was audio recorded and later transcribed by the researcher. During each interview, the researcher made notes for inclusion in the final transcript. At the conclusion of each interview, the researcher allowed approximately 30 minutes to make additional notes about the interview process, impressions, interpretations, and questions or initial thoughts about the overall interview.

Table 2 Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Talk to me about your educational background.

Tell me why you decided to pursue a graduate degree.

What you plan on doing with your degree or your career once you’ve graduated?

Talk to me about your relationship with your advisor.

What kind of support system do you have (i.e., friends/family)?

What state of your program are you in (i.e., coursework, dissertation, finishing up, graduated)?

Do you feel that your coursework has been difficult?

How has the current economic climate impacted your graduate studies, if at all?

Tell me about a time when you might have considered quitting your graduate program? What kept you from doing it?

Are there any other barriers we have not talked about that you’ve faced?

If you had it to do over again, knowing what you know now, what would you do differently, if anything?

What advice would you give students just starting their graduate programs?

Data Analysis

Bernard and Ryan (2010) talk about the use of a priori codes in protocol development and the influence that practice has on data analysis within qualitative inquiry. Similarly, Kvale and Brinkman (2009) describe a “back and forth process between parts and the whole” (p. 210). The development of the interview protocol based on existing research paired with notetaking and member checking during the interview as well as the transcription of the audio recordings contributed to the data analysis phase of this study.

GATEWAYS

Through the replaying of audio recordings, transcription of interviews, and the coding of transcripts, a complex relationship of both existing and new codes began to emerge. These new codes may very well be undiscovered, yet significant, factors in doctoral degree completion. The researcher started with a list of a priori codes and analyzed each transcript to identify commonalities based on these existing codes. This process of open coding included identification of known codes but also the identification of posteriori, or new codes. The researcher then reviewed the transcripts in search of themes or groupings among these open codes. This process of axial coding resulted in themes, some known, some previously unknown. Through further analysis or selective coding, the researcher began identifying key concepts or themes in the research that would add to the literature on doctoral student retention. Many previously undiscovered themes, or, more importantly, relationships between themes, began to emerge through selective coding.

For example, several participants talked about their “advising relationship” as detrimental and a significant barrier to their completion of the doctoral degree. These same participants then spoke very highly of their “advising relationship” once they changed programs or advisors later in their journey. As a single factor – advisor relationship – was both a barrier and a motivator for the same student. The key finding is that the complexity of this relationship and the shifting perspective based on a variety of factors is difficult to account for in current retention models and the need for a more fluid model of retention regarding doctoral students is needed to help students, faculty, and administrators understand these complex relationships.

Findings

The extensive literature review helped identify existing influences on retention from previous studies and the interview protocol focused primarily on these a priori factors. The existing literature also helped to identify the primar y factors affecting doctoral retention (i.e., advisor relationship, isolation/integration, support systems, and external factors). Because the interview protocol allowed for the emergence of previously undiscovered factors, an exploration of the relationship between these a priori and posteriori factors began to take shape. While the majority of factors facing doctoral students fit nicely into the models presented by Tinto and other notable retention researchers, the fact that they were often identified as both positive and negative presents a problem for these static models of student retention.

The first research question asked about barriers to completion of the doctoral degree. The literature points to a negative relationship with the faculty advisor as a key barrier to completion. Overall, half (six of the 12) participants reported having a negative relationship or a negative interaction with their major professor at some point during their doctoral journey that slowed their progress or hindered them in some way. Two of those six began the doctoral program outside of the College of Education and due, at least in some part, to their advising difficulties changed to a different program with a different advisor. Three of the six participants requested a change from their original dissertation chair before finishing their doctoral program. Table 3 outlines participant responses that indicate the advising relationship existed as a barrier to completion of the doctoral degree.

Table 3 Advisor Relationship as a Barrier

Participant Participant Statement

Alice When I was first in the program I was in, there wasn’t much of an advisory type of relationship where the committee members or actually the professors pretty much stayed in tough with you, see where you’re…of course, I do know, at the level of being in a PhD, you need to take, at any level of school, you have to take ownership of your own progress, but it does feel better and it’s helpful when you did have a supportive environment. In the PhD program I was originally in, I didn’t feel the supportive environment. Once I moved over, it was good for the most part, but in the summer, professors are not as available and I had a hard time getting in touch with her a couple of times.

Charleigh When I first began my program, I was assigned a professor…each time that I met with him, it would be very long, an hour and a half to two hours, and he would tell me lots of stories. I wouldn’t always get my questions answered…I was too young to know anything. This original advisor wanted me to do a practice dissertation, where I would do a complete dissertation of doing his research for him, and not get credit for it. Before I earned the right to do my dissertation, because I was so young, I needed to prove that I was capable of doing it. I kept mentioning that there were things I wanted to do, which he wasn’t interested in. I was just kind of feeling like I needed to make a change.

Danielle I switched departments partway through and it was not like that in the department I came from. I almost was at the point where I would send emails and not get answers and when I changed advisors in that department, the person I changed to was not supportive, would not…provide as much guidance about the whole process of presenting at conferences, and doing research type stuff. It was sort of like you were expected to figure it out.

Elaine I feel like my progress might have been slowed down just a little bit, as she was assigned to so many students at one time. The ones who had been in school the longest, it seemed like they were put first. It seemed like almost a whole year went by before some of my work was looked at.

Isabella I had a lot of resources available to me; however, one of the downfalls was that because they were so busy, they don’t really have the time to dedicate their time to just you. So they’re overwhelmed…they’re teaching…they’re writing…they’re publishing their papers…attending conferences…it’s just a lot of work on their end, it was just limited. It’s just that she had so many other responsibilities.

Lacy It’s not a big relationship. She’s been encouraging but I don’t feel like I have a full relationship. It’s not what I expected. I originally has an advisor that was married to my current boss, I felt that would create an odd relationship so I asked to switch.

Additionally, participants noted that support (or lack of support) existed as a barrier to completion. This factor was identified as a known factor in doctoral student retention and supported with the study’s finding. Table 4 outlines participants’ responses regarding the lack of support as a barrier to degree completion.

Table 4 Support as Barrier

Participant Participant Statement

Alice I’m from Texas and that’s where my family lives. That’s a little support but they aren’t there physically. I talk to them on the phone though.

Bailee He (my husband) was supportive when I went back to school for my EDS. Then once I got into the doctoral program, he was not. I was gone a lot, but I think that over time, my husband just turned to drinking and that had really become a problem in our house. It was just hard on me; it was hard on the family. I did have to leave the program, because there was just no way I could concentrate.

Danielle Well, my family, none of them are here, but my parents are supportive, just not here.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Existing research points to isolation, particularly during the dissertation writing phase, being a significant barrier to doctoral degree completion. Eight of the 12 participants mentioned isolation as being a barrier to completion. Table 5 outlines these responses.

Table 5 Isolation as Barrier

Participant Participant Statement

Alice Now I am actively participating in a few organizations that I wasn’t a part of when I was working on both of my graduate degrees, so now I am more active in a few organizations and that’s helpful because you meet different people. You can’t continually socialize, work full-time, and complete a degree, whether it’s a PhD or a Masters.

Danielle Trying to remain disciplined and stay focused and produce what you’re wanting to do because that’s one of the things about being a grad student. You have so much time that you have to control where as an undergrad, or even doing my masters, the schedule is much tighter. Where doing the PhD, I have a lot of downtime.

Elaine I just wish I would have had an opportunity…being so far away it was kind of hard to develop relationships with people in your class. I knew them but I didn’t get to know them. When it came to statistics, instead of having someone to go through someone else, I could’ve went to someone in my class to ask for help.

Frederick I am a self-proclaimed procrastinator. I didn’t realize how much went into a dissertation. There was just so many obstacles. The whole process, at the point (of the dissertation) you become distanced from your support system. You met with your advisor one, two, three times while you’re on campus but once you’re done, it’s very easy to fall into the rhythm of the job and the rhythm of all the same thing.

Harrison I wish I had given myself the opportunity to become more involved in the department and with the university.

Isabella I would say definitely have a support system because there will be times when you feel like no one understands the experiences you are going through. It is definitely good to have someone to talk to who may have experienced something similar to a professional program.

Jenny I think if you don’t have anybody and you’re in this program, you need to make some friends.

Lacy It’s kind of scary because it’s all self-directed. You don’t have that one class. You don’t have a weekly deadline. I find it a little bit harder to stay focused. I can see how it would take five, six, seven years to finish.

Finally, in reference to research question one – barriers to degree completion – all twelve participants mentioned some sort of external factor as being a significant barrier to completion of the doctoral degree. Table 6 highlights these participant responses.

Table 6 External Factors as Barriers

Participant Participant Statement

Alice Let me see. Well, actually when I changed over from the first program to the other program, I didn't have an assistantship to the program that I graduated in, I didn't have an assistantship, because I lost it when I changed. That was something to consider, but like I said I mainly went ahead and did it and then just if I had to obtain any kind of loans or whatever, I guess I had to, because I needed to change over and I guess I made the best decision, because I was limiting myself to only being able to work in one field and now I can work in two or pretty much three. I can pretty much do a few more things, so the outcomes outweigh the risk. Of course I lost the financial assistance, but I think to gain another degree in a different field and then, so that the outcomes outweigh the risks. A second challenge was … I like statistics … but getting back into the hang of things was a challenge for me. It became a challenge because of the gap of time between taking it and needing it.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

I would say family…and the reason I say family is because …the didn’t make me feel like I wanted to quit, but being a first generation to graduate with my Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD, there’s a lot of unknowns and a lot of misunderstandings.

Bailee We were able to take out student loans and if needed, pay out of pocket. I still had to work full time to be able to pay out of pocket.

The hardest part was just having to come up with a topic.

It was just one DUI after another and it was really hard on me, hard on my family. It was hard on the kids when it came to talking divorce, it just drove them crazy...I did have to leave the program because there was no way I could concentrate.

Charleigh I’ll say that the hardest thing is just trying to get through your stats classes and then apply them in a way that was helpful.

The first assistantship that I took was a really bad match. That was just a really hard emotional thing outside of class.

Danielle I got an email two weeks before [I started] saying I didn’t have an assistantship when I thought I had one. Because they didn’t have grants, they didn’t have contracts where I was working, so it was like ‘whoa’! I had anticipated a certain income and to be able to take classes and then that semester, I could not.

I’m working on a project using a data set that already exist…it took forever for the agency to get me the data and then when we got the data it wasn’t complete

Elaine My employer paid for the first 5 hours, then we have to pay for anything above that. I did not want to make school last forever, so I decided to take nine to twelve hours every semester. Although I didn’t personally have the funds, I had loans in order to cover that. To me, it worked out overall as long as I could pay those loans back.

It was a little scary in the beginning (the dissertation phase)…you have to figure it out. There was a certain point with interpreting my data that I was afraid that it wasn’t going to be right. I was just so afraid that it might not be what they wanted.

Frederick I am a self-proclaimed procrastinator and I didn’t realize how much went into a dissertation. The most frustrating would be the dissertation and the countless hours in the library…having to read on family vacations, at family events, Christmas, Thanksgiving…to get back to writing when it was hard to concentrate at home. I personally set it down to gain a fresh perspective and it would be hard to jump back into. Having a full time job while working through my program, It involved me getting on the road right after school let out and head straight to class. It just became very tedious.

Georgia With the amount that I have taken out, student loan wise. I have taken out more than the actually cost. Because of books, because there is travel involved, and then there is,... we got my computer that way. I don't know what I would have done without getting that new computer, when I started. Right now, I don't feel the impact. I know when I have to start paying the loans it's going to be a big struggle. I'm not looking forward to that at all. My hope is that because I have gotten advanced degrees, each advanced degree I get, because I am in education, I do get a pay raise. There would be times when I felt like I was prepared and then times where I was staring at a blank page. Having two kids, ages two and four, some nights you just can’t get things done. One of the difficult parts for me is feeling that ‘am I doing this right?’ ‘Is this enough?’ ‘Is it actually going to add anything?’ I kind of struggle with that.

Harrison As I was going through the Higher Education program…it felt a little too narrow for where my interests were. It just didn’t click…didn’t fit.

Isabella My finances didn’t prevent me from completing my degree, but it made it a bit of a challenge because we have so much debt from student loans. When I came to Auburn I was a 4.0 student and when I left I was a 4.0 student. I feel like there should have been more resources for scholarships and awards for students that had a good GPA. Finding those was very rare and certain departments only got a certain amount of funding, but I just felt like that was definitely something that would prevent others from finishing. The main thing I would say would be the financial side of it because the sacrifice that you enroll in a doctorate program and to pay all the money back, it would be great if the university could, you know, kind of make it more affordable or make awards more available to students.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

I would say that the coursework is not really difficult; it was just rigorous because of managing my full-time job and my personal obligations.

Jenny It was a real challenge for me to get my [school] work done and do my assistant principal duty I would say travel. It takes about an hour and fifteen minutes one way.

Karis Well, it took me several years to do my masters and my PhD…just financially that is what I could do. The university pays 5 graded hours per semester and I was able to get two classes and pay a little bit on top of what the university pays for and did fine with it. I had two kids in college then I couldn’t pay their tuition and my tuition to be able to finish it and the university was not helping, so that was a challenge for years and years. You know as an international student, the language can be a main barrier…especially in coursework…it requires you to read a lot and understand and try to relate to it.

I’m really worried about writing the dissertation. I do not write that much in my work, just mainly short simple emails so actually writing my dissertation is kind of challenging.

Lacy I would never have started if the employee benefits weren’t there. I did one semester on my own with the help of my family, and then got an assistantship because otherwise, I wouldn’t have been able to finish it financially.

The thought of research scares me.

Right now, I am a single parent of two kids, two very active kids, and it’s hard to juggle going to class and making sure that they are taken care of and going to their activities but I just have finish.

Participants mentioned additional barriers to doctoral degree completion as well. These additional barriers did not necessarily fit into one of the themes previously identified by the research but were significant enough to warrant inclusion in the findings of this study. Table 7 highlights the participant statements that identify these new and emergent factors.

Table 7 Additional Barriers

Participant Participant Statement

Alice One other barrier was just time. Trying to make sure I balanced my time. I think you maybe were going to ask that if I be then went into something before you were going to ask it, but just down to my time. I was working full time, completing a degree and then ... Oh, what I was going to mention about family as well, is that last year my mom was in the hospital three or four times in the emergency room and then I was completing my degree, so that was a major issue. I, of course, didn't plan on quitting, but it just made me wonder if I was going to delay or what I was going to have to do, because my mom was in the hospital a few times last year. That was a big challenge for me as well.

Bailee School can be strenuous and it could be a strain on your family. My husband turned to drinking and it had become a problem in our family. It was hard because I didn’t want to leave him because I knew it could be fixed. It was hard on the kids because when it came to talking divorce and splitting up, it just drove them crazy. I just felt like my whole life was falling apart. Along with that, I had a brother to get killed, my best friend died in a car accident, my mom passed, my grandmother passed, I had two nephews to die tragically, all of this in the middle of me trying to finish school. My kids themselves were a barrier as well. I felt like I was missing out. I was a strong advocate in the school, I did a lot for the school just to try to make up for some of the time that I’m not at home. They’d see me a lot at school but sometimes the kids were acting out and that was another thing so worrying about them and trying to stay close to them, that was a problem as well.

Danielle I would say that I’ve had wonderful help from faculty in overcoming barriers – sometimes campus is not fully accessible to folks who are visually impaired so some tasks, I’ll try them and they don’t work well or what have you. Even in co-teaching, we have our students just email us directly, we just use canvas to post things for them, so that I don’t miss anything accidently.

Elaine The thing that made it somewhat more difficult was the travel. I would get off work early and ahead to class and get there just in time for class.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Georgia Really, my main barrier that I've tried to overcome has been staying a parent, working full time, are really my main things. You can't put school work, education work, in front of being a teacher.

Isabella Time management. Sometimes you just get overwhelmed with all of your personal obligations.

Jenny I would say travel. Travel back and forth to classes.

Lacy I’m a single parent of two kids, very active kids, so it’s hard to juggle being able to go to class and make sure that they’re taken care of and going to all of their activities. The most difficult part was just juggling, you know, family, classes, work.

The second research question sought to examine the factors that acted as a motivator for doctoral students. As suggested by existing research, a student’s relationship with their faculty advisor was found to be a major motivator to student success. Program integration was also found to be a significant motivator in several participants' success in the program. Additionally, existing support systems and external factors played a significant role in motivation of doctoral student’s ability to complete the doctoral degree. Table 8 outlines participant responses to questions related to the advising relationship serving as a motivating factor.

Table 8 Advisor Relationship as a Motivator

Participant Participant Statement

Alice I felt that I could talk to my professors, which I did…even outside of class or email them if I had questions about something and so I feel like I can most likely contact them right now and they know who I am. It does feel good when you have the supportive environment of your professors or instructors to be able to give you advice. My advisor, she was an amazing professor. For the most part, everything just worked out.

Bailee I have the best relationship with my major professor. You can’t really ask for anyone better. A great heart. They love and care about students. They’re going to stick with you through it all and through all of your difficulty. They never pass judgment. They can be firm but they’re fair. They want to see you make it and whatever it takes, they help you get to that point.

Charleigh They created an environment where they wanted you to succeed. If you were willing to do the work, and be on time, or whatever it is, if you had a deadline you were pushing for, they would do their best to kind of help meet you where you were. They were just very very helpful, accessible, talkative, and really just made this program a pleasure to be a part of.

Danielle I feel very supported. If I have a question, I get an answer. All of the people on my committee have been very helpful and it’s fabulous. Much easier to stay motivated.

Elaine My major professor was very professional. If I needed anything, she was there to give me assistance. I was often off campus and hours away and she would make it where I could watch classes while they were happening and be a part of the class.

Frederick So I chose my major professor out of a mutual interest in a topic for dissertation, respect for her wanting to help students and wanting to better Auburn University and her department. We worked well together from the beginning and I still call her and guess consider her a mentor and friend at this point. She was always there with any questions. She would be candid and understanding with the writing process, subject matter, details, everything. I’m blessed to have the relationship I have with my chair.

Georgia She’s been with me throughout the Master’s, EDS, and PhD. She’s just been phenomenal in the fact that she is very quick on feedback and that positive feedback that I have gotten every time. She really pushed me forward to keep going. She always pushed me to think beyond what I can think. I want to do it and do it well. That kind of partnership with her, possibly giving me critical feedback making me really think clearly about the present matter. What I really like is she is very down to earth, she is easy to talk to, I’ve already had a few meetings with her this semester.

Harrison We had an incredibly respectful … just great relationship overall. I honestly do not know if I would have ended up completing the program if it wasn’t for the way that he supported me. The way that

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

he encouraged my thought process and my interest. He never created roadblocks. He helped me refine my thinking and never created road blocks.

…just provided me with the structure and the support to do what I did in the time fashion that I did. Whenever I would submit a draft, I would get immediate feedback, within a week, so that was definitely a big help.

Jenny I love my advisor. She is awesome. The best thing about her is that I can go to her with anything and she will help me figure it out. If I’m worried about something, she’ll help me figure it out. She really listens to what’s going on. It’s very open and very encouraging. She also helped me too, whenever if I needed to be …if I needed a push in the right direction or get on the right path or if I needed to focus somewhere else then she’d direct me towards that.

Lacy I love my advisor. She is really helpful and she’s the reason I’m still in the program and trying to finish it. She makes things so much easier, she understands. She advises really well and encourages me all the time. She always pushes me to try and beat that (giving up) all the time. She is a great help.

Existing research not only points to the positive aspects of the advising relationship as a motivating factor but also identifies program integration as a motivating factor. Integration included things such as professional development or workshops, internships or graduate assistantships on campus, cohort support groups, and other events aimed at building connections. Table 9 outlines the participant responses that address student integration as a motivating factor.

Table 9 Integration as Motivator

Participant Participant Statement

Bailee Every opportunity that I had as far as conducting professional development or putting on a workshop, coming back to school, being at school during the summer, I took advantage of those opportunities.

Charleigh I was fortunate to have an internship on campus, and I was a [graduate] assistant on campus and that’s how I was able to work part-time, getting tuition paid, and really having plenty of time, and a flexible enough schedule…to be able to block out time to really just get my dissertation done.

Georgia I have a friend, a classmate and we’re pushing each other to get it done. Wednesday night is dissertation night, we come every Wednesday night to work on my dissertation.

Isabella The camaraderie that I had with a couple of my classmates, because we kind of started around the same time. We took a lot of classes together, so being able to be a part of a team, that kind of motivated me as well.

Jenny Well, my cohort, since we started together…that’s been the biggest thing…we really built connections with each other. …with my professors…I stay in contact with them, and we just talk to each other, not every week, or every month, but we keep in contact.

Based on the extensive literature review, the interview protocol allowed for participants to talk about certain support systems as particularly motivating in pursuit of their doctoral degree. Table 10 identifies participants' responses regarding support systems as a motivator.

Table 10 Support as Motivator

Participant Participant Statement

Alice One was my mom and my sister…I was able to talk to them all the time on the phone. That was one thing that was able to help me was my support system of a few family members.

Another thing was my religious affiliation.

Bailee I had support from my mom. My sisters were very supportive. My brothers were very supportive. My husband was there too.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Charleigh My greatest support system was my husband. There was really a great thing going, that we understood each other’s schedules.

I was fortunate enough to have an internship on campus. Our families were supportive as well.

Danielle In this department, I feel very supported. My parents are supportive and I can talk to them and I have very good friend who just kind of encouraged me and I feel like I have people kind of rooting for me.

Elaine My husband was being supportive raising our children. I had a co-worker who was my lead support and then the county extension office (where I work).

Frederick The [support from the] main professions in the department and then [from] fellow classmates. Because of those friendships and being in the same boat, everyone has the exact same problems, at the exact same time. Going through them together. They served as a great motivator. I had great parents, and I’m one of seven children. I’m right there in the middle, so cheerleading support from other siblings.

Georgia I would say mainly family…I have a very supportive husband. We’ve been together a long time. We support each other and then some. Sometimes he pushes me past that procrastination. Then my parents and his parents, this couldn’t have been done without them.

Harrison My wife was in the doctoral program with me and that was nice because we were able to support each other and really understood what the other was going through. My primary family was all very supportive as well.

Isabella Definitely my family, my husband and my family definitely supported me. We have two children so I had a huge support system and I know that’s the only reason that I was able to get through it in three years.

Jenny Friends and family, they’re supportive, but the ones that are really supportive are the ones that are in the program with you.

Karis …am working in a department and several employees in my department are also in graduate programs, so I have a great support system at work also. I have been really lucky with a couple of my research bosses that they really encouraged me to go in the field and do more, as much as I wanted to. They really made it easy for me, so the support here from my friends and colleagues and also my advisors made it easy.

Lacy Really just friends and family who just encourage and think I’m better than I am.

Just as with barriers to completion, there were factors that participants found particularly motivating that did not necessarily fit in with any particular category or theme in the existing literature. These external factors ranged from different types of motivation, financial issues, and personal desires. Table 11 outlines these external factors.

Table 11 External Motivators

Participant Participant Statement

Alice Religious affiliation…I did attend church and that helped. Wanted to be called Doctor.

Had an assistantship for part of it.

Bailee Keep advancing.

Just pray really really hard that God would give me the strength.

Charleigh Internships on campus.

Flexible work schedule.

Tuition paid for.

Danielle Different perspective [when changing degree programs].

Allow me to teach and work with students or get back into the career world.

Elaine I plan to move up.

[my work] paid for the first 5 hours and then we paid for anything above that. I saw myself standing up there being hooded.

Frederick Career opportunity.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Wanted to be a professor.

[in response to finances being a barrier] No, it was never a barrier.

Georgia I wanted to do administration.

I would definitely like to be a principal and turn that at some point into a central office level. That kind of partnership [with a professor] .

Each advanced degree I get, because I am in education, I do get a pay raise. I’ve been able to research what I want to research.

I can get a higher paying job…to have a shot to provide for their needs.

Harrison I got interested in Adult Education through working in residency life. I wanted to know more about student development, how students grow and learn. I wanted to learn how adults learn so that I can teach them.

Some professors just made the concepts relatable…not necessarily easy, just relatable. The courses were practical…they provided me with practical ways to approach how people learn.

Very fortunate to be able to work with the office of university writing…in addition to that, I had a consulting business, so economically, we were relatively stable. Assistantships provide tuition remission so that was wonderful.

Occupationally, I saw myself going to medical school…in that setting, every interaction is an opportunity to educate…having an understanding of how adults learn will be a great resource.

Isabella I wanted to really pursue to become a faculty member.

I knew this was a life goal and would open doors for me in the future.

Camaraderie of my classmates.

Jenny I really enjoyed school.

To better myself and find a position that would be in charge of making bigger decisions for education and for our children.

To be an assistant principal…then as a principal…then moving on to a central office or state department…and then eventually go back to the college level to teach.

I’m fortunate to where we can pay for it on our own.

I wanted to have my doctorate.

Highly motivated and determined…I’m not one to start something and quit.

Karis I am hoping I will be better at my job and maybe later on when I’ve graduated I’ll look at my choices.

I have a great support system at work also.

I have done a lot of projects for class work that I can actually use at my work.

The university pays for 5 hours per semester…that’s the main reason I was able to do it.

I’m not an easy quitter.

The support that I get from my family and my friends and my workplace and my boss is really the main thing that kept me going.

Lacy To just move up at the university.

I would never have started if the employee benefits weren’t there.

Just to prove to all the people that don’t think I can do it that I can.

Through initial open coding and subsequent axial coding, the researcher identified themes that largely supported the themes previously identified during the literature review. Factors identified included advisor/chair relationship, isolation/integration, support or lack of support, and various external factors. Though these factors existed in previous literature and fit into the existing models of

student retention, the relationship between factors and interaction and fluid nature of these interactions is previously unexplored. It is these interactions that interested the researcher and established the need for selective coding to establish a new model of doctoral student retention.

GATEWAYS

Discussion of Findings

Many of the factors mentioned by participants were expected and specifically asked about during the interview. The literature pointed to advisor relationship, integration, and other supports as vital to the completion of the doctoral degree. The literature also pointed to the advisor relationship, isolation, and the lack of support as significant barriers to doctoral degree completion. While these factors were expected and both open and axial coding helped identify these factors among the participants, it was the additional step of selecting coding that helped establish the foundation for a more usable theory of doctoral student retention. Table 12 identifies the participants and their responses in terms of their motivation or hindrance. Establishing these conflicts or interactions among known existing factors is important to develop a deeper understanding of the complexity of doctoral student retention.

Table 12 Factor Interactions among Participants

The findings of this qualitative ethnography add to the body of literature on doctoral student retention by highlighting the overlap and interplay of individual factors in doctoral retention and attrition. Static models of retention provide a convenient, moment-in-time snapshot of a doctoral student’s doctoral journey but do not account for the fluidity of the overall process. Overall, the findings of this study

indicate that the retention of doctoral students can be influenced both positively and negativel y – and in varying degrees – by many situations, factors, relationships, characteristics, and work/life situations. While this is not surprising based on the literature review, many participants identified factors as both motivating and hindering depending on the set of circumstances that may or may not be under their control at a specific time.

For example, participants often mentioned both positive and negative aspects of the advising relationship or their relationship with their dissertation chair. The fluidity of this relationship throughout the doctoral program is difficult to place within the framework of any existing model of student retention. Another participant talked about her lack of integration into her original field of study. Over time, she made the decision to change majors and talked about how her previous lack of experiences within the department led her to seek out involvement in her new department. Another complex factor impacting a student’s ability to complete the doctorate is the influence of external factors (i.e., job duties, family obligations/support, financial stability). One participant talked about the lack of support from her husband but the extreme support she felt from other family members. Current models of retention do not differentiate between these types of familial supports or account for their fluidity in the doctoral journey.

As expected, the advising relationship was mentioned by the majority of participants as a factor in their persistence to finish their programs. Previous literature told us that the advising relationship is one of the most important factors in doctoral retention. The findings of this study show that a singular student can identify the

advising relationship as both positive and negative at certain points. Alice stated, “there wasn’t much of an advisory relationship” and “I didn’t feel the supportive environment.” Conversely, Alice also stated, “I feel like I could contact them right now…it does feel good to have that supportive environment.” Alice noted that she changed advisors midway through her program which resulted in the conflicting accounts of advisor support. Current retention models fail to account for multiple perspectives and provide only a limited snapshot into the student’s experience. Similarly, Bailee expressed extreme dissatisfaction with their major professor when she said, “Each time I met with him, it would be very long…I wouldn’t always get my questions answered” and “he wanted me to do a practice dissertation with his research and not get any credit for it.” Bailee ended up changing advisors as well and stated, of the new advisor, “I have the best relationship with my major professor.”

These two examples are from participants who changed advisors midway through their programs. However, a similar phenomenon occurred even with participants who did not change advisors. For example, Elaine, at one point in her journey, expressed frustration saying, “she was assigned so many students at once and the ones that had been in school the longest, it seemed they were put first.” Of the same advisor, Elaine stated, “if I needed anything, she was there, even if I was off campus.” Though literature does indicate that the advising relationship is critical to doctoral students, it fails to address the shifting dynamic of that relationship at different points in the program or the evolution of that relationship over time; nor does it account for the change of advisor at any point in the program.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Existing literature also pointed to the isolation or integration of a doctoral student as a significant factor in their ability to complete their degrees. One example comes from Isabella. Isabella stated, “It would have been good to have a solid support system…you feel like no one understands the experiences that you’re going through.” Isabella later talked about the “camaraderie that [she] had with a couple of classmates…being part of a team…that kind of motivated me as well.” Charleigh talked about her first assistantship on campus, stating, “It was just a really bad match, it was really hard emotionally and really isolating.” She later expressed that she was “fortunate to have an internship on campus…was able to work part-time with the faculty…was able to block out time to get the dissertation done.” Again, existing research talks about the isolation of the doctoral journey as a barrier and the integration into the field as a motivator but fails to allow room for both isolation and integration at different points in the student’s journey to completion.

Existing supports and other external factors were also identified in the existing literature as important factors in the ability of a doctoral student to complete their degree. Depending on the complexity of the retention model, “external factors” are often grouped as one but encompasses a wide variety of factors (i.e., family, work, finances, external obligations, or personality characteristics). Taking finances as an example, several participants expressed that finances (or the need to take out student loans) as a major barrier to their completion. For instance, Alice stated, “I didn’t have an assistantship and had to obtain loans” but later in her journey obtained an assistantship and identified her assistantship as a major factor in her ability to complete the program. Similarly, Bailee stated, “We were able to

take out loans, but I still had to work fulltime to be able to pay.” She then stated that because of her enrollment in a doctoral program, she was able to advance professionally which enabled her to pay outof-pocket for several semesters. Many participants mentioned the stresses of taking out loans or seeking an assistantship but later expressed gratitude in receiving campus employment or using employment benefits to complete their programs.

Participants also mentioned barriers in balancing work and family obligations but also mentioned the support of their families and colleagues as part of their success. Alice talked about being a first-generation student whose family “didn’t make me want to quit but being first-generation, there were a lot of unknowns and misunderstandings.” She also talked about her ability to “talk to them [her family] on the phone all the time” as her primary source of social support. Georgia talked about the struggle of going to school while having two kids and having to meet the needs of her family while also getting her coursework done. She also stated, “I have a very supportive husband. We’ve been together a long time. We support each other and then some.” Georgia was a prime example of how familial obligations can be a barrier to completion in some ways but a strong motivator in other ways. Existing research points to family as a factor but does not always account for the dual influence that they can play on a student’s ability to complete their program.

The interaction of various factors and the unique relationships they create may account for the difficulty in tracking the progress of doctoral students. Current models of doctoral retention provide an adequate snapshot of a singular moment in the journey to degree completion but cannot adequately capture the fluidity and

complexity of the relationships involved in the journey to degree completion. Both Tinto’s (1975, 1993) and Bean’s (1979; 1985; 1990) retention models allow for the influence of multiple factors on a doctoral student, but do not adequately allow for the shifting perspective of those factors over time or in different circumstances.

Foundation of Model Development

Van Maanen (2011) emphasizes that the point of qualitative inquiry is to provide a written representation of a culture or culturesharing group. One could argue that the culture of doctoral students is unique and varies by both university and discipline. Research suggests that because universities operate in educational silos, these results may very well differ by discipline and university or by university type (Ivankova & Stick, 2007). Participants in this study were all part of one discipline within one university to aid in the formation of a singular description of a culture-sharing group. Findings of this study described the culture in one discipline and if duplicated within a different discipline, would describe the culture within that discipline. Operationally, the question then becomes, how can a model of doctoral student retention account for the individual factors of multiple cultural sharing groups (or disciplines) yet maintain the integrity of a model that simplifies an otherwise complex process?

A static model of retention would fail to capture the fluid nature of the doctoral journey. A model, by nature, should simplify and aid in the understanding of an otherwise complex phenomenon. In this case, a living, breathing model of student retention is a challenge. The variation in both barriers and motivators, the degree to which each has an impact on doctoral

processes, and the overall relationship between these barriers and motivators makes it difficult to understand graduate student retention. However, it is the overlap of these factors, both positive and negative, that make it difficult to show a linear progression through the doctoral program.

Through examination of existing models of retention – Tinto’s Model of Persistence and Bean’s Student Attrition Model – we see a snapshot of a moment in time. Like most snapshots, this provides a great picture of a singular moment – the beginning of the program, the middle, or the end of the degree – but fails to account for the journey itself or provide any predictive information for students or faculty. The challenge then becomes creating a model that both simplifies the theories and concepts and offers a useful tool for both doctoral advisors and doctoral students. In creating a simplistic model of doctoral student attrition, it is important to base it on an easyto-understand foundation but allow for the complexity of the process that needs to be simplified.

Based on the literature review and the findings of this study, a visual representation of the doctoral journey began to resemble that of a childhood board game – Chutes and Ladders. While working toward a doctorate, one can likely imagine how the process could include multiple ups and downs, setbacks, and successes, both good and bad luck. These ups and downs can come as small victories or monumental occasions or daily frustrations or weeks’ worth of setbacks. As the findings of this study began to take shape into a model that resembled Chutes and Ladders, it had the capacity to make the process easily understandable but also provided the complexity to conceptualize the doctoral journey. Figure 4 provides a visual of the familiar childhood

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

game compared to the outline for the foundation of this model of doctoral retention.

Figure 4

Classis Chutes and Ladders Board Game as the Foundation for the Chutes and Ladders Model of Doctoral Retention

Note: Chutes and Ladders image used with permission from Erin Cadigan - stock.adobe.com.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

When playing Chutes and Ladders, players will roll the dice to determine the number of boxes they are allowed to move forward. If a player lands at the bottom of a ladder, they are allowed to advance to the top of that ladder. The ladder can advance them a couple of spaces or several spaces, depending on the size of the ladder. Conversely, if a player lands at the top of a chute (or slide), they must slide back down the game board to the bottom of that slide. Again, they can be set back a couple of spaces, or several spaces, depending on the size of the slide. Players can, on one turn, land on a ladder that propels them several spaces to the top of the game board and then, on the very next turn, land on a chute that will set them back several spaces, sometimes further back then they were when they first landed on the ladder.

While progress in the game is largely based on luck and the role of the dice, many factors influence doctoral retention, and some are also based on luck or the role of the dice while others are based on conscious choices or decisions by the student or the program. Using the premise of chutes (barriers) and ladders (motivators), this model of doctoral retention conceptualizes retention in a way that many researchers have not yet considered. By focusing on the up and down nature of the doctoral journey, we can better understand the pitfalls to graduate education. This model is generalizable to other populations because while it was conceptualized based on the findings of this qualitative study, it is adaptable to include a variety of factors regardless of program or discipline.

To truly understand the concept of this model of doctoral retention, it is essential to see it in action. Any model runs the risk of becoming too complicated. Retention giants (i.e., Tinto, Bean, Kember) in the field have

created models, charts, tables, data, all pointing towards factors impacting retention and persistence at most levels and in most scenarios. These models become overly complicated when forced upon multiple disciplines and populations. Additionally, these models provide a single snapshot of influential factors, not necessarily capturing the ebb and flow, the unpredictability of factors, and the individual impact of specific events on individuals. Many models have made substantial strides in simplifying the process for higher education administrators, but still lack the fluidity required for doctoral students. To accomplish this, the model must not only be simplistic in its foundation, but modifiable at its core. The model must incorporate the flexibility to apply various barriers and motivators as well as determine the influence of these factors on an individual and their overall journey. For example, what one student may consider a minor inconvenience, may lead another student to drop out of the program. Individual variation can be accounted for on the side of the ladders or chutes applied to each student. As illustrated in Figure 4, a blank model clearly identifies the path from beginning a doctorate to finishing a doctorate. The path is linear and simplistic without the addition of barriers or motivators along the way. The simple framework serves as the foundation for the Chutes and Ladders Model of Doctoral Retention.

Early Model Conceptualization

Starting with the foundation of the Chutes and Ladders Model of Doctoral Retention (as depicted in Figure 4), the path to success is easy to visualize. With a blank model, we can assume that Box 1 is the point at which a student enters their doctoral program and Box 100 is graduation day. The path from Box 1 to Box 100 illustrates the

student’s journey through the doctoral degree, including both barriers (chutes) and motivators (ladders) along the way. The boxes along the way can be filled with any number of both barriers and motivators and like the children’s game, can often include an element of luck. A lucky few may have more ladders than chutes, but like many who have gone before them, most doctoral students will have a mixture of both chutes and ladders with not all making it to graduation day.

This model involves more than simply inputting factors into numbered boxes. At any given time, a student can speed right past something that would have set them back months in their progress. For example, a student can encounter one faculty member who hinders their progress and delays their progress for months. Another student could encounter that same faculty member and have a completely different experience, one that acts more like a ladder to propel them further along.

The real value in the use of this model is that the “game” changes for everyone while the overall concept stays the same. While some moves are purely luck, other moves can be made explicitly by the student to get further along in the process. The current literature points to the extreme influence of pre-existing conditions to doctoral student success (CITE). Bean (1985), Kember (1995), and Tinto (1975, 1993) outline the importance of personal characteristics in the intrinsic motivation of students. For example, students with significant debt from previous degrees may be negatively impacted before their journey begins. The model, thus, becomes more complex as the individual characteristics and experiences of the student are applied. Certain characteristics, such as advisor selections, integration, research allotment, will vary by

discipline. Still other factors (i.e., balancing full-time employment, family expansion, relational issues, tragedy) are unique to the individual regardless of the program. The combination of and interaction of these factors make up boxes 2-99 of this model.

Application of Theoretical Model

The purpose of any model is to simplify an otherwise complicated theory or phenomenon. The doctoral journey contains many factors whose relationships and interactions are anything but simple. Departments can maintain the simplicity of the model by maintaining the foundation of the Chutes and Ladders approach and adapting the student’s individual factors. Just as with the original board game, some ladders are tall and some are short; similarly, some chutes are long, and some are short. Applied to a doctoral student, the larger the motivating factors – the higher the ladder will take them. The depth to which a student experiences life’s stresses will determine the length of the chute, or backslide, they encounter.

In this study, three students found themselves in negative advising relationships and, despite their best efforts, individual characteristics, or support systems, ended up searching for a new advisor or a new program. These situations would have displayed on the model as extremely long chutes. Whereas other participants experienced more minor frustration with their advisor which would have displayed as relatively short chutes on the model. For some students, playing this “game” will include significantly more ladders than chutes. For others, the chutes they encounter will prove more than they can overcome, and they will drop from the program. This model provides a simple foundation with the flexibility and

modifiable picture of the distinct possibilities in a doctoral journey. The key concepts of this model are generalizable to a variety of individuals and disciplines. Each student starts with a blank model and places ladders and chutes along the way as they encounter various obstacles. The model varies by student, but the foundation remains consistent by providing an easily understandable model of graduate retention.

The findings of this study show that retention factors, both positive and negative, often overlap. Many variables can be both motivating and inhibiting at different points along the way. The degree of impact of each factor varies from individual to individual. For students with less intrinsic motivation, the smallest barriers could derail their entire journey. For example, one participant quit her program because she struggled to balance her home and family life. There were no other significant barriers or events, she simply did not have time to balance her personal, work, and academic responsibilities. Several students mentioned difficulty in balancing their commitments but persisted in obtaining their degree due to other motivating factors or a stronger intrinsic motivation. For those highly committed to obtaining their doctorate degree, a great many hindrances can be overcome to accomplish their goals. This model cannot only account for individual differences in program commitment and completion, but it allows individuals to see the overall picture of the doctoral journey. Placing common barriers and motivators on the foundational model can allow students to see what is likely to come up during their pursuit. Students can thus more easily prepare for those barriers and take advantage of the motivators when they present.

Figure 5 shows how the Chutes and Ladders model can be applied to one of the

study’s interviewees. Before entering the individual characteristics of the interviewee, the model includes several milestone events that take place throughout their program. These events are highlighted in blue and include such things as beginning coursework, selecting an advisor, finishing coursework, passing the general oral exam, submitting the IRB, forming a committee, and all of the submission dates often required by universities. Depending on the program or discipline, the model will always include certain milestone events required by the program or university that are independent of a student’s personal characteristics.

5

Chutes and Ladders Model of Doctoral Student Retention applied to one interviewee

GATEWAYS

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

In this example, boxes one through seven include those factors that existed within the interviewee before beginning the program (i.e., previous educational experiences, employment in a field that grants promotion with degree completion, academic preparation, support from family or employer). Based on these pre-existing characteristics, this interviewee has decided to begin a doctoral journey. The interviewee’s initial progress, noted in red, moves steadily from box eight through box 19, when difficulty communicating with the advisor began. By the time the interviewee had reached box 25, the difficulties with the advisor had reached the point of becoming a major disruption for the student. At this point, the interviewee changed not only her advisor but her program of study. This barrier, or chute, set the interviewee back to box 13.

It is at this juncture in the model application that subjectivity comes into play. Why would the change of program not have sent the interviewee back only two boxes or back to box 11 or box 12 instead of box 13?

Based on the information gained during the interview, the researcher determined the significance of both the barriers and motivators for each interviewee. Given the preexisting milestone events within each department and the significance given to each influencing factor by the interviewee, the researcher subjectively determined the height of each ladder and the slope of each chute in this sample. When working with students directly, advisors and departments should include students in the process of model development to ensure accuracy.

The interviewee, upon changing programs and advisors, received a graduate assistantship that serves as a major motivator by relieving much of her previous

financial stress. Changes – either major motivators or major disruptors – are signified by a change of color in the figure. This interviewee progressed through the remainder of her coursework relatively smoothly. Her major milestones – finishing coursework, passing the general oral exams, and preparing and submitting the IRB –occurred without major incident. As the student progressed to the dissertation phase however, she began to experience the isolation generally associated with the dissertation writing. Located far from her immediate family, she felt a lack of support and connection with a local community of supporters. Without the weekly accountability and connection to her classmates, she also began to feel isolated from the program and department. This isolation led to extended periods of time with little to no progress toward her dissertation writing (box 74 in the example). Eventually, the interviewee experienced a major disruption to her progress in the form of the birth of a child (box 60 in the example).

Though ultimately a positive experience in her life, the birth of a child left the interviewee feeling even more isolated from her program, advisor, and the university. After some time, and without an explainable reason, the interviewee decided to restart the program (box 55). By this point, the IRB approval had expired as well. This series of major disruptions is noted in orange and blue in the example provided. After resubmitting the IRB for approval, the interviewee described a meeting with her advisor that changed her mindset and helped propel her toward finishing her doctorate (box 57). Her advisor encouraged her to join a group of students in similar situations who had banded together to form an accountability group that physically met once per week to work on their dissertations.

With her newfound encouragement and motivation, the interview joined the accountability group (box 72), established regular Skype support from her family (box 75), joined a local church to gain moral and spiritual support (box 79) and began working toward completion once again.

As she approached the end of her doctoral journey, the interviewee began to search for jobs that would better fit her new education and experience. She received a job offer contingent upon completion of her degree (box 82). This job offer served as a major motivator for her because it was located near her family and included a significant pay raise. During the final push toward graduation, the interviewee was able to focus on her intrinsic motivation (i.e., wanted to be called doctor, being too close to stop, and desire to prove to others that she could finish) to push her toward degree completion (boxes 85-88). She also pointed toward the continued support of her advisor and committee as a major factor in her ability to complete the program. Ultimately, through many barriers and motivators, at varying degrees of impact, this interviewee was able to persist to degree completion.

Though still in the early stages of development, this model provides an opportunity for students to preview the doctoral journey while factoring in their individual characteristics as well as set departmental milestones and the degree to which these factors impact the overall journey. Students, advisors, and programs can identify areas in which students are known to experience major disruptions and be prepared to offer additional support at those critical junctures. Students can see what is expected of them and what research says they are likely to experience along the way. Advisors can talk with students about how disruptive a certain setback may be

(i.e., the isolation of dissertation writing) and provide support to help students overcome those barriers or avoid them altogether. Additionally, departments and programs can examine student progress to determine the best time and place to provide resources and support to doctoral students.

Conclusions and Recommendations

With nearly 50% of all entering doctoral students failing to complete their degree, the study of attrition must be at the forefront for graduate programs and retention researchers. The differences vary so greatly by individual and discipline that creating a comprehensive model of retention that simplifies, rather than complicates, the journey of doctoral students is challenging. Each department will invoke different practices to retain their doctoral students as each student comes with a specific set of criteria that make them more or less likely to complete their program. The variance in ability to complete the degree is virtually limitless; however, the use of a simplified model of graduate retention can help departments and administrators track progress through these doctoral programs, see barriers before they form, and take advantage of known motivators to student retention. This model allows for the adaptability to both individual student and academic disciplines.

Research shows the significant differences regarding selecting, advising, and educating doctoral students (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Hirt & Muffo, 1998; Nerad & Cerny, 1993; Zhao et al., 2007). This model allows for the department to identify ways in which their students are struggling or excelling or ways in which departmental practices are creating hurdles for their students. Departments can use these results in developing practices for doctoral

faculty, students, and administrators to aid in student retention.

The complexities of doctoral education are evident in the current literature. The consistent 40-60% attrition rate among doctoral students is costly to individuals and institutions alike. The existing models of student retention contribute greatly to the field of undergraduate education but often fail to account for the complexity of doctoral students and their programs. The discipline differences in higher education further complicate the creation of a widespread model of doctoral student retention. Though still in the developmental stages, the Chutes and Ladders Approach to understanding doctoral student attrition attempts to account for the complexity of the doctoral journey, the variation in individual characteristics, the presence of both motivators and barriers, and the overlap of these factors in the overall progress of a doctoral student.

Further studies should be conducted to ground the model in retention theory and test the applicability across disciplines and university types. Through further research and wider-spread applicability, administrators and researchers can develop programming to lower attrition rates of American universities.

References

Banwo, B.O., Navarrete-Burks, L., McGee, S., & McGee-Tekula, R. (2024).

Building bridges in STEM education: Minoritized secondary school student computer science pathways and experiences. Education Sciences, 14(8), Article 381. https://www.mdpi.com/22277102/14/8/831.

Barnes, B.J. & Randall, J. (2012). Doctoral student satisfaction: An examination of disciplinary, enrollment, and institutional differences. Research in Higher Education, 53,47-75. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s11162-011-9225-4.

Barnes, B.J., Williams, E.A., & Archer, S.A. (2010). Characteristics that matter most: Doctoral students’ perceptions of positive and negative advisor attributes. NACADA Journal, 30(1).

Bean, J.P. (1979). Drop outs and turn over: the synthesis and test of a casual model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155-187.

Bean, J.P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 35-64.

Bean, J.P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In Hossler, D., and Bean, J.P. The Strategic Management of College Enrollments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 147-169.

Bernard, W.G. & Ryan, G.W. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Bowen, W.G. & Rudenstine, N.L. (1992). In Pursuit of the PhD. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cabrera, A.F., Castaneda, M.A., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143-164.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M.A. (1993). College persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123-139.

Channing, J., Lampley, S., & Lampley, J. (2023). The relationships between gender and graduation rates, dissertation methodology, GPA, and GRE scores for EdD graduates at a southeastern university. ERIC.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2004). PhD completion and attrition: Policy, numbers, leadership, and next steps. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. SAGE.

Ebrenberg, R.G. & Mavros, P.G. (1992). Do doctoral students’ financial patterns affect their time-to-degree and completion probabilities? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4070.

Felder, P.P. & Barker, M.J. (2013). Extending Bell’s concept of interest convergence: A framework for understanding the African American doctoral student experience. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8.

Gardner, S.K. (2010). Contrasting the socialization experience of doctoral students in high- and low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary context at the institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 61-81.

Gardner, S. & Holley, K. (2011). Those individual barriers are real: The progression of first-generation students through doctoral education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 44(1).

Golde, C.M. (1998). Beginning graduate school: Explaining first-year doctoral attrition. In M.S. Anderson (Ed.), The experience of being in graduate school: An exploration. (55-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Herman, C. (2011). Obstacles to success –doctoral student attrition in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 29(3).

Hirt, J.B. & Muffo, J.A. (1998). Graduate students: Institutional climates and disciplinary cultures. New Directions for Institutional Research, 98, 17-33.

Holmes, B.D., Seay, A.D., & Wilson, K.N. (2009). Re-envisioning the dissertation stage of doctoral study: Traditional mistakes with non-traditional learners. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 6(8), 9-13.

Ivankova, N. & Stick, N. (2007). Students’ persistence in a distributed doctoral program in educational leadership in higher education: a mixed-method study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1).

Joy, S., Liang, X., Bilimoria, D., & Perry, S. (2015). Doctoral advisor-advisee pairing in STEM fields: Selection criteria and impact of faculty, student, and departmental factors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 343363.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Kember, D. (1995). Open Learning Courses for Adults: A model of student progress Englewood Cliffs, NG: Educational Technology.

Kleinberg, S. & Marsh, J. (2025). The hidden bias pushing women out of computer science. IEEE Access. https/www.stevens.edu/news/the-hiddenbias-pushing-women-out-of-computerscience.

Kluever, R. (1995, April 18-22). ABDs and graduates from a college of education: Responsibility, barriers, and facilitators Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Eric Document No. ED 382143.

Kvale, S. & Brinkman, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Loes, C.N., An, B.P., & Trolian, T.L. (2024). Quality of student-faculty interactions, persistence, and the mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Post-Secondary Student Success, 3(4). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ14328 67.

Lovelace, J. (2015). Barriers, motivators, and perceived abilities related to completion of the doctoral degree (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Electronic Theses and Dissertation Database (http://hdl.handle.net/10415/5000).

Lovitts, B.E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Mensah, F. (2023). The 50% tipping point: Addressing doctoral student attrition through institutional innovation. Journal of College Academic Support Programs. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ14631 63.pdf.

Nerad, M. & Miller, D.S. (1997). The institution cares: Berkeley’s efforts to support dissertation writing in the humanities and social sciences. New Directions for Higher Education, 90, 7590.

Niehues, M., Wille-Rex, L., & Sullen, J. (2025). Identity and motivation of adolescent student-athletes in school and elite-sport: An investigation of the relationship within- and cross-domains. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.16250 68

Olbrecht, A.M., Romano, C., & Teigen, J. (2016). How money helps keep students in college: The relationship between family finances, merit-based aid, and retention in higher education. Journal of Student Financial Services, 46(1).

Patsalia, S., Pazzoni, M., & Visentin, F. (2024). Research independence: Drivers and impact on PhD students’ careers. Studies in Higher Education, 49(12), 2560-2583. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2 314584.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Razmi, M.H., Khabir, M., & Tilwani, S.A. (2021). A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of Graduate Record Examination (GRE) General test. ERIC Document EJ1318846.

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A.J., Holmes, J., & Stephen, J.S. (2019). Identifying significant personal and program factors that predict online EdD students’ program integration. Online Learning, 23(4, 313-335. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ12377 95.pdf.

Roy, K., McGill, C.M., & Bloom, J.L. (2021). Doctoral student perceptions of faculty advisors: Four supportive behaviors to promote doctoral completion. NACADA Review, 4(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ14317 39.pdf.

Schlosser, L.Z., Knox, S., Moskovitz, A.R., & Hill, C.E. (2003). A qualitative examination of graduate advising relationships: The advisee perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2).

Schwager, I.T., Hulsheger, U.R., Bridgeman, B., & Lang, J.W.B. (2015). Graduate student selection: graduate record examination, socioeconomic status, and undergraduate grade point average as predictors of student success in a western European university. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(2), 71-79.

Stanton, J.D., Sebasta, A.J. & Dunlosky, J. (2021). Fostering metacognition to support student learning and performance. CBE – Life Science Education, 20(fe3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0289.

Stewart, S., Lim, D.H., & Kim, J. (2016). Factors influencing college persistence for first-time students. Journal of College Student Retention. ERIC Document EJ1092649.

Thompson, B. (2008). How college freshman communicate student academic support: A grounded theory study. Communication Education, 57(1). 122-144.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd Ed). University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1998). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623.

Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography (2nd Ed). University of Chicago Press.

Webber, K.L., & Burns, R. (2021). Increases in graduate student debt in the US: 2000 to 2016. Research in Higher Education, 62, 709-732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-02009611-x

Zhao, C., Golde, C., & McCormick, A. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behavior affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263, 281.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Zhou, E. & Okahana, H. (2016). The Role of Department Supports on Doctoral Completion and Time-to-Degree. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 20(4), 511.529. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251166820 36.

Examining Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives of Equity-Based Instruction in Mathematics

Cliff Chestnutt and Andrea Crenshaw University of West Georgia

Abstract

Thirty-five preservice teachers (PSTs) enrolled in an elementary teacher education program completed a course assignment to understand their knowledge of equity-based mathematics instruction. Results of the study revealed that all the PSTs indicated knowledge of equity-based mathematics; however, many discussed having a limited understanding of implementation in classroom instruction. They expressed limited opportunities to observe and engage in equity-based mathematics instruction during their teacher preparation program. The results suggested that the PSTs did not feel prepared to teach mathematics to diverse students effectively. Thus, a more significant focus needs to be placed on providing PSTs with experiences in developing and delivering instruction to meet the needs of a variety of learners.

Introduction

Equity-based instruction in mathematics refers to teaching practices that actively recognize and respond to students’ diverse cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic, and learning needs in ways that promote fair access to high-quality mathematical learning

for all students. This approach differs from general equity or multicultural education in that it centers on challenging systemic barriers within mathematics education and supporting historically marginalized students in developing mathematical identities and achieving academic success. In practice, equity-based mathematics instruction includes strategies such as culturally responsive problem contexts, inclusive discourse practices, asset-based framing of student thinking, differentiated instruction, and the integration of students’ lived experiences into mathematical tasks. Pedagogically, it challenges the traditional view of mathematics as objective and culturally neutral, instead positioning students as capable sense makers whose backgrounds enrich classroom learning (Childs, 2024). Despite the growing urgency to address educational inequities, many teachers continue to exhibit limited understanding of equity-based instruction in mathematics (Smith, 2023; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017; MacDonald, 2013). Numerous studies have examined why equitable teaching practices often remain underprioritized in classrooms (Brown, 2014; Coady et al., 2016; Sleeter, 2014). This oversight is especially consequential as public school demographics change. A

failure to implement equity-based practices in mathematics can perpetuate achievement gaps, limit diverse students’ access to rigorous mathematics, and contribute to the underrepresentation of marginalized groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways. When students do not see their identities, language, and cultural values reflected in the mathematics classroom, they may disengage and internalize negative beliefs about their mathematical abilities, ultimately affecting academic outcomes and long-term opportunities.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) projects that by 2025, over 54% of students in public schools will identify as non-White, with Hispanic students comprising nearly 29% of the total school population (Snyder et al., 2016). However, teacher demographics have not shifted in tandem. As of the 2018–2019 academic year, approximately 80% of public school teachers in the United States were White (Taie, S. & Goldring,R., 2020). This widening demographic divide between students and educators increases the urgency for PSTs to develop equity-based instructional practices, particularly in elementary mathematics, where foundational understandings of mathematics and identity are formed. Additionally, research suggests that PSTs’ understandings of equity significantly impact the learning experiences of diverse student populations (Taylor et al., 2016). However, many teacher preparation programs may fall short in offering structured opportunities to develop this knowledge (King & Butler, 2015). Acquah and Commins (2016) found that preservice teachers are not always conscious of their cultural biases and the ways these beliefs may affect classroom practice. Developing cultural awareness and instructional practices requires intentional reflection and

meaningful engagement with diverse learners. As Taylor et al. (2016) emphasize, PSTs benefit most from guided reflection, exposure to diverse classroom settings, and explicit modeling of equitable mathematics teaching strategies. Given the increasingly multicultural makeup of elementary classrooms and the persistent underrepresentation of equity-based pedagogies in teacher preparation, it is essential to examine how PSTs understand and experience equity-based instruction in mathematics.

Research Questions

This study seeks to address the need for equity-based mathematics instruction through the following research questions:

1. How do elementary preservice teachers describe their knowledge of equity in mathematics?

2. How do elementary preservice teachers describe their knowledge of equity-based mathematics instruction?

Review of Related Literature

Equity-based mathematics teaching practices encourage all students, regardless of race, culture, language, or economic status, to have the same opportunities for high-quality mathematics instruction. These practices aim not only at reducing structural and instructional barriers but also at validating students' experiences, enabling them to actively and meaningfully participate in mathematics classrooms (Bennett, 2014). Access is not enough for a description of equitable mathematics teaching (NCTM, 2014); the dynamic that must be developed is one of engagement and achievement for all learners.

GATEWAYS

Key features of equity-based mathematics teaching practice include differentiated instruction, culturally-relevant teaching, high standards for all students, an inclusive curriculum, and a collaborative learning environment. Through differentiation, teachers can accommodate a variety of learning styles and needs represented amongst their students, and math concepts can become accessible (Tomlinson, 2014). Fundamental to CRP is students' backgrounds and lived experiences, as CRP aims to increase student engagement and relevance (Gay, 2010). Upholding rigorous academic standards is a key factor in challenging deficit-thinking and supporting student achievement (Nieto & Bode, 2018). Curricula that draw on varied cultural traditions for their mathematics contribute to the validation of student identities and to the development of a sense of belonging (Gutstein, 2006). Finally, peer interaction and collective knowledge building are supported in collaborative classrooms, and, critically, ongoing professional development supports teachers in developing the collective capacity to sustain an equity-oriented practice (Aguirre et al., 2013; Graham, 2018). Despite the recognition and popularity of such practices, it has been widely noted that PSTs infrequently understand the confluence between cultural and linguistic diversity and mathematics teaching (Turner & Drake, 2016). Together, these constraints limit their ability to provide teaching that is flexible, inclusive, and responsive. Research has shown that authentic experiences with diverse learners during teacher education led to an increase in preservice teachers' readiness to use equity-based strategies (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Kwok, 2025). For instance, Kwok (2025) reported that PSTs who participated in culturally immersive practicum contexts were more confident and

purposeful when implementing equity approaches to teaching mathematics.

However, there is also already considerable evidence regarding shortcomings in the organization and the design of teacher education programs. As Neuman (2017) and Olson and Stoehr (2019) summarize, it is common for PSTs not to realize the biases they hold or that the way they teach might perpetuate inequities, especially absent the chance for far-reaching reflection or direct discussion on how to teach for equity. The results reveal that many programs emphasize discussion about the theoretical implications of diversity but do not provide systematic training on how to design and implement equity-based instructional strategies (Davis & Kulm, 2011; King & Butler, 2015).To provide greater clarity about the pedagogical implications of teaching mathematics equitably, it is helpful to reference such closely-related frameworks such as critical pedagogy. Arising from the work of Freire (1970), critical pedagogy asserts the power of education to subvert systems of oppression and amplify disenfranchised voices. Gutiérrez (2012) applies this line of thinking to mathematics education, advocating for pedagogy that grapples with power, identity, and social justice, framed as rehumanizing mathematics. In this context, mathematics classrooms serve as sites of liberatory learning where students' lived experiences of reality and community knowledge are vital to instruction. Thus, teachers need to develop an awareness of and think about how their beliefs, identities, and practices challenge or sustain inequity (Milner, 2010; Sleeter, 2014). Although research emphasizes the importance of critical consciousness, there are limited examples of how PSTs enact equity-oriented beliefs as something they do in mathematics. This gap in the literature is a key driver to

GATEWAYS

RQ 2: How do elementary PSTs conceptualize their understandings of equity-based mathematics instruction? Most current research reports only examine whether preservice teachers possess equity dispositions, without investigating how these dispositions manifest in mathematicsspecific pedagogical choices. Further, little is known regarding how teacher education programs lead to the development of equitybased mathematics teaching practices beyond developing a general cultural responsiveness. This study addresses this gap by exploring the relationship between the PSTs’ conceptualization and lived experience with equitable mathematics teaching.

Moreover, teachers' attitudes and their self-efficacy are key issues for the administration of equitable practice. Educators who are concerned with questions of justice and who perceive the interconnected dimensions of race, class, language, and disability are more likely to use culturally-relevant and reflective pedagogy (Gutiérrez, 2012; Milner, 2010). According to the literature, support in the form of mentorship, opportunities for critical reflection, and sustained experiences with diverse environments are important for creating PSTs who are confident and competent educators (Aguirre et al., 2013; Sleeter, 2014). As the students in the nation's public schools are becoming more diverse and non-White students are projected to account for 54% of public school enrollment by 2025 (Snyder, de Brey, & Dillow, 2016), teacher education programs need to place greater importance meeting the needs of all students. Nevertheless, as of the 2018–2019 school year, almost 80% of the United States’ public school teachers were White (US Department of Education, 2020). This demographic imbalance underscores the urgency for teacher education programs to

incorporate purposeful and coherent strategies that develop PSTs’ knowledge and skills for incorporating equity-focused mathematical content into instruction.

While the literature provides a robust base of knowledge regarding the elements and value of equity-based teaching, it also exposes ongoing shortcomings in how PSTs are supported in enacting such practices, particularly within mathematics education. This work adds to this literature by examining preservice teachers' conceptions of equity-oriented mathematics teaching and by identifying the forms of support that are necessary to prepare them to reach diverse learners.

Methodology

This study employed a qualitative descriptive research design to explore elementary preservice teachers’ (PSTs’) perspectives on equity-based mathematics instruction. A qualitative approach was appropriate for capturing the complexity and nuance of participants’ understandings and experiences. Descriptive research allowed for the interpretation of participants’ responses using their own words and contextualized meaning, aligning with the exploratory nature of the research questions (Creswell & Poth, 2018).The study was conducted at a southeastern university with a strong emphasis on teacher education. Participants were enrolled in an undergraduate elementary mathematics methods course, which served as a capstone experience following foundational mathematics content coursework. The course emphasized research based instructional strategies, culturally-responsive pedagogy, and equity-focused teaching practices. Examples of course assignments included a “Cultural Math Artifact” project, in which students examined mathematical

contributions from non-Western cultures and designed related instructional tasks, and a “Case Study Analysis” that required PSTs to adapt a lesson for a multilingual student population using equity-focused strategies. Required readings included Gutstein (2006) and Gay (2010), which were used to scaffold discussions on teaching mathematics as a tool for social justice and validating students’ cultural identities. Instructional strategies included the use of community funds of knowledge, differentiated math tasks, and structured collaborative learning environments to address diverse learners' needs. The course met for 15 weekly sessions, each lasting approximately 2.5 hours, and combined theoretical learning with practical applications. Thirty-five PSTs participated in the study. Of these, 22 were enrolled in a dual certification program for elementary and special education, and 13 were enrolled in a traditional elementary certification program. The sample was predominantly female (n = 34), with one male participant. In terms of racial and ethnic composition, 21 participants identified as White, seven as Black or African American, four as Hispanic, and three as Asian. Additionally, five participants reported being multilingual, speaking languages including Spanish, Korean, and American Sign Language in addition to English. Prior to data collection, institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained. To minimize the influence of power dynamics, a graduate research assistant unaffiliated with the instructors conducted all recruitment, consent, and data collection procedures. The course instructor, who also served as the primary researcher, was not present during these activities and did not access any data until final course grades had been submitted. Data were collected via two open-ended written prompts administered during a scheduled class period. Participants were asked to

respond to the following questions: (1) “How do you describe your knowledge of equity in mathematics?” and (2) “How do you describe your knowledge and experience with equity-based mathematics instruction?” There were no time limits for this activity, and students were encouraged to write freely and honestly. Responses were submitted anonymously and held securely by the assistant until the conclusion of the semester. Responses were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The process began with open coding to identify emergent concepts, keywords, and repeated phrases. These codes were then refined through axial coding into broader categories such as definitions of equity, instructional challenges, field-based observations, and self-reported preparedness. Themes were developed through an iterative process involving comparison of codes with the research questions, course objectives, and conceptual frameworks on equity in education. Cultural awareness and teaching self-efficacy also emerged as salient themes. To enhance rigor and ensure coding reliability, a second coder independently reviewed a random subset of 25% of the responses and applied the same coding protocol. The two coders achieved an initial interrater agreement rate of 87%, with discrepancies resolved through collaborative discussion and consensus-building. The final coding framework was documented in an analytic memo that detailed theme definitions and coding criteria. The researchers maintained reflective journals and engaged in peer debriefing sessions with faculty colleagues to further enhance trustworthiness. Although additional course artifacts such as lesson plans, reflective journals, and observation logs were available, they were not formally analyzed in this phase of the research. However, these materials provided contextual insight into

participants’ instructional development. Overall, the methodological design offered a rich and ethically sound foundation for understanding how preservice teachers conceptualize and experience equity-based mathematics instruction within a teacher preparation program.

Results

Analysis of PSTs’ responses revealed a complex and evolving understanding of equity-based mathematics instruction. While most PSTs articulated limited knowledge or confidence regarding implementation, several demonstrated emerging awareness of core equity principles. Three central themes were identified and refined through iterative coding: (1) emerging conceptions of equitybased mathematics instruction, (2) uncertainty and limitations in translating equity into practice, and (3) expressed need for modeling and sustained instructional support. These themes are presented below with interpretive analysis and connections to existing literature.

Emerging Conceptions of Equity-Based Mathematics Instruction

Although 23 out of 35 PSTs initially expressed uncertainty or confusion about equity-based instruction, a deeper reading of their responses revealed nascent understandings aligned with core elements of equity pedagogy. For instance, some PSTs associated equity with differentiated instruction or creating opportunities for all students to succeed ideas that align with foundational frameworks in equity-oriented teaching (Gay, 2010; NCTM, 2014). Heather shared, “I think it means allowing all students to be successful in the math classroom,” reflecting an awareness of inclusive instructional goals. Similarly, Jennifer stated, “Implementing

differentiation in the classroom,” suggesting recognition of the importance of adjusting instruction to meet diverse student needs. Table 1 illustrates a range of initial understandings. While Hannah admitted uncertainty “I am not sure, maybe teaching students differently”—Jordan emphasized student engagement strategies such as “hands-on activities and number talks.” These responses, while limited in theoretical grounding, indicate that PSTs are beginning to associate equity with pedagogical practices aimed at inclusivity and cognitive engagement. This emerging understanding is consistent with work by Aguirre et al. (2013), who emphasized the role of student-centered, culturally responsive strategies in fostering equity in mathematics classrooms. Overall, while PSTs definitions varied in depth and specificity, there is evidence of growing awareness of equity-related goals, even if the language and frameworks are not yet fully developed.

Table 1 PSTs Knowledge of Equity in Mathematics

PST

Example Response

Hannah “I am not sure, maybe teaching students differently in the classroom”

Melissa “I really don’t know anything about this, but look forward to learning more”

Jennifer “ Implementing differentiation in the classroom”

Heather “I think it means allowing all students to be successful in the math classroom”

Jordan “It involves hands-on activities and number talks to extend students thinking”

Uncertainty and Limitations in Translating Equity into Practice

Despite some conceptual understanding, 19 out of 35 PSTs expressed discomfort or confusion about operationalizing equity in their mathematics instruction. This uncertainty was not due to lack of exposure alone, but also a perceived gap between theoretical understanding and actionable strategies. Brooke stated, "I feel like I have a good idea of what it is, but have no idea what this kind of teaching would look like in my math class," highlighting the disconnect between abstract knowledge and instructional enactment.

Similarly, Lauren shared, "I would like to teach like this in my classroom, but I do not know how," reinforcing a recurring theme: PSTs desire to engage in equitable teaching without the practical tools to do so. This finding aligns with existing research showing that many teacher education programs introduce equity as a theoretical concept but fail to scaffold its integration into instructional planning and enactment (Bartell, 2013; Mintos, et al., 2016).

Table 2 Limited knowledge of classroom implementation

PST

Example Response

Brooke “I feel like I have a good idea of what it is but have no idea what this kind of teaching would look like in my math class”

Lauren “I would like to teach like this in my classroom, but I don’t know how”

Kayla

Jillian

Emily

“I need to learn more about instructional strategies to teach like this”

“I am not sure if the math teaching strategies I have learned will allow me”

“I need demonstrations of how to teach like this in math”

This theme suggests that PSTs are moving from awareness to inquiry, reflecting what Larkin and Jorgensen (2016) describe as the “transition phase” in equityoriented teacher development marked by recognition of need but lack of implementation efficacy.

Expressed Need for Modeling and Sustained Instructional Support

A final theme involved PSTs strong desire for practical examples and explicit modeling of equity-based instructional strategies. The majority of PSTs (25 out of 35) indicated that their preparation program included minimal modeling, coaching, or guided practice related to equity. Deanna’s comment “I wish we were learning more about this throughout the program” reflects a broader concern that their training does not adequately prepare them to teach diverse learners equitably.

PSTs emphasized the importance of demonstration and practice, echoing findings from Bartell (2013) that modeling is a critical lever for shifting preservice teachers from passive knowledge holders to active equity practitioners. Joy explained, “We should start learning about equitybased instruction in our program and be given examples of how to do it with students.”

Table 3 Support Needed for Implementation

PST Example Response

Joy

“We should start learning about equitybased instruction in our program and given example of how to do it with students”

Deanna “I wish we were learning more about this throughout the program”

Blake

Karina

Kayla

“We need demonstrations and practice so we can teach this way”

“The program should have prepared us to teach this way with examples”

“I need demonstrations of how to teach like this in math”

Kayla reiterated this need, stating, “I need demonstrations of how to teach like this in math, and I have not seen any." These findings suggest a need for rethinking programmatic design to provide more robust, scaffolded opportunities for PSTs to observe, practice, and reflect on equityoriented pedagogy in mathematics.

Summary and Theoretical Implications

Taken together, the responses indicate that while preservice teachers are beginning to develop conceptual frameworks related to equity in mathematics, they require sustained, guided opportunities to translate these frameworks into practice. The progression from awareness to actionable knowledge is underdeveloped in current preparation experiences. The data also reveal subtle but meaningful variation among PSTs; for instance, participants like Jordan and Jennifer begin to reference more tangible practices (e.g., number talks, differentiation), indicating potential early adopters of equity-based strategies. These findings align with the literature emphasizing that equity- based teaching requires not only knowledge of pedagogy but also an understanding of the sociopolitical dimensions of mathematics education (Gutiérrez, 2012). The study underscores the importance of creating space within teacher education for PSTs to critically reflect, engage in practice-based learning, and develop a coherent vision of equitable instruction.

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore elementary preservice teachers’ (PSTs) perspectives on equity in mathematics and their knowledge of equity-based mathematics instruction. Two research questions guided the inquiry: (1) How do elementary PSTs describe their knowledge of equity in mathematics? and (2) How do elementary PSTs describe their knowledge of equity-based mathematics instruction?

Research Question 1: Knowledge of Equity in Mathematics

Findings indicate that PSTs demonstrated a foundational awareness of equity in mathematics, often framing it as fairness, access, or support for all learners. For example, Heather noted that equity involves “allowing all students to be successful in the math classroom,” while Jordan described it as “hands-on activities and number talks to extend students’ thinking.” These definitions align with the broad principles of equity articulated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2014) and with Ladson-Billings’s (2009) concept of culturally relevant pedagogy, which emphasizes high expectations, cultural competence, and critical consciousness. However, while most PSTs could articulate an equity-related principle, their definitions often remained at a surface level without explicit recognition of systemic inequities or strategies to address them.

Research Question 2: Knowledge of Equity-Based Mathematics Instruction

When describing equity- based mathematics instruction, PSTs revealed more limited and uncertain understandings. While Jennifer equated it with “implementing differentiation in the classroom,” others admitted they did not know what it entailed. Melissa stated, “I really don’t know anything about this, but look forward to learning more,” and Hannah responded, “I am not sure, maybe teaching students differently in the classroom.” These statements reflect a gap between conceptual awareness and concrete pedagogical skills what Cochran-Smith et al. (2016) describe as the “knowing and doing gap” in teacher

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

preparation. This gap suggests that while PSTs value equity, they lack confidence and experience in applying it through culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) and differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2014).

Contradictions and Theoretical Connections

The juxtaposition of PSTs recognition of equity with their lack of readiness to implement equity-based strategies reveals an important tension. While participants endorsed equity as a core value, their responses rarely mentioned culturallyrelevant pedagogy practices, such as integrating students’ cultural backgrounds into mathematical tasks or using equitable participation structures. This disconnect reflects prior research documenting the insufficient integration of multicultural coursework and field-based experiences in teacher education (King & Butler, 2015; Neuman, 2017). From a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978), without scaffolded, authentic experiences in diverse classrooms, PSTs may remain unable to bridge theoretical knowledge with practical enactment.

Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The study was conducted at a single southeastern U.S. institution, limiting generalizability. The sample was predominantly female and lacked racial and linguistic diversity, which may have shaped participants’ perspectives. Data collection relied solely on written self-reports in response to two open-ended questions; while these yielded valuable qualitative insights, they may not fully capture the complexity of PSTs beliefs or classroom practices.

Recommendations for Teacher Preparation

The findings indicate that teacher education programs must take deliberate steps to position equity as a central component of mathematics teacher preparation. Equity should not be addressed as a supplemental topic but rather embedded within the core of mathematics methods coursework. This integration requires the systematic inclusion of culturally responsive pedagogy, instructional differentiation strategies, and equity-based frameworks across course assignments, case studies, and lesson planning activities. Moreover, expanding authentic field placements in diverse school settings is essential to provide PSTs with experiential opportunities to engage in equitable instructional practices. Equally important, faculty members within teacher preparation programs must consistently model equity-focused practices in their teaching and mentoring. Such modeling reinforces the expectation that equity is not an isolated concept but a foundational element of effective mathematics instruction, shaping PSTs professional dispositions and pedagogical decision-making. Ultimately, preparing equity-focused mathematics teachers requires programs to move beyond surfacelevel awareness and toward sustained enactment of culturally responsive, differentiated, and equity-focused instructional practices. The future vision is for teacher preparation programs to fully embed equity in coursework and fieldwork, producing graduates who are confident and skilled in bridging theory with practice. However, this vision is constrained by persistent structural and programmatic barriers including limited diversity among teacher candidates, insufficient multicultural coursework, uneven access to diverse field placements, and the tendency to relegate

equity to a single course or unit rather than weaving it consistently across the teacher education curriculum.

Conclusion

This study adds to the literature by documenting the coexistence of PSTs’ conceptual awareness of equity with their uncertainty in enacting equity-based mathematics instruction. Grounding these findings in culturally relevant pedagogy and sociocultural theory reveals the structural and experiential gaps in teacher preparation that sustain the knowing–doing divide.

Future research should employ multimethod and longitudinal designs to track how targeted interventions, such as equity labs, multicultural practicums, and coaching models, impact PSTs’ instructional decision making and their students' learning outcomes. As U.S. classrooms become increasingly diverse, preparing teachers to enact equitable mathematics instruction is both a pedagogical priority and an ethical imperative.

References

Acquah, E. O., & Commins, N. L. (2017). Methods that matter in addressing cultural diversity with teacher candidates. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(5), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1 273217

Aguirre, J. M., Mayfield-Ingram, K., & Martin, D. B. (2013). The impact of identity in K–8 mathematics learning and teaching: Rethinking equity-based practices. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://pubs.nctm.org/display/book/9780 873538565/c02.xml

Bartell, T. G. (2013). Learning to teach mathematics for social justice: Negotiating social justice and mathematical goals. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 129–163.

https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44 .1.0129

Bennett, C. A. (2014). Creating cultures of participation to promote mathematical discourse. Middle School Journal, 46(2), 20–25.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2014.1 1461906

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp06 3oa

Brown, K. D. (2014). Teaching in color: A critical race theory in education analysis of the literature on preservice teachers of color and teacher education in the US. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 17(3), 326–345.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.8 32921

Childs, K. J., & Staley, J. W. (2024). Teaching mathematics for social justice, grades K–12: A guide for moving from mindset to action. Corwin Press.

Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340–368.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.223

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center? Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 67–78.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.00 6

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Davis, E., & Kulm, G. (2011). Research on mathematics teacher education: Building a knowledge base for equitable teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(3), 193–196.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-0119171-7

Freire, P. (1970). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational Review, 40(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.40.2.q7n22 7021n148p26

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Graham, S. (2018). Professional development for mathematics equity: Moving from access to agency. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 6(2), 74–85.

https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.6.2 .0074

Gutiérrez, R. (2012). Context matters: Equity, success, and the future of mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(2), 167–183.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-0120034-z

Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. Routledge.

Jorgensen, R., Dole, S., & Larkin, K. (2020). Teaching mathematics in primary schools: Principles for effective practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.

King, J., & Butler, B. R. (2015). Teaching for equity and justice: A research synthesis. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(3), 277–293.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2015.1 065210

Kwok, M., Su-Keene, E., & Rios, A. (2025). Preservice teachers’ conceptualizations of equity and equality: Tensions between technical and humanizing approaches. Journal of Teacher Education, 76(2), 121–135.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871251314 883

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Larkin, K., & Jorgensen, R. (2016). “I hate maths: Why do we need to do maths?” Using iPad video diaries to investigate attitudes and emotions towards mathematics in Year 3 and Year 6 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 925–944.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-0159621-x

MacDonald, A. (2013). Using children’s representations to investigate meaningmaking in mathematics. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 65–73.

https://doi.org/10.1177/18369391130380 0209

Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Harvard Education Press.

Mintos, A., Hoffman, A. J., Kersey, E., Newton, J., & Smith, D. (2019). Learning about issues of equity in secondary mathematics teacher education programs. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22(5), 433–458.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-0189403-1

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Neuman, A. (2017). Unexamined practices: Exploring preservice teachers’ equity mindsets. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 135–148.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1 301830

Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2018). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (7th ed.). Pearson.

Olson, A., & Stoehr, K. (2019). Equity in mathematics classrooms: The role of preservice teacher education. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 21(1), 52–71. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ12018 15.pdf

Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Smith, N. M. (2023). Rhetoric about disparities in mathematics education: A thematic analysis of position statements of K–12 mathematics education organizations (Master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach).

https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern /theses/tx31qm61r

Sleeter, C. E. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 146–153. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528 751

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016-014). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2015 menu_tables.asp

Taie, S., & Goldring, R. (2020). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2017–18 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NCES 2020-142).

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED604223

Taylor, R., Kumi-Yeboah, A., & Ringlaben, R. P. (2016). Preservice teachers’ perceptions towards multicultural education & teaching of culturally & linguistically diverse learners. Multicultural Education, 23(3–4), 42–48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1119400

Turner, E. E., & Drake, C. (2016). A review of research on prospective teachers’ learning about children’s mathematical thinking and cultural funds of knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 32–46.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871155 97476

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020, September). Race and ethnicity of public school teachers and their students (Data Point NCES 2020-103).

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/202010 3/index.asp

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.; A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas, & M. Cole [with J. V. Wertsch], Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Appendix A

Equity-Based Math Instruction PST Questions

1. What grade level do you prefer teaching?

2. What degree program are you in, and how far along are you in your program?

3. Tell me what you know about Equity in Mathematics.

4. Tell me what you know about Equity-Based Instruction.

5. What do you see as positive aspects of Equity-Based Instruction in Math? What aspects concern you, or could be challenging?

6. How do you think equity-based practices will affect your everyday instructional practice?

7. Is focusing on Equity in your instruction important?

8. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Navigating Uncertainty: Using Relational Leadership to Guide Teacher Preparation

Faculty and Staff Through an Unknown Era

Joseph R. Jones & Gayle Ramirez Valdosta State University

Abstract

This article considers how relational leadership can serve as a guiding framework for teacher preparation programs navigating an increasingly fraught sociopolitical and institutional landscape. Situated within constructivist and postmodern paradigms, relational leadership is conceptualized as a practice grounded in reciprocity, shared meaning-making, and mutual accountability rather than hierarchical authority. We contend that the current climate, which is marked by legislative restrictions, challenges to tenure, and threats to academic freedom, has heightened faculty anxiety and intensified departmental tensions. Through a critical examination of relational leadership theory and its application within higher education, we illustrate how the framework cultivates trust, transparency, and collaborative decision-making within academic units. Drawing on concrete examples from our administrative practice, we demonstrate how relational leadership fosters conditions that encourage faculty engagement, sustain morale, and create inclusive spaces where multiple voices are valued. These practices, we argue, not only mitigate the erosive effects of fear and disengagement but also model the relational

pedagogies central to the preparation of future educators.

Keywords: relational leadership, teacher preparation, higher education leadership

Introduction

Teacher preparation programs are operating within an increasingly volatile political and cultural landscape, one that has intensified the emotional and professional burdens placed upon educators in both P–12 and higher education. Faculty and staff in colleges of education report heightened levels of anxiety, frustration, and apprehension as they contend with legislative pressures, public scrutiny, and institutional change. These conditions are particularly acute in teacher preparation, where faculty often find themselves at the center of debates over curriculum, equity, and the purpose of schooling.

In our roles as department head and associate department head, we have witnessed how these challenges reverberate across our programs, affecting morale, collaboration, and engagement. We have also seen how a relational approach to leadership, one grounded in reciprocity, trust, and shared purpose, can serve as a

stabilizing and generative framework for navigating this moment. Relational leadership enables us to respond to uncertainty not with fear or control but with practices that prioritize connection, dialogue, and collective agency.

In this article, we define relational leadership and situate it within the broader theoretical and institutional context of higher education. We then examine the most pressing challenges confronting teacher preparation programs and offer concrete examples of how relational leadership can foster trust, transparency, and inclusive decision-making. We argue that such practices are not only critical for sustaining faculty well-being but also for modeling the relational pedagogies we seek to cultivate in the future educators we prepare.

What is Relational Leadership?

Leadership, in both its theory and praxis, has long resisted a simple definition, vacillating across meanings from autocratic paradigms to participatory models. Among the most significant contemporary developments in leadership studies is the emergence of relational leadership, a leadership philosophy that privileges connection, ethics, and belongingness over hierarchy, position, or unilateral authority. Premised within constructivism and postmodern epistemologies, relational leadership emphasizes the co-creation of meaning within dynamic interpersonal and social contexts. Rather than viewing leadership as a discrete act or an innate trait, relational theorists reimagine it as an emergent process that unfolds through dialogue, trust, and shared purpose.

The term relational leadership does not connote a single, monolithic theory; rather, it encompasses a range of perspectives that underscore the primacy of human

relationships in the leadership process (Burt & Jones, 2023). Central to this philosophy is the work of Komives, Lucas, and McMahon (2013), who articulate a leadership framework grounded in inclusivity, purpose, empowerment, ethical practice, and process orientation. Their postulations situate leadership not in the hands of a few individuals within the organization, but as a collaborative and inclusive process that can, and should, be enacted by individuals at all levels of an organization. This process challenges traditional leader-follower dichotomies by privileging horizontal relationships over vertical structures of power.

Further expanding their view of leadership, Uhl-Bien (2006) offers a theoretical scaffolding that locates relational leadership within the broader field of relational theory. In her view, leadership is a “social influence process through which emergent coordination and change are constructed and produced” (p. 655). Such a reimagining situates leadership not as a static attribute but as a dynamic interplay among individuals participating within community, social, and institutional contexts. Drawing on Gergen’s (2009) social constructionism, Uhl-Bien posits that meaning and authority are co-constructed in interactions and sustained through communicative processes. In this capacity, leadership becomes less about direction and more about dialogue, a reciprocal endeavor oriented toward mutual understanding and collective change.

Moreover, there is an ethical implication embedded in relational leadership, one that is neither incidental nor abstract. Because of an emphasis on authenticity, transparency, and mutual respect, the philosophy demands a deep moral vision of leadership, one that refuses manipulation in favor of genuine

influence. Ciulla (2014) reminds us that leadership is, inherently, a moral activity, one where effective leadership is not simply a matter of efficacy or charisma, but of moral substance, the ability to navigate competing values and to act in ways that honor human dignity. In this manner, relational leadership emerges not only as a model for how leaders might act, but as an ethical imperative for how they ought to engage others.

Further, the relational leadership paradigm invites a reimagination of language. From a rhetorical and discursive standpoint, relational leadership may be read as an effort to revise the very language of leadership. Traditional paradigms have often employed militaristic or corporate metaphors through which leaders are described as generals, CEOs, or visionaries, which suggests control, command, and conquest. Conversely, relational models depict metaphors of community, conversation, and empathy. This shift in rhetoric signals a profound change in the epistemology of leadership, one that moves away from the heroic individual and toward the relational network. In this capacity, the leader is not a sovereign figure on high, but a participant in a shared and unfolding narrative of the organization or institution.

Additionally, relational leadership provides a model for cultivating inclusive cultures, retaining talent, and fostering innovation. Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) suggest that employees are more likely to remain engaged and committed when they feel heard, valued, and connected. In this regard, relational leadership is not merely a moral or theoretical stance; rather, it is also a strategic one, which allows organizations that embrace relational practices to be better positioned to navigate complexity and adapt to change that emerges from outside forces.

Furthermore, the framework is inherently intersectional. Because it emphasizes inclusivity and mutual recognition, relational leadership creates space for different identities and voices. It challenges the dominant norms that have historically excluded women, people of color, and other marginalized groups from leadership spaces. Eagly and Chin (2010) argue that leadership scholarship has too often been “white, male, and individualistic,” neglecting the systemic and relational conditions that shape leadership emergence and effectiveness (p. 219).

Relational leadership, by centering connection and shared meaning, invites a more pluralistic and equitable understanding of who can lead an organization.

Relational leadership is also pedagogically significant. Specifically, in higher education and leadership development programs, this framework is gaining traction as a foundation for cultivating future leaders. Rather than training students to become charismatic or authoritative figures, relational leadership education emphasizes listening, empathy, and coalition-building. In fact, Komives et al. (2013) demonstrate how young adults can develop leadership identities through experiences of mentorship, collaboration, and social responsibility. This aligns with the ideals critical pedagogy, which promotes education as a dialogic, liberatory process through which knowledge is co-constructed rather than transmitted. Educators adopting relational leadership approaches facilitate environments in which students are not passive recipients of information, rather they are active co-creators of meaning and agents of change.

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Relational Leadership in Higher Education

Specific to colleges of education, there is little literature examining relational leadership as a guiding philosophy within teacher preparation departments. However, there is scholarship that explores how leaders in higher education utilize a relational approach, one that involves moving from mere administrative roles toward agents of cultural transformation through trust-building, shared power, and inclusive practices. For example, Bystydzienski, Thomas, Howe, and Desai (2016) discuss how deans and chairs are central to fostering inclusive departmental culture by implementing practices that engage faculty relationally and distribute agency (Bystydzienski et al., 2017).

Similarly, Harris (2020) explores how academic deans construct administrative teams to set academic and budgetary priorities; the study emphasizes that relational practices such as listening, distributing decision-making, and foregrounding collective expertise help create a collaborative culture.

Massner, Epling, Cade, and Breckenridge (2022) examines mentoring from a relational leadership lens and explores how mentoring relationships among faculty and staff function as sites of ongoing relational exchange, affirming identities, and co-construction of leadership capacity. Likewise, Ericson, Lemons, Dolan, Brickman, Krishnan, & Andrews (2025) centers department heads in reforming teaching evaluation systems: it shows how relational leadership emerges through collaborative intervention teams, shared data, and co-designed evaluation practices; these leaders act relationally by engaging faculty voices, weighing departmental culture, and adapting reforms to local

professional norms rather than imposing frameworks externally. Beck-Frazier, White, & McFadden (2007), find that many deans self-report leadership behavior most aligned with the human resource frame in Bolman and Deal’s model, which aligns closely with relational leadership in valuing people, relationships, morale, and culture over strictly structural or political power.

It is apparent relational leadership in higher education often involves (a) enabling shared or distributed leadership practices among administrative teams, faculty, and other stakeholders; (b) emphasizing human relationship, trust, mentorship, and inclusion; (c) adapting to institutional complexity by negotiating culture rather than relying solely on formal authority; and (d) using interventions, policies, or structures (mentoring programs) to institutionalize relational values. These practices are especially salient in environments under pressure, such as budgetary constraints, expectations of accountability, diversity, equity, inclusion, or rapid organizational change, where relational orientation fosters resilience, faculty engagement, and greater alignment between institutional mission and practice.

Relational leadership in higher education represents a philosophy that not only redefines how leadership is conceptualized, but also reorients the practice of leadership toward collaboration, ethics, and cocreation. It challenges the dominant power structures within higher education, proposing instead a model grounded in trust, mutuality, and shared meaning. In this sense, relational leadership is not about abdication of power but about a more responsible and reflexive exercise of it, one that attends to the relational dimensions of influence and the ethical weight of leadership. As higher education institutions

face increasing complexities and challenges, relational leadership offers not merely a theoretical lens but a necessary framework for navigating the current challenges. It is a call to lead not through control but through connection, not through charisma but through care. In a world that is desperately in need of relational repair, this model offers both a vision and a method for collective flourishing.

The Challenges Facing Educator Preparation Programs

After briefly defining relational leadership, it is necessary to explore what we believe are some of the most important challenges facing teacher preparation; afterward, we offer our postulations of how relational leadership may positively combat those challenges. In this section, we briefly discuss the broader atmosphere and fears of higher education faculty, while also discussing specific fears related to teacher preparation faculty. It is important to note, this discussion is meant to document and support faculty members’ current beliefs about their employment, their academic lives, and the future of higher education/teacher preparation. Its purpose is not to support or dispute the current atmosphere.

The Current Atmosphere Surrounding Education in America

One of the most frequently expressed concerns among faculty is a growing sense that academic freedom is increasingly constrained. A recent survey reports that over ninet y percent of faculty across disciplines perceive academic freedom to be at risk (Quinn, 2024). This perception is supported by reports of increased selfcensorship, with some faculty choosing to revise course content or research focuses in response to heightened sensitivity around

politically charged topics. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), current trends suggest that faculty members are now more likely to engage in self-censorship than in previous decades (FIRE Faculty Survey, 2024). Such decisions may reflect not only institutional considerations but also a broader awareness of evolving public expectations and debates surrounding higher education.

Moreover, faculty also maintain concerns about professional vulnerability as recent legislative developments aim to reassess tenure protections and restructure aspects of higher education governance. In at least eleven U.S. states, proposals have been introduced that seek to modify or, in some cases, eliminate tenure systems, which engenders questions about the long-term stability and independence of academic appointments (Marcus, 2025; Stahl, 2025). While these efforts are often framed in terms of accountability and institutional responsiveness, they nonetheless raise apprehensions among faculty regarding job security and the autonomy traditionally associated with academic roles.

Faculty who self-identify as historically marginalized identities, such as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC), LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and women, often experience these challenges in distinct and compounded ways. Their scholarship, which frequently examines lived experiences and addresses issues of equity within educational environments, may face increased scrutiny or be mischaracterized as lacking neutrality.

Because of these problems, many faculty members experience a persistent sense of professional fatigue. As faculty attempt to reconcile their educational responsibilities with shifting climates and institutional demands, many are experiencing elevated

levels of stress, disconnection, and uncertainty about their ability to continue their work effectively. The challenge is not limited to workload but also includes the difficulty of sustaining meaningful intellectual inquiry and critical dialogue in contexts where public scrutiny and administrative caution often shape the boundaries of acceptable academic discourse. These pressures, especially when combined, risk undermining not only the individual well-being of educators but also the collaborative and inquiry-driven spirit that defines the academic community.

Specific to teacher preparation, faculty have encountered a shifting landscape shaped by evolving cultural and political dynamics. The intersection of ideological divisions, legislative developments, and increased public attention to the teaching profession has contributed to a climate of uncertainty, particularly for those involved in teacher preparation, critical pedagogy, and equity-focused scholarship. Further, teacher preparation faculty whose teaching addresses subjects such as race, gender, or systemic inequality may be perceived as especially consequential, as the relevance and framing of such content have become focal points in the broader cultural and political debates. In such an environment, faculty apprehensions are not merely about what they are permitted to teach but also about the evolving expectations placed upon them by the institution and society. There is a growing concern that the role of the teacher educator is being redefined in a manner that prioritize neutrality over critical engagement and standardization over intellectual diversity, which is problematic for colleges of education where the task ahead involves not only navigating these tensions but also reaffirming the importance of scholarly autonomy, reflective pedagogy,

and the ethical commitments that underpin the teaching profession.

Relational Leadership in Practice

The atmosphere surrounding higher education is engendering anxiety, fear, and uncertainty. In this current environment, it is important to reexamine college administrators’ role in perpetuating or disrupting these emotions. In doing so, we posit relational leadership provides the conduit that mitigates these feelings because it provides a safe place for faculty to share their values, trepidations, and concerns without a fear of retaliation. To truly conceptualize how relational leadership functions in such an atmosphere, we offer practical examples of how we utilize relational leadership in our department to create an academic space that aligns with the philosophical attributes of relational leadership.

However, before discussing how we implement relational leadership, we believe it may be beneficial to provide basic information about our institution and department. We are administrative leaders in the Teacher Education Department at a comprehensive university with an enrollment of 1800 students across undergraduate and graduate programs. Currently, there are 24 faculty members and 91 adjuncts in the Teacher Education Department. The institution maintains an enrollment of approximately 11,000 students.

Trust

Trust serves as a foundational element in developing a relational leadership model. In our teacher education department, we consciously made decisions that cultivated a trusting relationship. First, we initiated the following: an open-door policy, consistent and transparent communication, and an

intentional effort to recognize and support the unique strengths and needs of individual faculty members. Moreover, we recognized and advocated for faculty and staff needs within the department, the college, and the broader institution. Most importantly, we have admitted and apologized when we made mistakes, which is an incredibly uncommon practice in higher education leadership, but such a practice contributed to an environment in which faculty and staff feel respected, valued, and more inclined to participate actively in collaborative initiatives. It is important to note that trust develops among faculty and staff when they believe their leaders are authentic, transparent, and honest (Jung, 2022).

Shared Leadership and Collaboration

In contrast to hierarchical and authoritative leadership models, relational leadership emphasizes inclusivity by inviting diverse perspectives and actively engaging all stakeholders in decisionmaking processes. Within our context, we constructed a leadership team, consisting of the department head, associate department head, the administrative assistant, and faculty who represent all of the programs in the department. The leadership team has facilitated meaningful faculty involvement in key areas such as curriculum development, course scheduling, program evaluation, and broader departmental initiatives. In constructing the leadership team, we purposely prioritized collaborative engagement because relational leadership engenders a shared sense of purpose and collective responsibility. As Massner et al. (2023) argue, the co-construction of leadership roles exemplifies a dynamic and reciprocal model that values everyone in the department. Such a leadership paradigm not only democratizes decision-making but also encourages faculty to assume meaningful

roles in shaping departmental direction, thereby ensuring ethically grounded and sustainable outcomes for the department.

Open Communication and Mutual Respect

Relational leadership cultivates an organizational culture characterized by open dialogue and mutual respect. To build this culture, the leadership team maintains an open-door policy across the department. Further, the team examined all faculty loads and restructured where necessary to create a more equitable workload for all faculty. Additionally, the department head frequently gathers anonymous feedback that discusses his leadership performance. In this capacity, leadership actively encourages the exchange of both affirming and constructive feedback, fostering a climate in which communication is transparent and inclusive. Regular updates regarding departmental priorities, policy changes, and institutional developments also contribute to faculty members feeling informed, valued, and engaged in the collective mission. This communicative clarity mitigates uncertainty, strengthens trust, and fosters a sense of cohesion across the department (Buller, 2012). Moreover, open communication and mutual respect provide space where faculty can express their fears of the current political atmosphere and how those fears impact their lives (both academically and personally) and their pedagogy.

Empathy

Empathy, within the framework of relational leadership, functions not merely as an aspirational trait but as a critical strategy for cultivating a supportive and responsive departmental culture. When enacted intentionally, empathetic leadership practices have the capacity to transform organizational dynamics, fostering an

environment in which faculty feel recognized, affirmed, and genuinely supported. In our department, this cultural shift has been facilitated through consistent and deliberate actions, such as active listening to faculty concerns, public and private expressions of appreciation, and the maintenance of an open-door policy that prioritizes accessibility and trust. These practices have contributed meaningfully to increased morale, reduced burnout, and a greater sense of collective well-being. Furthermore, by modeling empathy as a core leadership practice, faculty are better positioned to extend similar relational care to their students, thereby reinforcing a pedagogical ethos rooted in connection, equity, and mutual respect, which is an ethos we aim to instill in the teacher candidates we prepare.

Toward a Relational Ethic

In this moment of profound transformation across the educational landscape, relational leadership offers both a philosophical anchor and a pragmatic response to the uncertainty facing educator preparation programs. The current sociopolitical climate (marked by legislative overreach, the erosion of academic freedom, and increasing precarity for faculty) demands a leadership approach that prioritizes trust, inclusivity, dialogue, and ethical responsiveness. Through our application of relational leadership, we have witnessed how trust, shared leadership, empathy, collaboration, and mutual respect can actively counteract fear and disengagement while cultivating a department culture grounded in shared purpose and resilience.

As faculty navigate shifting expectations, relational leadership provides a critical framework for fostering environments in which academic freedom is

protected, diverse voices are valued, and collective agency is made possible. Rather than retreating into hierarchical or compliance-driven models of governance, relational leadership invites a renewed commitment to co-constructed meaningmaking and community-building. It challenges us to reimagine leadership not as authority wielded from above but as an ethical, humanizing process carried out in relationship with others. In this way, relational leadership is not merely a response to present challenges; rather, it is a transformative vision for leading with integrity, for building academic cultures that are not only resilient in the face of uncertainty but capable of nurturing justice, belonging, and hope.

References

Beck-Frazier, S., White, E. R., & McFadden, C. (2007). Perceived differences of leadership behaviors of deans of education: A national study. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 3(1), 9–17.

Buller, J. L. (2012). The essential department chair: A comprehensive desk reference (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Burt, Nila J. and Jones, Joseph R. (2023) "Relational Leadership: Reconceptualizing How School Districts Address Teacher Attrition," Journal of Educational Leadership in Action: Vol. 8: Iss. 3, Article 3.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62608/21641102.1129

GATEWAYS TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Bystydzienski, J., Thomas, N., Howe, S., & Desai, A. (2017). The leadership role of college deans and department chairs in academic culture change. Studies in Higher Education, 42(12), 2301–2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.115 2464

Ciulla, J. B. (2014). Ethics, the heart of leadership (3rd ed.). Praeger.

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018957

Ericson, J., Lemons, P., Dolan, E., Brickman, P., Krishnan, K., & Andrews, T. (2025). Are department heads ready for change? Leveraging a leadership action team to advance teaching evaluation practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 24(2), ar15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-02-0034

FIRE Faculty Survey (2024). Retrieved from: https://www.thefire.org/facultyreport

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.

Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford University Press.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/10489843(95)90036-5

Harris, S. (2020). The work of academic deans: Leading from the middle. Journal of Higher Education Management, 35(2), 14–28.

Jung, J.-Y. (2022). The effect of authentic leadership of deans and directors on sustainable organizational commitment at universities: Mediated by organizational culture and trust. Sustainability, 14(17), 11051. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141711051

Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (2013). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Marcus, Jon. (2025, June 18). Some states are trying to take away tenure from college faculty. The Washington Post.

Massner, C.K., Epling, L., Cade, N., & Breckenridge, R. (2023). Relational Leadership: Advancing Leaders in Higher Education through Mentoring. In J. Crawford & T. Choudhry (Eds.), Leadership for sustainable and educational advancement: Advancing great leaders and leadership. IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.107700

Quinn, Ryan. (2024, November 13). Many Faculty Say Academic Freedom Is Deteriorating. They’re Self-Censoring. Inside Higher Ed. Survey conducted by Hanover Research. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/facul ty-issues/academicfreedom/2024/11/13/many-faculty-sayacademic-freedom-deteriorating

Stahl, Maya. (2025, February 27). States Are Once Again Taking Aim at Tenure. This Time Might Be Different. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.00 7

Resources Section

The Resources Section is a dedicated space for tools, models, and practical materials designed to strengthen partnerships between educator preparation programs, school districts, and community stakeholders. This section features items that programs and districts can put to work immediately — including sample frameworks, planning templates, implementation guides, policy language, mentoring tools, and professional learning materials.

Our goal is to support the shared work of preparing, mentoring, and retaining excellent teachers. The Resources Section highlights strategies that address real needs in the field: clinical practice and supervision, induction and mentorship, assessment and accreditation, program improvement, culturally responsive teaching, and educator well-being. Materials in this section are contributed by faculty, district leaders, mentor teachers, and community partners who are actively doing this work.

These resources may be adapted, cited, and shared within coursework, professional development, and district initiatives. We invite submissions that offer concrete support for collaborative improvement in teacher preparation and PK–12 practice.

College Assistance Migrant Program

Valdosta State University

CAMP Handbook

Description

The Valdosta State University (VSU) College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) serves as a beacon of access and opportunity for Latinx students and their families. This VSU CAMP Handbook provides an overview of VSU CAMP’s operational framework, achievements, and transformative impact, highlighting its role as a pioneering program within the southeastern United States that comprehensively supports the educational aspirations of migrant and seasonal farm worker (MSFW) CAMP Scholars during their first year of college.

The VSU CAMP Handbook (2022 - 2024) provides a brief review of CAMP’s origins, program structure, and services to show how it provides academic, social, and financial support for the Latinx students as CAMP Scholars. The VSU CAMP Handbook also shows how the program fosters personal and professional development, ensuring successful integration into university life and beyond. Additionally, the VSU CAMP Handbook helps to explain possible solutions to the challenges many CAMP Scholars face in higher education and the strategies CAMP staff and faculty use to overcome these obstacles by dismantling normative educational structures and creating visibility for migrant issues within the academic realm.

Finally, the VSU CAMP Handbook showcases CAMP’s role in promoting cultural pride, community engagement, and leadership. This VSU CAMP Handbook emphasizes the long-term impacts of CAMP on students’ trajectories, advocating for the expansion of similar programs and policy reforms to enhance educational equity. The VSU CAMP Handbook celebrates CAMP’s achievements and serves as a call to action for educators, policymakers, and community leaders to recognize their crucial role in supporting the educational journeys of migrant students.

Director's Message

Welcome to the Program of College Assistance for Migrants (CAMP) at Valdosta State University (VSU) Blazer Nation!

The entire VSU CAMP staff is dedicated to providing comprehensive support and retention services to assist scholars from migratory and/or seasonal farmworker families transition to university life as they pursue a high-quality post-secondary education. The VSU CAMP team is committed to providing firstyear scholars with a safe space and community with cultural pride. VSU CAMP not only helps students achieve their dreams of obtaining a university diploma, but also the opportunity to provide a better life for themselves and their families.

As the proud daughter of an immigrant housekeeper and the first in my family to attend college, I was alone in navigating the process of completing college applications, filing my FAFSA for financial aid, applying for scholarships, creating my schedule, etc. I was confused, scared, and made many mistakes. As a VSU CAMP Scholar, this will not be your story. The VSU CAMP team is dedicated to ensuring your success, answering all of your questions, and providing you with the tools for success.

With my personal background and professional training as a bilingual speech-language pathologist with over 15 years of supporting students who were migratory, immigrants, and/or learning English as an additional language, I can assure parents and students that I understand how to individualize academic support with compassion to meet each scholar’s unique needs.

Here at VSU CAMP, we have high expectations for our scholars considering all the resources, support, and encouragement they receive. VSU CAMP Scholars will be academically, socially, and culturally prepared to succeed in the university and professional world.

Congratulations to your acceptance of this competitive scholarship program with VSU CAMP! We look forward to having you thrive within our VSU Blazer CAMP family!

Sincerely,

Rosalyn Castaño Martínez, M.S., CCC-SLP

VSU CAMP Director

https://www.valdosta.edu/academics/camp/ rcmartinez@valdosta.edu

Message to Parents: VSU CAMP staff is 100% bilingual (Spanish/English) and provides support and community resources to parents. We welcome parents to visit VSU, participate in your child's education, and encourage questions and communication with us. As a mother to a college student studying out of state, I know the stress, anxiety, and worries. I am grateful for being entrusted with your children. Please do not hesitate to reach out to me at any time.

Welcome Incoming VSU CAMP Cohort!

VSU CAMP is so excited to welcome you to your first year of college at Valdosta State University! The VSU CAMP Staff knows that there are so many unknowns about transitioning to college and how VSU CAMP supports you. The purpose of this handbook is to give you the most important information you need to succeed and have a general understanding to navigate college life.

VSU CAMP Scholarship funding comes from the United Stated Department of Education and requires that scholars complete all the requirements listed in the Acceptance Letter and Contract to remain eligible for this scholarship money. It is VSU CAMP’s responsibility to provide you with everything you need and report on your participation and eligibility. Thank you for helping VSU CAMP staff help YOU!

VSU CAMP Scholarship Goals

• VSU CAMP Scholars will complete their first year of college with at least 24 credit hours in good academic standing.

• VSU CAMP Scholars will continue in college in pursuit of obtaining a bachelor’s degree.

• VSU CAMP Scholars will participate in activities to ensure academic success like STEM activities/events, cultural awareness activities/events, tutoring, mentoring, career readiness development, scholarship application skills, social-emotional awareness, financial aid assistance, academic advising, and study skills development, etc.

Please feel free to reach out to anyone from the VSU CAMP for any questions not listed in the handbook. It is a pleasure to support you!

1CARD STUDENT ID

The 1Card is your key to campus:

• Student ID- enter sporting events, sign in to campus events, get community discounts.

• Flexible Spending Account (FLEX)- a campus debit account.

• Access to dormitory- only opens your assigned building.

• Meal plan and Dining Dollars- swipe at the register.

• Print money- $17.50 each semester. Unused credits do not roll over.

• Vending/Laundry money- all residents receive $25 on their card.

You receive your 1Card during the Blazer Beginnings Orientation. Lost 1Cards can be replaced for $20. VSU CAMP does not pay for lost cards.

VSU CAMP highly recommends keeping your 1Card in a lanyard with an ID holder or a card pocket on your cell phone. Visit www.vsu1card.com for more information.

ADVISING (CAMP)

CAMP Scholars meet with VSU CAMP’s Academic Advisor, at least once per month for 45 minutes to an hour, based on individual needs. The VSU CAMP Advisor schedules your advising meetings on Microsoft Outlook with a Calendar invitation based on your schedule. Please “Accept” this invitation to confirm acceptance. Advising meetings are mandatory

Each month’s advising sessions focus on different topics like goal setting, time management, self-care, etc. This is also your chance to ask any questions.

The VSU CAMP Advisor also follows up with:

• Grades

• Course Attendance

• Progress Reports

• Meet Your Professor forms

• FAFSA Completion

• DegreeWorks

• Course Catalog

• Course Registration

• Scholarship Applications

• Peer Relationships

• Roommate Relationship

• Attendance to Mandatory Events/Activities

The VSU CAMP Advisor’s role is to ensure that you are connected to the tools and resources needed to succeed holistically at Valdosta State University from your first year until you graduate.

Sometimes, the transition to college is difficult for a variety of reasons. Maybe you are used to getting A’s without studying much, you’re enjoying the social scene too much, mental health challenges arise, etc. No matter the reason, VSU CAMP is dedicated to getting you on track. Please let us know as soon as possible if you are ever struggling in any aspect. We can only help you when we know what is affecting you.

If your GPA drops to a 2.5 or below, the VSU CAMP Advisor may schedule more frequent advising meetings and develop an Academic Corrective Plan until you demonstrate consistent improvement. You may also request more frequent advising sessions.

ADVISING (VSU)

At Valdosta State, you are advised by a Student Success and Retention team, including your professional advisor, your faculty mentor, and team members from VSU CAMP, Career Opportunities, the Academic Success Center, and Financial Aid. Your VSU Advisor is your partner in planning your progression through your major towards a timely graduation. The VSU CAMP Academic Advisor will show you how to navigate DegreeWorks, a web tool that tracks your degree requirements and completed coursework, so that you can meet with your VSU Advisor with confidence and an informed position. Students can find out who their VSU Advisor is by logging into MyVSU

At VSU, it is mandatory that students meet with their VSU Advisor each semester before being allowed to access the registration system and register for classes. Please remind your VSU Advisor that you are a CAMP Scholar.

The VSU Advisor can help connect you with information on:

• Acceptance/Admission Questions

• Registration Questions

• Financial Aid Questions

• Change of Major

• Program of Study Questions

• Course Withdrawals (Do not drop any courses without first meeting with the VSU CAMP Advisor)

For more information, visit www.valdosta.edu/advising.

• Academic Difficulty and Support Resources

• Answering the Question: How do I ___?

• Academic Standing

• Career Exploration

• Professional Mentorship & more!

ATTENDANCE (CAMP)

Assume all CAMP activities, events, and workshops have mandatory attendance. VSU CAMP is responsible for documenting and reporting your attendance to the US Department of Education, providers of the CAMP Scholarship fund. Sometimes, VSU CAMP sends you information about happenings around campus that we recommend you go but are not mandatory and we will be clear.

VSU CAMP’s goal is to schedule activities, events, and workshops so that they do not interfere with your nights and weekends. However, on the few occasions that VSU CAMP does, we give you substantial notice and expect you to adjust your schedule. Do not schedule work (if applicable), non-urgent appointments or family engagements during VSU CAMP times.

It is important to show up on time and be ready to actively participate. Failure to do so may result in being put on a Corrective Action Plan. Please refer to your signed VSU CAMP Acceptance Letter and Contract. VSU CAMP understands that illness and other significant life events happen. Communication is key when this happens. Please refer to the “Absences (CAMP)” section for more information.

ATTENDANCE (VSU)

Class attendance is a better predictor of grades compared to other factors like high school grades, SAT scores, study habits, and study skills (Credé, Roch, & Kieszczynka, 2010). Go to class!

Your priority is going to class and doing what it takes to understand the material. Be an active participant, get to know your professors, and go to office hours to get better grades, extra support from professors, and letters of recommendation.

Please email the VSU CAMP Advisor if you will be absent from class (preferably before your absence) and why.

Please refer to the “Absences (VSU)” section for more information.

ABSENCES (CAMP)

Email the VSU CAMP Director immediately if you will be absent from any VSU CAMP event, activity or workshop. Absences will be excused with receipt of documentation for the following reasons:

 Significant illness/injury of the student with documentation from a medical provider;

 Death of an immediate family member or household member; or

 Observance of a religious holiday or event.

Other reasons for absences, such as vacations, family events/activities, and non-medical appointments will not be excused and may jeopardize your VSU CAMP scholarship. All absences will be made up with an alternative assignment as determined appropriate by the VSU CAMP Director.

ABSENCES (VSU)

To report absences, please review the following information for guidance in student absences from Student Affairs:

Students and faculty should expect a communication to be sent on behalf of students to their professors notifying them that the student will be absent from classes and the dates of this absence. This is the same practice for all types of student absences regardless of the reason, and this is only a notification to faculty to let them know that Student Affairs has verified the student is to be out of class. Examples of absences we would provide notification for are medical reasons, doctor visits, death of a close relative or loved one, educational travel, or personal injury. Notifications will not take place for personal/vacation travel, oversleeping, etc.

For the student, email Student Affairs (studentaffairs@valdosta.edu) and your professors to inquire about course work, staying on track, and making up missed assignments/exams. Given that much of the course material and lectures are available online at this time, students should progress in their coursework unless they are physically unable to do so, or the nature of their absence does not permit them to do so. Students are also advised that this is not an excused absence from class; rather it is the professor’s right to determine the impact of the absence following the absence guidance offered in the syllabus.

If students frequently miss class without good reason, then later have a reason for absence notification to take place, their prior lack of participation in the course may negatively impact on the available excused absences a professor may offer. Lastly, students are not required to let their professors know why they are absent so long as an absentee notification has been sent on their behalf from Student Affairs.

To access the Absentee Notification Form, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/studentaffairs/absentee-notification-form.php.

BOOKS

VSU CAMP pays for your textbooks. The VSU CAMP office has many commonly used textbooks, and we issue these first before renting or purchasing your books.

Rental textbooks must be returned by the due date at the end of the semester, or you will be charged the cost of the book. VSU CAMP will issue reminders at the end of the semester. Please let VSU CAMP know if you lose any textbooks.

Many textbooks are now online and are called Day 1 Books. These can be accessed through BlazeVIEW, the online management system for all your VSU courses. Do not Opt Out of your Day 1 Materials, since this is the cheapest option.

For step-by-step instructions to access your Day 1 textbooks and materials, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/finance-admin/auxiliary-services/bookstore-program/opt-outinstructions-.php

BULLYING

In addition to the VSU Code of Conduct, VSU CAMP has a zero-tolerance policy concerning bullying. Bullying is defined as follows:

• Bullying can be physical, verbal, or emotional

• Bullying consists of, but is not limited to: name-calling, violence, theft, rumors, exclusion, threats, intimidation, put-downs, and pranks.

• Students all should be treated with courtesy and equality regardless of age, gender, race, religion, orientation, size, disability, intelligence, athletic ability or popularity.

• Bullying can occur in-person and online.

If you feel like you are being bullied or know of a VSU CAMP Scholar who is, please report this immediately to the VSU CAMP Director.

CAMP ORIENTATION

VSU CAMP provides a fun and informative 3-full day orientation to develop the cohort community. CAMP Scholars are granted early move-in the Sunday before general move-in. The VSU CAMP Orientation itinerary consists of breakfast, a morning session, lunch, afternoon session, dinner, and a social evening event. The VSU CAMP Orientation is mandatory.

During the VSU CAMP Orientation, you will review this handbook, meet VSU CAMP mentors, community agencies, familiarize yourself with the campus through a scavenger hunt, meet Mentor, Engage, Support, Achieve (MESA) Organization faculty and staff, complete parking permit and meal plan forms, and participate in team building activities. Session topics include leadership strategies, sex education and health, time management, and other skills to prepare you for starting college successfully.

CONTRACT

You will receive a copy of your signed VSU CAMP Scholarship Contract for your reference. Review your contract for VSU CAMP requirements that will keep you on track to maintain eligibility and receive the scholarship funding from the US Department of Education. For any questions regarding the VSU CAMP Scholarship Contract, please contact the VSU CAMP Director.

EMAIL ETIQUETTE

For successful communication with professors and VSU CAMP Staff, it is important that your emails be written in a professional manner. Below are tips that are highly recommended:

• VSU CAMP emails important information and calendar invitations, so be sure to check your Microsoft Outlook daily.

• Emails are not phone texts. Provide a beginning/greeting, middle/message using complete sentences, and end/signature to all emails.

• Example:

Beginning: Hello Dr. Martinez,

Middle: I am a student in your English 1101 class on MWF 11:00-11:50. I will be unable to attend class tomorrow because I broke my foot today and I am in the hospital. I will be emailing Student Affairs with my documentation shortly. Please let me know what information I will be missing and how I can make up any missed work. Thank you for understanding!

End: Sincerely,

Jasmine Soto, VSU CAMP Scholar

• The email subject should include a good description like “Student Absence,” “Request a meeting to discuss grade,” or “Assignment Concern,” for example.

• Proofread your email and read it as if you don’t have any background knowledge to make sure you are thorough.

FEES (VSU)

At the beginning of each semester, VSU emails you to pay an Outstanding Balance. Please do not be concerned as this is a computer-generated email. VSU CAMP pays for any remaining balance on your account after your PELL Grant, HOPE scholarship, private scholarships, etc., are applied. For questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to VSU CAMP Staff.

FINANCIAL AID (FAFSA)

To receive the VSU CAMP Scholarship, it is mandatory that you complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) each year. This is how students qualify for the PELL grant, HOPE/Zell Miller Scholarship, and loans. Without FAFSA, you do not get student aid.

VSU CAMP has a workshop with VSU Financial Aid staff present to assist you in completing it. During the FAFSA workshop, you are asked to bring the following:

 Your parent’s 2023 tax information

o 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ

 W-2’s o If they were paid in check or cash, they will not have this. It’s okay.

To add money to your FLEX account, you can:

 Do so online by using the VSU 1Card Online Card Office. All major credit cards accepted, except American Express.

 Deposit cash directly into your FLEX account via one of the kiosks (Student Union and Library).  Transfer excess financial aid

For more information, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/finance-admin/auxiliary-services/1-cardservices/flex-account-termsand-conditions.php.

On campus FLEX use can be used to pay for things like books at the VSU Bookstore and Lost VSU 1Card Fees.

Off Campus payments can be made using your FLEX account at numerous participating locations that have the FLEX logo displayed. For a complete list of participating locations, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/financeadmin/auxiliary-services/1-card-services/flex-offcampus.php.

GRADES

The VSU CAMP Scholarship requires you to maintain at least a 2.5 Grade Point Average (GPA) to remain eligible. VSU CAMP has many supports in place to ensure you succeed academically, such as:

 One-on-one VSU CAMP advising sessions at a minimum of once per month

 Intensive learning supports and strategies from VSU CAMP Director who has over 10 years of experience as a bilingual speech-language pathologist

 Individualized Academic Plans developed by the VSU CAMP Advisor and Director

 Progress reports from professors 2-3 times per semester

 Weekly workshops

 VSU CAMP organized study groups for difficult courses

 Mandatory 40 hours of study sessions/tutoring per semester (2.5 hours per week)

 Two VSU CAMP tutors for writing, math and science

 Referrals to the Academic Support Center for specialized tutoring and workshops

 Referrals to FamilyWorks or the Counseling Center

 Many more free services at Valdosta State University

VSU CAMP also requires that Scholars have great attendance to their classes, since attendance is the best predictor of good grades. Scholars will email the VSU CAMP Advisor when they miss class and provide a valid reason.

VSU CAMP highly recommends and supports students in maintaining a GPA of at least 3.0 to remain or become eligible for the HOPE Scholarship.

HEALTH SERVICES

The VSU Student Health Center is located on campus at 200 Georgia Avenue. Staff are composed of physicians, nurse practitioners, pharmacist, pharmacy tech, medical techs, and nurses. Services that are provided include primary care and treatment for minor injuries.

VSU CAMP covers the out-patient visit fee at the VSU Student Health Center. You must notify VSU CAMP staff of your visits.

VSU CAMP does not pay for lab work or medications.

Visit https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/student-affairs/student-health/ for more information on services, fees, forms, and more.

HOLIDAYS/IMPORTANT VSU DATES (2024-2025 Sample)

HOUSING- LANGDALE HALL

VSU CAMP Scholars are designated as one of the several “Themed Communities.” VSU CAMP is housed in Langdale Hall, 3rd floor, steps away from the Palms Dining Hall. Your VSU 1Card is your key to open the exterior door.

Male and female VSU CAMP Scholars are placed on separate w. Scholars have one roommate who is most likely another VSU CAMP Scholar. Each is issued their own room key and is responsible for maintaining cleanliness of their side of the room.

Langdale Hall has numerous personnel to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the residents, as listed below.

 Resident Assistants (RAs) for VSU CAMP floors are both VSU CAMP Alumni, bilingual and live in Langdale Hall. RA’s build community in order to provide safety and security for the residents. RA’s meet monthly with all residents.

 Front Desk Workers (FDWs) are stationed at the front desk. FDWs maintain a safe and secure atmosphere in the residence halls.

 Housing Engagement Action Response Team (HEART) provides a 24/7/365 Security Monitoring service response team. The HEART program is made up of two on-call teams, Day and Night. HEART members respond to incidents in the Residence Halls pertaining to lockouts, noise complaints and violations to the Housing and Residence Life Guidelines for Community Living.

 VSU Public Safety Officers- provides walking escorts to any location on campus upon request 24/7/365

 Periodic Evacuation Drills

 Health and Safety Inspections

Housing Application and Deposit

VSU CAMP Scholars must apply online at https://www.valdosta.edu/housing/apply/ after they have been accepted to VSU. You will select the option of using financial aid to cover the $150 deposit and $100 application fee. During the application process, it will ask you for your housing preference even though as a VSU CAMP Scholar you will be assigned to Langdale Hall. Pick any housing option because it does not matter.

Assignments are released mid-July. The specific date is announced in the early part of the summer. Students can log back into their housing portal account to see their assignment and roommate information posts in midJuly. Students may also log onto their Banner account to see their room assignment.

Move-In Information

VSU CAMP Scholars move in on Sunday, August [2024], at 10 AM. Scholars are greeted and guided by VSU CAMP Staff, Resident Assistants, Front Desk Workers, and VSU CAMP Peer Mentors.

Each student must have their VSU 1 Card to check in. Students should know their student ID number and emergency contact information (preferably, this should be someone in the United States). Only the student can receive a room key, not family members or roommates. Bring your VSU 1Card!

Please follow all signs and directions from volunteers to make the process as smooth as possible. Students arriving too early will be instructed to exit the parking lot and then return closer to their arrival time.

All students are limited to 2 vehicles during move in. Trailers or U-hauls are not allowed.

During check-in students receive a packet that includes:

• Welcome Letter

• Schedule for the rest of the week

• Room Key

• Building specific maps for unloading and parking

Once you arrive at Langdale hall, students and their guests have 1 hour to unload their vehicle(s) and then move them to long-term parking at the Oak Street Parking Deck. You are greeted by a volunteer who takes down contact information for drivers and given a time when your vehicle(s) must be moved.

VSU has some move-in carts available at each building, but please note that these are also only available for an hour and there are not enough for each student to have one.

Once students have unloaded and moved their vehicle(s), students and guests may remain in the room to unpack. Roommates should also communicate together before arriving to campus to arrange who is bringing what large item, like fridges, TV, and rugs. And remember 8 out of 10 students, when asked, said they wished they had not packed so many clothes.

Visitation does not begin until students have met with their roommate(s) and completed a roommate agreement with their RA. For the purposes of guests during move-in, students are limited to one guest in their building after 8pm on the day they move in. For information on the standard guest policy, please see the Housing website.

Transgender Student Housing

For VSU CAMP Scholars who self-identify as transgender, Valdosta State University has recently created a themed community called the Lavender Family located in Georgia Hall, 1st floor. Please ask the VSU CAMP Director for more information.

For more information, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/housing/

LAPTOP CHECK-OUT

VSU CAMP lets scholars check out a laptop for the entire year for free.

The laptop has a 15” screen and all the necessary software to access all the online materials and textbooks, attend virtual meetings, and complete classwork.

If you already have a laptop, that’s fine and you are encouraged to use yours. For those with Chromebooks, there may be some difficulties accessing VSU’s coursework since VSU uses Microsoft products. VSU CAMP recommends you check out a laptop for easier access.

LATINX ORGANIZATIONS @ VSU

Over 200 Student Organizations at VSU support the growth and development of all students through a variety of interests, values and opportunities. Collectively, VSU student organizations cater to a wide variety of students across social, service, spiritual, academic, political, athletic, cultural, musical and professional interests. Getting involved in a student organization affords any student the opportunities of leadership development, friendship, service to others, professional growth and much more. VSU CAMP highly encourages your participation in a student organization, with the exception of sororities and fraternities during your first year.

If you do not see a student organization for you, create one with your friends! It looks awesome on your resume.

All registered student organizations are housed within a digital space called ‘BlazerLink’ . It is best described as a Facebook for Student Organizations. For a calendar of all upcoming events, go to BlazerLink. You can log in using your BlazeView login and password.

VSU CAMP also works closely with VSU Latinx Organizations, such as:

 The Latin American Students Association (LASA)- The current president is Aldo Madrigal, CAMP alumni from last year’s cohort. Their mission is to spread cultural awareness of Latin American culture through social events and collaborations in an effort to spread friendship and understanding across multiple cultures. https://valdosta.presence.io/organization/latin-american-students-association

 MESA Faculty & Staff for Latinx Students (MESA)- All VSU CAMP staff will hold MESA leadership positions in 2022-2023. MESA stands for Mentoring, Engagement, Support, and Achievement. MESA is a committee of faculty and staff designed to support the Latinx students at Valdosta State University. Every Spring, MESA offers several scholarships to Latinx students. https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/mesa/

 Latinx & Indigenous Future Educators (L&IFE)- L&IFE is a student-led organization for future educators who identify as Latinx and/or Indigenous and seek an affinity space, guidance and assistance, and mentorship from L&I faculty and staff.

MANDATORY EVENTS/ ACTIVITIES/ WORKSHOPS

VSU CAMP receives your scholarship funding through a grant with the US Department of Education agreeing to provide you with everything you need to be successful in your first year. In addition to providing your financial assistance, VSU CAMP is required to provide you with events, activities, and workshops. Attendance is documented and reported each year. Workshops address academic skills, career readiness, social-emotional wellbeing, financial literacy, etc. We must also ensure that you are exposed to STEM and Cultural Awareness activities. Lastly, we must provide weekly peer mentorship and monthly academic advising. VSU CAMP Staff provide mandatory workshops once weekly for about an hour. All workshops, events, and activities are designed to support you and help VSU CAMP meet the goals listed on page 1.

VSU CAMP Staff accepted you into the VSU CAMP program due to your expressed commitment to these events, activities, and workshops that are for your success. Please refer to your contract for more details or reach out to VSU CAMP Staff.

MEAL PLAN

VSU CAMP pays for the Blazer All Access meal plan valued at $2,144 per semester. With this plan, you get unlimited meals at the dining hall plus meal exchanges. Also, you receive $150 Dining Dollars per semester on your VSU 1Card.

Dining Dollars are like a gift card for food on campus. Dining Dollars roll from fall-to-spring semester only. At the end of spring, Dining Dollars of $10.00 or more are credited to your student account in Banner.

When making food purchases at any of the dining locations on-campus (including the two markets), please specify from which account you would like to pay. Dining Dollars and FLEX are two separate accounts that are accessible via your VSU 1Card, and the payment process will be expedited if you inform the cashiers of your payment preference.

Food Locations:

Dining Halls

 Palms Dining Hall- open Monday-Friday from 7:00AM-7:00PM. Saturday-Sunday Brunch 10:00AM-2:30PM & Dinner 4:30PM-7:00PM

 Blazer Sports Grille- open Monday-Thursday from 7:00PM-10:00PM. Closed FridaySunday. Located in Hopper Hall. Restaurants

 Chik-Fil-A- open Monday-Friday from 7:30AM-10:00PM and Saturday from 10:30AM10:00PM. Located in the Student Union.

 Moe’s Southwest Grill- open Monday-Thursday from 11:00AM-9:00PM and Friday from 11:00AM-3:00PM. Located in the Student Union.

 Which Wich- open Monday-Thursday from 11:00AM-9:00PM and Sunday 5:00PM10:00PM

 Einstein Bros Bagels- Monday-Thursday from 8:00AM-3:00PM. Located in the College of Education and North Campus Buildings. Coffee

 Starbucks- open Monday-Thursday from 7:00AM-9:00PM, Friday from 7:00AM3:00PM, Saturday from 11:00AM-3:00PM, and Sunday from 2:00PM-8:00PM. Located in the Student Union

 Brewed Awakenings- open Monday-Thursday from 8:00AM-2:00PM. Located in Odum Library.

Convenience

 Langdale Market P.O.D.- open Monday-Friday from 2:00PM-10:00PM and SaturdaySunday from 4:00PM10:00PM. Located in Langdale Hall.

 Centennial Market P.O.D.- open Monday-Sunday from 3:00PM-11:00PM. Located in Centennial Hall East.

For the most current information regarding Meal Plans and general dining operations questions, visit Blazer Dining at https://valdosta.campusdish.com

MEET YOUR PROFESSOR FORMS

At the beginning of each semester, schedule a brief meeting with each of your professors to ask them 4 questions. The purpose of this meeting is to determine how you can be more successful in the course, build rapport with the professor, and practice having a conversation with professors. Due dates and turn-in location will be provided by the VSU CAMP Advisor. These forms are mandatory. Forms are in the VSU CAMP Office and are also distributed during a workshop.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VSU CAMP partners with VSU’s FamilyWorks Clinic, the university-based, brief therapy center for the Marriage and Family Therapy graduate program. FamilyWorks assigns two clinicians who are present during our workshop time once per month as required by the scholarship requirements. They present on topics such as self-care, handling stress during midterms and finals, self-identity, etc. The clinicians are open to suggestions based on the needs and interest of each VSU CAMP Cohort, so if there is a topic you would like to learn more about please feel free to share with VSU CAMP Staff.

Listed below are the following services that are free to all students and VSU CAMP highly recommends you take advantage of these.

FamilyWorks addresses issues like:

• anger management

• anxiety

• individual depression

• grief and loss

• divorce and separation

• sexual problems

• domestic violence

• parenting problems

• difficulty with communication

• relationship problems

Valdosta State University is committed to making sure your social-emotional and mental health needs are being addressed. Research states that 1 in 5 college students struggle with mental health and wellness. Anxiety is the #1 concern for students across the country.

VSU Counseling Center- Offers 6 free individual/personal counseling sessions per semester and is solution-focused. The Counseling Center also offers the below services. Located in the

Student Health Center, 2nd floor. Call 229-333-5490 or visit https://www.valdosta.edu/student/student-services/counseling-center/

 Virtual Relaxation Room https://www.valdosta.edu/student/studentservices/counseling-center/relaxationroom.php

 Group Therapy https://www.valdosta.edu/student/student-services/counselingcenter/group-therapy.php

Crisis Intervention- a service offered to students who are in serious, immediate emotional distress. Resources are available in the event of emergencies, including current suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, rape or attempted rape, physical assaults, or other types of crises. During a mental health crisis call 229-333-5940. If you have a life-threatening emergency, call the local police at 911. For more information, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/student/studentservices/counseling-center/crisis-intervention.php

24/7 Support Line- Call 833-910-3365 to speak to counselors anytime, anywhere. Available to students on or off campus in the U.S. & abroad.

Navigators- offers one-on-one personal assistance for students, helps navigate any challenges or barriers students may face in reaching mental health support, and assists you in accessing mental health providers, specialty providers, housing and food supports or other services that help support your academic success.

Self-Guided Emotional Support Tools- builds coping skills through a self-guided Internet-based cognitive behavioral training (ICBT) developed specifically for college students. Helps you learn about emotions, how to set goals and approach challenges, how to address unhelpful thoughts, and skills to help you feel better. Also has modules on sleep, self-worth, excessive worrying and more.

Mental Health Medication- get help with your mental health medication needs. Virtual consultations and visits are available.

VSU Wellness Hub- a new program at www.vsuwellnesshub.com for:

 Articles and videos on mental health and wellness topics including:

 Mental and Emotional Health

 Fitness and Nutrition

 Academic Performance

 Stress Management

 Healthy Relationships and more  Mindfulness and Meditation Apps.

PARENT AND FAMILY INVOLVEMENT

VSU CAMP believes that an important part of your success as a college student is maintaining an open line of communication with your parents and family. VSU CAMP invites your parents and family to visit in person during VSU’s Family Weekend each September, and during our annual VSU CAMP Banquet and Awards Ceremony in April. Parents and family are highly encouraged to visit and feel welcome on the VSU campus.

Virtually, VSU CAMP hosts monthly Cafecitos gatherings using Teams. This is where VSU CAMP can share about the month’s happenings, be available to answer any questions, create space for support amongst parents, and provide helpful resources.

Going Home to Visit

It is quite common for VSU CAMP Scholars to visit home on the weekends and of course, during the breaks. Although VSU CAMP encourages you to visit, please travel safely and make sure it does not interfere with your ability to do schoolwork, complete projects, or VSU CAMP meetings. Also, be mindful that leaving every weekend to go home costs money in terms of the rising gas costs and wear and tear on your vehicle. It also hinders your ability to fully experience college life happenings, creating strong relationships and getting involved on campus.

PARKING PERMIT AND INFORMATION

VSU CAMP pays for your virtual parking permit which costs $50.00 (fall) and $25.00 (spring). There is a special form for VSU CAMP to apply for your parking permit which we will provide you with when school starts. DO NOT purchase the permit on your own.

VSU CAMP does not pay for parking citations, so be sure to familiarize yourself with the rules found at https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/finance-admin/auxiliary-services/parking/

If you do not have a car initially and then get one later, please stop by the VSU CAMP office for the special form so that we can cover the cost of the permit.

Parking Information

• ALL STUDENTS (commuters & residents) are allowed to park in any available student lot during the day; however, resident students must park in their assigned areas overnight.

• Resident Student Parking is available in student spaces in the following lots overnight: Oak Street Parking Deck levels 2-5 only (no overnight parking in Oak Street surface lot), Sustella Avenue surface parking lot (unmarked student spaces), Sustella Avenue Parking Deck (all levels), and Centennial Parking Lot (unmarked student spaces).

• Attention VSU Community (HSBA Parking at North Campus): VSU students with a valid virtual parking permit are permitted to park at the Billy Grant baseball field lot, unmarked student spaces behind Pound Hall, Ashley Cinema Movie Theater parking

• lot, and the 5th (top level only) and adjacent ramp of the SGMC parking deck. Please use the SGMC deck entrance on Cowart Street to access the deck.

For the most up to date information, rules and map, visit www.vsuparking.com.

PEER MENTORS

VSU CAMP Scholars are assigned peer mentors who are VSU CAMP Alumni. Peer mentors schedule mandatory weekly one-hour meetings with you. Meetings with your peer mentors are designed to fit your needs and you are welcome to share input with how you would like to use the time. Peer mentorship can provide:

 academic advising

 Inside knowledge on professors and classes

 Campus and student resources knowledge

 Emotional support

 Shared activities and events

 Moral support and friendship

 Accountability on goals and grades

 Tips and tricks for success

 Socialization- especially if you’re timid

 Cultural connection

 Student perspective

 Confidentiality

 A feeling of belonging

Previous mentees report that peer mentors really helped them in many ways. Many developed a lasting relationship with their mentor. Peer mentors provide VSU CAMP Staff with completed log sheets of dates and times of your meetings.

During the first peer mentor meeting starting the second week of school, you fill out a Mentor-Mentee Agreement to set some ground terms on how the mentoring relationship will work. It is mandatory to follow the terms of this contract. Peer mentor meetings occur when school is in session only.

Confidentiality

Your peer mentor meetings are confidential, and mentors do not share what you talked about with them with the exception of certain circumstances. The only exception to confidentiality is a serious immediate threat to your life or welfare or to the life or welfare of another person. This includes suspicion of the abuse of a child, elderly person or a person with a disability or imminent danger to the community at large. Disclosures may be made to select University officials when needed to protect the campus community. When possible, you (the student) will be notified in advance if disclosure is deemed necessary.

PROGRESS REPORTS

It is mandatory that VSU CAMP Scholars meet with all their professors three times per semester and turn in the completed progress reports to the VSU CAMP Advisor. Progress reports are due in September, October, November, February, March, and April.

Completion of the progress reports ensures that VSU CAMP Staff has the latest information on how you are doing in each class, lets the professors know who you are, and gives you an opportunity to discuss your progress with them. It allows VSU CAMP Staff to address challenges immediately and implement corrective actions to finish the course strongly.

Tips for getting your progress reports completed:

• Look at your courses’ syllabi to know your professors’ office hours. Professors will tell you if they require appointments or that they do not mind drop-ins. Respect their preference for the best interaction.

• Schedule a time during office hours to ensure your professors’ full attention and give them an opportunity to prepare.

• Do not ask professors before or after class, especially if they are busy preparing, setting up, or answering students’ questions. Some professors are available, but this is not the best and most convenient time.

• If you email to schedule a meeting, please follow the tips in the “Email Etiquette” section. Remind them that you are a VSU CAMP Scholar and would like to schedule a time to meet to complete the mandatory progress reports.

• If you experience any difficulty with professors who are unwilling to schedule a meeting with you or miss/cancel your meetings, let the VSU CAMP Advisor know right away. Do not wait.

• Place progress report due dates on your Microsoft Outlook Calendar with reminder alerts.

• Feel confident that most professors have completed many VSU CAMP progress reports before and are expecting it.

• Express your gratitude for the professor’s time and feedback.

• Implement the professor’s advice for success in their course.

SAFE SPACE

The Safe Space program provides a more appreciative and nurturing environment for LGBT people at Valdosta State University by establishing an identifiable network of people who can provide support, information, and act as allies to LGBT individuals within the campus community. VSU CAMP Staff has gone through the Safe Space program training and are committed to supporting all students with a safe space.

Faculty and staff who have successfully completed the training receive a Safe Space logo (pictured below) to publicly show their support of the LGBT community.

For more information on LGBTQ+ student resources, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/student/diversity/lavenderceremony.php or ask VSU CAMP Staff.

SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATIONS

With VSU CAMP support, it is mandatory for VSU CAMP Scholars to apply for at least two scholarships and submit documentation to the VSU CAMP Advisor. Scholarships do not have to be paid back and so we highly encourage you to pay for as much of your education this way. VSU CAMP teaches you tips and tricks to save you time and energy and increase your chances of being successful. We dedicate a workshop on writing successful scholarship essays and forward scholarship opportunities to the cohort throughout the year. The VSU CAMP Advisor is also available to answer any questions and share known resources during advising sessions. TikTok is also a great resource for scholarship tips, tricks, and information.

Popular scholarship websites include:

• https://www.valdosta.edu/admissions/financial-aid/scholarships/vsu-scholarshipavailable.php

• https://tycobbfoundation.com/new-applicants/

• www.myscholly.com

• www.fastweb.com

• www.hsf.net

The VSU General Scholarship Application for the new academic year is available October 1 through March 1 via your BANNER Web account under Financial Aid.

VSU also offers scholarships based on majors. For the list of these scholarships and application instructions to each, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/admissions/financialaid/scholarships/vsu-scholarship-available.php

Georgia residents are eligible for two scholarships:

• HOPE Scholarship- $2505 awarded to students taking 15 credit hours who graduated high school with a minimum 3.0 GPA. This pays approximately 90% of VSU’s tuition rate. Eligibility is determined after every 30 college credit hours, so if you are not currently eligible, you can receive it in the future after 30 credit hours with a 3.0 GPA. You lose this scholarship if your GPA drops below 3.0 and you are not re-eligible until

you take another 30 credit hours. You can only lose this scholarship once before permanently losing eligibility.

• Zell Miller Scholarship- $2732 awarded to students taking 15 credit hours who graduated high school with a minimum 3.7 GPA and minimum SAT/ACT score (26/1200). This pays 100% of VSU’s tuition rate.

• For more information about these scholarships, visit www.gacollege411.org.

SEMINAR CLASS/WORKSHOP

VSU CAMP enrolls you in a one-credit seminar class only for VSU CAMP Scholars during the Fall semester. This class meets once weekly for one hour and is mandatory. In the Spring semester, we continue meeting once a week for mandatory workshops that have the same format as the seminar classes. Seminar and workshop classes cover all of the important topics for your college success. Classes are designed to be engaging and informative. VSU CAMP provides a syllabus and all required materials on BlazeView.

STIPENDS

VSU CAMP Scholars have the opportunity to receive six $100 stipend checks for unplanned school supplies, fees, and materials.

STUDY ABROAD

VSU CAMP collaborates with the VSU Study Abroad program to teach you about the academic, professional, and personal benefits of studying abroad during one of the workshop sessions. There are numerous Study Abroad options to fit your unique needs and goals. If interested, VSU CAMP will help you navigate the application process and explore financial assistance options.

STUDY HOURS

VSU CAMP Scholars must complete 40 mandatory study hours per semester (80 for the year). This is about 2.5 hours of studying each week, which is the minimum of what you will be studying. Most of the hours are completed in the Academic Support Center (ASC) where VSU CAMP has a sign-in sheet. The reason for having study hours in the ASC versus in your dorm room is to familiarize you with all that the ASC has to offer, like tutoring, workshops, and a study-friendly environment. Tutoring sessions at the ASC use the same sign-in sheet and count towards your study hours. Other hours that count are those completed in the VSU CAMP study room, VSU CAMP tutoring sessions, and PAL sessions. PAL sessions have a special sheet for documentation.

SUPPLIES

VSU CAMP provides basic supplies such as:

• TI-84 calculators

• Laptops

• basic calculators

• binders

• notebooks

• loose leaf paper

• pencils

• pens

• post it notes

• index cards

• highlighters

• staplers, etc.

Before shopping for supplies, please check with VSU CAMP Staff to see if we have what you’re looking for to save yourself some money.

SYLLABUS TIPS

Read through each of your courses’ syllabi. Professors expect you to read it and this is where they put in everything you need to know to be successful and all-important due dates. This is also where they tell you their office hours so that you can schedule interviews with them to complete the Meet Your Professor forms. Also, this is where they tell you which textbooks and materials you need and how to access the online materials. If you have a question about the course, refer to the syllabus first. If you still can’t figure it out, ask a peer. Still can’t, ask the professor.

TRANSPORTATION

The Blazer Shuttle Express is the free shuttle bus service to get around campus. Make sure to plan accordingly to get to class on time. See the map below. For the most up to date route and times, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/administration/finance-admin/auxiliaryservices/parking/shuttle-service.php

Services:

Shuttle Express runs Monday through Friday from 7:30am - 11:00pm.

• Blazer Safe Ride is the after-hours shuttle service and runs 11:00pm3:00am

• Mall Run is offered every Thursday that school is in session. The bus pick-up and drop-off point is the bus stop at Palms on main campus. The bus service is at 2:00pm & 4:00pm to the Valdosta Mall and Walmart on Norman Drive, and then return at 6:00pm.

• Transportation in Medical Emergency- call University Police at 229-333-7816 or push the button on any one of the 14 emergency telephone stations located throughout campus. A University Police officer will arrive and transport you to the Student Health Center.

TUTORING

VSU CAMP has many tutoring options and the VSU CAMP Advisor assists you in getting the tutoring you need. Tutoring hours count toward the 40 mandatory hours per semester. Please provide the documentation to the VSU CAMP Advisor to get it counted.

VSU CAMP Tutoring

One-to-one or small group tutoring by two VSU CAMP

Alumni just for VSU CAMP scholars located in the VSU CAMP Office. VSU CAMP Tutors have strengths in math, science and writing. They are also available to just sit with you and help you get started or completing assignments, giving you tips, tricks, and advice on professors and courses, and can walk you over to the Academic Support Center for more help.

Academic Support Center (ASC)

Tutoring is available at the Academic Support Center (ASC), located on the second floor of Odum Library. The ASC is open Monday-Thursday: 9:00am – 7:00pm; Friday: 9:00am –3:00pm; and Sunday: 3:00pm – 7:00pm. Free tutoring is offered for core Math, Biology, Chemistry, English, Writing, History, and Spanish. Tutoring is provided by select, advanced students and supervised by a faculty member. For more information, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/asc.

PAL (Peer Alliance Learning)

The PAL (Peer Alliance Learning) program is a free peer facilitated academic support program that targets historically difficult courses so as to improve student performance and retention by offering regularly scheduled, out-of-class review sessions. The more you go, the better your grade.

PAL sessions start the first week of classes. The PAL facilitator introduces him or herself during the first class and informs you of when the PAL sessions will occur each week. Remember, the secret of success is to study proactively! Don't wait until the night before the test! Since you must study anyway, why not come to a PAL session and make efficient use of your study time? Your PAL facilitator keeps you informed about the times and locations for sessions.

Each PAL facilitator sets up three review sessions a week at various times to accommodate members of the class. You can attend one, two, or all three sessions. And each one is different because you'll have new material to discuss. PAL sessions are informal. Bring your notes; bring your textbook; bring your questions. For more information, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/asc/.

Writing Help

For feedback on essays or writing help, VSU CAMP staff and tutors are available to help. Also, you can click on “FREE TUTORING/” Thinking Storm and submit a paper for review. Feedback takes a day or two so plan accordingly.

Schedule a tutoring appointment at “FREE TUTORING” via your BlazeView account. For directions, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/asc/how-to-make-an-appointment.php

VOLUNTEERISM

Some majors require volunteer hours, so ask your VSU Advisor. VSU CAMP does not require volunteer hours; however, we promote volunteerism because it helps foster leadership skills, builds self-esteem and promotes a sense of purpose and community. Also, it provides experience and skills that you will include on your resume. Volunteering at the same place over time connects you with people who you can ask for letters of recommendations for scholarships, jobs, and applications.

VSU CAMP sends emails with volunteer opportunities throughout the year. VSU’s Career Opportunities also promotes volunteer opportunities with various agencies and non-profits. For more information, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/student/student-services/careerservices/volunteer-services.php

WORK POLICY

VSU CAMP Scholars do not work during the first semester at Valdosta State University, unless there are extenuating circumstances that are discussed and approved by the VSU CAMP Director. These scholars are monitored more frequently by the VSU CAMP Advisor to ensure academic success. Failure to follow this policy may result in loss of the VSU CAMP Scholarship and you will be held responsible for paying all fees.

Working is not encouraged during the first semester to give you the best chance of transitioning successfully to college life. All scholars face unpredictable and unforeseen challenges that get complicated with the added responsibility of a job. VSU CAMP provides workshops on career readiness skills, like cover letter and resume writing and interviewing, during the first semester to prepare you for getting a job in the second semester and beyond.

Scholars in good academic standing are approved to work part-time during the second semester. We recommend working a maximum of 19 hours per week. These hours must not interfere with VSU CAMP workshops/ activities/ events. The VSU CAMP Advisor monitors employed Scholars more closely to ensure academic success.

VSU’s Career Opportunities office is a multifaceted career center designed to assist VSU Students and Alumni in meeting their career goals; through their partnerships with local, regional, and national employers to identify talent to enhance today's workforce. They are located in the Student Union, 2nd floor behind Starbucks. They assist with the following:

• 4 Year Career Plan

• Career Counseling

• Career Days/Other Scheduled Events

• Career Development Handouts

• Cooperative Education/Internships

• Federal Paycheck Calculator

• Hours/Location

• Links

• Off-Campus, Part-Time Job Listings

• On-Campus Interviews

• Participating Employer Partners

• Salary Calculator

• Virtual Career Advising

• What can I do with a Major in?

For more information on VSU’s Career Opportunities, visit https://www.valdosta.edu/student/student-services/careerservices/

Welcome to GATE!

The Georgia Association of Teacher Educators (GATE) is proud to serve as the state affiliate of the national Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) and as a member of the Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Educators (SRATE). GATE is committed to the advancement and improvement of teacher education across the state of Georgia.

ATE is the only national, individual membership educational association solely dedicated to teacher education. Like ATE, GATE works diligently to support excellence in teacher preparation and professional development, fostering a collaborative community of educators from Georgia’s public and private universities, colleges, and P–12 schools. Our members represent a broad spectrum of backgrounds and share a common commitment to enhancing teacher education through shared expertise and collaborative efforts.