No abstract

Despite the fact that American education has at its core strived to provide pathways of opportunity to remedy socio-economic inequalities, as educational institutions transitioned into online virtual classrooms due to the COVID-19 pandemic these inequalities have come into sharper focus for us. During the process of engaging in a larger self-study, we became more aware of the stark socio-economic disparities of our students in a virtual space, specifically amongst students of color, and how these disparities affected learning outcomes and their identity. Juxta positioning the situated in-between spaces of in-class and virtual environments our identities as educators were fluid and intersectional, negotiated in response to student interactions thereby enabling changes in our Dialogical Selves. The sample for this study consisted of 2 faculty members and 40 students. Data sources included reflexive journals, recorded class sessions, students' questionnaires, and artifacts such as student feedback collected through “exit tickets” as well as recorded meetings. Some findings include (1) students' identities were negotiated differently in face to face classrooms vs. virtual classrooms, (2) fluidity in intersectional identity due to intersections of I-positions in the dialogical self, and (3) acknowledging and accepting the presence of COVID-19 created a sense of community in the virtual classroom (4) incorporating self-care and caring pedagogical practices provided an empowering space for students and educators.

We offer a comparative investigation of the compensation and benefits afforded to cooperating teachers (CTs) by teacher education programs (TEPs) in 1957-1958 and 2012-2013. This investigation replicates and extends a description of the compensation practices of 20 U.S. TEPs published by VanWinkle in 1959. Data for the present investigation came from 18 of those TEPs. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used to identify trends and make comparisons across the two time periods. Findings indicate that compensation for CTs continues to fall into five categories: (a) monetary compensation, (b) professional learning opportunities, (c) CT role-focused resources, (d) engaging CTs in the college/university community, and (e) professional recognition. Changes in the nature and quality of benefits indicate that in many instances, the programs in our sample offer less to their CTs than they did in 1957-1958 while expectations for CTs have historically increased.

No abstract

No abstract