{"id":8378,"date":"2019-05-10T14:41:09","date_gmt":"2019-05-10T14:41:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2019-08-30T20:17:17","modified_gmt":"2019-08-30T20:17:17","slug":"an-introduction-to-the-cite-itel-database-access-dialogue-and-possibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-19\/issue-2-19\/english-language-arts\/an-introduction-to-the-cite-itel-database-access-dialogue-and-possibility","title":{"rendered":"An Introduction to the CITE-ITEL Database: Access, Dialogue, and Possibility"},"content":{"rendered":"
As teacher educators and educational researchers, we recognize the need for a recursive relationship between research and practice within teacher education. This article is a report of the development of an innovative digital tool designed to synthesize and analyze existing research within the field and includes proposed uses of this tool for improving the practice of teacher education.<\/p>\n
In a 2015 interview with the Journal of Teacher Education<\/em>, Pam Grossman stated that teacher educators and universities are \u201cresponsible for preparing the next generation of teachers\u201d (Arbaugh, Ball, Grossman, Heller, & Monk, 2015, p. 436) and, therefore, \u201chave a professional and moral obligation to hold ourselves accountable\u201d (p. 436) for creating and sustaining high-quality teacher education programs. She asserted, however, that \u201cresearchers still need to address questions around the characteristics of teacher education that make the most difference in preparing teachers to teach well\u201d (p. 428). In this interview, Grossman also spoke of the need for a reflexive relationship between research on effective university-based teacher education and the design of those same programs.<\/p>\n Critiques of university-based teacher education (TE) programs have emerged in the political arena of recent years, questioning the effectiveness of such programs (e.g., Berrett, 2013; Green, 2015). For instance, former Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan (2011) stated,<\/p>\n Education schools act as the Bermuda Triangle of higher education\u2014students sail in but no one knows what happens to them after they come out. No one knows which students are succeeding as teachers, which are struggling, and what training was useful or not.<\/p>\n These critiques have led to an increase in alternative pathways into classrooms, as well as calls for new accountability measures for TE programs (Zeichner, 2016). While Obama-era accountability provisions for TE programs have been repealed, the provisions encouraging alternative paths into teaching remain intact (Brown, 2017), despite a lack of research substantiating claims that teachers prepared in these programs are more successful in classrooms or stay in the field longer than teachers prepared in university-based programs (Zeichner, 2016). Some have argued that this move toward privatizing teacher education is rooted within neoliberal, market-based ideologies that espouse innovation and competition, leading to higher quality performance (Pandolfo & Smith, 2011; Weiner, 2007).<\/p>\n This public debate alongside Grossman\u2019s argument brings to the forefront the critical role that both research and reviews of research can play in understanding the value of TE programs. While continual improvement of university-based teacher education is needed, we dispute claims that little is known about the characteristics of these programs that seem to make a difference. A large body of rigorous, peer-reviewed research examining aspects of university-based teacher education exists (e.g., Clarke, Triggs, & Nielsen, 2014; Pasternak, Caughlan, Hallman, Renzi & Rush, 2014; Risko et al., 2008; Rogers & Schaenen, 2014).<\/p>\n Yet, accessing this research has its challenges. The research is published in multiple journals, some with broad foci, like Educational Researcher<\/em>, and others with more narrow, discipline-specific foci, like the Journal of Literacy Research. <\/em>In addition, many people have a stake in the education of preservice teachers, including in-service teachers, administrators, and policymakers, who may not subscribe to the many journals where this research is found.<\/p>\n In response to some of these challenges, faculty members and graduate students from a large university in the Southwestern US and graduates now at a variety of institutions \u2013 from large research universities and smaller liberal arts colleges to school districts and classrooms across the country \u2013 posed the following questions:<\/p>\n Our efforts to answer these questions led to the project we introduce here: CITE-ITEL, a Critical, Interactive, Transparent and Evolving review of literature on Initial Teacher Education in Literacy.<\/p>\n This project involves two components. The first \u2013 CITE \u2013 refers to the digital platform, which allows researchers to engage in ongoing and collaborative review and analysis of a body of research while simultaneously providing a variety of stakeholders with access to this work. The second \u2013 ITEL \u2013 refers to the topical focus of this particular review of literature, focused on the initial preparation of teachers of literacy.<\/p>\n This project, thus, uses the CITE platform to conduct an ongoing review of all empirical research focused on the initial preparation of P-12 teachers in theories and methods of teaching literacy, broadly defined. However, we envision the CITE platform as operational for reviews of literature on any topic of interest.<\/p>\n This project had several goals. First, we aimed to create a central, searchable database of the research on university-based literacy preservice teacher education. Second, we provided evolving, theme-based syntheses and reviews of this literature. We granted all stakeholders access to the literature in literacy preservice teacher education, encouraging dialogue in response to this literature. Finally, we supported a movement away from a view of research as a static product toward a view of research as a public process of building knowledge that informs the intersection of research, policy, and practice. We invite researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to interact with the syntheses, which will be described in more detail throughout the paper, to bring their expertise to the analysis of the literature, allowing the field to build knowledge together.<\/p>\n Typically, reviews of literature are published in the same restricted access academic journals in which the empirical research was published (e.g., Clark et al. 2014; Pasternak et al., 2014; Risko et al., 2008; Rogers & Schaenen, 2014). These reviews serve as valuable documents for educational researchers. Challenges of access arise, however, for those outside of academe. Although these reviews are usually available digitally through journal websites, the documents themselves function as print texts; that is, once they have been published on that website, they are not alterable.<\/p>\n These reviews of literature, which are often laborious to produce, quickly become out-of-date as new research is published, a phenomena which is exacerbated given the extended timeline required for the peer-review process. We envision CITE-ITEL as providing a critical forum for all stakeholders (including researchers, practitioners, and policymakers) to engage with each other and the ever-growing, evolving body of research on initial teacher education in literacy, publicly generating knowledge through timely and ongoing dialogue.<\/p>\n The purpose of this article is to introduce CITE-ITEL to the educational research community at large and encourage participants committed to literacy teacher education to join us in exploring this literature. The next section includes the methods and process of the project to date. Some of the themes we have found within the literature thus far are then discussed, as well as some of the features of the CITE-ITEL platform. The article closes with implications, including possibilities for this project as it continues to evolve.<\/p>\n The CITE-ITEL system has been developed over a period of 4 years by a team initially consisting of six professors and 22 doctoral students at a large university in the Southwest. Many of the doctoral students involved in the initial development of CITE-ITEL have graduated and continue to work with CITE-ITEL from the institutions at which they are now employed. Both graduate student and faculty involvement at the host university has increased across the 4 years we have been working on this project, and we expect it will continue to do so.<\/p>\n At the initial meeting of the CITE-ITEL team in February 2015, the inward facing CITE-ITEL platform was introduced. This platform, designed by the participating faculty members and graduate students in collaboration with a leader in technology from the host university, would become a space in which the team would log their findings as they engaged in the three iterative and ongoing phases of this research process. The work that has been done is highlighted in Table 1 and discussed throughout the methods and process section.<\/p>\n\n
Methods and Process<\/h2>\n