Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in
student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304-322. doi:10.1177/0022487109336543 Summary Complex Interactions in Student Teaching is a four-year study of student teaching from the perspective of three key stakeholders: the pre-service teacher, the in-service teacher, and the university supervisor. The authors examine this triad using “activity theory”. This framework takes into account that each participant brings with them the sum of their experiences, which influence how they view the relationships and tasks involved in the field work aspect of teacher training, particularly language arts. The authors found that competing demands and differing perspectives were at work, shaping how each participant interpreted, acted, and viewed the experience. As in much of the current literature, a gap was found between university methods courses and the internship field work. Being such a critical role in the training and development of teacher education, this research sheds light on important aspects of the reality of a pre-service teacher, supervisor, and collaborating teacher. Reaction The ideas behind activity theory (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999) connect to my recent readings by L. Vygotsky and his theories of child development. He proposed that learning is aligned largely with one’s cultural experiences. This cultural-historical psychology framed learning in much the same way that action theory does. In general, activity theory asserts that “a person’s framework for thinking is developed through participation and problem solving in specific environments that are themselves shaped by both present and historical contexts” (p. 306). The commonality between these two theories is the emphasis on the social environment as a major factor in higher cognitive functioning. It’s obvious to me that the authors of Complex Interactions in Student Teaching are insightful in their claims. Yes, there is often a disconnect between methods courses and field experience. Interns do often experience conflict and are pulled in different directions academically, philosophically, and emotionally. They are often caught in the middle, between what their supervisor tells them to do and what their supervisor wishes. They have to balance the demands of each person in the triad, often bowing to the demands of the CT over the supervisor. The triad relationship is complex and intricate, but an essential part of an effective teacher preparation program. Additionally, I connected with the idea of “benign neglect” (p. 310) by a CT. I have a student who presented a lesson plan to me prior to a formal observation. The lesson plan was in need of revision and had evident flaws and gaps. I asked her if her CT had looked at this document and the student teacher said no, that her CT never does, but tells her to do whatever she wants, because she “trusts her”. This amazed me. I explained to her that one of the key pieces of this partnership was to receive feedback from the veteran teacher, and collaborate on all aspects of teaching, including on lesson planning. I felt that the CT was indeed neglecting her intern, though not maliciously, but through her lack of involvement. I did address the situation with both the intern and the CT, in a professional manner which preserved the rapport of the triad relationship. It was an eye opening experience, and something I intend to address more proactively in the future. Badiali, No More Cooperating Teachers Summary This short article by Badiali describes the role of those who have been traditionally referred to as cooperating teachers, posting instead that they be called mentors, which better defines their role as an important part of a professional development school partnership. It redefines their role as a coach, collaborator, and co-teacher. These mentors are willing participants in this process, and agree to learn alongside the teacher candidate. The author presents three main reasons a teacher would be willing to take on this role: the benefit to students of having an additional teacher in the room, the benefit to them through adult interaction during the school day, and finally, the ability to contribute to the development of a new teacher. This fosters growth in the teacher, and may help them maintain professional momentum in their own career. Reaction This article contains familiar information, and has been a part of my professional studies since starting at the university. It connects to my experiences in Supervision II, where we had the great pleasure of interviewing Jim Nolan, who exposed me to the idea that you don’t have to be an expert teacher to be of benefit to an intern, or conversely to benefit from having an intern. The idea that a mediocre or struggling teacher could enhance her own skills through this partnership had no occurred to me, and I still wrestle with this notion. My own experience shows me that a pre-service teacher models what their CT does each day, so of course you want them to have the most effective role model possible. However, how does this weigh against the needs of that teacher who is struggling, and can benefit from the PST? Do the needs of one outweigh the needs of the other? Can the intern still benefit from a less than stellar role model? I continue to wrestle with this quandary. Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163-202. DOI: 10.31012/0034654313499618 Summary Clark, Triggs and Nielsen write about the important role of a collaborating teacher (CT). Interns view their field experience as one of the most important components of their teacher training, and place a high value on their CT. Traditionally, the CTs role has been understood to fall along a continuum of “classroom placeholder, supervisor of practica, and teacher educator” (p. 166), from least involved to most active. The practices of the CT often mirror their own experiences as pre-service teachers (PSTs). The authors examine the role of the CT in a more empirical fashion, assigning them to one of eleven categories which include: Providers of Feedback, Gatekeepers of the Profession, Modelers of Practice, Supporters of Reflection, Gleaners of Knowledge, Purveyors of Context, Conveners of Relation, Agents of Socialization, Advocates of the Practical, Abiders of Change, and Teachers of Children. Each of these is explained in detail for interested readers. As part of the methodology, the researchers examined an impressive 456 scholarly articles, rating each according to set criteria, categorizing these, and analyzing claims. A detailed description is included. The authors also describe the traditional relationship between the university and the school/CT, with the majority of the power going to the university, especially in terms of evaluation. This is seen as an area in need of further examination. Gaventa’s work from 2007 is used as a framework for further analysis, with three elements of closed, invited and claimed. Clark, Triggs and Nielsen claim that the invited elements produces the most effective relationship. “This space represents a genuine engagement between the parties and the endpoint of that engagement is not prefigured by one party or preempted by the other.” (p. 188). It’s interesting to note that the most common theme among all CTs was the claim that they are there to teach children, an admirable goal. However, this may create barriers to serving pre-service teachers, when prioritizing aims. Reaction Being a university supervisor, I found many connections to the reading. One particular portion drew me in, due to my own self-definition as such, gatekeeper. I was intrigued by the question, “Who is responsible for evaluation?” The collaborating teachers spend the greater amount of time with the inters, and are often tasked with scoring an intern on their performance. Are they given the training and background to be comfortable with this task? What role should the supervisor play in this area? A more involved supervisor such as myself could offer valuable and reliable evaluations. But what about those who are less involved, such as graduate students who are more focused on their own education than that of their charges? Of course there are many competent and dedicated GAs, but there are also those whose priorities are divided, to the detriment of the pre-service and collaborating teacher. This is a disservice to our interns. A supervisor should be given time and resources to play a significant role in the training and evaluation of the developing teacher. When they aren’t, not only does the intern suffer, but it can place unnecessary pressure on the CT.
13 Comments
Clift, R.T. & Brady, P. (2005). Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences in M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (eds.) Studying Teacher Education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Before 1975, research in the area of teacher efficacy was largely psychology based with a focus on behavioral studies and measured outcomes. Teachers were taught particular behaviors to implement, and then the test scores and other measures of success were examined. Research at this time noted a fractured curriculum in teacher preparation programs, not only from program to program, but also with a disconnect between methods courses and field work. A lack of attention to instruction was noted. The efficacy of the field work experience was largely untested. A large gap between university courses and field work application existed. A call for self-study was issued, as well as a pointed need for clearer connections between methods coursework and field experiences, and studies which followed the pre-service teachers into their in-service teaching career. “Student teaching experience was seldom connected to program goals and that few structures existed to support cooperation or resolve conflict among supervisors, teachers and students.” (p. 310). Over the next several decades, the pendulum swung away from these technical research formats, towards studying novice teachers’ beliefs, skills and knowledge. A previous lack of research was replaced by studies which included not only the observable behaviors, but the cultural, and experience situational based analysis. The authors continue with an examination of the four basic content areas: reading, math, science and social studies. Their common focus question for each is “What impacts do methods courses have on preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices. They find themes such as acknowledging the complexity of marrying course work and field work in reality, and the importance of creating bridges between content and application. The role of the professional development school is examined, and its impact on pre-service teachers. Five recommendations are included regarding issues of research methodology and theory development. These include: a description of participant demographics and a mindfulness towards diversity, disclosure of the relationship between the researcher and participant(s), a need for a description of related literature as well as statements regarding the researcher’s conceptual framework, assumptions, and a clear research question, and research which extended beyond the short term and smaller scale case studies, and included the input of collaborating teachers. Interestingly, in Clift and Brady’s article, they note that the methods course instructor is or was rarely the same as the field supervisor (p. 313), contributing to the disconnect between university course work and field work experiences. I agree with this. I am pleased to note that this is not the case in my current position. I not only supervise two groups of interns, juniors and seniors, but I am also the course instructor for many of these same students. Having been a part of the disjointed structure last year where I was the field supervisor but not the course instructor, and now serving in both capacities this year, I have the unique perspective of being able to compare these models. I find being able to serve the dual role of supervisor and course instructor is far superior. My personal community based connection to the students is much stronger, as I know how they learn, what they enjoy, family and cultural backgrounds, and many unique experiences. We enjoy a positive rapport that has been built over time, and contributes to the smooth and effective operation of both the classroom and field supervision interactions. We have built a trust that is important for educational risk taking, which is a key component for professional and personal growth. Additionally, I have an academic advantage in knowing my students’ strengths, areas in need of focus, and field work experiences and exposures. I know where they excel and where they struggle. I can make direct explicit connections to what was learned in the course and what is occurring, or should be occurring, in the field. By making the tacit explicit, debriefing and unpacking during or immediately after they provide instruction to students, I believe the pre-service student’s experience is strengthened. We can draw correlations and comparisons between methods course content and field work in the moment. The connections can be made clear. If I were not their course instructor as well as their supervisor, this valuable exchange would not be possible. Hammond, L. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapters 1-3 Summary: The book begins by providing a brief history and overview of education and teacher preparation, and orients the reader to the chapters which follow. This text is written not only for teacher educators and teachers in training, but veteran teachers as well. It encompasses all manner of teaching training programs, both traditional and nontraditional, with a focus on commonalities which each can share in order to enhance their design. Like many writings, it calls for a revision among historically inconsistent program requirements in a disjointed system, with a move towards comprehensive and organized framework, which is currently found in other professional fields but is missing from education. It is suggested that this signature pedagogy is necessary in teacher preparation programs. The authors posit that teaching is situational, and can and should look different across different contexts and situations. What works well in one setting may not work in another. There is no “right answer” or formula. Instead there are guidelines which can be interpreted and applied based on the needs of the student. Highlights from the chapters include: Three ways teacher education needs to be reformed: working in professional learning communities, a strong sense of moral purpose to create school reform, and partnerships among stakeholders. “In this way, prospective teachers can be prepared for the schools they need in order to teach effectively, and they can learn firsthand how to work in and develop contents that will support the learning of all of their students.” (p.5). Common practices of highly effective teachers include: clear expectations for students, displayed student work, multiple small group activities, teachers who moved around, high levels of student discourse, and an organized classroom. Three general areas of knowledge, skills and disposition that are important for teachers include: knowledge of subject matter and curriculum goals, knowledge of learners and their development in social contexts, and knowledge of teaching. These provide a vision of professional practice. Four types of research evidence were used. These are: how people learn, how learning conditions affect learning, learning development and language acquisition, and how teachers learn successful practices. It’s essential to understand and utilize child development principles when planning and implementing instruction. There may be individual differences among learners, and the effective teacher can differentiate as needed. A student’s prior knowledge, development and experience directly affect their learning. Conversely, learning affects development. Each of these is related to cultural considerations, and tied to student success. Teachers need to learn strategies for acquiring developmental expertise. This includes knowledge of “splintered development”, where children have a great split in their strengths and areas where they struggle, and working in the “zone of proximal development”, as initially put forth by Vygotsky, as well as by scaffolding learning to support the child. Observing students, analyzing their level of development, and teaching to their strengths are ways teachers can best serve the needs of diverse learners. Another area stressed when describing effective teaching is the need to design classroom experiences that support diverse students who are learning challenging content. Examples are given in cases which increased success rates for women and Latinos. The authors stress the importance of “making the tacit explicit”, and taking into account the learner’s context, background and way in which they learn. Further discussion includes metacognition, expertise, connecting content to learners, memory ad information retrieval, assessment, and cognitive processes. Another central theme across chapters is the concept of reflecting on learning as a practice essential for effective teaching, and using this reflection to improve teaching practice. Reflection: In reflecting on these ideas, I find there are many that align with my own philosophy. For example, I agree that high levels of student discourse and multiple small group activities can be indicators of effective teaching and learning. Research shows that both of these interactive activities, which can go hand in hand, are aligned with increased levels of learning when compared with a lecture style of instructional delivery. Friere, in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), stresses the importance of dialogical learning, not only for knowledge retention purposes, but as a way to encourage all voices to be heard, both literally and figuratively. This is important if we want our classrooms to be places which value an demonstrate equity. Another idea I found valuable from this reading is that teachers need a balance of academic core knowledge as well as sound pedagogical skills in order to be effective. One without the other is an imbalance. Students deserve a teacher who has content knowledge, as well as effective strategies to convey this knowledge, or to let students discover the knowledge. This includes a need for observing your students and using this information to differentiate as needed. This was always a tricky concept for me, having been trained in a university before differentiation was taught. Many years later, I understand its value and the many ways it can be used in effective student based instruction. The one point that left me wondering was the idea that effective teachers all display student work. In my own classrooms I do this to show students I value their contributions, to allow them to take pride in their work, and to visually reinforce academic concepts. However, I never considered it an essential component. I've been a student in many classrooms where student work was not shown, and from a personal standpoint, did not feel it affected learning outcomes in any negative fashion. This is something I'd like to learn more about, to determine if it's a cause and effect relationship or simply a byproduct.
Part 1 Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers, often referred to as the Blue Ribbon Report, is a call for reform in teacher preparation. Prepared in 2010, this document presents ten design principles aimed at enhancing the field through clinically based preparation. These principles include: focus on student learning, dynamic integration of clinical preparation, use of pre-service teacher data for judging a candidate’s progress, preparing teachers as experts in content, learning in an interactive professional community, rigorous selection of coaches and clinical educators, intensive embedded clinical school experiences, technology application, a powerful R&D agenda and systematic gathering and use of data, and strategic partnerships among stakeholders. An examination of the challenges currently existing in teacher preparation programs is included, as well as a call to action and encouragement for all stakeholders to “transform teacher education through clinical practice”. The Clinical Preparation of Teachers: A Policy Brief is a similar document prepared in 2010 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Beginning with a brief history of teacher education and recent changes, the emphasis then moves to the importance of clinical practice in preparing successful educators. It points to the parallels of preparing professionals in other professions to preparing expert teachers, including the centrality of clients (students), requisite specialized knowledge and skills, and the use of evidence and judgment to determine the best course of treatment. Of particular importance are clinical placements, clinical teachers, coordinating faculty, and school-based clinical curriculum which links theory to practice. Potential models of clinically based preparation programs are outlined, with recommendations for states. Surprisingly, not all states require clinical experiences. Federal requirements and regulations are set forth, as well as recommendations for providers of teacher preparation. My favorite quote from this brief is “It is now recognized that good teaching is not merely a matter of personal style, individual commitment, or a fondness for children.” It’s a continued misconception among some teacher candidates that this is enough. The AACTE points out that it is a much more complex and skill based process. Rethinking the Connections Between Campus Courses and Field Experiences in College and University Based Teacher Education by Ken Zeichner is an article in the Journal of Teacher Education, also published in 2010. It too stressed the importance of not just academically based knowledge in teacher preparation programs, but calls for creation of “hybrid spaces” which create a balance of university course work and practical field experience. A disconnect has existed between these two in the past, and Zeichner examines the effectiveness of linking these for greater effectiveness. Of particular note included in this article is the lack of compensation and support for collaborating teachers who do their own full time work with students while being asked to offer support and structure for the novice teacher they mentor, while not placing an equal importance on the skills and ideas of the classroom experience when compared to the university based program. Zeichner calls for a “third space” which decreases the hegemony of the traditional system and allows for a greater balance between these entities. “Third spaces bring practitioner and academic knowledge together in less hierarchical ways to create new learning opportunities for prospective teachers.” (Zeichner, 2010, p. 92). I believe the USF Education program aligns closely with these ideas, including bringing P-12 teachers and their knowledge into campus courses and field experiences, incorporating representations of teachers’ practices in campus courses, incorporating knowledge from communities into preservice teacher education, and creating coherency of dedicated professionals to facilitate this process. Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education by Linda Darling-Hammond is an older article, published in the Journal of Teacher Education in 2006, but one of great relevance. It continues the theme of revising traditional models of teacher preparation, by integrating more field-based experiences in preparing effective student teachers. Darling-Hammond stresses the complex nature of effective teaching, which is often underrepresented by outsiders. Preparing teacher for a changing world involves three pillars. These are knowledge of learners and their development in social contexts, knowledge of subject matter and curriculum goals, and knowledge of teaching. Problematizing Clinical Education: What is our future? is a well written and comprehensive article by Dr. Dennis, Dr. West-Burns, and four other professors at the University of South Florida which focuses on the existing challenges of teacher preparation problems, and solutions for improvement. Like the previous writings, it calls for a great emphasis on quality clinical experiences in order to adequately prepare novice teachers to become effective practitioners. This includes strengthening the relationships between the professional development school and the public school district. Of particular importance in this article is the detailed outline of four models of teacher preparation and the implications of each for pre-service teachers, supervisors, and faculty. These are: clinically-impoverished, clinically-accompanied, clinically-rich, and clinically-centered. Part 2 My background as a teacher is a study in contrast with these readings and recommendations. Although I did have two semesters of clinical field experience, there was little connection between what was taught at the university and my experiences in the classroom. Having earned my teaching degree so many years ago, it’s not surprising that many changes have occurred since I went to the university, most for the better. The emphasis on connecting these experiences benefits my interns, in a way that I was not able to enjoy. I find my more traditional background a solid basis for teaching academic skills, and my own creativity and quest for knowledge a complement to enhancing this in a more refined and current fashion, integrating research based practices for greater effectiveness. I enjoy being a more present and involved supervisor to my interns than the one I had during my own internship. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|