This material may not be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying without the permission of the copyright holder
Alberta
Journal of Educational Research Vol XLVI (2), Summer 2000
Mentoring not monitoring: “Mediating” a “whole school” model in
supervising pre-service teachers
Dr Kathy Sanford and Dr Tim Hopper
University of Victoria
Abstract
This paper offers a case study of a “whole
school” model for supervising pre-service teachers that is related to the
principles of professional development schools (Holmes Group, 1990), and
Zeichner’s (1992) notions of rethinking of student teachers' practicum
experience. The paper draws on constructivist notions of learning to teach; in
particular, reference is made to Vygotsky’s (1978) sense of "mediating"
a stimulus where, within a social-cultural context, a person's knowledge is
created, examined and transformed rather than simply absorbed and
transmitted. The case study highlights
the particular details of this “whole school” model and connects these to five
main empirical descriptors that were generated from data triangulated from
pre-service teachers' journals, evaluation forms, group meetings and
correspondence from co-operating teachers. The descriptors show how the “whole
school” model evolved and how the role of university facilitator shifted from
monitoring to mentoring in the teacher preparation process. This change in
relationship disrupted the isolating clinical model of supervision where the
university facilitator and cooperating teacher, in an uneasy relationship, are
perceived by pre-service teachers as having power over them – “telling” the
pre-service teacher with little perceived opportunity for negotiation.
Introduction
The
case study reported in this paper highlights an alternative model for the
supervision of pre-service teachers in schools. This model contrasts with the clinical supervision model by
focusing on a "whole school" experience in pre-service teachers'
field experiences. In this “whole
school” experience the student teachers are exposed to all facets of life in
schools in order to promote an educative experience of being a teacher in a
school. To facilitate this “whole
school” experience student teachers had time left free in their time-table to
see and be involved in other peers' classes, other subject areas, with school
council staff and administrative staff.
The "whole school" experience radically changed the
relationship of the supervising university facilitator with pre-service
teachers and co-operating teachers. As
advocated for Professional Development Schools (Holmes Group, 1990), this
changing relationship has created the foundation for developing close
partnerships between faculties of education and community schools in order to
improve educational practice. This
study supports the vision behind the PDS model and the subsequent development
of teacher education programs in North America (Britzman, Dippo, Searle and
Pitt,1998; Teitel, 1997; Stoddart, 1993; Zeichner, 1992). This project has evolved in response to
dissatisfaction with the clinical model of supervision and from a desire to
support the growth of a "whole school" model that has been advocated
by the University of Alberta but only supported in pockets in the school
system. The key for this "whole
school" model is commitment to a collaborative relationship between the
school administrators and teachers and the university facilitators. This collaboration involved working with
each other from a sense of association rather than a sense of obligation in order to develop a teacher education
process that benefited the school and the student teachers.
Drawing
from Stake's (1994) description of case study methodology, this paper describes
a form of "instrumental case study" examining the "whole
school." The paper explains: 1)
the general context for the supervision of pre-service teachers at a large
university in western Canada; 2) the critical issues embedded in pre-service
teacher supervision, particularly as they focus upon constructivist notions of
learning; 3) the notable details of this case study; and 4) empirical
descriptors arising through multi-source data collection from participants in
the case study. The social experience
described in this case study should enable the reader to construct a sense of
mentoring supervision of pre-service teachers within the pre-service teachers’
“whole school” experience of learning to teach.
Context
of the case study
The
University of Alberta teacher education program has seen substantive changes
over the course of the last five years, changes that have been responsive to
developing understandings of pedagogy as well as to financial and political
pressures. The University of Alberta
has a large teacher education program, and students are required to select an elementary
or secondary education route upon entering the Faculty. In both of these routes student teachers
engage in three field experiences.
First of all students have an initial field experience comprised of ten
half-day visits to both secondary and elementary schools where they observe and
act as a teacher assistant learning the routines and procedures of
teaching. This experience is followed
by a more extensive four-week experience in a school where the pre-service
teachers work with co-operating teachers, initially observing the
teachers. Gradually the student
teachers plan, implement and evaluate individual and sequence of lessons under
the guidance of the co-operating teacher.
In their final year pre-service teachers complete a nine-week field experience. In the latter two field experiences a
university facilitator is assigned to supervise pre-service teachers in a
school.
This
case study focuses upon the final nine-week field experience. In this secondary field experience the
pre-service teachers work closely with one or two cooperating teachers and the
university facilitator. For both the
university facilitator and the cooperating teachers, the model of supervision
that has traditionally existed is one that draws from clinical supervision (Wheeler,
1989; Zeichner, 1992). As Zeichner
(1992) highlighted, this model involved "little theoretical learning and little learning of any kind, beyond
mastering the routines of the cooperating teacher's classroom" (p.
296). Specifically at the University of
Alberta this model, as it has been applied in the supervision of
pre-service teachers, has several characteristics: (1) One pre-service teacher is assigned to usually one
cooperating teacher and works with one university facilitator who has several pre-service
teachers to supervise, often in different schools. (2) The university
facilitator and cooperating teacher are perceived by the pre-service teacher as
having power over the pre-service teacher – the supervising teacher
"tells" the pre-service teacher and there is little perceived
opportunity for negotiation. (3) The supervision is based on a “deficit” model
– there is something “wrong” or “lacking” in the pre-service teacher that needs
“fixing.” (4) This approach is
time-intensive for the university facilitator because in the supervising role
the university facilitator needs to observe each pre-service teacher teaching
full classes on a weekly basis, followed by debriefing sessions. (5)
Pre-service teachers are generally supervised by a university facilitator and
cooperating teacher from the same discipline as the pre-service teacher. Historically, though rarely acknowledged,
this model has created many tensions between the university facilitator seen as
subject area "expert" and the co-operating teacher seen as the
"real" teacher. As Zeichner
comments, for pre-service teachers, "learning
to teach and to improve one's teaching meant learning to make one's classroom
practice more closely match either the practices advocated in college courses
or those exhibited by cooperating teachers, and the two often conflicted"
(p. 296).
In the model described above, it is
expected that the cooperating teacher observes the pre-service teacher
frequently during the first few weeks of the nine week experience, monitoring
the pre-service teacher’s progress closely.
The university facilitator also observes the pre-service teacher on a
weekly basis. Often the pre-service
teacher is provided with extensive notes regarding his or her teaching
“performance” and given suggestions for “improvement.” Both the cooperating teacher and the
university facilitator would meet regularly with the pre-service teacher but
did not necessarily meet with each other or in a threesome throughout the
nine-week field experience.
Our
general experience of this model was that a university facilitator could not
develop effective and meaningful relationships with one or two pre-service
teachers in any one term, let alone the customary nine or more pre-service
teachers presently assigned to a university facilitator. And, even if the university facilitator was
able to fulfil the clinical supervising expectations, we felt that such a
“monitoring” role imposed our sense of effective teaching upon the student
teachers. We felt, as others have commented
on field experience supervision, that such a monitoring forces the pre-service
teacher to construct herself or himself in the models of the "good
teacher" perceived by the university facilitator and the ever-present
monitoring of the co-operating teacher and the school community (Macdonald,
1996; Zeichner 1992). It is no wonder
that such a monitoring leads to stressful field experiences where pre-service
teachers construct themselves in a role of “self-martyring victims of the
demands of others” (Diamond, 1991, p.
48).
“Mediating”
and supervising pre-service teachers
Recent
understandings about teaching and learning in teacher preparation have caused
us to call into question the model described above (Zeichner, 1992; Richardson,
1997; Britzman, 1998). Traditional
clinical supervision of pre-service teachers rarely leads to a change in how
prospective teachers teach from the way they were taught (Britzman, 1991;
Lortie, 1975). Clinical supervision in
subject areas reaffirms a pre-service teacher’s construction in the role of the
subject area stereotype rather than the role of educator.
We
believe that teacher preparation learning needs to be construed in terms of
principles from social constructivism.
Social constructivism refers to the dialectical relationship between the
situated individual and the cultural milieu embedded within the larger
socio-historical context (Vygotsky, 1978).
Rather than focusing on the clinical setting of the classroom as the test
of a student teacher's ability to be a teacher, the "whole school"
experience enabled the student teachers to reflect on their teaching
experiences within the whole school milieu and the experiences of their
colleagues. To do this we created a
reflective space for the pre-service teachers within the timetable of the
school. This reflective space allowed
concerns, thoughts and experiences to be mediated by members of the group. This "mediating" connects to
Vygotsky's (1978) sense of the term in that
for "higher forms of human behaviour, the individual actively modifies the
stimulus situation as a part of the process of responding to it" (p.
14). In this way knowledge about the
teacher education process was not transmitted to the pre-service teachers and
co-operating teachers by the university facilitators. Instead, knowledge about the teacher education process was
initially framed by the university facilitators as an alternative model, then
it was created, examined, and transformed by the co-operating teachers,
pre-service teachers and university facilitators.
This
idea of “mediating” the teacher education process has prompted us to search for
alternative models of mentoring pre-service teachers and working
collaboratively between schools and universities. By "mediating" we mean a process where
an individual actively modifies the stimulus as a part of the process of
responding to it. This focus on
mediating changed our role as university facilitators. Rather than maintaining a firm hold on the power over the pre-service
teachers we were supervising, as university facilitators we sought ways to
empower them to actively construct their own understandings of teaching and
learning, and to then share their understandings, their questions, and dilemmas
in frank and comfortable conversations.
Rather than telling pre-service teachers what they did well and did not
do well, we wanted to find ways to listen and give value to their stories
telling of their experiences. We wanted
to open up the discussions to all pre-service teachers assigned to the school
and to all of the cooperating teachers.
In addition, we thought it important that the cooperating teachers were
involved in the same conversations as the pre-service teachers and university
facilitators, so that they could construct contextual and professional
knowledge collaboratively as well as individually. Using a forum where collaborative discussion was valued, we
provided opportunities for pre-service teachers to learn from each other and
from cooperating teachers representing a variety of disciplines and
perspectives, rather than individual meetings with individual pre-service
teachers and individual co-operating teachers.
These meetings became the "mediating" focus of the teacher
education process.
Particular
details on the alternative model for the supervision of pre-service teachers
Two
weeks prior to the beginning of the nine-week field experience, one of us was
assigned as the university facilitator to mentor nine pre-service teachers in a
city high school. These pre-service
teachers would be teaching in a variety of disciplines, including mathematics,
English, Spanish, drama, physical education, art, career and technology studies
(foods and design), and chemistry/physics.
The other one of us agreed to collaborate in order to collect data for
this case study.
In
order to prepare for the experience, we arranged to meet with all of the
pre-service teachers, to introduce ourselves, discuss each of our expectations,
and collaborate on an arrangement for facilitating the pre-service teacher’s
final field experience. Additionally,
we held an initial organizational meeting with the school principal and the
school field experience coordinator. At
both of these meetings, we suggested a possible alternative approach to
facilitating the field experience. This
alternative involved: 1) establishing a weekly meeting time during the day
where we could meet with all of the pre-service teachers; 2) weekly visits to
each pre-service teacher’s class for brief observations (15 – 20 minute
duration); 3) weekly contact with each of the cooperating teachers; 4) a
collaborative approach to the mid-point and final evaluations of the
pre-service teachers’ work in the school; and 5) three meetings with
cooperating teachers during the nine weeks, the first prior to the pre-service
teachers beginning in the schools, the second and third to coincide with the
mid-point and final evaluation times.
The
key premise behind all of these alternatives to the traditional model was
creating spaces of time to mediate and respond as a group to understandings and
insights gained from the previous week’s experiences.
1. Establishing Weekly Meetings
The weekly meetings with the
pre-service teachers were important for several reasons. Initially, the willingness on the part of
the school principal and cooperating teachers to find a time and place for
these meetings acknowledged our presence in the school, and the importance of
our meetings with the pre-service teachers.
We were able to establish a friendly and trusting relationship with the
pre-service teachers as individuals and as a group. The meetings also provided opportunities for the pre-service
teachers to become acquainted with each other, share insights and resources,
provide support and advice to one another, offer suggestions, and arrange times
to visit each other’s classes. During
the weekly meetings, we provided time for the pre-service teachers to write in
their reflective journals and to share their writings with each other. Although this was not an activity initially
valued by all of them, they modeled the practice for each other. The evidence of the journal writing’s worth
came from the pre-service teachers themselves rather than from us as facilitators.
2. Weekly Visits to Classrooms
Rather
than spending a great deal of time observing pre-service teachers in their
classrooms, we observed portions of the lessons (e.g., the introduction, one
activity, transitions). We advised the
pre-service teachers that we would not often be observing an entire class
(usually lasting for sixty-five minutes) so they would not be perturbed when we
left the class early or arrived after it had begun. From an observation of 15 or 20 minutes, we explained, we were
able to discern such aspects of their teaching as preparedness, relationship
with students, organization, and comfort with course content. Follow-up discussions with the cooperating
teachers enabled us to determine early on if there were any difficulties from
their perspective, and most often to confirm our own observations. Through these conversations, we generated
items for discussion for the next weekly meeting with the pre-service teachers
and established a relationship with the co-operating teachers.
3. Weekly contact with individual cooperating
teachers
Each week after the completion of
our meeting with the pre-service teachers, we would spend the following two
hours visiting their classrooms, observing parts of lessons they were involved
in teaching. We made a point of meeting
with the cooperating teachers weekly to share perceptions regarding the
development of their pre-service teacher, make suggestions about further
possibilities for teaching experiences, and address any concerns that the
cooperating teachers might have. These meetings
occurred in a variety of locations, at the back of the classroom, in the
hallway, in the staffroom, or department offices, and took anywhere from five
minutes to half an hour. In some cases
we addressed issues that had arisen during our earlier meeting with the
pre-service teachers. These issues
involved a variety of concerns such as: a pre-service teacher who wanted to
observe a variety of other language classrooms; a cooperating teacher’s
expectations perceived by the pre-service teacher to be unrealistic; and
concerns regarding pre-service teachers working with more than one cooperating
teacher. Some of the cooperating
teachers had concerns regarding the progress of their pre-service teacher that
they did not think were being heard or seriously addressed by the pre-service
teacher. Such concerns involved issues
of planning smooth transitions from one activity to another, creating detailed
plans in time to discuss them with the cooperating teacher, and being able to
relate to students in the particular class.
It was important that we listened carefully to all of the concerns and
positive comments of the cooperating teachers and of the pre-service teachers
in order to facilitate and mediate clear communication and consistent progress.
With
these meetings we also encouraged the co-operating teacher to give the
pre-service teachers gradual control of an 80% teaching load. Co-operating teachers often mentioned the
perception that “you only learn to swim by jumping in the deep end,” and voiced
the opinion that student teachers should teach a 100% teaching load. However, with reasoned discussion,
co-operating teachers admitted that this was not the best approach to develop a
positive learning environment for their students or for developing the confidence
of the pre-service teachers. As we
explained to the co-operating teachers, the 20% of the timetable left free from
formal teaching duties allowed for a “whole school” experience where
pre-service teachers could experience other educational aspects of the
school. The gradual build-up of an 80%
teaching load also allowed the student teachers to engage in a teaching
assistant role in some classes with the co-operating teachers. The dialogue we had with the co-operating
teachers was vital in enabling the co-operating teachers to understand, and
eventually support, the rationale behind the changes to the traditional field
experience model.
4. Collaborative approach to the mid-point and
final evaluations
The
process of self-assessment for the mid-point evaluation was a new one for both
the pre-service teachers and the cooperating teachers, and needed a great deal
of explanation and clarification. During the fourth week of the nine-week field
experience, we asked the pre-service teachers to complete a self-assessment,
using the categories defined in the evaluation form. These included: (1) Preparation, planning and organization; (2)
Teaching skills and strategies; (3) Communication; (4) Management; (5)
Classroom climate; and (5) Professional qualities and initiatives. We talked with the pre-service teachers
about the content and format of their self-assessments. We suggested that for the self-assessment,
they use the informal first-person pronoun “I” and that they write about
aspects of their first five weeks that showed progress as well as aspects they
wished to concentrated upon for the final four weeks. We encouraged them to give examples, anecdotes, and stories of
their teaching experiences. We then
asked that they share these with their respective cooperating teachers and have
the cooperating teacher comment and sign the form, indicating that they had
read the self-assessment and had discussed it with the pre-service
teacher. To help the students write
effective and thorough (in-depth) self-assessments; we collected in copies of
the self-assessments and wrote extensive comments on them, offering additional
suggestions and examples they could include as well as alternative wordings for
their comments. We also had the
pre-service teachers share their self-assessments with each other during the
next weekly meeting, discussing aspects that were most helpful in representing
their learning about becoming teachers.
Initially,
the pre-service teachers were resistant to the concept of self-assessment and expressed
the desire for the cooperating teacher just to complete the mid-point
evaluation and tell them how to improve.
Comments such as, “I don’t know what to write,” and “My co-operating
teacher wants to do it himself,” were heard in the discussion. One pre-service teacher did not openly
object to writing the self-assessment, but rather than writing one, gave us a
mid-point authored by the co-operating teacher. The pre-service teachers were concerned that the cooperating
teachers would have power over them in the form of the final evaluation. The pre-service teachers were fearful of
upsetting the cooperating teachers and expressed concern that we as university
facilitators would be writing final evaluation reports in collaboration with
the cooperating teachers rather than providing separate evaluation reports as
had been done in the past. In a
conflict with the co-operating teacher, one pre-service teacher wanted to know
where we would position ourselves, whose “side” we would be on. She was concerned that her co-operating
teacher would write a failing report.
However, through the regular meetings with the co-operating teacher and
ourselves her fears were alleviated and her mid-term and final report
represented professional growth that we were all collaboratively able to agree
upon.
The
cooperating teachers were also initially resistant to the self-evaluation
process and perceived that their power was being usurped by either the
pre-service teacher or by us, the university facilitators. We continued to discuss the reasons for the
process, emphasizing the need for the pre-service teachers to take ownership of
their learning to become teachers. We
emphasized reflective practice and the need for pre-service teachers to
recognize their own growth and development as well as the areas they wished to
focus on in future experiences. At the
mid-point stage two out of nine cooperating teachers completed their own
evaluation as they had done in previous years and gave these to the pre-service
teachers with the pre-service teachers’ previously completed
self-assessment.
The
process of writing the final evaluation began the same as the mid-point
evaluation, with the pre-service teacher writing extensive comments in each of
the areas identified on the evaluation form.
The initial writing was informal, again using the personal pronoun
“I”. The pre-service teachers then
shared their draft evaluation forms with us.
We read their comments and again wrote further suggestions for inclusion
on the evaluation reports. The
pre-service teachers then gave their drafts to the cooperating teachers, who
now had a detailed report from which to begin to build the final
evaluation. We found that the
pre-service teachers were able to include many details of their teaching experiences
and successes, as well as specific examples that demonstrated their
growth. The cooperating teachers could
then revise, add to, or delete sections and formalize the writing in order to
prepare a succinct report rich in specific examples and details.
5. Group meetings with cooperating teachers
The
three scheduled meetings with the cooperating teachers proved to be important
to the mentorship process. As the university facilitators we initiated these
groups to facilitate communication and mediation between co-operating teachers
themselves, and between co-operating teachers and ourselves. We also used these meetings to introduce and
develop the new model of supervision with the cooperating teachers and share
our views about the importance of each of our roles. We scheduled the initial meeting prior to the beginning of the
pre-service teachers’ nine-week field experience in order to meet all of the
cooperating teachers. At this meeting
we developed a working relationship with each of the co-operating teachers,
discussed the model of supervision we were proposing, and invited the
co-operating teachers to participate in the weekly meetings. We also used the meeting to clarify the
changes to the evaluation process for the pre-service teachers, and to address
any of the co-operating teachers concerns regarding the field experience
supervision. We continued informal
weekly meetings with the cooperating teachers, as discussed in point #3 above,
and invited them to two additional formal meetings. The first of these formal meetings took place half-way through
the field experience, during week four, where the cooperating teachers had the
opportunity to discuss the self-assessments written by the pre-service
teachers, and to discuss any issues that might have arisen regarding the field
experience. The final meeting took
place during week eight and was intended to share perceptions of the entire
field experience as well as to discuss specific questions regarding the final
evaluation.
The
first meeting was very successful in that questions of mentorship arose that
the co-operating teachers were able to address with each other rather than only
with the university facilitators. For
example, there was considerable discussion between the teachers on when they
should leave the classroom to the pre-service teacher’s control. This was an important development in that
the control of knowledge of the teacher education program was shared between
the cooperating teachers and university facilitators, and the cooperating
teachers began to recognize each other as knowledgeable about teacher
education.
In
the final meeting we found there was still some resistance on the part of some
cooperating teachers to the pre-service teachers’ involvement in the final
evaluation because it was a shift from the traditional evaluation developed by
the cooperating teacher. During the
eighth week of the field experience, we held a meeting of all the cooperating
teachers to again discuss the approach and to have them share their final
written evaluations with each other.
They were able to discuss the process with each other, working through
the aspects of this approach that initially were problematic for some of them. One of the cooperating teachers commented
that it seemed that the pre-service teachers were always thinking of their
evaluation, an aspect of this approach that we actually found particularly
desirable in encouraging reflective practice and reinforcing the student
teachers' ownership of their own practice.
In previous years co-operating teachers commented that they simply wrote
the evaluation with minimal or simply editorial input from the student
teacher. Pragmatically, the process of
collaborative evaluating is very time-consuming and we suggested that this
approach, while enabling all parties to be actively involved in the evaluation
writing, was less time-intensive than sitting down to write a collaborative
evaluation from a blank page. The
cooperating teachers began to take ownership of the process for themselves, sharing
strategies they had used not only in writing the evaluation and using the
pre-service teachers’ self-assessments as a starting point, but also in sharing
strategies for working with the pre-service teachers throughout the nine weeks. For example, a concern focused on the nature
of comments that should appear in the final evaluation form. In the case where
pre-service teachers were exemplary in their teaching experience, the
co-operating teachers discussed whether the evaluative comments should reflect
their “excellence”, “outstanding effort”, and “extremely valuable
contribution”. Collaboratively, we
decided that although those comments where warranted, were desirable, they
should be supported by specific examples of the particular type of excellence.
So
far we have reported data from our own personal observation and notes. To add validity to our observations we
collected other forms of data, particularly from the pre-service teachers and
co-operating teachers in the school. In this way we have tried to show a
certain degree of correspondence between our perceptions and the perceptions of
others involved in the case study (Stake, 1994; Maxwell, 1992). Data was triangulated from the pre-service
teachers journals, pre-service teacher evaluation forms, group meetings (final
meeting that was taped and transcribed), our time logs, and an unsolicited
letter written by a co-operating teacher.
From a comparison of recurring points made in these data sources, the following
five empirical descriptors were generated.
Signed permission was given by participants to use this data to write
this paper.
Indicators
of participants’ lived experiences arising from multi-source data collection
School
and staff support
The cooperating teachers and school
administration provided vital support for both the pre-service teachers and the
university facilitator. Initially, they
attended meetings scheduled to discuss this “whole school” model, provided time
and space for us to meet weekly with the pre-service teachers, took time to
discuss their pre-service teachers with us regularly and welcomed us into the
school and into the classrooms. We were
introduced to the secretarial staff, given a mailbox in the general office, and
welcomed in the staff room. The
collaboration that was evident between cooperating teachers and university
facilitators enabled the growth of a safe and trusting atmosphere where the
pre-service teachers’ learning could be mediated and nurtured. When the pre-service teachers entered the
school culture they were acknowledged as teachers working with experienced
teachers and experienced teacher supervisors.
However, at the school, the
pre-service teachers’ presence as teachers was not uniformly accepted. For example, at a strike meeting held with
all the staff in the school, the pre-service teachers were not welcomed. As one pre-service teacher said, “We were asked to leave. It was extremely embarrassing…there just
seemed to be a group of teachers who would not tolerate our presence...but not our
teachers.” This experience was
confusing for the pre-service teachers because there was no reason for them not
to be present, but they realized that on the school staff there was a group of
teachers who did not see them as colleagues.
The
key support for the “whole school” model came from the school administration
and the teachers who had volunteered to supervise the pre-service
teachers. This support was vital in
making the time of the university facilitator in the school productive and
worthwhile. Due to our experiences of
supervising pre-service teachers under the clinical, traditional model and this
alternative model, we were able to approximate the contact time of the
university facilitator with pre-service teachers and co-operating teachers from
time logs we kept. Comparing the
traditional model with the alternative model the two figures clearly
demonstrate at a glance the differing amount of time available for contact with
university facilitator. Figure 1 shows
approximate time in minutes per week spent in the school by the university
facilitator (UF). Figure 2 shows on a
weekly basis approximately how much contact time co-operating teachers (CT) and
pre-service teachers (ST) had with the university facilitator.
In the alternative model the weekly meetings,
the short but regular visits to the pre-service teachers’ classrooms and the
opportunities for informal discussions created a greater amount of time with
the university facilitator (see Figure 2), albeit more of this time was spent
in group meetings. Because university
facilitators also met with the co-operating teachers at three scheduled
meetings and the university facilitators saw co-operating teachers regularly when
they visited the school, the contact time between co-operating teachers and
university facilitator increased. This
increased time with the university facilitator for both pre-service teachers
and co-operating teachers only came about because the school created timetabled
time for the meetings. This increased
contact time with the university facilitator occurred despite the reduced time
the university facilitator spent in the school, as Figure 1 shows. We felt that it was the increased and
regular contact time between the university facilitator and the co-operating
teachers and between the university facilitator and the student teachers that
allowed the trust for the “mediating” process to develop.
“Whole
school-whole group” experience
The
pre-service teachers orally shared the contents of their journal entries in the
weekly meetings, an activity that provided data and supported the idea of a
“whole school” experience rather than apprenticeship to a single teacher. These journal entries explored issues of
power and control, relationship development, role identification, and
management of course content. Through
the weekly sharing sessions, the pre-service teachers came to know each other
and were able to provide specific support to each other. This created a sense that this was a “whole
school-whole group” experience. One
pre-service teacher shared her experiences of working with four co-operating
teachers and her strategies for effectively coping. Another pre-service teacher was contemplating a suggestion made
by her cooperating teacher to expand her experience and take the opportunity to
work in a Community Living Skills class for mentally challenged students, and
she wanted to know whether the group thought that would be a good idea. Also, the pre-service teachers had
timetabled opportunities to talk to intern teachers and other staff members
such as counselors throughout their field experience.
Initially,
this “whole school–whole group” was treated with suspicion. As one pre-service teacher said, “There was
a complaint that we were sticking together too much at the beginning. Then it started that we got involved in
other things and it did not seem to matter.”
The group felt their togetherness allowed them to feel comfortable and
then confident to get involved. Without
the group they would have been isolated at the beginning. As another student said, “As if we would go
up to a bunch of teachers, some of who are doing our evaluation and get
involved in idle chit chat.”
Collegial
sharing, support and the development of trust
As the pre-service teachers became
more comfortable with each other and trusting of the safety of the atmosphere
created, they were also able to share struggles in their teaching
experiences. For example, one pre-service
teacher came to the group and recounted an incident that had upset him. Students in his class had circulated a
rumour about the pre-service teacher’s sexual orientation, intimating that he
was “gay.” At the time, the pre-service
teacher was extremely uncomfortable with the rumour and was uncertain how to
proceed in dealing with the story. As
he said, “I do not want to make an issue of denying it because I do not want to
support the view that as a teacher my sexual orientation should matter.” The other members of the group first offered
comments affirming his ability as a teacher and then concluded that the rumour
was a way that some high school students tried to make teachers defensive. At the next meeting, the pre-service teacher
reported that he had ignored the situation, as his peers had suggested, and the
matter had dissipated.
One pre-service teacher talked about
her difficulties in pleasing the cooperating teacher, considering her
philosophy to be radically different from the co-operating teacher and seeing
the difference as an almost insurmountable obstacle. She was able to express her concerns and fears of being
unsuccessful in the field experience, and because of her initial openness, we
were able to address the issue with the cooperating teacher early in the field
experience. Another of the group
members was working with two cooperating teachers and talked about the
difficulties of learning two sets of differing and not always compatible
expectations. In each of these
scenarios, the group became actively involved as problem-solvers, counselors,
and colleagues.
Collegial sharing and support
continually occurred through the weekly formal meetings as well as the many
informal meetings and social gatherings initiated by the pre-service teachers
themselves. The pre-service teachers
also arranged multiple visits to each other’s classrooms to observe and give
informal feedback to each other.
Through the weekly meetings and the
many interactions throughout the week when we were not present, the pre-service
teachers came to trust each other.
Because of the trust established, the conversations were honest accounts
of worries, difficulties, successes, and challenges. The pre-service teachers were able to share their unsuccessful
moments as well as their successful ones, and to share in each other’s
experiences. They had the freedom to
develop at their own individual rates, working collaboratively rather than
being isolated from their peers.
This collegial support was
recognized and praised by the co-operating teachers. One teacher commented in a letter sent to the university:
I have done this [supervised pre-service
teachers] for twenty years and this round was unique…The pre-service teachers
developed and maintained a superior rapport between themselves which
consequently spilled over to the rapport they enjoyed with the rest of the
staff.
Readiness
to listen and accept suggestions from others
The pre-service teachers stressed
that talking with each other was vital.
As one student teacher said:
If I started complaining about one student
somebody might say ‘ Oh, he is great in my lesson.’ Not working in my class, so what is working well for him in your
class? Like, you would get to know
colleagues well enough to share ideas.
Bringing the Art [pre-service teacher] into the
drama production really helped me because in a stressful environment like that
it is useful to have others in there that you can vent to. With two directors on a show you are going
to get conflict and hit heads…I get on well with my co-operating teacher but
being able to talk to someone else really helped.
We encouraged all of the pre-service
teachers to apply for pre-service teacher awards, which constituted the
creation of a video to accompany their resume.
The pre-service teachers supported each other’s efforts to prepare and
practice for the videotaping, and were prepared to accept feedback in order to
improve their teaching practices.
When one of the group members
decided, in consultation with the university facilitators and cooperating
teachers, to withdraw from the field experience, the other pre-service teachers
supported him. Before deciding to
withdraw, the pre-service teacher had visited classes of his colleagues and
comparing to them, realized that he was not ready to be teacher. When he withdrew he did so in a supportive
environment and was able to leave recognizing not only where he had not
succeeded, but also what he had learned from the experience.
A
view of teaching as reflective, university facilitator as mentor
At the conclusion of the nine week
field experience, the pre-service teachers were not necessarily giving better
teaching “performances” because of the “whole school” experience, but they had
each developed potential for ongoing growth and understanding of teaching. They were able to reflect, discuss, and
self-assess which made them aware of an increasing number of alternatives for
their developing philosophy and practice.
They became able to make connections between their growing stock of
professional knowledge and their personal knowledge in the specific context of
one school. They began to question
their own assumptions, practices, and fears as well as those of their
colleagues and the system in general.
Core subject-area pre-service teachers noted how marginalized the option
subjects were in the school academic culture, but how vital these areas were
for the students' sense of meaningful learning. The option subject pre-service teachers noted that the core
subject areas seemed very controlled and intense. The group understood why this was the case, but questioned why
approaches in their subject areas had to be so diverse. As the math pre-service teacher commented,
“students are often bored in my classes.”
An understanding developed of
teaching as reflexive and ongoing learning rather than as performance. The pre-service teachers began to take
responsibility for themselves and for their peers, as they became part of the
school community. The university
facilitators were not perceived, in the end, as threatening or holding the
power. Pre-service teachers welcomed
our presence, were willing to ask for assistance and advice from us and share
their concerns and questions. They did
not deny or attempt to cover up their “mistakes”, but to learn from them. For example, early on in the field
experience one pre-service teacher felt uncertain of herself as a teacher, and
tended to dress like a student and interact with school students in a friendly
manner. She raised this issue at the
weekly meeting. A discussion arose as
to the desire not to be too dictatorial but also to avoid being too
friendly. The concept of a teacher
needing to be firm but friendly was discussed in the group, with the
pre-service teachers sharing examples.
As Britzman (1991) noted, novice teachers feel caught between the desire
to be a student's friend or "comrade", whilst at the same time
needing to be the "boss", the person with authority. Following the
discussion, the pre-service teacher started to dress more formally and it was
noted by the co-operating teacher that she started to take ownership of the
classroom, giving the co-operating teacher confidence to leave the classroom to
the pre-service teacher. Pre-service
teachers recognized their difficulties in a positive light and realized that
these showed progress in their teaching, which then led to ongoing professional
development.
The pre-service teachers also noted
that our role as university facilitators was very different from the role of
university facilitators they had experienced in previous field
experiences. The following extracts
from two pre-service teachers' comments show this point,
Kate: “We did not feel uncomfortable, like last
term, when you would think ‘Oh my god I have got to teach this way because you
are coming in. You talked to us all
one-on-one so much.”
Sue:
“Like the students and my co-operating teacher got to know you because
both of you were in and out of my class all the time. It meant that we did not feel uncomfortable at all. The students did not feel they had to be
extra special at all.”
Our role became one of mentoring rather than
monitoring. The pre-service teachers
and the co-operating teachers saw us as teaching colleagues who had experience
supervising pre-service teachers.
Rather than being seen as the outsiders who were to judge if the student
teaching process was being done "correctly", we were sought for
advice and ideas on how to explain a concern.
For example, how to explain to a student teacher a small problem about
appropriate dress without making it a big issue, or how to ask the teacher to
leave the classroom so that her expectations would not control the class.
As the pre-service teachers'
confidence grew near the end of the field experience, some tried out some risky
(though not always successful) teaching ideas.
For example, one pre-service teacher in an art class arranged for a
colleague to show cultural use of tattoos.
The pre-service teacher then tried to get permission to give grade 12
students tattoos that could not be removed for a week. Several students wanted to get real tattoos
but had never considered the implications.
The pre-service teacher's request was denied by the school
administration but she pursued the idea through to a discussion with the
principal, who acknowledged the merit of the idea but felt that parents would
not. As another example, a pre-service
teacher, who initially was thought to lack a classroom presence to become a
teacher, broke up a quarrel between fighting ethnic groups in the school. We had counseled her about thinking and
acting like a teacher, practicing body language and realizing her ‘new’ authority. In the situation where the fight was
starting she did not hesitate to act.
Her previous reflections on the role of teacher had prepared her to act
as a teacher to diffuse the situation.
As she said, “I offered the quarrelling students a way out.” Her actions were commended by a letter from
the principal that indicated that in the past a similar situation had led to
the need for police. The letter
symbolically acknowledged her becoming a teacher.
Conclusion
The visibility of the university
facilitators in the school, through the weekly group meetings, weekly contact
with cooperating teachers, visits to the staffroom, mailbox, and ongoing
discussions with staff and administration, was a critical factor for the
success of this model. We became known and
accepted in the school, an important element in being able to use our time
effectively and wisely with the pre-service teachers and cooperating
teachers. This is in stark contrast to
the role of a university facilitator in schools which has been characterized as
being fragmented with infrequent visits (Calderhead, 1988), or if done
diligently often results in the supervisor being marginalized within their own
institutions (Lanier and Little, 1986).
The role of supervisor can also be isolating within the school culture
where teachers can perceive you "as in a different camp" (DiPardo,
1993, p. 199), or as an outsider (Sick, 1998).
However, as Lee (1997) notes about university supervisors in
Professional Development Schools, they start to develop a history and
familiarity with the school and the teachers as they mediate the teacher
education process. The teachers
actively requested our return, showing a willingness to try new ideas if we
continued our involvement in the school.
Communication of changing roles and perceptions of supervision were made
possible by the meetings and regular informal encounters. The cooperating teacher’s role as “expert”
in the classroom and school context was established, while the university
facilitator’s role as “expert” in problem solving, negotiating and general
teaching methodologies became established.
In redefining the supervision roles for the field experience, the
university facilitators became mediators of the teacher education process. The university facilitator’s role became
changed rather than reduced, and in weekly half-day visits we were able to
regularly contact most of the field experience participants. The financial and human resources were being
used in more productive ways than the traditional clinical supervision
model.
This alternative model of
supervising has centred on the belief in the need for a "whole
school" experience in pre-service teachers' field experience. Such a focus has created dialectical
relationships between pre-service teachers learning to teach, co-operating
teaching advising and university facilitators mentoring. The ideas behind Vygotsky's (1978) social
constructivism began to evolve through a "mediating" process as
pre-service teachers and co-operating teachers shared and contributed to each
others' perspectives and experiences of educational practice within the
historical and cultural context of the school.
Though many other tenets of Vygotskian social constructivism theory were
not reported in this research, we were aware that this alternative model
created the potential for a greater application of his theories. For example, Vygotskian notions of joint
activity and the learners' zones of proximal development were evident when
student teachers worked with their co-operating teachers in joint lessons early
in the field experience and when they completed the evaluation forms together.
We believe that this "whole
school" model for supervising pre-service teachers created an educative
experience. Such an experience connects
to other models of school supervision associated with professional development
schools, or other similar school/university partnerships such as practice
schools, partnership schools, and teaching academies (Brainard, 1989; Carnegie
Forum, 1986; Goodlad, 1990; Levine 1992b; Meade, 1991; Stallings & Kowalski,
1990). In this alternative model,
rather than the student teachers’ practice being the focus of all attention,
the focus was upon the teacher preparation process that enabled the most
effective beginning teacher to emerge.
Unlike
the clinical model that prescribed roles for teaching and monitoring, this
model enables pre-service teachers to construct their own learning experiences
through negotiation with the co-operating teachers, rather than being framed
into a particular way of learning to teach.
This model provides opportunities for reflection on teaching practice as
dialectical and open-ended. From this
experience we ask, as Britzman, Dippo, Searle and Pitt (1998) ask,
What if
teacher education began from the assumption that a great deal of its work is to
produce debate, multiple perspectives on events, practices, and effects, to
move toward creative dialogue on practices, and to experiment with negotiation
within learning to teach? (p. 20)
At the case study school,
opportunities for ongoing relationships between university facilitators and
cooperating teachers continue to exist, and we were invited to return to
supervise pre-service teachers in subsequent terms. One cooperating teacher sent a letter to the field experience
office acknowledging the contribution made by the university facilitators, and
another cooperating teacher has begun to pursue graduate studies focusing on
teacher education. Exciting
opportunities for ongoing research in aspects of teacher education present
themselves when school sites are established.
As advocated by the Holmes Group (1991), both cooperating teachers and
university facilitators can participate in forms of research that provide
powerful professional development and strong partnerships between universities
and school sites. We believe that the
relationships highlighted in this study, within the "whole school"
model for pre-service teacher supervision, can lead to long term professional
development for teachers that positively impacts every level of educational
practice.
REFERENCES
Brainard, F. (1989). Professional
development schools: Status as of 1989 (Occasional Paper No. 9). Seattle:
University of Washington, College of Education, Institute for the Study of
Educational Policy.
Britzman, D.
(1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Britzman, D.,
Dippo, D., Searle, D., & Pitt, A. (1998). Toward an academic framework for
thinking about teacher education. Teaching Education, 9(1), 15-26.
Calderhead, J. (1988). The
contribution of field experience to student primary teachers' professional
learning. Research in Education, 40, 33-49.
Carnegie Forum on Education and the
Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Washington,
DC: Author.
Dewey, J.
(1916). Democracy and education. New York: MacMillian.
Diamond, C.
(1991). Teacher education as transformation. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia: Open
University Press.
DiPardo, A. (1993). When teachers become
graduate students. English Education, 25(4), 197-212.
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our
nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Holmes Group
(1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for the design of professional
development schools. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
Kagan, D.
(1992). Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
Lanier, J., & Little, J. W.
(1986). Research on teacher education. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 527-568). New York: Macmillan.
Lee, T.
(1997). Understanding and Harnessing the Power of the Cohort Model in Preparing
Educational Leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 66-85.
Levine, M. (Ed.). (1992b).
Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school reform. New
York: Teachers College Press
Lortie, D.
(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological
study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Macdonald, D.,
& Kirk, D. (1996). Private lives, public lives: Surveillance, identity and
self in the work of beginning physical education teachers. Sport, Education and
Society, 1(1), 59-75.
Maxwell, J.
(1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational
Review, 63, 279-300.
Meade, E. (1991). Reshaping the
clinical phase of teacher preparation. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 666-669.
Richardson, V.
(1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. In
V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education (pp. 3-14). London: The
Falmer Press
Sick, S.
(1998). A university supervisor negotiates territory and status. Journal of
Teacher Education, Sep/Oct92, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p296, 12p, 43(4), 296-308.
Stake, R.
(1994). Case studies. In E. Guba & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook on qualitative
research, New York: Macmillan
Stallings, J., & Kowalski, T.
(1990). Research on professional development schools. In W. R. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 251-266). New York: Macmillan.
Stoddart, T.
(1993). The professional development school: Building bridges between cultures.
Educational Policy, 7(1), 19-24.
Teitel, L.
(1997). Changing teacher education through professional development school
partnerships: A five-year follow-up
study. Teacher College Record, 99(2), 311-335.
Vygotsky, L.
(1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wheeler, A.
(1989). Clinical field supervisor program: New York: University of New York.
Zeichner, K.
(1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school
partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 296-307.