Someone to Watch Over M=
e: Mentoring Student Teachers
Scott Robinson,
Abstract
This ASTE conference pape= r is a case study of four cooperating teachers who mentor student teachers in the science classroom. The cooperating teachers took part in two 1 hour semi structured interviews designed to explore how they guided the student teach= ers in planning, instruction, and assessment. Cooperating teachers also comment= ed on the validity of the student teacher evaluation instrument and student teacher work sample assignments. Findings suggest that these cooperating teachers shared a common belief that their role was to help student teacher= s: a) achieve their own unique teaching style, b) implement inquiry in the sci= ence classroom, and c) transfer knowledge and skills of teaching to novel contex= ts. Cooperating teachers also spoke about the benefits they received by mentor student teachers. Conclusions suggest that cooperating teachers can play a significant role in the development of student teachers. Additionally, stud= ent teaching evaluation instruments generated in the teacher education institut= ions can serve to guide cooperating teachers as they mentor student teachers in = ways that have a positive impact on grade 7-12 pupil learning.
Problem
Statement & Theoretical Framework
Student te= aching is the hallmark of teacher preparation programs (Clement, 1999; Coulon, 200= 0; Goodfellow, 2000; Graham, 2006). The knowledge, skills, and dispositions teacher candidates acquire in their education courses and pre-student teach= ing field experiences are designed to enrich their theoretical and practical understanding of teaching and learning in diverse classrooms, promote inqui= ry into social justice issues in education, and prepare candidates for the stu= dent teaching practicum. The student teaching practicum is situated on the class= room context as well as the actions and interactions of cooperating teachers [CT= s] who share their classroom and support the professional development of stude= nt teachers (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Clarke & Jarvis-Selinger, 2005). =
Although C= Ts perform a vital role by mentoring STs, the contributions of CTs often goes unreported in the research literature (Koskela & Gander, 1999; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). According to Clift and Brady (2005) in Studying Teacher Education: The Report= of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, “supervision of student teachers [insert mine] was less a focus for research in science, such as physics or biology. Little effort was made in understanding the contributions of cooperating teachers and teacher educato= rs, and the studies focused almost exclusively on short-term effects” (p. 322). To address this lacuna in the science education research literature, = this case study was conducted with two middle school and two high school science teachers serving as CTs and their two STs.
The impact= of CTs on the learning of STs of science needs to be examined in the current accountability-based reforms driving educational policy and practice via national accrediting bodies like the National Council for the Accreditation= of Teacher Education [NCATE] and the Association of Teacher Educators [ATE] as well as federal legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act (Hamel &am= p; Merz, 2005; Moe, 2003) that centers teaching upon high-stakes standardized testing. It is difficult to overstate the significance of the CT-ST relationship since it is considered to be the most valued component of the teacher education programs by STs (Hascher, Cocard, & Moser, 2004; Watt= s, 1987), veteran teachers (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996), teacher educati= on institutions, and national and state education bodies (Woods & Weasmer, 2002). The National Research Council [NRC] writes: “successful progra= ms involve teachers in learning activities that are similar to ones that they = will use with their students” (2004, p. 204). In no measure is this more t= he case than student teaching as STs teach science for an extended period (oft= en a semester) to grade 7-12 pupils. The NRC further notes that the classroom context influences the practices of beginning teachers. When considering the significance of student teaching in the development of teacher candidates a= nd the local classroom context in which it takes place, it becomes clear that = CTs are positioned to play a pivotal role in the education of STs.
STs and CT= s may benefit from the student teaching experience as they discuss and implement teaching and learning strategies to achieve desired pupil learning outcomes. STs may gain essential experiential knowledge about how students learn in t= he context of the given classroom, and CTs may be introduced to recent educati= onal innovations that STs introduce into classrooms (Weasmer & Woods, 2003). Collins (2004) wrote: “without access to concepts and theories that a= re outside their usual way of looking at things, teachers are unable even to s= ee much of their current practice” (p. 232). CTs can help STs become reflexive of their own teaching with the goal of facilitating the transition from ST to successful novice teacher. Successful mentorship involves CTs sharing their professional knowledge of learners in their classrooms with S= Ts. This can help STs gain fresh insights into successful standards based pract= ices that maximize learning for grade 7-12 pupils.
There is a=
need to
better understand how CTs construct their roles as mentors. The student
teaching practicum progresses to a large degree divorced from teacher educa=
tors
on the college or university campus (
In 2006, G= raham surveyed a group of cooperating teachers (n=3D95) at a professional develop= ment school and conducted semi-structured interviews with twenty-five of the surveyed teachers. The goal was to understand: a) how these teachers defined successful student teacher internships, b) their role as cooperating teache= rs, and c) the affect of their educational background, professional experiences, and personal qualities upon STs. Results were classified under the following four categories: 1) organizational structures, policies, and procedures; 2) affective engagement with teaching and learning; 3) cognitive involvement, = and 4) professional mentoring models. The Graham study serves as a guide for the current qualitative study that began with a desire to understand how a small group of middle and high school science teachers performed their roles as cooperating teachers. Implications derived from the study may help other teacher educators--including CTs--in their efforts to prepare future science teachers.
Methodology
& Methods
This quali=
tative
study offers credible and authentic evidence regarding the efficacy of CT
mentorship. A constant comparative method was used to discern patterns in t=
he
interview transcripts that composed the data for this case study (Bogdan &a=
mp;
Biklen, 1992). As suggested within =
Studying
Teacher Education, the case stu=
dy
offers a research narrative to explore “links between teacher educati=
on
and student learning” (AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education,
2005, p. 31). Data were constructed from researcher interview questions and=
the
narrative responses of CTs. Patterns constructed from the data were used to
create themes addressing predetermined research topics and other salient is=
sues
evolving from the interviews. Themes were divided into assertions and suppo=
rted
by direct or indirect quotes from the interview transcripts (Yerrick, Parke,
& Nugent, 1997). Drafts of the research paper were reviewed by the CTs =
to
ensure the research text was consistent with the meaning underlying the
interview transcripts. This form of member checking enabled stakeholders to
ensure that the researcher “got it right” (Guba & Lincoln,
1989, p. 239). In this study, knowledge is viewed as a personal narrative
negotiated in the social context of the researcher and the research
participants. Narrative was chosen since it is a widely shared symbolic
transmission of meaning used in sense-making and communicating (
During the= spring 2006 academic semester, four CTs and the two STs that they mentored volunte= ered for a total of 16 one-hour interviews. (Each ST was mentored by two CTs—one for a 7-8 week middle school placement and one for a 7-8 week high school placement.) Two 1-hour interviews were conducted with CTs; STs = took part in four 1-hour interviews. CTs were interviewed at mid-quarter and end-quarter intervals. An interview guide was used to focus interviews on ST planning, instruction, assessment, and impact on 7-12 learners. A new assessment instrument used for measuring the knowledge and skills of STs wa= s a topic for discussion also. During interviews, CTs were encouraged to speak openly on topics they felt important to their understanding of their own ro= les as mentors. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed to text. The nam= es given to the CTs in the paper are not the actual names of the persons who t= ook part in the study.
The four C=
Ts who
took part in this study taught science in middle and high schools within 40
miles of the college that the STs attended. All of these
Each of th= e 4 CTs remained in the classroom for more than 90% of the time when STs taught. CTs appeared occupied at their desks. They did not wish to be directly involved= in what was happening during the STs’ lessons. This physical positioning= in the room was to reinforce the idea that the ST was teaching the lesson and = the person in-charge. The study took place during the spring semester, so the C= Ts had developed a productive working relationship with pupils. Although at fi= rst glance it appeared that the CTs had melted into the classroom background, t= hey were able to observe classroom events and make observational notes during t= he lesson. The ST and CT met each day before school, between classes, and after school to discuss practical issues of immediate concern for upcoming or pri= or lessons. CTs and STs ate lunch together most days and spoke about lesson id= eas, the pupils, the school, the community, or personal matters such as out-of-school interests.
CT
Research Participants.
Sara
Sara was a CT in an affluent suburban school district with 20 years of high scho= ol science teaching experience. More than half of her teaching had been in a high-poverty, low-academic achieving urban school district. Except for taki= ng a few years off for raising four children, Sara had devoted her career to teaching after completing a college teacher education program. She had ment= ored a total of six student teachers at both her urban and suburban high school teaching assignments. The reason Sara mentored student teachers was threefo= ld. Firstly, she wanted to assist with inducting STs into the teaching professi= on. Just as Sara had been mentored by a teacher during her own student teaching, she wanted to share her knowledge of teaching by helping induct others into= the profession. Secondly, Sara wanted to learn new instructional and assessment strategies from STs who were coming out of teaching education institutions = with fresh ideas on how to engage kids in learning science. Sara was a lifelong learner who was constantly seeking to improve her teaching. And thirdly, Sa= ra felt a deep sense of empathy and care for others. Her caring ethic was consistent with the nurturing role she assumed as a teacher. In sum, Sara w= as motivated through a sense of loyalty to the teaching profession, the desire= to learn more about teaching and learning, and the goal of helping others.
John
John was in his 11th year as a middle school science teacher in an affluent subu= rban school district. He student taught in the same high-poverty, low academic-achieving urban school where Sara had taught. John described himse= lf as having a spontaneous and eccentric temperament that resonated with middle school pupils. He stressed the difference between middle and high school pu= pils with the middle school pupils being predisposed to develop fascinations with the seemingly mundane. John was the science department chair at the middle school. He was always looking for innovative ways to engage students in learning science. He attended and often presented professional development programs within the school district. John felt that STs in the middle school needed to understand the nature of middle school learners, the politics of = the school in which the classroom was situated, and the importance of reflectin= g on one’s own teaching with the goal of seeking constant improvement.
Bill
Bill was in his seventh year of science teaching when he accepted a student teac= her into his high school biology classroom. He was a self-described passionate teacher who often exhibited enthusiasm and energy in the classroom. Bill adapted most of his science labs to include teacher-guided inquiry whereby = he posed questions and pupils collected data then drew conclusions based on evidence. Bill had never had a ST prior to this semester. He noted that he wanted to learn new teaching strategies from the student teacher, and he wa= nted to share his developing expertise. Student teachers should not be burdened = with learning the political nature of the school. Bill further believed he could foster the confidence of the ST by stressing positive performance when he evaluated the ST. He would suggest a few things for the ST to consider for improvement in such a way that the ST would feel encouraged and supported rather than alienated and humiliated. John emphasized the importance of hel= ping STs grow professionally by playing a supportive, mentoring role as he did after-school as a high school basketball and volleyball coach.
Frank
With 23 years of middle school science teaching experience, Frank was a seasoned veteran teacher with all of his teaching in the same rural school that he h= ad attended as a student. Frank and Bill taught in the same school. In additio= n to teaching, he coached fall and spring sports at the middle and high school l= evel that kept him busy after school. He had two previous STs and probably would have had more but the school had very few STs due to the low number of facu= lty, administrator prerogative, and the long commute to the nearest teacher education institution. Frank accepted a ST to help another person enter the profession. He was also hoping to learn fresh teaching ideas from the CT. He believed that mentoring a ST gave him a great opportunity to not only obser= ve the ST but also observe his own students in a way that was not possible whe= n he was teaching.
Findings
To begin, = findings will be generalized upon the four components of pedagogical context knowledge as defined by Ba= rnett and Hodson (2001). The components are: classroom knowledge, pedagogical con= tent knowledge (Shulman, 1986), professional knowledge, and academic knowledge. Knowledge of secondary pupils in classroom contexts, or classroom knowledge, was considered as essential as the other three components for learning how = to teach science. Student teaching is the primary activity whereby ST gain classroom knowledge (Hascher, Cocard, & Moser, 2004). According to the = CTs, it was essential that the STs understood the learning styles of the pupils = as well as pupil interests, motivations, moods, and behaviors in the social classroom settings.
One of the= two STs completed a pre-student teaching 40-hour field experience with the high sch= ool CT during the semester leading up to the student teaching practicum. This additional classroom exposure gave the ST insights into the local classroom context including the nature of the learners, the interplay of curriculum a= nd instruction, and the role of assessment. It also allowed the CT opportuniti= es to speak with the ST about the curriculum and the learning styles of the pu= pils in the classroom. CTs introduced STs to the pupils, curricula, other facult= y, administrators, and staff in the building. The STs assisted the teacher dur= ing pupil group assignments and laboratories. This enabled the ST to build rapp= ort with high school pupils and other educational stakeholders in the school pr= ior to the student teaching practicum.
CTs assist= ed STs in developing pedagogical content knowledge through regular and sustained conversations with STs about the prior knowledge of the grade 7-12 pupils a= nd effective instructional strategies that have worked in the past for promoti= ng pupil learning of particular science concepts and principles. For example, pupils constructed 3D models to identify cell organelles, and they conducte= d guided inquiry labs to learn about cell wall permeability and natural selection. C= Ts allowed STs to engage in alternative instructional strategies including literacy-based activities to build scientific vocabulary and link it with t= heir prior knowledge. Lessons incorporating computer technology was used to prov= ide images and sounds and text related to scientific phenomena. Instruction targeted specific instructional objectives consistent with science learning standards that had been mandated by the New York State Department of Educat= ion. CTs offered STs advice on the construction of valid and reliable formal and informal assessments used to evaluate pupil attainment of lesson objectives. This involved developing questions that were consistent with the instructio= nal objectives.
One CT all= owed a ST to teach additional scientific content knowledge not identified in the science content learning standards based on his expertise in the topic. In = this way, CTs modeled a form of professional knowledge by assuming the authority= to endorse alternative science content learning outcomes beyond the formal sci= ence standards. Academic and research knowledge was emphasized on the student teacher evaluation instrument completed by CTs and the ST college superviso= r. The instrument addressed also the nature of science, scientific inquiry, scientific issues, science in the community, and knowledge of the learning needs of diverse pupils. This array of science topics prompted CTs and STs = to engage in reflexive discussions about the scope and breadth of science in planning, conducting, and assessing lessons.
Next, find= ings will be outlined according to salient themes from the transcript data. When reviewing the interview transcripts for patterns relating CTs beliefs on effective mentorship, it became clear that STs needed to develop their own “teaching style”. A second theme was inquiry into the nature of teaching and learning. The third theme is the assumption that the knowledge= and skills gained during student teaching would transfer to other classroom contexts. The fourth and final theme addresses the benefits that CTs derive from mentoring a student teacher.
Theme 1 Teaching Style
Inducting = STs into teaching meant helping them develop their own teaching styles. This seemed = to be a universal understanding among the four CTs that surfaced during interv= iews without any form of prompting from either the interviewer or the teacher education institution (i.e. letters, CT Handbook, telephone conversation wi= th field placement office, communication with the college supervisor). Style is predicated on the beliefs and values regarding one’s own agency in fostering learning in the given classroom context.
“Sty= le” according to Sara consisted of the quality of interpersonal communication or expressiveness between teacher and pupils based on personality, instruction= al methodology, and the dispositions of the teacher and pupils in the classroo= m. A teacher’s style is premised on communicative expressiveness as well as pedagogy. Style was seen as more than a set of behaviors or actions; it was based on underlying values and beliefs influencing how STs constructed self= and others in the classroom. For example, if a teacher believed that scientific inquiry was vital in the science classroom, then he or she would engage students in such a way as to generate scientific questions and investigatio= ns. This style would be premised on dispositions of curiosity, flexibility, and openness.
Sara noted= that STs developed their style by becoming expressive, confident communicators in the classroom based on their caring and nurturing pre-dispositions, their content and pedagogical content knowledge, and their practical classroom im= ages formed from pre student teaching field experiences. Accordingly, observing = the mentor teacher and a variety of other science teachers and teachers of other subjects expanded STs’ images of effective instruction in the given classroom context. CTs enhanced the development of the ST’s teaching style by analyzing the ST’s planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection as well as their own. By reflecting on their own instruction, CTs modeled how to analyze the instructional event with the goal of enhancing p= upil learning.
John, like Sara, stressed the importance of interaction style in teaching. Howeve= r, he placed more emphasis on understanding the developmental readiness of mid= dle school pupils. Middle school pupils were a world removed from their older p= eers in high school classrooms. John suggested that middle school pre adolescents could become obsessively concerned about clothing styles or how the hair is parted. From an adult’s perspective, some of the pupils’ fears = and anxieties seem irrational, but these feelings were very real for middle sch= ool pupils and must be taken into account to interact effectively. To begin to understand the psycho-social dimension of the lives of pre-adolescent learn= ers, John suggested that STs observe middle school pupils in classrooms and in common areas like the cafeteria prior to student teaching to better underst= and their actions and behaviors. He suggested that without thinking like a midd= le school student, it would be difficult to develop a teaching style predicate= d on effective communication with pre adolescent middle school pupils.
Bill was a passionate person who could dominate the classroom with his physical presence. His voice and laughter filled the room and echoed down locker-lin= ed hallways. Although he felt that his own style of teaching was successful for the high school pupils in his classroom, he did not attempt to craft the ST= in his image. He suggested that STs needed to develop their own style that ena= bled them to feel at ease in the classroom while at the same time maximizing pup= il learning. With his 7 years of teaching experience, Bill understood that not= all pupils, and STs, had the same learning styles. Bill commented that when he completed student teaching, he was given the choice of taking control of the entire teaching schedule on the second day of classes. He decided to take c= harge since he felt it would be an easier transition for himself and the pupils s= ince it was a fall placement and the school year had just begun. However, he did= not mandate this quick assumption of duties on his ST. Rather, he allowed the S= T to observe students and plan lessons while gradually assuming more and more teaching responsibilities as suggested in the CT Handbook.
Frank’s
style was predicated on developing a sense of trust with others. This was
conveyed by following through on commitments to pupils as well as the frien=
dly
and open interactions with them. Frank enjoyed telling stories and listenin=
g to
the storied lives of his students. He built bonds of trust with his pupils =
and
his ST by integrating science stories in his classroom that were deeply emb=
edded
in the culture of the small, rural community where the school was situated.=
He
was well liked by pupils, faculty, administrators, and his
Theme 2 Inquiry into the=
Nature
of Teaching and Learning
Sara believed that STs needed opportunities to develop their own instructional activities based on their readiness. For example, a ST with more experience= as a leader either in or out of classrooms might need fewer direct prompts or interventions for lessons; whereas, a student teacher with less experience might need more guidance in putting together effective lessons that motivat= ed pupils to learn. Sara would allow STs to try out their own ideas unless thi= ngs went terribly wrong with the instructional event—then she would intervene. In one instance, Sara’s ST was reviewing life science conc= epts in the classroom when one pupil shouted out inappropriately. The student teacher looked at the student but didn’t respond. Sara said she would have responded right away but she remained quiet from behind her computer at the side of the room. A few minutes later, the student shouted out again and this time, the ST responded by looking at the student and saying that shout= ing out will not be tolerated in the classroom.
Sara’= ;s perspectives on how to develop effective and informed student teachers reflected her own career trajectory from a student teacher to beginning tea= cher to mentor teacher. She noted the significance of mentors in her own develop= ment as a new teacher in an urban school. Her own inherent disposition for goal-oriented communication facilitated her transition into the role of teacher. She noted that her mentors and special education teachers assigned= to her room had praised her for her ability to communicate effectively with pu= pils including those with and without special needs. Sara was told that she was a “natural” during those formative teaching years. “Natural” in this case meant being able to communicate with oth= ers in such a way as to promote meaningful reciprocal dialogue from adolescents= in a climate of care, respect, and trust. Effective communication involved addressing a particular concept from multiple perspectives as well as using questions to guide pupil thinking. Sara held an inquisitive disposition that lent itself easily to inquiry teaching in the science classroom. She also h= eld student learning as the goal of her teaching. This translated into a hard-working and communicative individual who strove to make science content and inquiry processes meaningful in the lives of her pupils.
As a former teacher in a large urban school enrolling students from high-risk, high-pov= erty backgrounds, Sara suggested that student teachers needed to craft instructi= on to motivate reluctant learners to want to engage in the lesson and learn. S= he also spoke about the ability of “thinking on your feet.” She suggested that science teacher candidates ought to be exposed to unexpected events during micro-teaching in their methods courses to help them learn ho= w to problem solve quickly while teaching. For example, during a micro lesson, t= he methods instructor could call a fire drill and take an unexpected 10 minute break out of the middle of a student’s lesson. This was not meant to = embarrass or harass the teacher candidate but rather help him or her adjust to the ki= nd of interruptions that are commonplace in the secondary science classroom. <= /p>
John believed that student teachers needed less educational history and foundati= ons in their college coursework and more practical learning about how to plan, instruct, and assess. He noted that he had mentored other student teachers = who needed much help in learning how to plan and teach a science lesson. He felt that teacher education should include theories about how pupils learn along with practical pedagogy issues that are part of a teacher’s daily concerns. For example, teacher education candidates needed to learn how to integrate technology in their instruction and how to best use instructional transition time. They needed to learn how to pace instruction that comes wi= th a more developed sense of classroom knowledge associated with their school-ba= sed field experiences.
Bill and Frank felt that theories on teaching and learning were important to help teachers teach effectively. They both considered school-based field experie= nce as the critical episode in the education of new teachers. Bill felt that whether pupils learned or not depended on his teaching. He equated this to coaching and explained that if his team lost, he felt that there was always something more that he could have done to better prepare students. This bel= ief was consistent with the ST who was very concerned about doing a good job du= ring student teaching. When the ST assessed student learning and a few students scored poorly, then the ST became upset that a few low scores revealed inadequate teaching. Later, this ST was in Frank’s middle school classroom and when a pupil scored poorly, it was made clear upon investigat= ion that the student did not study or attempt to do well. By the end of the semester, the ST began to understand that assessment does reflect on the actions of the teacher, however, pupils at both the middle school and high school level share responsibility in obtaining good marks on their course assignments if the assessments are valid and reliable.
Although Bill felt compelled to examine his own teaching in light of the successes a= nd failures of his pupils. He did feel that classroom management was more of an issue of pupil responsibility. When Bill’s ST was confronted by a disruptive pupil, the ST was reluctant to send the offending student out of= the room after a series of warnings. Bill counseled the ST to send students to = the administrators if they were continually disruptive in the classroom. A few = days later, the ST sent a student out of the room for being disruptive and insubordinate. Bill’s advice helped the ST realize that there are lim= its to the kinds of pupil behavior that ought to be tolerated in the classroom.= During the second quarter, the ST felt confident in dealing with classroom managem= ent without being offended when a student was disruptive.
The CTs we=
re asked
to explain how they provided psychological support for STs dealing with the
personal stresses and anxieties associated with the student teaching practi=
cum
that can be quite intense (Clement, 1999; Hastings, 2004). For instance, on=
e of
the ST became upset when pupils performed poorly on assessments. The CT
assisted by having the student survey pupils about their study habits. The =
CT
suggested the ST meet individually with the pupils and come up with an
improvement plan. While the CTs spoke about their interactions with STs, it
became clear the CTs were committed to promoting the professional developme=
nt
of STs by serving as role models in describing how they would or could deal
with the range of issues from assessment to classroom management. An issue =
of
less concern was the curricular content knowledge of the STs. This was like=
ly
due to the advanced scientific understanding of the STs who were enrolled i=
n a
graduate degree program leading to initial science teacher certification. E=
ach
ST had a science undergraduate degree and one had been employed as a lab
technician in a university research laboratory and as an English teacher in=
One of the= high school CT’s taught a section of earth science and three of living environment. The ST in this classroom had a background in living environment yet had not taken earth science courses after high school. So the CT was compelled to review earth science demonstrations, laboratories, and activit= ies with the ST. The other ST was asked to teach one section of high school chemistry even though this was not the ST’s first field of certificat= ion. (This ST would be eligible for chemistry licensure after completing two more college-level chemistry courses and passing a chemistry content teacher certification examination.)
Theme 3 Transferability =
of skills
and knowledge to novel contexts
The CTs be= lieved that pedagogical knowledge and skills STs acquired in their classrooms could transfer to other science classroom contexts including alternative classroom settings after student teaching. This assumption was based on the explicit = goal of student teaching and the experiential understanding the CTs had gained w= hen they made the adjustment from student teachers to beginning teachers. The C= Ts could refer directly to their own experience in understanding the degree of adjustments they made in achieving success in their teaching, and they projected that a similar kind of transition was occurring with their STs. <= /p>
Sara believed that pedagogical knowledge and skills were transferable as long as teachers were able to maintain effective communication with students. Effec= tive communication might call for a teacher-dominated classroom where the teacher was the rule enforcer if pupils were neither mature nor capable of engaging= in a positive interdependency with the teacher and one another. Alternatively, effective communication could translate to a more relaxed classroom environ= ment where pupils could have fun and learn with more freedoms in the classroom. =
Sara
emphasized the importance of developing confidence and diverse methods of
instruction for successful classroom instruction. It was also important that
STs become reflective and self-monitor their own teaching. John stated that=
STs
could learn how to become effective teachers without a student teaching
experience, but pupils in the STs classroom and, later, those in the beginn=
ing
teacher’s classroom would not learn as well since the teacher did not
have the skills and knowledge or the ability to engage in productive
reflection. Mentored STs would quickly learn how to analyze their own teach=
ing
and the learning of their pupils with the goal of improving instruction.
John
believed that student teachers could apply the skills they learned in his
classroom to other classroom contexts; however, he noted that due to behavi=
or
challenges in high poverty urban schools, student teachers would need an
advanced understanding of classroom management skills to succeed in that
setting as compared to the suburban setting where his classroom was located.
Sara made this same claim in a slightly different reference when she noted =
that
her STs would be successful in the urban classroom since they would have the
reflective skills needed to adapt to high-need pupils. Bill
assumed that the teaching methods and technical skills learned in his class=
room
were transferable to other high school biology classrooms. Just as he had t=
aken
skills gained during his own student teaching into his employed teaching, so
would the ST. Bill was especially satisfied with the teacher education
preparation program that had given his student teacher skills in using comp=
uter
technology, literacy strategies, and advanced assessment skills involving p=
re
assessments and pupil metacognition. Frank
believed that STs would have to adapt their practice upon the context of the
school where they found employment. He had student taught in a neighboring
state, but all of his teaching and attendance as a pupil had been in the sa=
me
school district. Although, his understanding of alternative teaching contex=
ts
was more limited that the other CTs in this study, he understood that each
middle school pupil had unique learning styles. Theme 4 Benefits of serv=
ing as a
CT Sara, Bill=
, and
Frank said that having a ST would help them learn new teaching strategies t=
hat
could enhance practice. Sara said “I like to have a student teacher
because it reminds you of what good teaching is all about.” She went =
on
to explain how the ST used graphic organizers in the living environment cla=
ss
that helped her learn fresh ways of using these literacy teaching/learning
tools that fostered learning among some students. In addition to learning n=
ew
teaching strategies through the example of the student teacher, she noted t=
hat
simply discussing effective teaching with the student teacher was a great w=
ay to
generate instructional strategies and alternative assessments. She expressed
the desire to avoid becoming a “lazy” teacher who did the same
thing year-in and year-out without attempting fresh instructional approache=
s.
Bill and Frank were equally aware of the professional development that occu=
rred
while mentoring a ST. Bill said that as a relatively new teacher in his sev=
enth
year of teaching, he was always seeking ways to teach more effectively.
Observing a student teacher gave him a reference point to reflect on the
effectiveness of his own instruction. Frank said that having a ST gave him =
the
opportunity to observe his own students and watch how they reacted to the S=
T.
He went on to say that when teaching, one may not have the time to notice t=
he
nuance of student behaviors throughout the room that reveal the degree of s=
tudent
understanding as well as the social networks in the classroom. John was n=
ot as
vocal about mentoring a ST could enhance his own professional practice.
However, he did suggest that mentoring STs allowed him to gain some fresh i=
deas
on how to teach the science curriculum. Rather than focusing on his own
benefits, John emphasized his role in helping the ST develop into a compete=
nt,
enthusiastic, confident, and marketable science teacher. John and the other=
CTs
were in agreement that accepting a ST was a professional duty owed to the
profession and to the individual STs who would benefit from the mentored
student teaching experience. Conclusions It is wide=
ly
reported that CT’s are not well prepared for their mentorship duties =
(Kent,
2001; Krull, 2005). There may be many reasons for this including the lack of
resources and college personnel to educate them. Also, the schools are not
funded to release classroom teachers to meet with teacher educators. A CT
Handbook can spell out general policies and procedures for CTs, however, it=
can
not offer guidance for every situation that may arise for the CT and the ST.
Each of the CT’s in the study noted briefly that the evaluation form =
and the
ST work sample focused their attention on particular aspects of science
teaching—like the nature of science and science in the social context.
Based on this finding and understanding the constraints that teacher
preparation institutions and the schools are under, it would make sense to
clearly communicate the significance of the ST evaluation instrument and ot=
her
artifacts that serve as performance indicators. CTs need to understand that=
the
evaluations and artifacts are based on what the teacher education instituti=
on
considers effective instruction for a ST. Student
teaching is the capstone experience for candidates preparing to enter the
teaching profession because it is during the practicum when they can impact=
the
learning of grade 7-12 pupils. Teacher educators, both school-based CTs and
college or university-based ST supervisors need to maximize the impact that=
STs
have upon the learning of grade 7-12 pupils in middle and high school scien=
ce
classrooms. For STs to achieve success it is more important that they promo=
te
the learning of their grade 7-12 pupils. Rather than rely on rubric or
checklist assessment of student teaching performance, CTs’ efforts may
focus STs on the impact they are having upon pupil learning. Work sample
artifacts containing student learning products as well as lessons plans and
reflections hold much potential in delivering a valid measure of ST
effectiveness. In whatever form it might take, the impact of ST should be
measured through the impact they have upon the learning of the pupils. In t=
he
current accountability climate that prevails in the schools, having STs foc=
us
on their own impact upon student learning is a vital skill that they will n=
eed
later on. The
CTs in this study accepted STs because of their desire to share their class=
room
knowledge and technical skills with novice teachers. It was a way for them =
to
give back to the profession. In addition, the CTs with more than 20 years of
teaching experience emphasized that they wanted to learn more about teachin=
g.
It is conceivable that the extra years of experience brought the more veter=
an
CTs to the realization that they could be growing stale in their teaching.
Additionally, since they completed their student teaching many years earlie=
r,
they may have been more sensitive to updating their own knowledge of teachi=
ng
and learning. CTs
play a vital role in the development of STs. As noted at the beginning of t=
his
paper, CTs devote much more time—including quality classroom time with
the student teacher. It is not practical to suggest that college/university
supervisors spend this much time with STs or CTs due to other duties and
responsibilities on campus. However, the college/university supervisor can =
play
an important liason role between the 7-12 school and the college/university.
This person may help the CT and the ST understand their roles and expectati=
ons
in the student teaching internship. It is not in the scope of this paper to
examine the role of the university supervisor in depth, however, one
implication from this case study is to suggest that CTs may need to be educ=
ated
on how best to mentor ST and this function could be performed by the
college/university supervisor who goes out in the classroom to observe STs.=
Engaging in
student teaching can cause disequilibrium for STs when they encounter
unexpected challenges from students who do not share their commitment to en=
gage
in lessons and learn science. STs need to learn how to pace their instructi=
on
to fit the desired time periods imposed by the school schedule. They must l=
earn
alternative ways of presenting the curriculum in a way that students can
construct accurate scientific meanings, and learn how to work with other
professionals in the school such as special education teachers, educational
assistants, school counselors, secretaries, administrators, and custodians.=
All
of these individuals have skills and knowledge that is vital for the succes=
sful
induction of teachers. Who is most available to help the STs overcome their
challenges and connect with the 7-12 learners? The obvious answer is the CT=
. CTs have t=
he
knowledge and skills that come with experience in helping pupils learn in t=
he
context of their own classrooms. Their knowledge of teaching and learning h=
as
been shaped by contextual factors involving curricula and pupils in the soc=
ial
environment of the science classroom. They are well poised to assist with t=
he
induction of STs into the teaching profession as long as they are able to
communicate effectively in a manner that emphasizes proficiencies over
deficiencies. They model dispositions such as lifelong learning as they
acknowledge their desire to improve. Just through their physical presence in
the classroom, CTs can provide more targeted feedback to STs than all of the
feedback that most employed teachers receive during their entire careers. <=
/p>
Mentoring =
student
teachers needs to become the primary instructional event in the development=
of
new teachers. To make this happen, CTs need to be included in the developme=
nt
of teacher education programs back on the main campus. The development of S=
Ts
needs to revolve around practical field-based experiences in the schools wh=
ere
not only observing and teaching is stressed but being mentored by an employ=
ed
teacher. It could be suggested that this line of reasoning is essentialist =
in
that educational reforms will not happen if STs simply reproduce what CTs d=
o in
the classroom. This was not the case for the small sample of CTs who engage=
d in
this case study since each of them were always seeking self improvement to
energize their teaching. These CTs were exceptional in their roles because =
of
this willingness to reflect on their own classroom practice and guide STs in
their day-to-day teaching. The STs who worked with these CTs were fortunate=
to
have these professionals watching over them and their practice. Final
Remarks Under
the current conditions of limited financial reward for taking on a student
teacher coupled with the increase in field experience placements as mandate=
d by
accountability-based teacher education supervisory organizations like NCATE,
finding effective CTs can be problematic. Finding CTs who are willing to en=
gage
in the learning process with their student teachers may be an even greater
challenge. This study focused on four CTs who were willing to assist and
support STs from the sidelines without trying to mold STs in their image.
Finding CTs who are willing to monitor and advise CTs on a daily basis is c=
rucial
in maximizing the learning outcomes of the student teaching practicum. The
CT-ST is a dynamic, intense relationship whereby CTs assist with inducting =
STs
into the teaching profession. This is the critical relationship for teacher
candidates who have invested much time, energy, and money into their teacher
education programs. It is vital that CTs and STs communicate effectively. T=
his
means that both the CTs and STs need to view themselves as learners with th=
e CT
having the advantage of much experiential knowledge of the students in the
classroom and experience with teaching the curriculum and preparing
standards-based science lessons and units. However, this familiarity can br=
ing
a sense of complacency to the classroom. One way to shake this tendency to
repeat what has been down in the past is to accept a ST into the classroom =
and
observe another person teaching, and most importantly, observe your own
students being taught by the ST. This is an excellent opportunity to carefu=
lly
watch for the nuances of behavior that reveal student thinking and action. =
The
title of this paper: “Someone to watch over me” reveals not only
the actions of the CT observing and supporting the ST in the classroom but =
also
someone who cares deeply about the professional development of new teachers.
CTs who mentor ST based on what Dewey (1904) termed the laboratory model ar=
e essential
for educating new teachers with the skills and dispositions needed to engage
middle and high school students in learning science. The student
teaching internship is the ultimate “impact on learning” episod=
e in
the education of science teacher candidates. As such, it would be best for
science teacher educators to take a more active role in the student teaching
internship. Conducting weekly seminars with student teacher and making a few
observations of STs teaching in middle and high school science classrooms is
insufficient but often the standard model of teacher education progress.
University and college student teaching supervisors need to spend more time=
in
7-12 science classrooms with their STs not only to observe and support the
development of their teacher candidates but also to build professional
relationships with CTs. CTs are a vital resource not only for STs but also =
for
student teacher supervisors from the teacher education institutions. Beyond
helping others, classroom teachers who serve as cooperating teachers engage=
in
an intense professional development that allows them to better understand t=
heir
own pupils and re-conceptualize their own teaching. They can also gain a se=
nse
of satisfaction by helping STs gain access to the professional knowledge of
teaching. References AERA
Panel on Research and Teacher Education. (2005). Executive Summary. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying
teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher
education (pp. 1-36). Barnett,
J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller
understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426-453. Bogdan,
R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). =
Qualitative
research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd=
ed.). Borko,
H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and
university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518. Clarke,
A., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. (2005). What the teaching perspectives of
cooperating teachers tell us about their advisory practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21=
(1),
65-78. Clement,
M. (1999). Reducing the stress of student teaching. Contemporary Education, 70(4), 20-26. Clift,
R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field
experience. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report=
of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309-424). Collins,
C. (2004). Envisaging a new education studies major: What are the core
educational knowledges to be addressed in pre-service teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educat=
ion,
32(3), 227-240. Coulin,
S. (2000). The impact of cooperating teachers’ task statements on stu=
dent
teachers’ pedagogical behaviors. College
Student Journal 34(2), 284-298. Dewey,
J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C.A. McMurray
(Ed.), The third yearbook of the Na=
tional
Society for the Scientific Study of Education (pp. 9-30). Goodfellow,
J. (2000). Knowing the inside: Reflective conversations with and through the
narratives of one cooperating teacher. Reflective
Practice, 1(1), 25-42. Graham,
B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of
cooperating teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education 22(8), 1118-1129. Guba,
E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth
generation evaluation. Hamel,
F. L. & Merz, C. (2005). Reframing accountability: A preservice program
wrestles with mandated reform. Jour=
nal of
Teacher Education, 56(2), 157-167. Hascher,
Cocard, & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about theory—practice is all?
Student teachers’ learning in practicum. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 10(6), 623-637. Koskela,
T., & Ganser, T. (1999). The cooperating teacher role and career
development. Education, 119(1),
106-125. Krull,
E. (2005). Mentoring as a means for supporting student and beginning
teachers’ practice-based learning. Trames
9(59/54), 2, 143-158. McIntyre,
D. J., Byrd, D. M., & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experien=
ces.
In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of res=
earch
on teacher education 2nd ed. (pp. 171-193). Moe,
T. M. 2003. Politics, Control, and the Future. In P. E. Peterson and M. R. =
West
(Eds.), No Child Left Behind. <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on"> National
Research Council. (2004). How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Richardson,
L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reac=
hing
diverse audiences. Shulman,
L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.<=
/p>
Weasmer,
J., & Woods, A. M. (2003). The role of the host teacher in the student
teaching experience. Clearing House=
, 76(4),
174-178. Wideen,
M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the rese=
arch
on learning to teach making the case for an ecological perspective on inqui=
ry. Review of Educational Research, 68,
130-178. Yerrick,
R., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted
change: The “filtering effect” of teachers’ beliefs on
understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137-159.