preparing high school cooperating teachers in a university ...4199/datastream... · preparing high...
Post on 29-Jul-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A Single-case Study
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Drexel University
by
Emily C. Oliva
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of
Doctor of Education
June 2013
© Copyright 2013 Emily C. Oliva All Rights Reserved
This Ed.D. Dissertation Committee from The School of Education at Drexel University certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:
Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A Single-case Study
Emily C. Oliva
Committee: ____________________________________ Kathy D. Geller, Ph.D.
____________________________________ W. Edward Bureau, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Michele V. Hamilton, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Date
iv
Abstract
Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A Single-case Study
Emily C. Oliva, Ed.D.
Drexel University, June 2013
Chairperson: Kathy D. Geller
The cooperating teacher’s ability to effectively support the professional
development and training of student teachers during the field experience may be
impacted by the level of support and guidance they receive. This qualitative single-case
study was designed to explore the relationship between the cooperating teachers and one
university teacher education program. The study further sought to explore what training
and supports were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field
experience, as well as how the cooperating teacher’s level of self-efficacy informed
professional practices. By conducting this study, the researcher took a closer look at how
university teacher preparation programs and school districts may prepare the cooperating
teacher and provide more consistent guidelines and structure during the field experience.
Snowball sampling was used to identify two university supervisors from a single
public university and 11 cooperating teachers from five suburban schools in three
districts. A triangulated approach to data analysis drew on semi-structured interviews,
cooperating teacher journals, and related artifacts. Multiple iterations of analysis
occurred manually and with the online software tool, Dedoose, using in vivo codes and
those created in situ. The following are the three analytic categories that emerged from
v
the analysis: (a) processes and perceptions gap, (b) areas with communication needs, and
(c) opportunities for professional enrichment.
This research illustrated that the criteria for selection was unclear and the
processes for development of cooperating teachers were nonexistent. Therefore, the
cooperating teachers relied on their experiences during the field experience. Although
dissemination of information happened through multiple methods, the primary mode of
communication was expressed in writing. There was a lack of communication, which is
an integral component of the field experience because of its impact on defining roles and
responsibilities, conducting observations and feedback, building relationships, and
supporting the cooperating teacher. The field experience provided enrichment through
reciprocal learning and opportunities to give back to the teaching profession.
Recommendations are offered for the university teacher preparation program and school
sites. The limited size of the sample may limit the study’s generalizability.
Keywords: cooperating teachers, field experience, self-efficacy, student teacher,
teacher of record, university partnerships, university supervisor
vi
Dedication
To my parents, Edwin and Milagros Oliva: Your love, support, and belief in my abilities are endless.
Thank you for showing me God’s goodness.
To my sister, Olivia C. Oliva: You opened my eyes to college and continue to encourage me.
A sister’s love cannot be broken.
To Victoria and Vaughn: Your laughter and smiles make me happy. Reach for the stars, your futures are bright.
I will always believe in you.
vii
Acknowledgment
The completion of this research is possible with the help of others. I would like to
thank my supervising professor, Dr. Kathy D. Geller. Thank you for getting to know me
and my beliefs even before you stepped into your role. Your guidance and questions
helped bring clarity and focus. Thank you for believing in me and providing me with
laughter. I would also like to thank Dr. Michele V. Hamilton. You guided me before
graduate school, showed me the Talking Circle, and joined me for the ride ever since.
Thank you for the encouragement and the reminder of God’s light, which shines bright.
To Dr. Ed Bureau, thank you for your insight and for “the iceberg.”
In addition, I would like to thank Mrs. Charlotte Chadwick and Henry
Kloczkowski for showing me what it means to lead. Your leadership allows your
organizations, and the individuals you serve, to grow, including me. You set the bar high
for those who follow. To Dr. Lary N. Duque, you sparked my pursuit to continue my
education by one simple question; who would have known it would take me this far. To
Dr. Janet L. Papale, you changed my views of writing.
I truly believe that God puts people in our lives for a reason. To Manang Floricel
and Manang MaryLynn, thank you for always supporting and believing in me. To my
friends from St. Anne, thank you for sticking with me through all these years and making
me laugh until my stomach hurts. To Monica, thank you for always being honest and
sharing my love for travel and food. To Janelle and Beatriz, thank you for being a part of
my family and loving them. Thank you for reminding me to focus, but also to take time
to relax. To Lauren, Chris, Elias, and baby-to-be, I know you are a package deal. Thank
you for the long talks and giving me hope. To Emilia, Fatima, and Clairisum, thank you
viii
for reminding me to fight for social justice. To Kourtney, thank you for sharing your
belief in God. To Lanae, Angela, and Zaheerah, thank you for the laughs and the
understanding. To my family, thank you for the laughs.
I would like to thank the participants in this study, who, despite their busy
schedules, gave their time and words to this research. Once again, your dedication to the
teaching profession is demonstrated through your shared experiences.
ix
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH ....................................................................1
Introduction to the Problem ...........................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem to Be Researched ..................................................................3
Purpose and Significance of the Problem ......................................................................3
Research Questions ........................................................................................................4
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................8
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ..............................................................10
Summary ......................................................................................................................12
2. THE LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................13
Introduction ..................................................................................................................13
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................13
Literature Review.........................................................................................................15
Summary ......................................................................................................................32
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................33
Introduction ..................................................................................................................33
Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................34
x
Site and Population ......................................................................................................35
Research Methods ........................................................................................................40
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................48
4. FINDINGS, RESULTS, AND INTERPRETATIONS ................................................50
Introduction ..................................................................................................................50
Findings........................................................................................................................51
Results and Interpretations ...........................................................................................73
Summary ......................................................................................................................78
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................79
Introduction ..................................................................................................................79
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................79
Recommendations ........................................................................................................83
Summary ......................................................................................................................89
LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................................90
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ...................................................................94
APPENDIX B: SCRIPT FOR UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR WHEN INFORMING COOPERATING TEACHER OF STUDY ......................98
APPENDIX C: INTRODUCTORY EMAILS...................................................................99
APPENDIX D: JOURNAL PROMPTS FOR COOPERATING TEACHERS ...............101
xi
List of Tables
1. Organizational Tool for Tracking Possible Participants ..............................................39
2. Timeline for Data Analysis and Reporting ..................................................................48 3. Participant Pseudonyms and Positions.........................................................................52
4. Themes and Findings of this Study ..............................................................................54
5. Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Selection ................................................55
6. Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Training .................................................59
7. Data Summary Table: Methods of Communication of Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors .......................62
8. Data Summary Table: Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers
and University Supervisors ..........................................................................................63 9. Data Summary Table: Supporting the Cooperating Teacher ......................................67
10. Data Summary Table: Reasons to Be a Cooperating Teacher .....................................69
xii
List of Figures
1. Conceptual framework .................................................................................................14
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research
Introduction to the Problem
The field experience is a component of a university teacher preparation program
when a cooperating teacher is paired with a student teacher. During this time, the
cooperating teacher has the opportunity to share his or her knowledge about the teaching
profession with the student teacher, who teaches, not just observes, a class, either part-
time or full-time. What should the first meeting between a cooperating teacher and a new
student teacher entail? How does the cooperating teacher ensure effective
communication? What are the responsibilities and expectations of the cooperating
teacher?
Questions like those above may be concerns of cooperating teachers, especially
those who take on the role for the first time and work with student teachers supporting
their preparation for successful entry into the teaching profession. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act reauthorization, also known as No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB), requires all students be taught by “highly qualified” teachers (NCLB,
2002). To be deemed “highly qualified,” teachers must hold a bachelor’s degree, be fully
certified, and demonstrate adequate content knowledge in their subject areas. Because
individual states determine the standards for teacher preparation, there is wide variation
in requirements to become a teacher (Graham, 2006; Levine, 2010). While not federally
mandated, some states require a field experience (student teaching), a component
incorporated into many university teacher education programs. The goal of the program
2
is to prepare those who will enter the teaching profession to be effective their first year
and beyond.
To guide student teachers during the field experience, the cooperating teacher
may need strategies in relationship building or communication and guidance from the
university supervisor or other cooperating teachers (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002;
Margolis, 2007; Russell & Russell ,2011; Soslau, 2012; Stanulis, 1995). Cooperating
teachers bring different perspectives based on their own personal experiences when there
is no formal training (Beeth & Adadan, 2006). Ward (2005) explained, “Most
cooperating teachers do not have access to training related to mentoring successful
student teachers” (pp. 148-149). Some cooperating teachers may lack a positive sense of
self-efficacy and feel they are not capable of influencing the student teacher toward
improvement, especially when the student teacher struggles (Hall, Draper, Smith, &
Bulloughs, 2008).
The literature suggests the support and preparation student teachers receive varies
and is lacking (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Levine, 2006; National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2010; U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). Levine (2006) explained, “More than three out of five teacher
education alumni surveyed (62 percent) report that schools of education do not prepare
their graduates to cope with the realities of today’s classrooms” (p. 4). As a result, after
graduation and during their initial assignments, new teachers may feel overwhelmed and
leave the profession. The United States Department of Education (2010), speaking to
NCLB, stated, “Many prospective teachers attend preparation programs that aren’t
relevant to the work they’ll be doing in the classroom” (p. 1).
3
The researcher has known cooperating teachers who lacked communication
strategies to provide feedback, who were not reflective practitioners, and who became
cooperating teachers for reasons other than improving the teaching profession, such as
using it for an extra preparation period. Consequently, some student teachers may not
have fully benefited from the field experience. In the experience of this writer,
depending upon the teacher education program or the specific university supervisor, there
have been varying degrees of guidance, if any, provided to cooperating teachers. If the
cooperating teachers were provided more support and guidance, they would likely be
better equipped to prepare student teachers for the classroom and their future role as the
teacher of record.
Statement of the Problem to Be Researched
The cooperating teacher’s ability to effectively support the professional
development and training of student teachers during the field experience may be
impacted by the level of support and guidance they receive.
Purpose and Significance of the Problem
While there are a variety of standards for the teaching profession, such as The
Five Core Propositions (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002) and
the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers,
2011; Hill, Stumbo, Paliokas, Hansen, & McWalters, 2010), there is not widespread and
consistent use of standards when preparing teachers, including during the field experience
(Darling-Hammond, 2006). The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship
between the cooperating teachers and one university teacher education program with the
goal to understand how the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and
4
cooperating teachers are defined and communicated. The study further sought to
explore what training and support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and
throughout the field experience as well as how the cooperating teacher’s level of self-
efficacy informed professional practices. The findings of this study may help university
preparation programs and the school district provide more consistent guidelines and
structure for the cooperating teacher during the field experience.
The field experience provides student teachers insight into teaching and its
everyday responsibilities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Feiman-Nemser, 2001;
O’Brian, Stoner, Appel, & House, 2007). In serving as mentors, current teachers,
including cooperating teachers, are given the opportunity to reflect upon and improve
personal teaching practices (Margolis, 2007; Saffold, 2005; Stanulis, 1995; Ward, 2005;
Weasmer & Woods, 2003). For the cooperating teacher, teacher engagement may
increase, which, in turn, may increase the efficacy of cooperating teachers to prepare
those who may soon join the teaching profession (Hall, Smith, Draper, Bullough, &
Sudweeks, 2005; Saffold, 2005). Studying the interaction between the university
supervisor and the cooperating teacher may offer clarity for role definitions, training,
support, and the self-efficacy of the cooperating teacher during the field experience.
Research Questions
1. What is the experience of the cooperating teacher in regard to the selection,
development, and support for his or her role during the field experience?
2. How are roles and responsibilities defined and communicated between the
university supervisor and the cooperating teacher?
5
3. How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform his or her role
and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?
Conceptual Framework
Stances of the Researcher
The research is grounded with axiological, epistemological, and experiential
stances. The axiological stance considers the researcher’s values, including being ethical
and being a good person, and in this case, becoming a cooperating teacher with the
purpose to guide those who will soon enter the profession of teaching. With experience
as a student teacher, a cooperating teacher, and a teacher of record, the researcher,
drawing on her expertise, holds an experiential stance. An epistemological stance takes
into consideration that this researcher is also in the field of education and will conduct
research at the site where the participants work. Finally, as a social constructivist, the
researcher draws on meanings, which are multiple and varied, and interactions with
others to make sense of the world. As a social constructivist, using open-ended questions
during interviews and providing cooperating teachers with journals allows the researcher
to fully integrate the voices of the participants into this exploration.
Three Research Streams
The conceptual framework is based upon three related streams of theory, research,
and practice: the cooperating teacher experience, the student teacher field experience, and
university partnerships. The first stream, cooperating teacher experiences, provides
insight regarding the roles, benefits, and challenges cooperating teachers face when
working with student teachers (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Bullough, 2005; Goddard, Hoy,
& Woolfolk Hoy, 2004; Graham, 2006; Hall et al., 2008; Kyle, Moore, & Sanders, 1999;
6
Margolis, 2007; Moore, 2003; Russell & Russell, 2011; Saffold, 2005; Soslau, 2012;
Stanulis, 1995; Ward, 2005; Weasmer & Woods, 2003). The second stream, student
teacher field experience, places the field experience in relation to the cooperating teacher
(Hong, 2010; O’Brian et al., 2007). The third stream, university partnerships, is directly
related to the field experience because it links theory and pedagogy to practice (Borko &
Mayfield, 1995; Bullough, Draper, Smith, & Birrell, 2004; Hall et al., 2008; Howey &
Zimpher, 2010; Kyle et al., 1999; Levine, 2010; Moore, 2003; O’Brian et al., 2007; Slick,
1997; Snow-Gerono, 2009; Soslau, 2012; Zeichner, 2012).
The field experience is tied to Dewey’s (1938) theory of experience, based upon
continuity and interactions. According to Dewey (1938), individuals are affected and
learn through experiences, whether positive or negative. Dependent upon past and
current experiences, people react in a specific way. Thus, continuity and interaction leads
one to form his or her beliefs. During the field experience, the cooperating teacher brings
personal experiences regarding what it means to be a teacher and the information
provided by the university teacher preparation program, which in tandem may
consequently affect the field experience.
Self-efficacy may also affect the field experience and knowledge provided by the
cooperating teacher. Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy suggests one’s level of
belief with regard to his or her capacity to complete a task was an accurate predictor of
successfully performing that task. There are two components to self-efficacy theory: a)
the belief that a given behavior will lead to a desired outcome and b) the belief that the
individual has the ability to bring about the desired outcome. Therefore, the cooperating
teacher’s sense of self-efficacy as a teacher and a mentor may affect the experience of the
7
student teacher during the field experience. Moreover, the teaching practices of the
cooperating teacher may be positively influenced.
Together, these three streams provide insight into the current practices and
experiences of those involved in the field experience. Not only are those training to
become teachers affected, but cooperating teachers may also improve their teaching
practices with enhanced direction and support from the university teacher preparation
program.
Cooperating teacher experience. The cooperating teacher, the main focus of
this study, works with the student teacher during the field experience. Although
cooperating teachers are supposed to guide student teachers, there may be “confusion
about roles and responsibilities, [which] undermines efficacy” (Hall et al., 2008, p. 343).
The cooperating teacher may need training and support to integrate reflective practices,
communication strategies, and relationship building into their approach. According to
Ward (2005), “Providing mentoring and other reciprocal learning opportunities can
impact teacher efficacy by transforming teachers into reflective learners who are
competent, confident, and more cognizant of the demands and realities of classroom life”
(p. 152).
Student teacher field experience. The student teacher field experience is a
component of the university teacher preparation program. It provides context to this
research, which focuses on the cooperating teacher. Although the specific guidelines of
the field experience may vary between programs, there are benefits such as observations
of current teachers, collaboration in a school setting, interaction with students, and
application of coursework (Beeth & Adadan, 2006; Graham, 2006; Kyle et al., 1999;
8
Margolis, 2007; Russell & Russell, 2011; Snow-Gerono, 2009; Staulis, 1995). During
the field experience, well-mentored student teachers may also gain a better understanding
of their roles as educators. According to Hong (2010), “Pre-service teachers presumably
begin to shape their professional identity during their teacher education program, which
includes key psychological factors, such as value, commitment, efficacy, emotion,
knowledge and beliefs, and micropolitics” (p. 1540).
University partnerships. Through partnerships among the university, district,
and schools, ongoing capacity building in the form of professional development may
occur, and information can be gathered regarding what schools need for cooperating
teachers to thoroughly and effectively guide student teachers. Feiman-Nemser (2001)
suggested, “Without a set of organizing themes, without shared standards, without clear
goals for student learning, there is not a framework to guide program design or student
assessment” (pp. 1019-1020). Currently, teacher preparation programs vary in the length
of the field experience and classroom experience. Teacher preparation may be addressed
through partnerships to lessen the discrepancies. NCATE (2010) explained, “It [teacher
education] must move to programs that are fully grounded in clinical practice and
interwoven with academic content and professional courses” (p. 2).
Definition of Terms
Cooperating teacher
An individual who, for the purposes of this study, is a high school teacher paired
with a student teacher during the field experience and may be identified as the
mentor teacher in literature (Hall et al., 2008; Kyle et al., 1999; Margolis, 2007;
Saffold, 2005; Snow-Gerono, 2009).
9
Field experience
The component, also known as preservice, of a teacher preparation program in
which the student teacher is paired with a cooperating teacher and teaches, not
just observes, a class, either part-time or full-time.
Self-efficacy
The “beliefs in one’s capacity to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).
Student teacher
An individual who attends a university teacher preparation program, has
completed most, if not all, university coursework, and may be identified as the
preservice teacher in literature (Beeth & Adadan, 2006; Hall et al., 2008; Hong,
2010; Moore, 2003; O’Brian et al., 2007).
Teacher of record
An individual stated in official records as the teacher of a course or section.
University partnerships
University teacher education faculty and their affiliates share their expertise with
school districts through professional development, sharing of resources, and
collaboration over time.
University supervisor
An individual representing the university teacher preparation program during the
field experience, is responsible for ensuring the student teacher has a cooperating
teacher, and provides support for the student teacher and cooperating teacher.
10
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
Based upon the researcher’s experience as a student teacher, cooperating teacher,
and teacher of record, four primary assumptions were made relative to the study. First,
the field experience may be influential in forming the student teacher’s perspective of the
teaching profession. The researcher believes if the cooperating teacher provides the
student teacher thorough guidance in various aspects of teaching, including lesson
planning, classroom and behavior management, and addressing logistical demands such
as taking attendance and making parent/guardian calls, the student teacher may be better
prepared to handle diverse situations in a professional position. Second, reflection and
dialogue are necessary for growth. This assumption is based upon the experience of the
researcher as a student in a university teacher preparation program that required constant
reflection and devoted specific time to it. Reflection and dialogue that occurred with
colleagues at the place of employment of this researcher has led to changed teaching
strategies. Being a cooperating teacher and implementing reflecting practices also
benefits the cooperating teacher (Margolis, 2007; Saffold, 2005; Ward, 2005; Weasmer &
Woods, 2003).
Third, cooperating teachers need to have structure and strategies supervised by the
university teacher education program to ensure all student teachers are provided the same
support (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Snow-Gerono, 2009). This assumption is guided by
the experience of sharing a student teacher with another cooperating teacher. Without
explicit guidance from the university supervisor, the two cooperating teachers had
differing perceptions of what it meant to be a cooperating teacher and provided
11
conflicting information to the student teacher. Fourth, constant and clear
communication among the university supervisor, a school or district liaison, the
cooperating teacher, and the student teacher is a key component of the field experience
that seems to be lacking in the current structure of the field experience (Bullough et al.,
2004; Slick, 1997; Snow-Gerono, 2009). This assumption is based upon the experiences
of the researcher and fellow colleagues.
A limitation to this study is the focus on university teacher preparation programs.
Currently, there are alternative routes to the teaching profession that do not necessarily
require the field experience. Moreover, the study involves only cooperating teachers at
the high school level. Because the teaching responsibilities and daily duties of teachers
in grades Kindergarten through eight may differ from higher grades, the selection,
development, and support of cooperating teachers may not be the same.
Another limitation, dependent upon the university teacher program and the size of
the cohort, may be the variety in the size of districts and schools where cooperating
teachers are located. Finally, given the limited size of the single-case study, while it is
hoped the findings and results will add to the knowledge in this arena, the limited size of
the sample may limit its generalizability.
Summary
Cooperating teachers at a school site are key components of the field experience.
However, there are variations in the opportunities provided by a university teacher
preparation program. Moreover, the quality of the cooperating teacher differs because
formal selection criteria, mentoring skill development, and ongoing support may be
lacking, whether in the form of resources, communication, or structure. The cooperating
12
teacher’s ability to effectively support the professional development and training of
student teachers during the field experience may be hindered by the lack of guidance.
Research that takes a closer look at cooperating teacher experiences and university
partnerships may provide insight directly into improving the teaching practices of the
cooperating teacher, and indirectly provide indicators for the structure of the student
teacher field experience.
13
Chapter 2: The Literature Review
Introduction
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), requires all students be taught by “highly
qualified” teachers (NCLB, 2011). However, teacher candidates are not adequately
prepared to increase student achievement in a standards-based, accountability-driven
system of education (Levine, 2006, p. 5). With the Race to the Top Initiative (United
States Department of Education, 2010), teacher effectiveness and teacher preparation
have, once again, become a national focus in education. Therefore, university
partnerships may enhance the field experience component of teacher preparation by
connecting student teachers attending a teacher education program and cooperating
teachers at school sites. The cooperating teachers are an important component to
ensuring teachers enter the profession with the skills and knowledge to help students
achieve at high levels in our global society. However, the problem this research sought
to explore was that the cooperating teacher’s ability to effectively support the
professional development and training of student teachers during the field experience
may be impacted by the level of support and guidance they themselves received.
Conceptual Framework
The field experience provides cooperating teachers the opportunity to share with
student teachers their knowledge and insight into the teaching profession and its everyday
responsibilities (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). However, teacher preparation programs appear
inconsistent based on the variation in the amount of classroom experience required of
14
student teachers; the selection, development, and support provided to a cooperating
teacher; and the connection between university coursework and practice (Zeichner,
2010). Figure 1 displays the relationship between the three streams and categories
included in preparing high school cooperating teachers. While this study highlighted the
cooperating teacher, the literature review offers an overview of previous research
regarding those involved in the field experience triad.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
High School Cooperating Teachers
Cooperating Teacher
Experience
University Partnerships
Student Teacher Field
Experience
Self Efficacy
Reflective Practice
Relationship Building
Communication Strategies
Theory and Pedagogy
University Supervisor
15
Literature Review
The three literature streams introduced in Chapter 1 are reviewed in this chapter.
They include student teacher field experiences, cooperating teacher experiences, and
university partnerships. The research and literature regarding the three streams overlap
because of the close connection to the field experience. The first stream, cooperating
teacher experiences, examines how self-efficacy and the role of the cooperating teacher
relates to the student teacher and the university teacher education program. The stream
also reviews the benefits and challenges the cooperating teachers face when working with
a student teacher. The second stream, student teacher field experiences, focuses on the
connection with cooperating teachers during the field experience. The third stream of
research, university partnerships, focuses on the role of the university supervisor, the
relationship building and communication strategies used, and the connection between
theory and pedagogy to practice. Together, these streams provide insight into the current
practices, the experiences of the triad, and the integral position cooperating teachers hold
in the preparation of future teachers. Not only are those who are training to become
teachers affected by the field experience, but cooperating teachers may also improve
teaching practices with direction and assistance from the university teacher preparation
program supervisor.
Cooperating Teacher Experience
The cooperating teacher is paired with a student teacher during the field
experience. The roles and responsibilities of the cooperating teacher are not always
explicitly identified. Therefore, the professional identity of the cooperating teacher may
influence what is considered important during the experience (Bullough, 2005; Graham,
16
2006; Russell & Russell, 2011). The cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy and
reflective practices affects the field experience (Hall et al., 2005; Margolis, 2007; Saffold,
2005; Ward, 2005; Weasmer & Woods, 2003). Furthermore, the communication
strategies used by the cooperating teacher may steer relationship-building strategies
utilized to share and create knowledge (Graham, 2006; Moore, 2007).
Understanding the identity formation of cooperating teachers is important because
they work closely with student teachers, preparing them for entry into the teaching
profession. Bullough (2005) conducted a case study to explore issues related to identity
formation of cooperating teachers. Based on the data gathered, he discovered that
expectations of cooperating teachers during the field experience were unclear and led the
cooperating teacher to a reliance on memories of personal field experience for guidance
(Bullough, 2005, p. 148). Moreover, the depth of knowledge shared with the student
teacher was affected. According to Bullough (2005), “Who one is, is integral to
determining what subject positions are made available and how they are made available
for others’ occupation and self-definition” (p. 144). Without guidance, cooperating
teachers feel alone and on their own.
Although the research by Bullough (2005) was based on the viewpoints of one
cooperating teacher and two student teachers, the findings were corroborated by other
research. Russell and Russell (2011) investigated the perspectives of cooperating
teachers on mentoring student teachers. Even when cooperating teachers have a clear
understanding of their identity, “this does not necessarily mean they know how to mentor
or how to be an effective mentor” (Russell & Russell, 2011, pp. 13-14). Research by
17
Graham (2006) echoed this finding. Clear roles and responsibilities of the cooperating
teacher are just as important to a successful field experience as identity formation.
Orienting the student teacher to the teaching profession is a role identified by Hall
et al. (2008). The mixed-methods study compared cooperating teachers’ perceptions of
their roles and responsibilities with the “view commonly embraced by researchers” (p.
329). In the study, 264 cooperating teachers responded to questionnaires while 34 were
randomly selected to participate in an interview for clarification. The findings suggested
differences between the cooperating teachers’ perceptions of their roles and
responsibilities, compared to the commonly held view, which emphasized professional
support. According to the study’s conclusions, emotional and professional supports are
key components in mentor responsibilities. Moreover, cooperating teachers believed
their roles and responsibilities were to get student teachers acquainted to the teaching
profession, to provide opportunities to teach, and were also dependent upon whether or
not the student teacher struggled in the field (Hall et al., 2008, p. 341).
Scaffolding skills and information is identified as a role of the cooperating teacher
(Graham, 2006). Graham’s (2006) research sought to understand the contributions of
cooperating teachers to the process of learning to teach. The research included
questionnaire responses from 95 cooperating teachers and 25 interviews, lasting 45 to 90
minutes, with a focus on how cooperating teachers defined a successful field experience.
Unlike other field placements, the cooperating teachers participated in a workshop or a
course to prepare for the experience. This research suggested four conditions lead to a
successful field experience. Graham (2006) explained:
18
The four conditions are: organizational structures to promote inter-institutional collaboration and to establish relationships based on trust and reciprocity; affective engagement with teaching and learning; cognitive engagement with the intellectual challenges of teaching; and professional mentoring. (p. 1122)
Based upon the findings, specific training can help with role formation and the
preparation of cooperating teachers to be more thorough and effective.
Similar to Graham (2006), Kyle et al. (1999) provided insight regarding the role
of the cooperating teacher through a qualitative study including nine cooperating
teachers. Before becoming a cooperating teacher, there is a need for clarity and an
understanding of the expectations of and insight into their roles. Even when teachers
know the expectations of being a cooperating teacher, they “benefit from more systematic
and focused education about the role” (Kyle et al., 1999, p. 119). The responsibilities of
the cooperating teachers included work related to the development of the student teacher.
According to Kyle et al. (1999):
Mentor teachers are responsible for knowing what curriculum content, instructional strategies, and issues are most current in the field; how to collaborate with colleagues; and how to articulate their beliefs, practices, and goals in ways that are understandable to novices. (p. 112)
The study identified qualities of the cooperating teachers as knowledgeable, but still
willing to learn, willing to share, and skilled in interpersonal relationships. With
information regarding the role and qualities of the cooperating teacher, support and
guidance about how to be effective should follow.
Expert, guide, and model are roles the cooperating teacher uses to assist the
student teacher in becoming an effective practitioner (Russell & Russell, 2003; Weasmer
& Woods, 2003). Russell and Russell (2011) conducted a phenomenological study with
a goal of developing a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of mentoring. The
19
researchers concluded the role of the cooperating teachers were to help and guide the
student teacher, but may be “unrealized” (Russell & Russell, 2003, p. 10). Cooperating
teachers wanted to share and gain knowledge and encourage and collaborate with new
teachers. Moreover, role modeling and mandatory professional development were
emphasized by the cooperating teachers for effective mentoring.
Not only do cooperating teachers influence student teachers through role
modeling, the university teacher education program is also seen as a factor. Stanulis
(1995) conducted a descriptive study of five cooperating teachers and the student teacher
with whom they are paired. One purpose was to determine how cooperating teachers
make sense of their role. Through interviews and observations, Stanulis (1995)
concluded that cooperating teachers felt it was important to align teaching philosophies
with instruction, to develop independent thinkers, and to see student teachers as
colleagues. Moreover, program themes of the university were utilized by cooperating
teachers throughout the field experience and “influenced the construction of their roles”
(Stanulis, 1995, p. 343). Although cooperating teachers assist the university preparation
program with the development of the student teacher, the cooperating teacher holds two
positions because of their role.
The cooperating teachers hold “dual responsibilities: to the students in their care
and to the pre-service teacher” (Graham, 2006, p. 1127). This is further supported by
Soslau (2012). Soslau (2012) conducted a qualitative study to determine how student
teachers develop adaptive teaching, which uses context to make decisions, reflect, and
reform actions. Once the student teachers realized they also have multiple purposes,
communication with the cooperating teacher regarding how to best help students were
20
discussed. To facilitate the process of the field experience, training for and
development of the cooperating teachers could lead to higher self-efficacy (Borko &
Mayfield, 1995, p. 516). Development of the cooperating teacher and self-efficacy go
hand-in-hand when guiding a student teacher.
Since there are a variety of details of which a student teacher needs to be
cognizant in the classroom, such as classroom management and content knowledge, the
cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy could affect the success of the field
experience. Goddard et al. (2004) defined self-efficacy as the belief about capabilities to
achieve a task and suggested a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy is a “significant predictor”
of productive teaching practices (p. 4). Two sources of efficacy shaping, mastery
experience and vicarious experience, are most closely related to the field experience
when the student teacher is paired with a successful cooperating teacher (Goddard et al.,
2004). A mastery experience is the most powerful source of efficacy shaping and takes
into consideration what contributes to an outcome. Vicarious experience is when a skill
is modeled by another, which is similar to the role of the cooperating teacher. According
to Goddard et al. (2004), “The higher teachers’ sense of efficacy, the more likely they are
to tenaciously overcome obstacles and persist in the face of failure” (p. 4). When a
performance is perceived successful, then efficacy beliefs increase.
According to Hall et al. (2005), “Better understanding of teachers’ self-efficacy as
mentors of other teachers hold promise for shedding light on improving teacher
preparation through strengthening the quality and effectiveness of mentoring” (p. 188).
The findings by Goddard et al. (2004) and Hall et al. (2005) were reiterated by Saffold
(2005) who conducted a qualitative study to determine how to increase self-efficacy in
21
cooperating teachers. Saffold (2005) explained, “When a person believes they have
what it takes to succeed, they develop a resilient sense of efficacy” (p. 13). Awareness of
self-efficacy and mentoring influenced the cooperating teachers to become more
reflective educators because they were “allowed to reflect on their practice, examine it,
and then reevaluate the ideas, guiding principles, theories, and objectives attached to their
personal philosophy of teaching and learning” (Saffold, 2005, pp. 14-15). Not only does
the field experience benefit the student teacher, the cooperating teacher learns as well.
The field experience provides cooperating teachers the opportunity to reflect upon
practices to improve teaching and understand why specific pedagogies are used to
improve student learning. Research by Saffold (2005) suggested mentoring allowed
cooperating teachers to be reflective, leading to a reevaluation of philosophies and
objectives. To better understand how explicitness is used between cooperating and
student teachers, Margolis (2007) carried out a year-long qualitative study including
seven cooperating teachers. The findings from this study indicated cooperating teachers
examined their own teaching and procedures to explain their reasons and actions to the
student teacher. Consequently, the examinations led to increasingly reflective teaching
decisions.
A quantitative study conducted by Ward (2005) sought to determine the impact of
the training the cooperating teachers received through a university and school-based
partnership. Based on the data gathered, Ward (2005) determined that after mentoring,
cooperating teachers felt, at varying degrees, more confident about being an effective
cooperating teacher. Research by Margolis (2007) supports the findings by Ward (2005).
In another study, Stanulis (1995) explored how cooperating teachers model critical
22
reflection. The findings suggested the cooperating teachers made connections between
taking risks, trying new ideas, and reflecting. When time from the demands and
responsibilities of teaching was devoted to reflection, the cooperating teacher placed
value in the practice.
To gain a deeper understanding of the cooperating teacher’s reflection on
practices, Weasmer and Woods (2003) conducted a qualitative study of 28 cooperating
teachers to examine reflective practices and to discover changes in their perspectives on
teaching that may have been caused by the field experience. Two types of reflection,
reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action, were discussed. Reflection-in-action is
reflection on experiences as they are happening (Weasmer & Woods, 2003, p. 66).
Reflection-on-action occurred when the cooperating teacher had to explain their actions
to the student teacher. Explanations held the cooperating teacher accountable for
modeling and also validated his or her actions. The practice of reflection was a self-
assessment tool for the cooperating teacher. According to Weasmer and Woods (2003),
“Hosting a student teacher can offer the mentor teacher a closer look at the effectiveness
of her own instructional pedagogy” (p. 70). Weasmer and Woods (2003) concluded the
field experience resulted in reciprocal learning and “served to inform and ultimately
change their [cooperating teachers’] own teaching and in some cases alter their practices”
(p. 71). The amount of dialogue that occurred between the cooperating teacher and the
student teacher, regarding reflection-on-action, was dependent upon the relationship and
communication strategies used between the two.
Communication allows the cooperating teacher to explain teaching practices and
decision-making. Moreover, the dialogue provides an avenue for questions to be asked
23
and answered to inform the choices in pedagogy, theory, and action (Graham, 2006;
Margolis, 2007; Moore, 2003). A qualitative study by Moore (2003) examined the
cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the teaching effectiveness of student teachers. The
study included 62 cooperating teachers and 77 student teachers. The findings of this
study indicated that to assist student teachers in making connections between the
coursework and the field experience, trust between the cooperating teacher and the
student teacher needed to be built (Moore, 2003, p. 40). A lack in, or absence of,
communication before and during the field experience may hinder the progress of the
student teacher and may not provide the cooperating teacher with innovative teaching
practices that may be learned through the university teacher preparation program.
Being explicit creates an environment that allows the relationship between the
cooperating teacher and student teacher to grow. Margolis (2007) also examined how
explicitness from the cooperating teacher, when explaining reasons behind decision-
making as a teacher, impacted the field experience. It is important to know how
cooperating teachers talk with student teachers and what is discussed when feedback is
provided (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Margolis, 2007). To help the relationship between
cooperating teacher and student teacher move forward, the expectations of both teachers
need to be explicitly addressed in the beginning of the experience as a “professional
courtesy and necessity” (Margolis, 2007, p. 82). By being explicit, transparent, and
direct, the cooperating teacher helps the novice become acquainted and prepared for the
complex teaching profession (Margolis, 2007, pp. 79-82). The cooperating teacher needs
support regarding effective communication skills and relationship building.
24
The relationship between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher may
influence the success of the field experience. Russell and Russell (2011) explained,
“Promoting successful mentoring relationships is a very important step toward
developing student interns into effective practitioners” (p. 3). Furthermore, Russell and
Russell (2011) determined that cooperating teachers want to share and gain knowledge,
and encourage and collaborate with new teachers (pp. 11-12). Similarly, Stanulis (1995)
found that cooperating teachers felt relationships were formed through collaboration and
consistent interaction (p. 343). The research by Graham (2006) corroborated these
findings. Her data indicated open communication, reciprocal arrangements, focused
dialogue, and reflection based on feedback benefited the development of the relationship.
Understanding what creates a positive and supportive relationship during the field
experience may guide teacher preparation programs to develop cooperating teachers
equipped with strategies and skills to prepare student teachers for the teaching profession.
Student Teacher Field Experiences
The student teacher field experience, also known as the practicum, is a component
of the university teacher preparation program that allows the student teacher an outlook
of what teaching entails (Moore, 2003; O’Brian et al., 2007; Russell & Russell, 2011).
During this time, the student teacher works closely with a cooperating teacher based at
the school site. To better mentor the student teacher, a professional relationship may
need to be built. It is also important that there is open communication between the
student teacher and the cooperating teacher. According to O’Brian et al. (2007),
“Communication and trust were relationship indicators that were interwoven as the
primary, foundational factor in the field experiences from all participants” (p. 269).
25
Dialogue between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher may lead to
reflective practice that provides the student teacher with the opportunity to “build a praxis
for teaching that acts as a personal and theoretical knowledge base” (Moore, 2003, p. 33).
The field experience may affect a student teacher’s decision to continue in the
teaching profession. Hong (2010) conducted a mixed-methods study seeking to answer
how student teachers of different levels perceived their identity. The study included
questionnaire responses from 84 participants and 27 interviews. The findings from this
study suggested the student teachers’ beliefs about teaching came from past and present
personal school experiences and may affect retention in the teaching profession.
Moreover, they suggested the perspective of the student teacher is dependent upon the
progression of their placement, a conclusion also supported by O’Brian et al. (2007).
Through relationships with the cooperating teacher, the student teacher may learn to cope
with issues that arise during the field experience and beyond.
Relationships impact the experience of the student and cooperating teacher.
Research by O’Brian et al. (2007) explored how relationships and roles are described by
student teachers and cooperating teachers. In their chosen setting, there were no criteria
for selection or training of nine cooperating teachers, who, along with their student
teachers, were involved in observations and interviews. Their findings indicated the
relationship between cooperating teacher and student teacher affected both the knowledge
and performance of the student teacher and is based upon communication and trust
(O’Brian et al., 2007, p. 269). They concluded the cooperating teacher may better assist
the student teacher with these concerns by receiving training regarding “coaching roles,
including affective and cognitive coaching” (O’Brian et al., 2007, p. 274). Although the
26
field experience is meant to assist those who will enter the profession, it also affects
those who are currently in the field.
University Partnerships
There are many values and ideologies driving educational policy regarding
teacher preparation (Howey & Zimpher, 2010). Consequently, there is a constant
struggle to balance self-interest, economics, and democratic and general social values.
Because the values are not completely separate, it may cause issues when dealing with
ideologies. As a result, there is disagreement regarding how to allocate resources and
whether to professionalize teaching. Regardless of what route a person may take to
become a teacher, there needs to be agreement about what an effective and adequately
prepared teacher knows and is able to do.
Dependent upon the route taken into teaching, there may be differences in the
quality of preparation. To address the issue of equality, teacher preparation needs to be
addressed through partnerships between universities, districts, and schools, and created
and strengthened to drive school reform and to connect theory and practice (Darling-
Hammond, 2006; Howey & Zimpher, 2010; Levine, 2010). By learning in a classroom
with a cooperating teacher, student teachers have the opportunity to connect theory to
practice and affect those who will lead our society.
Zeichner (2010) provided an overview of the connections between universities
and the field experience. Currently, there are few incentives for tenure-track faculty to
participate in the field experience. Instead, they often carry out research, which is also
necessary (Zeichner, 2010, p. 90). For the field experience, the site placement and
selection of the cooperating teacher is not always done at the university level. Instead,
27
the decision is often made by district offices. Consequently, there may be
disconnection during the field placement. According to Zeichner (2010):
It is very common for cooperating teachers with whom students work during their field placements to know very little about the specifics of the methods and foundations courses that their student teachers have completed on campus, and the people teaching the campus courses often know very little about the specific practices used in the P–12 classrooms where their students are placed. (p. 91)
It is important the university supervisor helps decrease the gap between the two entities,
especially during the field experience. Moreover, it is beneficial to understand the role of
the university supervisor when discussing the field experience and university
partnerships.
Levine (2010) explained that within the partnership, the common goal is to
connect theory and practice while developing skills and knowledge. Levine (2010)
stated, “Partnerships should be reciprocal by nature – reflecting a commitment to a shared
responsibility for teacher learning and for improved student achievement” (p. 12).
Similar to the responsibilities of the cooperating teacher, the university supervisor may
have discussions as to why certain decisions were made and provide feedback to the
student teacher, also supported by Soslau (2012). When a true partnership is created, the
roles are developed and resources are blended to support the development of the student
teacher and to increase student achievement.
Resources are an important factor in university partnerships. Snow-Gerono
(2009) conducted a phenomenological study including nine veteran teachers, a principal,
and the university supervisor to explore and analyze how veteran teachers view school-
university partnerships with respect to enhancing teacher preparation. The cooperating
teachers’ perspectives led to an appreciation of the university supervisors, who were
28
considered human resources who provided time and effort (Snow-Gerono, 2009, p.
264). However, time constraints were noted as a reason of dissatisfaction by university
supervisors (Borko & Mayfield, 1995, p. 511). The field experience is a component
when the student teacher should be provided with support and be able to connect what is
taught in coursework with what occurs in classrooms every day.
Both university supervisors and cooperating teachers agreed it is during the field
experience when student teachers learn to teach (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Darling-
Hammond, 2006; Graham, 2006). During the field experience, there is a connection
between the theory and pedagogy, and the practice. Kyle et al. (1999) explained, “We
must be careful not to perpetuate the view that the university is about theory and the
school is about practice; instead, we must communicate that excellent teachers know that
‘best practice’ is grounded in theory” (p. 118). Bullough et al. (2004) supported this
claim, referring to the role of the university supervisor as a link and a bridge between the
university and schools. Although partnerships may come in the form of clinical practice,
laboratory schools, or mentored internships, the key is reciprocity (Levine, 2010, p. 12).
Because the university supervisor is in contact with all entities involved in the field
experience, it is important to take a closer look at their roles and responsibilities.
The university supervisor has the unique role of working with those at the
university and those who are at the school sites. Similar to the findings by Graham
(2006) and Soslau (2012) in which the cooperating teacher had a responsibility to the
students and to the student teacher, the university supervisor has dual responsibilities.
Slick (1997) carried out a case study to explore the role of the university supervisor and
how time is divided between schools and individuals. The findings suggested the
29
university supervisor had to provide support to both the cooperating teacher and the
student teacher, yet uphold the standards of the university (Slick, 1997, p. 714). It may
be beneficial for the university supervisor if there is a separation of duties between the
university supervisor and a university teacher educator. One individual may hold the role
of supporter, and the other as evaluator of the student teacher. To support the university
supervisor, Slick (1997) also suggested “that teacher educators at the university need to
take a more active role in not only defining standards and expectations for student
teachers, but also in becoming more involved in helping the supervisor to interpret and
uphold these expectations” (p. 724). The importance of role clarification of the
university supervisor is discussed by others in the field of education.
Although the research by Slick (1997) was based upon the viewpoint of one
university supervisor, the findings were supported by other research. Borko and
Mayfield (1995) conducted a qualitative study of 12 participants consisting of university
supervisors, cooperating teachers, and student teachers. The purpose of the study was to
discover what characteristics were important for discussions and relationships among the
field experience triad. Based upon the data of their study, Borko and Mayfield (1995)
recommended “that university supervisors use their limited time in schools to help
cooperating teachers become teacher educators” (p. 517). Because the university
supervisor also works with the student teacher, there are parallel roles to those of the
cooperating teacher.
Bullough et al. (2004) conducted a qualitative study, including interviews of 32
university supervisors, 14 university faculty members, the dean of the school of
education, and two department chairs to understand the role of the university supervisor.
30
Moreover, they sought to understand the relationship between the university supervisor
and the cooperating teacher. They concluded the university supervisor holds the roles of
being a supervisor, a coach, and a model to the student teacher, especially with the
connection to the teacher preparation program (Bullough et al., 2004). However, their
findings suggested the responsibilities of the university supervisor were not always
clearly defined, which led to confusion and tension (Bullough et al., 2004, pp. 512, 515).
At times, the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities has effects on the
university supervisor’s sense of self-efficacy.
The self-efficacy of the university supervisor may also have an impact,
comparable to the effects of the cooperating teacher, on the success of the field
experience. Although university supervisors seemed to enjoy their work with student
teachers, they felt “uncertainty and self-doubt” when their role was not bounded and
clearly defined (Bullough et al., 2004, p. 509). Research by Borko and Mayfield (1995)
found discrepancies in the university supervisors’ satisfaction of the relationship with the
student teacher because the supervisors did not feel their impact on the student teacher
was high (p. 512). When roles are not clearly defined, tension, doubt, and confusion are
caused, which may have a negative effect on the field experience.
Various individuals, including cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and
student teachers are involved in the field experience and its progress, which is why
communication is extremely important. When the roles are not clearly defined, the
tension is amplified if all members of the triad are not informed of changes or
expectations. Moreover, the expectations are better made and communicated at the
beginning of the field experience (Slick, 1997, p. 724). To address issues and to best
31
support the student teacher, the communication needs to be open, clear, and consistent
(Bullough et al., 2004; Snow-Gerono, 2009). Furthermore, all levels of the triad are
encouraged to partake in communication because each has specific responsibilities and
needs during the field experience. Additionally, communication allows for a successful
relationship to grow.
Howey and Zimpher (2010) explained there are four attributes to consider for
successful partnerships: 1) goals are shared, 2) formalized arrangements are created to
commit to support work, 3) mutual benefits are included, and 4) interdependence is
acknowledged among partners (pp. 6-7). Because the university supervisor has such a
transitory role, it is important the above attributes are taken into consideration and
worked toward to build a positive relationship between all members within the triad.
Hall et al. (2008) explained that having a comfortable relationship may not always benefit
the student teacher because it may cause the university supervisor or the cooperating
teacher to withhold feedback that may assist in the growth and development of the
student teacher (p. 343). Not only should a relationship be built, it should be monitored
and changed accordingly, based on the progress of the student teacher.
During the field experience, both the cooperating and student teacher may benefit.
The student teacher is developing teaching practices and the cooperating teacher may also
learn new skills or refine old ones. On the other hand, there may be tension between the
two or the cooperating teacher may lack strategies to best support the development of the
student teacher. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the university supervisor to
oversee the relationship between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher.
According to O’Brian et al. (2007), “They [university supervisors] should be diligent in
32
assessing the relationship, identifying barriers to the relationship, and intervening when
necessary. Additionally, university supervisors should clearly communicate the program
demands” (p. 274). It is important the field experience triad of university supervisor,
cooperating teacher, and student teacher communicate and build a relationship that
provides insight into the teaching profession and how to deal with issues that may arise.
Summary
The literature and research indicates the field experience holds many facets the
cooperating teacher must understand to become an effective guide for student teachers
who will enter the teaching profession. The research suggests support, training, and
development of the cooperating teacher should be provided in the areas of
communication and relationship building. Moreover, the cooperating teacher’s sense of
self-efficacy provides insight into the types of training that should be provided prior to
the field experience. Reflective practices have contributed to the field experience by
providing the cooperating teacher opportunities to examine, reconsider, and explain
pedagogy. However, in order for the field experience to improve and be beneficial to the
student teacher, a partnership between the university and school should be considered.
This research will add to the existing literature because it will suggest whether or not
cooperating teachers understand their role and responsibilities and know how to mentor
during the field experience. Moreover, this research will indicate how a cooperating
teacher’s sense of self-efficacy influences their professional practices. Chapter 3
describes the research methodology, including research design and rationale. The chapter
concludes with a summary of ethical considerations.
33
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the cooperating
teachers and one university teacher education program with the goal to understand how
the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers are
defined and communicated. The study further sought to explore what training and
support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field
experience as well as how the cooperating teachers’ levels of self-efficacy informed
professional practices. The findings of this study may help university preparation
programs and the school district provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the
cooperating teacher during the field experience.
The study addressed three research questions: (a) What is the experience of the
cooperating teacher in regard to the selection, development, and support for his or her
role during the field experience? (b) How are roles and responsibilities defined and
communicated between the university supervisor, the district or school liaison, and the
cooperating teacher? (c) How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform
his or her role and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?
This chapter describes the methodology used for this single-case study. It also
includes information regarding the description of the site and population, the research
design and rationale for the research approach, methods of data collection, and phases of
data collection. The chapter concludes with a summary of ethical considerations.
34
Research Design and Rationale
A qualitative approach was used because it is grounded in the constructivist
viewpoint. Creswell (2007) defined a case study as
a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and artifacts, and reports), and reports a case description and case-based themes. (p. 73)
Using a qualitative research design allowed for holistic analysis in which the researcher
looked for themes and descriptions based upon the whole case (Creswell, 2008; Merriam,
2009). Using a single-case study created a bounded system that allowed the researcher to
extrapolate meanings of experiences based on the data collected within the system.
It was the intention of the researcher to use a qualitative approach so the themes
would emerge from the thick, rich data drawn from multiple sources of information and
collected through interviews, journals, and artifacts. By conducting a single-case study,
the researcher was able to go in-depth and gather rich descriptions from the experiences
of the participants. Qualitative research holds the following three characteristics: (a)
researchers listen to the views of participants of the study, (b) general open questions are
asked and data collection occurs where people live and work, and (c) research has a role
in advocating for change (Creswell, 2008). By using a qualitative approach, the
researcher analyzed and described the case in context, which, in this case, was a
university teacher preparation program.
35
Site and Population
Population Description
A snowball sampling procedure, which is a type of purposeful sampling, was used
to select the sample for the study. Purposeful sampling is a method used for case-study
methodology because the individuals and sites purposefully inform the research based on
their understandings of the research problem (Creswell, 2008). Specifically, criterion
sampling was initially used because the participants were all associated with the same
teacher education program. The criteria for participant selection included:
• All university supervisors are employees of the same California public university
teacher education program.
• All university supervisors work with secondary education cooperating teachers
during the student teaching field experience.
The university supervisors were identified by their positions within the School of
Education. The participants included two university supervisors and 11 cooperating
teachers. The participants spanned three content areas. Each cooperating teacher
reported to a university supervisor, some of whom did not participate in the study.
Moreover, the cooperating teachers were associated with the participating university
teacher preparation program and located at five local school sites within three school
districts where the student teachers were placed during the field experience.
The cooperating teachers comprised approximately 85% of the participants. Five
of eleven (45%) cooperating teachers were females, while 6 of 11 (55%) were males.
Moreover, the participating cooperating teachers were distributed among the three
content areas almost equally. All cooperating teachers indicated having another position,
36
at the time of the study or in the past, in the field of education. The experiences of the
cooperating teachers varied. The average number of years a cooperating teacher taught
was 17, with the greatest being 30 and the least being seven. Four of eleven cooperating
teachers taught grades outside the high school level. There was a wide range, 2-35, of
student teachers with whom a cooperating teacher had worked. Cooperating teachers
worked with student teachers for either a year (9 of 11, 82%), a semester (6 of 11, 55%),
or both (3 of 11, 27%).
Site Description
The university teacher preparation program is part of a School of Education at a
public university in California. The university enrolled approximately 30,500 students in
Spring 2013, and provided 101 undergraduate majors and 90 graduate programs.
However, the School of Education enrolled approximately 429 students, and 321 were
females and 108 were males. The goals of the School include, but are not limited to,
conducting high quality research addressing key educational issues, deep and sustained
engagement in regional public schools, and a focus on practice and improvement.
Although the university’s first teacher-training program was held approximately 100
years ago, the School of Education only became an official School during the 21st
century.
The School awards a Minor in Education, Teacher Credential, Master of Arts,
Doctorate in Education, and a Doctorate in Philosophy. The teacher credential/Master of
Arts program enrolls the largest population of students within the School of Education.
In Fall Quarter 2012, the School of Education included 35 faculty members (full- and
part-time) with 53.3% of full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty engaged in externally
37
funded research projects. However, the Teacher Education Program included 15 full-
time tenured or tenure-track faculty and 272 students. Student teachers at this institution
are placed within a 50-mile radius at five districts that employ the cooperating teachers.
Site Access
There were three levels of access through which the researcher had to go in order
to speak with cooperating teachers. The researcher had to gain access from Drexel
University Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Director of the Teacher Education
Program at the School of Education, and an administrator at the school sites. To gain
access to the School of Education, it was pertinent to speak with the Director of Teacher
Education, a gatekeeper, to discuss the goals of this research study and gain support for
access and participation of university supervisors. When the Director of Teacher
Education had an understanding of the study, he spoke with the university supervisors
regarding their possible participation in this study and assured university supervisors that
this was not an evaluative study. The Director of Teacher Education could not require
the university supervisors to participate in this study; therefore, those who participated
did so voluntarily.
Although the Director of Teacher Education made university supervisors aware of
the study and granted the researcher access to them, it took multiple rounds of
communication from the researcher to university supervisors to get responses. This may
have been due to the fact that summer break was still in session. The researcher initially
had four university supervisors agree to participate. However, one accepted a job at
another university and dropped, while another abruptly decided to withdraw before the
interview. After an interview, a university supervisor expressed interest in the research
38
and decided to remind colleagues to consider participating in the study. This led to an
opportunity for the researcher to contact the university supervisors again. Only one other
university supervisor responded and agreed to participate. Yet, when the interview
needed to be rescheduled, the university supervisor stopped responding to
communication from the researcher.
The university supervisors were also gatekeepers because they provided
information regarding the cooperating teachers. Moreover, the university was linked to
different school districts based on the placement of the student teachers. Although the
university supervisors were open to personally contacting cooperating teachers regarding
this study, the reactions differed regarding their willingness to share information about
them. Therefore, when information regarding cooperating teachers was not directly
provided, the researcher requested the school site names where student teachers would be
placed because gaining access to the cooperating teachers, employees of the school
district, not the university, also needed to be considered.
To gain access to cooperating teachers, the researcher contacted the principal at
each site through phone and/or email. Although multiple messages were left via both
methods of communication, the response rate was low. The researcher later found that
many schools were in the process of changing administrators. Consequently, those in the
interim did not want to provide approval, but instead chose to leave the decision to the
permanent administrator. This postponed the site approval process and contact with the
cooperating teachers. However, once approval was granted, the university supervisors
provided more information regarding the cooperating teachers.
39
The cooperating teachers were contacted through email and/or phone
depending on the information provided by the university supervisor. If contact
information for the cooperating teacher was not provided, the researcher sent an email
through the school web page. However, this did not provide the researcher with the
possible participants’ direct contact information. Instead, it provided a copy of the
communication and left it up to the cooperating teacher to respond. Therefore, a
reminder from the university supervisors, and the balanced persistence of the researcher
that a response whether or not the cooperating teacher would like to participate in the
study, was crucial. Insight from the university supervisor regarding the preferred method
of communication for individual cooperating teachers was also beneficial to the
researcher. It is pertinent the researcher did not overwhelm the cooperating teacher with
communication. Therefore, an organizational tool, similar to Table 1, was created.
Table 1
Organizational Tool for Tracking Possible Participants
School Name Email Content
Area Participate Interview
Date Interview
Time ABC Emilio
YES 11/xx/12 3:30 p.m. 11/08 11/14
EFG DejaRae
NO
11/08 11/14 As the number of possible participants increased through snowball sampling, the
researcher organized communication and confirmation of participation by using a tool
similar to Table 1. It was pertinent to keep the table updated with email and phone
40
numbers to ensure the researcher could contact the possible participants, especially
with the administration changes at various school sites.
Research Methods
Description of Each Method Used
Multiple methods, including semi-structured interviews with participants,
cooperating teacher journals, and artifact reviews, were used to triangulate the data with
the goal to enhance confidence and seek comparable findings.
Interviews of university supervisors and cooperating teachers.
Instrument description. Semi-structured interviews with the university
supervisors were conducted separately from that of the cooperating teachers. Interviews
were conducted one-on-one and face-to-face utilizing open-ended questions, which were
pilot tested and revised accordingly for this research. The interviews with the university
supervisors were held at the university, unless the participant requested a different
location. Audio recordings were taken using two digital recorders. Field notes were also
taken by the researcher throughout the interview. Unless the cooperating teacher
requested a different location, the interviews occurred at the school site of the field
experience. Field notes were taken by the researcher throughout the interviews. The
interviews with the cooperating teachers and university supervisors included 14 questions
and took approximately 60 minutes each (see Appendix A). When an interview was
completed, the audio recording was transcribed verbatim.
Participation selection. The university supervisors were employees of a
California public university School of Education. The placement of student teachers
41
during the field experience was the responsibility of the university supervisors.
Moreover, the content area of focus of the university supervisors differed.
The cooperating teachers were teachers of record at the high school level. They
worked directly with student teachers and were in contact with a university supervisor
within the Teacher Education Program. The school site location of the cooperating
teachers was dependent upon the relationship with the School of Education. The
cooperating teachers taught in varied content areas.
Identification and invitation. University supervisors were identified through the
Director of Teacher Education for the University School of Education. The Director of
Teacher Education initially contacted university supervisors regarding a possible
invitation to participate. Details, such as content area and contact information, regarding
the university supervisor were gathered by the researcher through the university website
and confirmed by the Director of Teacher Education. University supervisors were
contacted and invited via email and phone calls. The researcher provided the university
supervisors the option to meet face-to-face to answer questions regarding the study.
However, the offer was not taken.
The cooperating teachers were identified through the university supervisor
through snowball sampling. The university supervisors made cooperating teachers aware
of the research study and the possible invitation to participate. The researcher provided
the university supervisors a script (see Appendix B) to use when informing cooperating
teachers of this study. School site approval was needed from the principals before the
researcher could contact the cooperating teachers. In the initial email to the Principal
(see Appendix C), the researcher provided general information regarding this study. This
42
researcher contacted cooperating teachers through email and/or phone calls. An initial
email was sent to each identified cooperating teacher (also in Appendix C).
Data collection. The interviews were initially conducted with the university
supervisor, and then the cooperating teachers. All interviews were semi-structured and
face-to-face while being recorded on two audio recording devices. Interviews with the
university supervisors commenced in July 2012. From November 2012 through January
2013, interviews with the cooperating teachers were conducted.
Journals written by the cooperating teachers.
Instrument description. Journals were provided to cooperating teachers after the
interview with the researcher. Short prompts were provided to guide the writing of the
cooperating teacher. However, the cooperating teachers were not required to use the
prompts (see Appendix D). Instead, the cooperating teachers had the option to free write
and reflect upon their experience. The prompts were specific to the research questions of
the study and asked the cooperating teachers to discuss their experiences as a teacher and
a cooperating teacher in more depth.
Participant selection. The cooperating teachers were teachers of record at the
high school level. They worked directly with student teachers and were in contact with a
university supervisor within the Teacher Education Program. The school site location of
the cooperating teachers was dependent upon the relationship of the school with the
School of Education. The cooperating teachers taught in various content areas.
Identification and invitation. Cooperating teachers were the same as those
identified by the university supervisor to be interviewed. When the researcher contacted
43
the cooperating teachers to participate in the study, the journal component was also
described.
Data collection. After the interview, the researcher provided the journal and
prompts to the cooperating teacher. The cooperating teachers were encouraged to utilize
the provided guiding questions, which focused on supports, struggles, and benefits of
being a cooperating teacher. Furthermore, they were asked to write when meetings with
their student teacher occurred or when they felt compelled. Many cooperating teachers
asked they be given the option to journal electronically to which the researcher agreed.
Also, the prompts were provided via email from the researcher. Some chose to send their
journal electronically. For those who had a hard-copy journal, the researcher picked it up
at the school site no sooner than a month after the interview was conducted. One
cooperating teacher who was pregnant submitted the journal via email sooner than a
month after the interview.
Artifacts from the School of Education Teacher Education Program.
Instrument description. The artifacts included the Cooperating Teacher
Handbook, which, according to the university supervisors, was provided to all
cooperating teachers who worked with a student teacher attending the participating
teacher preparation program. However, it was not clear as to whether the Cooperating
Teacher Handbook was provided to the cooperating teacher for each instance they had a
student teacher or if it was provided only one time, regardless of the number of times
they took on the role. An informal survey created by individual university supervisors
and completed by the cooperating teachers; a formal quarterly evaluation completed by
the cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and student teacher; an informal
44
evaluation completed by the student teacher; a pamphlet by the California Department
of Education regarding selection of cooperating teachers for a given content area; a
document, Expectations for the Cooperating School Sites; and the Teacher Profession
Expectations document were gathered. The documents provided insight to the paperwork
provided to cooperating teachers.
Data collection. The artifacts were collected by the researcher from the
university supervisors via email. Moreover, the pamphlet was received by the researcher
from the California Department of Education.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data went through multiple iterations of analysis, including journal writing by
the researcher and open coding, which included the use of a software package.
Bloomberg and Volpe (2008) explained, “Analysis is ultimately about capturing the
meaning or essence of the phenomenon and expressing it so that it fits into a larger
picture” (p. 134). The interviews were transcribed and peer reviewed for verification.
The researcher employed the data analysis spiral, which “engages in the process
of moving in analytic circles rather than using a fixed linear approach” (Creswell, 2007,
p. 150). The interviews, journals, and artifacts were read so the researcher understood the
interconnection of the data. Moreover, the data were uploaded to the online research
analysis program, Dedoose. Dedoose is an online software tool that allows data to be
uploaded and analyzed using open coding. The program was developed by Thomas
Weisner, Ph.D., and Eli Lieber, Ph.D., who are both faculty from the University of
California, Los Angeles.
45
During the first read-through of transcriptions, the researcher took notes of
phrases, ideas, and general patterns. Consequently, codes were created in situ from the
raw data and noted in the researcher’s journal. Moreover, the frequency of codes was
tracked using the participants’ assigned number and/or the artifact name. Using Dedoose,
the next read-through led to codes being added and organized into a hierarchy based on
the analysis. During a third read-through, in vivo codes, which are “names that are the
exact words used by participants,” were identified and used in addition to or in place of
current codes (Creswell, 2007, p. 153).
In addition to highlights and code assignments, the researcher used charts to
display data according to codes, descriptors, and/or frequency. Moreover, the web-based
tool was used to pull excerpts related to single, then multiple codes. For example, the
researcher looked at codes that appeared most often using the Code Co-Occurrence chart.
After, the chart was used to identify the frequency that two codes were encompassed
within the same excerpt. The researcher reviewed excerpts based on the co-occurrence
chart and wrote notes within the margins.
When an excerpt fell within multiple questions, discussions occurred and
connections were noted. Furthermore, it was important to note uncommon responses,
which also helped provide a holistic picture because qualitative research utilizes the
words and experiences of participants. This led the researcher to group codes based on
similarities, and categories were created. According to Merriam (2009), “Categories
should be responsive to the purpose of the research” (p. 185). Before writing the
findings, the researcher, once again, cross-referenced the codes with each piece of data.
46
The findings are based on the data from this research and organized using templates
similar to those provided by Bloomberg and Volpe (2008).
Stages of Data Collection
As part of the preparation for the proposal hearing, the researcher contacted the
Director of the Teacher Education Program to determine whether or not there was interest
in participating in the study if it were approved. Moreover, the Institute Review Board
(IRB) of the University of the Teacher Education Program was contacted to determine
what approval was needed. The researcher also participated in a webinar regarding the
IRB process for Drexel University. Once the proposal of the research was approved by
the committee of the researcher, approval from the Drexel University IRB was
completed.
Although the cooperating teachers are the focus of the study, phase one of data
collection began at the School of Education with interviews of the university supervisors.
Initially, the Director of the Teacher Education Program made the university supervisors
aware of the possible contact from the researcher. Then, the potential participants were
contacted through email and phone calls. The interviews were the main method of data
collection. The interviews with university supervisors were conducted prior to meeting
the cooperating teachers and lasted approximately 60 minutes each.
The interviews with the university supervisors provided context regarding
background information of the teacher preparation program and the university-school
partnership. Moreover, it provided insight regarding the perceptions the university
supervisors held regarding their role and how it was communicated to the cooperating
teacher. The questions, shown in Appendix A, were created based on the interview
47
questions for the cooperating teacher. The questions are similar to those asked of the
cooperating teacher, but focused on the perspective of the university supervisor.
The second phase of data collection focused on the cooperating teachers. The
potential participants were contacted through email and phone calls. Cooperating
teachers were interviewed regarding their selection, development, and role, and their
relationship with the university supervisor. Moreover, questions were asked with respect
to their sense of self-efficacy and how it has informed the role of being a cooperating
teacher and their teaching practices. Previously, interview questions relating to the topic
of this research were created and used for a qualitative research project required of the
researcher. The questions were used during interviews and revised based on whether the
responses provided answered any of the research questions. The revised interview
protocol for cooperating teachers is shown in Appendix A.
Journals were provided for the cooperating teacher to reflect upon their
experiences while working with the student teacher. Short prompts regarding topics,
such as the benefits, challenges, and support provided, were included to help the
cooperating teacher focus entries. The proposed timeline for data collection, analysis,
and reporting are included in Table 2.
48
Table 2
Timeline for Data Analysis and Reporting
Date Data Collection
June 2012: Proposal hearing
July 2012: Drexel University IRB Approval
July 2012: University supervisors contacted through email and phone calls
July - August 2012: University supervisors interviewed
August 2012: School of Education teacher preparation program document collection
August 2012: School site and cooperating teacher information gathered
August 2012: Administrators at identified schools sites contacted to gain access to cooperating teachers
September - December 2012:
Cooperating teachers contacted through email and phone calls
November 2012 - January 2013:
Cooperating teachers provided with journals, including prompts
November 2012 - January 2013:
Interview cooperating teachers and collect journals
February - April 2013:
Data analysis
April - May 2013: Chapters 4 and 5 drafted
May 2013: Dissertation revised
June 2013: Dissertation defense
Ethical Considerations
IRB approval was needed for the study because there were interactions with
individuals. To ensure an ethical approach was used throughout the research, the
research investigator clearly explained:
49
• the purpose of the study,
• the methods and processes used to collect and analyze data,
• how the findings and results would be used,
• any anticipated impacts of the study on the subjects’ own professional careers or
the future success of their organization, and
• that participants could cease their participation in the study at any time.
The information-gathering interviews and journals focused on the experiences of
cooperating teachers. Because cooperating teachers discussed the support and resources
provided from the university, privacy and confidentiality were pertinent. Pseudonyms
were used for identifiers. In addition, the university supervisors at the Teacher Education
Program at the School of Education were interviewed. As a result, confidentiality and
privacy were pertinent because a lack of it could affect the individual’s position within
the institution. When storing information into the computer, passwords provided security
and safeguarded data. Furthermore, pseudonyms were assigned to protect the identities
of participants. The research followed the three basic principles outlined in the Belmont
report: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
The aggregate findings of the institution included in the case study may be
published and will be available to the Director of the Teacher Education Program,
university supervisors, and cooperating teachers. It is pertinent to keep the names and
identities of participants confidential even from the Director of the Teacher Education
Program. The report must be based solely on the data gathered.
50
Chapter 4: Findings, Results, and Interpretations
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the cooperating
teachers and one university teacher education program with the goal to understand how
the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers are
defined and communicated. The study further sought to explore what training and
support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field
experience as well as how the cooperating teacher’s level of self-efficacy informed
professional practices. The researcher believes a better understanding of these
relationships may inform university teacher preparation programs and help the school
districts by providing guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher during the field
experience.
A single-case study approach was used and in-depth interviews were conducted,
while journals and artifacts were collected from participants. The data were initially
analyzed using in situ and in vivo coding, and then analyzed further using Dedoose, a
web-based analysis tool. Finally, in-depth cross referencing led to the grouping of codes
into categories. The study was conducted to address the following three research
questions:
• What is the experience of the cooperating teacher in regard to the selection,
development, and support for his or her role during the field experience?
• How are the roles and responsibilities defined and communicated between the
university supervisor and the cooperating teacher?
51
• How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform his or her role
and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?
This chapter discusses the findings, results, and interpretations that emerged from
the analysis of the data. The findings are presented as “thick, rich descriptions” drawing
from the voices and experiences of the participants who may “be representative of a
group of people who share the same sentiment” (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008, p. 110).
Data that do not support previous research are also reported to provide new insights. The
results include a discussion of patterns and trends related to the literature reviewed in
Chapter 2. Through a systematic and thoughtful process, the interpretations elaborate on
the findings and results.
Findings
The key findings were revealed through coding and analysis of (a) 13 semi-
structured interviews with 11 cooperating teachers and two university supervisors, (b)
journals of cooperating teachers, and (c) artifacts from the university Teacher Education
Program. The pseudonym and position of participants are provided in Table 3.
52
Table 3
Participant Pseudonyms and Positions
Pseudonym Position Raul Cooperating Teacher Anese Cooperating Teacher Elias Cooperating Teacher Amalia Cooperating Teacher Kyree Cooperating Teacher Xavier Cooperating Teacher Billijean Cooperating Teacher Emilio Cooperating Teacher Victor Cooperating Teacher Kelci Cooperating Teacher Myrna Cooperating Teacher Gena University Supervisor Stephanie University Supervisor
The 11 cooperating teachers were spread amongst five school sites within three
school districts. Raul has taught for 30 years and has worked with approximately 35
student teachers, which is approximately 25 more than the next highest amount in this
study. Raul worked at the middle school and graduate school level, specifically in
teacher education. Often, he is invited to be a speaker at workshops across California
regarding his specific content area. Anese has taught for 20 years and has also taught at
the middle school level. At her current school, there are approximately 1,200 students.
Elias has also taught 30 years: 17 at the middle school level and 13 at the high school
level. The school where he currently teaches has approximately 2,900 students, of whom
approximately 61% take an Advanced Placement course. Amalia has taught within two
content areas for seven years at the same high school, which opened less than ten years
prior to this research. She worked with two student teachers. Kyree has taught for 15
53
years and also worked at the district level. He currently teaches at a school that offers
21 Advanced Placement courses. Xavier has taught seven years and worked with two
student teachers. He teaches at a school where 53% of the students receive free or
reduced lunch and offers 13 Advanced Placement courses. Billiejean has taught for ten
years and has worked with seven student teachers. She currently works at a school where
52% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Emilio has taught for 27 years and
worked with nine student teachers. However, he now helps oversee all student teachers
within his content area, regardless of which institution they come. Similar to Amalia,
Victor has taught two content areas for 14 years and worked with four student teachers.
Currently, he works at a school that serves approximately 1,800 students and includes
Career Technical Education Programs and Advanced Placement courses. Kelci has
taught for 17 years and worked with four student teachers. She works at a school with
approximately 1,600 students with approximately 3.7% enrolled in Advanced Placement
courses. Myrna has taught for 11 years and has worked with eight student teachers. She
taught at a school with approximately 1,800 students, of whom approximately 69% are
eligible for free or reduced lunch.
Themes and Findings of the Study
Three major findings emerged from this study: (a) processes and perceptions gap,
(b) areas with communication needs, and (c) opportunities for professional enrichment.
These are illustrated in Table 4.
54
Table 4
Themes and Findings of this Study
Processes and Perceptions Gap
Areas With Communication Needs
Opportunities for Professional Enrichment
• Selection to be a
Cooperating Teacher
• Training to Become a Cooperating Teacher
• Defining Roles and
Responsibilities
• Conducting Observations and Providing Feedback
• Building Relationships • Supporting the
Cooperating Teacher
• Reciprocal Learning
• Giving Back to the
Teaching Profession
Processes and perceptions gap. The participants expressed that the criteria and
processes for selection and training to become a cooperating teacher was informal and
minimal, if existing at all. From the beginning of the field experience, there was a gap
between the cooperating teacher’s perceptions of how one is selected to work with the
student teacher during the field experience and the actual process identified by university
supervisors. Furthermore, data suggest cooperating teachers relied on their own previous
and/or current experiences to guide them through the field experience.
Selection to be a cooperating teacher. During the field experience, the
cooperating teacher provided the student teacher insight regarding the teaching profession
(Hall et al., 2008). Because the field experience occurs in the classroom setting, it is
pertinent to understand how a cooperating teacher is selected. Based on the responses, as
shown in Table 5, it appears the methods of selection used in the five school settings
were inconsistent.
Table 5
Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Selection
Selection Criteria No Selection Criteria
Name
Det
erm
ined
by
Cal
iforn
ia
Dep
artm
ent o
f Ed
ucat
ion
Aca
dem
ic
know
ledg
e
Atte
nd
wor
ksho
p
Tenu
re
Sche
dule
per
mits
Adm
inis
trato
r ap
prov
al n
eede
d
Stru
ctur
e th
roug
h
crite
ria t
otal
Take
who
ever
is
giv
en
Hap
haza
rd
Adm
inis
trato
r ap
prov
al n
ot
need
ed
Pers
onal
co
nnec
tions
No
sele
ctio
n cr
iteria
1 Raul 2 Anese X X X X X 3 Elias X X 4 Amalia X X X X X 5 Kyree X X 6 Xavier X X 7 Billiejean X X X 8 Emilio X X X X 9 Victor X X 10 Kelci 11 Myrna X X X X 12 Gena X X X X 13 Stephanie X X X Artifacts X X X Cooperating Teacher Total (n = 11) 0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
1 (9%)
2 (18%)
2 (18%)
5 (46%)
2 (18%)
2 (18%)
2 (18%)
4 (36%)
8 (73%)
TOTAL (n = 13) 1 (8%) 1
(8%) 1
(8%) 2
(15%) 2
(15%) 4
(31%) 7
(54%) 2
(15%) 2
(15%) 2
(15%) 5
(38%) 9
(69%)
55
56
Forty-six percent (46%) of the cooperating teachers interviewed indicated they
were aware of a formal criterion for selection, as Anese expressed, “Administration
would still have to approve the placement of the student teacher there.” Based upon the
varied responses of the cooperating teachers regarding how they came to work with a
student teacher, the selection process was neither explicitly communicated nor clearly
understood between all entities, including school site administrators, such as principals.
In two unique instances, teachers took specific steps, although not required by the
Teacher Education Program, to be selected as cooperating teachers. One of the eleven
teachers completed a workshop while another noted, “I also went through an informal
application process with my administration once” (Myrna).
The university supervisors identified processes for cooperating teacher selection,
such as noting the guidelines set by the California Department of Education. They
expressed similar criteria:
I mean, we have a general set of expectations that the cooperating teachers, um, for the whole program, I would say, um, have obviously expertise in their field, academically and in content area. But they have, um, a good, uh history of, um (pause) not just respect, but that, that their colleagues at their site. (Gena) Previous connections with the university supervisor were identified as how one
became a cooperating teacher. Gena described, “And I do have, um, a number of resident
teachers now, who have been my students before, which is super because they know the
program and, um, usually it’s worked out well.”
Stephanie described her selection process based on the needs of the student
teacher, stating:
57
I try to figure out, okay, where is their [student teacher] weakest point, and what school can help develop that weakest point. And so, when they come out, they actually have this very, they’re more well-rounded. (pause) And, um, I also try to match personalities. I try to meet (pause), you know, I meet with the student teachers and I don’t just randomly hodge-podge it.
Within the study, only two cooperating teachers responsible for placement of
student teachers within their content area at their school site explained that the master
schedule creates parameters for teacher selection. For example, Xavier stated,
“Scheduling and subject, yeah. And they have to be, and they can only be here in the
mornings. They have to be gone by fourth period.” Consequently, the selection of the
cooperating teacher may be dependent upon the classes available during the times the
student teacher is at the school site. Xavier further explained, “We don’t have enough
teachers to really pick and choose much anymore…you’re just stuck.” However, these
restrictions may not be communicated to the other teachers at the school site, regardless
of whether or not they were chosen to work with the student teacher.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of participants suggested the process to be selected to be
a cooperating teacher was not based on formal criteria. Furthermore, 73% of cooperating
teachers indicated there was no rationale for being selected to “take those people [student
teachers] by the hand and be willing to walk them through the steps.” Elias explained,
“So I do whatever my boss says. So, that was the process.” Most frequently, the way
one was put in their position was identified as being a previous connection between the
university supervisor and the cooperating teacher. Furthermore, 36% of the cooperating
teachers expressed the selection as “haphazard” and they “just take who they send me”
(Billiejean).
58
The cooperating teachers may not know the intricacies the university supervisor
takes to determine placement of student teachers and may not be provided the
documentation explicitly stating the process of selection. Consequently, it may be left up
to the cooperating teacher to come up with their own explanation of how they came to
their position. A cooperating teacher, although uncertain, cited the following as criteria
for the selection:
Um, I guess we had to teach more than two year. We had to be tenured…the school is a little bit stable…and I think that we have to have a, a strong academic and support system that Stephanie feels comfortable with for the student teacher…and maybe proximity. (Amalia)
Training to become a cooperating teacher. One hundred percent (100%) of the
cooperating teachers expressed that their training, if any was provided, was informal.
They noted it included talking with other cooperating teachers and sharing their
experiences about teaching. Table 6 includes responses from participants regarding the
training they received prior to having a student teacher for the field experience.
59
Table 6
Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Training
Formal Informal
No Training
Name
Dinner/ Reception Workshop
Talking with other
cooperating teachers
Just being a teacher None
1 Raul X X 2 Anese X 3 Elias X X 4 Amalia X X 5 Kyree X 6 Xavier X 7 Billiejean X X 8 Emilio X 9 Victor X 10 Kelci X 11 Myrna X X 12 Gena X 13 Stephanie Artifacts Cooperating Teacher Total (n = 11) 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 6 (55%) 6 (55%) TOTAL (n = 13) 3 (23%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 6 (46%) 6 (46%)
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the cooperating teachers interviewed explicitly
answered, “none” when asked what trainings they received prior to having a student
teacher. The sentiments of those who mentioned they did not receive any training were
expressed by Emilio, who succinctly responded, “None. (pause) That would be fair.
None.” Similarly, Elias commented, “Like I said, none. (laughs) Other than my own
experience, that’s what I work from.” During interviews, the university supervisor was
rarely mentioned when discussing the development or training of the cooperating teacher.
60
Based on the responses from the cooperating teachers, there was evidence
suggesting a limited amount of training and development of the cooperating teacher due
to constraints in the budget of the university teacher education program. Twenty-three
percent (23%) of the participants mentioned a formal dinner/gathering as training and
cited budget cuts as a reason these development gatherings no longer occurred prior to
working with the student teacher. Myrna, a cooperating teacher, shared the following:
For the first few years when I was a mentor teacher, Pleasant University held a reception for mentor teachers and student teachers, in which the university supervisors outlined our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the student teacher. This reception was eliminated because of budget cuts.
The budget cuts were confirmed by a university supervisor who stated:
Um, and recently because of budget cuts, um, we’ve had to cut out a few of the activities that we used to do where we brought everyone together that, I thought were really successful. Um, so now, I’m sort of relying on, uh, people either having been resident [cooperating] teachers for a long period of time and a kind of remembering, you know, all of the expectations we have set up earlier. (Gena)
The 55% of cooperating teachers who stated they had no training or development
for their role prior to working with a student teacher moved the conversation to drawing
from their own experiences. Speaking to his training experiences, Xavier noted, “Uh,
just experience, just as a teacher. I’ve never, wasn’t ever put into any formal training,”
and Billiejean commented, “I guess just teaching for the three or four years that I taught
and then my own personal experience.” One cooperating teacher suggested, “there’s a
presumption (pause) that if you’ve had a student teacher before, just do the same thing”
(Kyree). It was also suggested a cooperating teacher knows what a student teacher needs
based on their own field experience, as described by Kelci who recalled:
61
And, what I felt like I needed, and I had a good experience, so I learned from that. And um, (pause) you know, I’m a teacher. So, part of it is figuring out what the person needs to learn what they’re doing.
Moreover, Anese shared her thought process regarding how to best help the
student teacher during the field experience, stating, “Most of the rest of it I’ve done
because (pause) it’s what I feel I would want if I was a student teacher. I’ve just kind of
taken it upon myself.”
Areas with communication needs. Multiple methods of communication,
including written, verbal, and in-person contact, are utilized throughout the field
experience. During the field experience, participants identified the need for
communication between the cooperating teacher, the university supervisor, and the
student teacher, when discussing roles and responsibilities, such as conducting
observations and providing feedback, relationship building, and support for the
cooperating teachers.
Defining roles and responsibilities. One hundred percent (100%) of the roles and
responsibilities of the cooperating teacher or university supervisor discussed by the
participants were communicated in writing. Written communications included the
Cooperating Teacher Handbook or emails, while face-to-face interactions and phone
conversations occurred at a lower rate, as shown in Table 7.
62
Table 7
Data Summary Table: Methods of Communication of Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors
Note. C.T. = cooperating teacher
Of all the roles and responsibilities mentioned by participants and provided
through written communication, 71% were described in the Cooperating Teacher
Handbook. According to Kelci, “Um, I got a (pause) written description of exactly what
the roles of the, of the university supervisor and what the expectations were on me as a
supervising teacher.” However, the detail and use of written information varied, as
described by a university supervisor:
I know a lot of people put pretty elaborate handbooks together and things. And, I always felt when I was teaching that (pause) it was overwhelming and it was something I put on the shelf and just look at, you know, when I wanted to or needed to. But, um, so, what I’ve done is, um (pause) just make it simple (chuckle) and have, you know, um, and overview letter. (Gena)
Although the roles and responsibilities were provided in written form, a reliance on one’s
experience occurred when there was no follow-up with another method, as explained by a
cooperating teacher:
But, you know, I think that, you know, that is (pause) a, nobody ever said to me, this is really what we’d like you to do. This is, this is what would work the best
Prov
ide
feed
back
/ C
onst
ruct
ive
advi
ce
Obs
erve
Rev
iew
less
on
plan
s
Bui
ld
rela
tions
hips
, B
e a
liais
on
Prov
ide
supp
orts
and
re
sour
ces
Prob
lem
solv
e an
d ce
lebr
ate
Be
a co
ach
Included in the C.T. Handbook X X X X X
Written (not C.T. Handbook) X X X X X X X Phone conversations X X X X X Face-to-face X X X X
63
for us with you working with the student teacher…And so, I’ve just gone with what I think is the, is the best. (Anese)
Table 8 shows the responses of the participants regarding roles and responsibilities and
who oversees them.
Table 8
Data Summary Table: Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors
Prov
ide
feed
back
/ C
onst
ruct
ive
advi
ce
Obs
erve
Rev
iew
less
on
plan
s
Bui
ld
rela
tions
hips
, Be
a lia
ison
Prov
ide
supp
orts
an
d re
sour
ces
Prob
lem
solv
e an
d ce
lebr
ate
Be
a co
ach
Name C.T
.
U.S
.
C.T
.
U.S
.
C.T
.
U.S
.
C.T
.
U.S
.
C.T
.
U.S
.
C.T
.
U.S
. C
.T.
U.S
.
1 Raul X
2 Anese X X X X X X X X 3 Elias 4 Amalia X X X 5 Kyree X X X 6 Xavier X X X X 7 Billiejean X X X 8 Emilio X X X X X 9 Victor X X 10 Kelci X X X 11 Myrna X X X 12 Gena X X X X X 13 Stephanie X X X
TOTAL (per title of participants )
6 (4
6%)
8 (6
2%)
5 (3
8%)
6 (4
6%)
2 (1
5%)
2 (1
5%)
0 (0
%)
4 (3
1%)
0 (0
%)
4 (3
1%)
0 (0
%)
3 (2
3%)
1 (8
%)
1 (8
%)
Cooperating Teacher and/or University Supervisor TOTAL (n = 13)
10 (77%)
6 (46%)
3 (23%)
4 (31%)
4 (31%)
3 (23%)
2 (15%)
Note. C.T. = cooperating teacher; U.S. = university supervisor
64
Fifty seven percent (57%) of the roles and responsibilities identified by
participants were overseen by both the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor
and included the following: providing feedback/constructive advice, observing the
student teacher, reviewing lesson plans, and being a coach. One hundred percent (100%)
of the shared roles and responsibilities were included in the Cooperating Teacher
Handbook, while 75% of those roles were also communicated through all three forms of
communication: written, phone conversations, and face-to-face. Common roles and
responsibilities were associated more frequently as a duty of the university supervisor,
with the exception of reviewing lesson plans, which was equal. On the other hand,
building relationships, providing supports and resources, and solving problems were
defined as a responsibility solely of the university supervisor.
Conducting observations and providing feedback. A closer look into the roles
and responsibilities yields 85% of participants indicated that conducting observations
and/or providing feedback are roles of either the cooperating teacher or the university
supervisor, or both. The positive values of these components are reiterated in a pamphlet
provided by the California Department of Education, which states, “The master
[cooperating] teacher is expected to possess and demonstrate the ability to provide formal
observations and feedback to student teachers.” Moreover, observations and feedback
are explicitly stated multiple times in the Cooperating Teacher Handbook as a duty of
both entities, as cited:
Throughout the student teaching year, your University supervisor(s) will make regularly scheduled visits to your classroom to provide feedback, meet with the resident teacher(s), and offer suggestions and helpful hints…During these visits I will watch the entire class period taking notes to share with the student teacher
65
about how the class goes. This is a coaching function not an evaluation and is intended to offer the student teacher ideas on teaching. (pp. 9, 14)
Because observations were slated to occur frequently, a binder was used as a
written form of communication between all entities, as the Cooperating Teacher
Handbook described, “Written notes or feedback forms can be very helpful in allowing
student teacher to reflect on the observation. These notes should be kept in the notebook
along with daily lesson plans” (pp. 6, 11, depending on content area). The importance of
dialogue and the process of providing feedback was discussed by the Cooperating
Teacher Handbook, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers. An emphasis on
the pertinence of communication during the field experience was included in the
Cooperating Teacher Handbook:
It is important during all phases of the student teaching experience to maintain open communication…The basis for constructive feedback and evaluation is open communication. It is important to share concerns and praises throughout the quarter to ensure this open communication. (p. 8)
Participants shared the same sentiments regarding connections between communication,
observations, feedback, and relationships as Victor who declared:
I think a lot of times we’re worried about people’s feelings and not about addressing, not that they’re not doing a good job, ‘cause they’re doing a good job, but everyone could use improvement. And the only way you get there is by constructive criticism or, you know, pointing things out. And I think there needs to be an open air between the student teacher and the university professor and the cooperating teacher about those things. And if there’s a, a feeling of trust there, then you can have those conversations. Building relationships. The field experience incorporates multiple individuals,
such as the student teacher and cooperating teacher, and institutions, including the
university and the school site. 31% of participants cited only the university supervisor
when it came to building relationships during the field experience. Speaking to the
66
connections created between individuals, Amalia noted, “The university supervisor is
kind of like a liaison, I think, between, um, the tenured or veteran teacher and the student
teacher,” and Victor commented, “Um, they are the bridge between the university and the
profession in terms of trying to convey, both ways, the expectations of the university to
the school and the, and the school to the university.”
The university supervisors also implicitly validated the cooperating teacher and
the student teacher by valuing their thoughts through surveys and evaluations. The
Resident Teacher Survey, a tool that used a Likert-type scale to gain input from the
cooperating teacher regarding the university supervisor and the Teacher Education
Program, stated, “Your role in our teacher preparation program is a critical one, and your
perspective on the degree of preparation and support for student teachers can help guide
critical changes as we continue to make adjustments” (p. 1). On the other hand, the
student teacher completed an Evaluation of Supervision/Student Teaching Placement,
which also used a Likert-type scale, tied to the cooperating teacher and the university
supervisor, and included statements such as “My cooperating teacher encourages me to
develop my style,” and “My university supervisor provides me with valuable critiques
and suggestions about my classroom teaching” (p. 1).
Supporting the cooperating teacher. When asked about what supports, if any,
and who provided them to ensure the student teachers were adequately prepared for the
teaching profession, the university supervisor was consistently identified as the source, as
shown in Table 9.
67
Table 9
Data Summary Table: Supporting the Cooperating Teacher
Name
Cooperating teacher is aware that
university supervisor provides
support
Cooperating teacher would contact university supervisor if issues with the student teacher arise
University supervisor is available by phone, email, and in-person
1 Raul X X 2 Anese X 3 Elias X X 4 Amalia X X X 5 Kyree X 6 Xavier X X X 7 Billiejean X 8 Emilio X
X
9 Victor X X X 10 Kelci X X X 11 Myrna X X X 12 Gena X 13 Stephanie X X X Artifacts X Cooperating Teacher Total ( n = 11) 8 (73%) 6 (55%) 11 (100%) TOTAL (n = 13) 9 (69%) 7 (54%) 13 (100%) Note. The difference between the two columns is awareness and action.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of the cooperating teachers indicated the university
supervisor would have their “back” and be a source of support. Raul illustrated the
connections in support, stating, “And she [Stephanie] provides the strategies and support
systems, all of those kinds of things.” One hundred percent (100%) of the participants
and the Cooperating Teacher Handbook noted the university supervisor is available via
phone, email, and occasionally, in-person. According to Myrna, “The student teacher
supervisors at Pleasant University have always made themselves available if we had
68
questions about the student teachers or we wanted to discuss some concerns we had
about the student teacher,” and Victor reiterated the idea stating, “Um, the university
representative is around all the time. And I know that with a phone call, anything that I
needed will be taken care of. That’s not a concern.”
Although 73% of cooperating teachers cited they were aware the university
supervisor provided support, 55% explained that when contact occurred, it was in relation
to problems or concerns about the student teacher. Xavier, a cooperating teacher stated,
“Uh, I guess that’s say, the communication and support, you know, provided by the
university to um, you know, (pause) to back you on anything you need with your student
teacher.” Similarly, Stephanie, a university supervisor articulated, “Um, if the
cooperating teacher (pause), uh, is having problems, if they are having problems with the
student teacher, then the support comes in (pause)…We want to keep that relationship
with the teacher and the cooperating teacher.”
Opportunities for professional enrichment. Although the field experience was
focused on the development of the student teacher, the professional practices of the
cooperating teacher were also informed and enhanced. Table 10 illustrates how partaking
in the field experience provided professional enrichment opportunities.
69
Table 10
Data Summary Table: Reasons to Be a Cooperating Teacher
Reciprocal learning
Giving back to the profession
Name
Keeps Fresh/ Current in the
Teaching Profession
Cooperating Teacher
Engages in Reflective Practice
Student Teacher
Engages in Reflective Practice
Helps build confidence
Enjoys Teaching/ Shows fun
1 Raul X 2 Anese X X X 3 Elias X X X 4 Amalia X X 5 Kyree X X X X 6 Xavier X X 7 Billiejean X X X 8 Emilio X X X 9 Victor X X X 10 Kelci 11 Myrna X X X X 12 Gena X 13 Stephanie X X Cooperating Teacher TOTAL (n = 11) 8 (73%) 6 (55%) 3 (27%) 6 (55%) 5 (45%) TOTAL (n = 13) 9 (70%) 7 (54%) 3 (23%) 6 (46%) 6 (46%)
Reciprocal learning. Seventy percent (70%) of participants suggested the field
experience led to opportunities for reciprocal learning by keeping current, along with
engaging in reflective practices. The Cooperating Teacher Handbook stated, “Student
teaching is a learning process” (p. 13). However, 73% of cooperating teachers suggested
working with student teachers kept them “fresh” in the profession through new ideas and
reminders of good teaching. Consequently, their participation allowed the cooperating
teacher to grow in the process too. Speaking to his learning and growth, Victor noted:
70
It keeps you current. It keeps you, it, it allows you to have someone in your class watching what’s going on and asking questions about why thing happen...So, from that perspective, having another set of eyes in the classroom and a fresh set of eyes, enthusiastic set of eyes, it keep you (pause) fresh, as long as you’re not intimidated by new ideas.
Seventy percent (70%) of participants explained that when questions were being
asked, either by the student teacher or the cooperating teacher, the opportunity for
dialogue was created, which may have led to reflective practices, and ultimately,
reciprocal learning. Having the student teacher in the classroom brought another set of
eyes, questions regarding teaching strategies, and decisions that affect the students. Elias
expanded on this idea, stating, “And it also helps to see somebody who’s doing
something differently than I would do them…And then we can both think about how that
might have gone better.” Billiejean wrote:
They definitely help keep me fresh and reflective in my practice as we discuss them. Some of my student teachers have been very creative and innovative and have given me new ideas to use in my own classroom. I listen to them as they discuss what they are doing in the university classes with respect to lesson construction and accommodations for English Language Learners, which also helps keep those things at the forefront of my mind.
Not only were student teachers able to reflect on their practices, along with those
of the cooperating teacher, through dialogue, it was encouraged through written
communication. The importance of instilling reflective practices within the student
teacher was illustrated in The Evaluation of Supervision/Student Teaching Placement,
which stated, “My university supervisor guides me to be reflective about teaching” (p. 1).
This was further suggested in the Cooperating Teacher Handbook, which explained,
“Written notes or feedback forms can be very helpful in allowing the student teacher to
reflect on the observations” (p. 6 or 11, dependent upon content area).
71
Participants associated reflective practices to a willingness to learn. Amalia
expressed, “And if I’m not willing to accept their ideas then, I mean, I can’t allow them
to grow and I don’t grow as a professional.” The need for participation from both entities
was expressed by Elias who stated:
I think it’s uh, both a reflected, a reflective, um, student teacher and a reflective master teacher, and an open dialogue between the two of them about what’s going on in the classroom. And the, and the student teacher’s willingness to take criticism and act upon the criticism (pause), and the master teacher’s willingness to see things occurring in their classroom and (pause) and, uh, allowing things to go, let go a little bit.
Giving back to the teaching profession. Seventy-three percent (73%) of the
cooperating teachers expressed that working with a student teacher during the field
experience provided an opportunity to give back to the profession. In addition to
providing feedback after conducting observations, the participants noted that sharing their
enjoyment of the teaching profession and helping build confidence within the student
teacher allowed them to enhance the field.
When participants spoke about the teaching professions, negative aspects were
occasionally discussed. However, 45% of cooperating teachers recognized they enjoyed
their profession and wanted to show others the “fun” in teaching. One cooperating
teacher explained that, although new to the profession, the student teacher may need to be
reminded of the positives in the profession and exclaimed:
And it was very, you know, so it was a positive on the whole and that was my job. My role was to make sure that even the negative (pause), where they’re never fun, but even the negative activity could be a positive learning experience. (Emilio)
Similarly, the university supervisors saw the effects the energy and ideas brought into the
classroom by the student teacher had on the cooperating teacher, as Stephanie explained:
72
I think the most, the thing they gain is (pause), um, a new enthusiasm for teaching. (pause) When you have young people coming into the classroom, they’re very enthusiastic and (pause), and unfortunately, educators get very jaded, and (pause) they get jaded (pause) because there are many things, there are many obstacles put in the way (pause) of, of doing a great job with students.
Even though the adversity was faced day-to-day, the cooperating teacher exuded
confidence.
When cooperating teachers spoke about the cultivation of their confidence in
teaching practices, they gave credit to those who helped them along the way. Raul
expressed his gratitude to others by saying, “I’m confident because people have spent
time with me now and in, in my early years (pause) to encourage me to become the
teacher I’m currently. And it’s all about other people, it’s not about me.” Anese echoed
the appreciation, and explained, “I didn’t get to where I am on my own, you know. I’ve
had teachers that have lifted me up and helped me and guided me and shared things with
me and let me visit their classroom.”
Not only did cooperating teachers want to share their passion for teaching, they
also hoped to give back to the profession by sharing their confidence. Fifty-five percent
(55%) of cooperating teachers expressed their hope that the confidence student teachers
gained during the field experience led to success. Kyree and Billiejean described their
experiences:
And so, (pause) um, getting a positive experience out of teaching is the best thing that a, uh, supporting teacher could do. (pause) And to the extent that I do that, (pause) I hope I am able to communicate that confidence. Cause you do have to have confidence in what you’re doing for it to be fun to do. (Kyree) This year, with its challenges aside, I find being a cooperating teacher to be very fulfilling because I know that I am a very good teacher who enjoys her job, most days, and I like sharing that with someone. I like teaching them how to be a good teacher. It’s also nice to work with someone. (Billiejean)
73
The university supervisor also recognized certain qualities, including positive self-
efficacy, in those who work with student teachers and hope to share it with the student
teachers. Gena explained the connection between confidence, self-efficacy, and the field
experience:
I think, um, (pause) so, you know, I think that self-efficacy is, is a good way to describe those who are, are typically, um, recommended as, as being effective, or, you know, likely to be effective for the student teacher as well as, um (pause), well, just generally, that, that they would be pretty confident in their ability or in their, their success.
Although the field experience was a time for the student teacher to gain first-hand
experience in the classroom, learning was not a one-way path.
The major findings from this study: (a) processes and perceptions gap, (b) areas
with communication needs, and (c) opportunities for professional, arose from the voices
of the participants. The processes and perceptions gap included the selection and training
to become a cooperating teacher. The evidence presented by the participants showed
there are areas with communication needs, including defining roles and responsibilities,
conducting observations and providing feedback, building relationships, and supporting
the cooperating teacher. Moreover, participants explained that the field experience
provides opportunities for professional enrichment through reciprocal learning and giving
back to the teaching profession. The findings of this study serve as the evidentiary base
for the results and interpretations, which follow in the next section.
Results and Interpretations
The results of this study emerged from the findings, along with the analysis,
which created an integrated picture of the field experience, especially from the
74
perspective of cooperating teachers. Because of the complexity of the field experience,
along with the personal experiences each teacher brings, the results are intertwined across
research questions. The experiences of the research participants, framed the analysis of
this research. New connections were also created based on the individual experiences
participants provided.
Cooperating Teachers Rely on Their Experiences During the Field Experience
The findings brought to light that from the beginning of the field experience,
which includes the selection of the cooperating teacher, there are inconsistencies and
gaps. O’Brian et al. (2007) connected the lack of criteria for selection with the need for
training of the cooperating teacher. The lack of common selection criteria, combined
with the lack of training, left the cooperating teacher to figure out how to best help the
student teacher. Consequently, past and current experiences of the cooperating teacher
guided their efforts during the field experience.
According to Bullough (2005), when expectations of cooperating teachers were
unclear, there was a dependence on memories of personal field experiences. In addition,
Bullough’s findings corroborate the theory of experience by Dewey (1938), which
associates experiences, regardless of whether positive or negative, to what individuals
learn. The confidence level of a cooperating teacher likely informs the amount and type
of training and development he or she feels is needed to help with the student teacher.
Moreover, the reliance on experiences also is true for how to conduct observations and
provide feedback.
Although the participants of this study identified feedback and observations most
frequently when asked about their roles and responsibilities, there was no mention as to
75
how to do so effectively. Based on the research by Bullough (2005), cooperating
teachers relied on their experience as student teachers. In addition, the cooperating
teacher’s confidence in his or her own teaching practices and enjoyment of teaching may
be why he or she feels capable and willing to provide feedback. For example, Victor
shared:
I think if you’re passionate about being an educator and you believe that being an educator is a set of skills that you can develop and define over a period of time and the person that you are working with wants to improve at it, that it’s a natural process.
Communication is an Integral Component of the Field Experience
The findings of this study revealed that communication was embedded through
multiple facets of the field experience: defining roles and responsibilities, building
relationships, providing feedback, and supporting the cooperating teacher.
Open communication and trust were needed for relationships to be built. Since
conducting observations and providing feedback were identified most frequently when
asked about roles and responsibilities, the communication and relationships should be
strong. This is supported by Margolis (2007) who addressed expectations and explicit
dialogue and by Moore (2003) who expressed the need for trust to make connections
between the cooperating teacher and student teacher.
When the cooperating teachers communicated with the university supervisor, it
was often reactive, not proactive, and focused on problems and/or concerns about the
student teacher. This may be explained by Feiman-Nemser (2001) who posited the need
for structure, including goals and standards, to guide the field experience. However,
based on the information provided by the participants of this study, there possibly were
76
multiple reasons tied to communication for this specific reactive interaction. One
probable explanation is the cooperating teachers may not be aware of the various
resources and supports the university supervisor may provide for them or the student
teacher. According Kyle et al. (1999), cooperating teachers need to know the content,
strategies, and issues in the field to guide student teachers. The effects of the lack of
clarity is addressed by Xavier who explained, “I didn’t really need any support but if I
needed anything, like if I was having trouble, which I never did, um (pause) the Pleasant
University instructor was always there.” Therefore, when an issue first arises with the
student teacher, the cooperating teacher may not know how best to handle the situation or
communicate their concerns until it becomes a larger problem.
Another likely explanation for the lack of proactive communication is that if the
roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined and communicated to the cooperating
teachers at the beginning of the field experience, this could possibly affect what supports
the cooperating teacher may need. If a cooperating teacher is uncertain of what he is
supposed to do, as defined by the teacher preparation program, he may, once again, rely
on his own experiences, and may not feel the need to speak with the university
supervisor.
Cooperating Teachers Also Benefit from the Field Experience
Cooperating teachers’ sense of self-efficacy led them to give back to the
profession and also showed student teachers the fun and excitement of being a teacher.
The success achieved by a cooperating teacher, regardless of how they define it, was a
component of teaching they wanted to share with the student teacher. This study
corroborates the theory of self-efficacy by Bandura (1977), which suggested there are
77
two components: a given behavior will lead to a desired outcome and the individual
has the ability to bring about that outcome. Raul explained:
I have, there’s very little things that I can remember that I didn’t try and I wasn’t, at, at certain level of success, and, and a lot of great things have come from it. And, it’s because of people (pause) that I’ve had, over time, and, and that’s what I want to provide for other student teachers.
Once again, the experience of the cooperating teachers helps guide their interactions and
intentions with the student teacher.
The field experience may be considered a learning experience for both the
cooperating teacher and the student teacher. The findings of this research substantiate the
research by Stanulis (1995), which explained that relationships were formed through
collaboration and consistent interaction, and by Graham (2006), which mentioned
relationships, communication, reciprocal arrangements, focused dialogue, and reflection.
It is feasible there is a connection between observations, feedback, and reciprocal
learning. During the observation or the discussions about it, the cooperating teacher may
reflect on her own practices and learn from the student teacher. Amalia supported this
idea explaining, “So, it’s kind of like mutual, I, I’d like to think of it as mutual, a mutual
learning process with someone that just was a little, is further along in their learning.”
Working together may lead to reflective practices and likely lead to improvement.
The information, ideas, and strategies learned by the student teacher during
coursework at the university could possibly be beneficial to the cooperating teacher as
well. This research study supports the findings of Weasmer and Woods (2003), which
connected self-reflection and pedagogy of the cooperating teacher. Myrna expanded on
this idea, stating, “I often get new teaching strategies and curriculum ideas from my
78
student teachers.” At times, having a student teacher in the classroom reminded
cooperating teachers of certain student populations and different strategies to utilize.
Summary
This chapter illustrates the intricate connections of the various components of the
field experience, from the selection of the cooperating teachers to the support and
guidance they receive. The analysis of the findings took multiple iterations due to the
intersection of the responses across research questions. Consequently, specific codes
were identified in vivo, which allowed for holistic analysis. The findings of the study
included three major themes: (a) processes and perceptions gap, (b) areas with
communication needs, and (c) opportunities for professional enrichment. Furthermore,
the results of this study highlight patterns and trends that emerged from the research. The
results included: (a) cooperating teachers rely on their experiences during the field
experience, (b) communication is an integral component of the field experience, and (c)
cooperating teachers also benefit from the field experience.
There are multiple components of the field experience, such as the selection
process and roles and responsibilities of the cooperating teacher, which are not clearly
defined or explained to the cooperating teacher. However, cooperating teachers do
acknowledge that support from the university supervisor is available, if necessary.
Because there is no consistent or formal training, many cooperating teachers rely on their
past and current experiences as a student teacher and as a teacher of record to guide their
work during the field experience. Although the field experience is structured to help the
student teacher gain insight into the teaching profession, the cooperating teacher also
learns through the observations and discussions that occur between the entities.
79
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the cooperating
teachers and one university teacher education program with the goal of understanding
how the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers
are defined and communicated. The study further sought to explore what training and
support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field
experience as well as how a cooperating teacher’s level of self-efficacy informed
professional practices. Three findings emerged from the data: (a) processes and
perceptions gap, (b) areas with communication needs, and (c) opportunities for
professional enrichment. The conclusions of this study address the research questions
based on a synthesis of the findings and interpretations. This chapter includes the
conclusions, the researcher’s recommendations, and a final summary of this study.
Conclusions
What is the experience of the cooperating teacher in regard to the selection, development, and support for his or her role during the field experience?
Criteria for selection are unclear. One major finding of this research is that
there is no specific structure when a cooperating teacher is selected. Cooperating
teachers believe they are selected for their role by a department chair or through their
previous connection to the university teacher preparation program. Some even believe
the administrators at their school site are unaware of with whom student teachers are
placed. However, cooperating teachers were able to clearly identify that the master
schedule may be the only reason for their selection. By doing so, the cooperating
80
teachers may have inferred they were working with a student teacher by default, not
because they were selected by choice. The varied reasons provided by the cooperating
teachers conclude the cooperating teachers are not explicitly told about how or why they
were selected to work with a student teacher.
Processes for development are nonexistent. Many cooperating teachers cited
they did not receive formal training, if any, for their duties working with a student
teacher. Consequently, cooperating teachers based their interactions with the student
teacher on their own experiences. A conclusion drawn from these findings is that the
cooperating teachers are left to determine what is needed to support the student teachers
with whom they work. Therefore, the breadth and depth of certain aspects of being a
teacher, such as specific teaching strategies and Individual Education Plan meetings, to
which a student teacher is exposed is dependent upon the choices of the cooperating
teacher. Although cooperating teachers can rely on their own experiences, it does not
ensure an equitable learning experience for the student teachers.
Cooperating teachers were confident of their success as teachers and/or abilities to
prepare student teachers. Regardless of the selection process, the amount of training and
development, or support received, the cooperating teacher often reverted back to their
own experience when working with the student teacher. Therefore, the conclusion that
can be made is that the cooperating teachers will often base what they do with their
student teacher on their past or current experiences. However, a connection between the
expressed confidence and the roles and responsibilities of the cooperating teachers should
be taken into account.
81
How are the roles and responsibilities defined and communicated between the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher?
Written communication is identified most frequently and actions occurred
when problems arose. The cooperating teachers cited that the university supervisor is
available via multiple methods, most notably written communication. However, the
university supervisor is contacted most frequently by the cooperating teacher when there
is a problem or issue with the student teacher. A conclusion that can be made from this
finding is that the supports and resources the university supervisor can provide to the
cooperating teacher are unclear. Therefore, cooperating teachers are mainly reaching out
as a reaction, instead of figuring out how to prevent these issues or how to work through
them with the student teacher. A further conclusion may also be made connecting roles
and responsibilities to support. If the roles and responsibilities of each entity were clearly
defined and explicitly communicated at the beginning of the field experience, the
cooperating teachers could possibly have a better idea of what supports and resources
they would need to better prepare the student teacher.
Communication is needed to build relationships and to understand roles and
responsibilities. The university supervisors and cooperating teacher have common roles
and responsibilities, the most identified being conducting observations and providing
feedback to the student teacher. Coincidentally, these are the two roles and
responsibilities of the participants addressed multiple times within the Cooperating
Teacher Handbook. Moreover, it is communicated in-person when the university
supervisor goes to the school site for an observation. The conclusion that may be made is
82
that frequency and the use of multiple methods for communication regarding roles and
responsibilities has an effect on what is emphasized most by cooperating teachers.
Some participants indicated that building relationships between different entities
is a role solely for the university supervisor. Both cooperating teachers and university
supervisors acknowledged it is necessary for a successful field experience. Moreover,
they identified the need for clear lines of communication and open air. The conclusion
that may be made is tied to communication and support. Because the cooperating
teachers do not identify relationship building as their own role and responsibility, they
call on the university supervisor when there is a problem. Furthermore, another
conclusion to be made is that the cooperating teacher may lack training in communication
strategies.
How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform his or her role and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?
Participating in the field experience is mutually beneficial. Another major
finding is that cooperating teachers indicated a cooperating teacher’s sense of self-
efficacy caused them to share their knowledge, experiences, and enjoyment of teaching
with a novice to give back to the teaching profession. The conclusion that may be made
is that regardless of how cooperating teachers came upon the responsibility to work with
a student teacher, they still want to share their experiences of being a teacher with others.
Although being a cooperating teacher for the field experience provides another set of
eyes in the classroom, the cooperating teacher is still responsible for the growth of the
students of the class and the student teacher. A further conclusion that may be made is
that those who are cooperating teachers have an altruistic quality.
83
Cooperating teachers expressed that reciprocal learning opportunities, which
includes learning strategies from the student teacher, growing as a teacher, and reflective
practices, are available when a student teacher is in the classroom. The conclusion that
may be made is there are also practical benefits to being a cooperating teacher, regardless
of whether it is explicitly or implicitly stated. An additional conclusion that may be made
is that dialogue may occur more frequently compared to when the cooperating teacher
does not participate in the field experience because of the observations and feedback
provided to the student teacher. Furthermore, the teaching practices of the cooperating
teacher may be positively affected due to self-reflection and inquiry from the student
teacher.
To determine self-efficacy, it would be beneficial to know the specific tasks and
roles for which cooperating teachers are responsible. Therefore, in this study, the
cooperating teachers based their self-efficacy on unclear and inconsistent roles and
responsibilities that were not clearly communicated. The conclusion that may be made is
that cooperating teachers may have an inflated sense of self-efficacy based on incomplete
information.
Recommendations
University Teacher Preparation Program and Participating School Sites
The researcher offers recommendations based on the findings, analysis, and
conclusions of this study. The recommendations that follow are for university teacher
preparation programs and school sites where student teachers are placed.
Communicate that the cooperating teachers are not chosen at random. The
university teacher preparation program may consider including the selection process in
84
the Cooperating Teacher Handbook to communicate that cooperating teachers are not
chosen at random. The selection of the cooperating teacher and the placement site of the
student teacher are integral components of the field experience since this is where and
with whom the student teacher is exposed to the teaching profession in a live setting. The
university teacher education program may consider creating a list or rubric, such as that
provided by the state, which identifies how cooperating teachers and field placement sites
are selected. Prior to the student teacher being placed at the school site, the selection of
the cooperating teacher should be made clear both explicitly articulated verbally and in
written form to all entities involved, including the administration at the school site and
the cooperating teacher.
Set expectations with all involved. The university supervisor should consider
providing the complete version of the Cooperating Teacher Handbook to all persons
involved prior to an initial meeting so members have the opportunity to read and jot
down questions. A meeting should be scheduled prior to the field experience that
includes the university supervisor, the cooperating teacher(s), the school site
administrator(s), and the student teacher(s). During this time, the Cooperating Teacher
Handbook should be on the agenda for discussion. Moreover, the purpose of the field
experience, along with the roles and responsibilities of those involved, especially those of
the cooperating teacher and university supervisor, should be thoroughly discussed. The
expectation of the student teacher and the field experience should be consistent and
explicitly communicated and reviewed at the meeting.
Use technology to support training. The use of technology is highly
encouraged. Since the budget was cited as a reason cooperating teachers did not attend a
85
formal training, using a webinar or modules is suggested. Moreover, keeping an
archive for those who are not able to attend the meeting may be beneficial.
Create training modules and observation and feedback tools to foster equity.
When the university identifies topics, strategies, and skills to which the student teacher
should be exposed and that the student teacher should acquire prior to the completion of
the field experience, it is suggested that observation and feedback strategies and tools are
provided to the cooperating teacher from the university supervisor. These tools should be
provided and explained to the cooperating teacher prior to the first observation of the
student teacher. The university may consider creating a module or showing a short clip
of a previous student teacher as an example of an observation and the use of the tools and
evaluations. To keep costs low, the university may consider using a PACT video from a
previous student teacher. Moreover, a module or clip may be used for training regarding
communication and relationship building strategies.
Connect classroom and applied experiences. Some cooperating teachers were
open about their need for more information about the connection between university
coursework and the field experience. To create continuity and support for the student
teacher, the university teacher education program may consider the creation of formal
documents that include the schedule of the student teacher for the quarter, a pacing guide
of what they are to learn throughout the year (with approximate months), and coursework
concepts. Some documents may already be available from the university supervisor since
one of their roles is to be a faculty member at Pleasant University and to teach courses.
Therefore, the course syllabus may suffice for fulfilling the explanation of coursework
86
concepts. However, these should be provided to the cooperating teachers prior to the
beginning of each quarter.
Only one content area within the Pleasant University Teacher Education Program
has a document, Expectations for Cooperating School Sites, which is separated into
months within the school year that includes university expectations of the student teacher
and of the cooperating teacher. The university teacher preparation program may consider
providing a similar chart for all persons involved in the field experience, such as the
cooperating teacher and a site administrator, regardless of the content area.
Establish a feedback loop with each cooperating teacher. Although the
university supervisor visits the school site when conducting an observation or when the
cooperating teacher makes contact due to a problem or issue with the student teacher, a
regular check-in by the university supervisor may possibly provide a feedback loop to
connect the coursework of the student teacher with the field experience. In addition, the
university supervisor may consider using this feedback loop as an opportunity to share
resources and connect learning.
Educational Community
The researcher offers recommendations based on the findings, analysis, and
conclusions of this study. The recommendations that follow are for the educational
community and policy makers. Change must begin either at the state or federal level.
Otherwise, the possibilities for inconsistencies in implementation will increase. Because
states vary in the extent of local control, certain policies may be leveraged.
Adopt professional teaching standards. The coordination of training and
development of the cooperating teacher is dependent upon the university teacher
87
preparation program. However, the educational community, including teacher
credentialing, should consider using the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards, either
in part of in whole (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2011; Hill et al.,
2010). The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards
are separated into three different categories: knowledge, dispositions, and performances.
Performance standards “can be observed and assessed in teaching practices” (p. 6). The
Essential knowledge includes “declarative and procedural knowledge,” while Critical
Dispositions “indicates the habits of professional action and moral commitments that
underlie the performances” (CCSSO, 2011, p. 6). The InTASC Model Core Teaching
Standards intertwine pedagogy, practice, and behaviors. Professional standards for
school administrators, including principals and vice principals, should also be considered
and aligned to the NCATE accreditation standards. As instructional leaders of the
school, the school administration should also be held to certain standards.
Create university-school partnerships for clinical preparation including an
apprentice model. The teaching profession is impacted by the preparation that novice
teachers receive. The evidence from this research showed that cooperating teachers often
base what they do with a student teacher upon their own experiences. Therefore,
university-school partnerships need to be considered for clinical preparations.
Furthermore, an apprentice model that identifies cooperating teachers who exemplify the
adopted professional teaching standards should be implemented. The Commission on
Teacher Credentialing will need to guide the identification of teacher education programs
that are aligned to the adopted professional teaching standards and are accredited. The
institutions, including the district and teacher preparation program, in the partnership
88
share the common goal of connecting theory and practice. The level of immersion at
the school site varies. For example, the laboratory experiences include analysis of
teaching, observations, journaling, and analysis of student work. The clinical experiences
include collaboration in a professional community and the applying the pedagogies
learned during the laboratory experiences. It is imperative that time is explicitly allocated
each week for journal writing for student teachers to reflect upon their progress.
Update licensure and credentialing requirements to align with accreditation
standards. With an update in professional teaching standards and the creation of
university-school partnerships, licensure and credentialing requirements need to be
revisited and updated.
Further Research
This research study was limited to a single site and a small number of
participants. Therefore, the researcher recommends further studies be conducted to
include a larger database of information to gain more comprehensive insight into the
experience of the cooperating teacher with respect to selection, development and training,
support, and roles and responsibilities. Moreover, the communication strategies of the
university supervisor and the cooperating teacher should be further investigated.
Consequently, the following should be considered:
• A replication study should be conducted since this was only one traditional
university teacher education program. Perhaps conducting the replication study
with a non-traditional teacher education program or a private institution of higher
education to explore the experiences of cooperating teachers.
89
• A similar study using the same criteria should be conducted with a university
teacher education program that has specific selection processes, including criteria,
to determine how it affects the rest of the field experience and to what extent the
same or similar findings would be discovered.
• Based on the lack of funding identified for training and development, a study
exploring the use of technology and its effects on the preparation of the
cooperating teacher should be undertaken.
Summary
The field experience is an integral component in preparation for the teaching
profession. From the beginning, it is pertinent there are consistent and clear structures,
such as criteria for the selection of cooperating teachers. Moreover, the roles and
responsibilities of all entities, including the university supervisor, the school site
administrator, the cooperating teacher, and the student teacher need to be communicated
via multiple methods. The quality of the field experience cannot be left up to the
personal experiences of cooperating teachers. Consequently, the training and
development of the cooperating teachers need to be deliberate and purposeful with topics
covered such as building relationships and communication strategies. Just as the students
we work with deserve an equitable education, the same is true for those who will soon
enter the teaching profession.
90
List of References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Beeth, M., & Adadan, E. (2006). The influence of university-based coursework on field experience, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 103-120. doi: 10.1007/s10972-006-9013-8
Bloomberg, L., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501-518. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8
Bullough, R., Jr. (2005). Being and becoming a mentor: School-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 143-155. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.002
Bullough, R., Jr., Draper, R., Smith, L., & Birrell, J. (2004). Moving beyond collusion: Clinical faculty and university/public school partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 505-521. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.007
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286-032. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053004002
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.
91
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices to learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 17-30. doi: 10.1177/0022487101052001003
Giebelhaus, C., & Bowman, C. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? Journal of Educational Research, 95, 246-254. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542385
Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004, April). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.
Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 1118-1129. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.007
Hall, K., Draper, R., Smith, L., & Bullough, R., Jr. (2008). More than a place to teach: Exploring the perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of mentor teachers. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16, 328-345. doi: 10.1081/13611260802231708
Hall, K., Smith, L., Draper, R., Bullough, R., Jr., & Sudweeks, R. (2005). Measuring the self-efficacy of mentor teachers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 188-192. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ps/retrieve.do?retrieveFormat=PDF_FROM_CALLISTO&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=drexel_main&workId=PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-184.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-185.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-186.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-187.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-188.JPG&docId=GALE|A142636414&callistoContentSet=PER&isAcrobatAvailable=false
Hill, D., Stumbo, C., Paliokas, K., Hansen, D., & McWalters, P. (2010, July). State policy implications of the Model Core Teaching Standards (InTASC Draft Discussion Document). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Hong, J. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1530-1543. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003Edc
Howey, K., & Zimpher, N. (2010, April). Educational partnerships to advance clinically rich teacher preparation. Retrieved from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education website: http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hccwyqMLlSo%3d&tabid=715
92
Kyle, D., Moore, G., & Sanders, J. (1999). The role of the mentor teacher: Insights, challenges, and implications. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 109-122. doi: 10.1207/s15327930pje7403#4_9
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf
Levine, M. (2010, November). Developing principles for clinically based teacher education. Retrieved from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education website: http://ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qhv0TxP2Gm0%3d&tabid=715
Margolis, M. (2007). Improving relationships between mentor teachers and student teachers: Engaging in a pedagogy of explicitness. The New Educator, 3, 75-94. doi: 10.1080/15/176880601141540
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experience of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/what_teachers.pdf
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010, November). Teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat 1425 (2002)
O’Brian, M., Stoner, J., Appel, K., & House, J. (2007). The first field experience: Perspectives of preservice and cooperating teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 30, 264-275. doi: 10.1177/088840640703000406
Russell, M., & Russell, J. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on mentoring student interns. The Professional Educator, 35(2), 1-21.
93
Saffold, F. (2005). Increasing self-efficacy through mentoring. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(4), 13-16. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ps/retrieve.do?retrieveFormat=PDF_FROM_CALLISTO&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=drexel_main&workId=PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-9.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-10.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-11.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-12.JPG&docId=GALE|A142636383&callistoContentSet=PER&isAcrobatAvailable=false
Slick, S. (1997). Assessing versus assisting: The supervisor’s role in the complex dynamics of the student teaching triad. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 713-726. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00016-4
Snow-Gerono, J. (2009). Voice less silenced: What do veteran teachers value in school-university partnerships and initial teacher preparation? The Teacher Educator, 44, 248-267. doi: 10.1080/08878730903186348
Soslau, E. (2012). Opportunities to develop adaptive teaching expertise during supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 769-779. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.009
Stanulis, R. (1995). Classroom teachers as mentors: Possibilities for participation in a professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 331-344. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X
U.S. Department of Education. (2010, May). Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Educational Act: Supporting teachers. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/supporting-teachers.pdf
Ward, R. (2005, Winter). Impact of mentoring on teacher efficacy. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 148-152.
Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. (2003, Summer). Mentoring: Professional development through reflection. The Teacher Educator, 39(1), 64-77.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99.
94
Appendix A: Interview Protocols
Interview Protocols (University Supervisor) Time of interview: Date: Investigator: Emily C. Oliva Interviewee #: Position of interviewee: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the cooperating teachers and a single university teacher education program with the goal to understand how the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers are defined and communicated. The study further seeks to explore what training and support are provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field experience, as well as, how an individual’s level of self-efficacy informs professional practices. The findings of this study may help university preparation programs and the school district provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher during the field experience. Questions:
How many years have you been a university supervisor?
At what grade level(s) are your student teachers placed?
What other positions, if any, did you hold in the field of education?
Approximately how many cooperating teachers have you worked with in your current capacity?
Could you please describe the field experience as defined by your university teacher education program? What do you feel is important to a successful field experience?
What does your position as a university supervisor entail?
What are your roles and responsibilities as a university supervisor?
How are your roles and responsibilities communicated to the cooperating
teacher?
How are cooperating teachers selected?
95
What supports, if any, are provided to the cooperating teacher? Are there any exceptions?
In your experience, what does the cooperating teacher gain from serving in this
role? In your view, what differentiates the better cooperating teacher? What are your perceptions regarding the university-school partnership? What do
you feel is important to its success?
Is there anything you would like to add that you feel may contribute to my study? Thank you for participating in this interview. The information you provided will remain confidential.
96
Interview Protocols (Cooperating Teacher)
Time of interview: Date: Investigator: Emily C. Oliva Interviewee #: Position of interviewee: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between a university teacher education program, school districts and local schools, and the cooperating teachers seeking to understand how the relationships between the entities and the roles are defined. The study further seeks to explore what training and support are provided to the cooperating teachers throughout the field experience and how self-efficacy informs professional practices with a goal to understand how a university preparation program and the school district may better provide guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher for the field experience. Questions:
How many years have you taught? What grade level(s) do you teach? What content area(s) do you teach?
What other positions, if any, have you held in the field of education?
How many Student Teachers have you formally mentored? For what length of time?
Describe the field experience as you understand it? What do you feel is
important to a successful field experience?
What process(es) did you go through to become a cooperating teacher? For example, were you appointed by administration? Volunteer? Interview? Apply? Other? What is the role of the university supervisor? How was it communicated to you?
What are your roles and responsibilities as a cooperating teacher? How were they communicated to you?
What training did you receive to be a cooperating teacher prior to having a
student teacher in your classroom?
97
What supports, if any, did you receive, and from whom, including resources and communication to help ensure the student teacher(s) you work with are adequately prepared for the teaching profession?
Do you, as a cooperating teacher, feel you were completely supported to prepare
your student teacher? Please explain.
What training or support do you feel would help cooperating teachers prepare student teachers for the teaching profession?
What are your perceptions regarding a university-school partnership? What do you feel is important to its success?
How has your sense of self-efficacy, or belief that you have the capacity to prepare a student teacher, informed your role as a cooperating teacher and your professional practice?
Is there anything you would like to add that you feel may contribute to my
study?
Thank you for participating in this interview. The information you provided will remain confidential.
98
Appendix B: Script for University Supervisor when informing Cooperating Teacher of Study
Good afternoon. I, insert name, will be participating in a research study titled
“Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A
Single-case Study.” The study is conducted by a Doctoral Candidate, Emily C. Oliva,
from Drexel University. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between
the cooperating teachers and a university teacher education program with a goal to
understand how the roles and responsibilities of the entities are defined and
communicated. The study further seeks to explore what training and support are
provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field experience, as well
as, how self-efficacy informs professional practices. The findings of this study may help
university preparation programs and the school district provide more consistent
guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher during the field experience.
The Director of Teacher Education, Dr. xxxxxx, has already provided a site letter
approval to the researcher. Since I will be participating in the study, I would like to offer
your name to the researcher as a possible subject. With your consent, I will provide your
contact information to the researcher, Emily C. Oliva. The data that is collected will be
confidential and you will not be identifiable. The researcher will further discuss this with
you when you are contacted. If you have any questions or concerns, please call Emily C.
Oliva at (916) xxx-xxx or eoXX@drexel.edu.
99
Appendix C: Introductory Emails
Introductory Email to Principals
Dear (Insert Name): Good morning. My name is Emily Oliva and I am a Doctoral Candidate at Drexel University. I am conducting research regarding Teacher Education. As part of my research, I would like to speak with cooperating teachers who are working with student teachers. Your school has been identified in my research as a site of interest. However, I would need your site approval to speak with specific teachers. The information that I am collecting will be with respect to their roles and responsibilities as a cooperating teacher. Also, I will ask information regarding what supports and trainings are provided to them. The findings of this study may help university preparation programs and school districts provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher when working with the student teacher. The information that teachers provide to me will be kept confidential. I will only interview the cooperating teacher one time for approximately an hour. I will also ask them to journal about their experience. If you would like more information regarding my research purpose, design, methodology, and data collection, I am more than happy to speak with you, whether over the phone, in person, or over email. I understand that your time, along with the time of your teachers, is valuable. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Emily C. Oliva (916) xxx-xxxx eoXX@drexel.edu
100
Introductory Email to Cooperating Teachers Dear (Insert Name): Good morning. My name is Emily Oliva and I am a Doctoral Candidate at Drexel University. I am conducting research regarding Teacher Education. As part of my research, I would like to speak with cooperating teachers who are working with student teachers. Through the University Supervisor, you have been identified in my research as a cooperating teacher of interest. The information that I am collecting will be with respect to your roles and responsibilities as a cooperating teacher. Also, I will ask information regarding what supports and trainings are provided to you. The findings of this study may help university preparation programs and school districts provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the cooperating teachers when working with the student teacher. The information that teachers provide to me will be kept confidential. I will only interview you, the cooperating teacher, one time for approximately an hour. Also, I ask that you journal about your experience. I will provide you with a journal and prompts in case you are uncertain about what to write. If you would like more information regarding my research purpose, design, methodology, and data collection, I am more than happy to speak with you, whether over the phone, in person, or over email. I understand that your time is valuable. However, I believe my study will greatly benefit from your input. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Emily C. Oliva (916) xxx-xxxx eoXX@drexel.ed
101
Appendix D: Journal Prompts for Cooperating Teachers
Thank you for participating in my study. I am providing you with a journal so you can write your thoughts regarding your experience as a cooperating teacher. Feel free to write as often as you wish. There are no limits or restrictions regarding your chosen topic or how much to write. Prompts and questions are provided to focus your writing, if needed.
Briefly describe your teaching philosophy.
What has influenced your teaching practices the most?
Why did you decide to become a cooperating teacher?
Describe the benefit(s), if any, you perceive have emerged due to your role as a cooperating teacher. Explain why you believe this is so.
Describe the challenge(s), if any, you have encountered as a cooperating teacher. How did you overcome these challenges?
Who and/or what has been most supportive to you in your role as a cooperating
teacher? What support(s) were provided? Why do you believe this was helpful?
What do you believe would help cooperating teachers prepare student teachers for the teaching profession?
Describe what university supervisors could do or provide to assist you in your role as a cooperating teacher.
Based on your experience as a cooperating teacher, describe what you perceive to
be the most important aspect of the field experience.
In any publication or presentation of research results, your identity will be kept confidential, but there is a possibility that records which identify you may be inspected by authorized individuals such as representatives of the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP), the institutional review board (IRB), or employees conducting peer review activities. You consent to such inspections and to the copying of excerpts of your records, if required by any of these representatives.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding any aspect of the journals, feel
free to contact the researcher, Emily C. Oliva, at emily.oliva@drexel.edu.
top related