Engagement of the Triad: Emphasizing Cooperating Teachers

Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163-202.

Badiali, B. & Titus, N. (n.d.). No More Cooperating Teachers.

Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching: Lost opportunities for learning. Journal of Teacher Education,60(3),

304-322.

Summaries

Clarke, Triggs, & Nielsen (2014):

Cooperating Teacher Participation in Teacher Education

The authors proclaim the significance of cooperating teachers by reviewing/examining literature that underscores three typical conceptions about the engagement of CTs in teacher preparation programs: classroom placeholder (immediate absence during student teacher experience), supervisor of practica (observe/record/report success and deficiencies of student teacher; linear), and teacher educator (prudent; scaffolded guidance). To heighten their degree of awareness, the authors utilized an amalgamation of features in the literature to guide their establishment of 11 categories of participation of CTs with their own positives and issues, respectively: Providers of Feedback (guide; confirmatory; authoritarian; inadequate analysis), Gatekeepers of the Profession (insufficiency of authentic/genuine participation in assessment), Modelers of Practice (shift from controlled to independent/reflective practice), Supporters of Reflection (mutual learning from experiences), Purveyors of Context (directive nature and flexibility), Conveners of Relation (personal connections and nurturing), Agents of Socialization (congruence of values; communication), Advocates of the Practical ( knowledgeable; false competence), Gleaners of Knowledge (desire for professional development), Abiders of Change (hidden dimensions/affects; freedom), and Teachers of Children being mostly identifiable of CTs (collegial support; disruption to pupils). The authors pursue the notion of invited space (negotiation of participation by authority and other stakeholders) and desires that the cooperating teacher participation (CTP) grid be referenced for prompting the magnitude of CTs.

Badiali & Titus (n.d.): No More Cooperating Teachers

The authors advocate for the adoption of terminology that accurately embodies the responsibilities and desired reverence of a cooperating teacher: mentor teacher. The authors introduce the idea of a mentor teacher by referring to intentional changes in jargon among partnerships in the Professional Development School Community (e.g., student teacher as teacher candidate/intern; clinical faculty; liaison; professor in residence; hybrid teacher) as a means of illustrating the development of separation from traditional teacher preparation programs. The authors justify their reasoning by affirming that the term, mentor teacher, implies and represents more than subscribing to the term, cooperating teachers: enhanced prospection (teacher educator; facilitator of feedback; coach; collaborator; cultivator of inquiry-rich environments; encouragement of JEPD; beacon of inspiration), benefits (heightened student achievement; adult interaction; key constituents of design/delivery of teacher preparation program), and elevation of PDS goals (student achievement; improved quality of teacher education for current/future educators; advancement of seasoned teachers). The authors seek to resolve their argument by promoting that teachers who are willing to become mentor teachers should embrace the PDS movement as a means for extending the notion of the active inclusion/engagement of teachers rather than cooperation by teachers.

Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman (2009): Complex Interactions in Student Teaching: Lost Opportunities for Learning

The authors report their study (grounded on sociocultural and activity/activity systems theory) to extend research on teacher education by examining the multifaceted relationships between student teachers, cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and other associated influences (beliefs; perspectives; instruction/curriculum). As the authors focused on the student teaching experience within their longitudinal (four-year) study on elementary and secondary teachers in an advanced degree (master’s) program (partial PDS framework: pedagogical content knowledge; reflective practice; limited on-site collaboration between university faculty/supervisors), data were triangulated from student teachers (interviews; instruction observations/field notes with memos; student work; lesson plans), cooperating teachers/university supervisors (observed/recorded debriefing sessions and interviews), and language arts methods courses instructors/teaching assistants (interviews; syllabi; assignments; course reading packs) with emphasis on the goals, settings, and resources for mediation of analytical/motivational purposes. After analyzing the data, the authors identified two overarching concepts: compromises in teaching placements (mimetic perspectives; grounded teaching/experimentation; overshadowed beliefs/knowledge/pedagogy; identity conformance) and extension/mediation of content learning/instructional opportunities (differentiated and constricted practice; stifled quantity and quality of feedback/guidance). The authors believe that while they highlighted intricacies and tensions in student teaching, issues about guided experimentation, alignment of triad members, and feedback need to be resolved to create an effective teaching preparation experience.

Reflection

As a classroom teacher, I have found the perspective by Badiali & Titus (n.d.) to be extremely encouraging! Their arguments for how mentor teachers should be recognized for the breadth of knowledge, skill, and guidance they have to deliver to create a functioning, well-managed environment for a “teacher candidate/intern” and their own professional development raised essential considerations for stakeholders’ (teacher preparation programs and policy makers) mindsets towards success of teacher education. While I understand that there is a wide array of skills and practices that the student teachers must produce during their teacher education program, Badiali & Titus (n.d.) stated among the cooperating teachers’ preconceived goals was the role of being able to correct the student teacher. As I reflect on memories of my internship and student teachers I have conversed with through the years, I have mixed feelings about the statement.

What does it mean to correct?

In relation to the additional readings, this week, I referred to a point during my experiences (taking on the perspective as a student teacher). I remember having a cooperating teacher that Clarke, Triggs, & Nielsen (2014) may characterize as an “Advocate of the Practical”:

• high content knowledge base and experience

• excelled at providing first-hand knowledge of the day-to-day workings of a classroom

• taken-for-granted perspective where theoretical unfamiliarity of how a student teacher learns meant (more on simply transferring his or her practical knowledge to the student teacher)

• notion of practical as being within their own domain and seldom raise questions that might challenge the status of the practical

We often focused on behavior management, created lesson plans, and monitored lessons. So through my perspective and student teachers’ experiences similar to mine, what form of correction was being made? Maybe, it was the way in which we may have conformed to the way in which our cooperating teachers modeled, as raised by Valencia, Martin, Place, & Grossman (2009). In that case, the concept of negotiation was experienced; student teaching experiences were subjugated to the pressures of remaining in the teacher’s best wishes, but suppressing beliefs, philosophies, and experience because of the CT’s mindset (Clarke et al., 2014;Valencia et al., 2009). I want to ensure that my future interns will feel that they have to impress me, or their cooperating teacher, to gain favored evaluations, but rather triumph to practice instruction that helps them establish their identity as a professional, independent educator (Clarke et al., 2014). However, there still remains an essential question for the advancement of student teaching experiences with various, intersecting roles: when will more student teachers gain the trust and experience to participate in an engaging way that allows for more freedom of practice from cooperating teachers?