Anatomizing Triads

Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Draper, R. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, university

supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 407-420.

Burns, R. W., Jacobs, J., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (Under Review). The changing nature of the role of the university supervisor and the function of preservice teacher supervision in an era of increased school-university collaboration. Action in Teacher Education.

Rikard, L., & Veal, M. L. (1998). Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on the student teaching

triad. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(2), 108–128.

Summaries

Burns, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey (under review): The Changing Nature of the Role of the University Supervisor and the Function of Preservice Teacher Supervision in an Era of Increased School-University Collaboration

The authors oriented their research towards contemporary literature on preservice teacher supervision, the significant dissimilarities between supervision and evaluation, and the conceptualizations of supervision from inservice teachers to preservice teachers. To provide the field of teacher preparation with progressive cognizance about PST supervision, the authors questioned the identification of the core PST supervisory tasks and practices that support the developmental nature of PST learning within the clinical context. Through interpretive, qualitative meta-analysis, twelve practices of PST supervision and five tasks were derived: Targeted Assistance (instructional feedback; critical reflection), Individual Support (scaffolded support; stress management), Collaboration and Community (quality placements; relationship maintenance; learner-centeredness), Curriculum Support (theory and practice connections; strengthening curriculum planning), and Research for Innovation (inquiry/self-study; enhanced supervision). Amidst the authors’ findings, they hope to cultivate a heightened level of terminology awareness and engagement among teacher preparation programs in relation to PST supervision.

Rikard & Veal (1998): Cooperating Teachers’ Perspectives on the Student Teaching Triad

The authors grounded their research on the triad theory to explore the prevalence and associated themes of hierarchal/power relationships among student teaching triads of student teachers, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors through the lenses of experienced (supervision and teaching) elementary, middle, and high school cooperating teachers. As the authors assigned graduate students to collect, analyze, and interpret field data (audiotaped, hour-long interviews) from each cooperating teacher to describe their interactions and relationships with university supervisors and their student teachers’ relationships with the university supervisors, two types of triads were identified for the absence and presence of the university supervisors, respectively: functional triad (predominant hierarchal order on a daily basis); CT as apex of master teacher); ST as second in power); pupils as least amount of power; positivity in sharing time/space; mutual learning; heightened collaboration; believe CTs are unfamiliar with context; CT wanting US’s proof of knowledge; US input considered worthless; US proving validation) and institutional triad (US as apex; CT as second in power; ST assumes role of student—least power; pupils are now excluded from triad --- focus now on student teacher; ST/CT passive participants; CTs seldom collaborate with USs; CT gain a coalition with ST through criticism of US; CT as mediator of US/ST; CT believes US not “in-touch”). To balance the resolutions among responsibilities/power within student teaching triads, the authors assert the notion of university supervisors utilizing a model for shared supervision: shared power, even distribution of conversation, and recognition of student teachers’ needs to be engaged in problem identification and solutions within their student teaching experience.

Bullough & Draper (2004): Making Sense of a Failed Triad

The authors explore the infrastructural (mentoring and managerial) development of a triad (public school mentor; university mathematics supervisor; intern teacher) to illustrate the compromise of authority in a dysfunctional triad. In respect to positioning theory, the authors deemed it necessary to rely on conversations (mentor-to-mentor; intern-to-intern), questionnaires, formal interviews, progress meetings, and mentor-produced case records, which was composed into a story of the relationship among the triad. Through inductive reasoning, two types of shared episodes were identified: setting stereotypes (presumed perceptions of others’ roles) and blow up (divergence of interpretations). As each triad member repositioned themselves in contrasting ways (Allyson: confused and frustrated between demands; Dr. Z: expert demanding control; Mrs. K: leading knowledgeable expert and advocate of students), as well as each other, the authors believed the lack of effective communication among members was the origin of distress, which may be remedied by models of professional development (joint seminars on mentoring and supervision) and the consideration of human growth and development. The authors believe the aforementioned efforts of resolving disparities may result in a learning environment that accentuates rapport and the development of all members of the triad.

Reflection

Rikard & Veal (1998) allowed me to reminisce on my experience as a student teacher. I remember feeling at odds with myself when having to change my role. Sometimes I felt as if I was an equal counterpart (functional) and then I would feel marginalized because of the amount of experience within my environment (institutional). I was like a chameleon throughout my internship; I always had to adjust to my environment, which sometimes led me to believe that, at times, my efforts were not sufficient because of the level of inferiority I was assigned to because of my changing position. However, the article allowed me to discover that I was not the only member of the triad that felt as though their power had been compromised; the collaborating teacher’s power also shifted when the university supervisor visited the classroom.

So, how could there be a balance of negotiations within a student teaching triad where everyone’s needs are met and hierarchal power does not negate the goal of student teaching?

While shared supervision, models of professional development (joint seminars on mentoring and supervision) and the consideration of human growth and development in learning may be remedies for a healthy relationship amongst triad members, there must be a consensus of understanding when it comes to supervision/supervisory roles (Rikard & Veal, 1998; Bullough & Draper, 2004; Burns, Jacobs, & Yendol-Hoppey, under review). Among the ideas of improvement, having knowledge of essential supervisory task and practices would have changed the way that my student teaching experience would have been conducted. Curriculum Support (theory and practice connections; strengthening curriculum planning) should have been revered as one of the most essential tasks with the associated practices to ensure an environment of learning because of contentions among having students apply theory-to-practice. When the placement of a student teacher has a principal that does not have any commitment to any particular teaching method, but rather a focus on high, standardized, end-of-level test scores, as illustrated in Bullough & Draper (2004), it greatly influences cooperating teachers’ perspectives on what practices should be encouraged to support the learning of student teachers. The cooperating teacher would always reference the learning goals of students in relation to standardized tests: "That's not the way they will be asked. You will have to ask them...".

Hopefully through our class assignment of exploring triads, I will be able to have a deeper perspective on how I can understand and enhance the profession of teacher education through research, as the graduate assistants did in the study by Rikard & Veal (1998). How would the members of the triad view themselves? What issues will they communicate to the university supervisor? As a result, will affective filters be lowered because of the ability to provide effective communication, as referenced by Bullough & Draper (2004)? Possibly; it’s likely there may be noted shifts in power, but how would our inquiries as graduate student researchers influence the triads? Would it allow the other members of the triads to become more cognizant of the levels of awareness and beliefs that should be practiced in teacher education programs?