A‘ ‘ ‘I'm “N‘UV' . .. .3! U0: .2“... .~.. ..A..~ . A. unit; . n .. NW.» 4”” , ,- ‘. .'. -\ M. 5...; run-M _ 4...... -.. ;.fi1v’.lv'.--v'- v ... - r -;‘~ .,.,.,— r 4:: 1-. 9-1; .3- juna'L‘ufl u ”h. . . :‘U .A IéIi‘UW‘I'IHJQ litlfili IHIIJHIIHHIIl”NWllNllllHHIIUllHllHllNHlllHl L ”MW/26 31293 00765 9836 I' \ LIBRARY Michigan State University k ,- This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THEMES OF STUDENT TEACHING SUPERVISION: A CASE STUDY OF A NEW FIELD INSTRUCTOR IN AN ALTERNATIVE TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM presented by Charles Patrick Barder has been accepted towards fulfillment l of the requirements for \ Ph - D . degree in Te§c_her Education Major professor Date June, 1991 MSU Ls an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0— 12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or betore date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE a f i” :11” _____ «L1 —- II J :_:-_|L_ c__l —— l “—1 MSU Is An AIflrdeve ActIon/Equel Opportunlly Inetltutlon cmmi THEMES OF STUDENT TEACHING SUPERVISION: A CASE STUDY OF A NEW FIELD INSTRUCTOR IN AN ALTERNATIVE TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM by Charles Patrick Bar der A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1991 ABSTRACT THEMES OF STUDENT TEACHING SUPERVISION: A CASE STUDY OF A NEW FIELD INSTRUCTOR IN AN ALTERNATIVE TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM by Charles Patrick Bar der Student teacher supervision has a long history, but we know little about it. Authors say what is right and wrong with it and offer suggestions for improvement. However, we don't know what student teacher supervision looks like. At the same time, alternative teacher education programs like the ones at Michigan State University have begun to emerge. They are calling for a new role for the field instructor, which must be congruent with the conceptual base of the program and help preservice teachers become students of teaching. This study looks at what the practice of a student teacher field instructor in an alternative teacher education program looks like and how he makes meaning of that practice. In a review of the teacher education research, supervision was found to be done by those less intellectually able than their counterparts in other departments in the university. Because the roles of the supervisor are unclear, haphazard practice results. There is general agreement that the supervision of student teachers is complex and that we need more research about this supervisory practice. Charles Patrick Barder A field study was Chosen as the methodology for this investigation. What emerged were five themes: a dilemma for the field instructor involving his desire to be more facilitative of reflective habits while at the same time wanting to be directive with the student teachers, student teacher behaviors that the field instructor had little impact on, the developmental stage of the alternative teacher education program that the field instructor was in, evidence of student teachers' thinking about student learning and their effect on that learning, and researcher effect on participants in the study. Conclusions are that it is difficult to have congruency between the conceptual base of an alternative teacher education program and the practice of field supervision, that the development of student teacher reflective habits is a major modification in the traditional supervisory role and is complex. _ Recommendations for the profession include making reflection more important in the enterprise of teacher education. Another is to facilitate the reflective habits of field instructors. Recommendations for further research include focusing on the training and selection of supervisors and studying field instructor-student teacher interaction. Copyright by CHA RLES PATRICK BARDER 1991 DE DI CATION To my parents, David J. Barder and Bernice Survillo Barder A CKNOWLEDGE ME NTS There were many people who contributed to the completion of this document: my typist, Barbara Reeves, who, along with helping guide me through the University bureaucracy, was also a good friend; my doctoral program cohorts who were supportive and encouraging throughout, especially when there was nobody else around; the subject of my investigation who was most cooperative and helpful during the data collection period; my doctoral committee-«Perry Lanier, Joe Levine, and Joyce Putnam--who stretched me in ways beyond my expectations; the chairperson of my committee, Bruce Burke, who provided the right amount of motivation and support that enabled me to complete this project and who maintained confidence in me throughout the program; my children--Daniel, Joseph, and Jessica—-who helped me keep my perspective, especially during the more challenging times; and finally my wife, Lillian, who helped me realize my own ambition in this endeavor and who not only supported me throughout, but who also assumed many extra parental responsibilities asl worked to finish this project. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Beginnings of Teacher Education Shift in Emphasis in Teacher Training A New Component in Teacher Education: The One That Has Been There All the Time Reflection--the Action of a True Professional? A Review of Teacher Education Research Regarding Supervision A Review of Fieldwork Research of Student Teacher Supervision Summary CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY Background Choice of Methodology for Data Collection and Analysis Choosing the Site Choice of POpulation The Story of the Data Collection Protocol of Questions for Student Teacher Interviews-- Pre-S tudent Teaching Protocol of Questions for Student Teacher Interviews-- Post-S tudent Teaching CHAPTER IV: DATA FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Advanced Organizer for the Chapter Theme 1: The Field Instructor's Dilemma The Field Instructor Wanted to Be Less Directive vii PAGE ix 12 12 l6 17 25 27 28 46 (I7 47 #7 The Field Instructor Intended to Be More Critical of the Techniques of Instruction of the Student Teachers The Field Instructor Had a Dilemma: How Could He Be Less Directive and Facilitate Reflection and Be More Directively Critical of the Teaching Techniques of the Student Teachers at the Same Time? The Student Teachers Wanted the Field Instructor to Be More Directively Critical The Field Instructor Was Directively Critical of the Teaching Techniques of the Student Teachers The Field Instructor Tended to Be Manipulative in Providing Feedback to the Student Teachers The Field Instructor Tended to Defend His Directiveness The Field Instructor Tended to Be Less Overtly Directive in the Post-Observation Conferences Theme 2: Student Teacher Action that the Field Instructor Failed to Adequately Improve to His Satisfaction Brevity of Lesson Plans Maintaining Overall Classroom Behavior When Working with a Small Group or Individual Theme 3: The Field Instructor Equated "Being Less Directive" with "Facilitating Reflection": Was This a Developmental Stage of the Learning Community Program? Theme 4: Student Teacher Thinking about Student Learning Theme 5: Possible Influences of the Researcher on the Participants The Field Instructor Wanted to Please the Researcher The Researcher Maintained a Non-Directive Posture with the Researcher over the Data Collection Period CHAPTER V: INTERPRETIVE COMMENTARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Implications for the Profession Recommendations for Future Research APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY viii PAGE 50 52 53 55 58 62 64 69 69 76 79 83 87 87 89 91 93 101 101} 119 LIST OF TABLES PAGE I. A Comparison of the Number of Lines of Talk Between the Field Instructor and Student Teacher During Selected Post-Observation Conferences 65 ix LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Lesson Plan for Monday, January 19, 1987 71 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The origins of student teaching as part of a college-based education can be traced back to 15th century England (Johnson, 1968). Some form of directed student teaching has existed throughout the history of teacher education in this country and is currently embodied in various forms in most teacher education programs (Griffin, 1986). Student teaching is seen as an integral and critical element in preparing teachers by teacher educators, preservice teachers, inservice teachers, and lay people, as any perusal of the teacher education literature will demonstrate (Griffin, 1983a; Lortie, 1975; Joyce, Yarger, 6: Howey, 1977; Conant, 1963; Zeichner, 1980). Indeed, amid this widespread valuing of the student teaching experience, there is a current trend toward increasing the Opportunities for and intensity of field experiences in teacher preparation programs (The Holmes Group, 1986). Given student teaching's long history, together with the consensus valuing field experiences and with current trends toward increasing the opportunities for these experiences, one might assume a large knowledge base for student teaching. One would suppose that the nature of these field experiences and our understanding of professional practice in teacher education in supervising field experiences would be well documented in the teacher education research literature. However, this is not the case. Haberman (1983) describes the studies of student teaching inquiry as "meager, and trivial" (p. 98). Shutes (1975) states that our practice suffers because it is guided by "unevaluated experience" (p. 85). Sprinthall and Thies-Sprinthall (1983) describe the situation of teacher education vis-a-vis student teaching as confused, at best: "The result is a practice and a profession which wanders between the cosmic and the trivial, without necessarily knowing one from the other" (p. 75). Koehler (1984) seemed to sum it up best when she wrote that we know very little about what happens during student teaching. University supervision of student teachers has been a part of teacher education programs for many years (Morris, 1970. Unfortunately, we seem to know even less about the professional practice of university supervision of student teachers than we do about student teaching (Koehler, 198li). Seldom does supervision become the focus of discussion in the literature on student teaching and field experiences (May,l986). Only in recent journals and conference papers has supervision received more than scant attention (Boydell, 1986). Some of the authors that have written about student teacher supervision have chosen to focus on the positive side of supervisory practice. Alvermann (1981), based on the reports of student teachers whom she was supervising, argued that the role of the university supervisor is to facilitate the reconciliation of any dissonance that may occur during student teaching and to help things run smoothly. Friebus (1977), after interviewing several student teachers, concluded that the university supervisor was a main influence in the areas of "coaching" and "legitimation." From their descriptive study, Zim pher, deVoss, and Nott (1980) concluded that the university supervisory's influence is very important. They found that the supervisors they studied "provided most of the impetus to the student teachers to advance beyond concerns for daily Chores to concerns for self-analysis and improvement" (Griffin, 1986, p. 251). There is also some literature concerning the problems of practice of university supervision of student teachers. Katz (1986) describes the tensions between the university's college of education and the local school district as problematic for the university supervisor of student teachers. The supervisor operates between two worlds: the university and the public school. As a result, the supervisor has two distinct, and sometimes conflicting, roles (Lourie, 1982; Solliday, 1982). Fuller and Bown (1975) describe this problem from the point of view of the student teacher when they say that they are "caught in the crack between the 'emergent—oriented' college professor and the more traditional supervising teacher" (p. 29). Linking these two worlds has been an enduring problem of practice of the university supervisor of student teachers (Koehler, 1984). Katz (1986) suggests that there are so many conflicting demands on the practice of university supervision of student teachers that supervisors are forced to Choose one path knowing that other problems will remain unsolved, perhaps throughout the duration of student teaching and beyond. She also discusses the problems associated with the phenomenon called the "feedforward effect" of preservice teacher education training: "The general principle underlying the 'feedforward effect' is that while experience, once obtained, does not change, the meaning and value assigned to it, i.e., the evaluations of those experiences and understandings accrue" (p. 13). The supervisor, then, not only must prepare the student to deal with the actualities of the moment. The supervisor also must prepare the student for the eventualities of new meanings and understandings that the student will make during reflection about experiences over time. Ellenburg (1981), based on the limited number of site visits a supervisor is able to make, argues that college supervision has little if any influence on the professional behavior of student teachers. Emans (1983) went a step farther in saying that not only does a college supervisor have little real influence on the student teacher, but that the supervisor may in fact be a disruptive force in the student's progress in learning. Boydell (1986) lists mounting evidence concerning the influence of supervisors on student teachers that raises serious implications for the traditional types of university-based teaching practice supervision. As Ellenburg (1981) describes it, the time and situation do not invite a traditional approach to the supervision of student teaching process. Given the impressions in the literature that something is wrong with the way university supervision of student teaching is practiced, some authors seek a correction by suggesting a lessening of the responsibilities the university supervisor exercises in working directly with student teachers. Morris (1974), for example, suggested that the supervisor should serve as a liaison, being available for counseling with student teachers when the need arises. Emans (1983). recommended that the university supervisor have less direct responsibility for supervision and get more involved with inservice work in the school itself. Supervisors might work with the COOperating teacher in areas such as curriculum development and improvement of teaching, focusing on interpretation of theory and research. Ellenburg (1981) concurred with this recommendation of redirecting the supervisor's time and energies toward the COOperating teacher and away from the student teacher. Patty (1973) argued that the role of the college supervisor will be usurped by the c00perating teacher anyway. Holt (1982) raised doubt as to whether the role of the university supervisor can be carried out effectively. Bowman (1979) suggested that the university supervisor be eliminated in the student teaching enterprise altogether. In summary, support for the traditional university supervisor role is equivocal. As many problems with student teaching supervision have been uncovered, there seem to be, at least, as many recommendations for improving the practice of university supervision of student teaching. Models, theories, strategies, typologies, approaches, and systems all have been preposed in the literature, all designed to improve the practice of supervision. Copeland and Atkinson (1978) suggest that supervisors take a more directive approach with student teachers because, based on their research, student teachers seem to prefer a more directive approach, a "tell-m e-what-to-do" attitude, as Opposed to a non-directive approach. Gallagher, Romano, Sunflower, and Shepherd (1983) offer a system for supervision used at the University of Oklahoma, whereby the responsibilities for supervision lie with three "role groups": COOperating teachers, university supervisors, and student teachers. Gitlin (1984) presents an approach to supervision entitled "horizontal evaluation." He describes it as an approach designed to "help student teachers analyze the relationship between their intents and practice and to rethink and modify their intents" (p. 46). Housego and Grimmett (1983) suggest a typology of approaches available to supervisors caught up in the performance based/developmental debate. Nerenz (1979) recommends that the supervisor approach the role as a teacher or instructor would. Thus, what literature there is about supervision of student teachers is divided between what's right with the practice, what‘s wrong with the practice and what ought to be with practice. Suggestions for improvement would lessen the responsibilities of the university-based supervisor along with several ideas for improving supervisory practice. However, little in the literature describes what university supervision of student teaching looks like. What is it that student teacher supervisors do? Recent calls for a naturalistic inquiry into the supervision Of student teachers are numerous in the literature (Ahnell & Driscoll, 1981; Fuller 8: Bown, 1975; Griffin, 1986; Lanier 6: Little, 1986; McIntyre, 1984; Tabachnick, Popkewitz, 6r Zeichner, 1980; Zeichner 8r Tabachnick, 1982; Zimpher, deVoss, 8r Nott, 1980). As Griffin (1986), in his extensive review of the literature related to issues of student teaching, states, "There has been very little research conducted regarding the actual models of practice despite the numerous theoretical models that have been proposed" (p. 251). At the same time, a recent development in the practice of teacher education has been the creation of alternative teacher education programs. In a traditional teacher education program, a series of courses is offered that often lack coherence, stability, and grounded justification for teaching practice (Barnes, 1987). Field experiences are not viewed by the preservice teacher as an Opportunity to actualize the theoretical views of teaching learned in university-based courses. Rather, field experiences are seen as the only opportunity to really learn how to teach--by just doing it—with little thought given to theoretical considerations of teaching practice (Feiman- Nemser 8c Buchmann, 1983). The university supervisor role in the field experience is basically to ensure that the preservice teacher survives student teaching. Non-standard teacher education programs are beginning to appear that offer alternatives to the type of standard teacher education program described above. For example, Michigan State University offered a set of four alternative programs beginning in 1981. What made them different, or alternatives, was that they were thematic-based, and each had a slightly different conceptual foundation. Each Of the alternative programs emphasized specific aspects of the teacher's role. The cadre or cohort of students admitted to each of these programs was small (30) relative to most standard programs, and they proceeded through the program as a group. Courses and field experiences were organized around each program's conceptual base. Field experiences were required beginning with the first term of the program and were designed to produce three outcomes for preservice teachers: I. to learn about concepts and principles that are important for teaching, 2. to engage in directed practice and reflection within situations which have reduced complexity, and 3. to expand student understandings of teaching through opportunities to assume increasingly greater responsibility for decision making and action within the "real world" of the Classroom. (Barnes, 1987, p. 12) With the increase and intensification of field experiences, there was a demand for a different view of the role and responsibilities of the supervisor, known as a field instructor in these alternative programs. The role of the field instructor seemed to extend far beyond the notion of helping teacher candidates survive student teaching. One underlying assumption in these alternative programs at MSU is that the definition and implementation of the field instructor's role must be congruent with the conceptual base of the particular theme of the program (Putnam, Hoerr, Barger, Murdoch, Johnson, 6: Johns, 1989). This is consistent with the work of May and Zim pher (1986) and Zimpher and Howey (1986). The thematic approach at MSU rests on another assumption, namely that preservice teacher education should help create students of teaching. As Barnes (1987) states: . . . the goal of initial teacher education is to launch experienced, knowledgeable novices, not in- experienced "experts." The expectation that learning to teach continues throughout one’s teaching career is readily acknowledged. Thus, initial learning must provide in-depth understandings that support the theme of the program. It is assumed that lifelong learning is more likely if novices have experienced what it means to know something in depth and have, therefore, developed the intellectual tools necessary for reflective examination and serious study of their teaching. It was hOped that prospective teachers would thus be empowered to take charge of their own learning. (p. 7) Since the field experiences are an integral part of the teacher education process, this assumption places significant responsibilities on the shoulders of the field instructor. To fulfill his responsibilities, the field instructor must try not just to agree, but also to act in a way that is congruent, with the theme of the program in which he is working (Putnam et al., 1989). The field instructor must help the student teacher become a reflective examiner and serious student of his teaching. What does that mean for the field instructor in terms of his action? And what might that action look like? The development of reflective habits is a fmction of the empowerment that underscores the alternative programs at MSU (Barnes, 1987) that they hope will make life-long learners of pre-service teachers. The notion of developing reflective habits is not a new one. Reflection in learning can be traced to Aristotle's discussions of practical judgment and moral action in his Ethics (Grundy 8c Kemmis, 1982). In more modern times within education, Dewey (1904) has been the most influential figure in promoting reflective practice. The distinctive quality of this practice is the active involvement of the student teacher. The posture of the supervisor is collaborative. The goal is the engagement of the student teacher in the process of inquiry into the student teacher's practice. Together supervisor and student teacher review past action of the student teacher, consider meanings that the student teacher makes Of that past action, make inferences, and plan for future action the student teacher may take based on those inferences. The student teacher is invited to share publicly his thoughts, feelings, and intentions with the supervisor and together they make inferences and plan future action. The object is the deveIOpment Of self-inquiry skills in the student teacher and the ultimate goal a self-sustaining, self-critical professional teacher. Goodman (1984) writes: In 1904, John Dewey wrote that the primary purpose of teacher preparation programs should be to help students reflect upon the underlying principles of practice. He warned that if programs emphasized only technical expertise and failed to help students mderstand the relationship between theory and practice, the growth of future teachers would be stunted and the education of the children impaired. (p. 9) There is considerable support within the teacher education literature for including this approach in supervisory practice (Brosio, 1975; Emans, 1981; Hogan, 1983; Lanier & Little, 1986; Tabachnick, Popkewitz, & Zeichner, 1980). Interest in reflective practice has been characteristic of critical theory outside the field of teacher education (Freire, 1970; Argyris, 1982; Schon, 1983). 10 Schon (1983) tells us that professional practice has changed precisely where our confidence in specialized knowledge has failed us. The role of the reflective practitioner has shifted from that of "problem solving" to "problem setting" or problem selection. Rather than relying on tried and true knowledge which applies to all settings and situations, the professional, Schon tells us, must make inferences from previous particular cases experienced. In review, we seem to know little about what the supervision of student teaching looks like. There is a need for more field study inquiry into student teaching supervision. The profession needs to know more about "what is out there" (Fuller 6: Bown, 1985, p. 52). What has been written refers to supervisory practice in standard teacher education programs. There is need for the development of a new role for the supervisor which, from this point onward, will be referred to as field instructor. An underlying assummption in the development of this new role is that there must be congruence between particular program goals and the practice of field instruction. For example, one of the goals of these alternative programs is to create students of teaching (Barnes, 1987). One way this translates is the development of reflective habits in student teachers. And while there is some support for this type of supervision both within and outside of the teacher education literature, there is little data to show what it looks like in practice. Given the importance of supervision in the student teaching field experience, together with the seeming lack of field study data on what student teacher supervision or field instruction might look like in actual practice, it seems useful to explore what student teacher supervision or "field instruction" might look like in one of these alternative teacher education programs at 11 Michigan State University. What might the action of the field instructor look like as he attempts to develop reflective habits? What other themes might emerge upon closer examination of what actually happens in the practice of field instruction in an alternative teacher education program? CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The topic of this investigation is field instruction of student teachers in an alternative teacher education program. Facilitating reflective habits is one area of focus. Others will likely emerge. The review of the literature surrounding this topic begins with the history of student teaching together with the evolution of the supervision of student teaching. Next is presented what's been written about the notion of reflection, reflection on practice, and facilitation of reflection on practice. Following that discussion will be a review of what we do know about the supervision of student teachers. This will be presented in two parts. The first part is a look at several major reviews of the teacher education research literature, focusing on what we already do know about supervision of student teachers. The second part, which also concludes this chapter, will look at Specific field studies of supervision of student teachers. The Beginnings of Teacher Education There is general agreement among educational historians that although some semblance of a school existed as long as 4,000 years ago, formal teacher education has been around less than 300 years (Johnson, 1968). The roots of practice teaching, however, can be traced to the middle ages. That is the period when the master-apprentice model was common (Partridge, 1964). The 12 13 apprentice would attach himself to a master to learn a trade. The underlying assumption was that the apprentice would learn by observation and then emulation. In working closely with the master, the apprentice was expected to watch carefully and pick up the tricks of the trade. Then, when the Opportmity arose, the apprentice would attempt to reproduce what he had been observing. Some refer to this method of training as "learn by doing," others call it "trial and error," and still others call it "sink or swim." With reference to apprenticeship as a method of teacher preparation, Fristoe (1942) writes: The first attempt to give this practical (teacher) training in an organized and systematic manner on which we have authentic information was the outgrowth of the guild system which flourished in Europe during the latter centuries of the Middle Ages. At a time when merchants and artists and workmen .were all organizing and setting up definite limitations and prerequisites to membership in their unions, it was only natural that teachers should form similar organizations. In order to become a master, the beginner was required to serve a rather long period of apprenticeship. During this time he received little or no compensation and served as an assistant and substitute and, finally, taught a class of his own under the supervision of the master to whom he had been assigned. (p. 219) The actual practice of supervision of these apprentices is not spelled out very clearly. There were probably as many types of supervision as there were master teachers. In other words, in the absence of any mention of guiding principles that would serve to underlie the practice of supervision, one would assume that the methods of supervisory practice were implemented in a haphazard manner. The right method of teaching was determined by each individual master. It is also unclear what the criteria were in selecting a good or master teacher. Here again, however, one could conjecture what some of the criteria 14 were. Things like longevity, charisma, and just being known were no doubt helpful in being considered a master teacher. From the middle ages on through the 18th century, as teacher training became more formalized, elements of this master-apprentice, learn-by-doing model endured. After watching their instructors present lessons, teachers-in- training would have to present demonstration lessons to their fellow students after which they would be critiqued by the instructor. Another related approach was called the monitorial system. Students who were the best students were assigned the task of monitoring or supervising their peers. Once these monitors graduated, then they immediately became teachers. The underlying assumptions here were that the best students will make the best teachers and that the monitorial experience would serve as teacher training. The teacher was the master and the monitor was the apprentice. Boydell (1986), in her discussion of the current problems of student teacher supervision, states that if we were to abolish supervision as we now know it and replace it with the apprenticeship model, there would be four major problems. First, it leaves the student teachers on their own to make deductions regarding what is good and bad instruction. This is especially problematic when student teachers see only poor teaching. Second, even if student teachers see a good teacher using a repertoire of techniques that reflect that teacher's values, personality, and experiences, the fit may not be the same for the student teachers. Student teachers may copy some of these techniques which may tu'n out to be ineffectual or harmful when they try them out. Third, even if the teacher to whom the student teachers are exposed is excellent, that teacher can't be excellent in every way. Thus, without supervision, the student teachers may not ever realize that there are 15 other ways to be excellent. The last problem with the apprenticeship model is that there is still little agreement as to what is good teaching. However, there are vestiges of the master-apprenti ceship model that are well supported in the teacher education literature. Concepts such as "modeling" and "mentoring" are highly valued approaches in current teacher- training as well as learning in general. For example, the Mentor Teacher Project at Michigan State University, as part of the Academic Learning Teacher Education program, was created to help prospective teachers better understand the research knowledge they were learning in order that they might act on it (Roth, Rosaen, 6: Lanier, 1988). Prospective teachers are assigned to a classroom teacher,who is called a mentor teacher, for the full two years of their teacher education field experiences. The mentors, working closely with university faculty, are expected to become familiar with the research knowledge and conceptual base of the Academic Learning program in order to facilitate the field experiences of the prospective teachers. At the same time, the mentors are expected to share their wisdom of practice as it relates to their particular classrooms. This project, although an expansion of the concept of apprenticeship, has its roots in the master-apprentice model. Another example of the influence of the apprenticeship model has been espoused by Collins, Brown, and Newman (1986) and is entitled cognitive apprenticeship. Using the core techniqies of modeling, coaching, and fading, their belief is that in the apprenticeship model, the apprentice acquires expertise, problem-solving, and life-long learning skills. This model is based on the belief that "apprenticeship learning is the way we learn most naturally" (p. 30). It also assumes that knowledge and cognition are situated. The activity, context, and culture in which the knowledge is developed and used have 16 significant effect on what is eventually learned (Brown, Collins, and Duguid, 1989). Much of their work has been in subject area learning situations, but their belief is that this model is applicable to all learning situations, including the education of pre-service teachers. Shift in Emphasis in Teacher Training Toward the end of the 18th century, new thinking about the ways children learn best were born. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) wrote a book entitled Emile which some educational historians consider to be a great educational classic (Pieper, 1953). Cole (1950) summarizes the work with the following: Reduced to maxims, the passages could be epitomized thus: go back to nature, let the children be children, make games an education and education a game, let nature take its course, teach less from books and more from life. Use many objects and few words, let your child be free, win his confidence, protect him from artificiality of human society, do not coerce him, stimulate his mind with things he can understand, and keep him healthy. (p. 403). This new thinking set in motion a series of movements over the next several decades. Pestalozzi, and then Herbert, Barnard and others, took this new thinking and translated it into methods that teachers-in-training needed to learn in order to be successful (Johnson, 1968). This was the birth of pedagogy, which when translated from its Greek derivatives, is the art and science of helping children learn (Knowles, 1980). What this new thinking embodied, then, was a methodology of teaching complete with techniques of instruction. As this approach to teacher training gained momentum, the master instructor was expected to develop these new pedagogical skills in his apprentice. There were methods that needed to beqlearned by teachers-in- training. This was a definite shift in emphasis for teacher education. 17 These developments did not fully reach the rapidly deve10ping teacher training institutions until the end of the 19th century. Tied together with these developments was the evolution and acceptance of educational psychology, with its emphasis on Child study, stages of learning, and teaching methods (Johnson, 1968). Research on methodology and teaching practice have grown significantly in recent years. The study of teaching is more widespread and intense than ever (Wittrock, 1986). A New C_orn 13mm in Beacher Education: The One That Has Been There All the Time In the mid-19505, a group of student teacher supervisors at Harvard University, led by a man named Morris Cogan, had come to the conclusion that what they were doing was simply not working. Out of that admission of failure, and the ensuing discussion and field testing of alternatives that followed, came the professional practice of what we now call clinical supervision (Cogan, 1973). Clinical supervision has grown far beyond its roots in teacher education and is a widely used form of supervisory practice in schools all over the world. The fmdamental mderpinnings of this process called clinical supervision are that: . . . teaching behavior involves actions of the teacher that trigger student interactions. Such behavior can be systematically observed and recorded through various classroom observational systems, thus producing an "objective" data base. Collected data produce a portrait of student and teacher classroom behavior for a given length of time. Appropriately analyzed, these data provide teachers with a picture of the strengths and weaknesses of their teaching, given specified goals and objectives. Inconsistencies between what actually happens and what teachers would like to have happen are the motivation for change in teaching techniques. (Reed 6: Mallory, 1986, p. 74) 18 This type of supervision is concerned with effective methods of classroom instruction and the improvement of those methods. To that extent, clinical supervision is in the genre of improved pedagogy and technique of instruction. However, upon closer examination, there are the beginnings of a new component in the process, namely the one who is being supervised. Up until now, it was the master, full of practical knowledge and experience, who guided the apprentice, or the instructor, steeped in the latest methodologies and effective practices, who instructed the teacher-in-training. This interaction suggests a one way, dependent type of relationship. The supervisee receives external feedback from the supervisor. This external feedback consists of the inferences the SUpervisor makes about the actions observed during a teaching episode. These inferences are based on comparing the supervisee's behavior to either the supervisor's experiences, the supervisor's professional knowledge of effective methods, or both. What seems to differentiate clinical supervision is the attempt to involve the supervisee, or practice teacher, in the process. Clinical supervision tries to level off the relationship between the supervisor and supervisee. As Cogan himself states, clinical supervision . . . is not unilateral action taken by the supervisor and aimed at the teacher. On the contrary, the teacher is called on to assume almost all the roles and responsibilities of a supervisor in his interaction with the clinical supervisor. He initiates action, proposes hypotheses, analyzes his own performance, shares reSponsibilities for devising supervisory strategies, and is equally responsible for the maintenance of morale in the supervisory processes. (Cogan, 1973, p. xi) So the new component introduced to the practice of supervision with the Onset of clinical supervision is the supervisee or, more specifically, in the case 19 of teacher education, the student teacher. The student teacher is actively involved in the process. The relationship of the supervisor and student teacher takes on a character that generates such descriptors as collegial and respectful of each other's capabilities. Hoped for outcomes of this process include, but are not limited to, shared decision making, joint goal setting, and self examination and analysis on the part of both parties (Reed & Mallory, 1986). Reflection-~the Action of a True Professional? At the turn of the century, the technical approach to teacher preparation was beginning to dominate. The methods of teaching were being taught in all major teacher training institutions of that era. Pedagogy was the guide word of the day as teacher educators worked with their preservice teachers to make them more proficient in the skills and techniques of effective instruction. However, at this same time, John Dewey began to articulate a different view of teaching and teacher training. John Dewey believed that field experiences such as student teaching should not be situations where the student teacher receives an indoctrination in the correct technique or skill. Rather, field experiences should also facilitate the forming of habits that help the teacher become thoughtful and alert as a student of teaching (May 8: Zimpher, 1986). He thought that the primary purpose of teacher education should be to help students understand the relationship between theory and practice (Goodman, 1984). Emans (1981) states very clearly Dewey's point of view on teacher preparation when he says, Teachers-to-be must be helped (to analyze classroom events as the basis for selecting goals and choosing processes and activities to achieve their goals. They must find new solutions to old problems and be l“ ’l‘) "C" (I, r I’_ (I’m) prepared to notice and make adjustments around new problems. We need to prepare teachers who are critical; who can distinguish what has been shown to be valid purpose and what has not and thus identify problems for study; plan and implement solutions for problems; and verify results. (p. 214) The task of the supervisor, then, according to Dewey, is to facilitate and stimulate student teacher reflection and thinking about practice. This is a significant departure from his pedagogically-oriented colleagues, who were clearly in the majority at the turn of the century. What Dewey was saying was that we must help the student teacher to make his own inferences about his practice, and that the ability to make these inferences, and then modify his professional practice as a result of these inferences, was what the goal of teacher education should be. In Dewey's mind, teacher educators must create not just good practitioners, but rather practitioners who are capable of reflection on action with the goal of modifying their action in the future. The emphasis in teacher education, then, is on the process of reflection and not on a set of techniques or skills to be learned. The stance of the supervisor in Dewey's model is cast differently from the apprenticeship model. The supervisor is viewed by the student teacher more as a collaborator and colleague. Burke (1984) draws on adult education literature to describe this type of supervisor-supervisee relationship. He suggests that the character of the supervisory relationship would be quite different if teachers were treated as adult learners. There would be a sharing of the responsibility for the supervisory plan and its execution, a mutuality of goal definition and a sense of shared progress toward reaching those goals, and in the process, "the teachers' past experiences would be used as a positive resource for new learning" (p. 25 3). 21 Others in teacher education have continued in John Dewey's tradition. Zeichner and Teitelbaum (1982), for example, discuss the inquiry-oriented model as an effective method in working with student teachers. In this model, the supervisor facilitates high level reflective activity, helping the student teacher link everyday teaching action with more complex issues of school and society. Emans (1981) recommends a reflective approach to teacher education because of the complexity of the enterprise of teacher training: "To produce a complex product like a thinking teacher requires the interweaving of a variety of educational activities and their effects" (p. 216). To facilitate this "interweaving" process, he says we must facilitate student teacher reflection. It makes sense to suppose that developing a "thinking teacher" requires a learning environment in which the teacher candidate must think and re-think teaching practice. Scheffler (1968) states the case strongly with this passage: If we accordingly conceive of the education of teachers not simply as the training of individual classroom performers, but as the development of a class of intellectuals vital to a free society, we can see more clearly the role of educational scholarship and theoretical analysis in the process. For, though the latter do not directly enhance craftsmanship, they raise continually the sorts of questions that students need continually to have before them . . . . To link the preparation of teachers with such questions is the special Opportunity of the university. (p. 9) Dewey's proponents are not limited to the field of teacher education. Reflection on practice as a legitimate professional development activity receives much support in the staff develOpm ent/inservice education literature. Courter and Ward (1978) support the idea that teachers need time for reflection about some of the changes they are going through and the effects of 22 those changes on their teaching repertoire. Sprinthall and Thies-Sprinthall (1983) describe this time as occasions for structured and continuous guided reflection by teachers on their professional experiences. They explained that teachers can be helped in learning to inquire into their own experience in a systematic fashion, so they might better make sense of what they experience. Barnes and Putnam (1981) suggest that what teachers should expect from inservice programs is assistance in becoming "thoughtful decision-makers who have multiple ways of reflecting on their own teaching practice" (p. 4). Griffin (1983b) talks about reflection time in another way. He says that staff development should have a problem-solving orientation that structures the handling of both current problems reactively and future problems proactively. In both cases time is needed if careful responses are to be thought through by teachers. Lieberman and Miller (1984) put it simply as providing time to learn. Support for Dewey's position can also be seen in adult education literature. In her discussion of adults and change, Boydell (1986) suggests that adults are more likely to learn in situations where they are encouraged to reflect on their past experiences. Connolly (1981) also addresses the notion of reflection on past action to facilitate adult learning. In his description of Freire's work, he suggests that a way to prevent an adult's past experiences from inhibiting future learning is to provide the time and structure for reflective inquiry into past action which helps adults to reSpond more consciously to present and future situations. Reflection on past experiences affords the adult learner the Opportunity to make use of what has already been learned while viewing the current learning situation as a new one requiring a unique response. 23 Levine, Eggert, and Ziegahn (1981) explain Freire's concept of "praxis," which is a dynamic movement between action and reflection. They emphasize that to just reflect, in Freire's terms, is too theoretical and similar to the traditional school setting. Freire's praxis is grounded in the action of the real world. Freire (1970) himself presents the notion of reflection as a type of liberation phiIOSOphy. His work has centered on the masses of poor people in Latin America. He proposes that through reflection, one can reach the level of "conscientization." Conscientization is ". . . a new level of awareness that occurred as villagers in rural Brazil and Chile became aware that they had options and could make choices about things that they had formerly seen as beyond their control" (p. 232). Similar to Freire in perspective, the critical theorists argue for a less politically loaded pedagogy. They envision schools in which support is provided for theorizing, thinking, and reflection, not the mere exposure to correct ideas. Giroux (1986) would build a critical pedagogy around the stories peOple tell. He calls this finding one's voice. A person's voice cannot be understood outside of the shared meanings, symbols, and routines of particular contexts. McLaren (1989) puts it this way, "All discou'se is situated historically and mediated culturally and derives part of its meaning in interaction with others" (p. 229). Certainly the individual voice also transcends the culture. This voice exists in, and interacts with, a historical and cultural context. Its origins, however, are from within the indivichal. Giroux sees the problem as a political one, in that the teacher is tempted to force his or her voice onto the class as the only authentic voice in the room. "If you want to speak, talk like me." The critical theorists would have the 24 student hear the teacher's voice, but the real goal is to find one's own voice. What doI really think? How does this compare with whatl do? Argyris (1987) develops heuristics for fostering such reflection-in-action. He would see it as a new "action science." He prOposes a theory of learning and behavior in which reflection is a key component. His theory is that in explaining our actions, we have an espoused theory about our intentions when in action. However, Argyris explains that the action itself is also represented by a theory, what he calls the theory-in-use. "Theories-in-use are the often tacit cognitive maps by which human beings design action" (p. 82). Sometimes our espoused theories and theories-in-use are the same and sometimes they are not. Quite often, to determine all of this is very complex. Reflection can help make these theories more explicit and mravel the complexities. Future action, then, is framed in the reflective process. Schon (1983), an associate of Argyris, describes the work of professionals as becoming increasingly complex, uncertain, unstable, unique, and conflict- ridden. He suggests that reflection, both during and after action, facilitates the increased effectiveness of the professional as he faces ever-increasing demands on his practice. Zimpher and Howey (1986) present a framework for examining fou purposes of teacher education that might relate to supervision: technical competence, clinical competence, personalized competence, and critical competence. In the technical model, the focus of supervision is to help the student teacher improve methods of instruction. In the clinical model, the supervisor facilitates reflective decision-making and action so that the student teacher can solve more practical problems. In developing personalized competence, the supervisor attempts to increase the self-awareness, identity 25 formation, and interpretive capacities of the student teacher. In the critical model, the focus of the supervision is on helping the student teacher be more reflective in decision-making and action to form more rational and just schools. Their intent was to examine instructional improvement in teacher education and what impact the different supervisory practices listed in the framework had on that instructional improvement. In summary, the evolution of the theories and practice of student teacher supervision continue. Yet current theory and practice can find its roots in that theory and practice of years ago. Another pattern begins to emerge from the literature as it gets more current and that is the analogy made frequently between how pupils learn in classrooms and how teacher candidates learn to teach. Teaching proactive thinking skills in schools has been endorsed as preferable practice at the same time that teacher candidates have been urged to be reflective. A current review of teacher education research is now presented. First is a look at what the literature is saying in general about supervision of student teaching. Then a review of specific field studies regarding student teacher supervision is discussed. A Review of Teacher Education Research Regarding Supervision Lanier and Little (1986), in their comprehensive review of research on teacher education, devote one section of that chapter to those who teach teachers. The overriding conclusion for their investigation is that those who teach teachers are more likely to display the intellectual performance of one who lacle the ability to probe thoughtfqu and analytically. They are cognitive conservatives. They tend to have a non-academic orientation to their work, a more narrow, unquestioning perspective. 26 Griffin (1986), in his review of the issues of student teaching, found the roles of the university supervisor not clearly defined. He also found that university supervisors received little systematic orientation to their functions in working with student teachers. From this sampling of the literature, one could conclude that supervisory practice of student teachers is haphazard. The overriding concern of many writers is the lack of any meaningful data about student teacher supervisory practice. Fuller and Bown (1975) raise the question, "What do teacher educators out there actually do?" They describe the job of educating teachers as "enormously complex," and feel that naturalistic inquiries that describe usual and unusual action are needed. They depict the woeful state of research on teacher education in this way: "Teaching teachers is a bit like trying to repair a speeding automobile in the midst of a better argument about how it should be done. More information about how the car runs is badly needed" (p. 49). Glickman and Bey (1990) describe the research on the university supervision of student teachers as "sporadic, with many areas still uncovered" (p. 561). Some of these uncovered areas include looking at outcomes of different delivery systems of supervision and studying the issue of governance and organization of supervision of student teachers. Areas that research have uncovered include the need for training of, and a reward structure for, university supervisors and the need to more Clearly delineate roles and responsibilities of the university supervisor, COOperating teacher, and student teacher. Both Lanier (1986) and Griffin (1986) bemoan the paucity of literature on supervision of student teachers. Studies of this nature are "typically overlooked" in the teacher education literature says Lanier. Griffin states 27 that even though we have numerous theoretical frameworks for supervision contained in the literature, we have very few examples of actual practice. Zeichner and Tabachnick (1982) are more specific when they say, ". . . there is a need for supervision researchers to redirect their attention away from the effectiveness question toward more subtle investigations of the ways in which supervisors interpret and give meaning to their work" (p. 39). A Review offleldwork Research of Student Teacher Supervision Some naturalistic inquiry into student teacher supervision has been done in recent years. Zimpher, deVoss, and Nott (1980) investigated the triadic relationship of student teacher supervision. They attempted to get the different perspectives of three student teachers, three cooperating teachers, and one university supervisor on selected experiences. After analysis of transcripts of numerous tape-recorded interactions between members of the group being studied, the researchers concluded the supervisor's role is quite complex and that the role is critical to provide corrective feedback and make a critical contribution to the student teacher's progress. The study of Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner (1980) revealed an interesting result with regard to supervisory behavior. The investigation sought to explore the experience of student teaching for a group of teachers- in—training at a large midwestern university. The researchers wanted to find out the students' developing beliefs about teaching and about themselves as teachers. With regard to supervision, what they discovered was that university-based supervisors tended to encourage student teachers to adopt the norms of the particular school, even when those norms were in direct conflict with pedagogical principles learned in teacher training classes at the 28 university prior to student teaching. In seminars and supervisory conferences, the student teachers were subtly encouraged to acquiesce and conform to existing school routines. Zeichner and Tabachnick (1982) wanted to know the range of supervisory belief systems that existed among nine university supervisors of elementary education students. They studied transcripts of audio-taped interviews to assess the, purposes and priorities they held for their work with student teachers, and to ascertain the ways in which they carried out their supervisory roles. The investigators found that although all nine supervisors were trained and engaged in clinical supervision, they described a variety of beliefs and supervisory behavior. As they stated it, "The label 'clinical supervision' did not discriminate among several different approaches to supervision" (p. 48). And finally, Gitlin, Ogawa, and Rose (1984) presents a comparative analysis of case studies across varying supervisory situations using the horizontal evaluation model. Horizontal evaluation is based on the assumption that a supervisor doesn't just help with strategies, but helps student teachers analyze intent and its relationship to practice. Transcripts and videos were analyzed for triangulated data. Gitlin's results indicated that horizontal evaluation of student teachers provides methods of supervision that go beyond a focus on prescriptive practice. This process allows self-evaluation and encourages growth. Student teachers learn to reflect on their work and understand how they influence students. Summary Tracing the history of student teaching, and the accompanying description of the evolution of supervision, contributes to our understanding of 29 the practice of supervision today. The practice of supervision seems to have its roots in the apprenticeship model, vestiges of which still exist in high regard at present. The methodological/ child development expert approach was introduced in the eighteenth century and took hold around the nineteenth century. Dewey, with his suggestion that the supervisor must develop the reflective skills of prospective teachers and not just their technical skills, surfaced at the turn of the century but had little impact at that time on teaching training. The clinical supervision model came into the picture in the 19505, and it had some impact on the profession in encouraging supervisors to include the supervisee more in the process. Critical theory and reflection on practice has received renewed attention in the teacher education literature and other fields. The staff development, adult education, and social psychological literatures have all seen an increased interest in the notion of develOping habits of self-inquiry. In reviewing teacher education research, supervision was found to be done by those less intellectually able than their counterparts in the university. Also, the roles of the supervisor are unclear that results in haphazard practice. There is general agreement that there is a lack of relevant research regarding the supervision of student teachers. And, finally, in a review of field research done on student teacher supervision, it has been found that the role of the university supervisor is complex, that the university supervisor is important to the progress of the student teacher, that sometimes the supervisor encouraged the student teacher to go along with the norms of the school even though those norms are in direct conflict with pedagogical principles taught at the university, that the belief system of supervisors act as filters for any training they receive, and 30 that by helping student teachers analyze their intent and then how they acted, a supervisor can facilitate self-evaluation. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Background The supervision of student teachers is decidedly complex (Emans, 1983; Fuller 8: Bown, 1975; Nerenz, 1979; Solliday, 1982). Given that the process of student teacher supervision is complex, a methodology fit to deal with complexity is required. Nerenz (1979) determined that in recent years, university supervisors have become responsible for as many as 50 different and sometimes mrelated tasks, Solliday (1982) speaks of the complexities of the off-campus role being compounded by the addition of the on—campus responsibilities. Fuller and Bown (1975), in a review of the literature on becoming a teacher, conclude that "the job of educating teachers is enormously complex" (p. 49). McIntyre (1984), in recommending further research on the topic of supervision of student teachers, states, "Since the supervisory process is embedded in human interactions, the naturalistic approach can illuminate the more subtle, yet important, interactions inaccessible through a conventional research approach" (p.44). In this study, the intent was to find out what student teacher supervision in an alternative teacher education program looked like. One specific area of study was to be the field instructor's development of the student teacher's ability to reflect on practice. A methodology was needed that would help 31 32 unravel the complexities and espouse the subtleties of this and other processes and activities that occurred. Choice of Methodology for Data Collection and Analysis A field inquiry, or fieldwork research, was the methodology chosen for this study. The goal in this methodology is to specify the processes of face to face interaction and try to understand how these individual events are related to the bigger picture of professional practice (Erickson, 1986). In a field work research report, the researcher presents three major types of content. These three different types of content are woven together and are mutually supportive of one another to help explain, in fact, what is going on. They are described below in ascending levels of comprehensiveness. On the first or narrowest level, the goal of the naturalistic inquirer is to paint a picture of what the action that is being observed looks like. In addition, at this level it is necessary to find ways to understand the manifest and latent meanings that participants give to their action (Wilson, 1977). This process of investigation mandates that the strategies used to bring forth phenomenological data represent the view of the participants being investigated (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). In other words, with this type of data, a fieldwork researcher answers questions such as, "What's happening?" and "How does the participant make meaning of what's happening?" (Erickson, Florio, 6c Buschman, 1980). At the second and third levels, the content reflects intensive, analytic reflection of the researcher on the data collected in level one. At the second or middle level, the researcher describes the generalizability of patterns that are illustrated in the particular description of level one and that emerge from 33 the analysis (Erickson, 1986). These patterns, which are sometimes referred to as assertions, are illustrated through analytic narrative vignettes and direct quotes. At this level the researcher presents the particular instance to represent the pattern, and then presents analogous instances that link with the original key event presented. The researcher then summarizes the distribution of instances in the data to support the notion of a pattern. At the third or broadest level, the researcher reflects further on the data and the patterns that emerge from it. Out of this comes what Erickson (1986) calls interpretive commentary. The researcher considers these patterns in the broader context of assertions about practice both inside and outside of the profession. These assertions are grounded in the particular and general description that is present in levels one and two. At this level, then, the fieldwork researcher answers questions such as, "How does what is happening here connect with what is happening in a wider context both within and outside of this setting?" A fieldwork research report, then, is a multi-layered representation of what's happening during a particular event. The descriptive layers represent proximity to the action being observed. Choosing the Site During the 1986-87 school year, Michigan State University offered five teacher education programs. One of them was called the "Standard Program," and it offered studies in educational psychology; the structure, function, and purposes of schools; instructional methods and materials geared toward specific subjects and age groups; and of course student teaching. 34 In addition to the Standard Program, there were four "alternative" teacher education programs available to students. What made them different, or alternatives, was that they were thematic-based, and each had a slightly different conceptual foundation. Courses and field experiences were organized around each program's conceptual base. Each of the alternative programs emphasized specific aspects of the teacher's role. The cadre or cohort of students admitted to each of these programs was small (30) relative to the Standard Program, and they proceeded through the program as a group. Academic Learning: the focus of this program is on the academic requirements and intellectual foundations of particular disciplines. Heterogeneous Classrooms: the focus in this program is on meeting the needs of the wide variety of students found in a typical classroom. Multiple Perspectives: the focus in this program is on the various purposes of schooling and the many decisions that teachers must make in trying to fulfill those purposes. Learning Community: the focus in this program is on developing personal and social responsibility in students. The researcher chose the Learning Community program to conduct his investigation for several reasons. He previously had worked in Learning Community as a field instructor and was familiar with the program and the people involved with it. Secondly, the co-coordinators of the program were keenly interested in learning more about the Learning Community program through the investigation. Therefore, the program was made quite accessible ‘ for the study. Thirdly, the conceptual foundation of the program was of interest to the researcher. A brief look at this conceptual foundation will be helpful at this point. 35 The Learning Commmity program had selected Schwab's (1976) notion of a "learning community" as the concept around which it organized. Schwab offers two sub-definitions of learning commtnity that, when brought together, constitute his meaning of learning community. The first sub—definition is that commmity can be learned. Commmity is not necessarily a place but, rather, a shared disposition toward certain actions and feelings. Schwab calls these dispositions to act in certain ways propensities. He believes that they can be learned. His second sub-definition of learning commmity is that learning is a commmal venture. We don't learn in isolation. Learning is passed on through human connections, either directly or indirectly. Bringing these two definitions together, Schwab describes his learning community as follows. The propensities that constitute community are learned only as we undergo with others the processes through which we learn other things. Meanwhile, the support, communication, and example that make it possible to learn these things become accessible and acceptable to us only as our propensities toward commmity develop. (p. 51) From this philosophical foundation, then, the Learning Commmity has built its program. It is a program that values the multi-ability classroom, eqial participation and access to knowledge, use of leadership roles and Opportunities for all students, and the provision of evaluative feedback to students built on success that is delivered in a private, multi-dimensional manner. The program describes a Learning Commmity teacher as the following: . . . one who possesses certain perspectives toward the social curriculum, the learning environment, persona and social responsibility, and rational processing. These perspectives are expressed in propensities, which are internal dispositions toward 36 acting in specific ways. The Learning Community teacher seeks to create a collaborative community for individual and group growth and welfare. Within these prOpensities, a descriptor of the rational thinker/decision- maker is that the teacher is a "reflective purveyor of the learning environment, who uses past experiences to shape future action in a cycle of planning, enactment, and reflection-upon-action" (Learning Commmity program description, 1986). This was of particular interest to the researcher as he looked for a program within which to conduct his study. Given the conceptual foundation of this prog;ram, together with the researcher's familiarity with it and the leadership's interest in learning more about the program and, therefore, support for the investigation, the Learning Commmity Teacher Education program was chosen as the site for the investigation. Choice of Population The next task was to find a field instructor to study in the Learning Community program, one willing to be studied. Suitable meant finding a field instructor who is representative of the program, willing to participate in self- examination and had a genuine interest in improvement as a supervisor. Steve Wilson was the field instructor of choice.* Steve Wilson was about 30 years old and had been an elementary school teacher in Alaska for about eight years. He was married and his wife was pregnant with their first child. He took a year's leave of absence from his *The names of the field instructor, Steve Wilson, and the names of the three student teachers, Carol, Jane, and Dan, are pseudonyms. 37 home district to come and do graduate work at MSU. He was selected as a Learning Community field instructor upon arrival in August and supervised some jmiors and seniors in pre-student teaching experiences during the fall 1986 term. There were seven field instructors in Learning Community during fall 1986-four were new like Steve, one had begun the previous winter 1986, and two had been Learning Community field instructors for two years. Although it would be difficult to capture absolutely a typical Learning Community field instructor, Steve was somewhat representative. He was relatively new to the program (as the majority were), but had orientation sessions during fall term, which included more in-depth discussions of the conceptual bases for the program, goals of the program, and strategies to help reach those goals. Steve liked the Learning commmity program very much and was very committed to its goals. When the researcher was introduced to the group of Learning Community staff in the fall of 1986 as someone who was considering doing research in Learning Community on supervision, Steve came up afterwards and said that if volmteers were needed for the researcher's project, he would like to be one. He said that he was interested in looking at himself in a supervisory role in order to improve his skills. From this interaction, it was decided by the researcher that he was open to exploring his own practice as a supervisor. To review then, Steve was somewhat representative of the field instructors in Learning Community at that time and was interested in exploring further his own practice of supervision in that program. Steve was a relatively new field instructor in his second 10 week term of supervision. His first term was spent supervising the several prospective teachers in pre- 38 student teaching field experiences. Three of these prospective teachers were then supervised by Steve during their student teaching as well and are the ones who appear in this investigation. He liked the conceptual base of this program and was slowly becoming oriented to its biases toward teaching and working with teachers-in-training. This orientation formally occurred once a week during program staff meetings. It was at these staff meetings that, through discussions of procedures, problems, and philosophies, Steve learned more about this alternative teacher education program. He had been to about eight of these meetings during the first term prior to the time of the beginning of the data collection for this study. He is a new teacher educator with little training and no experience. He had never supervised student teachers before. It is here where the data collection began. The Story of the Data Collection The story of the data collection began the day after the researcher's doctoral committee meeting on December 6, 1986. He prepared a large chart organizing the details of the data collection process. Along the left side of the chart, he put the weeks of the data collection period, each week having a separate column. There were 11 weelc of data collection, the first one representing the week of registration and the remaining 10 representing winter term, 1987. Along the top of the chart, he listed the data sources. This list included a description of each piece of data that he planned to collect. The researcher then proceeded to plot a schedule of his data collection. Once completed, he knew what data he needed to collect and when. Only minor adjustments, which is described later on in this chapter, were made to this schedule as he went along. The chart served as a guide for the data collection 39 for the duration of the study. A reproduction of this chart is located in the Appendix. Below is a list of the data collected with a complete description of each item. FIELD NOTES OF AN INTERVIEW WITH THE FIELD INSTRUCTOR BEFORE THE STUDENT TEACHING TERM BEGAN On Friday, December 12, 1986, the researcher met with Steve to discuss his interest in participating in the study. The interview lasted for about 30 minutes, and, in essence, he agreed to participate. Immediately following this interview, the researcher wrote two pages of field notes. At this point, it will be helpful to explain how the field notes are organized. Using the model suggested by Schatzrnan and Strauss (1973), the field notes were organized my field notes into three categories: observational notes, theoretical notes, and methodological notes. An observational note (ON) is a statement that represents an event as seen and heard by an observer. An ON is virtually free of interpretation and consists of a detailed description of an event as experienced by the observer. "An ON is the who, what, when, where, and how of human activity" (p.100). If the observer wishes to make an interpretation or inference of what is observed, then a Theoretical Note (TN) is written. In a TN, the observer attempts to make meaning of one or more of the Observational Notes. A TN is the result of reflection upon what the observer has experienced as she hypothesizes, conceptualizes, and theorizes. A Methodological Note (MN) is a note that the observer writes about research tactics. It could be in the form of a reminder, a criticism of a research method used, or a suggestion to try a different method. 4O Methodological Notes are sometimes characterized as " . . . observational notes on the researcher himself and upon the methodological process itself . . . " (p. 101). FIELD NOTES OF INTRODUCTIONS AND BRIEF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE THREE STUDENT TEACHERS THAT THE FIELD INSTRUCTOR WAS TO SUPERVISE, THE THREE REGULAR CLASSROOM TEACHERS WHO WOULD BE WORKING WITH THE STUDENT TEACHERS (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS COOPERATING TEACHERS), AND THE PRINCIPALS OF THE SCHOOLS INVOLVED. Tuesday, January 6, 1987, the researcher met Steve at a previously arranged location and from there they proceeded together to visit the three student teachers at their school sites to explain the project and get their consent to participate. Steve also planned to introduce the researcher and explain his project to the cooperating teachers involved, as well as to the principals of the schools involved, seeking their cooperation in the endeavor. All three student teachers agreed to participate and signed "Participant Consent Forms" which had been prepared for the review and approval of the University Committee on Human Subjects. A copy of this form is in the Appendix. All three cOOperating teachers and the two principals (two of the student teachers were at the same school which meant the researcher was only dealing with two schools and thus two school principals) agreed to cooperate in this investigation. At the end of the day, the researcher wrote more field notes and also put the Participant Consent Forms signed by the field instructor and three student teachers into a data file. PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORMS (see Appendix). 41 TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO TAPES OF RESEARCHER INTERVIEWS OF THE THREE STUDENT TEACHERS JUST PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF STUDENT TEACHING. FIELD NOTES OF THE SAME INTERVIEWS AS TRANSCRIPTS. On Thursday, January 8, the researcher interviewed the three student teachers, using a specific set of questions that had been designed for these interviews. The intent in these interviews was to captm'e the student teachers' view of the supervision process, and their view of Steve and how they made meaning of their relationship with him. A protocol of these questions is listed below. PROTOCOL OF QUESTIONS FOR STUDENT TEACHER INTERVIE'S PRE-STUDENT TEACHING I. Promthres 1. How often did you meet? 2. Under flat conditions? (alone, thee-way, groqa, etc.) 3. How often did he observe? 4. What type of feecback did you get? (oral, written, etc.) 5. What routines were there aromd lessm plans? 6. Wasthereany special focus fortheterm? 11. Style of Supervisim Some supervisors give lots of (Erect information and some are indirect andseektohelpstudent teachersdotheirown reflection. Given tll's distinctim (direct vs. indirect): 1. How would you describe Steve? 2. Examples? 3. Most of the time? or Some of the time? 42 4. Did he have a particular interest or pet topic? 5. What «I: you anticipate his style to be during your student teaching this term? III. Effects 1. How did Steve affect you? 2. Wlat impact did he have on you? 3. What effect do you expect him to have on you during student tending? IV. Anything else? Steve supervised all three student teachers in the fall of 1986 during their pre-student teaching term. The researcher audio-recorded these interviews, had them transcribed, and placed these transcripts in the data file. In addition, the researcher made field notes on these interviews and entered these notes in the data file as well. FIELD NOTES OF MEETING WITH STEVE WILSON TO SET UP THE SCHEDULE. On Thursday, January 15, the researcher met with Steve to set up the observation/conferencing/taping schedule for the following week and made field notes on this meeting. FIELD NOTES FROM A LEARNING COMMUNITY MEETING HELD AT PIZZA HUT. On Thursday, January 15, the researcher attended a meeting of all those associated with Learning Community except the students themselves. Leaders, professors, instructors, and graduate assistants of the program represented the university. Several of the cooperating teachers from the local school districts were there as well. The purpose of the meeting was to 43 enhance the commmication between the university personnel and the school- based people. The researcher met several people he didn't know and also ran into a cooperating teacher who is working with one of Steve's student teachers and whom the researcher had just met the previous week. The researcher wrote field notes on this meeting. LESSON PLANS OF THE THREE STUDENT TEACHERS FOR THE THIRD, SIXTH, AND NINTH WEEKS OF THE TERM. The student teachers were required to submit complete lesson plans to the field instructor prior to a teaching episode. Steve made an extra copy of the plans and gave them to the researcher. WRITTEN COMMENTS OF THE FIELD INSTRUCTOR REGARDING THE LESSON PLANS SUBMITTED TO HIM FOR THE THIRD, SIXTH, AND NINTH WEEKS OF THE TERM. Steve gave the student teachers written feedback on their lesson plans. He made a copy of this feedback for the researcher. FIELD NOTES OF THE FIELD INSTRUCTOR MADE AS HE OBSERVED EACH OF THE THREE STUDENT TEACHERS DURING THE THIRD, SIXTH, AND NINTH WEEKS OF THE TERM. While observing, Steve would take notes that he would use as a stimulus for discussion in the post-observation conferences. He made a com for the researcher. FIELD NOTES OF THE RESEARCHER MADE WHILE IN THE CLASSROOM OF THE STUDENT TEACHERS WHEN THE FIELD INSTRUCTOR WAS OBSERVING THEM DURING THE THIRD, SIXTH, AND NINTH WEEKS OF THE TERM. 44 The researcher observed in the classroom at the same time that Steve did during the three major data collection weeks and took field notes on what he saw happening. TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO TAPE RECORDINGS OF THE POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCES BETWEEN THE FIELD INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT TEACHERS HELD DURING THE THIRD, SIXTH, AND NINTH WEEKS OF THE TERM. The researcher had Steve audio tape the post-observation conferences he had with the three student teachers during the major data collection weeks. The researcher then had transcripts made of these recordings. TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO TAPE RECORDINGS OF THE DEBRIEFING SESSIONS THAT THE RESEARCHER HAD WITH THE FIELD INSTRUCTOR DURING THE THIRD, SIXTH, AND NINTH WEEKS OF THE TERM. Following the post-observation conferences in each of the three major data collection weeks, Steve and the researcher would sit down and listen to the recordings of those conferences. Steve would stop the tape every so often and make comments on what was going on, his intentions at the time, etc. The researcher audio taped these sessions that he had with Steve and then had the recordings transcribed. TRANSCRIPTS OF AUDIO TAPE RECORDINGS OF RESEARCHER INTERVIEWS WITH THE THREE STUDENT TEACHERS DURING THE LAST WEEK OF THE TERM. During week #10, the researcher conducted post-student teaching interviews with all three student teachers. He designed a set of questions to help find out how it went for the student teachers in working with Steve during their student teaching term. The focus once again was on the supervision 45 process, the student teachers' view of Steve and how they made meaning of their relationship with him. A protocol of these questions is listed below. PROTOCOL OF QUESTIONS FOR STUDENT TEACHER INTERVIEWS POST-STUDENT TEACHING l. Howhasthetermgonefor you? Highlights? 2. Describe for me the things that Steve did in his role as field instructor from your perspective? How did he carry out his role? 3. Characterize the feerback that Steve gave you. Style, method (verbal, written, etc). 4. Desaibe a typical post-observation conference for me. 5. Arethereotherwayshehelped? 6. What have you learned about teaching because of Steve? 7. What lave you learned about yourself as a teacher becauseof Steve? 8. How did Steve help you? The body of data collected for this investigation, then, includes the following: field notes of researcher, field notes of field instructor, lesson plans of student teachers, field instructor evaluations of lesson plans, transcripts of interviews, transcripts of post-observation conferences, transcripts of debriefing sessions, descriptive information describing teacher education programs at the university, chart of data collection schedule, and participant consent forms. In analyzing this body of data, assertions were generated and then tested. The results of this analysis are what follow. CHAPTER IV DATA FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS This chapter tells the story of what happened as this new student teacher field instructor in an alternative teacher education program went about his work during winter term 1987 and how he made meaning of what happened. At this level of analysis, the fieldwork researcher answers questions such as, "What's happening?" and "How does the participant make meaning of what's happening?" (Erickson, Florio, 6c Buschman, 1980). The findings that emerge should represent the view of the participant(s) being investigated (Goetz 6r Lecom pte, I984). The researcher has intensively and analytically reflected on these data and describes some generalizable patterns called assertions which are illustrated through narrative vignettes and quotations from the data. This is level two in Erickson's model (1986). At this level, the researcher presents the particular instance to represent the pattern, then presents analagous examples that link with the original key event presented. The researcher then summarizes the distribution of instances in the data to support the notion of a pattern. These first two levels of content analysis are interwoven and included in this chapter. The third or broadest level of content analysis is contained in Chapter 5. This level provides conclusions, implications, or what Erickson (1986) refers to as Interpretive Commentary. More will be said about this level at the beginning of Chapter 5. 46 47 In this chapter, the researcher has organized the data findings and analysis further. He has taken the assertions that have emerged from the data and organized them into five themes. These five themes will be explored in detail and make up the five sub-units of this chapter. THEME l The Field Instructor's Dilemma The field instructor found that he had a dilemma when it came to his work with the student teachers. As background to the specifics of this dilemma that he felt, the following two assertions are presented. The Field Instructor Wanted to Be Less Directive One of Steve's goals during the data collection period was to be less directive in dealing with his student teachers. A good example of an instance of that occurred during the first debriefing session between the researcher and Steve. Even before turning on the tape to listen 'to the first post-observation conference he had with Dan, Steve gave me some background on the conference which included his intentions. The session began going over the procedures for listening. The researcher explained to Steve that once the tape starts, either person can stOp it. Steve was also invited to fast forward the tape if he felt there were a lull. Afterward, he asked if a summary was desired of the overall tone of the conference. The researcher suggested that he go ahead and give it before the tape began. The following are Steve's words taken from the transcripts of the audio tape recordings of that debriefing session. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, um, I, aiming with him . . . one of the things that I'm working on is, is trying to get him to be self-monitoring and that goes 48 along with all the things we've talked about, in meetings about student-directed versus supervisor- directed feedback and stuff, so I'm encouraging him to, um, try and control the conferences . . . Steve lays out his intentions clearly before listening to any of the tapes-- have the student teachers take over the conferences by being less directive. He wants to help the student teachers to monitor themselves and have the feedback be more from them. A second typical instance of this assertion occurred during the third week of the 10 week term. Steve was going over things in a post-observation conference with Carol and had just finished making a point about lesson plans. His concern was that there were things mentioned on her lesson plans with no explanation, and he had no idea what she was referring to. He concluded this part of the conversation by saying that he did not want her to go back through the plans from past weeks and fill in more information. He just wanted her to begin giving him more information on paper from this week on. Then he said, FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Um . . . one of the things that I am trying to do this term is I want to start shifting more towards you rmning the conferences because 10 weeks from now, you're gonna be done with this and you're gonna be teaching in a situation where you're the only adult in the room and yoU're not gonna have, you know, people to . . . help you see things. And we've already kind of moved towards that, I think. But by the end of the term, I want you basically saying, you know, this is whatl did and . . . you know . . . have the ability to really watch yourself and, uh, sol want to try and kind of shift to that consciously because I tend to . . . to run the conference a little too much . . . but, uh . . . at any rate . . . with . . . you know, I'm thinking like you know you look at other teachers in this building. Unless they have a student teacher . . . Barb Kilroy (pseudonym) was saying it is so nice to have a junior come in the room so that there is somebody else older than six who you could look at and roll you' eyes when everybody's feeling goofy. But . . . uh . . . you know the idea that you've gotta kinda monitor yourself. So anyway . . . I might try to . . . with my field notes, I 49 might try to jot down more of what was happening and come up with fewer suggestions and then ask wonderful (chuckle) questions that are designed to, you know, make us discuss things here . . . Here, then, is an instance of Steve talking directly with Carol, one of his student teachers, about his intentions for this term. The message is clear: he wants Carol to take over the conferences more, to describe what she did while teaching and then evaluate that performance. He attempts to motivate her by saying that soon she will be on her own and will have to do this by herself. He encourages her to take advantage of having someone else involved because soon her teacher training will be over. He concludes by saying that he will help by taking more descriptive notes, offering fewer suggestions, and then asking questions designed to stimulate discussion. A third instance of this assertion is found in the transcripts of the last debriefing session between the researcher and Steve. They had just begun listening to an audio tape recording of the last post-observation conference between Steve and Carol. On the tape being listened to, Steve was just getting started with Carol by explaining the procedure he wanted to follow during the post-observation conference. After listening to himself go over the procedure with Carol, he stOpped the tape. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, we talked at lengths during several other conferences about the need for- one of the things I tried to do over the course of the term with the three people that we've taped is to make them aware that it was my conscious effort to become less directive as the term wore on. For the reason that after the student teacher experience, they were essentially gonna need to be self-monitoring. They were gonna need to observe themselves, so to speak. So even at the end of the observations, Steve was clear about his intentions for the three student teachers: he was consciously trying to be less 50 directive and allow the student teachers to take over the conferences. He reasoned that they were going to be on their own soon, and they would need to be able to evaluate themselves. He wanted them to become more directive to prepare them for this eventuality. Another interesting assertion, somewhat related to Steve's desire to be less directive, emerged from the data. The Field Instructor Intended to Be More Critical of the Technigies of Instruction of the Student Teachers Steve was very clear from the beginning that he wanted to be more critical of the student teachers. In the third week of the term during a post- observation conference with Carol, Steve was going through some corrective feedback on details of a lesson she presented. He then began to generalize his goals with her. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: My intent is like for the next three or four weeks to really pick on you as far as detail but keep in mind that, you know, 99% of the things you are doing are perfect, and I'm ignoring those .. . (Carol laughs) . . . well . . . 90 some let's say . . . . And I'm ignoring those. And so as I, you know . . . . I‘m going to be more critical of you for the next few weeks, but the reason for that is fine tuning, and it's not . . . you know, I don't want you to forget that I am real impressed with the way you're doing things and your instructional skills and stuff, but . . . I'm gonna push you and see . . . see how far I can push you (laughter). Steve states clearly, then, his intent to be more critical of Carol Inder the guise of "fine tuning." He wants her to know that she is a very good teacher. To use his terms, Carol was about "90% perfect." His justification for being so critical rests on the notion that he wants to push her through that last 1096. 51 A second instance of this assertion occurred during the first debriefing session between the researcher and Steve. They were listening to the tape of Steve and Jane's post-observation conference during the third week of the term. In the segment they were listening to, Steve was commenting on an activity that Jane had done with the students. She read the students a story that was difficult for them, and Steve suggested that in a hard story, it might be helpful to question or explain more about it so that you can keep their attention. He noticed that many of the students "just fizzled out" and weren't watching anymore after five minutes. He stopped the tape to describe further how he approached Jane during this conference. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: . . . like I told you before, I have tried every time I've met with her to preface the conference with some very positive comments and to make sure she understands that what I'm doing now, I consider fine tuning and that, you know, people who would be having problems with basic control and stuff, we wouldn't even get to this level of pettiness, but because of her competence we're getting petty and that's the same approach I'm using with the other student teachers. In describing this incident, Steve explained to the researcher how he approached Jane in this conference. He was trying to approach her in the same way that he approached the other student teachers. He felt he was being "petty" or overly critical because his intent was "fine tuning." So Steve hopes to be less directive and more facilitative of reflection, yet he intends to be more directively critical of the techniques of instruction of the student teachers as well. These two intentions provide disconfirming evidence for each other and are the basis upon which the dilemma is constructed. 52 The Field Instructor Had a Dilemma: How Could He Be Less Directive and Facilitatefi Reflection and Be More DirectivelLCritical of the Teaching Techniques of the Student Teachers at the Same Time? In Steve's mind, then, there was an inherent problem. The dilemma was this: how could he facilitate student teacher reflection on practice, which in his mind meant "be less directive," and still cover all the critical points he wanted to cover in the post-observation conference? If he facilitated student teacher reflection, then he ran the risk of not getting to all the things he wanted to go over, especially if the student teacher didn't come up with them. If he was too directive, then this might inhibit the student teacher from coming up with things to reflect upon. One action seemed to compromise the other. He valued each of these supervisory behaviors. So, he felt he had a dilemma! Steve himself described the dilemma quite well in the first debriefing session when he summarized a post-observation conference with Dan that they had just finished listening to. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Um, at any rate, I think this gives you a good idea of where we were, you know, trying to be less directive with him, but at the same time, I'm not comfortable with him totally directing the conference, especially given our two rather verbal personalities and so I'm trying to, uh, keep him on. By doing that I feel that I'm inhibiting to a degree, his control of things. Okay. At the same time, you know, I feel like I maybe am seeing things that he isn't, just because he's so busy teaching, that some of these things aren't gonna occur to him, so I'm still trying to point things out. RESEARCHER: Is that a dilemma for you? FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Yeah, to a degree, because, you know, I go in, okay, I'm gonna let him direct this but as I do that, I already have in mind that 53 he's gonna direct it, but I'm hOping that he's gonna direct it towards these things that I notice, and that's not always the case. In essence, Steve wants to be less directive, but when he is, several problems occur: the conference goes off task and things don't get brought up because Dan is not aware of them or doesn't think to bring them up. If Steve becomes directive, then he feels like he is inhibiting Dan. The dilemma is made even more complicated by another factor. The Student Teachetflanted the Field Instructor to Be More Directively Critical In trying to deal with the dilemma of being less directive yet being more critical, Steve was confronted with a complicating factor. The student teachers, both directly and indirectly, wanted him to be directive and give them corrective feedback. An instance that supports this assertion occurred during the interview the researcher had with Carol before the term began. A discussion of Steve's style of supervision had just concluded with specific reference to his tendency to share examples from his own teaching experiences. Carol was appreciating the fact that Steve had taught classes with more than one grade in it and that Steve had not just taught upper elementary, but had had experience with primary level as well, including kindergarten. They especially liked the examples he would use to make a point. The conversation picks up from there. RESEARCHER: Do you anticipate any differences now that you are student teaching in terms of Steve . . . his interaction with . . . his style? STUDENT TEACHER: Well, I've only had him that one time. RESEARCHE R: Yeah. 54 STUDENT TEACHER: But, uh . . . . RESEARCHER: But thinking about it and looking ahead, what do you anticipate? STUDENT TEACHER: Um . . . I've already asked him to be more critical. RESEARCHER: What do you mean by that? STUDENT TEACHER: Um . . . well, the only comment I had about . . . um . . . his advising last term was that he . . . he told me more positive things . . . and I needed more criticism . . . I think . . . about small details, you know. Even if he said the lesson seemed to go well, I want to know what small things didn't seem to work . . . thatl should change. RESEARCHER: Okay. STUDENT TEACHER: So, I'd like him to be more critical, and I like his suggestions, too, for other ways of doing it. Carol had told Steve, then, that she wanted him to be a little different this term coming up. She wanted Steve to be more critical. She wanted him to pick on the little things, to fine tme her teaching skills. And even if things go well in the lesson, she wanted Steve to tell her other possible ways of doing the lesson well. Carol had asked Steve for his corrective feedback and ideas whenever he can. Another instance to support this assertion occurred at the beginning of the last debriefing session between Steve and the researcher. He began the session by trying to explain why he was being so directive at the beginning of a post-observation conference with Carol. He had given her some notes to use in the conference, which consisted basically of things Steve noticed during the lesson or suggestions for her to think about. As he talked in the session, he expressed the fact that she treated his suggestions as things she must do. He went on. 55 FIELD INSTRUCTOR: But I found that when I've just laid things wide Open that we didn't really, um, not only didn't the . . . the session get anywhere, but it was often very short. "Well, I'm not really having any problems," um . . . you know. I might have been asked, um, "Did you see anything that I should be thinking about, about whatever?" So that they're turning it back to me being directive. So if I'm just totally laissez faire then it turns back in them soliciting direction. Steve claims he is not happy when he has to be directive. Yet when he is non-directive, then the student teachers tend not to bring anything up for discussion, and the post-observation conferences are very short. The student teachers usually say they don't have any major problems, and then turn it around back to Steve and ask if there was anything he saw that he would care to comment on. The student teachers wanted him to give the corrective feedback. This made Steve's dilemma increasingly difficult. The Field Instructor Was Directively Critical of the Teaching Techniques of the Student Teachers Steve did fulfill his intention to be directively critical of the student teachers' techniques of instruction. His theory-in-use was often to be critical and provide corrective feedback. For example, in a post-observation conference with Jane during the third week of the term, Steve was going over his field notes with her. It was about in the middle of the conference that this instance occurred. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, um, I had some questions here for you, um. One was, um, when they were at the picture board you were talking about the storms and stuff, how could you have kept their interest and made them a little more involved? It was more of a . . . almost a lecture-type format that you were using. You know, you were . . . you were talking to them and giving them information, and it worked well for the first couple minutes and then they started slipping a little bit. Can you think of ways that you might have kept them more involved? 56 STUDENT TEACHER: Well, I tried to ask them what kinds of things they did during . . . FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, good. STUDENT TEACHER: . . . that weather, but . . . FIELD INSTRUCTOR: . . . and that's what I'm driving at then is with, um, with questions like the ones that you used today. They were set up so that only one person could answer at a time, right? STUDENT TEACHER: Right, that's usually the way it has to be in our class because it they . . . if they don't start remembering the rule about raising their hands, then everybody gets all obnoxious. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Right. What I was thinking of though would be more like, urn, something like a signal, you know everybody who's ever been, who's ever seen lightning like this, put their thumb up. STUDENT TEACHER: Oh . . . FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, so that there is a potential then for everybody to participate in a question without it being loud. You know what I mean, and that's not something you want to use all the time, but it might be helpful at times to kinda draw people in without having to go to choral verbal responses. STUDENT TEA CHER: Canl use this? FIELDINSTRUCTOR: Sure. Steve began this instance with the comment that he had some questions he wanted to ask Jane. His question, which was, "How could you have kept their interest and made them a little more involved?" was basically telling her that the students' interest waned and that they weren't involved enough. Jane responded by saying that she tried to ask the students a qiestion related to the story. Steve came back by saying that that was the point: Jane was asking the wrong kinds of questions. Jane tried to defend herself by saying that she asked that type of question because she was trying to train the students to 57 remember to raise their hands. Steve then responded by saying, "Sure, but whatl had in mind was something different." He proceeded to explain to her his idea of a question in which all the students could give an answer by giving the teacher a special signal. Steve explained that this was a great way to get kids involved in a rather quiet way. Jane then asked if she could use that idea, as if she weren't sure whether she could do things that way. Steve reassured her that she could. This is an example of Steve's having a definite idea about how the questioning should have gone in that incident and being very direct in telling Jane about his idea as to what she should have done then and what she should do in the future. A second instance of Steve's criticizing the student teachers' techni cpes of instruction occurred during the second post-observation conference with Dan. They are discussing a particular reading group that Dan has trouble keeping under control while maintaining an eye on the rest of the classroom. Dan is saying that if it was another group, it would be easier to watch the rest of the class. Steve then responds. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: On the other hand, if you have that group up there, the kids that are back at their seats aren't going to need as much supervision, I suppose because yoU've got the pistols up there with you. STUDENT TEACHER: Yeah. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay. The things I'm driving at are things like eye contact and us, looking at, seating. Do they sit in the same spot each time and have you noticed any difference when Ann's (pseudonym) sitting in one spot as compared to another? STUDENT TEACHER: No. 58 FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, keep an eye on that and see if, you know, if you do. Steve makes the point that if Dan has all the "pistols" with him in the readng group, then he probably does not have to be as conscious of the rest of the class. The behavior problems are with him in the group. Steve goes on to talk about such techniques as using eye contact and consider the seating arrangement of the students not in the reading group to avoid instances of misbehavior. Steve is decidedly concerned about improving Dan's techniques of classroom management when working with a small group. The Field Instructor Tended to Be Manialative in Providng Feedback to the Student Teachers Another way Steve chose to deal with his dilemma was to be manipulative in covering his critical points with the student teachers. In an interview with Jane before the term started, the researcher asked her about Steve's style of field instruction. She said that he used a lot of dfferent things and that it depended on what he was observing. She then proceeded to give an example of a time when he was being directive. And then she said: . . . and a lot of times when I talk to the large class, he'll take notes while I'm teaching and then he'll ask me when we're going over it . . . dd you . . . why did you do this? Or . . . um . . . what do you think would have happened if you would have done this? And usually, I think, when he's saying that I think that he's trying to get around to saying thatI could have done it better, but he wants me to come up with it myself. And if I don't come up with it, he comes right out and tells me how he would have done it (laughter) . . . In this instance, the student teacher is aware that Steve has raised a question for which he has an answer. It is her task to discover what the answer is, knowing full well that if she doesn't, he will just come right out and 59 tell her. The student teacher describes the manipulative nature of the interaction very Openly. Another typical instance of this assertion occurred during the sixth week of the term. Steve had observed Carol and kept field notes while observing her. He filled almost two pages, single spaced with his notes. There were approximately 24 separate items listed on his field notes. Ten of these items had a star next to them. Steve had planned to use these notes only as needed during the post-observation conference. He had given Carol 3 copy of these field notes for the conference. During the debriefing session Steve and the researcher had after this post-observation conference, the tape of his conference with Cathy was listened to. Just after the very beginning of the conference, then he stopped the tape. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, this, up until this point in my mind, this was going to be a conference where I was going to offer some poignant questions, and then it would be drected by the student. And, ah, right away after my first question, she didn't come up with whatl wanted. So now I'm going to refer to questions on my field notes which initially I wasn't even going to bring in other than to look down it myself and say, "Okay, here's a qiestion that I had here's a (pestion thatl had." If the need arose to use it . . . and so here I go with the questions . . . RESEARCHER: Did she have access? She had access to the field notes before the conference? FIELD INSTRUCTOR: At this point, no. No, she had not seen them and this time the way I had purposefully kept them . . . so that I could see them, but she couldn't. In this instance, Steve had marked things on his field notes that he assumed Carol would bring up. When she ddn't, he decided to use the questions from his field notes as a prompt to get her to talk about the things 60 that he wanted her to talk about. He had hOped she would bring them up so he wouldn't have to be so drective. As a result, he had to hide his notes so she wouldn't read them. If she did, she might discover how directive he was being. A third example of Steve's desire to be indrect in his feedback to the student teachers occurred during a post observation conference Steve had with Dan during the third week of the term. The following quote at the very beginning of the tape is as follows. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, first of all, did you get any time to look through the notes I wrote about your lesson? STUDENT TEACHER: Yeah, I dd. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: And? STUDENT TEACHER: If, like I told you . . . unfortunately, today things ddn't work out as well . . . you know, I had to keep everything. I have everything. I was getting things organized for tomorrow, plus . . . Now, at this point, one could infer from this conversation that Steve has made some notes about Dan's lesson plans and given Dan a copy of those notes. When Steve queried Dan about what Dan thought of Steve's notes, Dan seemed to avoid answering the question. His reasons for avoidng the question were not clear. He may not have read the notes Steve made. Or maybe he read the notes and ddn't like what they said. In any case, Dan avoided answering the question directly and proceeded to begin to explain why things didn't go so well. This vignette in and of itself dd not constitute a meaningful insight in the investigation. During the debriefing session with Steve about this conference, it was at this precise moment in the tape of Steve and Dan's post-observation conference that Steve stopped the tape and made the following comment. 61 FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, that's an example right there. Okay, I'm asking specifically about the lessons plans, but from there hopefully having him control things, so I guess what it amounts to is I still want to control the agenda a little bit, uh, and that may be a relic in my personality. It allows me to, or doesn't allow me to be . . . to let him be totally drective, but then he's going into apologizing for things today ddn't go as well as . . . which is something, you know, is great to talk about . . . however, that wasn't what I intended to prompt there. So what I'm trying to do is, is prompt him to, to talk about what I want him to talk about (chuckle) in his own words, so to speak. Steve describes how he makes meaning of this interaction. His hopes are that Dan would take Steve's notes about lesson plans and run the conference using those notes. Steve then admits that this is a way for him to control things, and that may be a pattern in his behavior from the past. But he goes on to say that the notes are a way for Dan to take over and rm the conference; but, instead, Dan gets into apologizing for how badly things went, which is not what Steve wanted Dan to talk about. Steve then admits at the end of this quotation that he wanted Dan to follow Steve's agenda, but wanted Dan to use Dan's own words. So Steve admits to having an agenda for Dan to follow. There were points Steve wanted to cover. There were things he wanted to dscuss with Dan. But because he did not want to be too obviome drective, he tried to have Dan take the notes and use them to rm the conference. Steve's intent in using this indirect method was to have Dan take over the control of the conference while still getting Steve's items covered. Dan might also use his own words and claim some ownership for the thoughts as well. 62 The Field Instrpctor Tended to Defend His Directiveness A third way Steve chose to deal with his dilemma was, at times, to defend his drectiveness, or at least provide an explanation as to why he was being drective. One instance of this assertion occurred during the last debriefing session between Steve and the researcher. Prior to listening to the tape of the post-observation conference with Dan, Steve made the following comment. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: And this was set up this way purposely. Okay, I'm gonna let Dan be drective, and I purposely had the conference begin and end at a certain time. Okay, I said I've got to be somewhere at such and such a time and so that is an ex . . . right there before we go into this non-drective conference I'm being directive, you know, I'm giving him a specific time. But that, that's an example of the real world infringing on my philosophical beliefs. I had to be somewhere, you know such is life. Steve set up this conference for Dan to be directive. Steve established a beginning and endng time for the conference. He seemed to be apologetic about the fact that he had established this conference where Dan was in charge, and yet before it even began, Steve told Dan at what time it had to end. But (Steve tried to explain it by saying that he had another commitment and there was nothing he could do. He wanted Dan to have total control of the conference, but the reality was that Steve had to tell Dan what time the conference had to end. Another typical instance of Steve's need to explain his drectiveness with student teachers occurred in his first meeting with the researcher before the term even started. In the field notes following this meeting, the researcher described what happened. The meeting was to dscuss Steve's participation in the study. When the researcher had talked to him a few weeks before, he had 63 expressed an interest in participating. In the conversation at this meeting, he mentioned two "variables" that he wanted the researcher to know about that were in his mind. The first one related to his desire to want to be more facilitative of reflection and less drective. In the field notes, the researcher goes on to describe the second variable. RESEARCHER'S FIELD NOTES: He mentioned a second "variable"-it was that he is somewhat more directive with one of his student teachers, not because she is in need of it per se, but because she has two very disruptive students in her class, and she doesn't know quite how to handle them. Steve said that this type of student was one that he has had a lot of experience with, and he felt like he had good advice to give the student teacher. So right from the beginning, even before any observations took place, he wanted the researcher to know that he was going to be a little more drective with one of the student teachers because she had two special problem children in her class. The student teacher needed some drection in working with these two kids, and Steve had had lots of experience in working with this type of child. So he gave her drected advice during the term. He defended his use of directiveness on the basis that the student teacher needed this kind of help and couldn't handle it on her own. A third instance of Steve legitimizing his directiveness occurred during the last debriefing session. He is reflecting about the whole term now, and some of the things he had tried to accomplish. He is trying to explain how he can be drective and still facilitate reflection. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: . . . there are certain things that no matter how far developed the students are that I think need to be brought up, and I think I can push them toward the self-drection . . . I think to make them reflective, to make them self-drective, I almost need to be drective . . . to model for them what I want going on their heads. 64 Steve believed that there are certain things that a supervisor must bring up, no matter how good the supervisees are. But his point is that he feels he can push the student teachers toward being self-directive and reflective by being drective with them. He believes that he is modeling reflection and Self- direction when he is directive with the student teacher. The way he gives feedback to the student teachers is the way he wants the student teachers to give feedback to themselves. He calls this modeling. Steve needed to explain his drective behavior and attempted to demonstrate how, through being directive, he was showing the student teachers how to facilitate reflection. The Field Instruggor Tended to Be Lless Overtly Directive in the Post-Observation Conferences The audo tapes of the post-observation conferences were transcribed using the same left-right margins. Therefore, it was possible to comt the number of lines spoken by each of the actors in the post-observation conferences. From this comt, a comparison was done. The number of lines of talk for the field instructor was compared to the number of lines of talk for each of the three student teachers. A complete set of these data is found in Table 1. The results of this comparison indicated that the ratio of field instructor talk to student teacher talk leveled out over the course of the term in the post-observation conferences. What follows is a more detailed explanation of these findings. Diring the third week of the term, Steve spoke 7696 of the time and Carol spoke 2496 of the time. During the ninth week of the term, Steve spoke 65 Tablel A Comparison of the Number of Lines of Talk Between the Field Instructor and Student Teacher During Selected Post-Observation Conferences Number of Lines (Percentage of the Total) Third Week Sixth Week Ninth Week Post-Obs. Post-Obs. Post-Obs. Total Conference Conference Conference (Average) Steve 648 (76%) 670 (73%) 467 (535) 1785 (67%) Carol 208 (24%) 247 (27%) 410 (47%) 865 (335) Steve 943 (36%) 157 (22%) 298 (47%) 1398 (35%) Dan 1674 (64%) 543 (78%) 339 (53%) 2556 (65%) Steve 278 (61%) 514 (58%) 590 (51%) 1382 (56%) Jane 177 (39%) 369 (42%) 558 (49%) 1104 (44%) Steve's total: 1869 (48%) 1341 (54%) 1355 (51%) 4565 (50.2%) Student Teacher's Total 2059 (52%) 1159 (48%) 1307 (49%) 4525 (49.8%) 53% of the time and Carol spoke 47% of the time. Steve went from speaking three times as much as Carol to speaking about the same amount as Carol. With Jane, the results were similar although not quite as dramatic. During the third week of the term, Steve spoke 61% of the time, and Jane spoke 39% of the time. During the ninth week of the term, Steve spoke 51% of the time, and Jane spoke 49% of the time. Steve went from speaking one and a half times as much as Jane to speaking about the same amount as Jane. Based on the amomt of talk, then, that takes place in a post-observation conference, Steve dd succeed in allowing the two female student teachers to 66 take more control of the conferences, which was one of his intentions. With Dan, the results were dramatic but in a dfferent way. During the third week of the term, Steve spoke 36% of the time, and Dan spoke 64% of the time. By the ninth week of the term, Steve spoke 47% of the time, and Dan spoke 53% of the time. Steve went from speaking half as much as Dan to speaking about the same amount as Dan. This was dscrepant evidence for this assertion. With Dan, Steve became M overly drective, not less so. What was the cause of this dscrepancy? The explanation comes from Steve himself. Part of the way through the last debriefing session, Steve himself brought up the idea of quantifying the amount of talk that takes place in the post-observation conferences. He felt that would be interesting, especially since, as he put it, he was consciously trying to be less drective. The topic then switched to his drectiveness with each of the three student teachers. He confinued to describe how he was directive with each of the three student teachers, but in different ways. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Um, do you, ah, I'm trying to think of, put it in specific terms, um . . . okay, the kinds of things that I'm drective with Carol about are often, um, about things in the lesson plans or, you know, "I need more information on this, and I need more information on that." Um . . . for one thing, I'm . . . with Dan, I need to be a little more drective, trn . . . for a . . . for a semi-selfish reason. If I'm not drective, our conferences tend to be very, very lengthy, as you know from the first one. Um, with Jane, she's . . . um, had fewer questions of . . . and, and is a little more comfortable in, um, her . . . with her planning and that kind of thing. And she's very thorough on paper. So I haven't had to be directive there. Um, with her I've worked on things like being assertive with the kids when necessary. There are times whereI felt she was getting run over. It's hard to quantify, you know, whether I was more directive or less. Just generally, I was probably most drective with, I suppose, Dan . . . you know, this is kind of over the course of the year. Um, and then 67 Jane and Carol a little less drective, and I . . . it wouldn't be hard to differentiate between the two. As Steve thinks about how he is directive with each of the three student teachers, he feels that with Carol he is usually drective with her about giving him more in writing on the lesson plans. With Dan, he feels he needs to be a little more drective because, otherwise, the conferences get off task and much time is wasted. With Jane she has not had many questions and is very thorough on paper. He has had to work with her on class management issues. In summarizing his thoughts in this segment, then, Steve predicts that he was most drective with Dan and less so with Carol and Jane. These data help to explain why Steve's amount of teacher talk increased over the course of the term when working with Dan. Steve wanted to keep Dan on task during the post-observation conferences, and to do so Steve had to be more drective. With Jane and Carol, the issues he had with each of them did not demand that he increase his directiveness. Therefore, he was able to be less overtly drective with two of the three student teachers. In summarizing this first theme, then, one of Steve's goals during the data collection period was to become increasingly less drective. To him that meant that the student teachers would have to be more self-monitoring. An outcome he envisioned from this was that the student teacher would be more in control of the post-observation conferences. He expressed a desire to help his three student teachers achieve that level of confidence and skill. Nevertheless, Steve equally intended to be more critical of his student teachers. He wanted to push them to improve and to work on refining their techniques. His intention was to pick on little things that he felt needed their 68 attention. He expressed a need to cover lots of points with the student teachers in the post-observation conference. In Steve's mind there was an inherent problem. The dilemma was this: how could he facilitate student teacher reflection on practice, which in his mind meant being less directive, and still cover all the points he wanted to cover in a post-observation conference? If he facilitated student teacher reflection, then he ran the risk of not getting to all the things he wanted to go over, especially if the student teacher dd not come up with the items he wanted to dscuss. If he were too directive, then this might inhibit the student teacher from coming up with things to reflect upon. In his mind, if he were directive, he ran the risk of not supporting reflection and vice versa. He valued both supervisory behaviors. What was he to do? Hisdilemma was complicated by another factor. The student teachers desired more critical feedback. They wanted Steve to tell them what they were doing right or wrong. He struggled with this dlemma for the whole term. At times he was directively critical. He had corrective feedback to give and would Openly provide it with recommendations for improvement. At other times, he would tend to be manipulative with his feedback so as not to come across as being too overtly directive. He would ask seemingly innocuous questions about the teaching episode, and then hoped that the student teachers would give the answer that he wanted. Another way Steve chose to deal with his dlemma was to explain or defend his drective action. He legitimized his directiveness through explanation of his actions. He did manage to become less overtly directive with student teachers during the post-observation conferences, based on a comparison of field 69 instructor talk versus student teacher talk over the course of the term. The amount of field instructor talked decreased and the amount of student teacher talk increased during the term for two out of the three student teachers. Thus at least two of the student teachers took over more control of the conferences in terms of the amount of talk. So, while he worked hard at coming up with solutions that were reasonable to him, the dilemma lingered. THEME 2 Student Teacher Action that the Field Instructor Failed to Adequately Improve to His Satisfaction A second theme that emanated from this field study is the actions and behavior of the student teachers that the field instructor had little impact in improving. This theme is documented by two assertions with accompanying support documentation from the data. Brevity of Lesson Plans One pattern of behavior that consistently appeared in the lesson plans of the student teachers was the brevity of description of planned activities as determined by the field instructor. For example, during the third week of the term, Carol submitted a one-page plan for Monday, January 19 (see figure 1). Since she teaches two sessions, morning and afternoon, the page was dvided in half with the morning session on the left half of the page and the afternoon session on the right half of the page. At the top of the first page on both halves is a listing of the days and times of the "specials" such as music, gym, library, etc. The lower two-thirds of the page is a timed schedule of events for each of the classes. 70 In response to this plan in the post-observation conference with Carol, Steve expressed his concern about the brevity of the lesson plan. STEVE: Another thing I need to hit you on is the lesson plans. Things like snow pictures and thinkstone . . . if you can give me just a little bit more on paper. CAROL: Oh, okay. STEVE: 1 don't need, you know . . . I realize that not all these things are going to have objectives and evaluations and all of that . . . and I noted that on, uh . . . the ones for this week . . . things like . . . "delicious donuts, dinosaur of the day, small groups" . . . kind of just give me an idea of what you're gonna do . . . cause by the time you have planned all these things out, they're in your head . . . you knowl know you've thought through them . . . and I'm not saying like that I want a full lesson plan for delicious donuts . . . but just jot down what that is for me. Steve went on to explain why he would like the lessons plans to be more extensive. STEVE: Snowpictures . . . I need more on paper for these two, either as unit or daily Thinkspelling plans. During the de-briefing session with the researcher following the post— observation conference with Carol, Steve said the following. STEVE: Okay, here I was just asking for more house keeping kinds of things. Asking her for little more information on stuff that she'd put on paper that wasn't quite thorough enough for my purposes as not being familiar enough with the programs. I wanted to see a little more about this . . . Steve's message to Carol, expressed in a variety of ways, was that he was not familiar enough with all the dfferent programs she had going in her classroom and that, therefore, she must explain these programs and activities more extensively in her lesson plans. 71 gad‘ \ - . wprwé— m «5’ 5 Monday Ian 1qu 1487. —" it) ials: . cnav Ic : - : Tuesday: Librarv 1:00 - 1:30 (skills) 2:43 -3:00 (check-out) Tuesday: ° Bitted 9:33 - 10:23 am“: 1:30 - 2:00 On 10:23 - 10:33 , ‘ One 2310 - 2:40 Uednesdav: Husk 10823 ' 10355 . Hefiesdar: Literature Club 1:00 - 1:30 . Literature Club 11:00 - 11:30 Nusic: 2:10 - 2340 Thursday: Librarv 9:13 - 9:43 (skills ueek) Thursday: Art 1," - about “40 (every othee 0" ’8‘: ' ,8” (CROCIWC ”I7, .9. 23‘0 ‘- 28‘0 DOCK) I 3v:- 10:23 - 10:33 . . ' . Friday: Recess - everv week. for about 20 ni' Friday: Art: 9:20 - about 10:00 (every other ueek) ' "'—' "- - - -, __ Recess: every Friday (for about 20 III.) .. -- '- - ‘ --.-—- -- ----- - -,--- 9:0: Let children In (at cm: I ° ..-__. - 'T'MZ‘JS'M fitmn—m . - . - Children take coats c“, then graph ‘ ‘92.:th - 12:5 5' ..C..‘.a:‘1’:i15 QilO-QIZSICUX-‘F’Sh‘fins- - . l ”:55- no: MLD. \325—9.’3§' Mf-D - ‘ 1:35- 1:30 Sacco pid’WQS If .T 10300 Sn.“ P: ~ ItJO- 1:50 ‘Th’mkspellsnj moo- 10:29 mw‘fié'mfl 1:50-1:06 Mr. D3 stunt 10:25-10:55 — MUSIC. 23° .- 1:40 Music, Inoo - 11:10 Mr. 0': stars,- _ - 1:45_ 3:05 Center-Twa- “I :0 - ll 2 35" Center time -.I ' u.-.‘ . .. . . -. .. - -. .- ... - ( 11:33 Clean oep 3;“, Clean “P- 11:43 0isniss 3:11 Wilt Tb dismissal dw" “q 72 From Steve's point of view, Carol's tendency to submit brief lesson plans continued throughout the term. Her plan submitted for Monday, March 2 was the same format as the one shown in Figure and described above: specials were listed at the top, and a third of the way down the page was a listing of lessons and activities for the morning on the left hand side of the page and the afternoon on the right hand side. One of the listings was as follows: 9:45 - 10:00 Mathuworkjobs and tubs. In response to her lesson plan, Steve mentioned the following in writing. STEVE: For math, I still want more—what are the workjobs? What is in the tubs? He also responded to the issue of brief lesson plans in the post-observation conference. STEVE: Yeah, for thisI guess 'what I was driving at is, if I were to sit down as a principal and look through the plans or whatever and--math, what's this worktub—business type thing? CAROL: But . . . um, that's true. Okay. In the debriefing session with the researcher, after listening to this portion of the tape, Steve said the following. STEVE: You know this plan business, I think you've probably gotten the sense that over the times that you've seen Carol, I've been trying to get her to get a little more specific on the plans. Now a lot of these things don't lend themselves to full-blown lesson plans and a lot of them are routinized and . . . but there are times when there will be just some little blurb on a schedule almost where I really don't know what kind of thought is going into setting it up. So even at the end of the term, Carol submitted lesson plans that were not detailed enough for Steve. Steve expanded on his intent regardng this issue later in the same debriefing session with the researcher. 73 STEVE: What drives all of this is every once in a while, I feel that she is kind of picking something up blindly. The teacher is saying, "Oh, this is a good idea," and Carol is saying, "Yes, this is something that we do at this point in kindergarten." And the teacherl know pretty well, I know has more thought behind that, and I just want to make sure that that thought is getting shared with Carol and that Carol is capable of those thoughts, too. Looking at something and saying, "Yes, this is necessary for this group" and "Yes, these students belong at this level in it." Steve's purpose, then, in wanting more detail is not only to have a better idea of what is going on in Carol's classroom , but also to know that Carol dd some thinking about this activity and what that thinking was. Another instance of this assertion is found in Jane's lesson plans of February 7, which was about half way through the student teaching term. For that day, Jane had written down the schedule of activities from 8:50 to 11:45 am. For 8:50, she had written "attendance, calendar, and weather." At 9:00 a.m., she wrote the word "centers." At 9:25, she had "* 9:25 switch centers." At 9:55, she had "clean-up." In Steve's mind, as someone who might pick up this lesson plan and attempt to understand what is going to happen in her classroom on that day, it would be difficult to determine this based on what Jane submitted in her lesson plan. In the post-observation conference with Jane during this particular week, Steve referred to this issue. STEVE: One thing that I want you to think about: you made the comment that you wouldn't write lesson plans for centers because of the time involved, and that's valid. And the things you're doing in the cen . . ./most of the centers don't really lend themselves to lesson plans. An awful lot of them are . . . are more opportunities for social interaction and . . . JANE: Un huh—decision making and all that. 74 STEVE: Free play and that kind of thing. Right. But, if you're going to go more and more to using centers, it sounds like you really enjoy using those. You're gonna have to figure out ways to make your centers--and you have a few of them that are that way- -but make them more school-goal-oriented. Steve further clarified a few sentences later. STEVE: But as you use centers more and more, if it sounds like you're really enjoying them; and, as you experiment with them, if you are using them as a vehicle for academic learning, you're going to want to consider making some sort of a plan for them. So what Steve is suggesting is that if "centers" become a regular part of Jane's classroom instructional program, then she should begin to be more specific about the goals and objectives of them and include these goals and objectives in the lesson plan. In his Instructional Planning Feedback Form, which Steve filled out on Jane's plans, in an answer to the statement on the form about stating the objective, Steve wrote, "This can be done explicitly, as we discussed last week." Steve's reference here was the idea that the objective related to "centers" was one that could, and probably should, be stated in the plan. Here, then, was another instance of Steve, unhappy with the brevity of the lesson plan, requesting that the student teacher write more down. Another instance of this assertion occurred during the last observation/debriefing session between Steve and Jane. During and after the observation and prior to the debriefing sessions, Steve wrote notes about the plans Jane had made and another set of notes about the lesson he observed. In the notes about the plans, Steve wrote the following. STEVE: When you start out next year, be sure to plan even routinized lessons like "instant readers" on paper. A complete plan is not necessary, but it will help to have a sequence of activities written out. 75 Again, Steve was suggesting here that Jane consider writing out even the most routine lessons. In the post-observation conference, Steve directed Jane to respond to the notes he had written. In response to his notes on the lesson plans, Jane repeated what Steve had written and then said the following. JANE: I'm gonna do that. So, yes . . . Late on, Jane said the following. JANE: I didn't think you wanted to know all that, but that's fine. Whatever. Okay. In the debriefing session between Steve and the researcher, Steve talked about this vignette. STEVE: Same kind of thing as Carol. She's done the instant readers, you know, every week. The whole term she knows how to do it. It's not really on paper, and she andI dd go over it at the beginning of the term about the procedure she would use. But I'm encouraging her to have things written down so that lesson or whatever, she has something to refer back to. And the reason for that was from my own teaching. I was very nervous when I first started teaching. The things that I thoughtl knew very thoroughly from student teaching, I found myself thinking, "Now what didI do? or so. In Steve's view, then, in this instance Jane had been too brief in describing her plans regardng a routine lesson on "instant readers" that she does each week. Steve was once again trying to get Jane to put things down on paper more. He did it in his notes to her as well as dscussing it in their post-observation conferences. In the debriefing session with the researcher, Steve explained a little more about his intent in wanting these student teachers to put more on paper. He referred to his first years of teaching when he was so nervous, he couldn't remember things that he thought he knew well from student teaching. He wished he would have written more down during 76 student teaching, and, thus, it is his motivation for trying to get his student teachers to write things down more. Maintaining Overall Classroom Behavior When Working with a Small Group or Individual A second student teacher behavior that the field instructor tried to help with, but was somewhat msuccessful in doing, was keeping control of whole class behavior when working with an indvidual or small group of students. An instance of this assertion occurred during the second week of the term in Dan's classroom. In the researcher field notes, there was a brief description of the scene in the classroom as Dan worked with a small reading group while the rest of the Class was doing seatwork at their desks. RESEARCHER'S NOTES: Dan is asking questions about the part of the story that they just read. The students begin to get a little boisterous, and Dan says, "Keep your dgnity!" In Steve's observational notes taken during this class, he mentioned this incident. FIELD INSTRUCTOR'S NOTES: Students at seats-on task, involved. Do make a point to check on them as you do your group. Steve appeared at first to be validating student behavior in the class. He then added a somewhat strong suggestion to continue to check on the students outside of the group he was dealing with at the time. In the debriefing session with the researcher, Steve said the following. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, here what we eventually got to was, in my notes I noted that he was not monitoring the rest of the room very much while teaching that group. Now it happens that most of the kids who need a great deal of monitoring were up in that group with him, the ones remained in their seats tend to be the ones that work well independently 77 anyway, but I was trying to point out to him that especially without Mike or an aide there that he's going to need to be aware of that and aware of the room as a whole and not so much that I expect that now, but that that's something for them to think about and that will come as he becomes more comfortable and internalizes more of what he's doing in the reading group, he'll have a few more seconds to do that. Thus, Steve's explanation seems to be that although the rest of the class was not causing a lot of problems this time, Dan was not monitoring them very closely. He was very involved in the reading lesson and was not paying enough attention to the others, in Steve's view. Steve explained that, although it may not have been a big problem this time, with a different group of students and without an aide or the cooperating teacher in the room, it could easily become a problem. Steve also hypothesized that once Dan was more experienced in the handling of reading groups, he would have more time to check on the class as a whole while the reading group continued. Another instance of this assertion occurred in the ninth week of the term in Carol's classroom. Carol had the students working on an independent math activity called "worktubs" while she worked with indvidual students. In Steve's observational notes about the activity, he wrote the following. FIELD INSTRUCTOR'S NOTES: Codng system on cards--tub, workjobs--are you pleased with this? Kids in back by puppet stage were not all working. Jesse seems to be quite a disruptive influence at times. From these notes, then, it appears that Steve was concerned about the students on-task behavior during this activity while Carol worked with indvidual students. The following dscussion about this activity took place during the post-observation conference between Carol and Steve. STUDENT TEACHER: Yeah, I love it because I like to try to fit it in because I'm more individual--it's 78 the only thing I can do with the kids on a one-to-one basis; everything else is group. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Yeah. STUDENT TEACHER: And I like it a lot for that reason because they're pretty involved. They do pretty well--that and think-spelling folders. They do on their own pretty well. And those are two thingsl can do one- on-one with. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay. STUDENT TEACHER: So Jesse—yeah. He . . . he's . . . but he's been doing great today. Boy, he's . . . FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Un-huh. STUDENT TEACHER: . . . he was doing really good today. Yeah, there have been problems with Jesse, but he's getting much better. And Kristen. Have you noticed Kristen? FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Un-huh. STUDENT TEACHER: How much better she's doing? FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Oh, yeah. STUDENT TEACHER: Today, she was just an angel compared to most days, so . . . FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Yeah, she was really involved. I noticed that you are getting around to her quite often, just looking over towards her. In reviewing this passage, one might get the idea that Steve was not at all mhappy with Carol's management of student behavior, which is contrary to what he wrote in his observational notes. Carol herself seemed to feel reasonably positive about the behavior of the two students under dscussion. Looking further into the data, during the researcher/field instructor debriefing, Steve made the following comments about the above interaction between himself and Carol. 79 FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, there what I was doing . . . she came up with the idea that she was having this dfficulty deciding whether to stop what she was doing with one child, which was very concentrated- -checking out what they were doing--to correct someone who was not doing what she wanted. And that she didn't come up with there . . . that I was hoping that she would, and I'm trying as subtly as possible to now stick in . . . to minimize the potential that the other people are gonna be off. And the idea was that the particular kids we're talking about who were not concentrating were behind that puppet screen out of her line of sight. And so that, what I'm hoping that she'll come up with is that those students should be within her line of sight and that that will minimize the Chances of them becoming distracted. From this passage, then, it seems that Steve wanted Carol to recognize, through his notes, that he had some concerns about the management of students' behavior. However, Carol dd not pick Up on the written cues in the way that Steve had hoped, and Steve was trying to come up with a subtle way to let her know his concerns about maintaining the behavior of all the students while working with individuals or small groups. THEME 3 The Field Instructor Equated "Being Less Directive" with "Facilitating Reflection": Was This a Developmental Stage of the Learning Commmity Program? Steve wanted his three student teachers to become increasingly reflective about their practice. He espoused the philosophy contained in the student teacher program in which he worked that views the teacher as a reflective practitioner. What is interesting is that he equated "facilitating reflection" with "being less drective." A good instance of this assertion occurred during the first formal meeting between Steve and the researcher to dscuss his participation in the study. The researcher had had some preliminary discussions with him a few 80 weeks before about the proposed study, and at that time he had expressed interest in participating. In the his field notes about this meeting, the researcher described the conversation. RESEARCHER FIELD NOTES: Just met with Steve and we dscussed some of the details of the study. I began by describing how the committee meeting went and some of the changes the committee recommended. I had given him a copy of the proposal as well. After talking about this for a while, Steve mentioned some of the "variables" that he wanted me to know he was thinking about. One of them was that he is working on being more facilitative of reflection and less drective, and he commented that he ddn't want this to mess up my study. The meeting, then, was designed to firm up plans for Steve's participation in the study. After giving him some details from the committee meeting, Steve wanted the researcher to know what some of the plans were for the coming term with his student teachers. He ddn't want his plans to be in conflict with the investigation. One of his plans was to increase his facilitation of reflection and decrease his drectiveness. His view of facilitating reflection, then, is that if he is going to try to do more, then he will have to be less drective. In other words, he ddn't think he could be as directive as he had been and still facilitate reflection as much as he wanted to. Another example of an instance to support this assertion is found in the transcripts of the first debriefing session between Steve and the researcher. They had just finished listening to an audio tape recordng of Steve in a post- observation conference with Jane. Steve thought that the conference had not gone well, and he was going over in his mind what had happened. He proceeds to mentioned one of his intentions. 81 FIELD INSTRUCTOR: One of my things that I'm trying to get the students to become more self- directive and look at themselves. One can infer from this statement that in "trying to get the students to become more self-drective," he was implying that he would become less drective, and that in having students "look at themselves," he was implying that he wanted them to be more reflective. In other words, another way of putting what he said here is that he wanted to become less drective so the student teachers could be more reflective. This assertion does more than document Steve's mderstanding (or misunderstanding) of what "facilitating reflection" means. In a wider perspective, this case study appears to document the stage that the Learning Community Program was in at the time the data were collected. The theoretical and conceptual base of the Learning Commmity Program was firmly in place in this, its fifth year. However, not all of the espoused program theory was fully acted upon. In other words, the thinking of the leaders of the program was more advanced than the program's capacity to practice fully the ideas of the program. This was true especially when it came to the development of reflective habits in their student teachers. The Learning Commmity faculty and staff, including the field instructors, were still learning about reflective practice themselves. At regular staff meetings attended by faculty and staff (including field instructors), there were dscussions about developing reflective habits, but there was also reflective activity going on within the meetings. Participants would confront dscrepancies Openly between what the program was espousing and what was happening with students. There were attempts to bring those 82 two closer together, and this pattern of reflective activity was consistent in faculty and staff meetings. The students in the program were not included in these meetings. However, within their coursework, they had to take a course entitled "proseminar" in the term immediately following their student teaching. This course was designed to have students reflect on what they set out to accomplish in student teaching and in their whole pre-service program. Then they looked at what happened and where their developmentin professional practice was up to then. So reflective activity was going on within the program. However, when it came to training field instructors in how to facilitate the development of reflective habits in students, the program was learning. One of the co-coordnators of the program had a strong background in non- drective counseling. He had recently completed a piece on the usefulness of the Rogerian approach to interpersonal communication in instructional supervision. The coordnator and trainer of field instructors had a Master's degree in social work. In the training of new field instructors, the materials used contained heavy doses of non-drective counseling protocols to portray the reflective posture of the helping relationship. It is understandable, then, that Steve dd what he dd; i.e., confuse facilitating reflection with being non-drective. This was not unique to Steve, but how the program defined the terms at that time. Steve's orientation to the Learning Commmity Program, which included what facilitating reflection looks like, led him to assume that one had to be non-drective to facilitate reflection. 83 THEME 4 Student Teacher Thinking about Student Learning A fourth theme that emerged from the data was that the student teachers were thoughtful about student learning. That is to say, they dscussed their intentions and plans and then analyzed what actually happened and their possible impact on what happened in regard to student learning. The assertion that best supports this theme is that, in post-observation conferences, the field instructor was able to promote student teacher thinking about student learning. There are many instances of this assertion in the data. A good example occurred during the second to last week of the term with student teacher Carol. In her lesson plan, she stated that from 1:00 until 1:10, she was going to discuss "Mr. K," and from 1:10 until 1:15 she had written " koo kab ura ." From these plans, then, it would appear that Carol was introducing a new letter of the alphabet to the students and then, after doing so, she planned to do an activity around "kookabura" which is, among other things, the name of a song from Australia. From the number of ks in the word, one could conclude that it was some type of follow-up activity to the introduction of that letter to the children. In the researcher's notes from an observation of Carol from 1:00 until 1:35 on Monday after, March 2, came the following comments. RESEARCHER'S NOTES: "Cathy has introduced the letter l_<_, and she begins to play a record entitled "Kicking" that is designed to help students tme in to the letter k and emphasize the k sound. She proceeds to encourage the children to Talk around the room kicking up their legs in the air just a bit. 84 From these data, then, it appears that after introducing the letter 5, she dd not immedately follow-up with an activity related to "kookabura." Rather, Carol introduced a song entitled "Kicking" to reinforce the introduction of the letter _k_. Not only dd the children sing the song, but they were encouraged to act it out by going around the room kicking one leg. In the post-observation conference with Carol, Steve chose to take a slightly dfferent approach. He presented her with a two-page list of his observations. The phrases and sentences were Steve's attempt to describe what he saw and experienced. He told Carol the following at the outset of this conference. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Anyway, what I want to do today is . . . I took notes that are . . . hopefully, my comments aren't on them too much, as far as good, bad, or indfferent. I'm just trying to take, kind of, what happened. STUDENT TEACHE R: Okay. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Now, occasionally I put something down that's in question form, okay? That doesn't necessarily mean it's a question that I'm driving at, that there was a negative thing. I may be driving at a positive thing. STUDENT TEA CHE R: Okay. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Okay, so there are not any loaded questions. And what I want you to do is, you can kind of use these little guidelines, essentially, like I have the sheet here. STUDENT TEACHER: Okay. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: You can talk about any of the headings that you want to talk about. You can skip any of the ones that you want to, and anything that's not on here that you want to talk about you can talk about, too. So, basically, I want you to choose (I) what we're going to talk about--and then (2) you know, use 85 the notes as necessary or as they help you to talk about it, but the idea is that, you know, a week from now you'll be doing his all for yourself . . . STUDENT TEACHER: Right. So it appears form this passage that Steve is interested in having Carol think about the teaching episode by respondng to his observation notes that he says he has tried to keep objective. His intent, then, in this instance, is to help Carol be thoughtful about the teaching episode he observed. The first three lines of his notes, which have been given to Carol, read as follows: Used echo method to teach "Kookabura" song. Sang last two verses. Told students they would learn later. Do you think they made connection--Mr. K, kookabura? Upon reading these lines in the post-observation conference with Steve, Carol said the following. STUDENT TEACHER: I think I should have . . . during the 5 song . . . well, first, I completely forgot about the k song-«good thing someone reminded me--- "Are we going to listen to a song?--'cause I usually have them listen to it before I do the kookabura song. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: Right. STUDENT TEACHER: And so that was out of sync, but . . . so that sort of put me off, but I should have given them the directions of what we were going to do before I started the music and I sort of yelled them out as they were all gathering, but it was all right. From this passage, then, it appears that Carol was able to think through a vignette of her teaching, introducing the letter 13 to her students, that dd not go accordng to plan. She thought about what she did and what she should 86 have done. She also recognized that, in the end,it was all probably okay this time. Another instance of this assertion occurred during the beginning of the student teaching term with Jane. Jane had recently learned about the use of creative dramatics in the classroom and was anxious to try it out. She had included it in her plans for teaching about weather, and Steve's response to her plans was the following. FIELD INSTRUCTOR NOTES: WEatherunice use. of a strategy that children enjoy. It is good to see drama used in a content area. May sure they have a chance to "act" as you change seasons. Evaluation good! Steve validated her plan to teach weather using drama and offered a suggestion on how to ensure it went well. He wrote the following in his post- observation notes. Creative dramatics--weather. Arranged students, established rules. Could you have asked students to Show what they could do to avoid wind, leaves, rather than telling them what to do? At the picture board, how could you have kept more interest and given more chances for students to participate? In his notes, Steve is asking some questions that appear to be trying to get Jane to think about how she might do this activity dfferently the next time. After reading Steve's notes in the post-observation conference, Jane made the following immedate response. STUDENT TEACHER: Oh . . . well . . . see . . . I didn't know we were going to have hearing testing today . ..forone thing...ldidn'tknow...andit...sort of . . . I wanted this creative dramatics thing to really work out,but then we went to condense it from a 30- minute lesson to a 15-minute lesson and . . . because we did that, I think it, sort of, didn't quite hit the . . . but they have never done creative dramatics before, so I 87 think from not being able to do it before, I think that they dd a pretty good job . . . acting out what they were supposed to do. And they dd talk about what they felt afterwards like they were supposed to . . . sometimes if you work with kids who have never worked with it before, you can ask them, "What dd it feel like when you were out in the summer?" And they'd say, "I wasn't out in the summer. I was Sitting on the floor." So they were able to put themselves in the other place, whichI think is good. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: That's a . . . STUDENT TEACHER: But it was so condensed. I didn't get to do half the stuff. We're going to have to finish it another time. In looking back over the lesson, Jane did some thoughtful reflection. She Was quite interested in having the creative dramatics lesson on weather go Well and was frustrated with the interruptions and lack of time at the end. Her plan was now to try to finish the lesson at another time. These are just two examples of the many instances of the student te achers in this investigation being thoughtful about student learning in their c1 assrooms. THEME 5 Possible Influences of the Researcher on the Participants As a check on the analysis, the researcher looked back through the data and thought back through the data collection process to see what effect the r§8earcher might have had on the participants in the study and, thus, on the fi riclings. Two assertions emerged. The Field Instructor Wanted to Please the Researcher From the very beginning, it was clear to the researcher that the field Ins‘Iir‘uctor wanted to please him. When the researcher was introduced to the 88 group of Learning Community staff in the fall of 1986 as someone who was considering doing research in Learning Community on supervision, Steve came up afterwards and said that if volunteers were needed for the researcher's proj ect, he would like to help the researcher out and participate. He said he was interested also in looking at himself in a supervisory role in order to im prove his skills. Anotherainstance of this assertion occurred during the first debriefing s ession between the researcher and the field instructor. The field instructor was discussing his first post-observation conference with Dan, one of the Student teachers. The topic of the dscussion was his concern about Dan's abi lity to monitor overall classroom behavior while working with an individual 0" small group. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: I was trying to point out to him that, especially without Mike or an aide there, he's going to need to be aware of that and aware of the room as a whole and not so much that I expect that now, but that that's something for them to think about and that will come as he becomes more comfortable and internalizes more of what he's doing in the reading group, he'll have a few more seconds to do that. RESEA RCHE R: Un-huh. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: We getting enough depth here? - RESEARCHER: You're doing fine; we're doing fine. 30 early in the data collection process, it appeared that Steve wanted to be sUre he was providng what the researcher "needed." In other words, was the l‘es earcher satisfied with the depth of dscussion? A third instance of this assertion is drawn from the field instructor's Clotting comments in the last debriefing session between the researcher and the 89 field instructor. The researcher asked Steve for final comments before turning off the tape recorder for the last time. After mentioning several other issues, the field instructor talked about his need to be directive with the student teacher. FIELD INSTRUCTOR: You know, we've talked about it a lot on the tapes here, the fact that my little agenda and the points that I think are important . . . still, I almost have to get them in there or I feel like I haven't done my job or I'm not comfortable with it. And so, based on that, then I would say that the thinking . . . patterns and the . . . personality in general of field instructors are also limiting factors in this directiveness business. You know then that's the wayI am. And when I'm less drective then I feel comfortable with, I feel I'm not doing my job. Right up to the end, Steve felt like he had to explain one more time why there were times when he had to be directive. This time, what he is saying might sound as if he felt guilty that he had to do it because he thought the researcher really wanted him to do something else, like be less drective. He couched his explanation in such a way that if he were not able to be drective at times, then he felt as if he wouldn't be doing his job. He then proceeded almost to put the blame for this need to be drective on his personality makeup, as if he really tried to be non-drective, but he just wasn't the person to do it. The Researcher Maintained a Non-Directive Posture with the Researcher over the Data Collection Period Throughout his interaction with the field instructor, the data reveal that the researcher maintained a very non-drective posture. In analyzing just the quality of field instructor talk versus researcher talk in the debriefing sessions, Steve spoke over 90% of the time. In looking more Closely at the quality of the researcher talk, most of it was either Rogerian types of phrases 90 like "tell me more" or just plain "uh-huh." The researcher mainly listened, asking an occasional clarifying question. The interaction was decidedly a one- way interaction, with the field instructor providng the data. This posture on the part of the researcher could very well have influenced the field instructor as a model of the way he was to act. CHAPTER V INTERPRETIVE COMMENTARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS In this chapter, the researcher considers the patterns that emerged from the data findings and analysis in Chapter IV in a broader context. The assertions that have been organized into themes are looked at in the context of conclusions, implications, and recommendations for the profession. While grounded in the particular and general description that is present in levels one and two that are found in Chapter IV, this third level of content, which Erickson (1986) refers to as interpretive commentary, deals with the larger perspective of practice in general. At this level, then, the fieldwork researcher answers questions such as, "How does what is happening here connect with what is happening in a wider context both within and outside of this setting?" AS further background to this chapter, there are some limitations to this study that should be noted. First of all, the investigation was a case study of one field instructor. Typicality is not judged by a study with an N of one. Comparative analyses are limited since circumstances do vary from one situation to the next. Secondly, the supervisory practice was studied at selected times and in selected locations during the observation period. For example, there was supervisory practice going on for all 10 weeks of the term, yet the study 91 92 captured only three weeks of the action-~the third, sixth, and ninth weeks. Also, the context of supervisory practice is quite broad. As Zimpher, deVoss, and Nott (1980) note, ". . . the role of the university supervisor constitutes the totality of the supervisor's presence in the student-teacher experience" (p. 14). For example, there were numerous instances of interaction between the field instructor and the three student teachers outside the context of the observed teaching episodes or post-observation conferences. Informal interactions prior to a teaching episode or conference, chance meetings in the hallway at the college of education, discussions during a teaching episode, and phone conversations are all examples of field instructor/student teacher interactions that were not captured in this study. Third, besides the student teachers, other Characters in the world of the field instructor were only tangentially included in the study. For example, the cooperating teacher is considered to be a large influence on the student teaching experience. Information regardng the cooperating teacher as a supervisor/instructor is critical to our understanding of the student teaching experience and how to best supervise it. The action or influence of the cooperating teachers of each of the three student teachers was not considered in this investigation. Only sparse comments about the COOperating teacher are found in the field notes, transcripts, and lesson plans. These were not a factor in the study. This investigation, then, chose to study only one subject. It chose to study that one subject at selected times and in selected contexts. And it chose to not look at the actions and influences of significant others involved in the enterprise of student teacher supervision. These items are limitations to the overall investigation. 93 However, despite these limitations, the study does provides information about what a student teaching field instructor in an alternative teacher education program does and how he makes some meaning of what he does. Further interpretive commentary, conclusions, implications, and recommendations follow. Conclusions As mentioned earlier, Barnes (1987), Putnam et a1. (1989), May and Zimpher (1986), and Zimpher and Howey (1986) all dscuss the need for congruency between the field instructor's role and the conceptual base of the particular theme of an alternative teacher education program. Given the findngs in this study, one could conclude that achieving this congruency is extremely difficult. The field instructor in this study faced a dilemma that was confusing to him. He wanted to facilitate the develOpment of reflective habits in student teachers. He was aware that this new role of field instructor was something he was going to have to learn. That is one reason why he volunteered to participate in this project (see Chapter IV, Theme 3). And developing reflective habits in student teachers was consistent with the conceptual base of the Learning Commmity Teacher Education program. His interpretation of the concept of facilitating reflective habits, however, was to be less directive, which caused some frustration in his practice as a field instructor. Some of his misinterpretation may have come from the model the researcher set forth as he went about the investigation. The researcher was, for the most part, extremely non-drective. And since part of the investigation was about developing reflective habits, the field 94 instructor may have concluded that he, too, should, therefore, be non-drective if he were going to do it "right." What contributed to the misinterpretation greatly, however, and made the achievement of congruency between the conceptual base of the program and actual practice even more difficult for him was the fact that, at the stage the Learning Community Teacher Education program was in, the training that he received as a field instructor contributed to the incongruency. He was encouraged, through the materials and orientation he received in these training sessions, to think that a non-drective approach was the best way to develop the reflective habits of student teachers. The Learning Community Program espoused this concept of reflective habits as important in the development of their preservice teachers. However, the program had not gotten to the point where, it knew how best to train field instructors to facilitate the development of those reflective habits. Thus, based on this investigation, one conclusion is that the achievement of congruency between the conceptual foundation of an alternative teacher education program and appropriate practice of the field instructor in that alternative program is quite dfficult. As was mentioned earlier by Dewey (1904), Burke (1984), Zeichner and Teitelbaum (1982), Emans (1981), and Scheffler (1968), the develOpment of student teacher reflective habits is a modification of the traditional role of a field instructor. They, along with Fuller and Bown (1975), Emans (1983), Nerenz (1979), and Solliday (1982), speak to the complexity of this type of role for the field instructor. What emerged from the data in this investigation was support for these two conclusions. 95 Facilitating reflection modifies the traditional role of the field instructor. Johnson (1986) and Fristoe (1942) dscuss the idea that the traditional supervisory role has been one of the master or expert who will demonstrate or tell the apprentice or novice how to teach correctly. The traditional understanding is that knowledge, experience, and "know-how" rest with the field instructor. It is the field instructor's job tradtionally to observe student teachers and compare their performances with a standard of what is correct or right, based on the field instructor's knowledge, experience, and "know-how." At best, the field instructor would focus on developing survival skills in classroom performance. The role of the field instructor is redefined when facilitating reflection is introduced. The field instructor is no longer viewed as the only expert on teaching. The student teacher is seen as having meaningful inferences to make. These inferences can be more relevant to the student teachers than ones that the field instructor could make. Adopting this view of the field instructor as a facilitator of reflection requires that the he trust student teachers' capacity to draw inferences about past action that are meaningful, useful, and significant as they plan future action. In the context of teacher education, the conception of field instruction and supervision of student teaching becomes more of a collegial, cooperative venture. The power relationship between field instructor and student teacher becomes one of more equal status as the professional credbility of the student teacher gains prominence. The field instructor helps the student teacher not only to be a more skilled practitioner, but also a reflective practitioner. In such a conceptualization of teacher education, the student teachers become more proficient technically and also become scholars of teaching. For the 96 field instructor who views his/her role in traditional schema, this expanded definition of field instruction and supervision is a definite shift in thinking about supervisory practice. This shift is characterized as having trust in the ability of student teachers to make their own meaningful inferences about their teaching practice and plan future action based on those inferences. What emerges from the data in this study is that the field instructor had a definite shift to make in his practice. Although he espoused the development of reflective habits, he found it exceedngly hard to let go of his agenda items and focus on those of the student teachers. He had worked with these same three student teachers in the previous term in pro-student teaching. He started the Student teaching term wanting to "fine tme" their Skills, habits, and abilities (Chapter IV, Theme 1). He became somewhat manipulative during the post-observation conferences so that he could keep to his agenda. He became defensive about his drectiveness with the researcher. This shift for him became a dilemma that lingered right up to the end of the data collection period. Steve's confusion over how to incorporate the facilitation of reflection into his supervisory practice also points to the complexity of this notion. In fact, a field instructor can be directive and still facilitate reflection. Reflection is often characterized as "guided thinking" which suggests some type of drectiveness. The key to support for reflection seems to be the Structure the supervisor provides in the post-observation dscussion allowing a Student teacher's actions and thoughts to be the focus. The thoughts, inferences, insights, and plans do belong to the student teacher, the one who is reflecting. 97 The stimuli for reflection are many and varied. There are times when looking at past action can be enough alone to stimulate thinking. In other words, the motivation to reflect is generated from thinking about one's own past action. The supervisor is more or less an active listener. On the other hand, there are times when looking at past action is not enough to stimulate thinking. Then the motivation to reflect must come from an outside source. The direction of the supervisor can be a motivation for reflection. The supervisor's stimulation of reflection can be compatible with drect instruction. For example, if the supervisor reviews the student teacher's lesson plan and matches the elements of the plan with what happened or dd not happen in the class interaction, then this drect questioning about the incongruities can be the structuring for powerful reflection on action. The goal is to help the student teacher think, draw inferences about past action, and make plans for future action. The drectiveness here has to do with the structuring of reflective actions and not necessarily the content of the reflections. In Steve's supervisory practice in this case, his actions were predominantly drective, and the content of the dscussions were E reflections. Toward the end of the data collection period, he reasoned that he needed to be drective in order to cover his critical feedback, and that the student teachers could learn how to reflect by watching him reflect on their teaching episodes. Steve tried to merge the apprenticeship model with develOping reflective habits without much success. His lack of success is Understandable when consideration is given to the fact that he left out the meanings and inferences of the student teachers in the process. His intent was Collegial, but his practice was hierarchical. 98 To incorporate the development of student teacher reflective habits into supervisory practice is a modification in the traditional approach to supervision. It requires a shift away from the apprenticeship model toward a more collaborative one. Steve's confusion over his attempts to make this shift points to the complexity of the incorporation of this approach into supervisory practice. Implications for the Profession From the conclusions, then, there are several implications for the profession. One is that teacher educators seek ways to help field instructors incorporate the develOpment of student teacher reflective habits into their professional practice. If develOping reflective habits is desirable, then teacher educators must re-examine the selection procedures, performance expectations, and staff development programs of field instructors. This is especially true in alternative teacher education programs that espouse this role of the field instructor. Field instructors who are proficient in developing reflective habits could be sought. Job descriptions and performance review criteria could include items related to the development of student teacher reflective habits. Promotion of reflection and the development of reflective habits could be included in the training sessions of student teacher field instructors. The goal is for the profession to recognize reflective habits as a valued outcome of student teaching and to stress the importance of the field instructor's responsibility in developing those habits. The ultimate outcome is congruence between what an alternative teacher education program espouses and the practice of field instruction. 99 When developing the reflective habits of student teachers, the difference for the field instructor is the inclusion of the student teacher thoughts and inferences as an important contribution to the improvement of instruction. Another implication for the profession is that teacher educators must seek ways to make reflection on practice more important to preservice teachers. Promotion of the process of reflection and the development of reflective habits could be included in all course work and field experiences within the teacher education program as well. From the beginning of their program, teachers in training could be oriented to the notion that their ideas, meanings, and inferences about their actions have significant value in planning futwe action. They would be expected to fulfill the responsibilities of their development as students of teaching by collaboration in their own improvement as a teacher. Based on the conclusions of this study, another implication for the profession seems to be to provide assistance for the field instructor in unraveling the complexities of helping student teachers and making the shift to a more collegial, collaborative approach to supervision. If field instructors are expected to facilitate reflection on practice, then provision must be made for them to learn how to do both: i.e., reflect on practice and facilitate others' reflection on action. The qiestion then becomes, "How do we develop the supervisor's ability to facilitate the student teachers' reflection on practice?" This question deserves further attention. The supervisory practice of the subject of this investigation was tradtional in nature. Even though he espoused the view of a teacher as a reflective practitioner, he did not find a way to transfer that belief to his practice. If the profession of teacher lOO education wants field instructors of student teachers to facilitate reflection on practice, then there is strong support in these results to suggest expanded training programs for field instructors. It is the belief of the researcher that supervisors must be helped to become reflective of their own action as supervisors, make inferences, and plan action based on such inferences as they relate to supervisory practice. This notion is similar in my mind to Argyris' concept (1982) of double loop learning. If supervisors were guided systematically to think about their actions, the assumptions they make about those actions, and the intentions they had in performing those actions, then they could make their own inferences about their practice. Growth occurs because, from inferences, plans for future action are made. If the intention of the field instructor is to facilitate reflection on practice, then the field instructor would consider all thoughts and assumptions he makes about facilitating reflection, take a look at his practice with the assistance of another indvidual who is skilled in facilitating reflection, and make inferences about that past practice that would frame future action. There is an added bonus to this approach of helping field instructors learn how to facilitate reflection by practicing their own reflection on action. By being a participant in this process, they are privy to a model of reflective action. If it is true that we are greatly influenced to teach as we were taught, it would seem appropriate to also say that we are greatly influenced to supervise the way that we are supervised. The complexities involved in this process should not be underestimated. Translating thoughts and ideas of this nature into pragmatic action is a lot more complex than one might infer from the description above. However, the 101 process of facilitating field instructor reflection, together with the modeling that takes place during the process, makes this approach a worthy one. It might help unravel the complexities of incorporating the development of reflective habits into the practice of supervision and facilitate the field instructor's transition to a more collaborative approach to supervision. Such a process could lead to enhancing the profession of teacher education. Recommendations for Future Research This investigation attempted to capture the work of a field instructor of student teachers in an alternative teacher education program. However, it is a small contribution to what is still a great need. To understand the process of student teacher field instruction in an alternative teacher education program, more inquiry is needed. One area of focus could be the training one receives as a student teacher field instructor. In this case, it would have been illuminating to have captured all the action surrounding the field instructor's training from the initial contact that was made by the program in which he worked to all of the sessions that he attended. Along with a documentation of this action would be a description of how the field instructor made meaning of that orientation and training. A variety of questions could be addressed. What kinds of training actually take place? How involved or intense is it? What kinds of follow-up or supervision of the field instructors are included in the program? In addtion to preparation ,the selection of fieldinstructors could be an issue to focus on in future research. Who is this person we call a student teacher supervisor? What is the person's background? What criteria are used to select a supervisor? How long does this person tend to do this kind of work? What 102 - kinds of supervision has this person done in the past? What impact does any of this have on this person's actions as a supervisor at present? There is a need to understand more about the field instructor-student teacher relationship. The development of a collegial relationship seems to be a key component in the field instructor becoming more facilitative of reflection. Knowing more about how this relationship is established and evolves could help us prepare field instructors to be more collaborative. The teacher education enterprise is undergoing extensive re-evaluation at present. Model programs are being proposed, planned, and implemented. Large amounts of money are becoming more available from various foundations and businesses to study the work of teacher educators. There is a trend to expand and intensify the field experiences of preservice teachers. Practica and internships are being re-examined and improved. Proposals for a fifth and sixth year of study at the graduate level to obtain a professional teaching degree are being suggested. There has been a growing concern recently to attempt to merge more of what we lmow about practice with actual practice. The creation of the Professional Development Schools project in Michigan is a specific example of this. Participants from Michigan State University and surrounding school dstricts hope to make Dewey's dream of combining theory and practice a reality. The re-examination and evolution happening currently in teacher education provides an Opportune time for the profession to develop i3 reflective habits. Now is the time to take a look at what's happening in practice and make meanings and inferences about that practice. It is only then that participants will be able to unravel the complexities of the profession and make informed plans for future action. If the participants do 103 not adOpt this reflective posture as a profession, then there may be a risk of applying the same solutions and ideas to new problems and challenges. Or as Wollheim (1984) so eloquently states, "If we show ourselves unprepared to learn, or try to learn, from the past in the way in which self-examination asks us to, we shall be forced to live in it" (p. 163). APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE ROLE OF A LEARNING COMMUNITY FIELD INSTRUCTOR The role of a Learning Community field instructor is many faceted and, therefore, requires a person to be flexible, resourceful, decisive, and sensitive to others. Field instructors will find being a teacher to Learning Community students in the field means being a counselor, an advocate, a facilitator, and/or a public relations person at any given moment and frequently several roles at once. Field instructors need to understand and appreciate their roles and the influence they have on students, cooperating teachers, and other people with whom they work. The attached list of field instructor responsibilities outlines many tasks that will be expected of you. We highly value field instructors developing an outlook or attitude towards their work which reflects a holistic view of supervision. The Learning Community students and their develOpment as teachers, with all that that entails, are our primary focus. This necessarily includes the welfare of our cooperating teachers and the children in their classrooms. Field instructors need to include these people in their view of supervision. Good judgment and modeling professional behavior is key in interpreting the responsibilities outlined. The role of field instructor is evolving and Open to growth and better mderstanding as new research is accomplished and as experience is gained. Each field instructor can add to this knowledge both for him/herself and for others. 104 105 A LEARNING COMMUNITY FIELD INSTRUCTOR'S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Regardng first year program students (usually referred to as junior level students) and their feedback, the field instructor will: a. b. C. f. observe the student teach for at least )6 hour each week using appropriate program observation forms and field notes conduct a feedback and reflection conference with the Student for )5 hour each week as soon as possible after the observation obtain lesson plans from the student prior to the observation, read those, provide necessary feedback before the lesson and provide follow-up processing on the effectiveness of the plans during the post-observation conference negotiate with the student the time for the next observation and conference arrange for and facilitate a three-way conference between the student, cooperating teacher and field instructor at least once each term and preferably twice (at mid-term and end of term) for the purpose of evaluating the student's progress and setting goals for the further development of the student's teaching abilities do necessary record keeping (see below) Regardng second year program students (usually referred to as senior level students) and their fieldwork, the field instructor will: a. b. during the pre-student teaching term (usually fall term) 1) do all of the above tasks listed for first year students 2) arrange for and facilitate a three-way conference at mid—term time for the purpose of evaluating the student's progress and to set goals or clarify expectations regardng what the student needs to do in order to be ready for student teaching 3) arrange for and facilitate an end of term three-way conference and as many others as necessary to confirm and/or clarify the student's readiness to student teach. If it is determined that the student is not ready to student teach, the field instructor will clarify, in writing, what the student needs to improve or do in order to be ready to student teach. The field instructor will also outline strategies with the student to help him/her fulfill the expectations. Addtional fieldwork is often appropriate and will be arranged during the student teaching term 1) observe the student teaching each week for at least 45 minutes using appropriate observation forms and field notes 2) conduct a feedback and reflection conference with the student for 45 minutes at least once each week 3) obtain lesson plans and time schedules by Friday for the following week's activities, read them, provide necessary feedback before the next week begins and provide follow-up processing on the effectiveness of the plans and time schedules 4) arrange for and facilitate as many three-way conferences as necessary with a minimum of two (mid-term and end of term) 5) negotiate the time for the next observation and conference C. 106 if the student teacher is not meeting program expectations for student teachers, the field instructor will: 1) keep a log of the student's professional responsibilities (e.g., attendance at school, completing and turning in lesson plans prior to teaching, keeping appointments or other commitments, etc.) 2) keep anecdotal records of the student's progress 3) inform the student by mid-term that s/he is not satisfactorily meeting program expectations and, therefore, may not receive a "pass" for student teaching 4) write a contract detailing what the student is expected to accomplish or Show competency in order to successfully complete student teaching. The student and field instructor must date and sign the contract 5) keep the student informed of his/ her progress on a weekly basis after it has been determined that s/he may not complete student teaching satisfactorily 6) obtain evidence (verbal and/or written) from the cooperating teacher on a weekly basis as to his/her perception of the student's progress. Keep written records of the teacher's feedback Regardng communication with the COOperating teacher, the field instructor will: a. inform the teacher of program expectations for his/ her student, dstribute program memos and other information to the teacher and answer questions the teacher might have or refer him/her to an appropriate resource facilitate the negotiation of teaching tasks, program expectations, and other responsibilities that the student, teacher, and field instructor see as apprOpriate. It is important to keep in mind that expectations are meant to be guidelines and the process of reaching them can be negotiated talk with the teacher each week about the student's progress or about concerns the teacher might have regarding program requirements Regardng communication with other school buildng personnel, the field instructor will: a. b. make regular contact with the principal of the buildng assigned to communicate information about the program and the students in the buildng or answer cpestions and discuss concerns the principal might have communicate with other building staff such as the secretary, librarian, or other support staff as appropriate Regardng record keeping, the field instructor will: a. b. use appropriate observation forms several times each term and share these with the student during the conference write field notes during the observation to be shared with the student during conferences C. e. 107 record comments and decisions resulting from three-way conferences write end of term paragraphs for each pre-student teacher which describes the placement for the term and the experiences the student had that term with input from the student and the cooperating teacher, write goal statements for the student for the next term to include the student's teaching strengths and areas to improve write detailed placement papers accordng to the Learning Community form after a student has completed student teaching to include input from the cooperating teacher usually obtained in a three-way conference at the end of the student teaching experience. A draft of these papers is shared with the student and COOperating teacher for their comments and edting before a final form is prepared and signed by the Student, field instructor, and program coordinator keep necessary written records and write contracts for students who are not meeting program expectations prepare a folder for each student each term that has placement information on it, dates of observations and conferences, and other pertinent information. Keep observation forms, student's lesson plans, field notes, end of term paragraphs, goal statements, and other written records in this folder. At the end of the term, file the folder in the Learning Community files. Regardng other responsibilities, the field instructor will: a. b. c. d. e. i. j. k. attend all Learning Commmity staff meetings attend all Learning community field instructors' meetings help with distribution of program announcements, memos, etc. help with recruitment of cooperating teachers be sensitive to the interactive dynamies of personnel and climate in the buildngs they visit and communicate any special buildng policies to the Students placed there be committed to improving their supervision skills and be cognizant of recent research on supervision be familiar with literature on learning communities, and be familiar with our Learning Community phIIOSOphy, goals, propensities, policies, and practices be cognizant of the four other teacher education programs and be aware of their presence in buildngs where we may jointly function cooperate with on-going research efforts of the college model professional supervision behaviors and Learning Community propensities professionally represent and promote the Learning Community program, the College of Education, MSU, and the teaching profession in the school environments in which they work APPENDIX B LEARNING COMMUNITY PROPENSTTIES r: A Learning Community teacher is one who possesses certain perspectives toward the school curriculum, the learning environment, personal and social responsibility, and rational processing. These perspectives are expressed in propensities, which are internal dspositions toward acting in Specific ways. The Learning Commmity teacher seeks to create a collaborative community for indvidual and group growth and welfare. The following list specifies these characteristic propensities. A. Curriculum: A propensity to -- take a holistic view of the instructional process in which managerial decisions are integrally related to pedagogy -- seek integration of the subject matter content as a cornerstone of the curriculum -- use of the school and community as resources for teaching and learning B. Learning and individual responsibility: A propensity to -- view learning as interactive -- foster risk-taking - engage in discourse about the consequences of personal action for the well being of others and for the group as a whole -- encourage class members to own a sense of personal power initiating action, thus minimizing the tendency to locate all decision-making within the role of the teacher 108 109 C. Social responsibility and group leadersmp: A propensity to negotiate shared norms and expectations among class members and develOp an identity of common purpose acknowledge and appreciate the diversity of life and work in the Classroom encourage and value empathy and caring in personal relationships D. Rationale processing and decision making: A propensity to create Opportunities to learn that entail inquiry, rationality, interdependence, and recigocity among learners and that arise meaningfully within the context of classrooms, school, or community life crate an atmosphere in which judgment is suspended and ambiguity tolerated while class members work toward consensus and shared understandngs view the teacher as reflective purveyor of the learning environment, who uses past experience to shape future action in a cycle of planning, enactment, and reflection upon action APPENDIX C PARTICIPANT CONSENT FOR M I‘J—‘Jfi Dear Learning Commmity Field Instructor: I am interested in studying the interaction between a Field Instructor and student teachers as it relates to providng corrective feedback and facilitating reflection on practice. I plan to make copies of all student teacher lesson plans and any documents of feedback about those plans; take field notes as I observe one Field Instructor observing his student teachers; audio tape-record five of his supervisory sessions with each of his three student teachers; interview the Field Instructor about three of those taped supervisory sessions, using the tape as a stimulus for questions; interview the student teachers at the beginning and the end of the term; audio tape-record all interviews; and make copies of Field Instructor evaluations of the performance of the three student teachers. My goal is to gather information about the Field Instructor's interaction with the student teachers as it relates to providng corrective feedback and facilitating reflection on practice. Aside from providng me with COpies of the documents stated above, the only additional obligation you would have by participating n the research is the nine hours of interviews over the term. Please read through the following carefully before signing: l. The study has been explained to me, and I have a clear understanding of it. 2. My participation in this project is completely voluntary, and signing this form I give my consent to participate. 3. I am free to discontinue participation in the experiment at any time without recrimination. 110 111 4. My anonymity will be protected at all times. My name will never appear in reports of the results. any information 1 provide either in writing or on tape will be considered confidential. 5. Results of this study will be made available to me upon request. Consistent with University policy, I ask you to sign this consent form to sigiify that I have informed you of the purposes of this study and the condtions of your participation. Charles P. Barder I mderstand why I am being asked to participate in this study, and my voluntary COOperation in it signifies that I have consented to participate under the conditions outlined above. Signature Today's date APPENDIX E LIST OF DATA FILES ITEM # l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 115 DESCRIPTION Comments of field instructor regardng Jane's lesson plans - January 22 Field notes of field instructor while observing Jane - January 22 Field notes of researcher while in Jane's classroom while field instructor is observes Jane - January 22 Transcripts of debriefing session between field instructor and researcher - January 23 Transcripts of post-observation conference between field instructor and Carol - February 9 Lesson plans of Carol - February 9 Comments of field instructor regardng Carol's lesson plans - February 9 Field notes of field instructor while observing Carol - February9 Field notes of researcher while in Carol's classroom while field instructor observes Carol - February 9 Transcripts of post-observation conference between field instructor and Jane - February 10 Lesson plan of Jane - February 10 Comments of field instructor regardng Jane's lesson plans - February 10 Field notes of field instructor while observing Jane -February 11 Field notes of researcher while in Jane's classroom while field instructor observes Jane - February 11 Weekly conference sheet of field instructor evaluating Jane - February 11 Transcripts of post-observation conference between field instructor and Dan - February 11 Lesson plans of Dan - February 11 ITEM If 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 at: 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 116 DESCRIPTION Comments of field instructor while observing Dan - February 11 Field notes of field instructor while observing Dan - February 11 Field notes of researcher while in Dan's classroom while field instructor observes Dan - February 11 Weekly conference sheet of field instructor evaluating Dan - February 12 Transcripts of debriefing session between researcher and field instructor - February 11 Transcripts of post-observation conference between field instructor and Carol - March 2 Lesson plans of Carol - March 2 Comments of field instructor while observing Carol - March 2 Field notes of field instructor while observing Carol - March 2 Field notes of researcher while in carol's classroom while field instructor observes Carol - March 2 Transcripts of post-observation conference between field instructor and Dan - March 3 Lesson plans of Dan - March 3 Comments of field instructor while observing Dan - March 3 Field notes of field instructor while observing Dan - March 3 Field notes of researcher while in Dan's classroom while field instructor observes Dan - March 3 Transcripts of post-observation conferences between field instructor and Jane - March 3 Lesson plans of Jane - March 3 Comments of field instructor while observing Jane - March 3 Field notes of field instructor while observing Jane - March 3 ITEM # 54 55 56 57 58 59 117 DESCRIPTION Field notes of researcher while in Jane's classroom while field instructor observes Jane - March 3 Transcripts of debriefing session between researcher and field instructor - March 6 Transcripts of researcher interview with Jane - March 12 Transcripts of researcher interview with Dan - March 12 Transcripts of researcher interview with Carol - March 12 Other field notes of researcher APPENDIX F CHART OF DATA SOURCES DATA SOURCES |> la: 2 2 I111 I'll 1/5-9 1/12-16 1/19-23 1/26-30 2/2-6 2/9-13 2/16-20 2/2 3-27 3/2-6 3/9-13 ><><><><><><><><><><>< X X X X 3/16-20 KEY: .—. Field notes of researcher = Transcripts of researcher interviews with student teachers C = Lesson plans and field instructor feedback on lesson plans D = Field notes of field instructor while observing student teachers E = Transcripts of post-observation conferences between field instructor and student teachers F: Transcripts of debriefing sessions between researcher and field instructor 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahnell, I.V., 6c Driscoll, R. (1982, February). Supervision: A comprehensive model. (ERIC Document No. ED 207 941) Alvermann, D.E. (1981, May-June). The possible values of dissonance in student teaching experiences. Journal of Teacher Educatiog 3(3), 24- 25. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learningLand action. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., 6: Smith, BM. (1987). Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Barnes, H., & Putnam, J. (1981). Professional development through reciprocity and reflection. Unpublished paper, AACT E Conference, Detroit. Barth, R. (1985). The principal and the profession of teaching. Sacramento: California Commission on the Teaching Profession. Bogdan, R.C., dc Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research fokr education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Boud, D., Keogh, R., 6: Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, 6: D. Walker (Eds), Reflection: Turning experienceinto learning. London: Kogan Page. Bowman, N. (1979). College supervision of student teaching: A time to reconsider. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 29-30. Boydell, D. (1986, March). Issues in teaching practice supervision research: A review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, _2_(2), 115-25. Brosio, R.A. (1975, Fall). The supervision of teacher canddates: A philosophical/historical perspective. Teacher Educator, fl(2),25-40. Brow, J.S., Collins, A., 8: Duguid, P. (1989, January-February). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, l_8(1), 32- 42. 119 120 Brundage, D.H., 6c Mackeracher, D. (1980). Adult learning principles and their application to program planning. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Burke, J.B. (1984). Interpersonal commmication. In J.A. Cooper (Ed.), Developingskills for instructional supervision. New York: Longman. Clark, D.C., et a1. (1985, October). Supervisors' feedback to student teachers. (ERIC Document No. ED 257 794. COgan,M.L. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cole, L. (1950). A histppy of education, Socrates to Montessori. New York: Holt, rinehart, and Winston. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., 6c Newman, S.E. (1986). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of readng, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), anition and instruction: Issues and agendas. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conant, J.B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw Hill. Connolly, R. (1981). Freire, praxis and education. In R. Mackie (Ed.). Eiteracy and revolution: The pedagogy of Paulo Freire. New York: Continuum. Copeland, W.D., 8c Atkinson, D.R. (1978, January-February). Student teachers' perceptions of drective and nondirective supervisory behavior. Journal of Educational Research, £01), 37-42. Courter, R., 6: Ward, B.A. (1983). Staff development for school improvement. In G.A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff Development. Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cross, K.P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Demmon-Berger, D. (1986). Effective teacthg: Observations from research. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators. Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in the education of teachers. Third Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Scientific Study of Education. Bloomington, IN: Public School. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacMillan. 121 Dewey, J. (1940/1965). The relation of theory to practice in education. In M.S. Borrowman (Ed.), Teacher educap'pn in America: A documentaLy history. New York: Teacher's College Press. Doyle, W., 6: Ponder, G. (1977). The practical ethic and teacher decision making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12. Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: MacMillan. Eisner, E. (1983). The art and craft of teaching. Educational Leadership, _1_, 4- 13. Eisner, E.W. (1985). The art of educational evaluation: A personal view. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. Ellenburg, F.C. (1981, January). You can pay me now or you can pay me later. Clearing House, 3(5), 200-205. Emans, R. (1981, Fall). Analysis of four different approaches to teacher education. College Student Journal, l_5_(3), 209-16. Emans, R. (1983, May-June). Implementing the knowledge base: Redesigning the function of cooperating teachers and college supervisors. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 14-18. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F., Florio, S., 6: Buschman, J. (1980). Fieldwork in educational research (Occasional Paper No. 36). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Freire, P. (1980). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum. Friebus, R.J. (1977). Agents of socialization involved in student teaching. Journal of Educational Research, _7_Q, 263-28 8. Fristoe, D. (1942). Early beginnings of laboratory schools. Educational Administration and Supervision, 28, 219-223. Fuller, F.F., 6r Bown, O.H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), The _sreventy-fourJth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Galagher, T.1-I., Romano, A.W., Sunflower, C., 6: Shepherd, G. (1983, March- April). A three role grOUp clinical SUpervision system for student teaching. Journal of Education Education, 24(2), 43-51. 122 Giroux, H.A. (1983). Theory and resistance: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Giroux, H.A. (1986, Spring). Radical pedagogy and the politics of student voice. lnterchanges, 11(1), 48-69. Gitlin, A., Ogawa, R.T., 8: Rose, E. (1982, August). Horizontal evaluation: An investigation into an approach to student teacher supervision. (ERIC Document N 0. ED 214 904) Gitlin, A., Ogawa, R.T., 8: Rose, E. (1982, May). Horizontal evaluation: Its impact in three case studies. CCBC Notebook, .1_1(3), 3-13. Gitlin, A., Ogawa, R.T., 6: Rose, E. (1984, May-June). Supervision, reflection, and understandng: A case for horizontal evaluation. Journal of Teacher Education, 3_5_(3), 46-52. Glickman, C.D., & Bey, T.M. (1990). Supervision. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan. Goetz, J.P., 6c LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography_and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Goodman, J. (1984). Reflection and teacher education: A case study and theoretical analysis. Interchange, l_5(3), 9-27. Griffin, G.A. (1983a). Introduction: The work of staff development. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development; Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Griffin, G.A. (1983b). Toward a conceptual framework for staff development. In G.A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff develo ent. Eighty-_second yearbook of the National Sociegy for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Griffin, G.A. (1986). Issues in student teaching: A review. In J.D. Raths d: L.G. Katz (Eds.), Advances in Teacher Education, vol. 2. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Griffin, A.A., Barnes, 5., Hughes, R., Jr., Defino, M., O'Neal, 5., Hukill, H., 6: Edwards, S. (1982). Preservice clinical teacher educ_:ation: Final report of a descriptive study. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin. Grundy, S., 6: Kemmis, S. (1982). Educational action research in Australia: The state of the art (an overview). In S. Kemmis (Ed.), The action research reader. Waurn Ponds, Victoria, British Colunbia: Deakin University. 123 Haberman, M. (1983). Research on preservice laboratory and clinical experiences: Implication for teacher education. In K.R. Howey 8c W.E. Gardner (Eds.), Education of teachers. New York: Longman. Hammersley, M., 6: Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography principles in practice. New York: Tavistock. Hogan, P. (1983, January). The central place of prejudice in the supervision of student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 2(1), 3-45. Holmes Group, Inc. (1986). lo_morrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group, Inc. Holt, R. (1982, September). An alternative to mentorship. Adult Education, 5_5_(2), 152-56. Housego, B.E.J., 8c Grimmett, P.P. (1983, December). The performance- based/developmental debate about student teaching supervision: A typology and tentative resolution. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, _2_9(4), 319-37. Howey, K.R., 6t Vaughan, J.C. (1983). Current patterns of staff development. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Stafgfidevelopptgnt. Eighty-secondyearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hmter, M. (1984). Knowing, teaching, and supervising. In P. Hasford (Ed.), Using what we know about teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Ives, E.D. (1974). The tape-recorded interview: A manual for field workers in folklore and oral history. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Johnson, J.A. (1968). A brief history of student teaching. DeKalb, IL: Creative Educational Materials. Johnson, J.A. (1974). The history of student teaching. In J.A. Johnson at F. Perry (Eds.), The supervision of clinical egperiences in teacher education: Selected readngs and sources. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hint. Joyce, B.R., Yarger, 5.3., 6: Howey, K.R. (1977). Preservice Teacher Education. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Educational Research. Katz, L.G. (1986, December). Conflicting demands in the role of supervisor of teaching practice. (ERIC Document No. ED 272 472) Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Pollett. Knowles,M. (1984a). The adultlearner: A neglected_Species. Houston: Gulf. Knowles,M. (1984b). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 124 Koehler, V. (1984, April). University supervision of student teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Koehler, V. (1986, October). University supervision of student teaching. National Institute of Education report #9061. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. EDN00001. Krajewski, R. J. (1982, Jme). Clinical supervision: A conceptual framework. Journal of Research and DeveIOpment in Education, l_5(2), 38-43. Lanier, J.B. (1983). Tensions in teaching teachers the skills of pedagogy. In G.A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff developmetnt. Eighty-second yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lanier, J., 8: Little, J. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan. Levine, S.J., Eggert, J., 6: Ziegahn, L. (1981). Teachingadults! Training materials for adult education staff develOpment. East Lansing, MI: Adult and Continuing Education Program of Studies, Department of Educational Administration, Michigan State University. Liebermann, A., 6: Miller, L. (1984). School improvement: Themes and variations. Teachers' College Record, £0), 4-19. Little, J.W. (1984). Seductive images and organizational realities in professional development. Teachers' College Record, 8&0), 84-102. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lourie, N.E. (1982, September). An analysis of a college supervisory position in teacher education from an organized perspective. (ERIC Document No. ED 215 959) May, W.T., 6c Zimpher, N.L. (1986). An examination of three theoretical perspectives on supervision: Perceptions of preservice field supervision. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1(2),83-99. McIntyre, DJ. (1984). A response to the critics of field experience supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, XXXV(3), 42-45. McIntyre, D.J., 8c Norris, W.R. (1980, Summer). The state of the art of preservice teacher education programs and supervision of field experiences. Action in Teacher Education, _2_(3), 67-68. McLaren, P. (1989). Lifein schools. New York: Longman. 125 Morris, J.R. (1974). The effects of the university supervisor on the performance and adjustment of student teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, £0), 358-362. Nerenz, A.G. (1979, December). The roles of the university supervisor: Perceived importance and practical implications. Foreign Language Annals, g6), 471-75. Oja, 5., dc Ham, M. (1984). A cogtitive-developmental approach to collaborative action research with teachers. Teachers' College Record, §_6-(l)y l7l'l92e Partington, J. (1982, October). Teachers in schools as teaching practice supervisors. Journal of Education in Teaching, 8(3), 262-74. Partridge, A.R. (1964). The attack on teacher education in historical perspective. Journal of Research Services, _3_, 3-13. Patty, A.1-I. (1973). Classroom teachers will replace college supervisors. Contemporary Education, 24(3), 179-183. Pieper, G.W. (1953). The educational classics. History of Education Journal, l_V, 78-79. Ratner, J. (1939). Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey's philosophy. New York: Random House. Reed, R.J., 8r Mallory, J.C. (1986). The power of clinical supervision: Some theoretical considerations. Teacher Education Quarterly, 12(3), 72-79. Roth, K.J., Rosaen, C.L., & Lanier, P.E. (1988). Mentor teac_her project program assessmeryeport. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Ryor, J., Shanker, A., 6: Sandefur, J.T. (1979). Three perspectives on inservice education. Journal of Teacher Education, _3_0, 13-19. Schatzman, L., d: Strauss, A.L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Scheffler, I. (1968). University scholarship and the education of teachers. Teacher's College Record, Q0), l-ll. Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think and 513. New York: Basic Books. Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwab, 13. (1976). Education and the state: Learning community. The Great Ideas Today. Chicago: Encyclopeda Brittanica, Inc. 126 Sergiovanni, T.J., 6c Starratt, R.J. (1983). Supervision: Human perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shutes, R.E. (1975). Needed: A theory of teacher education. Texas Tech Journal of education, 2(1), 83-90. Smith, L.C., 8c Alvermann, D.E. (1985, March). Field-experience reading interns profile the effective/ineffective university supervisor. Readng World, 24(3), 1-9. Smyth, W.J. (1987). Cinderella syndrome. A philosophical view of supervision as a field of study. Teachers' College Record, 8_8_(4), 567-588. Solliday, M.A. (1982). The university supervisor: A double image. Teacher Educator, _1_8(3) , ll-15. Sprinthall, N.A., 6c Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1983). The teacher as an adult learner: A cognitive-developmental view. In G.A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff develoment. Eighttsecond yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tabachnick, B.R., Popkewitz, T.S., 8c Zeichner, K.M. (1979-80). Teacher education and the professional perspectives of student teachers. Interchange, g4), 12-29. Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1980, July-August). Supervision: An educative or mis- educative process? Journal of Teacher Education, 21(4), 17-20. Tinning, R.I. (1983, July). Supervision of student teaching: a behavioral critique. (ERIC Document No. ED 227 082) Wittrock, M.C. (1986). Preface. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of- Research on Teaching, 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. Wilson, 5. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review of Educational Research, _4_7(l), 245-265. Wollheim, R. (1984). The thread of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zeichner, KM. (1980, November-December). Myths and realities: Field-based experiences in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 44-51. Zeichner, K.M., 8c Tabachnick, B.R. (1982, January). The belief systems of university supervisors in an elementary student-teaching program. Journal of Education for Teaching, §(l), 34-54. Zeichner, K., 8: Teitelbaum, K. (1982). Personalized and inquiry-oriented teacher education: An analysis of two approaches to the development of 127 curriculum for field-based experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching, 8(2), 95-117. Zimpher, N.L., deVoss, G.G., & Nott, D.L. (1980). A closer look at university student teacher supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, XXXI(4), ll- 15. Zimpher, N.L., 6c Howey, K.R. (1986). Alternative purposes of teacher education: Implications for supervision practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES llllllmllllllllllWWllIll“IllIIWIIIIWHIIWI 31293007659835