an”. r.
. .alu. :
$1.3?
in" .

I.
.2. .I.

.52“ 8..

.i
iotvLuyi
’91.! (1221335 .
3.11:“. I
ifmmfi: was;
i «as. «an...»

,3 L i.
‘
Tumor. WW
mammwflfl.
.‘. . l. -
dowaw ‘
«I! :ll.

..

1...:

t I
in. a
.‘Iyrlfiiflfu .45...
yi‘f‘n 1.... . k.

 

 

 

 

 

 

« .i (3 it:
adv . (

 

anfiflrfi

 

 

1 HFUIS

20>?)

 

_UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE SITUATION OF FIELD SUPERVISION IN PHYSICAL
EDUCATION: A PERSONAL AND EMPIRICAL
INVESTIGATION

presented by

MICHAEL JON ROSKAMP

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree In Kinesiolo ogy

 

”ma/w

Major Professor’s Signature

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

—t.-n-.-V.‘g.g-l---I-I-I-o-o-u-l-n-I---I---u-l-I-I-O-I-O-I-I-I.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue indd

 

THE SITUATION OF FHELD SUPERVISION IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION:
A PERSONAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

By

Michael Jon Roskamp

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Kinesiology

2008

ABSTRACT

THE SITUATION OF FIELD SUPERVISION IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION:
A PERSONAL AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

By
Michael Jon Roskamp

The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the university supervision
of physical education student teachers within the theoretical framework provided by
Situated Cognition Theory, which offers Cognitive Apprenticeship within communities
of practice to describe how learning occurs within the context of practice work. This
study focuses on those terms to provide insight into how university supervisors could
become more effective in their work. Qualitative research techniques were used to
examine activities, interactions, and conversations during two case studies.

I observed and recorded the practices of two university supervisors from separate
institutions as they engaged in field supervision, in two visits each, at physical education
classes in K-8 schools. Data collection techniques included repeated observations, digital
voice recordings of all on-site interactions, written and recorded field notes, and
stimulated recall interviews with all members of the teacher education triads. The case
studies were developed into rich descriptions of the activities and interactions that took
place during each visit to consider how learning to teach could be described by Cognitive
Apprenticeship within communities of practice as described by the chosen theory.

This type of research often uses a chosen theoretical framework to describe an
observed phenomena or situation, however, this study took a unique turn with the
realization that what was being observed in these cases did not seem to be explainable

using the terms of the theory. In these cases the theory seemed to reveal more about what

was not being seen than about what was being seen. Unwilling to reject the theory, and
seeing no reason to throw out the data, this study ended up using the theory as a basis for
a critique of the observed cases of student teacher supervision. Ultimately, my research
questions led me to consider whether what I had observed could be reasonably construed
as Cognitive Apprenticeship within the context of Situated Cognition Theory, and how

supervision and mentorship could be altered in ways suggested by the theory.

Copyright by
MICHAEL J ON ROSKAMP
2008

DEDICATION PAGE

I would like to dedicate this to work to all those who have supported me
throughout this long journey. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my friends,
colleagues, and most importantly, my family. To my parents, thank you for your love,
encouragement and prayers. I have always felt your support and pride in what you knew
I could accomplish. To my children, Katelyn and Kyle, and my bonus children, Matthew
and Amber, thank you for living the past few years with a parent who wasn’t always
there for you in the ways that he really wanted to be. And most of all, to my wife, Sandy,
I thank you for putting up with me throughout this journey. Thank you for keeping things
together when I couldn’t, and getting the things done that I didn’t. Thank you for the

patience that you’ve shown in allowing me get to the place I find myself today.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have been blessed by many as I have travelled the path toward the completion of
this academic journey. The road has been long, and I have grown weary at times, but
thanks to the support of so many, I have come to a place where I can pause, rest, reflect,
and renew myself to regain the energy necessary to continue on the road that lies ahead.

First, I would like to acknowledge the many excellent educators who have
influenced my career in so many ways. I am especially grateful to Dr. Phil Lucas, Mr.
Andrew De Vries, and Dr. Marvin Zuidema, whose enthusiasm for their own work and
early beliefs in my teaching abilities made a lasting and immeasurable influence on who I
have become as a physical education professional.

Thanks to Dr. Steve Weiland for his refreshing approach to the process of
conducting research process and for opening my eyes to see how research and I might get
along. And to Dr. Crystal Branta, for the wisdom she provided as a member of both my
guidance and dissertation committees.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Gail
Dummer and Dr. Tom Bird for the time and energy they have invested in my future. To
Gail for her wisdom and mentoring since my acceptance into MSU’s program too many
years ago; and to Tom for helping me develop this project, for challenging me to think in
new and creative ways, and for always helping me walk out of his office feeling more

capable than when I entered. You’ve both been a blessing. Thank you!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ......................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction & Literature Review ................................. 1
Situated Cognition Theory ......................................... 3

Roots in Constructivism ..................................... 4

Knowledge is Emergent and Embedded in Activity ................ 4

Knowledge is Embedded in Context and is Domain-Specific ........ 5

Knowledge is Individually & Socially Constructed ................ 7

Communities of Practice and Cognitive Apprenticeships ........... 8

Teacher Preparation Field Work as Problematic Activity ................. 9
Problems with Student Teachers .............................. 10

Problems Associated with Cooperating Teachers in K-12 Schools . . . 15

Problems Associated with University Supervision ................ 19

Research Questions .............................................. 23
Chapter 2: Research Design & Methods ................................... 25
Two Case Studies ............................................... 25
Settings, Schools, & Participants ................................... 26

Data Collection ................................................. 27

Role of the Researcher ........................................... 29

Data Analysis .................................................. 30
Chapter 3: Allen, Brad, & Colleen ....................................... 34
Initial Observations .............................................. 35
Colleen’s 1st Visit ........................................ 37

Colleen’s 2nd Visit ....................................... 43

First Impressions ................................................ 49

A Closer Look- Interactions, Interviews, & Field Notes ................. 51

Not Enough Physical Education Going On ...................... 52

An Observed Apprenticeship ................................ 56

Is This Cognitive Apprenticeship? ............................ 60

Summary ...................................................... 69
Chapter 4: Ellen, Frank, & Gina .......................................... 70
Initial Observations .............................................. 70

Gina’s 1st Visit ........................................... 71

Gina’s 2nd Visit .......................................... 79

Early Impressions ............................................... 84

A Closer Look- Interactions, Interviews, & Field Notes ................. 88
Dynamic Interactions ...................................... 91

Thin Relationships & Role Uncertainty ........................ 96

Summary ............................................... 104

vii

Chapter 5: Discussion & Conclusions .................................... 106

Cross-Case Comparison ......................................... 107

The Focus Provided by the Framework ............................. 108

The Context provided by the Settings ............................... 109
Learning To Teach at Some Distance from Practice ................... lll
Apprenticeship Not Observed “In-Practice” .......................... 113
Participants Are Members of Different Professional Communities ........ 116

Are These Triads? .............................................. 121
Cooperating Teachers See Patterns of behavior ....................... 124
Research Questions Revisited & Conclusions Summarized .............. 127
Chapter 6: Implications & Recommendations .............................. 132
Moving Fieldwork Toward Cognitive Apprenticeship .................. 136
Altering University Policies and Procedures ................... 136

Bringing Allied Communities Closer Together ................. 137

New Models of Supervision and Mentoring .................... 140

Possibilities for Future Research .................................. 142
Replication with Modification .............................. 142

Developing Related Lines of Research ........................ 144

Summary ............................................... 145

Appendices ....................................................... 146
Interview Guides ............................................... 147
Sample Interview .............................................. 156
Consent Forms ................................................ 160
Bibliography ...................................................... 172

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Criteria for the Selection of Qualified Schools and Participants. ....28

ix

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION & LITERATURE REVIEW

In this study I examine how university supervisors, student teachers and
cooperating teachers interacted in the teacher education process, and what they said about
those interactions. I examine the interactions of two teacher education triads in physical
education settings during two supervision visits to each setting. While I consider these
cases from an empirical perspective grounded within the framework of a widely accepted
theory, my personal professional experiences over the past 25 years also provides a
context for this investigation. My career path has included participation in the teacher
education process in many ways, and I have experienced all three roles identified in this
study. Now, as a physical education teacher educator and university field supervisor, I
have a strong interest in the space between campus-based and school-based teacher
education, and how I might move more effectively within that space while helping my
students do the same.

While the intent of all fundamentally sound research is to avoid personal bias as a
threat to its validity, the body of this work suggests that knowledge and understanding
exist within the complex interaction of a wide variety of personal, historical, and
sociological experiences that form the context for both the acquisition of knowledge and
the development of understanding. Thus, the personal and the empirical will walk
together throughout this study and can be found interwoven throughout. Although it
focuses on physical education as a subject-specific content area, it may also be of some

interest to those in other content areas as well.

I come to this study as a career physical educator. After completing what I would
consider to be a strong physical education teacher education program at a Midwestern
college that placed a high priority on the preparation of teachers, I embarked on a 16 year
career as a K—8 physical educator that included coaching, serving as athletic director,
directing school plays, teaching in the classroom for a brief period, and other
responsibilities that accompany K-8 teaching. Throughout those years as a K-8 physical
educator I also had the opportunity to work with 10-12 student teachers, a majority of
whom were well-prepared by two different local colleges. While always striving toward
professional improvement, I believe that my career as a K—8 physical educator was
successful and respected by my peers. Following 16 years teaching K—8 physical
education, I was offered the opportunity to re-direct my career path into physical
education and physical education teacher education in higher education at the same
institution at which I had been formally trained. Now, seven years later, I have moved on
to a nearby university where my responsibilities include both the teaching of physical
education methods courses, and the field supervision of physical education majors who
are engaged in their initial field experiences.

I have chosen Situated Cognition Theory as the framework for this study, and I
consider the activity that takes place among the observed participants as a possible
instance of Cognitive Apprenticeship as described by the theory. In the remainder of this
chapter I will summarize Situated Cognition Theory. Then I will review some problems
of teacher education in that theory’s terms, bringing focus to problems associated with
the university supervision of student teachers. My research questions were originally

derived from my desire to examine teacher education within the framework provided by

the theory, however, as will be discussed in more detail in later chapters, the significance
of those questions changed and others emerged as the study unfolded.
Situated Cognition Theory

In their much-cited work, Brown, Collins, & Duguid (1989) begin by challenging
the classical separation between knowing and doing, or between knowledge and its use.
In addressing that separation they state that, “Many methods of didactic education
assume a separation between knowing and doing, treating knowledge as an integral, self-
sufficient substance, theoretically independent of the situations in which it is learned and
used.” They formulate their arguments against this dichotomous view by stating that,
“Recent investigations of learning, however, challenge this separating of what is learned
from how it is learned and used.” They argue that knowledge is “Situated, being in part a
product of activity, context, and culture, in which it is used and developed.” Throughout
the literature, “situated” is defined in ways ranging from simple to complex. Simple
definitions identify Situated Cognition as “Learning [that] takes place in particular sets of
circumstances in time and space” (Kirk & McDonald, 1998), while more complex
definitions argue that Situated Cognition includes not only the limitations imposed by
time and space, but also includes other contextual factors (Brown and colleagues, 1989).
Defined in those broader terms, Situated Cognition references a broad range of activities
associated with lived experience as a way of interpreting, understanding and learning in
everyday life. Researching lived experience has received attention as a phenomenological
approach to human science research and writing, however, a discussion of that body of

work will not be introduced within the limitations of this literature review.

Roots in Constructivism

Situated Cognition has its roots in constructivism, which argues that knowledge
does not exist in some pre—determined form, but that both the content and development of
knowledge result directly from contributions of the learner. Viewed in this way,
knowledge is constructed within the sociological and historical experiences of individuals
and groups as their perspectives, beliefs, and values, both past and present, interact in
dynamic ways. This is in direct contrast to knowledge viewed as a pre-existing or pre-
determined collection of information that can be concretely quantified. The
Constructivism Movement evolved from genuine pedagogical concerns and motivations,
and attempts to discover ways of teaching that allow students to apply classroom learning
to real life experiences (Elkind, 2004).

Knowledge is Emergent and Embedded in Activity

Consistent with its constructivist roots, Situated Cognition considers knowledge
to emerge from the activity, context and culture of its use, being constantly created and
re-created as it is integrated with what is already known or has already been experienced
(Vygotsky; 1978; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Elkind, 2004). Elkind (2004),
referencing Piaget’s work from the 19503, argues that “Human-kind possesses prior
knowledge that informs new knowledge, and that prior knowledge makes the new
knowledge meaningful.” Likewise, Brown and his colleagues (1989) argue that
knowledge is a process extending beyond acquisition in the mind, and will “continually
evolve with each new occasion of use, because new situations, negotiations, and activities

inevitably recast it in a new, more densely textured form.”

The relationship between knowledge and activity is foundational to Situated
Cognition Theory, and it is argued that knowledge exists only within the activity of its
acquisition and its use. Viewed in these terms, knowledge, and its constituent parts index
the world as a product of activity and situations in which it is produced (Brown, Collins,
& Duguid, 1989). Activity necessarily precedes the ability to conceptualize, and activity
at the non-conceptual level is a preliminary step to the progressive formulation,
construction and understanding of conceptual ideas (Carr, Honassen, Litzinger, 1998).
Using a technological analogy, Brown, et a1, suggests that “You need the machine to
understand the manual as much as you need the manual to understand the machine”
(1989). This perspective places the activity of the knower near the center of both
knowledge production and knowledge acquisition.

Knowledge is Embedded in Contexts and is Domain Specific

If knowledge is indeed embedded within the context of its use, and thus indexes
the situation in which it arises and is used, then it must be viewed as both context and
domain specific. As mentioned above, broader definitions include physical and
environmental factors, psychosocial factors, and individual dispositions as contributors to
the formation of the context in which knowledge is embedded. Vygotsky (1978)
identifies the primacy of socio—historical experiences in the development of thinking,
knowing and understanding, emphasizing that context includes both past and present
experience. Schon ( 1987) extends this idea of context to an understanding that is
established and understood through conversation, particularly in the English language
where literal context is a primary factor in determining the intended meaning of certain

words or phrases. Extending his argument even further, Schon argues that knowledge can

exist in non—verbal or extra-linguistic forms in those situations when we may “know more
than we can say”. This leads to a recognition that both knowledge and understanding
exist in a realm other than what is or can be verbalized. Defined in these ways, context
does not just contribute to the formation of knowledge, but is a thread that is intricately
woven within and throughout the fabric of understanding.

A situated perspective also argues that knowledge is domain-specific. To assume
it is important for teachers to understand the central concepts in the subjects they teach
seems reasonable based on common sense. It has been suggested, however, that
educators move too quickly beyond the question of whether subject matter is important,
and into questions about what should be studied within the subject matter that might
promote student learning (Floden & Meniketti, 2005). Some lines of research have
focused on the need for teachers to have a deeper knowledge and a more flexible level of
understanding of subject-matter so they can respond to student questions, clarify students
misunderstandings and offer alternative modes of explanation that promote student
understanding when initial attempts fail (Ball, 1997; Ma, 1999; McDiarmid, Ball, &
Anderson, 1989; Floden & Meniketti, 2005).

In this study, the domain is physical education, and domain-specific knowledge
may include an understanding of the developmental characteristics of children, the social
and emotional issues related to physical activity settings, motor skill development, fitness
assessment and evaluation, issues and trends associated with contemporary approaches to
the teaching of physical education, and the cultural or sociological demographics within a
specific school or school community. This specific, higher level of understanding appears

elsewhere in educational literature as “Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (Shulman,

1987), reinforcing the idea that the knowledge for teaching extends beyond the
knowledge necessary to understand basic concepts in some general form, and includes an
understanding of the interaction between pedagogy and specific content. This claim for
the centrality of domain specific subject matter reprises some arguments from John
Dewey, “When engaged in the direct act of teaching, the instructor needs to have subject
matter at his fingers ends; his attention should be upon the attitude and response of the
pupil. To understand the latter in its interplay with subject matter is his task, while the
pupil’s mind, should be not on itself, but on the topic in hand” (Dewey, 1974).
Knowledge is Individually & Socially Constructed

Central to Situated Cognition Theory is the argument that knowledge exists both
within the individual dispositions of the knower and within the surrounding social
network (W enger, 1998; Brown & Duguid, 2002; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
When knowledge exists within the individual dispositions of the knower, the inherent
qualities of mind and character contribute to its acquisition as beliefs and values are
reorganized throughout the learning process. These individual dispositions are formulated
through an array of personal experiences both past and present, and knowledge is
inextricably connected to the knower as it is composed and reconstructed continuously
through activity, participation and experience (Brown & Duguid, 2002). This became
evident in the process of conducting this study as personal experiences and dispositions

framed my observations, analysis, and interpretations.

While knowledge exists within the individual dispositions of the knower, it is also
socially constructed and exists within communities of practice that form among

individuals or groups of individuals who possess common cognitive frameworks,

participate in common practice, and share common interests, values, commitments, and
sense of passion (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Professional activities, experiences, social
contexts, social practices and social interactions are all identified as contributors to both
learning and understanding (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Kirk & Mcdonald, 1998;
Lave & Wenger, 1991). Framed this way, “Learning is seen as a dimension of social
activity, as opposed to social activity being a dimension of learning,” (Lave & Wenger,
1991).

Active membership in these communities of practice involves both contributing to
and receiving benefit from the community as a whole, with members assuming roles
based on a variety of factors, including longevity within the practice, real or perceived
expertise within the community, social stature or assigned roles (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Rink connects the individual to the social by suggesting that individual identities in
relationship to other members of the community of practice must be recognized as an
essential component of such communities (Rink, et al., 1996).

Communities of Practice and Cognitive Apprenticeships

Situated Cognition Theory considers Cognitive Apprenticeship a useful way of
discussing learning as it occurs in practice work, and within the context of communities
of practice. Learning emerges within shared cognitive frameworks as individuals work

alongside one another to acquire a shared understanding of practice.

The language of apprenticeship invokes the image of an acknowledged master
who owns and operates a shop, and employs journeymen to effectively carry out the work
of the shop. The apprentice, who presumably has much to learn, is then brought into the

shop to learn to engage in effective practice by working alongside of and learning the

ways of the journeyman, who knows the trade and is capable of successfully engaging in
independent practice. The journeyman is responsible to the consumer for the completion
of the task, and to the master for both the quality of his own work and for training the
apprentice to engage in practice in ways consistent with the accepted standards of the
trade. The journeyman engages in the work, progressively allowing the apprentice to
move from observation to closely supervised experience with the activity of the practice.
Given the use of an apprenticeship model to talk about how learning occurs in practice
work, we can reasonably ask where the shop is, who the apprentice, journeymen and
masters are, and how the three work together. While it seems reasonable to assign the
role of apprentice to the student teacher, how the roles of journeyman and master are
assigned and played out in the teacher education field setting seems less certain. These
roles and relationships will be addressed in more detail later in this study.
Teacher Preparation Field Work as Problematic Activity

As we consider university-based teacher preparation, learning to teach through
practice work is a common component of all accredited programs. Teacher education
programs commonly prepare prospective educators through a combination of university
coursework and field based experiences in school settings. University coursework
typically includes courses administered by professors within colleges or departments of
education as well as courses to be completed in a major program of study within domain-
specific subject matter. In nearly all programs, teacher education coursework is followed
by field placements that progress toward intensive practice teaching. The length and
breadth of field experiences varies among institutions, but often field placements occur in

the final semesters of the teacher education curriculum and are assigned based on both

the grade level and the domain—specific subject matter of the teaching certificate for
which the prospective teacher is preparing. Student teaching, commonly occurring
during the final semester of teacher preparation, involves student teachers from the
university working in K—12 school settings alongside experienced practitioners, identified
as cooperating teachers in this study. A university representative is assigned to serve as a
field supervisor, overseeing the teacher education as it is occurring in the K-12 setting. I
will refer to the student teacher, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor
collectively as a triad. The cases examined in this study are consistent with the structures
and practices identified above.

While research into novice teachers’ perceptions of teacher preparation field
experiences reveals that field experiences are perceived as both valuable and highly
influential in the development of teaching behaviors (Cochrane-Smith & Lytle, 1990;
Little, 1982; Richardson, 1990), the same literature also identifies student teaching as a
problematic practice in several ways. Donald Schon (1987) talks about the complex
interaction of many factors that often make learning through practice work “messy” and
difficult. Problems associated with practice work are attributed to the personal
characteristics of individuals within the field work triad, to the environments in which
those field experiences take place, and to the policies, procedures, and practices that
sometime govern those experiences.

Problems with Student Teachers

A stated in the previous paragraph, teacher preparation research, particularly

research considering the perspectives of both pre-service and in-service teachers, has

identified practice work, including student teaching, as it is called in this study, as a

10

significant and critical component in the process of learning to teach (Cochrane-Smith &
Lytle, 1990; Little, 1982; Richardson, 1990). Once in the field, student teachers, despite
their desire to be effective and the dedication of many hours and valuable resources to
their formal teacher preparation, may fail to teach in the ways taught at the university, in
the ways they desire to teach, or in ways supported in the educational reform literature.
Research supports the idea that “Translating university based recommendations into
actual teaching practice seemed difficult at best and filled with conflict at worst. . . .Even
when student teachers believe in teaching a certain way, they do not know how to act on
that desire or how to deal with the difficulties they encounter” (Wilson & McDiarmid,
1996). This difficulty may be a result of several interacting factors, including insufficient
knowledge, the inability to convert knowledge into a form useful for practice, the impact
of past experiences, and a tendency to replicate observed practice.
Insufiicient Knowledge

Insufficient understanding of domain-specific subject matter may present
problems for student teachers in the process of learning to teach. Arguments addressing
this potential issue state that although some students may display the depth of
understanding necessary for teaching, others demonstrate an understanding that remains
“at the level of memorized facts, rules, and principles, some of them inaccurate,” (Floden
& Meniketti, 2005). The literature has paid considerable attention to the idea that
teachers need a deep and flexible understanding of the subjects they teach so they can
respond to student questions, interpret unexpected student comments, and devise multiple
ways of teaching a concept when the first, second or third approach does not succeed

with all pupils (Ball, 1997; Ma: 1999; McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson, 1989). Floden

ll

(1997) warns against making too many assumptions about the relationship between
c0nceptual understanding and teaching effectiveness. Although understanding of the
subject matter would certainly be part of a given domain, other attributes within a domain
might include understanding in ways that are child-specific, classroom—specific, school-
specific, community-specific, and cultural-specific, to name just a few. These domain-
specific forms of understanding are consistent with the contextual factors that appear in a
situated framework, and may also be underdeveloped in student teachers as they enter the
world of practice.
Inability to Convert Knowledge into Forms Useful for Practice

Insufficient knowledge might be one explanation of why novice teachers have
difficulty teaching in the ways suggested in their university coursework. However, even
with the necessary knowledge, students may be unable to convert knowledge into forms
useful for application. A foundational argument of Situated Cognition Theory states that
knowledge exists within the context of its acquisition and use. When knowledge is
acquired in a form that is distinctively different from the way it is meant to be used,
teachers may find it difficult to apply it to their teaching. Student teachers enter field
work and experience daily encounters with problems of practice that sometimes present
themselves in messy and indiscriminate ways. The problems they encounter often defy
the clear and technical solutions that have been discussed in the university classroom, and
students may struggle to come up with meaningful solutions to those problems (Schon,
1987).

When students acquire knowledge in the context of the university classroom but

are unable to convert that knowledge into forms useful for teaching, they may

12

erroneously perceive that what they acquired in the classroom was simply an inert
collection of facts and information, and overlook its importance as foundational to their
understanding and subsequent practice work. Within a situated framework, knowledge
that is intended to be useful for teaching needs to be acquired in the context that it is used
for teaching. Authentic activities become important as a way for learners to gain access to
a standpoint that enables them, as practitioners, to act meaningfully and purposefully. In
summary, rather than possessing insufficient knowledge, students have been asked to
learn a great deal of content that really does matter in teaching while not ensconced in the
authentic activity of practice as a point of reference for their acquired knowledge.
Impact of Past Experience

“Apprenticeship of Observation”, as defined by Daniel Lortie, may also inhibit
the ability of student teachers to teach as their coursework or professors would suggest
they should (Lortie, 1975). Student teachers, like nearly all of us, have spent many years
in the presence of teachers who undoubtedly contributed to their beliefs, values and
attitudes related to teaching and learning. These beliefs and dispositions serve as a
fundamental point of reference and may be firmly entrenched in the View of practice held
by student teachers, as well as the other members of the student teaching triad. Lortie
argues that past experiences, whether or not we choose to acknowledge them, inform
each and every one of us, impacting our beliefs and. practices in both positive and
negative ways.

Research has supported the argument that student teachers tend to maintain prior
conceptions of teaching and struggle with contradictions that may arise as they learn to

think about teaching in new ways (O’Callaghan, 2001; Wiggins & Clift, 1995; Weaver &

13

Stanulis, 1995; Denyer and Florio-Ruane, 1995; Slick, 1997; Graham, 1999). Iwould
also argue that these prior conceptions about teaching may be particularly problematic
when the beliefs, values or knowledge gained through past encounters are inconsistent
with or do not reflect current thinking or activity related to best practice as defined in the
professional literature.

The prior knowledge and personal perspectives of teaching that are acquired
throughout many years of schooling can also be problematic within a situated framework.
Whereas typical apprentices are presumed to have much to learn, novice teachers enter
teacher preparation having already learned much from their past experiences. When their
prior conceptions of effective teaching are challenged in the university classroom, some
degree of uncertainty or cognitive dissonance may result.

Furthermore, given the tendency toward conservative practices in schools that
will be discussed in the section that follows, student teachers may possess some degree of
uncertainty as to whether or not the practice being modeled by the cooperating teacher
are consistent with current best practice or pedagogy as taught in the university classroom
or in professional circles. In cases where such inconsistencies exist, progress toward
engaging in practice in the way being modeled by the journeyman may not have the
desired outcome. Working alongside an individual who engages in practice in ways that
don’t follow the accepted best practices can become problematic, is contrary to the
previously discussed apprenticeship model, and may reinforce other problems associated
with practice work that are connected to university policy and practice. These university

policies and practices will be discussed in more detail later.

14

Tendency to Replicate Observed Practice

Student teachers tend to replicate observed practice. They often attempt to mimic
what they see in practice, with only “minor cosmetic revisions, without incorporating
new knowledge and without responding directly to the needs of the particular students
they face.” (Clift & Brady, 2005). This may occur because student teachers have a
difficult time finding ways to connect their experiences in practice with cognitive
structures they formed in the university classroom. Clift & Brady also suggest that “Even
when student teachers believe in teaching a certain way, they do not know how to act on
that desire or how to deal with the difficulties they encounter.” While focusing their
attention on the mechanics of teaching and other aspects of teaching associated with
surviving the student teaching experience, student teachers may be ill equipped to address
the deeper complexities of teaching that may have been addressed in the classroom but lie
below the surface of the requirements of day to day practice. Examples of such
complexities include teaching behaviors that trigger undesired student behaviors, or
developmental characteristics of students that are being overlooked.

Problems Associated with Cooperating Teachers in K—12 Schools

Student teachers spend most of their time interacting with their cooperating
teachers while engaged in the daily practices of teaching. The cooperating teacher
becomes the primary teacher educator as the student teacher learns to deal with the
complex problems of teaching as they unfold in practice. In allowing student teachers to
enter their world of authentic practice, cooperating teachers certainly have positive

intentions and are well-meaning as they assume the role of teacher educator. However,

15

problems associated with cooperating teachers as teacher educators working in school
settings also arise. These problems include conservative practices in schools, limited
engagement with each other and with the university, and carrying out the dual role of K-
12 teacher and teacher educator.

Conservative Practices in Schools

Schools tend to be conservative in their educational practices, using traditional
instructional strategies that may have been deemed useful and/or appropriate in the past,
but are not supported by current educational research (Tabachnik, Popkewitz, &
Zeichner, 1979). Schools that accept placements for student teachers tend to be no
different. Situated Cognition, being rooted in constructivism, suggests that knowledge is
constantly unfolding with each instance of its use. This places an emphasis on teaching
and learning as progressive in nature, keeping pace with current best practice and being
dynamic in its approach to achieving effectiveness. This is in contrast to conservative
teaching practices that rely on practices and pedagogies that may have been acquired in
different times, under different circumstances.

When practices in schools are conservative and university teacher education
coursework emphasizes the use of current and progressive pedagogies, novice teachers
will likely have difficulty bridging the gap between the two. A situated framework for
the constructive of knowledge argues that understanding is specific to the context of its
acquisition and their use. If university coursework is the primary context for acquiring
and using new and progressive teaching pedagogies, then new teachers may be unable to
apply the new and progressive pedagogies taught in the university classroom to the

contexts of their practice work. This may become particularly problematic when

16

progressive pedagogies are not regularly encountered in their field work settings. As a
result, the teaching practices of individuals, as well as those encountered in professional
communities of practice, may remain conservative. Young professionals may have a
tendency to fall back on the traditional and conservative strategies they have encountered
or experienced during their aforementioned “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie,
1975).

While much of the educational reform literature tends to focus on teaching in
ways that take new approaches to both curriculum and pedagogy, the reality is that in
many schools, past habits of teaching remain the norm, and at times, it is those practices
which have come under increased scrutiny and criticism. Dewey reinforced this long ago
when he argued that the teaching of Science .. has been taught too much as the
accumulation of ready-made material with which students are to be made familiar, not
enough as a method of thinking, an attitude of mind, after the pattern of which mental
habits are to be transformed (Dewey, 1974).

Limited Engagement

Research examining the activities of student teachers reveals that cooperating
teachers tend to involve students in a limited range of educational activities (Tabachnik,
Popkewitz, & Zeichner, 1979). Many of the interactions between student teachers and
their cooperating teachers are related to the task at hand, rather than geared toward
inquiry-related processes, the exchange of ideas, sharing perceptions, and developing an
understanding the principles that are important as guides to educational decisions.
Experiences encountered during student teaching are described as “routine and

mechanical and often equated with moving children through prescribed lessons in a given

17

time period.” Tabachnik and colleagues argue that learning to teach can become both
passive by asking prospective teachers to simply absorb information as it is presented in
the classroom, and mechanical, by focusing too much attention on the technical and
physical nature of what teachers need to do to be successful; failing to provide
prospective teachers with the skills, perspectives, and tools necessary to alter the way
they think about teaching. There seems to be little evidence suggesting an active
exchange of ideas or practices occurring among individual teachers or groups of teachers
within school, and that a lack of collaboration, even within schools, may be widespread
despite clear evidence of the existence of expert knowledge and reflective practice within
the schools investigated (Goodlad, 1990).

When the conservative nature of schools is combined with the tendency for
student teachers to encounter limited engagement beyond the daily tasks of teaching, a
problem of even greater significance may result. Research supports the hypothesis that
student teachers who are not engaged with their instructors or supervisors around theories
and practices of teaching tend to become angry, feel isolated, flounder with respect to the
planning and implementation of instruction, and engage in debates with the cooperating
teacher without much change in practice (Bruckerhof & Carlson, 1995; Dooley, 1998;
Graham, 1977 & 1999). This would seem inherently problematic and worthy of further
study.

The Cooperating Teacher’s Dual Role

As mentioned earlier, when cooperating teachers agree to allow student teachers

to enter their world of day-to-day practice, they are agreeing to assume the role of teacher

educator as part of their professional activity. Despite this added role, the education of

18

the K—12 students in the field work setting remains the highest priority of the cooperating
teacher. Despite all good intentions, significant opportunities to learn about teaching may
be unnoticed, overlooked, ot lost within the context of everything else that is going on
during authentic classroom activity. Situated Cognition suggests that learning occurs
and/or knowledge is acquired in the context of its acquisition and its use. While follow—
up conversations may certainly provide some insight into what had occurred earlier,
opportunities to learn within the context of authentic activity may be lost as cooperating
teachers concern themselves with the primary activity for which they are hired, the
physical education of K-12 students.
Problems Associated with University Supervision

Problems in teacher education fieldwork may also result from the university’s
organization and administration of teacher education programs. Although discussions
with teacher educators seem to reveal the existence of these problems to varied degrees in
different settings, the structures and policies of teacher education programs may
contribute to problems related to practice work.
Shared Responsibilities

Teacher education responsibilities within the university are sometimes shared
between a college of education or an education department and a disciplinary unit
associated with the student’s major field of study. Although the intent is to provide
prospective teachers with the best of both realms, it is my personal experience that this
sharing of responsibility creates some degree of separation between content and
pedagogy, at least in the mind of the physical education student teachers, and induces a

dichotomy between the two that may not be intended. This dichotomy is in contrast to

19

the existing body of literature that supports the importance of Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK) espoused by Shulman and others in contemporary educational
discourse (Shulman, 1987).

Assignment of Field Placements and University Supervisors

Although field placements that support and promote the work of the university are
most desirable, student teachers are sometimes placed in field settings that do not reflect
or demonstrate the behaviors, values and perspectives taught in university teacher
education coursework. Placement practices within a situated framework would argue that
learning to teach should include enculturation into the shared perspectives, values, and
commitments of the community of professional practice. While these can be developed
through the activity, interaction, and experience associated with the unfolding practice
work, placing student teachers with cooperating teachers who understand, share and
engage in practice in ways valued by the university is important. Within a situated
framework, learning a practice depends on working alongside experienced practitioners
who engage in practice in ways that are consistent with the current accepted standards as
taught on the university campus, and are thus worthy to be modeled.

University field supervisors are also assigned to work with student teachers
during field placements and often possess a wide variety of credentials as a result of their
professional experiences within education. Those credentials point to the cognitive
framework through which supervisors observe, provide feedback and interact within the
instructional triad in the field work setting. Within a situated perspective, a shared
cognitive framework is a key attribute among members of a community of practice. If the

university field supervisor intends to play an accepted and valued role in the student

20

teaching triad, it is my personal experience that at least some knowledge of, or experience
with the content of the teaching being observed is necessary.

Situated Cognition Theory claims that understanding is both context and domain
specific. This would suggest that individuals attempting to establish and/or contribute to a
community of practice should possess domain-specific knowledge that could be used to
develop a shared understanding, commitment, set of values and passion. Within an
apprenticeship model this shared cognitive framework becomes the basis for interacting
within the shop, where learning a practice takes place. When a shop is being constructed,
and the individuals within that shop lack a shared understanding of practice, it would
seem to be just a matter of time before the shop would fracture along the boundaries of
those differences.

Supervisors Positioned Along the Boundary

University supervisors are placed in a difficult and demanding position as they
attempt to work in the practice setting. Personal experience and interaction with
professionals throughout the physical education community support the argument that to
some degree, gaps exist between coursework and practice, between content and
pedagogy, and between academic units that share teacher education responsibilities.
University supervisors are the only individuals who are intentionally and unavoidably
asked to navigate the boundaries of those differences in their work. The university
supervisors’ recognition and acceptance of the role along that boundary may be a
question worthy of further study, however, the realities of supervision practice seem to

place them in such a position. That said, effective supervision may depend, at least in

21

part, on the university supervisor’s ability to navigate the borders of many issues,
problems, and concerns that exist wherever teacher education field work takes place.
Knowledge Limitations

The problems attributed to student teachers included the need for prospective
teachers to have a deep and flexible understanding of the subjects they teach, and to use
multiple ways of teaching a concept when the first, second, or third approach does not
succeed with all pupils was discussed earlier in relationship to the limited knowledge of
student teachers.(Ball, 1997; Ma: 1999; McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson, 1989). Wilson
and McDiarmid (1996) apply this same argument to teacher educators arguing that, “If
teachers need to know subject matter and how kids learn the subject matter, teacher
educators need to know those things and also how to help teachers learn those things.”
Clift and Brady (2005) also note the importance of such a connection: “Reflecting on
learning. . .can produce changes in student teachers’ ideas about teaching, learning, and
the competence of learners, [but] only if the prospective teachers are engaged with
teacher educators who support theory and practice-based reflective analysis in relation to
what was taught or advocated by the methods course”

While most university supervisors may be equipped to address issues of general
teaching practice, many may be unfamiliar with current issues related to curriculum
content or pedagogy, including an understanding of the currently accepted best practice
within the specific subject matter domain of observed fieldwork. This lack of domain
specific subject matter knowledge may make it difficult to frame observations and
subsequent conversations within a shared understanding of teaching practice as it occurs

in physical education. Supervisors may find it difficult to know what teachers find

22

relevant, interesting, exciting and motivating. They may also be poorly equipped to
discuss teaching as it relates to current changes in the curriculum and the pedagogy of the
field (Wilson & McDiarmid, 1996).

The preceding arguments support the idea that journeyman and masters alike
would know the craft and would be able to address the issues and concerns that appear
within the context of its practice. Even when supervisors have a basic understanding of
the content being taught in the classroom, they may find it difficult to address problems
of domain-specific practice. In the context of physical education, that domain-specific
knowledge includes child development and its relationship to developing motor skills,
important considerations in developing physical fitness in children, psycho-social aspects
of physical activity, and the development of personal dispositions toward physical
activity and exercise.

Research Questions

After considering the problems of teacher education within a situated framework,
I set out to examine how teacher education practice work was being played out by two
student teacher triads during the authentic practice of physical education field work in
two K-8 schools. I used the term moves to collectively consider the behaviors,
interactions, and conversations that were a part part of the supervision process. In so
doing, I sought to answer the following questions:

1. What moves do university supervisors make during interactions with

other members of the student teaching triad, and how are those moves

received?

23

2. In what ways do the moves and interactions made by university
supervisors among members of the student teaching triad represent
learning in communities of practice through Cognitive
Apprenticeships, as suggested by Situated Cognition Theory?

3. How does domain-specific subject matter knowledge appear in the
field supervision of student teachers?

These were my initial questions, and while they remained important, as I
moved forward through this study I came to reformulate them in different terms.
The final two chapters will address the situation that unfolded while attempting
to address these questions produced modifications to these original questions and

raised additional questions that perhaps were not visible at the beginning.

24

Chapter 2

RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS

The purpose of this study was to describe and interpret the moves made by
university assigned field supervisors during their supervision of pre-service physical
education teachers, specifically in their interactions with both the student teachers and the
cooperating teachers. In this chapter I will describe my research design, how I recruited
participants, how I collected data, and how I analyzed them to reach my description and
interpretation in the chapters that follow.

Two Case Studies

Merriam (1998) describes qualitative case study as a design to be employed to
“gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and the meaning for those involved. The
interest is in the process rather than the outcomes, in context rather than a specific
variable, in discovery rather than confirmation.” With those intentions, I examined
interactions within two triads of a university field supervisor, cooperating teacher, and
student teacher during two supervision visits each. I did not study interactions between
the student teachers and cooperating teachers outside the context of supervision visits. I
provide descriptions and interpretations of what I observed and recorded in these two
physical education fieldwork settings. More specifically, I examine how the supervisors
played and described their roles in these situations, what immediate reaction they
received from the student teachers and cooperating teachers, and how that might be
related to Cognitive Apprenticeship within communities of practice as described by
Situated Cognition Theory.

The detailed examination of these cases raised some important questions about

what might be occurring in such settings. As a researcher I must say that there is no basis

25

to generalize from these cases to the field; as a practitioner, I will report that these cases

looked typical to me. I attempt to make my observations visible by sharing the specifics

of each visit in a fair amount of detail so that the reader might decide whether or not the

situations I have observed and documented are similar to other situations of concern.
Settings, Schools, and Participants

To provide a relatively consistent background to the study, I conducted it using
four—year accredited teacher education programs at small Midwestern colleges or
universities with student enrollments ranging from 1,000-5,000 students. Although some
qualifying institutions had religious affiliations, the basic structures of their teacher
education programs did not differ significantly from institutions that did not possess the
same religious affiliations. I chose to conduct this study in two K-8 schools that were
associated with two different local colleges/universities, located on opposite sides of the
same Midwestern city. Both schools’ student populations were mostly middle to upper
class Caucasians with limited cultural and economic diversity.

Participant triads met the criteria for participation that are identified in Table 2.1,
including prior experience working with student teachers on the part of both field
supervisors and cooperating teachers. After a few setbacks in securing the number and
type of participants I had initial hoped to secure, I ended with two participant triads that
consisted of university field supervisors who were members of the physical education
faculty at their respective institutions, two veteran K-8 physical educators who were
serving as cooperating teachers in each case, and student teachers who were willing to be
involved. As required, informed consent was received from all. Each university

supervisor was an established member of their respective physical education teacher

26

education faculty, each with multiple years experience teaching methods classes,
supervising student teachers and leading student teaching seminars. The cooperating
teachers were veterans in their respective schools, each having been at their schools for
five years or more as certified physical educators. The student teachers were in the final
semesters of their undergraduate teacher preparation programs and were hoping to find
employment as K-12 physical educators for the next academic year.

After participants were recruited, I held an initial meeting with each of them to
explain the purpose of the study, review data collection procedures, answer any questions
and secure consent from all subjects as required by the Institutional Review Board. This
meeting also served the purpose of establishing a basic level of trust and comfort between
the researcher and the participants. Although these initial conversation were not intended
to be included as data in the study, in one case, as will be described later, these early
interactions contributed to early impressions of a one of the participants.

Data Collection

For each triad, I attended two supervision visits to collect data. During each visit I
gathered the following data: digital voice recordings of all interactions that occurred
among members of the triad, written documentation exchanged between the university
supervisor and other members of the triad, and digital voice recordings of follow-up
interviews with each triad member. Written materials exchanged among triad members
were also obtained as possible points of reference in subsequent conversation during the
field observation. During each visit, digital voice recorders with lapel microphones were

worn by each student teacher and university supervisor and were activated as early in

27

each visit as possible in order to capture as much interaction as possible. Digital voice

recorders were also used to record all follow-up interviews.

Table 2.1- Criteria for the Selection of Qualified Schools and Participants

 

 

Teacher Education
Program

Participant Qualifications
Participating Teacher education program must be accredited
College/University

Four year institutions
Campus in targeted Midwestern state
Student enrollment between 1,000-5,000 students

Supervisors willing to participate (consent)

 

Field Supervisors

Min. of 2 years supervision experience.

An earned masters degree or higher in physical education or
a minimum of 5 years experience teaching at least 50% of
teaching load in K-12 physical education.

Minimum of 5 years experience teaching in K-12 or higher
education

At least one (1) prior supervision experience in PE setting

Consent

 

Student Teachers

A physical education teacher education major or minor

Currently engaged in student teaching fieldwork during the
last two semesters of his/her teacher education program

Student teaching assignment requires a minimum of 3 hours
on site each day, for at least six (6) consecutive weeks.

Consent

 

On -site Cooperating
Teachers

Certified as physical education teacher

At least two years teaching experience, with physical
education at least 75% of their teaching load.

Consent

 

K-12 School
Participation

 

 

Consent from building administrator, allowing research to
take place in building.

 

28

 

Written and recorded field notes were also taken to collect additional detail about
each visit that may not have been collected through voice recordings. Situated Cognition
Theory supports the notion that communication, knowledge and understanding can be
extra-linguistic, acquired from non-verbal forms of interaction as well as verbal
communication. Consequently, field notes were collected during all observed
interactions between participants before, during, or after the actual lesson taught by the
student teacher.

Following each formal supervision visit, on the same day or subsequent day, each
member of the instructional triad participated in a recorded stimulated recall interview.
For each interview the voice recording that captured the student teacher’s lesson was
used to stimulate conversation concerning the cognitive processes that may have been
occurring during interactions, teaching episodes, observation of teaching episodes or
subsequent post observation conversations. Each on-site visit lasted between two and four
hours, depending on whether stimulated recall interviews were conducted the same day
on site or the next day at the same or an alternate location. When the option to conduct
follow-up interviews was chosen, the on-site time was reduced accordingly.

Role of the Researcher

I attempted to limit my personal interaction with members of the triad during the
university supervisor’s visits to the schools to avoid interaction effects which may have
resulted from the physical presence of a fourth individual that normally would not have
been in on site. I was able to do this more successfully on the second visits, since fewer
procedural details had to be clarified. However, as data collection proceeded, it became

evident in both cases that my presence may have had some unintentional effects. In one

29

case, the student teacher mentioned during both follow-up interviews that his interactions
with his university supervisor were “different” in both delivery and content when I was
present. In the other case, the university supervisor stated in conversation with the
cooperating teacher that “I can’t imagine this whole added component [the researcher]
...You try not to be, but it makes you kind of go, ‘oh, I’ve got to act normal’.” In
addition, in the latter case, at one point while interacting with his students, the
cooperating teacher expressed his disappointment with the students’ behavior during a
class by saying, “. . .especially with guests present.”

Once again, given that my personal interest in this study was grounded in my own
professional responsibilities as a physical education pedagogue and a field supervisor, I
sought to remain cognizant of the potential for personal bias as a challenge to the validity
of this study. I was careful to avoid interaction with participants during supervision visits
that might have altered the authenticity of the interactions as they would have normally
occurred. Following data collection and transcription, I asked participants to review
transcripts of each of their interviews for the purpose of verifying their accuracy and also
to give participants an opportunity to clarify anything that may have been said.

Data Analysis

Informal analysis began almost immediately during the collection of data as
observations and interviews began to stimulate thoughts relative to the research
questions. I began to form early impressions of what I was seeing and hearing and
recorded them in my field notes as I continued to observe. To prepare for a detailed
analysis of the data using common coding procedures, I transcribed all of it, including the

interactions that took place among the student teacher, cooperating teacher and university

30

supervisor, as well as all follow-up interviews. In transcribing, Ibecame familiar enough
with the data to gain efficient access to them as the analysis unfolded.

While transcribing the data, I formed early impressions that what I had observed
and recorded could not well be rendered in terms of Situated Cognition Theory for three
basic reasons. First, there didn’t seem to be as much going on as I might have expected to
see. Second, I was not able to find evidence to overturn my early impressions that what I
had observed might be difficult to render in the terms of Situated Cognition Theory.
Third, it seemed to me that what was not going on was just as important as what was
going on.

This last impression presented me with a problem, since research of this type is
typically meant to provide rich descriptions and provide insight into what is going on.
So, I returned to the data and set out to find evidence that would overturn the early
impressions and that could be interpreted in the terms of the theory, and in doing so
became even more familiar with the data. As I carefully combed the data, I began to think
that evidence to support my work was not hidden in the subtle details of what was said
and done. Rather, the evidence was in the general topics that formed the big picture of
these supervision visits and in the activity patterns that surrounded the interactions. In
moving forward and repeatedly combing the data, I continued to search for evidence to
overturn my initial impressions, and to find evidence within the transcripts that might
lead me back to a perception that learning to teach in these settings was indeed taking
place in ways claimed by Situated Cognition Theory, particularly Cognitive

Apprenticeships within communities of practice.

31

I approached the task of data analysis by revisiting the language and theoretical
constructs of learning as described by Situated Cognition Theory. 1 was making constant
comparison to what I had observed and recorded among the participants in each of these
settings to see if I could find data that would allow me to make connections to the theory
that I had failed to make earlier. This process buttressed my belief that what was
important in the data did not require the subtle and detailed analysis that coding would
provide, but rather a simpler analysis on the surface of what I had seen and heard. As I
began to examine each case and formulate and write down my initial impressions of what
I had observed, all within a situated framework, I found myself able to return to the data,
either in hard copy or as it had been stored in the digital voice—editing software on my
computer, to retrieve the data that appeared relevant. As hypotheses began to emerge
from my work with the data, I revisited it continuously to determine if the data I had
collected provided evidence to overturn or support my early hypotheses and lead me back
to Situated Cognition as a useful way to talk about what I had observed in each of these
settings.

The goal of the analysis was two-fold: first, to identify evidence to support or
contest the hypotheses that emerged regarding the moves, roles and interactions observed
among the participants during the university supervisor’s visits, and their relationship to
the theoretical framework. And second, to determine if sufficient evidence could be
found to support a situated framework as a useful and accurate way to talk about learning
to teach in the context of practice work. In the end, I concluded that if the data included
evidence that would overturn my early impressions, and would indeed allow what I had

observed to be rendered in terms of the theory, I would have found it. It was at this point

32

that I began to consider my initial research questions and to reformulate them in the ways
that will be discussed later.

In chapters three and four I will present each case independent of its connections
to the other. I will describe, in detail, the setting for each, the observations that took place
during each of the two visits, and the interactions that were both observed and recorded.
Chapter five will examine the two cases collectively for discussion and the formulation of
conclusions, and chapter six will consider the potential implications of this study and
make recommendations for altering teacher education field work and for conducting

future research.

33

Chapter 3
ALLEN, BRAD, AND COLLEEN

In this case, the student teacher, Allen, worked with Brad, his cooperating teacher,
at Darion Junior High. Colleen was his university supervisor. Darion was located in a
middle-to-lower-middle class suburban community just outside of a Midwestern city. It
shared a campus complex and outdoor facilities with Darion High School. Upon casual
observation, it appeared that Darion was gender balanced, mostly Caucasian, with a
limited minority population. During both visits to Darion Junior High, students appeared
to be generally respectful of both their teachers and each other. I observed very little
interpersonal conflict or a lack of cooperation among the students.

Brad, the cooperating teacher, was a male with approximately 20 years of
teaching experience in physical education at the junior high and high school level. He had
also served as the high school’s athletic director earlier in his career. In addition to his
teaching responsibilities, Brad did some coaching at the middle school and high school
level. He was a graduate of the same institution that Allen, his student teacher, attended
and Colleen, the university supervisor, worked for.

Allen, the student teacher in this triad, was a male, fifth year Senior, majoring in
K-12 physical education at a Midwestern college that had an enrollment of approximately
4,500 students. Allen had been a varsity athlete during the first four years of his
undergraduate career, and while student teaching he was also an assistant coach for the
varsity team he had been a member of the previous four years. His goal was to complete
his undergraduate teacher certification requirements and secure a K-12 teaching position

in physical education.

34

Colleen, the assigned university field supervisor, was a female with
approximately ten years of undergraduate physical education teacher education
experience in higher education. In addition to her supervision responsibilities, Colleen
taught K-12 physical education methods classes and was responsible for leading a weekly
seminar for the physical education student teachers. Colleen’s professional experiences
also included coaching at the college level. She completed her graduate work in physical
education teacher education at a well-respected Research I university in the Midwestern
United States before moving almost immediately into teaching in higher education.

Initial Observations

During my initial on-site visit with this triad, I gathered an idea of the
relationships that existed among its members. I learned that all three shared a connection
through the college that was represented here since Brad, the cooperating teacher, had
also graduated from the same college. Brad and Allen did not know each other prior to
Allen’s student teaching experience; however, Allen had acquired an item of team gear
from the college for Brad since joining him for his field work, which suggested a positive
connection between the two of them on a personal and professional level.

The interaction between Allen and Colleen, his university supervisor, appeared to
be relaxed and comfortable. Initial conversation that I observed between them shifted
back and forth between general discussion of Allen’s experiences to date at Darion and
the travel and success of the team he was helping to coach at the college. Allen had taken
classes from Colleen at the college and their familiarity with each other was evident

throughout the casual interactions that I observed during each visit.

35

The interaction between Colleen and Brad also seemed relaxed and comfortable.
Since Brad had attended the same college as Allen and Colleen, the connection among
the three of them seemed to include common acquaintances and familiarity with contexts,
even though Colleen had not been a member of the college faculty when Brad had
matriculated there and therefore did not know him from his undergraduate years.
Subsequent conversations led me to think that no personal or professional relationship
had previously existed between Brad and Colleen.

My intent as the researcher was not to involve myself in the interactions that took
place among the members of this triad. However, my familiarity with participants within
the local professional community made some interaction with the participants
unavoidable and I also interacted while giving a few basic instructions regarding the use
of the digital voice recorders.

Before Allen taught each lesson, Colleen had a brief conversation with him about
what he would be teaching and a few related details. Once several students arrived for
class, Colleen moved to a position on a chair a short distance from Allen to observe and
take notes while Allen moved toward a portable podium that was positioned in front of
the group. While at the podium, Allen took attendance and interacted with students on a
casual level prior to the school’s daily routine of morning announcements and the playing
of the National Anthem over the intercom system.

Once Allen moved to his position at the podium, there was little additional
interaction between him and Colleen until the post-observation conference that took place
after he was finished supervising locker rooms, etc. at the end of class. When those

responsibilities were completed, he and Colleen immediately began their post-

36

observation conference, which lasted approximately 20 minutes. After completing their
conference, digital recording equipment was detached, arrangements for follow-up
interviews were verified, and Colleen said goodbye and was on her way. Field notes
from both visits indicate that no additional interaction took place between Colleen and
Brad before she left the building. Although not recorded in my field notes, I recall that
Brad was teaching other classes when Colleen and Allen wrapped up their interaction and
Colleen exited the building. What follows are additional details from each of the two
visits to Darion Junior high.
Colleen ’s 1" Visit

As I entered the gym I was warmly greeted by Colleen, Brad and Allen.
Although not noted, I believe I recall Colleen mentioning that this was her third visit to
Brad’s placement. Colleen indicated that she had arrived just a few moments before I did.
The three of them engaged in some casual and general conversation about the school and
other endeavors that both they were engaged in outside of teaching. Colleen solicited
some initial reaction from both Allen and Brad about how things were going at Darion
Junior High, asking in general terms. They both responded to Colleen’s questions
briefly, generally and affirmatively.

At some point in their conversation, Brad informed Colleen that Allen was
working with one of the other physical educators in the building during this class period
and that he would be helping with another class during this specific class time. Brad also
checked briefly with Allen to see if he was all set to teach, to which Allen responded
affirmatively. The colleague of Brad’s who was responsible for the class Allen was

going to teach appeared in the gym briefly and interacted for just a moment with other

37

members of the triad and then left the gym leaving Allen in charge. I did not capture, nor
do I recall the content any conversation that took place between that other teacher and the
others. I did not see him again.

During the above mentioned conversations, students began to enter the gym and
Allen assumed full responsibility for the remainder of the class period. As students came
in and sat at their assigned places on the gym floor, Colleen talked with Allen about the
size of the class, what he was going to be doing with them, and asked if he planned to use
some basketball trivia as an introduction to his basketball lesson. They engaged in a brief
conversation about the trivia that he might use at the beginning of his lesson and Colleen
suggested using questions about the teams and coaches who would be competing in the
upcoming Women’s NCAA Final Four. When nearly all of the students were present and
class was ready to begin, Allen moved to a portable podium positioned in front of the
class to begin taking roll. At that point Colleen moved a short distance from Allen and
took a seat in a chair to observe and take notes. Once the daily routine of morning
announcements and the playing of the National Anthem over the intercom were finished,
Allen continued with his teaching. Throughout the class period, Colleen sat in a chair
near the intersection of the basketball sideline and half-court line. She remained in this
position for the rest of the class period, alternating between observing and taking notes.

On this day, Allen was teaching basketball. He began class by asking students the
trivia questions that he had discussed with Colleen prior to the students arrival. He then
led them in a brief active warm-up that included a chasing—and-fleeing game. Following
the warm-up, Allen randomly split the students into teams that he used to organize them

into a brief skill drill, practicing both right and left handed lay-ups.

38

During the lay-up drill, Allen spent most of the time supervising students and
providing general and positive feedback. After approximately 10 minutes practicing lay-
ups, Allen assigned teams to the six baskets in the gym and students began playing 3-on-
3 basketball games that continued for the remainder of the class period. During this time,
he managed and supervised 3-on-3 game play, and stopped play occasionally to re-assign
the teams to different courts and different opponents. Near the end of class, Allen had to
deal with an injured student who had twisted an ankle, but otherwise game play
continued uninterrupted, except for court changes, for the duration of the class period.

While managing and supervising the 3-on-3 game play, Allen continued to
provide general positive feedback to students, encouraged them to be active, and stepped
in to help enforce rules of play on a few occasions. He also addressed off-task behavior,
lack of active involvement, and repeated substituting by the same players.

As the class time came to an end and students completed their last games, Allen
asked them to put the equipment away and head for the locker rooms. Allen then moved
into the boy’s locker room to supervise students. Once the bell rang to end class, Allen
completed his supervision of the locker room, kept students moving to their next class,
and then returned to the gym to meet with Colleen for their post-observation conference.
Post-Observation Conference

Colleen and Allen sat in the gym for their post-observation conference while
students and others passed by without interrupting. Colleen began the post-observation
conference by engaging Allen in a casual conversation about the National Anthem being
played every day, the box—tops the school was collecting and how box-tops and soup

labels can be used to raise money for PE. Then she began talking to Allen about his

39

teaching. What follows is an annotated summary of the post-observation conference
between Colleen and Allen.

Their post-observation conference began with a discussion of the overview of
class Allen had given the students and his use of the trivia questions he and Colleen had
previously discussed. They talked about using women’s versus men’s NCAA Final Four
Trivia, and how women are getting more and more media exposure. Colleen then asked
Allen how he thought things went. Allen responded with,

I think they went pretty well, it was pretty standard for that group. I think the

warm-up and everything went well, during the basketball. ...I just think it gets a

little old for them. You know, they've been doing basketball for a few days in this

nine weeks because of the weather, and then they did basketball in the last nine
weeks, so I think they're just getting a little sick of it.

Colleen interjected with agreement, and Allen finished his thought with, . .and
so their energy level, and their intensity and excitement for it. . .it goes down a little bit.”
Colleen then asked, “What would they be doing if the weather was better?” Allen
responded, “Well, they began outdoors and started, and it was like softball, or flag
football, outdoor soccer, those kinds of things. So, just different things than they've been
doing for the last nine weeks, and a lot of the kids were in PE, one of the PE classes the
last nine weeks...”

Colleen listened and then moved the conversation toward his lesson. She said,
“Let’s go through each of the parts of it, like the warm-up.” A brief discussion of the
warm-up activities followed and Colleen complimented Allen about the fact that he had

given students a choice of ways to move across the gym, in relay format, to get warmed-

40

up. That part of their conversation also included some discussion of managing the kids
who didn’t really do it as expected.

Then Colleen moved the conversation toward 3-on-3 basketball and asked Allen
about the overall goals of doing 3-on-3. After a slight hesitation, Allen’s response was,
“Just to make everybody active.” At that point, Colleen and Allen engaged in a fairly
long conversation about the degree to which students were active. Their discussion
included estimates of how many students were actually active and how much of class
time they actually remained active. They talked rather extensively about activity levels
of the females and the management strategies Allen could use to get them more involved.

They then talked briefly about managing the substitution procedure for the games
so the same kids didn’t sit out repeatedly while others did not sit out at all. After each 3-
on-3 game was completed, Allen had also required the losers of each game to do some
form of exercise, such as push-ups or sit-ups. In light of that, Colleen then asked Allen
about the use of exercise as a punishment for the teams that lost each game. I perceived
this to be a very interesting point in their interaction. Because I am an experienced
physical education teacher educator, I know that the practice of using exercise in this
fashion is one of those current issues that has received a fair amount of attention as a
practice to be avoided. Colleen first questioned the appropriateness of doing what Allen
had done, and how it is frowned upon in the professional literature, then claimed that her
own stance was “neutral on that one.” Then she mentioned that she should maybe take
more of a stand against what Allen had done. At that point a full page of transcripts

reveal an extended conversation between them discussing other options, whether

41

“punishment” is a reasonable word for how he had used exercise in this case, etc. Colleen
finally concludes with, “. . .but just something, as you are doing it, to think about.”

Colleen then moved the conversation in a new direction mentioning that using
music was nice. She also brought up the need use the term “balls” carefully while
working with students. Then they talked briefly about Allen’s teaching mechanics, and
Colleen suggested staying on the perimeter so students aren’t behind him, and
encouraged him to be more active rotating from basket as he observed game play.

As they finished, Colleen asked Allen if he would like to add anything more.
Allen pointed out the elimination tag game that the next class was already playing, and
said that they use the game as a warm-up, but that he had removed the elimination piece
in his classes so students would remain more active. Hearing that, Colleen reaffirmed
Allen’s desire to keep students a bit more active, and then finished with a compliment
about Allen’s energy, enthusiasm and use of clapping to get the kids awake and enthused
first thing in the morning.

The post-observation conference concluded with Colleen saying the following, “I
liked the way, because it was so early, that you did a nice job clapping, and getting them
enthused, showing your enthusiasm way at the beginning. So I thought you did a nice job
with that...now we’ll find our researcher to come and un-mic us...” Following the post-
observation conference, Colleen said goodbye to Allen and I, briefly verified plans to
complete the follow-up interview, and then left the building. My follow-up interview

with her took place the next day in her office on campus.

42

Colleen ’s 2"d Visit

Colleen’s second visit ran much the same. This time, the activity was football,
which took place on an outdoor field. As with the previous visit, I observed initial
interactions among Allen, Brad and Colleen that were casual and informal regarding how
things were going, and about Allen’s coaching schedule at the college, etc. After chatting
briefly, Brad informed Colleen that a substitute teacher was covering the class with Allen
that day, and that he needed to leave in order to cover a class for an absent teacher. It
appeared that the substitute teacher was present in this class merely as a legal precaution
and Allen once again had full responsibility for the class. Shortly thereafter, Brad left the
gym and I did not see him interact with Allen or Colleen about Allen’s teaching at any
time throughout the duration of Colleen’s visit.

The beginning of class followed the same general pattern as the previous visit,
with attendance, announcements and the National Anthem, followed by a brief active
warm-up in the gym. Allen then organized students into teams and headed outside with
them to play a modified form of football called Air Force Football, a game that involves
the same skills and activities used in traditional football, but allows repeated forward
passes and more continuous play with less structured play calling.

Colleen’s supervision during this visit included significant interaction with a
specific student. While the students were moving from the gym to the stadium, Colleen
followed near the back of the group and talked with a student who appeared to have some
physical limitations that affected her performance in physical education. Colleen talked
with her about the beautiful weather, the outdoor facilities, and about physical education

class.

43

As soon as the whole class was in the stadium, Allen assigned two teams to each
field and asked the students to start playing. One of the games started right away while
Allen provided some assistance and prodding to the other two teams which were a bit
slow to get started. The remainder of the class time was spent in game play. While
students played the two games side-by side across the width of each half of the football
field, Allen stayed near the center of the two games, observing the games that were being
played somewhat loosely. The participation level of the students varied broadly, from
very actively involved in the game, to standing in groups of two or three talking among
themselves while the game continued around them. Allen provided general positive
feedback to students, encouraging them to be active and occasionally stepped in to help
enforce the rules of play.

I noticed that as the activity continued, fewer and fewer students seemed to be
actively involved in the game. My field notes indicate that some of the less interested
students appeared to me to be just jogging around in space, not paying much attention to
what was happening in the game. At one point a small group of girls appeared to have
lost track of what was going on and were standing with the wrong team, on the wrong
end of the field.

Throughout the class time, Colleen once again alternated between observing what
was going on and taking notes. After arriving at the stadium, she remained at a distance
from Allen, standing where she could observe both games. At one point near the end of
the class, she began talking with the substitute teacher. They continued their conversation
continued through the end of class and as they walked back toward the building. Once

back inside, Colleen waited until Allen completed his end-of-class responsibilities, which

44

including locker room supervision, and then conducted a post-observation conference
with him.
Post Observation Conference

At my request, the post-observation conference between Colleen and Allen took
place in a more private and quiet location in order to capture the sound more clearly. It
began with Colleen making a brief comment about the beauty of the school’s facilities,
and then launched into a conversation about Allen’s teaching. Colleen asked Allen how
he thought it went. He responded with a short, “It went pretty well.”

Without any further discussion of Colleen’s first question or Allen’s response,
she moved immediately to the question of Allen’s goals for the lesson by asking, “What
were some of the overall goals you were seeking and looking for through Air Force
Football?” Allen’s response, very similar to the first visit, was, “mostly just to keep them
active.” Allen elaborated by adding, “Mostly just to keep them moving, and try to, I
guess to try to get them to think about teamwork a little bit.” Colleen then asked Allen to
tell her what he saw while they were playing. After clarifying some confusion about the
way she had worded the question, Colleen continued. “One of your goals was active
participation...” At that point a rather extended conversation ensued about the activity
levels of the students, paying particular attention to sub-groups of students, males and
females, high skilled and low-skilled, athletes and non-athletes.

Then, turning to Air-Force Football as the selected activity, Colleen asked:
“Which students does this sport favor?” When Allen hesitated to answer, Colleen added,
“Highly skilled, predominantly boys or males. . .?” (As an experienced physical educator,

while observing this activity I recall questioning, in my own mind, the appropriateness of

45

this activity as I observed it taking place.) Allen’s response to Colleen’s statement
seemed almost to indicate his own resignation to the legitimate criticism that Colleen was
raising about the appropriateness of the activity. He said, “Yep, but you know, it’s a unit
they do here...” Then, after what seemed to be token agreement from Colleen, Allen
continued, “It’s one of the games they play and that they teach, and so we go with it, you
know.” At that point it seemed to me that Colleen avoided discussing Allen’s reference
to it being “one of the things they do here,” and returned the conversation to the game by
asking Allen if he had thought of, “any other set-ups.” Allen responded with, “Not really,
we like to get two fields going.” Then after a brief pause, Allen talked about the
possibility of playing one large game with the class just divided in half, but then pointed
out that even less participation would result.

Colleen initiated a brief conversation about using small-sided games, finding
other ways to divide the class to increase participation, or possibly modifying the rules to
force girls to get more involved. Allen responded to Colleen’s suggestion by stating that
he believed the problem with lack of participation was more a problem of desire than a
problem that needed rules to force participation. Then, with what I consider to be a fairly
strong statement, Allen seemed to bring this part of the conversation to a close when he
said, “You know, we can try to make them [participate] all we want, but, in a setting like
that, most, (pause) some of the young ladies in that group just don’t, they don’t want to
be active, you know.” Colleen did not push this topic any further.

She then proceeded by bringing up the female student she had engaged in a
conversation while walking out to the field. Colleen and Allen continued to talk for a

few minutes about that specific student--about her background, her family history, being

46

new to the school, her low skill levels, etc. Colleen suggested that Allen might be able to
enlist the help of other girls in the class to make her feel more included. Colleen also
suggested that her low skills and lack of participation can become a tough cycle. Field
notes on this topic indicate 1 did not see this particular young lady touch the ball or pull a
flag even once; nor did I see anyone make an effort to get her involved in the game in any
way.

Colleen then asked Allen if there was anything else that he wanted to mention.
Allen responded by returning the conversation back to the discussion of the difficulty of
getting everyone involved in the game they were playing. At one point he said, “No
matter what you do out there, you go to opposite ends of the spectrum. You could be out
there playing Air Force Football, or you could be in here teaching dance. . ., and then
maybe the girls would be involved, but still maybe not. And then for sure we’d have
some of those young men who don’t want to do something like [dance].” Colleen,
sounding empathetic, responded with, “Yeah, it’s tough because, I think historically,
the curriculum favors males and higher-skilled females in the sport.” Colleen continued
in this vein, referring in an almost systematic way to the sub-groups of students that the
curriculum favors, from high skilled males down to low skilled females.

Colleen shifted the conversation again. She said, “So that’s tough, and then
coming in where the curriculum is set. . .and you need to do what’s. . .do it. And then, as
we’ve talked through, trying to make adjustments and try some things to try to get...”
That topic of conversation ended rather abruptly at that moment. It appeared that Colleen

had made a conscious decision not to go any further with that line of discussion.

47

As their post-observation conference started to wind down, Colleen told Allen
that he did a good job of encouraging involvement, noting that she heard him exhorting
students to get involved on a number of occasions, and it may have made some difference
in their participation. She specifically mentioned that the girls may have gotten more
involved and that the boys at least let them touch the ball as a result of his
encouragement.

The final topic that Colleen raised was class climate. She asked Allen to share
what he thought about it, and after brief discussion, they came to the mutual conclusion
that, as Allen said, “They have a lot of good kids. And there are a few that cause trouble,
but you’ll find that anywhere.” Colleen pointed out that she didn’t hear any foul language
or put downs, how well the students seemed to get along, and that you don’t see that type
of cooperation everywhere. Colleen then added some final brief comments about the
nature of the daily announcements before class, and how it is nice that they recognize
students in a broad range of accomplishments, not just athletics.

As their post-observation conference came to a close, Colleen made the following
summary comments: “I think I mentioned all the things... yes, once play began, [you did
a] good job of encouraging involvement by all. Nice job overall in your supervision and
in your encouraging students, because that’s good. And especially at the beginning with
getting them up and at it with doing the exercises and stuff. . .Anything you want to add?”
Allen declined. Colleen further concluded with, “Alright, but nice job overall. . .so I’ll
give you a copy of this [her written comments], and I’ll see you tonight at seminar.” At
that point, Allen told Colleen that he wouldn’t have some of his work completed for

seminar because of the death of his grandfather. She said not to worry about it and

48

thanked him for previously sharing the news of the death because she had been able to
talk to someone else about it the day before.

The post-observation conference came to an end after approximately 20 minutes.
Colleen then verified arrangements for our follow-up interview the next day and left the
building. Once again, my field notes indicated that there was no additional conversation
between Colleen and Brad before she left the building.

First Impressions

My first impression of these visits was that I had observed fairly routine junior
high physical education classes, taking place in a rather typical setting. The teachers
appeared to be well-meaning and the students cooperative. I saw very little evidence of
inter-personal conflict among students and nothing that indicated lack of respect for the
cooperating teacher or the student teacher. It also appeared that the teachers were
carrying out the physical education classes as they intended to. I did not see, hear or
record anything from the cooperating teacher or the student teacher that suggested any
level of disappointment, frustration, or difficulty in working with these students, nor any
references to lack of resources, facilities, equipment, or other factors that might constrain
the curriculum. 1 also noted on both of these occasions that Allen had full responsibility
for the teaching of these classes.

My impression was that Brad had no hesitation in turning that full responsibility
over to Allen, even in his absence and the absence of the other teacher who had
responsibility for the class during the previous visit. During each visit Brad was not
present during Allen’s teaching, although during the second visit a hired substitute was

present for what appeared to be liability reasons.

49

I also formed initial impressions of Allen’s teaching. From my perspective both as
a K-12 physical educator for 16 years and now as a physical education teacher educator, I
was struck by Allen’s conservative approach to teaching physical education that I had
observed and by the fact that there didn’t seem to be much physical education instruction
during these classes. From my perspective, Allen did not seem to be teaching in ways that
would be supported by the profession or taught in the university teacher education
classroom, nor did his teaching appear to me to be consistent with accepted best practices
in the teaching of physical education. Students entered the gym and moved into a squad
formation, sat on their spots while attendance was taken and daily morning tasks were
completed. The class proceeded with a largely teacher-centered, command-task approach
to teaching, although students were given some choice of movements to use during their
warm-up in the gym. Allen’s teaching did not seem to me to be based on clearly defined
objectives or goals he may have had for his students during each of the classes. Rather, as
he stated in both of his post-observation conferences with Colleen, he wanted to “just
make everybody as active as possible”. Allen’s teaching seemed largely based on a
“play” approach to physical education, getting the students involved in game play during
a very high percentage of class time and trying to keep them as active as possible. During
each visit, the teaching and student activity both seemed to focus on participation and
cooperation, as distinct from instruction and learning.

I also formed impressions of the teacher education as it was taking place in this
setting. Although meaningful conversation seemed to be taking place, there didn’t appear
to be a great deal of teacher education going on here. Just as an instructional component

seemed missing in Allen’s teaching, the post-observation conferences also seemed thin in

50

regards to effective instruction in the content of physical education. Colleen was on site,
observing and taking notes, and engaged in a post-observation conference with Allen
after his teaching. However, after observing their interaction and listening to the content
of their post—observation conference, it seemed that most of their conversation was about
the participation and activity levels of students and about how Allen might manage
students in ways that would increase those levels. There was one brief reference to the
mechanics of Allen’s teaching as he moved through his lesson.

Throughout their post-observation conference it seemed to me that the
conversation between Colleen and Allen remained focused almost exclusively on what
Colleen had seen, and little was said about what she had not seen. From my perspective,
what was not seen, and thus was discussed very little, was instruction. My field notes
include several comments that I had not seen much physical education instruction, and
the transcripts of Colleen’s post-observation conference with Allen include very little
discussion about the content or quality of Allen’s physical education instruction.

Their post-observation conferences tended to focus on a few topics that Allen
would later describe as “expected”. Transcripts reveal discussions related to class
management, student participation and activity levels, and the social aspects of the
participation patterns in Allen’s classes. In sum, my impression of the activity that
occurred in this case was not much like Cognitive Apprenticeship as described in
Situated Cognition Theory.

A Closer Look—Interactions, Interviews, & Field Notes
Having formed these initial impressions, I returned to my data and looked for

evidence that might confirm my initial impressions or reveal that I hadn’t seen or heard

51

enough at first glance to discover what was really happening. Remaining open to that
possibility, I began carefully combing my field notes and transcriptions of both on-site
interactions and follow-up interviews to re-evaluate what had taken place and what these
people had said about what had taken place; what they said they were doing, how they
described it, and how they felt about it.
Not Enough Physical Education Going On

Some of the data backed my impression that I had been observing fairly typical
and conservative physical education teaching. For example, in the second follow-up
interview, Allen said,

These students, they really are organized and they listen pretty well. They follow

instructions fairly well. . .and I was telling Colleen the same thing. They’re just

good kids out here. . .they make it easy on me as a student teacher because some

student teachers have it a lot harder where students know [and think that], ‘He’s

just a student teacher, so we can do whatever we want.’ But these kids have

really accepted me as their teacher, and as an adult, and a teacher. So it’s gone

really well.
A comment written in my field notes from one visit reflects the same feeling, “Students
are participating as expected, because there is no feedback to suggest otherwise. ...Good
kids, cooperative for the most part, they did what they were asked to do.”

As I began searching the data for evidence to inform, or perhaps overturn, my
impression that there just wasn’t enough going on, I soon realized that direct support for
this impression might be difficult to discover in the written data because what exists in

the data provides evidence for what was happening and provides only limited evidence of

52

what was not happening. However, field notes from these observations, as informed by
my 20 years of teaching experience, along with some support from the transcripts,
seemed to address what may or may not have been happening.

The tasks of teaching are often discussed in terms of instruction, management and
supervision. In both of my visits, it appeared that the activities Allen was engaged in
were focused almost entirely on management and supervision of students, and very little
physical education instruction was taking place. During my first visit, there was a brief
time spent practicing basketball lay-ups. However, even during that time, which was
designated for the practice of a skill, field notes indicate that there was very little skill
instruction taking place. During the second visit I noted almost immediately that only two
footballs were brought outside to be used for the physical education class. Although
admittedly I had no idea what Brad’s plans were for that day, I sensed that two balls
would not provide much opportunity for skill development or practice to occur in any
significant way for the number of students present.

Once again, in field notes from both of my visits, I noted on multiple occasions
that there didn’t seem to be enough instruction taking place. The lay-up practice during
Allen’s first lesson forms the context for the first few examples taken from my field notes
that appear below. Those examples are then followed by a series of additional comments
that appear throughout my field notes addressing what I perceived as an absence of
physical education instruction in the classes I observed.

0 Students are pretty loose in their execution of the skill correctly
0 ...although students are being asked to practice a skill, there is little or no

skill instruction or skill related feedback.

53

0 Student teacher is in the center of the gym, mostly managing and
supervising.

0 Not much in the way of skill related feedback, instruction, or individual
feedback. Little or no instruction or corrective feedback.

0 This appears to be activity management, without much instruction.

0 Right into 3-on-3 game play without any instruction.

0 Obvious violations like travelling, double dribble, etc. are being observed,
but play continues.

0 Not any reference to the quality of game play, or what he is observing
related to their game play.

0 Students are still pretty much on task and student teacher is providing
some general feedback about passing the ball and moving.

Field notes from the second visit reveal similar observations:

0 The student teacher gets students playing as soon as they arrive at the
fields.

0 Little instruction related to game play, but the student teacher’s energy and
attention is focused on management and supervision.

o The student teacher is out in the center of the field, just offering positive,
general feedback...

0 ...very little instruction is being provided related to successful game play.

0 I am hearing many comments from the student teacher like, “Get involved,

everybody, don’t just stand there.”

54

0 ...very little focus brought to game play and what students might be
working on to play the game effectively.

The final section of field notes taken during each visit included summaries of my
impressions of what I had just observed. After each visit, the summary included the
perception that there was very little taking place during these classes that might be
considered instruction. Colleen’s interview following Brad’s basketball lesson lends
support to this observation, and suggested she was observing the same lack of instruction:

I’m thinking about what are the goals of this lesson. Is it just to keep the students

active? Because then, they are active. But if it’s to help proficiency in basketball,

then that’s not necessarily happening because skill teaching is not there. . .it’s
more assumed or just known.

In Colleen’s post-observation conferences with Allen, she also appeared to
recognize this. She asked Allen what he would consider some of the overall goals of
doing 3-on-3. During the next visit, she asked him, “What were some of the overall goals
you were seeking and looking for through Air Force Football?”

Outside the context of what Colleen and I had both observed during Allen’s
teaching, these questions could appear to be a simple review of what Allen’s lesson
objectives were prior to beginning a discussion of his observed teaching practices.
However, based on her follow-up interviews with me, these questions indicated that
Colleen also thought that Allen’s teaching lacked an instructional component.

Allen’s teaching reflected a conservative approach to physical education.
Teaching that includes a great deal of merely “rolling out the ball and letting kids play” is

highly criticized for its lack of educational value. In observations of both lessons, what I

55

perceived as a lack of instruction would also qualify as the “roll out the ball and play”
approach to the teaching of physical education.
An Observed Apprenticeship

As I observed the interaction between Allen and Colleen, I saw what I could
reasonably describe as Cognitive Apprenticeship. However, the Cognitive
Apprenticeship I observed seemed to me to be best described as a Cognitive
Apprenticeship for thinking and talking about effective teaching, as opposed to a
Cognitive Apprenticeship that included learning to teach within the authentic activities of
practice work. While Allen had certainly been engaged in the practice of teaching during
Colleen’s visit, the apprenticeship between them seemed more about talking about issues
stimulated by what Colleen had observed, than about helping Allen actually teach more
effectively. Although there was meaningful activity taking place during each visit, there
didn’t seem to be a whole lot of teacher education going on during the university
supervisor’s on-site visits, and what was going on did not resemble Cognitive
Apprenticeship as described by Situated Cognition Theory. Once again, my estimate is
informed to some degree by what I did see, but informed to a greater degree by what I did
not see.

There were aspects in this case which appeared to me to be consistent with the
defined protocol for university assigned field work. Colleen appeared on site, had a brief
conversation with both Brad and Allen, and then observed and took notes while Allen
taught his lesson. After observing Allen’s teaching, she sat down with him, as expected,
to provide feedback. However, there was also much that seemed to be missing. I did not

see 3-way interaction among Allen, Brad, and Colleen concerning Allen’s teaching. Also,

56

from what I observed, there wasn’t any interaction between Colleen and Brad concerning
Allen’s teaching or suggestions for ways that Brad might help him improve. Although
this may have occurred on previous visits, when I wasn’t present, I can report that I did
not see or hear it on these occasions.

Situated Cognition Theory talks a great deal about learning within the context of
the authentic activities of practice. Given that framework, I also did not see any
interaction between Allen and Brad or Colleen while he was teaching the class. Although
I have no data pertaining to Brad’s normal interaction with Allen when Colleen was not
present, a thorough search of all transcripts revealed nothing to suggest that interaction
had occurred between them during Allen’s teaching.

As mentioned earlier, I did observe and record interaction between Colleen and
Allen after he completed his teaching. However, a close look at the transcripts of those
interactions, together with comments made by Allen about those interactions, suggests
that they tended to be centered on expected and predictable topics. In follow-up
interviews, Allen said, “There wasn’t really anything that I wasn’t ready for in our
conversation. I knew what we were going to talk about, and it all came up.” When asked
what he meant by “It all came up,” Allen responded with, “Activity level, differences
between males and females, how could we make that different, how could you organize
the game differently so we could get more activity from the students.” When asked if he
felt there was anything else that should have been discussed that wasn’t, his response was
no. He said, “It was pretty standard, pretty regular conversation as far as that goes. I think

we covered all the topics we normally cover, that needed to be covered.” His comments

57

seem to indicate a rather standard set of interactions with Colleen around predictable
topics.

After carefully reviewing the transcripts of his post—observation conferences with
Colleen, I found that the bulk of their conversation confirmed what Allen said. Most of
their conversations were about participation levels, gender issues, and ways to more
effectively include females and low-skilled students in activities. Colleen appeared to
have opportunities in both of their post—observation conferences to initiate discussion of
other topics with Allen, but for whatever reason, chose to keep the focus on levels of
student activity. During each post-observation conference, Colleen also asked Allen what
his goals were for the activity, and in both cases Allen’s responses were. “just to make
everybody as active as possible” and “just to keep them moving.” While Colleen might
have taken either opportunity to discuss goals in terms of learning to play basketball or
football, in both instances Colleen directed the conversation toward whether or not
students were achieving Allen’s goal of being active, and the degree to which that was
occurring.

Transcripts yield very little interaction between Colleen and Allen concerning
anything other than what Colleen had observed during his lessons. This may not seem
immediately significant until combined with my previously noted observation is taken
into account. As an educated observer, there was little or no physical education
instruction taking place during visits to Allen, Colleen and Brad. Given the absence of
instruction, and the presence of interaction that seemed primarily focused on what
Colleen had seen, there seemed to be little conversation that focused on effective

instruction in the content of physical education. From my observation, and after

58

thoroughly combing the data for conversations to the contrary, I came to believe that the
interactions between Colleen and Allen might best be described as “safe” conversations
about what Colleen had observed, as distinct from the more difficult conversations that
occur when a supervisor calls a student teacher’s practice into question. Their interaction
did not include much in the way of thick conversation about topics from the teacher
education classroom, about quality physical education instruction, or the lack thereof.
My careful search through the data from each of Colleen’s visits yielded little evidence to
suggest otherwise.

While Allen’s comments reveal what he had come to expect as the norm for the
interactions between himself and his university supervisor, he also suggested, on multiple
occasions, during each of his follow-up interviews, that his interactions with Colleen
were “different, more formal, and more intense” when data was being collected.
Although a bit guarded in his comments, Allen offered the following:

I thought our interactions yesterday were just a little bit different than they had

been in the past, and I think part of that may or may not have been, she might

have been trying to be a little more impressive, use good words, seeing as how the
tapes were running. I don’t know if impressive is the right word, but a little more
in-depth, giving more instruction, more ideas, and. . .it was a little different than it
has been in times past. In times past, I think it was more just, we would just sit
down and chat, it didn’t seem so formal... and I think yesterday the questions
were more specific. . ..In times past it’s just been more of a, “Let’s chat, let’s see
how things went, uh, here are a few things you might have done differently.”

Instead, as of yesterday, it was more just like, ‘What would you have done in this

59

situation?’ or, ‘Did you think about this when you were doing this?’ Or, it was

just more specific. Yesterday she referenced one of the PE models, and she had

never done that before.

Even if Allen’s perception that his university supervisor had stepped it up a bit
because data was being collected was inaccurate and his perceptions were related to other
factors, it seems likely that participants would have put their best foot forward while the
tapes recorders were running and data was being collected. Under the circumstances, it
seems likely that the practices of all participants were at or above the normative level of
the participants, rather than below.

Is this Cognitive Apprenticeship?

For this triad, I came to the conclusion that the activity occurring could not
reasonably be described as a Cognitive Apprenticeship within a community of practice.
That is, the activity does not look much like an apprentice working with a journeyman in
some kind of shop, learning from them in the course of that work.

To begin, the data suggests to me that the relationships among members of the
triad were thin, unbalanced, and lacked reciprocity; both in the respective roles of the two
senior members of the triad and in the ways by which they might help the apprentice
learn the practice. In a follow—up interview, Brad spoke about this matter in relatively
clear terms on at least three occasions.

We see these people [university supervisors] come in so seldom. It’s tough
to have relationships with them. It’s really tough to understand exactly what they
are looking for, what areas they want us to really emphasize. But in terms of

getting to know her as a person, and exactly what she’s looking for in terms of

60

physical education teaching, it’s difficult to know. So, you kind of draw on what

you want and what you think she is looking for, and kind of hope you come up

with common ground. It would be more effective for myself to have
communication prior to, not only about that day, but about what they are looking
for on a specific lesson out of our student teacher, but then maybe two-fold
looking for more feedback afterwards.

We’re kind of on the surface. We really don’t get to know each other, and
we’re just three entities out there, a student teacher, a cooperating teacher and a
supervising teacher. So, if somehow we could become more cohesive and have
more of a plan of attack, I use that word loosely, I think that would be beneficial
to everybody.

I would like us to be working together, that some of the terminology and
some of the things that they are talking about there, some of the things they are
looking for are things that I could talk to my cooperating teacher, or, my student
teacher with.

These comments indicate to me that the relationships among the triad are thin,
that is, they don’t get to know each other well enough on a personal or professional level.
They don’t communicate very often, or particularly well, and there appears to be some
uncertainty concerning expectations of both student and cooperating teacher. Field notes
from each visit include clear statements about the lack of interaction between Brad and
Colleen. Notes from the first visit say, “Seems not to have, or desire much, interaction
with the cooperating teacher about the student teacher.” Notes from the second visit

conclude with the simple statement, “Cooperating teacher had no involvement.” The fact

61

that Brad was not included, or involved, in the interactions that took place on site during
the field supervisor’s visits may even support a hypothesis that in some cases,
relationships for learning may not even exist on some levels within the triad.

I carefully examined transcripts of the interviews with Colleen to see if they
might reveal any insight into reasons why she did not seek input from Brad. In a few
instances, Colleen talks about being careful not to be critical of these situations because
these “institutions are kind enough to allow us to place a student teacher there.” It also
seems to me that Colleen makes a connection between being critical of Allen’s teaching
and being judgmental of the physical education program at the school.

I definitely do not like to, nor do I want to come across to this student teacher per

se, or the institutions that are kind enough to allow us to place a student teacher

there to be judgmental on the program. So I try not to be real critical, or even
critical, for that matter. I try to be constructive.

Colleen also makes careful reference to some situations, perhaps here or
elsewhere, when physical education, as it is taught in field work settings, may differ from
what she, experts, or the professional literature might suggest. She includes her hope that
student teachers will ultimately be able make good decisions about their own practice
once they enter the work force.

And here’s one of those tricky areas. I don’t mean this bad, but meeting the

expectations of the environment he [Allen] is in, where I would personally like

more emphasis on skill development.

Where it’s different, perhaps, ...is where there’s a setting that’s ...a little bit

contradicting to what I, as a supervisor, think should be done in a physical

62

education setting. And not only me, but based upon what experts in teacher
education say should be the key marks of a quality physical education. So those
kinds of contrasting things. I don’t exactly see what I perceive should be there,
and what the experts tell us. ...Like to see them [activities]related to benchmarks
and NASPE standards and guidelines. My role, I think, is to encourage the student
teacher to think beyond where they are then, and to be honest [about the] specific
environment they may be [in], and know what you want it to be like, and what
you plan for it to be like, and the environment that you create when you’re a
teacher and have the head positions in the school.

I am hoping that down the road, when Allen is in his job and his school, and he’s
in charge of each of his classes and the curriculum, I hope that he will think
broadly about the things that he’s doing now and what he might change or not
change for his future.

Seeing not many of them are really proficient in the skill, and wondering, in the
whole scheme of teaching physical education and the program here, and I’m
thinking about what are the goals of this lesson.

All of the above statements suggest to me that Colleen recognizes her

responsibility to walk carefully along the border between what is taking place in the

schools and what might be happening in schools if the curriculum and teaching practices

were more aligned with the professional literature, physical education instruction as it is

being taught on university campuses, or promoted as best practice. During follow-up

interviews, Colleen talked about the lack of skill proficiency on the part of the students,

the lack of skill instruction, and the lack of instructional goals in Allen’s teaching.

63

However, she framed her criticism within the context of “the whole scheme of teaching
physical education and the program here.” And Allen, in response to a somewhat critical
question from Colleen about the value of the activity for certain students, says, “Yep, but,
you know, it’s a unit they do here.” And he goes on to say, “It’s one of those games that
they play and that they teach, and so we go with it.” The caution that Colleen exhibits
navigating the boundary between what is and what she might like to see may provide one
possible explanation for her lack of interaction with Brad, and it may also contribute to
what I consider her “safe” conversations with Allen during their post-observation
conference.

Situated Cognition Theory discusses a shared cognitive framework for learning
within communities of practice. Colleen talks briefly about the placement for student
teachers, and what she looks for:

I’m comfortable with a position used as a placement if the student teacher had an

opportunity to learn, to be able to teach, and if the cooperating teachers provide

feedback to the student teachers, are happy to have one, and allow the student
teacher to, at least at some point, to step out on their own, too.

Colleen did express some frustration just prior to this statement about not having
more control of student teacher placements. She also suggests that as long as the
cooperating teachers are willing to work with the student teacher within the expected
roles of the field placement protocol, give them opportunity to teach, give feedback, and
allow them to step out on their own, then they would be considered satisfactory
placements. She makes no mention of a shared perspective on quality physical education,

quality teaching, or some level of physical education expertise. The willingness to take

64

on a student teacher and to allow them to practice teaching using the school’s students,
and to give some feedback appeared to be the primary criteria for acceptable placements.

A second key construct of Cognitive Apprenticeship includes learning in the
context of authentic activity. While engaged in the activities of practice, I observed an
apprentice who was placed on his own to do the work. While it is hard to know for
certain how this plays out between Allen and Brad when Colleen is not present, the lack
of interaction between Colleen and Allen while Allen was engaged in the authentic
activity of practice is inconsistent with learning through Cognitive Apprenticeship. The
teacher education activity which I observed in this setting did not occur within authentic
activity of practice, but took place between Colleen and Allen after practice work had
been completed. Furthermore, since much of learning to teach takes place on university
campuses, the authentic activity of practice takes place far removed from the shop.

Finally, a situated framework claims that learning takes place within
“communities of practice”, which exist among groups of individuals who possess shared
cognitive frameworks, engage in common practice, have a shared understanding of the
problems and issues associated with practice, and share professional values, interests, and
sense of passion. So we must ask if Allen, Brad and Colleen were acting as, or within, a
shared community of practice?

Since all share an understanding of physical education at some level beyond the
“man on the street,” content knowledge seems to make a reasonable contribution to a
shared cognitive framework. Teacher education in physical education is also shared as a
common purpose for the gathering of these three individuals. However, when the term

“shared” is given greater emphasis, evidence of thin relationships, concerns for lack of

65

communication, and uncertain expectations suggest that the lack of a shared cognitive

framework seems to be a problem in this setting. Brad provides evidence for this once

again when he says:
I think it’s important that somehow there’s a common ground for all of the people
involved and that we’re not three islands that is [sic] dealing with each other on a
hit and miss situation, where we see each other occasionally. I just think somehow
if we can develop a system where there is more interaction amongst the three of
us, whether that is via e—mail, or phone, or whatever, I think that would be
advantageous, rather than just the three or four visits that the supervising teacher
has. I think there could be more communication in between those, and prior to. I
think that would be very, very helpful. I think the supervising teacher and the
cooperating teacher, if they have some type of connection, or an understanding of
what’s expected, I think that would be very helpful for the student teacher, and for
the overall experience.

And repeating a statement referenced earlier:
I would like us to be working together, that some of the terminology and some of
the things that they are talking about there, some of the things they are looking for

are things that I could talk to my cooperating teacher, or my student teacher with.

Although Brad expressed concern for greater communication about expectations,
roles, ways he might help, etc., a careful review of the transcripts of conversations with
Colleen provides little evidence that she has a similar concern.

Participation in common practice is a second major characteristic of a community

of practice. Looking at the activities of day-to-day practice that each member of this

66

triad engages in raises the question, what qualifies as common practice? Engagement
with a common body of knowledge, in this case, physical education knowledge would
not qualify as common practice. Does teaching teachers qualify as the same practice as
engaging in the authentic education of students in the K-12 setting? Brad provides some
insight into his possible perspective when he says:
I would hope they are learning specific things [at the university]. I call them book
work, specific things that we are teaching and following through here. The field
work here is so important. I think there are people that can be very successful and
talented, and understand what to do. . .but ultimately this business is about
relationships, and in some regards common sense in dealing with situations, and
that’s where the field work comes and is very important. So, I think a supervising
teacher probably can see a student in one way, possibly if they have them in the
classroom, but it could be very different out on the field in how people react and
handle [situation] and teach in front of people.
Colleen also made an indirect reference to the differences in practice between her
and Brad when she said:
I’m not in the trenches. I haven’t been there day in and day out for one, two,
three, four five, ten, fifteen years. So, I can always think about what I might do
differently, and then I can think of what I see that I like that they’re doing, but I
try to be.
These comments, made by the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor,

demonstrate their respective beliefs which they do not exercise in common practice.

67

However, if they are not members of a shared community of practice, perhaps
being considered “allied practices” would be both reasonable and useful. Perhaps it
would provide legitimate and important reasons to come together for interactions around
associated frameworks that might interact in important ways within their respective
practices. If such a “community of allied practices” was recognized, it seems to me that
deliberate interactions and conversations among members of such allies could be used as
a springboard for improvement.

Finally, a community of practice has a shared understanding of the issues and
concerns related to practice. It also possesses shared interests, values and passion related
to the practice. (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Intuitively, some level of shared understanding
of the issues and concerns related to the practice of teaching physical education likely
exists among the individuals in this triad. However, the differences among them also
became evident on a few occasions. Examples of values that may not have been shared
appeared in Allen’s interviews when he stated, “. . .even if she didn’t like it, I’d do it
anyway.” And in another context, “Then I stepped back and made sure I didn’t do that as
much because she doesn’t want me to, but if I go back today, I’d probably go right back
out there [and do it again], because that’s my style a little bit compared to hers.” In this
case, Allen expressed his disagreement with engaging in a teaching behavior that Colleen
valued, but he saw as less important. He simply suggested that when she was not present
he had a greater tendency to teach in the way he valued, even if those ways might be

different than what his supervisor would prefer to see.

68

Summary

In the few hours at Darion Junior High School spent observing physical education
and teacher education as practiced by this triad, I concluded that I had observed both
conventional physical education teaching and typical supervision. Early on, I formed the
impression that the interaction in the triad was in various ways thin, with communication
both lacking and missing among various members of the triad. I also found that I could
not, as I had expected to do, render what I had observed in the terms of Situated
Cognition Theory and Cognitive Apprenticeship.

I did see a student practicing his teaching in an authentic school setting with real
children, and I did see activity that was consistent with the traditional teacher education
framework. However I did not see a student teacher learning to teach while engaged in
the authentic activities of practice work. I did not see the teacher education triad
interacting in ways that seemed to demonstrate relationships that were balanced, useful
for teaching and learning, and that suggested their participation in shared community of
practice as defined in the literature. I will return to these matters after presenting activity

in the other triad.

69

Chapter 4

ELLEN, FRANK, AND GINA

The second case study took place at Handley School, a private and non-religious
K-8 institution located in a rapidly growing suburban area of a Northern Midwestern
state. The school is one a many associated schools within a national network, extending
over a large geographic area. With approximately 600 students, the population of
Handley consisted of predominantly upper-middle class, Caucasian families. The student
teacher, Ellen, worked with Frank, her cooperating teacher, and was supervised by Gina,
her university assigned field supervisor.

Frank, the physical education and cooperating teacher, was a male with six years
of experience teaching K—8 physical education. In addition to his teaching responsibilities
at Handley, Frank was responsible for the in-service training of all of the physical
education teachers entering the rather large school system. In our initial interaction
regarding his participation in this study, Frank said he wanted to participate in the hope
that information gleaned from this study would help him become more effective in his
work as both a physical educator and teacher trainer.

Ellen, the student teacher, was an education major, in the process of completing
her requirements for K-12 physical education teacher certification at a small, private,
local university. She had just completed an elementary education field placement in a
second grade classroom at Handley, and was only a week or two into her physical
education fieldwork experience. Ellen seemed pleased with her experience in the second
grade classroom, and although she appeared confident and excited about moving into the

gymnasium, she seemed open to teaching in either setting.

70

Gina, the university-assigned field supervisor, was also the primary physical
educator teacher educator in a rather small physical education department at her
university and had a strong reputation among her colleagues at the university and among
the people I know in the field. She was taught nearly all of the physical education teacher
education courses taken by the department’s majors. Gina’s supervision responsibilities
were limited to the majors from the physical education department. She was also
responsible for conducting two seminars for the physical education student teachers over
the course of the student teaching semester. Gina’s career as a physical education
professional included teaching experience at the elementary and college level.

Initial Observations

Upon my initial visit, Ellen, the student teacher, and Frank, the cooperating
teacher, seemed to interact in a comfortable and business-like way. They had not known
each other personally or professionally prior to Ellen’s assignment to Handley School.
Because Ellen had just finished a student teaching assignment in a 2"d grade classroom at
Handley, it is very likely that she had some contact with Frank regarding her subsequent
placement with him. Gina and Frank, on the other hand, met face to face for the first
time when Gina arrived for this first supervision visit. The interaction between Frank and
Gina appeared relaxed and friendly, and seemed characterized by mutual respect.

It was very clear from the comfortable interactions between Ellen and Gina that
they knew each other quite well. Since Gina was the primary faculty member responsible
for the physical education coursework in the K-12 teacher education physical education
program at the university, she had encountered Ellen as a student in several courses prior

to this. In later interviews with each of them, both stated that the physical education

71

majors at their small university sometimes feel as though they are “majoring in Dr.
Gina.” Ellen indicated on more than one occasion that she had a great deal of respect for
Gina, and was very comfortable engaging in conversations with her during their post-
observation conferences. Ellen suggested that she was quite certain what Gina would be
looking for when she came to supervise, and likewise, Gina indicated that she had a fairly
clear idea of what she would see when she came to observe Ellen’s teaching.

On my two visits, the basic sequence of events, the structure of Ellen’s teaching,
and the types of interactions that occurred between her and Gina were very similar, with
the exception of one significant event during the first visit that will be described in the
following section.

Gina ’s First Visit

When Gina arrived for her first visit, she and Ellen engaged in casual and
comfortable conversation. They talked in rather general terms about how things were
going, discussed job searches and opportunities, and Ellen’s job interviews.

At one point Gina asked Ellen what grade level she would be teaching and how
the kids were responding to the warm weather that was accompanying the springtime
change in climate. Ellen told Gina that she would be observing a first grade class, and
also mentioned that it was one of the louder classes. Gina responded in a way that
appeared to be supportive and understanding, suggesting that the warmer weather tended
to make kids louder anyway. Then, with barely a pause in the conversation, Gina said,
“Hey, congrats on getting an interview already.” A brief interaction surrounding Ellen’s
upcoming interview ensued and then quieted to a whisper as first graders began to enter

the gymnasium for Ellen’s class. At that point Gina said she would get out of Ellen’s

72

way, and moved toward Frank’s office. As Ellen began interacting with the students who
had seated themselves on their spots on the floor, she took a moment to tell the students
about the extra people in the room before proceeding through her lesson.

In the meantime, Frank and Gina exchanged greetings and began getting to know
one another. When Gina first arrived, Frank had been busy with teaching—related tasks.
Field notes indicate that their first interaction had been a brief and almost obligatory
greeting, but as Ellen began to teach, Frank stopped his work and engaged Gina in more
extended greeting and social conversation. At that point, he re-introduced himself to
Gina, asked about her background, specifically asking if she was a “PE person”. Gina
responded that PE was indeed her area, and immediately began telling Frank about an
opportunity to teach PE at her daughter’s preschool that she had recently taken. Frank
responded by explaining his role as a physical education teacher trainer for the school
system, and how he had aspirations to work as a university supervisor.

As students began to enter the gym, the conversation between Frank and Gina
paused a moment as Ellen stopped to ask Gina if she needed to talk to the kids at all. Gina
acted a bit surprised at the question and said, “No, not at all.” A few moments later, Gina
and Frank engaged in a brief, light-hearted interaction as Ellen moved toward the
students to begin teaching her lesson.

As Ellen began teaching, Gina and Frank continued talking in a whispered tone.
Their conversation carried them through the first few minutes of Ellen’s teaching. At one
point in their conversation, a student briefly interrupted to talk to Frank. It appeared that
he referred the student to Ellen, because the student then approached her. Approximately

5-7 minutes later Frank left Gina in the bleachers and moved to his office located off of

73

the gymnasium. For the majority of the remaining class period, Gina sat in the bleachers
and alternated between observing and taking notes.

After briefly warming-up the first graders, Ellen moved into the content of her
lesson—striking, where the students were learning to hit a ball with a batloff of a tee. On
only one occasion during her teaching did Ellen consult with Gina regarding what was
occurring in the gymnasium. At one point during Ellen’s lesson, Gina left the bleachers
to remind a group of students to stand further away from the batter so they wouldn’t get
hurt. Gina later laughed when referring back to this incident during her follow-up
interview, recalling that the students did move away but they also went and sat in the
bleachers as if she had told them they couldn’t play anymore.

Ellen taught batting off of a tee in a way I would consider appropriate. First, she
captured the students’ attention with a rather loud demonstration. Then she organized
students into groups and gave them instructions for practicing. She had each group take
turns hitting three to five balls off the tee. Other group members retrieved batted balls and
helped place them back on the tee for the batter.

Over the next several minutes students continued to take turns practicing striking
and appeared to be attempting to practice using the format Ellen had taught them,
although there seemed to be some confusion on the part of the students. My field notes
indicate that for several minutes of practice there appeared to be some uncertainty among
the students about things like what to do next and how to take turns, but overall, they
seemed to be doing as well as might be expected with Ellen’s instructions and how much
they were able to figure out. When the time to practice batting was over, Ellen asked the

students to put equipment away and join her around the circle in the center of the gym.

74

As she was trying to get the students back to the circle and seated on the line, they were a
bit off-task and un—organized, but they eventually put all the equipment away and sat
where Ellen had asked.

At that point in Ellen’s lesson, another kind of “striking” event occurred. As the
students were slowly getting seated around the circle as Ellen had asked, Frank came out
of his office, into the gym and approached Ellen and the class. He then asked Ellen if he
could “take over the group.” Ellen obliged, and moved over to the bleachers and sat next
to Gina. Frank addressed the class, essentially telling them how disappointed he was
with the way they had conducted themselves while Ellen was teaching. He told them that
he never had to take a class away from a student teacher before, and that he was
especially disappointed with them because they had misbehaved while there were guests
(Gina and I) in the building. After verbally reprimanding the students for their behavior,
Frank went over a few housekeeping details with the students regarding ongoing school
events and then dismissed the class. Meanwhile, to my eye, Ellen was sitting with Gina,
looking a bit uncomfortable and possibly embarrassed about what had happened. Gina
appeared to be reassuring Ellen that it was okay.

After the students left the gym, Frank and Ellen approached Gina and I to
apologize for the behavior of the students. During this interaction Frank said that
“they’re good kids, but that they just can’t listen.” He also stated how unfortunate it was
that he had to get upset in order to get them to listen. In response to the children’s
behavior and Frank’s apology, Gina made a brief reference to how classes can get a
personality and assured Ellen that it was okay. Otherwise, Gina appeared to intentionally

downplay this entire event by moving the conversation on to other topics. Nothing more

75

was said about it until Gina and Ellen talked about it later in their post-observation
conference.
Post Observation Conference

Gina and Ellen then went to Frank’s office for their post-observation conference
which lasted approximately 40 minutes. While Gina and Ellen were conferencing, Frank
went on teaching the next scheduled classes. What follows is a summary of the recorded
conversation between Gina and Ellen during their post-observation conference.

Their conversation began as Gina asked Ellen whether she or Frank had planned
the lesson. Ellen responded that at this point she was teaching the lessons that Frank
wanted her to teach, in the way that he teaches them. Then she showed Gina the written
seating chart that Frank used to teach. Their discussion moved to different ways of
writing lesson plans as they briefly compared Frank’s way to what they had talked about
in class.

Their topic of conversation then shifted to the jogging and running that had taken
place at the beginning of class and how the distance or time progression worked for the
different grade levels. They also talked briefly about the exercises the students did at the
beginning of each class. Then Gina returned to their earlier conversation about lesson
planning, and explained how the student teacher usually follows whatever the
cooperating teacher has in place. Then Gina asked Ellen if she liked starting class the way
that Frank started his classes with formal attendance, exercise and running. Ellen
responded by talking about how the running seems to work well, but also discussed how

she might do some things differently. She also reinforced the fact that “the running is

76

good and they [students] like it, and that she was surprised how much they “really like
it!”

They discussed other warm-up options Frank used in the middle school and how
those compared with what they had talked about in class. Gina then pointed out how
Frank’s warm-ups relate to what they had talked about in class. She specifically
referenced a comment made by one of Ellen’s classmate who claimed that the
independent type warm-up that Frank used with his middle school students would not
work. Ellen and Colleen agreed that it seemed to work just fine for Frank. They
pondered starting class with a few minutes of free time, and what “free time” really
means. Then they talked about Frank’s attendance taking procedure, how he used it to
record things like whether or not students are wearing the correct shoes and whether
students were dressed appropriately. They also talked about various ways to take
attendance at different grade levels. Gina expressed concern about the amount of time it
takes to take attendance and the fact that Ellen can decide how to do that when she gets
her own job.

Then Gina asked Ellen what she thought of the lesson overall. Ellen responded
by talking about being embarrassed when Frank took over, how this class hadn’t done the
activity before, and how they didn’t respond the way Ellen had expected. They then
worked their way backward through Ellen’s lesson to find out where she started to lose
the attention of her students. Ellen brought up the differences in voice and demeanor
between herself and Frank and talked about how she might have to teach differently, and
what that might look or sound like. Gina reinforced the idea that Ellen may need to adjust

her tone of voice and demeanor a bit to get the students’ attention more readily.

77

Their discussion then moved to the behavior of the students. They talked about
which student behaviors are tolerable and which ones are not, what to ignore and what to
address, and the fact that kids multi-task and move around while they are listening. They
talked about Ellen’s effective visual demonstration of the skill in a way that captured the
students’ attention. They talked about the practice activity, where Ellen had found it,
whether it was good, how it might be modified, and Ellen’s general paranoia with having
Kindergartners swinging bats and hitting balls off of tees. Ellen and Gina talked about
how modified equipment can make some activities safer or more age-appropriate. They
considered how the kids had executed the skill and the cues Ellen had used to teach the
skill. Gina challenged Ellen to think about the most common errors the kids were making,
and after agreeing that the error was missing the ball, they discussed strategies Ellen
could use to help fix the students’ mistakes. They talked about using a re-grouping
strategy to bring students back together to some sort of group formation to address
common errors with everyone together.

Ellen then talked about issues she had with the activity. She immediately
mentioned that she thought too many students were sitting around. Gina talked about
taking turns when practice was organized in the way that Ellen had used. She stated that
personally she doesn’t care for that particular format, mostly because of the lines and the
time spent waiting. However, she also tried to be realistic about space needs to do the
activity safely, and the fact that due to the weather, they couldn’t really go outside yet.

I Then Gina asked Ellen if she had a closure planned for the lesson, even though
she didn’t get a chance to use it because Frank took over the class. They talked about it

briefly, and Gina reminded Ellen that Frank had apologized mostly for the students’

78

behavior, and that the students are going to treat Frank differently anyway. Then they
spent a few minutes talking about the second grade classroom experience that Ellen had
recently completed.

Their conversation then returned to Ellen’s batting activity and how she might
have been able to improve the logistics of the whole lesson. They talked briefly about
some management issues in the class, and how Ellen had asked the students to critique
their own behavior at the end of class.

Conversation returned momentarily to use of learning cues to teach the skill. Gina
assured Ellen that she appreciated being able to see someone teach a skill successfully,
and mentioned that she would rather have to help fix a few management problems than
send someone out there who can’t teach content well.

They spoke briefly once again about voice projection and enthusiasm while
teaching and smiling more. Gina told Ellen that she would find it easier to work on that
when she is in the gym by herself, and Gina pointed out that the extra adults in the gym
can make it more difficult. Together they talked about getting nervous before teaching,
and Gina reminded Ellen that she still gets nervous before facing a class for the first time.

After reviewing several smaller details regarding the student teaching experience,
Gina reminded Ellen of the due dates for the completion of Ellen’s paperwork related to
the observation and made arrangements for Ellen to pick up the write-up that Gina would
complete later. They discussed writing a portfolio, and Gina gave Ellen a little advise in
that regard. They also talked for several more minutes about interviews, how to get ready,
and what to expect. They then talked about Ellen’s husband and his job, and where they

wanted to end up living and working.

79

As their post-observation conference came to a close, Ellen mentioned that later
in the day she would be going back to the second grade classroom she had been in earlier
in the semester to attend their awards ceremony. At that point, Gina said goodbye as
Ellen went outside to join Frank and the class he was working with outdoors. Gina stayed
on-site for the stimulated recall interview, and then left with no further interaction with
either Ellen or Frank.

Gina ’s 2"d Visit

Gina’s second visit was similar to the first in the pattern and sequence of events
that unfolded, except there was not a notable event like the one that occurred during the
first visit when Frank took over the class. As before, Frank appeared to busy taking care
of teaching- related details when Gina arrived. He greeted her briefly, and continued with
his work. Again, once Ellen started teaching, Frank took a seat next to Gina in the
bleachers to engage in conversation. One of Frank’s early comments to her was, “You’ll
find that this class is much more well-behaved.” This seemed to be a reference to the
notable experience during the first visit. Conversation between the two of them continued
for a few minutes as they also observed Ellen’s teaching. Then Frank got up and went to
his office. There was no further contact between Frank and Gina.

Ellen’s teaching followed the same basic pattern as the first visit. Students
entered the gym and sat on their spots on the floor. Ellen took attendance, led a brief
warm-up, and then started the students running or jogging around the gym. After they
returned to their spots, Ellen told the students that they were going to be working on

hopping and jumping. She taught them a few of the key components of jumping, did a

80

demonstration, and then engaged them in a guided practice activity that included jumping
and hopping the width of the gym.

After a few minutes of practice, Ellen brought the class to one end of the gym to
teach them the applied activity that she had planned, which asked students to use their
imaginations to hop and jump from lily pad to lily pad (rubber spots) without getting
caught by the fish (other children carrying rubber fish). During the applied activity, it
appeared that the way Ellen had set-up the activity made it difficult for students to
execute the motor skills in the ways that Ellen had just taught them. The distance
between lily pads was short, and the students appeared far more concerned about moving
quickly from lily pad to lily pad than they were about correctly performing the locomotor
skills Ellen had taught.

As the applied activity continued, it appeared that Ellen was attempting to work
through some of the problems that had arisen and making adjustments as she saw fit.
After students participated in the game for approximately 10-12 minutes, Ellen brought
the students back to the center circle to be seated and concluded the class by reviewing
some cues for hopping and jumping. Then she dismissed the class back to their
classroom.

As before, Gina and Ellen held their post-observation conference in Frank’s
office, out of my presence, and lasted about 40-45 minutes. Frank began teaching the
next class of students.

Post-Observation Conference
The post-observation conference between Gina and Ellen began with comments

and laughter about the use of the song, “Who Let the Dogs Out,” that Frank was using to

81

get the next class started with their running. Then they talked briefly about the benefits of
using music while teaching. They laughed together while recalling a college student in
one of the classes Ellen had taken from Gina who had selected a song with inappropriate
lyrics for his peer teaching lesson on campus, and received plenty grief about it
afterward.

Their conversation continued with a brief discussion of the management strategies
Ellen had used to get the students to listen. Gina then asked Ellen how she had been
feeling about her teaching since the last time they saw each other. Ellen responded that
she was loving it and was feeling comfortable, and also added that she was finding the
middle school kids a bit more challenging because she was not used to that age, but that
it was getting better. They talked for a few minutes about the differences between
teaching the different age groups. Then Gina asked Ellen if she would take a high school
job and Ellen responded by saying that, “A job’s a job,” but also mentioned that she
would be very nervous if it wasn’t elementary or middle school. Gina assured Ellen that
she would keep watching for job openings for her.

Gina then told Ellen that she “wrote a few little ideas, just little things down to
share” with her. She told Ellen that she looked comfortable, the students seemed to
listen, and then brought up Ellen’s lesson closure, wondering if Frank did a closure
around the circle like she had done. It seemed to me that Gina was interested in knowing
if Ellen was still replicating Frank’s procedures and using his lessons, or using her own.
Ellen said that that Frank had told her that he had started out the year doing that type of

closure at the end of class, but he had stopped doing it around the middle of the year.

82

Gina reaffirmed the value of good closure to the lesson as a way to wrap-up the lesson
and also to settle the kids down before sending them back to their classroom.

The next thing they talked about was the running at the beginning of class, and
how to teach the younger kids the concept of pacing themselves while they are running.
Gina said that she was glad to see Ellen use cues while she was teaching the locomotor
skills, and talked about the importance of including a demonstration of a mature form of
each skill and whether or not students should be used for those demonstrations if they
don’t have the mature form yet. They talked briefly about some other strategies to use
while teaching locomotor skills.

At this point in their conversation Gina noticed the Exemplary Physical Education
Curriculum (EPEC) materials on the shelves in Frank’s office and asked Ellen if Frank
used the EPEC materials in his teaching. Ellen said that he didn’t, but that had told her
that at one time the whole school system was going to get trained and start using it, but
that ended up falling through. They talk briefly about the pros and cons of EPEC.

Gina returned the conversation to Ellen’s teaching of locomotor skills during her
lesson. She complimented Ellen on some of the things she was doing well while teaching
the skills. She talked about Ellen’s use of learning cues and her decision to adjust the
spacing of the lily pads to make the game better. They talked briefly about incorporating
some additional cues and how Ellen should be a bit more forthright and deliberate with
the kids about the differences between hopping and jumping.

As their interaction continued, Gina and Ellen talked briefly about a variety of
topics. Gina complemented Ellen on her screening of students’ questions by asking, “Is

this a story or a question?” They talked about some of the strategies for equipment use

83

with the skills that Ellen was teaching, and how she could plan carefully for the details of
the game so that it would be played, and promote the skills, in the way she intended.
They talked for a few more minutes about the details of the game, how the game played
itself out, some of the difficulties students had with maintaining the correct movement
patterns for the skills, and even talked about getting the students to do some “critical
thinking” related to the game they were playing. They discussed easy ways to assess her
students’ skills by just carrying a clipboard and observing and taking notes while students
are engaged in activity. They also talked about skill deterioration during applied
activities, and about having students participate in applied activities too soon before
students have the necessary skills. Gina also made a brief reference to these same
problems sometimes being visible in high school physical education programs. Gina then
encouraged Ellen to have a reason or focus for game play on any given day, and the
balance between skill development and game play at the different age levels. Gina
included just a few words about using a movement education approach to the teaching of
motor skills.

Their conversation then moved to more general topics of the student teaching
experience. They talked about the paperwork that Gina would be completing for Ellen,
who needed to receive the various copies, etc. Then they spent a few minutes talking
about Ellen’s other supervisor from the College of Education who also came to observe.
Ellen said that “she was doing a good job, and she was fine,” and also mentioned that she
had done a locomotor skill lesson when the other supervisor had been present, and the

supervisor had said that she had experience teaching locomotor skills to children with

84

learning disabilities. They talked about the fast approaching end of the school year, about
Ellen substitute teaching for a few days, and her coming back to help with field day.

Their conversation then turned to the busyness of life and teaching with all its
associated tasks and requirements. Ellen shared her impression that the “actual teaching
of kids is the easy part.” They agreed that some of the best ideas just pop into your head
while you’re in the middle of teaching and talked about using stuff the kids want to do,
like being ‘it’ in tag games, as motivation for them to be quiet and listen to instructions.
Gina reassured Ellen that “the longer you teach, the more little things you pick up.”

They talked about whether or not they were each going to the State Physical
Education Conference, about the importance of physical education in schools, and what
the potential expansion of Handley School would mean to its teachers and programs.
Before bringing their conversation to a close, they once again talked briefly about
interviews and job possibilities for Ellen.

As with the first post-observation conference, the conversation between Gina and
Ellen was quite rich with detail and included a broad range of topics related to what Gina
had observed in Ellen’s teaching, and other general topics related to physical education.
They also discussed life and Ellen’s career plans. Gina’s interaction with Ellen was both
personal and professional, consistent with Gina’s previously expressed belief that Gina
that building relationships is an important part of what she does.

First Impressions

My first impression of Handley was that the physical education program there

appeared to be very structured and was taking place in a fairly routine and typical way.

The members of the student teaching triad all seemed to be well-meaning individuals,

85

committed to and passionate about their work, and invested in their roles and
responsibilities. The relationships among the three members of the triad seemed friendly
and mutually respectful. Their relationships also seemed somewhat formal and business-
like, which may be partially explained by the fact that Gina and Frank had never met
prior to Gina’s first visit.

My perceptions of this triad were influenced by an earlier interaction with Frank.
When I had stopped at his school to introduce myself and briefly discuss his possible
involvement in the study, he had talked very openly and passionately of his lingering
negative feelings regarding his own experiences in both undergraduate teacher education
and with the in-service training that accompanied his current employment. In later
interviews, he again spoke about those negative experiences and said that he drew on
them in his work as a physical educator and as a teacher trainer.

The roles and relationships that were being played out among all three members
of this triad were accentuated by what I perceived to be a passion that each exhibited
toward his or her respective work and responsibilities. Frank seemed equally passionate
about his work as a K-12 physical educator and his role as the K-12 physical education
teacher trainer for his school system. Gina seemed invested in her work as a university
field supervisor and also in the life of the student teacher, Ellen, whom she had been
working with for the past four years.

Ellen displayed confidence in her work with both Gina and Frank. In one of her
follow-up interviews, Ellen said, “I am confident that I am doing what I am supposed to
be doing, as far as instruction, and she [Gina] told me that, too." When Ellen was asked

where her confidence came from, she said, “Classes, I guess... [Gina’s] classes, pretty

86

much, that’s where a lot of the ...So there’s just that, then the experience I’ve had
teaching as much as I have in here. I know the kids are learning. I know that they’re
understanding the feedback and stuff like that.”

I had the impression that Frank was attempting to step forward as the expert when
it came to both teaching K-l2 physical education and providing useful, quality physical
education teacher training for Ellen. Once again, to me, this seemed to be a matter of
pride for Frank and an expression of his genuine desire to provide new teachers with
experiences that were better than those that he had experienced in his past. I never felt
that Frank intended, in any way, to undermine or overlook Gina’s role in this setting.

Observing Frank take control of the class that Ellen was teaching during Gina’s
first visit was quite different from anything I had observed in my past supervision
experiences, and was certainly striking. However, I had no reason to suspect any motive
for Frank’s actions beyond his own explanation that, “We hold students to a higher
standard, so that’s why we reacted the way we did.” (I find the use of the pronoun “we”
to be interesting in the context of all that had taken place.) During the follow-up
interview with Frank, he talked about both the incident and his interaction with Gina
about the incident. He was apologetic that it occurred, mostly for the behavior of the
students, and stated how it was “unfortunate that he had to get upset with them to get
their attention.” Frank also spoke about the incident in this way during his follow-up
interview:

Her observation was that they were fine, and I mentioned that she was probably

right. There probably were schools out there that were worse than what you saw

here, but again, our expectations are higher. I commented to her that I don’t know

87

if the expectations we have at our school are going to help for student teachers or

hurt them....So, as far as that goes, supervision wise, we just talked about the fact

that she felt it was fine and I felt it wasn’t, so.

My first impression of Ellen’s teaching was that she seemed to be working hard to
teach in the ways she had been taught to teach, and seemed to be doing an adequate job—
for a novice. Even with the incident involving Frank taking over, Ellen’s first lesson
seemed to go reasonably well. The second lesson seemed to have been planned without
considering some important details that would impact the students’ abilities to
successfully participate in the applied activity while practicing skills in the intended way.
My field notes for the second lesson indicate that at times and in some ways it was
“painful to watch”. This said, Ellen seemed to me to be struggling in ways that student
teachers typically struggle; having difficulty providing an activity that reinforced the
movement patterns as taught, and failing to be responsive to what wasn’t working well by
making the necessary adjustments, all the while dealing with management issues related
to the activity the students were engaged in. Overall, Ellen seemed to be doing an
adequate job.

My early impression of Gina and her supervision was that she was not only
invested in and passionate about her work, but that she also expressed a genuine interest
in the life and career of the young women she had come to observe. This was
demonstrated in conversations with Ellen that included Ellen’s family, her job search, and
Ellen’s husband’s employment. My impression of their mutual respect was verified in
both of their follow-up interviews. Gina’s interaction with Ellen during the post-

observation conferences was very full and included rich and in-depth discussions of a

88

variety of topics. Throughout their interaction, Gina made frequent references to ways
that Ellen’s work connected to what Gina had taught her in coursework on the university
campus. The length of the post-observation transcripts alone suggested that much was
being said about something during the interactions between Ellen and Gina.

Overall, the initial impressions I gathered from this field setting was centered on
the roles and relationships among the members of this triad. Both Gina, the university
supervisor, and Frank, the cooperating teacher, seemed to have strong personalities and
appeared to be very committed to their work and all that it entailed, and Ellen seemed to
be navigating the student teaching experience fairly smoothly.

It was noteworthy, however, that during one visit Ellen clearly expressed feelings
of being caught between her university supervisor and her cooperating teacher. She said,
“It’s supposed to be a triad, but it feels more like a line, with me in the middle.” With
these first impressions in mind, and Ellen’s clear description of something other than a
group of three individuals working together for a common purpose, I set out to discover
how the contents of interactions, interviews, and my field notes might inform my
understanding of how teacher education was taking place in this case.

A Closer Look—Interactions, Interviews, & Field Notes

As reported, my early impressions of the Handley trio were influenced by an
earlier encounter with Frank. The feelings he had expressed at that time appeared in both
of his follow-up interviews:

I always think back to when l was a student teacher and how poorly that was

handled with me. When I started teaching for my current school system, they do

this whole new teacher training process, and I went through it and I was very

89

unhappy with it. We really didn’t have a plan of action, nothing solid. So then

when they asked me to do it [lead new teacher training] a couple years later, I

jumped at the chance because I wanted to make the changes. I wanted to make it

better. So, I want the new teachers to come in with stuff that they can actually use.

Maybe a few lessons, some management tips, and things like that. Just so they

understand that as a new teacher, it can be scary, but it’s also only as scary as they

make it. If they’re in charge, and they set their expectations, they’ll be fine.

He made similar references in his second interview, saying:

I draw on my own personal experiences mostly. Looking back at how I was

trained as a new teacher in college, and when I just came out of college, I didn’t

feel I was really prepared well. I don’t know if that’s necessarily the university, or
the education, or the process. I don’t know what it was. I didn’t feel prepared, so
when I took on my own student teachers, I want to make sure that I prepare them.

So I draw on my knowledge of what didn’t get done to [help me decide]what I

want to do to help them.

Frank’s comments clearly reflected his lingering negative feelings about his past
experiences with teacher education and with teacher in-service training. Frank claimed to
use his memory of those negative experiences as motivation to do good work in his
current position. As you will see later, Frank considered himself a K-12 practitioner as
well as a teacher educator, and took both responsibilities very seriously. It did appear,
however, that Frank had developed a conception of the training of new teachers that was

largely based on the negative experiences from his past, although he also gave practical

90

consideration to the things that he felt might be most useful for the new teachers he
trained.
Dynamic Interactions

As I began to consider Frank’s perspective of the teacher education process as he
had come to know it and feel about it, I began to wonder whether or not he had expressed
any of those negative feelings to either Ellen or Gina. Although sharing such strong
feelings might not be a clear indication of how relationship building may have proceeded
among members of the triad, his willingness to share how he felt with the other members
of the triad might serve as an indicator pointing to the depth or quality of their
relationships.

First, I searched the contents of all of Frank’s conversations with Gina, but did not
find any place where Frank spoke with her about his negative teacher education
experiences or feelings regarding his past. Then I carefully searched the data to see if I
could find any documented conversations with Ellen that might reveal that she was aware
of Frank’s negative teacher education history or his feelings about that history. Although
this study did not provide insight into the interaction between Ellen and Frank when the
university supervisor and researcher were not present, a search of all transcripts where
Ellen or Gina were participants provided no indication that either was aware of the
negative experiences which had shaped Frank’s perspective on teacher education.

A close look at the interactions between Gina and Frank seem to reveal evidence
that might be construed as a mutual attempt to establish a meaningful relationship which
could be useful for building some form of a community of practice. Just moments after

meeting for the first time, the following conversation took place.

91

Frank: ...Now, are you a PE person?

Gina: Yes, that’s my area, as you can tell. I’m actually, I’m so excited. I’m
teaching preschool across town in the mornings on Fridays. Usually I don’t
have any block of time where I can go back out in the field, you know. You
know, when you’re a student you look at your professor and say, “When
was the last time you really taught?” And I was starting to feel like it had
been a while, and I wanted to do that. So, I got my Friday mornings and I
went to the preschool and volunteered to do that, so that’s been awesome,
so...

Frank: That is awesome. I am leaning towards, I train new teachers when they
come into our school system.

Gina: Oh, OK...

Frank: ...And I’m leaning towards the college aspect, you know, training, doing
what you do, sort of. I don’t know, I love being in this, but...

Gina: That’s how I feel, too. Every time I come and observe, or we bring home
school kids onto our campus for those guys to practice teach with those
kids and I watch them, I go, “Oh, I miss this...”

Frank: Yeah...

Gina: But I. .. (conversation ends as students begin entering the gym)

Gina and Frank had never met each other before this supervision visit, and this

interaction suggests to me that they are making an effort toward getting to know each
other both professionally and personally. It seemed that both were trying to be

recognized by the other as a legitimate participant in the work life of the other.

92

A few minutes later, a three-way interaction took place among the three-members
of the triad. It provided a small bit of insight into how each senior member began to play
his/her role within this set of relationships. Gina, appearing to me to be taking advantage
of her already comfortable and established relationship with Ellen provided some words
of support for Ellen that included some light-hearted teasing.

Gina: (reassuringly). . .you know, and I’ve said this in class before too, I’m not
here to look for what things you do wrong. I’m here so after we can talk
and you can share what you think’s going well and that. So don’t stress in
any way.

Ellen: Okay

Gina: (Jokingly, as Ellen walks by, while pointing at Frank) He’ll tell me all the
bad stuff you’re doing, when you’re teaching.

Frank: (in a serious tone) Don’t let these guys bother you. You’re doing a good
job, so just teach the way you teach.

Ellen: All right...

Gina seemed to be attempting to bring some levity to the situation. Frank stepped
in with a serious and protective tone of voice and an expression on his face, almost as if
to guard Ellen from Gina’s light-hearted ribbing. I was unable to determine if Frank’s
comment was intended to contribute to the levity or if he was trying to shift the
interaction back to a more serious and business-like tone. In either case, having just
received encouragement and support from both Frank and Gina, Ellen moved toward the
first graders who were awaiting her and began teaching. While Ellen was teaching, Frank

and Gina continued to engage in conversation as they sat in the bleachers observing from

93

just a few yards away. Transcripts reveal that Gina and Frank discussed the length of time
that Ellen had been working with Frank, and Gina also asked whether Ellen was teaching
using lessons she had planned herself or lessons that Frank had planned. This
conversation ran parallel to other conversations she had with both Frank and Ellen.

Gina: So she’s kind of taking over now. . .you’re letting her, from beginning to

end?
Frank: She did the week before...
Gina: Now, has she developed the lesson, like today’s lesson, or is she still trying
to follow what you’re...
Frank: (jumping in) Her set-up is my set-up because...
Gina: (jumping in). . .and she’s following the skill progression that you’re wanting
her to follow, and all that?

Frank: Because that’s the pattern that we’ve talked about...

Gina: Right. . .

Frank: She’s doing the things I had planned next, and after this...

Gina: She’s going to start planning her own lessons?

This line of conversation about the progression of Ellen’s planning and
teaching came to a close as Frank interacted briefly with a student who was
running past on the way to his office to get a Kleenex. Frank then got up, began to
move toward his office, and said to Gina, “I’m going to...” (It appeared he was
headed to his office.)

The preceding interactions might be interpreted as evidence that Frank and Gina

engaged in practical, clinical conversation about the progression of responsibilities

94

assigned to Ellen, including steps that would give her the freedom to plan and teach her
own lessons. This interaction also seemed to provide insight into how Frank’s desire to
see it done right may appear in his work with Ellen. In a follow-up interview, Frank said,
“I consider myself a professional, and a perfectionist, and I want it done right. I want to
teach people the right way, so...”

It is possible that Frank had intentionally chosen a teacher education strategy in
his work with Ellen that encouraged her to do it right, or his way, initially, before giving
Ellen the freedom to plan and teach it in another way. In the meantime, Gina appeared to
be negotiating opportunities for Ellen to learn to teach by struggling on her own; perhaps
even struggling in ways very similar to those that led to Frank’s negative memories from
his own teacher education experiences. This seems to be an instance of Gina needing to
carefully walk the border between Frank’s genuine concern for Ellen to teach correctly
and Gina’s desire to see Ellen attempt to teach in ways taught in university coursework
that might be different from Frank’s.

As an experienced university supervisor, I can say that this negotiation for the
freedom to do things differently than the cooperating teacher is often difficult territory for
my student teachers to navigate and this case seemed to reflect display that difficulty as
well. The conversation between Gina and Frank about who was planning the lessons may
have been intended to help Ellen in that respect. Ellen mentioned the differences between
what Gina might expect and what Frank might expect in her second interview when she
said, “[Gina has] taught me what I should be doing, so she knows the areas that. . .are
important, which they are. But they might be different than my cooperating teacher...

[he] does all those things, but it’s just different

95

During the post-observation conference, there also appeared to be some lack of
communication about expectations between Ellen and Frank, and perhaps even between
Gina and Frank. That was revealed in the following interaction.

Gina: He said after this unit you get to completely do your own unit, it sounds

like...

Ellen: He hasn’t said anything to me yet.

Gina: He mentioned, he goes, “She’ll be following my stuff for the rest of this

one, and then she can do whatever she wants.”

Ellen: Oh, OK. . .yeah, he didn’t tell me about that, so...

Gina: You’ll have to ask him about that, so you can be prepared for that...

Ellen: Yeah, I’ll have to figure that out.

This series of two-way conversations among three people, all with common goals,
may be the reason why Ellen felt like she was on a line with Frank on one end and Gina
on the other, instead of feeling like a triad. Other than the social interaction that occurred
at the beginning of Gina’s visits, I observe almost no three-way conversations between
Ellen, Gina, and Frank during Gina’s on-site visits. This absence of three-way
communication is discussed as a problem elsewhere in this study.

Thin Relationships & Role Uncertainty

The interactions between Gina, Frank and Ellen, as addressed in the previous
pages, seem to provide evidence that these three individuals were engaged in honest
efforts to provide teacher education for Ellen in ways that would benefit her. At the same
time, follow-up interviews present evidence that the set of relationships that developed

among them, particularly between Gina and Frank, appeared to be thin, lacking the

96

balance and reciprocity suggested by the use of the term “triad.”In follow-up interviews
Frank said,
We all feel disconnected from each other, but Ellen’s kind of in the middle of .it.
So, there’s not a lot of communication between myself and the university,
whereas she [Ellen] communicates with them, she communicates with me. I need
to communicate more with them, [and] they need to communicate more with me.
Frank’s use of the plural pronoun “they” in this context seems to present evidence
that this may be a pattern of communication that he has experienced before, instead of
something unique to his experience with Gina. Even with the communication that did
take place between himself and Gina during each of her visits, he still characterized their
communication as “inadequate” and their relationships as “disconnected.”

Frank continued by sharing his perspectives on the effectiveness of his
interactions with the university supervisors, suggesting how they could be carried out in
more meaningful ways. He said:

I think the supervising teacher, or university supervisor needs to cooperate with

me more. . . .Just to have them come in one time and observe like Gina did today,

that’s great. And then the supervisor is going to go on doing her thing and Ellen is
going to go continue to teach. I’m here every day, so I can give her constant
feedback on a daily basis, and let her know what she has improved on, and what

she still needs to work on....the role of the university is limited, I feel as if I’m

teaching Ellen how to be an effective physical education teacher. . .I’m not

teaching her content, I mean, that’s the university’s job there, but as far as, just

the nuances of becoming an effective teacher, I feel that’s my responsibility.

97

As someone who clearly wanted to be effective in his role as teacher educator,
Frank appeared to be talking in thoughtful ways about the relationship between his role
and the role of the university supervisor, and the division of labor in the teacher education
model, as he saw it. This included what he perceived as the roles and responsibilities for
those involved in the process. When asked directly what he believed to be the role of the
university supervisor, he reaffirmed his belief in the importance of his own role,
specifically in relationship to the university supervisor:
I think the supervising teacher or university supervisor needs to work with me
more so I can give then feedback on how [Ellen] is doing. If the university
supervisor doesn’t get any feedback from me, I don’t think she’s getting an
accurate read on the student teacher unless she cooperates with me.
That’s an excellent question, I mean, title-wise, she’s the professor, and she’s
Ellen’s teacher. Ultimately it’s my job to grade her, and the so-called professor is
going to take my evaluation and her two observations, and give her student a
grade. So, if I were the university I would put more stock in the cooperating
teachers report than I would in the professor’s report, just based on the number of
times that we see the student teacher teach. I mean, I don’t want to downplay her
role, it’s very important, but I just want to. . .make sure it’s understood that time-
wise, my job seems to be a little more important, because on a continual basis I’m
helping Ellen day-to-day, and if the university supervisor were to corroborate with
me more, and communicate with me more, I think we could fully help Ellen

develop into a good teacher.

98

The statements above support the perception that Frank sees his role as important
and primary in this setting, and seems to provide additional evidence that the influence of
the cooperating teacher is, as perceived by many, including Gina in this case, very
influential. Stopping short of calling himself the expert, Frank made multiple statements
suggesting that if the university would communicate with him and seek more of his input,
they would “get it right.”

...First option would be more communication with me, so I can let her know on a

regular basis what’s going on. The next option would be further communication

with Ellen personally, checking out Ellen’s lesson plans, ...and basically what it
boils down to is we all need to communicate effectively to make Ellen a better
teacher, or to move forward...

Although it’s possible to interpret Frank’s comments as implying that he is the
key to success in this process, given Frank’s high level of commitment, it seems more
likely that the statement above is simply a reinforcement of Frank’s passionate desire for
increased and higher quality forms of communication between himself and the university.
As I examined the transcripts of the two interviews that I conducted with Frank, on at
least six different occasions he expressed his wishes for better quality communication
with the university.

Finally, when asked about the strengths of the role being played by the supervisor,
Frank focused on two. First, he mentioned the variety of personal experiences that the
university supervisor may bring to the table, again referencing how he uses his negative

experiences. Second, he referenced the physical education background of this particular

university supervisor as a strength that allows all three of the triad members to engage in

99

“physical education speak” and be on the same page. When pressed further about what
he felt the role of the university supervisor to be, Frank responded that “[Gina] observes,
takes notes, and then makes some sort of judgment about Ellen’s effectiveness.”

Turning to interviews with Gina about the roles and relationships for learning as
she perceived them being played out in this setting, she reported a rather different
perspective. She expresses her perception of the university supervisor’s role in this way:

...We’re doing what we need to do on our end to produce someone who can do

what they need to do [to teach well, and] to make sure the student is ready to

move on and go out. Then, there’s some real specific things I look for. It sounds
like I’m talking right out of the literature, but, time on task, you know, teaching
cues, feedback, etc.. Is it specific and skill-related, management? As far as safety,

[it is also] a big thing. We did talk about that a little bit today too. . .Management

type issues, things like an instant activity when they come in, or something that’s

an introductory activity. Does the person include fitness or not? That’s a

philosophical thing, but I look at that and we talk about it a little bit. Closure at

the end, which she had a planned...it just didn’t end up [happening]. So yes, I’m

looking for a lot of those types of things.

When asked to talk about the differences between her role in the development of
the student teacher and the cooperating teacher’s role, Gina prefaced her response with,
“This is one where I’ll pull from my own experience, and I know this is true.” She
continued with:

I spend four or five years with those students, and that person in the gym makes

more of an impact on them. I think, a lot of times, [the cooperating teacher

100

impacts] the kind of teacher they’re really going to be, [more] than Iever will, at
least in the beginning. I look back now and... I remember learning, I still
remember the day that ‘whole-part-whole’ made sense to me for the first time. I
had heard it, and written it down on a test, and tried to do what I thought I was
supposed to do in classes, and then I was teaching and then, ‘Oh, that makes
sense.’ I tell my students sometimes in all these classes, it seems like a lot of
fragmented information to them, until they student teach, and that’s when they
make comments like, ‘Why don’t they just bring us in and let us student teach? I
learned more student teaching than I ever learned in college.’ I really don’t get
offended by that because I felt the same way when I was a student.

Gina seemed to acknowledge the importance of the cooperating teacher in

shaping the “kind of teacher they’re really going to be.” She also seemed to contend that

a great deal of effort is being expended on campus to educate students in ways that may

not have much of an impact or immediate effect. She goes on to say, however, that

although the fruits of classroom efforts may not be immediately visible, students may

recognize the benefits of their coursework once they move further into the authentic

practice of teaching.

When I inquired further as to why she feels that the cooperating teacher plays

such a large role by comparison, she responded with:

Well, one thing I would say is that my students rarely get to see, never, get to see
me teach kids. [Children] don’t look like [the students] I teach, and I guess I
always thought that would be like professors that make everybody buy their own

textbook to make money. You know, it would be like, ‘You all have to watch me,

101

how good I was when I taught, and [I] pull out my best lessons and make them

watch me or something. But me teaching college students in the gym, because I

always do demo lessons, ‘This is what you should be doing.’ That doesn’t really

show them what it looks like when you teach 28 first graders. So they don’t really
get to see me in that role, whereas, they’re really seeing... they’re in the trenches
with that cooperating teacher, and the book stuff is what they’re kind of relating
to the professor. Like, oh yeah, they kind of have the book knowledge, they taught
me this. . ..

With this statement Gina seems reject the notion that she is, or should be,
considered the master in the fieldwork setting. She suggests that her influence cannot
rival that of the cooperating teacher because her students never had the opportunity to see
her working with real kids, doing the real work of practice. Gina also seemed to lend
support to the idea that she works in a different shop than K-12 teachers, and even though
she may be highly effective in her work on campus, it still comes down to her ability to
demonstrate effectiveness in the authentic work of teaching school—and she
acknowledges that her students have not seen her be effective doing that work. Gina
made a clear indication that she believed her work takes place in a different shop.

I carefully examined the transcripts of interviews with Gina to discover how she
perceived her role and the roles of others. I went back to the transcripts of her post-
observation conferences with Ellen to gather a deeper understanding of what she was
actually doing in her role as university supervisor. As I looked at the interaction which
occurred between Gina and Ellen, I saw a great deal of discussion taking place on a wide

range of topics (as shown in the earlier summary of the post-observation conference

102

between Gina and Ellen). While combing through Gina’s post-observation conferences
with Ellen once again, I noticed that there was much going on here that looked like
teacher education, but it did not look like teacher education taking place through
Cognitive Apprenticeship in ways suggested by Situated Cognition Theory. Gina did not
come alongside Ellen while Ellen was engaged in the authentic practice of teaching.
Although, as Ellen verified in her interviews, Gina clearly engaged in meaningful
interaction with her about the teaching that she had just finished observing. Transcripts of
the post-observation conference between Gina and Ellen reveal that on at least four
occasions, Gina made direct reference to the teacher education experiences that the two
of them had shared in the university classroom and how they might be applied to this K-8
setting.

In follow-up interviews, Gina also emphasized the social aspects of learning to
teach. “The relationship you build with them is the biggest thing, so that they will feel
comfortable when you work with them.” She also mentioned that although it generally
doesn’t happen that way, she feels her role is also to do whatever she can to see that her
students are placed in good school settings, with good teachers. This once again
reinforced her belief that the cooperating teacher has a far greater impact on who the
student becomes as a teacher than anyone else the student teacher comes in contact with.

While examining Frank and Gina’s responses to the question which asked them to
explain the roles of the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor in the teacher
education as it unfolds in field work, I also began to see evidence that Frank and Gina
seemed a bit unsure about the actual role of the other. On two different occasions, Frank

spoke of the mechanical nature of Gina’s role—observing, taking notes, providing

103

feedback and assigning a grade. When Gina was asked what she believed to be the role of
the cooperating teacher, her answers repeatedly focused on the impact that the
cooperating teacher’s modeling had on the student teachers development.

I carefully searched the transcripts from both follow-up interviews with Gina,
trying to find a more detailed description of how Gina perceived the role of the
cooperating teacher. Although I offered her ample opportunities to say more, she
repeatedly emphasized the strong impact that the cooperating teacher has on the student
teacher. She often spoke of the degree to which student teachers model the cooperating
teacher’s behavior, and in one instance, also mentioned that sometimes the teaching
behaviors modeled by cooperating teachers may not be consistent with best practice. In
the latter case, she finished by expressing the hope that students possess the wisdom to
know the difference between the behaviors that reflect best practice and the ones that do
not, and that they are able to recognize the “things that they might want to do differently
when they get their own classroom.”

Summary

Given the claim of Situated Cognition Theory which states that learning takes
place through Cognitive Apprenticeships within communities of practice, this case
provided evidence that led me to three major conclusions. First, this case offered a
convergence of contextual factors that seemed to provide an excellent opportunity to
discover useful examples of field supervision and teacher education taking place in ways
that are supported by the Cognitive Apprenticeship framework for learning that Situated
Cognition theory provides. The university supervisor was closely linked to the student

teacher’s classroom based learning, the cooperating teacher possessed teacher education

104

 

experience as a result of his secondary role in his school system, and the student teacher
expressed an exceptional desire to make changes in her teaching as suggested by the
others. Second, despite the aforementioned interaction of contextual factors that
contributed in positive ways to the application of learning through Cognitive
Apprenticeship, it was still difficult to explain learning to teach, as it was taking place in
this case, using the terms of the theory. And third, while the factors that seemed to
converge in this case to produce an environment that might facilitate learning to teach in
the ways suggested by Situated Cognition Theory may be replicable on a few select
campuses, it is difficult to know with any degree of certainty whether those factors
appear with any kind of consistency within mainstream teacher education programs on

college or university campuses.

105

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

Entering this study, I had expected to use the language of Situated Cognition
Theory and Cognitive Apprenticeship to describe and interpret the activity of university
supervisors, student teachers and cooperating teachers engaged in teacher education field
work. Bringing the focus of my investigation to the work of the university supervisor, I
had also expected to report that content-specific knowledge and content-specific
pedagogy would play important parts in those interactions. As I began to carefully
consider all of what I had seen and heard during each visit to each school, and to
painstakingly transcribe all the interactions from each visit, I attempted to place all of it
within the framework of Cognitive Apprenticeship as described by Situated Cognition
Theory. As I carefully reviewed all that I had observed, and the transcripts of all that was
said during each visit, including post-observation conferences and all of the follow-up
interviews, I began to realize that the project I had intended to undertake in the beginning
might look a bit different in the end. I began to discover that what I had experienced in
each of these settings was not easily explained using the language of theory I had chosen.

Coming out of the study, I find that my attempt to describe the activities of these
cases in the terms of Situated Cognition Theory and Cognitive Apprenticeship has caused
me to learn more about what I didn’t see, than it did about what I did see. Stated another
way, it seemed that the theory I chose to provide the framework for an examination of
these two cases of teacher education fieldwork called less attention to what these cases
were, and more attention to what they were not. Situated Cognition claims that learning,

particularly learning in the context of practice work, takes place in certain ways that can

106

be described using specific theoretical terms. However, as I began the work of analyzing
and interpreting the data, never moving too far from this theoretical framework I had
chosen, I discovered that it was informing my work in a way I had not anticipated. While,
in some ways, Situated Cognition Theory was providing me with a useful way to think
and talk about what I had encountered in these two cases, it also made me increasingly
aware that I was not seeing the things I might have expected to see if learning to teach
was taking place in ways supported by the theory.

Having been informed by the theory that my work seemed to include important
reasons for analyzing both what was and what was not taking place in these settings, the
nature and challenge of my work took on a new dimension. While research of this type
typically aims to provide rich descriptions of activities, behaviors or phenomena as they
are naturally occurring, I was now faced with the challenge of providing a carefully
constructed analysis, discussion and conclusions concerning activity that I had observed,
while at the same time providing the same type of analysis of activity that, at least in part,
was not taking place, and therefore, was not observed.

I taught K-8 physical education for 16 years, during which I mentored
approximately a dozen student teachers. After spending the past seven years in higher
education, I am now an experienced field supervisor who has made at least one- hundred
visits to student teachers. With those experiences as the background for my personal
interest in this study, I was placed on the sidelines as an observer. I must begin by saying
that my 20+ years of experience as both a K-8 physical educator and now a university
field supervisor have undoubtedly informed my thinking in ways that may visible as I

consider these cases. The widely accepted theoretical framework that undergirds this

107

study itself suggests that the analysis, discussion and conclusions that I construct herein
exist holistically within the understanding I have developed through my unique personal
experiences, both past and present.

As I observed each case, all 4 of the visits revealed to me what I would consider
normal situations. Physical education teacher education appeared to be taking place
within the context of typical fieldwork settings. All members of both triads seemed to me
to be hard-working, well-meaning and capable individuals who were genuinely interested
in the roles and responsibilities they were taking on. In each case, the cooperating
teachers expressed little or no frustration with the working conditions at their schools or
with limitations imposed upon their curriculums or the pedagogical practices by problems
such as limited resources, difficult students or other internal or external constraints. The
activity related to teaching that I observed seemed to be taking place in ways that were
consistent with the expectations of all participants and the K-12 students observed were
reasonably engaged in the physical education classes being taught by these teachers. In
both cases the participants expressed a genuine interest in being a part of this study and
making a contribution to the study of teacher education as it occurs in field work.

The Focus Provided by the Framework

As I studied teacher education as it was being played out in each of these settings,
I considered all that I encountered within the cognitive framework provided by Situated
Cognition Theory. Within a situated framework, learning takes place within the context
of activity and experience through Cognitive Apprenticeships within communities of
practice. As I began the process of bringing meaning to these case studies, I began to

focus my attention on Cognitive Apprenticeship and communities of practice as two

108

major constructs of learning in practice as defined within a situated framework. Cognitive
Apprenticeship regards learning as it occurs through the authentic activities of practice
within a set of established roles and relationships (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989).
Communities of practice is the language used to talk about learning as a shared social
enterprise that results when individuals come together around common practice, common
understanding, and shared interests, values, and passions (Wenger, 1998).

As I progressed through my study of these two cases, I found myself asking three
primary questions. First, what moves were being made by members of the teacher
education triad, particularly university supervisors, to promote teacher education in the
field work setting? Second, in what ways did the teacher education that I witnessed in
these two cases support learning in practice as defined by a Cognitive Apprenticeship
model? To do this I looked for evidence to support a hypothesis that learning to teach in
these instances was indeed occurring through the types of roles and relationships defined
by that model. And third, was there evidence in these two cases to support a hypothesis
that learning to teach in these settings was taking place within a “community of practice”
as defined in the literature?

The Contexts Provided by the Settings

The two cases I studied shared the common goal of preparing future physical
education teachers to be effective in their work. The participating institutions and
individuals were organized in similar ways in their collective efforts to achieve that goal.
As I studied these two cases within the framework of Situated Cognition Theory, 1 saw
similarities and differences among both the institutions and the individuals that came to

bare on my research questions in important ways.

109

I chose K-8 physical education as the context to study the work of university-
assigned field supervisors and their contribution to teacher education field work.
Although not constructed with the following relationship in mind, it also seems
interesting to me that this study used a theoretical model that has activity and experience
as central tenets in the development of understanding to examine teacher education as it
was taking place in a content area that emphasizes physical activity as the core
component of its curriculum.

One case provided a glimpse at physical education teacher education as it was
occurring at a slightly larger institution which included multiple faculty members
teaching a variety of teacher education courses—courses within the content area as well
as the courses taken through the college’s department of education.

The other case presented a slightly smaller university with fewer faculty
providing instruction in teacher preparation coursework. Most notable in the latter case
was the fact that the university supervisor was from the major content area and was
responsible for teaching nearly all of the content specific teacher preparation courses that
the student teacher had been required to take as part of her major. Within the framework
of Situated Cognition Theory, it seemed that this latter situation may have provided a
nearly ideal setting for teacher education to occur in the ways supported by the theoretical
framework 1 had chosen. The former case seemed to have been more representative of
teacher education as it commonly occurs, while the latter seemed to include
organizational and structural factors that might provide increased opportunities to
discover teacher education taking place as suggested by the framework of Cognitive

Apprenticeship. As I continued to carefully comb my data from both cases, analyzing all

110

that I had observed, recorded and transcribed in both cases, I was unable to find evidence
to overturn my early impressions that the teacher education I had observed in these field
work settings could not be reasonably construed as learning through Cognitive
Apprenticeship defined by Situated Cognition Theory.

Learning To Teach at Some Distance from Practice

A primary tenet of Situated Cognition Theory is that knowledge exists within the
context of its acquisition and its use. To reprise the earlier argument about situated
learning, in order for knowledge to be useful for teaching, careful consideration must be
given to both the context in which learning takes place and the way that knowledge is
used in practice. With these in mind, a brief review of how teacher education takes place
in practice, using some of the language of apprenticeship, will form a basis for the
discussion that follows.

In many cases, including both of these, the university sets up shop on campus to
use teacher education courses to prepare students to become teachers. In a literal and
geographic sense, the shop is some distance from K-12 schools where the authentic
practice of teaching takes place. In addition to the physical distance between the
university campus and the K-8 classroom, I would argue that university teaching
practices, and the degree to which they are able to make classroom learning useful for
teaching, contribute to either an increase or decrease in the cognitive distance between
the university classroom and the authentic activities of K-8 school teaching. The
question might then be asked, “If the shop that is set up for learning to teach is some
distance from the place where the authentic practice of teaching really happens, what is

taking place in the shop, and what are students learning there?” Situated learning would

lll

argue that learning to teach is taking place through activity and in a context that is much
different the context in which that understanding will ultimately be used. Recent
conversation with a teacher education colleague led to his suggestion that the university
might be doing a great job of teaching students to read, write and talk about teaching, but
that isn’t the same as teaching. Novice teachers often claim, as is documented in the
literature review in chapter one, that they really didn’t learn much about teaching until
they had the opportunity to go out and teach; thus suggesting they really didn’t learn
much about the authentic practice of teaching until they participated in the real work of
teaching.

My personal and un-researched estimate of what happens on the university
campus is that students enter teacher education programs with ideas about what effective
teaching might look like, but lack the depth of knowledge about teaching and the use of
best practice that enables them to convert their acquired classroom knowledge into forms
useful for teaching. Then, for two or three years, they encounter teacher education as
topics to be discussed, materials to be read, and papers to be written in the classroom. As
they move toward those last semesters that include fieldwork, they encounter the real
world of teaching and continue to struggle to convert what they had learned in the
classroom into forms of understanding that are useful for teaching. At the same time, they
struggle to take what they are experiencing in practice work, and locating places within
the cognitive framework they established in the classroom to store the meaningful pieces

of understanding that the authentic activities of practice are providing.

112

Apprenticeship Not Observed “In Practice”

At first glance, I observed student teachers learning to teach in real K-8 schools,
with real children, under the watchful supervision of both university supervisors and
cooperating teachers. An apprenticeship model seemed to fit what I had observed. Then,
as I looked closer at these supervision visits that I have previously identified as “typical,”
I began to consider how these cases fit within the theoretical framework suggested by
Cognitive Apprenticeship. Although the student teachers in each case were undoubtedly
learning something about teaching while they were teaching their lessons, an important
component of their learning experiences seemed conspicuously absent from what I had
observed.

As expected, I observed initial interactions, predominantly social in their content,
among the university supervisor, cooperating teacher, and the student teacher. Then,
while the student teachers taught their lessons, the university supervisor observed and
took notes about what she was observing. In one case I watched a few minutes of
interaction between the field supervisor and the cooperating teacher while the student
teacher was teaching. In the other case, there was no additional interaction between the
two elder members of the triad, other than the initial informal greeting.

As expected, after the student teacher completed teaching the lesson the university
supervisor and the student teacher moved to a quiet and private location to discuss what
the university supervisor had just observed in both cases. After each post-observation
conference, the university supervisor bid the student teacher farewell and was on her
way. This pattern of activity repeated itself in each of my visits. My personal experience

tells me that these cases represented business as usual. In both cases, the student teachers

113

indicated in their follow-up interviews that the post-observation conferences included
discussion of topics that seemed to be helpful and meaningful. After careful examination
of the transcripts, I agree.

As I carefully combed the transcripts to discover evidence that would support
Cognitive Apprenticeship as a way to explain what was happening in each of these
settings, I began to realize that the words spoken during private conversations were
perhaps of no more significance than the activities I had observed. Foundational to
Situated Cognition Theory is the tenet that knowledge exists within the context and
activity of its acquisition and its use. With this is mind, I began to consider the ways that
the student teacher in each of these situations was asked to put into use the knowledge of
teaching that he or she had acquired in preparation for these field experiences.

In each case I observed a student teacher in a situation where he or she was asked
to apply the knowledge acquired about effective teaching to the authentic activities of
teaching as it was being observed by the university supervisor. My own experience and
training led me to recognize that I was observing novice teachers experiencing varying
degrees of success in their teaching while dealing with different types of problems
attempting to apply what they had learned in their university coursework to the authentic
activities of practice. Both student teachers were certainly engaged in practicing their
teaching and solving the problems they were experiencing in the best way that they were
able. However, at no time, during any of the visits to either school, did I observe
interaction between the student teacher and the university supervisor, that appeared to be
aimed at helping student teachers learn to teach more effectively during the authentic,

real-time activities of their practice work.

114

While the university supervisor took notes about the problems that were observed,
and later discussed those problems and their possible solutions, the student teacher did
not have the opportunity to deal with the problems of practice work and enact a possible
solution while he or she was engaged in the authentic activities of teaching. In both cases,
follow-up interviews provide evidence that the student teachers recognized the problem
as they were unfolding, but were unable to arrive at real-time solutions that they
considered successful. For Allen, the problem during both visits was finding ways to get
the low—skilled students and females more involved in the activity. Ellen later admitted
that she was having difficulty balancing the concurrent demands of providing quality
instruction while also addressing management issues.

In each case, the student teachers I observed encountered what I would consider
to be fairly common problems while teaching, and in both cases they appeared to be
doing their best to address those problems. However, unlike an apprentice engaged in the
learning of a trade, in neither case did the student teacher have the opportunity to work
through the problems of practice with the help of an experienced practitioner within the
authentic activity of practice. The student teachers had the freedom to enact their own
solutions, but they were not provided any guidance to use their knowledge to enact
effective solutions to the problems of teaching as they encountered them.

If knowledge exists within the context of its use, as argued by Situated Cognition
Theory, perhaps it would be useful to consider ways that teacher education field work
experiences might provide student teachers with opportunities receive assistance from
mentors to apply and enact their knowledge while engaged in the real-time activities of

teaching. Possible strategies for accomplishing this will be discussed in chapter six.

115

Participants are Members of Different Professional Communities

Situated Cognition Theory also uses the idea of learning within communities of
practice, and the roles and relationships within them, to describe how learning takes place
in practice work. After revisiting Lave and Wen ger (1991) to reinforce my understanding
of communities of practice and their defining characteristics, I returned to my data to see
if what I had observed, recorded and transcribed could provide evidence for the
participant’s membership within a shared community of practice. After reviewing the
literature and the data, I came to the conclusion that the members of each triad in my
cases could not be described as members of a common community of professional
practice. I came to this conclusion for three basic reasons. First, the literature defines
communities of practice as having members who are engaged in common activities of
day-to-day practice. Second, members of a community of professional practice have a
shared understanding of the goals and issues within the practice. And third, defined roles
and relationships play an important part in communities of practice (Wenger, 1998).

An intuitive understanding of the teacher education process, as well as my
observations and conversation in these settings, reinforced the idea that teaching teachers
to teach, and teaching in K-8 schools are distinctively different occupations with clear
differences in their daily activities. While university teacher educators may appear in a K-
12 school three to five times a year to engage in student teacher supervision and other
professional development activities, their work is mostly university based, does not often
involve working with children, and includes activities and responsibilities much different

than those of the K-12 practitioner.

116

Throughout this study, participants were asked to address their perceptions of the
roles and relationships for learning as they existed among them. In response to this line of
questioning, cooperating teachers repeatedly expressed a desire for more frequent and
improved forms of communication, more clearly defined expectations, and also expressed
a desire to have a greater role in the teacher education process. Issues related to
communication appeared as a concern repeatedly throughout transcripts of interviews
with cooperating teachers. I combed the transcripts of the follow-up interviews with the
cooperating teachers and throughout the four interviews with the cooperating teachers I
discovered no less than 30 times that the cooperating teachers mentioned communication
as a concern. Examples of those instances are included below:

We all feel disconnected from each other, but Ellen’s kind of in the middle of

it. There’s not a lot of communication between myself and the

university. . .whereas, she communicates with them, she communicates with

me. . .I need to communicate more with them. . .they need to communicate more

with me.

I touched on the supervisor getting out here more. . .or staying longer. . .my

brief conversations with the supervising teachers. . .maybe they should

schedule a meeting with me. . .sit down with me and talk about. . .you

know...take some time like we’re doing here. . .and go over the details of

what Ellen is doing.

I know we’re all busy. . .they’ve got a lot of teachers that they need to stay in

touch with, but I think probably, it would be more effective for myself to have

communication prior to. ..not only about that day, but about what they are looking

117

for on a specific lesson out of our student teacher, but then maybe probably two-
fold, looking for more feedback afterwards. There is a general talk, and shake
hands, and what did you see, and those types of things, but there’s really not a
time to collectively think and then. . .I’m not saying it has to be a written
evaluation, but something that maybe comes back a week later, with. .. ‘this is
what I witnessed, this is what I saw, I’d really like you to help him in these areas’,
type thing. So I think we deal in this world of supervising in generalities. We’re
kind of on the surface, and we really don’t get to know each other. We’re just
three entities out there: a student teacher, a cooperating teacher and a supervising
teacher. So, if somehow we could become more cohesive and have more of a plan
of attack, and I use that word loosely, I think that would be beneficial to
everybody.
I don’t think she’s getting an accurate read on the student teacher unless
she cooperates with me. . .and there are some universities that don’t do
that. There’s no communication, you know, on a continual basis. I talked
to her today. I’m hoping that we can communicate before she gets back to
see Ellen again.
When speaking more directly about their perceptions of roles in the field

work setting, the following comments were made:
The university’s role in this setting is to come in two or three times throughout the
ten weeks that she’s here and observe her and try to make a determination
on. . .Okay, this is what I saw last time. Did it get better this time? And in the final

evaluation, has it gotten even better here? So that’s how I see the role here, with

118

this student teacher and this university. They come in a couple times and just see

if she’s making progress, and I feel it’s my job to get her along in that process,

help her make progress. . ..the university supervisor. . .they have, I’m assuming,
some criteria that the student teacher has to meet. So that’s also what the student
teaching supervisor is looking for. Are they meeting this criteria? I don’t know if
that criteria fits with what I’m doing, I guess...

...The role of the university is limited. I feel as if I’m teaching Ellen how to be an

effective physical education teacher. I’m not teaching her any content. . .that’s the

university’s job there. But as far as just the nuances of becoming an effective
teacher, I feel that’s my responsibility...

I see [Gina] here, taking notes, and watching, and doing very active observation,

the active role of supervision. You know, taking notes and then providing

feedback at the end. [Gina’s] role is to supervise, and it’s not that she’s not doing
her job, she is. Her job is to instruct, and to help [Ellen] move forward. I feel that
she is doing that. Again, I keep coming back to that whole, I wish she was here
more, you know...

When the university supervisor in this same case was asked how she perceived
her role in the field setting, her initial answer, as well as those that followed, yielded a
somewhat different perspective:

One goal, actually I thinks it’s related to the fact that we’re doing what we need to

do on our end to produce someone who can do what they need to do. . .I mean,

that’s something I’m kind of always looking for...

119

...making sure that we’re doing what we need to do on our end... another goal is
to make sure that the student is ready to move on and go out, I always feel, though
that at this point if they’re not, ...you know if they get to this point and they’re
not,..if they are totally not ready to teach, we’ve really messed up somewhere
along the way.

In response to a question about the relationship between her role leading seminar
and her supervision practice, this supervisor also talked at length about using her
supervision role to help students rethink some of the assumptions that are in the literature
and class discussions about effective teaching and about best practices. Gina also talked
about her role in preparing students to be able to examine and make judgments about the
effectiveness of the teaching practices they observe in their fieldwork and what they may
or may not want to consider in their own practice when they have teaching decisions to
make on their own. An interview with Gina included her perspective of how her students
might perceive her role:

As seen by the student teacher I would say. . .I think it would be that I am the

person who tells them what they should be doing. The book. . .you know, they

think that everything that I tell them is theory ...I think. They’ve never
necessarily seen me do it, and so it’s, ‘[she] tells us this is what we’re supposed to
do’. And then the person they are with out in the trenches for 8-16 weeks just has

such a huge impact on the student and on the teacher they are really going to be. I

think the cooperating teacher is. . .they model after that person probably more than

the four to five years of academic preparation that they’ve bad. And I think when

you ask people, a lot of times they’ll say. . .we’ve heard students say... ‘I don’t

120

even know why we go to college. We should just do student teaching. I learned

more student teaching than I ever learned in school.’ You know, because they feel

like they’re really applying it then, and they’re watching that person model it
every day, and
Are these Triads?

Throughout this study and throughout the teacher education literature, the term
“triad” is used quite loosely to talk about the set of relationships that exist in teacher
education fieldwork. Patterns of discourse that appear in the two cases examined in this
study, in combination with close conversations among all members of these supposed
triads, suggest that triad may not be an accurate descriptor for the set of relationships that
I observed in these two instances of teacher education fieldwork. My observation seems
to reveal something other than a beefy or thick set of relationships for learning, but rather
a thin set of relationships that may lack the balance or reciprocity necessary to consider
this a triad, or even a three-way relationship.

The unbalanced nature of the relationships was evident in two ways; First, by the
absence of three-way interaction among members of the triad, and second, by the limited
involvement of the c00perating teachers in conversations about the student teacher’s
progress.

At no time during any of the two visits to each site did I observe or collect
evidence that a three-way conversation about the student teacher’s performance took
place among the members of the triad. In each visit in both cases, field notes indicate
that initial on-site conversations did include three-way interaction, but in all instances the

conversation was casual and social in nature. In both cases, from the time the university

121

supervisors entered the building until they walked out the door, the three members of the
group never met to discuss the student teacher’s performance or progress.

The limited involvement of the cooperating teacher in conversations about the
student teacher’s progress provided further evidence of the thin and unbalanced
relationships among members of the triad. In the case involving Colleen and Brad, other
than the greeting and casual social conversation that took place when the university
supervisor first arrived on site, I was unable to find evidence in the transcriptions from
either of the two visits that any conversation took place between the university supervisor
and the c00perating teacher about the performance of the student teacher.

In the other case, I observed and recorded Gina and Frank engaged in what I
might personally describe as meaningful conversation about Ellen’s teaching. However,
even in this case, Frank described them as “brief conversations about Ellen for a few
moments”, and expressed his concern on three separate occasions during follow-up
interviews, that both the amount and type of interaction he was able to have with the
university supervisor was insufficient. Brad’s comments during follow—up interviews also
present evidence of his desire for more and higher quality communication in the teacher
education process as it was being played out in the field work setting.

Transcripts from interviews with both cooperating teachers seem to reveal a
consistent desire to be more involved in the teacher education process. This is once again
reflected in their expressed desire for more frequent and higher quality forms of
communication as well as greater clarity concerning the expectations for each member of
the triad. In both cases, the cooperating teachers were presented with written documents

meant to define expectations and intended outcomes of the student teaching experience.

122

Their concern seemed to arise from the lack of activity that unfolded in the day-to-day
process of working with the university in mentoring the student teacher. Frank suggested
that the university could involve him more by “seeking input from him so they could get
a better picture of how the student was actually performing.” Brad expressed a genuine
interest in being able to help his student teacher do an even better job of teaching. He also
suggested that he could do a better job of helping his student teacher teach in the ways
being espoused at the university if he was more informed of the university’s expectations,
goals, and objectives for the student teacher.

In both cases, the student teachers expressed some feeling of being caught in the
middle between the wishes of the cooperating teachers and the desires of their university
supervisors. On one occasion, Ellen expressed this feeling quite clearly when she said,
“Yeah, it’s supposed to be a triad, but it feels more like a line, with me in the middle.”
Allen also expressed this feeling to some degree when he responded to some of Colleen’s
constructive criticism using phrases like, “That’s just what they do here.”

Both case studies, as they appear in the preceding chapters, pay a good deal of
attention to the uncertainty that is both observed and expressed, mostly by the
cooperating teachers about the roles and relationships as are being carried out, and their
feelings regarding the way they could change. The data collected in both cases failed to
provide evidence that the relationships were defined in ways that would support either the
use of an apprenticeship model or a community of practice to talk about how learning to

teach was taking place in either of these settings.

123

Cooperating Teachers See Patterns of Behavior

As noted earlier, the cooperating teachers in these two cases made more than 30
comments during their interviews that expressed their desire for increased and higher
quality communication. A careful review of the transcripts also provides evidence that
they did not consider the patterns of interaction they experienced in these cases to be
unique or atypical, but had also encountered these situations in previous engagements
with other supervisors and/or other universities. Brad made this fairly explicit while using
plural pronouns when talking about university supervisors.

We see these people come in so seldom. ...it’s tough to have relationships with

them. . . ..it’s really tough to understand exactly what they are looking, what areas

they want us to really emphasize...

Brad refers to the university supervisors as “they” in almost all conversation about
their role, even at times when he is referring to the specifics of this particular situation. I
asked Brad how he felt about the connection between university coursework, and what’s
going on in K-12 schools, and his response is even more explicit.

That’s an area that’s probably void right now. I have had two different student

teachers this year, from two different institutions, fine institutions, and I think

that’s probably the biggest thing. There hasn’t been a lot of communication...

There’s been. . .the observations and things like that, but there hasn’t been a whole

lot of...follow-through, or information as to, ‘Here’s what we’re really looking

for out of our student teachers, we think this is important, these are the areas we

would really like you to look at.’ I have my own ideas of what I want as a

teacher. After twenty years you have your [own way of doing things], but what

124

are the hot things out there right now? Are there things that [the profession is]
leaning toward? Are there certain trends that are important that we need to be
looking at? And not that we’ll do them all the time, but I think we would certainly
want to use the same terminology and try to infiltrate that in the lessons with our
student teacher.
...We could talk and communicate, and see what we saw, and maybe that would
be a time to reflect and [they could] say, ‘Hey, let’s really try to. . . , you know we
have really been working on this in our seminar. Would you have our student
teacher incorporate that in the next couple of weeks before my next visit.’
This clearly expresses a desire for more and better communication and a higher level of
involvement in the process, and at the same time suggests that this pattern of interaction
is in some ways quite familiar. A few moments later, Brad once again summarized these
feelings by using an analogy:
I think it’s important that somehow there’s a common ground for all of the people
involved, and that we’re not three islands that are dealing with each other on a hit
and miss situation, where we see each other occasionally. I just think we can
develop a system where there is more interaction among the three of us. I think
that would be very, very, helpful. I think if the supervising teacher and the
cooperating teacher, if they have some type of connection, or an understanding of
what’s expected, I think that would be very helpful for the student teacher, and for
the overall experience.
As Brad’s initial interview drew to a close I gave him an opportunity to add any

additional thoughts or comments. He once again brought up topics like knowing whether

125

a teaching strategy is outdated, the importance of communication, wanting to know what
strategies the student teacher should be attempting to use, and how helpful it would be if
he were asked to model some teaching behaviors for the student teacher. Brad expressed
the general desire for more direction in carrying out his role because, as he stated:
“Sometimes we may not take the path that we should be taking...” (in working with the
student teachers).

Transcripts of interviews with Frank provide evidence that is a not quite as
definitive. However, he also offers indications that his experiences with Ellen and Gina
were not unique. He said the following:

I’ve seen more and more universities that are...

A lot of times I don’t have student teachers as long as I have had Ellen...

...the university supervisor, they have, I’m assuming, some kind of criteria that

the student teacher has to meet. So that’s also what the student teaching

supervisor is looking for. Are they meeting this criteria? And I don’t know if the
criteria fits with what I’m doing.

Although Frank’s comments do not directly address similarities between the
experiences he was having while working with Ellen and experiences he has had with
past student teachers, his comments do indicate that he has worked with others and these
and other comments tend to address university supervisors and student teachers as groups
of individuals.

While talking about Ellen’s comment that she felt “it’s supposed to be a triad, but
it feels more like a line, with me in the middle,” Frank mentioned that Ellen’s description

seemed to be a “very accurate picture” of the supervision process. Although Frank could

126

have been commenting only about the experience he was having in this case, I interpreted
his comment to be directed toward the process, and his feelings about it that were rooted
in his past and present experiences. While it was perhaps more obvious with Brad than
with Frank, my interpretation of their comments and the contexts in which they were
made, provide some measure of evidence that they perceived these cases, and their
concerns related to the process, to be consistent with what they had experienced at other
times with other individuals.

The roles and relationships being played out and verbally expressed in both
triads seemed best described as lacking quality communication and clear expectations
regarding responsibilities and intended activities. After reviewing the transcripts from
both cases, I came to believe that what I had observed were efforts on the part of all those
involved to stay within the boundaries of safe interactions. Interactions that I observed
and recorded seemed to me to be best described as social, casual, comfortable, thin and
learning light. Although I have no direct evidence to support it, my personal perspective
is that I had observed something other than the deeper and stronger relationships, perhaps
more suitable for learning, that are forged when people are willing to engage in the more
difficult work of questioning each other’s practices, sharing each other’s values, and
working together to address the problems and solutions associated with the teaching.
When those richer conversations can become a greater part of how the individuals who
make up this teacher education trio conduct their business, perhaps they will begin to
learn more from each other, establish a greater sense of connectedness, and begin to do
teacher education, as well as community education, in ways that more closely resemble

learning within the framework suggested by Situated Cognition Theory.

127

Research Questions Revisited & Conclusions Summarized

At the conclusion of chapter one I identified the research questions that formed
the foundation of this study. In doing so, I also stated that although those questions would
remain important, they would be reformulated as a result of the situation I encountered
during this investigation. The first question concerned the moves made by university
supervisors during their interaction the other members of the teacher education triad. The
second question asked how those moves might be explained within the framework of
Situation Cognition Theory. The final question asked how domain-specific subject matter
knowledge might appear or be used in the supervision process.

The first question remained intact and consistent throughout the study. I was able
to carefully examine the moves being made by the university supervisors in both of these
cases by carefully observing what I was seeing and also by recording a wide variety of
conversations using digital voice recording technology.

The second question, that asked how what I had observed could be explained in
the terms of Situated Cognition Theory, was the question that created the unique situation
in this study, changed the direction of this study, and ultimately led to the question being
reformulated in different terms. While collecting the data and beginning the almost
immediate process of analyzing it, I formed an early impression that what I had observed
in these two cases was difficult to analyze or explain in the terms of the theory. As a
result of those early impressions, my second question evolved to ask, “Do these cases
provide evidence to support a hypothesis that learning to teach is indeed taking place as
the in the ways suggested by the theory?” As a result the reformulation of my second

question, a third question evolved: “How can field work experiences, and the field

128

supervision of student teachers, be undertaken in ways that are supported by Situated
Cognition Theory?” These reformulated questions became the focus of my work, and
their answers will be discussed in chapter six.

Finally, although an early modification to the participant sample prevented a
comparison between supervisors with and without domain-specific content knowledge, I
was still able to consider how specific forms of knowledge appeared in the supervision
process. In one case domain-specific content knowledge was much less visible with a
majority of the interaction taking place around management, supervision , and
participation, with very little interaction surrounding physical education content or the
delivery of content-specific instruction. In the other case, it appeared that the university
supervisor’s on—campus responsibilities teaching of nearly all of the methods classes in
the major content area led to a more pointed use of the physical education content taught
on campus. Although I was unable to do so in this study, a careful examination of
supervision by individuals without physical education expertise might provide insight
into the use of domain-specific content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge,
in the supervision process.

As stated above, in chapter six I will consider how teacher education practices,
particularly those related to the activities of field work and field work supervision, might
be altered in ways that will allow them to be more accurately described using the
language of Cognitive Apprenticeship and Situated Cognition Theory. However, before
moving those recommendations, I would like to provide the following synopsis of the

conclusions described in the preceding pages of this chapter.

129

As I have come to know such situations, the student teaching I observed was
taking place in typical environments, and the observed activities within those
environments was consistent with the expectations of the participants as well as
the researcher.

Student teachers in these cases were given opportunities to practice their teaching
in the context of these K-12 schools. Based on the data collected in this study,
they did appear to be learning about teaching as a result of their experiences.

The student teachers in both cases experienced what I would consider to be
common problems as they taught their lessons. Although they appeared to have
made honest efforts to address them, to some degree they were unable to work
alone to enact solutions that they considered acceptable.

University supervisors appeared generally effective at addressing the observed
problems of practice during the post—observation conferences they conducted with
the student teachers. During post-observation conferences they helped the student
teachers understand how they might have solved those problems. As far as I was
able to see, the university supervisors were unable to determine whether or not the
student teachers could apply their understanding of the suggested solutions to
their future teaching to obtain the desired outcome.

Evidence presented in both cases indicates that the roles and relationships among
the participants in this study could be accurately characterized as respectful and
comfortable, but also thin, unbalanced and uncertain. The activities and

interactions lacked the characteristics that would define them as members of a

common community of practice, and given the absence of some important

130

interactions, their collective relationships might only deserve nominally
consideration as a triad.

Finally, if I choose to talk about, or attempt to define the teacher education I
observed in these cases using the terms of Situated Cognition Theory, 1 come up
short. If learning to teach is presumed to be taking place through Cognitive
Apprenticeships within communities of practice, I am drawn to conclude that
what I encountered in this study did not resemble learning to teach in that way.
Given this conclusion, in the final chapter I will suggest steps that can be taken to
alter teacher education fieldwork in ways suggested by a closer application of the

theory.

131

Chapter 6

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Through the course of this study, I began to make changes in my own field
supervision practice. Formerly, I remained distant from the student teacher, took notes
while carefully observing the lesson being taught, and then engaged in a post-observation
conference with the student teacher about what I had observed.

Recently I have begun a much more active approach in my supervision, spending
more time on my feet, moving throughout the gym, standing alongside the student
teacher, providing feedback, and engaging in brief interactions with student teachers
while they teach. This approach to supervision has allowed me to engage student teachers
in conversations about teaching within the authentic context of practice work and helps
them recognize situations, identify the issues, and solve problems, all in the real—time
context of the authentic practice of teaching. This approach is quite different from having
after-the-fact conversations about what the student teacher might have done in a situation
that is by then history and beyond adjustment. I still conduct post-observation
conferences, and for good purpose—they have become an opportunity to discuss what
was done to address the issues and problems of teaching, and to what effect, rather than
what might have been done.

I have found that supervising in this way is often not what students expect, does
not always unfold as I intend, and requires more deliberate and intentional activity on
both my part and the student teacher’s during each visit. When using this type of
supervision, it seems important for the K-12 students to know who I am and why I am
there since I tend to also interact with them during class time. I have found that arriving

early, greeting students and making them feel comfortable with my presence all

132

contributes to the success of this approach. In addition, taking the time to explain my
supervision behaviors to both the student teacher and the cooperating teacher is important
to the acceptance and success of this approach to supervision.

In a recent visit to an elementary gymnasium, I provided some feedback to both
the student teacher and the cooperating teacher while the student teacher was conducting
her lesson. After helping her deal with some struggles and still feeling like she wasn’t
sure of some of my suggestions, the cooperating teacher asked if I would be willing to
step in and teach the next class that was coming into the gym in order to demonstrate
some of the principles and strategies we had just talked about. Although the request was a
step beyond what I was intending to do, I agreed, and proceeded to teach the next class.
While doing so, I continued the conversation with the student teacher and the cooperating
teacher; I spoke with them about what I was doing as I did it. The relationships that I had
previously established with both the cooperating teacher and the student teacher were
vital to the success of this experience and reinforced the need to establish positive
working relationships in community schools in order to experience success in initiating
new approaches to effective teaching.

The limitations of this study do not allow me to know, with any degree of
certainty, the immediate or long term effect of this approach to supervision. However, my
initial impression is that it has provided me with opportunities to interact with my
students in ways that I haven’t had while using more passive strategies. Using this active,
real-time approach, I have been able to work with student teachers to address the
activities of their teaching within the authentic contexts of their work. In some cases, this

way of working has also provided me with the chance to see if the student teacher is able

133

to apply my immediate feedback to their teaching, sometimes with immediate results. I
believe that this supervision strategy more accurately represents the application of
learning to teach through Cognitive Apprenticeship than the more traditional strategies
that I have used in the past. Although I am still working to improve my use of this
approach to field supervision, I have received mostly positive feedback from student

teachers about its use and I intend to continue pursuing new strategies and technologies to

 

 

I
improve my effectiveness in the use of this approach. I
In addition to my work with student teachers, I have been developing
collaborative relationships with local public schools and the physical educators in those
schools. These relationships seem to be contributing in positive ways to the local schools ‘li

and also provide opportunities for my university students. In particular, I have been
engaged in collaborative efforts with a local city school district.

My initial exposure to the district’s physical education curriculum and its physical
educators was through my assigned field supervision responsibilities in the district
schools. After I formed some early impressions during initial visits to the schools, I made
an appointment to meet with the district’s physical education curriculum coordinator and
subsequently offered my services to lead professional development workshops for more
than twenty elementary physical educators in the district. Since that initial contact I have
led multiple professional development workshops for the group and feel welcome each
time I return.

The most noteworthy result of this relationship is that teachers of whom I was
privately critical at the beginning are now my allies. Student teachers who have been

assigned to work with those teachers have returned to the university seminar with

134

comments like, “It sure is nice to work with a teacher who does things the way we talk
about doing them in class.” This informal and unsystematic feedback seems to indicate to
me that students are making connections between their university coursework and the
practices they encounter in field work. I intend to continue pursuing these types of
connections and extend relationships for learning to other area school districts.

Bringing related changes to the established policies and procedures that govern a
successful and respected teacher education program at a well-respected university will be
a more difficult task. My home institution has a respectable track record educating
teachers, and such success can dampen interest in change. In my experience, the division
of teacher education responsibilities between a college of education and the departments
that house the major disciplines tends to create a real or perceived dichotomy between
pedagogy and content. Developing and implementing policies and procedures that satisfy
the interests, and address the values and perspectives of all those involved presents
challenges that one individual will find difficult to address. My intent is to document
success in the areas where I am able to make a difference, and through those documented
successes, attempt to nudge the institution toward change in a similar direction.

In the following two sections I will suggest what might be done to move teacher
education field experiences could be moved toward a closer application of Cognitive
Apprenticeship. First, I will address how teacher preparation practices, particularly in
field work settings, might be configured and conducted in order to be more reasonably
considered an application of the theory. And second, I will consider the direction that

future research might move in addressing topics and issues related to this study.

135

 

Moving Fieldwork Closer to Cognitive Apprenticeship

If we want teacher education practices, particularly those associated with the field
work supervision of student teachers, to look like applications of Situated Cognition
Theory, what might be done?

Altering University Policies and Procedures

Cognitive Apprenticeships can develop for their intended purposes only when
novice teachers are given the opportunity to work with experienced practitioners who
engage in daily habits of teaching that are worth replicating. With this in mind,
Universities can develop policies and procedures for the placement of student teachers
that make placement with high quality cooperating teachers a high priority. While
finding quality placements for all students may sometimes be a difficult task, placement
policies and decisions that are grounded in a desire for students to work with the highest
quality mentors may reduce the possibility that student teachers may find themselves in
settings where the only thing to learn is what not to do. Similarly, universities can also
consider how subject matter expertise might impact field supervision practice, and how
the assignment of field supervisors might be made using criteria which promote an
apprenticeship model for learning.

Universities can also encourage and support the development of relationships for
learning between university faculty and K—l2 teachers and schools. This can be
accomplished by recognizing the activities associated with developing those relationships
as an important form of applied scholarship (Boyer, 1997). Boyer’s scholarship of
application includes the argument that when theory and practice come together,

engagement becomes scholarly activity. By offering workload compensation and/or

136

funding for this form of scholarship at a level that is commensurate with other commonly
accepted forms of scholarship, including formal research, universities can encourage the
building of those important relationships. Expectations for faculty members could include
moving themselves toward K—12 schools, as well as discovering ways to bring K-12
schools closer a to the university.

Bringing Allied Communities Closer Together

While I acknowledge that those who teach teachers and those who teach K-12 T-

.‘I'TEI m—IL

students are engaged in professions that differ from each other, their professional

communities could be reasonably considered to be allied professions, or allied

 

communities of practice. The real or perceived distance between higher education and K-
12 schools is accentuated by common references to individuals who work “in the
trenches” of K-12 education, and those who work in “the ivory towers” of higher
education. However, in some cases, including those in this study, disciplinary knowledge
is shared among members of the student teaching triad to create an alliance, even though
the professional communities of which they are a part are quite distinctive. In addition,
the main work of teacher education community is to prepare students to become members
of the K—12 teaching community.

Having been a member of the K-12 teaching community for 14 years, and now in
my seventh year as a university faculty member, I have seen teaching and teacher
education from both sides. Though I place high personal value in staying in touch with
the realities of the K-12 classroom, I continue to be socialized into a very different
culture since leaving the K-8 setting seven years ago, and I have experienced the

differences that exist between the two. So, I think of teacher education and K-12

137

education as allied occupations capable of working together toward common purposes,
like developing tomorrow’s teachers.

If teacher education field work is to resemble Cognitive Apprenticeship in the
ways suggested by Situated Cognition Theory, the relationships for learning and the
interactions that take place among these allied occupations should be carefully considered
and configured. Neither the education department nor the major content department in a
university provides a school teacher's place of work—the authentic setting of practice.
Similarly, K—12 schools are not designed as places for training teachers. Instruction for
practice is delivered in one venue, while the oversight of professional practice occurs
largely outside of the influence of those who provided the instruction/content component
of their professional learning. In the past, some teacher preparation programs have
maintained laboratory schools in an attempt to bridge that gap. Presently some programs
are cultivating professional development schools for that same purpose. The study of
those settings is unfinished. In the absence of these highly structured collaborations, other
efforts can be made to bring these communities closer together.

University faculty members can move into closer relationships with K-12 teachers
and schools in a variety of ways. Providing workshops and seminars for area practitioners
is one way. Other less traditional activities might include volunteering regularly in a K-
12 school setting, offering to serve in a limited role as a substitute teacher, or perhaps
offering to substitute for a physical education teacher in an area school. This might give
K-l2 practitioners to take advantage of professional development opportunities without
the need for the school to cover the expense of hiring a substitute teacher. These steps

would encourage engagement between K-l2 practitioners and the university teacher

138

educators, while providing the potential benefit of keeping the university faculty member
in touch with the daily realities of K-12 teaching.

While university faculty moving toward K-12 schools is one way to narrow the
gap between the two, drawing K-12 schools and practitioners toward the university is
another. This could be accomplished by bringing K-12 teachers, and potential
cooperating teachers, to the university campus for an orientation to the university teacher
education program. Topics could include the components of instruction that student
teachers have been taught and will be asked to apply, the key elements of the domain-
specific subject matter that the student teachers are asked to practice in their teaching, as
well as the definition and clarification of the roles and expectations within the student
teaching triad. Opportunities to meet with faculty members about the specific strengths
and weaknesses of specific students within the program might also be included.

University based teacher educators can also be encouraged to invite local K-12
physical educators to come to the university campus to discuss and teach specific
components of the course syllabi. This would bring the perspective of the K-12
practitioner to those discussions. Asking teacher practitioners to leave their K- 12 public
school settings to spend time with students on the university campus might involve some
logistical difficulties and require some creative arrangements to cover the classes they
might miss in their schools. Applying for mini-grants to cover substitute teacher costs, or
even having university professors offer their services as a substitute teacher in the K-12
setting are just two examples of options that could be considered.

Another approach to drawing K-12 practitioners closer to the university may raise

a few administrative eyebrows on university campuses, and may require some

139

modification of university thought and/or policy. Hiring experienced master teachers
with strong documented records of effectiveness to serve as full—time, tenure—track faculty
members on the university campus would certainly bring the work of K-12 teachers into
closer contact with the university classroom. Personnel policies in many institutions of
higher education often require a terminal degree for tenure and promotion. The
suggestion that someone who has not gone through the academic rigor of acquiring a
terminal degree may be able to make a valuable contribution to the education of future
teachers may be perceived as a bit “anti-establishment” to those firmly rooted in the
academic traditions of higher education. However, a master teacher whose chosen career
path did not include the pursuit of a terminal degree while working to achieve master
teacher status may be able to use his/her wealth of practical experience to assist students
in converting university based learning into forms that are useful in the authentic
practices of teaching. Whatever the course, opportunities do exist for universities to make
some organizational adjustments that would enable me, as well as other field supervisors
and cooperating teachers, to engage in teacher education practices in ways that are more
like Cognitive Apprenticeship.
New Models of Supervision and Mentoring

University supervisors and cooperating teachers, while engaged in their respective
roles and practices, interact with student teachers in a variety of ways. This study did not
examine the daily interactions between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher,
and therefore have no basis on which to draw any conclusions concerning those
interactions. However, the interactions that I did observe led me believe that interactions

that might be reasonably construed as instances of Cognitive Apprenticeship should be

140

encouraged. Supervisors and cooperating teachers should be encouraged to regularly
engage student teachers in conversations about their teaching during the authentic
practice of teaching. This allows student teachers to make suggested adjustments in their
teaching within the immediate context of their work and allows them to develop an
understanding within that context. Supervision and mentoring in this way might include
suggestions that the student teacher “try this” or “try that” and may include comments
like, “Are you noticing. . .,” or, “Why don’t you try...” By engaging in these real-time
interventions and interactions, student teachers will have a greater chance of applying
their knowledge of teaching to the situation that is before them. The normative practice of
university supervision tends not to include these types of active and real-time
interventions. I wonder whether they are used, and if so, to what degree in the day—to-day
work of mentor teachers and student teachers, and with what degree of success?

This active, real-time approach to supervision and mentoring may require
introducing both student teachers and cooperating teachers to a new set of supervision
norms and may also require more attention to the establishment of relationships that are
conducive to these types of interactions. However, engaging students in conversations
about effective teaching while engaged in the authentic activities of practice seems
consistent with an apprenticeship model and may also facilitate the transformation of
knowledge acquired in the university classroom into forms useful for teaching in the
gymnasium.

Universities can play an important role and contribute in meaningful ways to the
development of effective teachers during field work experiences. There are opportunities

to consider adjusting the policies and practices that govern field supervision to form

141

closer relationships between allied communities of professional practice. There are also
opportunities for universities to re-examine how field supervision practice might be
reconfigured to resemble learning through practice work as framed by Cognitive
Apprenticeship within the broader context of Situated Cognition Theory. There is no
doubt that many of the above suggestions may be fraught with practical problems.
However, the application of Situated Cognition Theory lends urgency to the search for
solutions.
Possibilities for Future Research

If I were to conduct this study over again, I would make changes in its design to
answer some of the questions that remain, to answer them more confidently, and to
address some of the issues that I now see at the end. Mainly, I would want a larger or
more diverse sample that might include a comparison group of supervisors who do not
possess the subject matter expertise of the participants in this study. I would also find
examine the typical daily interactions between student teachers and cooperating teachers,
and I would want to look more closely at the intentions of the university supervisors and
cooperating teachers in the execution of their respective roles.

Replication with Modification

To increase the number and diversity of participants in this study I might use an
increased number of student teaching triads. A substantial increase in sample size would
likely necessitate some change in the way the data is collected and analyzed, however, a
more systematic analysis of a larger set of data could also contribute to the increased
power of a study such as this. Greater sample diversity could be accomplished by

observing teacher education triads from different geographical regions with different

142

cultural contexts, or triads affiliated with other universities. Including diversity in the
cultural contexts within a single study would reduce the potential impact of observed
practices being a reflection of local culture or expectations. A more diverse sample of
subjects might also produce greater diversity in the data that is collected.

Another replication of this study could include securing, for comparative
purposes, a sample of university supervisors engaged in supervision practice outside of
their personal area of expertise. By observing and documenting the supervision practices
of individuals who do not possess physical education expertise I could examine how
various forms of knowledge, such as content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, are
used in the supervision process. The role that expert domain-specific subject matter
plays in the supervision process was one of my original questions of interest, but my
inability to secure participants without physical education expertise eliminated the
possibility of that comparison in this study.

Obtaining data concerning both the quantity and quality of the day-to-day
interactions between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher might have provided
a meaningful contribution to this study. I was able to talk with some degree of certainty
about what I had observed taking place between the university supervisor, the
cooperating teacher and the student teacher during each of my on-site visits. However,
due to the limitations of my data collection, I was unable to say anything about the
interactions that typically took place between the cooperating teacher and the student
teacher outside of the few times that I was present. If I had collected data on the typical

interactions between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher when the university

143

supervisor was not present, I might have gained additional insight into roles and
interactions being played out in these field work settings.

Finally, I would modify the interview questions or format to include a few
questions which would more clearly address the intentions of each of the participants in
carrying out their assigned or perceived roles. Although a few questions did ask the elder
participants how they viewed their roles to be different from one another, the questions
did not adequately address what each believed their own role to be. Examining the
intentions of each participant might have revealed to how much their intentions were
consistent with the model for learning through practice work being used as a theoretical
framework in this study. Although the interview questions did provide opportunity for
this information to emerge, I would be more deliberate about this line of inquiry, perhaps
by adding a short preliminary interview prior to the on-site supervision visit in order to
establish a cognitive context for interpretation of what I would subsequently observe.

Developing Related Lines of Research

In addition to the possibilities for replication, I see opportunities to deve10p new
lines of research asking related questions. One such study might examine the
impressions that members of the teacher education triad form of each other, how those
impressions are formed, and in what ways those impressions might contribute or detract
from the teacher education process as it takes place in field work.

Another study might examine the day-to-day behaviors of the cooperating teacher
in the field work setting and how those behaviors impact the student teacher’s learning.
An experimental design might be used to examine either the perceived or real effect of

deliberately implementing alternative supervision of mentoring strategies, including the

144

active, real-time approach mentioned earlier. This might be accomplished by designing or
using a tool that measures either a student’s perceptions of the supervisor’s effectiveness
or a measure of the student’s perceived learning, and using it to compare student
perceptions following the implementation of various supervision strategies. A study of
this type might also include how other deliberate mentoring/supervision strategies are
received.

Finally, this study was conducted in the content-specific setting of K-8 physical
education. While it may hold the most interest to individuals who are engaging in the
preparation of physical educators and those involved in teaching of physical education, I
am not claiming it as distinctive to physical education, nor am I prepared to compare it to
other fields. It is reasonable to ask and examine whether field supervision in other
subject areas, because they vary, would appear to be done differently and as possible
instances of Cognitive Apprenticeship.

Summary

Foundational to Situated Cognition Theory is the argument that knowledge and
understanding exist within the activities of their acquisition and use. Studies such as this,
others like it, and those suggested in the preceding paragraphs may provide teacher
educators and cooperating teachers alike with an understanding that can assist in their
efforts to help student teachers convert university-acquired knowledge into forms that are

useful within the authentic practice of teaching.

145

APPENDICES

146

APPENDIX A

Interview protocols for stimulated recall interviews

147

POST-SUPERVISION STIMULATED RECALL INTERVIEW
UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR

The interview will be conducted with the university supervisor within 24 hours of the
post observation conference with the student teacher.

This interview will be conducted while listening to the digital voice recording of the
student teacher as he/she was engaged in teaching the lesson to students, and will also
make reference to recording of the post observation conference between the university
supervisor and the student teacher.

The interview is intended to be open ended, allowing Opportunities for the university
supervisor to reflect broadly within his/her supervisory role.

Basic introduction and instructions:

I am here with . a field work supervisor
(University supervisor)

for . He/she is assigned to
(name of college/university)

supervise the field experience of

 

(student teacher)

here at . The
(name of K-12 school & ditrict)

cooperating teacher in this school is

 

I am conducting this interview to examine the process of learning to teach as it occurs in
both the university classroom and the field work setting. In order to create a rich
description of the processes associated with learning to teach, and to ensure an accurate
representation of what is occurring here today, I would like to record the conversation we
are about to have, is that okay?

Response from participant: Yes No

During this interview I would like to reference two distinct parts of the supervision
process. First, your observation of the student teacher while he/she is engaged in the
teaching of the lesson, and secondly, your interaction with the student teacher before,
during or after your observation of the lesson that was taught.

148

I have used a digital voice recorder to capture the student teacher’s lesson, any interaction
you may have had during that lesson, as well as the interaction that you had with the
student teacher or others during your supervision visit. Although you have previously
observed this lesson and also engaged in the interactions that have been recorded, perhaps
you had some additional thoughts during those events that were not able to be captured
on the voice recorder. I would like to encourage you to share them during this time. If at
any time you can recall what you may have been thinking any time during the
supervision process, I would like to encourage you to freely share those thoughts. My
intention is to compile a rich description of the kinds of thoughts and moves that
university supervisors and student teachers engage in during the supervision process.

We will use the digital voice recorder to revisit both the student’s teaching and your
subsequent interaction. We can stop the voice recorder at any time, or we can discuss
things while we are listening to the recording. You may feel free to suggest we stop the
recording at any time, or I may do the same. I would like to encourage you to tell me
what you saw and what you thought about it, as provoked by this recording, the notes you
may have written, or by anything else that occurred during your visit.

Do you have any questions about what I would like to accomplish?

Probes:

What did you perceive as the strengths and/or weaknesses of this student teacher as you
were watching this student teach?

What moves were you making or thoughts were you having while engaged in this
observation and/or interaction?

What body of ideas do you think you are drawing on when you are engaged in this
supervision process?

What personal experiences that you have had might you be drawing on in this work?

149

Is there anything happening on the campus that is informing your thinking about this?

At the conclusion of viewing the recorded audio data, the following question will be
asked:

Is there anything else you would like to share with me regarding your experiences as a
university supervisor, or regarding the way you fulfill this role that I might find helpful?

150

POST-SUPERVISION STIMULATED RECALL WTERVEW
STUDENT TEACHER

The interview will be conducted with the university supervisor within 24 hours of the
post observation conference with the student teacher.

This interview will be conducted while listening to the digital voice recording of the
student teacher as he/she was engaged in teaching the lesson to students, and will also
make reference to recording of the post observation conference between the university
supervisor and the student teacher.

The interview is intended to be an open ended interview, allowing opportunity for the
university supervisor to reflect broadly within his/her supervisory role.

Basic introduction and instructions:
I am here with . who is currently enrolled at

(Student teacher)

. and is in the process of
(name of college/university)

completing his/her teacher certification requirements. He/she is doing fieldwork

at I . under the guidance of
(name of K-12 school & district)

as his/her cooperating teacher

 

(name of cooperating teacher)

and as his/her college/university
(name of college/university field supervisor)

field supervisor.

I am conducting this interview to examine the process of learning to teach as it occurs in
both the university classroom and the fieldwork setting. In order to create a rich
description of the processes associated with learning to teach, and to ensure an accurate
representation of what is occurring here today, I would like to record the conversation we
are about to have, is that okay?

Response from participant: Yes No

151

Having taught this lesson previously, and perhaps having some thoughts while you were
teaching it, if at any time during this interview you can recall what you may have been
thinking during specific moments during your teaching or your interaction with your
supervisor or related to your supervisor’s presence, I would like to ask that you freely
share those thoughts. My intention is to compile a rich description of the kinds of
thoughts and moves that university supervisors and student teachers engage in during the
supervision process.

I will be using the digital audio recording of your teaching and interaction to stimulate
responses during this interview. We can stop the recording at any time or we can interact
while we are listening to the recording. You may feel free to suggest we stop the
recording at any time, or I may do the same. I would like to encourage you to tell me
what you saw and what you thought about it, as provoked by this recording or by
anything else that may have occurred during your supervisor’s visit today.

Do you have any questions about what I would like to accomplish?

Probes

What concerns or thoughts might you have had while engaged in the teaching of this
lesson?

What concerns or thoughts might you have had while engaged in interaction with your
university supervisor ?

From your perspective, what information, knowledge or body of ideas about teaching did
your supervisor draw on in the process supervising your teaching today?

What ideas or experiences do you believe helped your supervisor in his/her work with
you in this setting?

152

What reactions do you have to the interactions that you had with your supervisor today in
this process of learning to teach?

Do you have any positive thoughts or feelings about the interaction you have had with
your supervisor as related to his/her work with you today? If so, what might those be?

Do you have any negative thoughts or feelings about the interactions you may have had
with your supervisor during his/her visit here today?

What was most helpful about your interaction with your university supervisor today?

Did you feel that there were any limitations or things left unsaid in your interaction with
your supervisor today? If so, please explain.

In what ways does what you are doing here in practice connect to what you have learned
about teaching during your university coursework?

Is there anything else you might want to share with me about the process of learning to
teach during fieldwork and/or about this process of being supervised by your university
assigned supervisor?

153

POST-SUPERVISION STIMULATED RECALL INTERVIEW
COOPERATIN G TEACHER INTERVIEW

The interview will be conducted with the cooperating teacher within 24 hours of the
university supervisor’s visit. The primary purpose of this interview is to gather data
regarding how the moves made by the university supervisor were received by the
cooperating teacher, as well as to gather any additional insights the cooperating teacher
may have into the teacher education process as it occurs in practice work.

This interview will be conducted using the audiotape of the lesson taught by the student
teacher as necessary to stimulate reflection and discussion.

The interview is intended to be open-ended, allowing opportunity for the cooperating
teacher to reflect broadly on the teacher education process as it occurs in the practice
setting, with particular attention to the role of the university supervisor in that process.

Basic instructions:
I am here with . continuing to examine the process learning to

teach as it occurs in the field work setting. It is . approximately
(day of the week & date)
. and we will be discussing the supervision visit that occurred
(time of day)
within the last 24 hours at School.

In order to create a rich description of the processes associated with learning to teach, and
to ensure an accurate representation of what is occurring here today, I would like to use a
digital voice recorder to record the conversation we are about to have, is that okay?

Response of participant: Yes No (circle one)

What are your general impressions related to the effectiveness of helping pre-service
teachers like learn to teach through practice work as it is occurring
here?

Do you have any thoughts about the roles played within the teacher education process
and structure as it is being carried out here with you?

154

What knowledge do you draw on in your efforts to help the student teacher learn to teach
more effectively?

How do you perceive the role of university supervisor being played in this setting?

What knowledge do you see the university supervisor drawing on in his/her efforts to
help the student teacher learn to teach more effectively?

What moves do you see the university supervisor making to help him/her play the
supervision role?

What did you see as the university supervisor’s strengths in fulfilling his/her supervision
role?

Did you perceive any limitations or weaknesses in the supervisor, or his/her role, as it is
being carried out here?

How do you feel the role of the university supervisor is the same, or different, from the
role that you are playing in developing a future teacher?

Do you have any additional input concerning university supervision as you see it being
played out in this specific situation or in other similar encounters you have experienced?

155

APPENDIX B

Sample of transcribed interview

~Middle section of interview with Brad, the
Cooperating Teacher at Darion Junior High

156

MR: Thank you. . .What do see as the university supervisor’s role, in general, or in this
particular case with the supervisor you are working with? What do you feel are the
strengths of thre supervisor in fulfilling that role?

BRAD: I would hope that the person’s strengths would be guidance and direction. I’m
dealing with a specific group of people here from a specific community, and have
reference to that. I’m hoping that that person could be kind of a caveat, a bridge, not only
what they are learning here at this school, but the experiences that hey would, gather in
the classroom at the university, and be able to bring specifics, and guidance, and
direction, not only to the student teacher, but obviously helpful hints of what could

be. . .not necessarily what we need to do, but what we need to look for as cooperating
teachers.

MR: Do you see that as a role of the university supervisor?....Helping, not only their
student teachers. . .but how do you see their role relative to you as a cooperating teacher...

BRAD: I guess the word I would use that would be appropriate for myself as the
cooperating teacher would be “guidance”. Guidance is probably the word I am looking
for more than help. Guidance is. . .I think. . .not that we’re. . ..um..two entities, I used that
word before. . .but I would like us to be working together, that some of the terminology
and some of the things that they are talking about there, some of the things they are
looking for are things that I could talk to my cooperating teacher, or my student teacher
with,

MR: Ifl could I could interrupt a minute. . .you said “talking about there”. . .What are you
referring to?

BRAD: If there’s specific guidelines, if there’s specific methods, if there are certain
things they are looking for in regards to those type of things, philosophically, that we
could kind of enhance and guide and help, from this particular thing, rather than hearing
something in a session at night, and then just coming here and teaching. If that’s
something they would like us to work on. . .if they could give us that information and then
we could help and guide and make sure that’s facilitated...

MR: Session at night? What are you referring to?

BRAD: Seminars, yes, on campus seminars. . .I know they have those periodically, and
talk about specific things, a lot of times it’s your experience..those type of things, but

a. . .If there were specific things, educationally that they wanted to look at, and. . .we
really don’t get any help with that. . .it’s. . .here’s you student teacher, we’d like them to
do x-amount of hours, we’d like them to do this and that, and help in this particular

area. . .but we don’t get a lot of information on that. Maybe they expect us to be able to do
that...

157

MR: So, how do you feel relative to that connection between what’s going on over at the
university and what’s happening here. . .how do feel about that connection?

BRAD: That’s an area where probably void right now. . .I have had two different student
teachers this year, from two different institutions, fine institutions, and I think that’s
probably the biggest thing. There hasn’t been a lot of communication in that particular
area. There’s been, obviously, the observations and things like that, but there hasn’t been
a whole lot of, you know, follow-through, or information as to, here’s what we’re really
looking for out of our student teachers. . ..We think this is important. . .These are the areas
we’d like you to really look at ...I have my own ideas of what I want as teacher. After 20
years you have your. . . .but what?...Are there hot things out there right now? Are there
things that we’re leaning toward? Are there certain trends that are important that we need
to be looking at? ...and not that we’ll do them all the time, but I think we would certainly
want to use the same terminology and try to infiltrate that in the lessons with our student
teacher...

MR: Good. . .it makes sense to me. ...Do you perceive any. ...and we’ve talked about this
a bit, and maybe you don’t have any more to add, but do you perceive any limitations or
weaknesses in the supervisor, or in the supervisory role, as it’s being carried out in the
situation you’re working in?

BRAD: No, as I said, I’m very happy with the people I am working with. The student
teaching experience, I think, is going fairly well for the student teacher. The only thing
that I would maybe want, and I don’t know if this is physically possible, is what we
touched on a little bit earlier in our interview. . .is maybe a little bit more feedback after
an evaluation. . .I think would be. . .and it doesn’t necessarily have to be a written,,,but
maybe. . .rather than having something take place in an hour, where on the spot we are
talking. . .maybe there could be something a week or so later, that we could talk and
communicate on, and see what we saw, and maybe that would be a time to reflect and
say, “Hey, let’s really try to ...you know we have been working on this in our
seminar. . .would you have our student teacher incorporate that in the next couple of
weeks before my next visit.”

MR: Does seminar seem to play a big role in the process, or not?

BRAD: I’ve had some institutions where the student teacher has talked very favorably
about that, and I’ve had other institutions where I know nothing about, even if their
seminar is taking place. It’s very different per student, and per institution, but. . .I think
that is a valuable time for the student teacher to be able to have a seminar with others
who are involved in other experiences, and be able to talk about those and some of the
positives and negatives. We talked about that a little earlier. . .you draw experience, and

158

you draw ideas, and you draw out who you want to be and what you want to be from both
positive and negative experiences that you have.

MR: Good. . .only a couple left here. . . .How do you feel the role of the role of the
university supervisor is the same of different from your role in developing the future
teacher?

BRAD: Could you repeat that one more time, please?

MR: Yes. . .How do you feel the role of the university supervisor is the same, or different,
from the role that you play, as a cooperating teacher, in the process of developing the
student teacher to become an effective future teacher?

BRAD: I think it’s a little bit the same, because they depend a lot on us because we see
this person on a daily basis..bu I also think that ultimately, that even though we give them
information, or concerns, or let them know how positive the experience id going. . ., they
still need to be kind of the person that makes that final decision as to how they are feeling
that person is doing. . ..obviously we evaluate at midterm, and evaluate, a final evaluation
on a written, but hopefully, through verbal feedback, which is far more important than
just these written evaluations. . . .I hope they would see and understand what the
experience is at that particular institution. I think they’re valuable, I think they’re part of
the process, ,but I think that we’re both equally part of that process, rather than one being
more important than the other.

MR: What do you feel are the similarities of differences between the kinds of things that
they learn from working with you here, versus the kinds of things that they may learn in
their interaction with their university supervisor, what do you feel might be...

BRAD: I would hope that they are learning specific things. . .I call them book

work. ...specific things that we are teaching and following through here. ...The field work
here is so important. I think there are people that can be very successful and talented, and
understand what to do. . .but ultimately this business is about relationships, and in some
regards common sense in dealing with situations, and that’s where the field work comes,
and is very important. So, I think a supervising teacher probably can see a student in one
way..possibly if they have them in the classroom. . .but it could be very different out on
the field. . .in how people react, and handle. . ., and teach in front of people. So I think. ....I
rambled a little bit there, so I apologize for that, I kind of lost my train of thought.

159

APPENDIX C
Consent Forms

As approved by the Michigan State University and Grand Valley
State University Institutional Review Boards

160

MICHIGAN STATE (Effective date)
U N I V E R S I T Y

Moves Made by Fieldwork Supervisors

During the Supervision of Pre-service Teachers

Cooperating Teacher Consent Form
Dear Cooperating Teacher:

I would like to invite you to participate in my doctoral research sag that will examine
the moves made by university supervisors, the things that they say and do, during the
supervision of pre-service teachers. Information will be collected during the fieldwork
experience of pre-service teachers who are being mentored by university supervisors and
cooperating teachers in the process of learning to teach. The study is designed to provide
insight into the supervision process in order to help universities and university
supervisors improve teacher education programs. Your willingness to contribute to these
efforts to improve teacher education would be greatly appreciated.

 

This study will involve collecting and analyzing data from university supervisors, student
teachers, and cooperating teachers. The research findings will be published in reports and
journal articles for an audience of teacher educators, physical educators, and others with
interest in the process of teacher education.

Data Collection Procedures. Data will be collected in two forms, digital voice
recording and carefully written or recorded field notes. Digital voice recorders will be
used to record interactions among the university supervisor, the student teacher, and the
on-site cooperating teacher. The researcher will be also be writing or recording field
notes during on-site visits to the K-12 schools, and might also ask you to provide copies
of evaluation forms, observation notes, or other written comments that you may have
made related to your role as cooperating teacher. In addition, you will be asked to
participate in a follow-up interview with the researcher, approximately 45-60 minutes in
length, for the purpose of reflecting on your role, the supervisor’s role, the role and
performance of the student teacher. The researcher will be making two (2) visits to each
school, and each visit will involve the process identified in this document. Data will be
stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office on the campus of Grand Valley
State University when not being used, and will be transported in a locked briefcase
during the research process. Data will be stored for five years following the completion
of this study and will only be accessible to the researcher.

161

Benefits and Risks Resulting from Your Participation. You will not receive financial
or other benefits from your participation in this study, although future pre-service
teachers, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers may benefit from the findings
resulting from this study if they are used to improve teacher education programs and
instruction. At the completion of your involvement, you will receive a $50 gift card to a
local store or restaurant as a token of thanks for your participation.

There are some risks to your participation in this study, although steps will be taken to
reduce or eliminate those risks. It is possible that your name or identity could be
unintentionally revealed in connection with this study in ways that could effect your
reputation or relationships with others. These risks will be minimized or eliminated
through careful handling of the data as outlined in the paragraph that follows. In addition,
knowledge that your voice is being recorded and that you are being carefully observed
may cause your behaviors and/or interactions to be altered. However, through the use of
unobtrusive digital voice recording equipment, through assurances of confidentiality as
outlined below, and by establishing a level of personal integrity and trust between the
researcher and participants these risks will also be minimized or eliminated.

Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality. Data collected in this research study will be
organized and analyzed in its audio form and some of it may also be converted to written
form. In addition, the researcher will be writing or recording field notes based on
observation. Whenever data is recorded in written form pseudonyms, replacement
names, will be used for both institution names and personal names. This will make it
difficult, if not impossible, for individuals reading the study to identify you or your
institution. It is important to note that no data will be collected from minor children in
the K -1 2 schools, and that no videotaping will occur as part of this study.

It may be possible that personal written work, such as written notes from your
observations, evaluations, etc., will be requested, collected, and included as data in this
study. In such cases, all personal identifying information will also be deleted or replaced
with pseudonyms.

Throughout the entire research process your rights to privacy, confidentiality, and
anonymity will be protected as specified in the ethical and responsible conduct of
research documents of the Michigan State University Internal Review Board (IRB): “The
privacy of subjects should not be compromised in any way. This means that researchers
must propose to protect human subjects’ privacy by using research designs wherein the
subjects are anonymous during the gathering and use of the data, or wherein the
investigators hold the subjects’ identities in confidence in any use of data.” Your
confidentiality and privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

162

Participant Review of Data and Access to Results. At some point following the
collection and/or analysis of data, you may be asked to voluntarily examine the data that
had been previously collected to assist the researcher in making sure of its accuracy. Near
the completion of this research study, you will also be provided an opportunity to review
the findings of this study with the researcher.

Voluntary Participation. It is understood that your K-12 teaching responsibilities will
remain your highest priority, and that your participation in this research study is
completely voluntary. You have the right to refuse to participate, or discontinue
participation, at any time. If at any time during the research process you should decide to
discontinue your participation, any data collected through your participation will be
withheld from analysis and destroyed.

Questions and Contact Information. If you have any questions about this study, please
feel free to contact the primary investigator overseeing this doctoral study, Thomas D.
Bird, 166 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University. (phone: 517-432-2367, e-mail:
tombird@msu.edu.) If you have any questions about your rights or responsibilities as a
research participant, feel free to contact Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human
Subject Protection Programs at Michigan State University. Phone: 517-355-2180, fax:
517-432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu., or US mail service: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing,
Michigan, 48824.

Participation Agreement. Please indicate below whether or not you agree to voluntarily
participate in the research study under the conditions set forth above, allowing the use of
data collected to be used for research purposes. Please also sign in the space provided
below.

D Yes, I agree to participate in this study under the above stated conditions.
CI No, I would prefer not to participate in this study at this time.

Cooperating Teacher’s Printed Name:
Cooperating Teacher’s Signature:
Date:

Thank you for considering this request. If I can provide additional information, or if you
have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Michael J. Roskamp

Ph.D. Candidate- Kinesiology Department
Michigan State University
roskampm@gvsu.edu, 616-331—8681

163

MICHIGAN STATE (Efl’ective date)
U N I V E R S I T Y

Moves Made by Fieldwork Supervisors

During the Supervision of Pre-service Teachers
University Field Supervisor/Instructor Participation Consent Form
Dear University Field Supervisor/Instructor:

I would like to invite you to participate in my doctoral research study that will examine
the moves made by university supervisors, the things that they say and do, during the
supervision of pre-service teachers. Information will be collected during the fieldwork
experience of pre-service teachers who are being mentored by university supervisors like
yourself in the process of learning to teach. The study is designed to provide insight into
the supervision process in order to help universities and university supervisors improve
teacher education programs. Your willingness to contribute to these efforts to improve
teacher education would be greatly appreciated.

This study will involve collecting and analyzing data from university supervisors, student
teachers, and cooperating teachers. The research findings will be published in reports and
journal articles for an audience of teacher educators, physical educators, and others with
an interest in the process of teacher education.

Data Collection Procedures. Data will be collected in two forms, digital voice
recording and carefully written or recorded field notes. Digital voice recorders will be
used to record interactions among the university supervisor, the student teacher, and the
on-site cooperating teacher. The researcher will be also be writing or recording field
notes during on-site visits to the K-12 schools, and might also ask you to provide copies
of evaluation forms, observation notes, or other written comments that you may have
made related to your role as supervisor. In addition, you will be asked to participate in a
follow-up interview with the researcher, approximately 45-60 minutes in length, for the
purpose of reflecting on your role, the cooperating teacher’s role, the role and
performance of the student teacher.

The researcher will be making two (2) visits to each school, and each visit will involve
the process identified in this document.

Data will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office on the campus of
Grand Valley State University when not being used, and will be transported in a locked
briefcase during the research process. Data will be stored for five years following the
completion on this study and will only the accessible to the researcher.

164

Benefits and Risks Resulting from Your Participation. You will not receive financial
or other benefits from your participation in this study, although future pre-service
teachers, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers may benefit from the findings
resulting from this study if they are used to improve teacher education programs and
instruction. At the completion of your involvement, you will receive a $50 gift card to a
local store or restaurant as a token of thanks for your participation.

There are some risks to your participation in this study, although steps will be taken to
reduce or eliminate those risks. It is possible that your name or identity could be
unintentionally revealed in connection with this study in ways that could effect your
reputation or relationships with others. These risks will be minimized or eliminated
through careful handling of the data as outlined in the paragraph that follows. In addition,
knowledge that your voice is being recorded and that you are being carefully observed
may cause your behaviors and/or interactions to be altered. However, through the use of
unobtrusive digital voice recording equipment, through assurances of confidentiality as
outlined below, and by establishing a level of personal integrity and trust between the
researcher and participants these risks will also be minimized or eliminated.

Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality. Data collected in this research study will be
organized and analyzed in its audio form and some of it may also be converted to written
form. In addition, the researcher will be writing or recording field notes based on
observation. Whenever data in this study is recorded in written form, pseudonyms,
replacement names, will be used for all institution and personal names, making it
difficult, if not impossible for individuals reading this study to identify you or your
institution. It is important to note that no data will be collected from minor children in
the K-12 schools, and that no videotaping will occur as part of this study.

It may be possible that personal written work, such as written notes from your
observations, evaluations, etc., will be requested, collected, and included as data in this
study. In such cases, all personal identifying information will also be deleted or replaced
with pseudonyms.

Throughout the entire research process your rights to privacy, confidentiality, and
anonymity will be protected as specified in the ethical and responsible conduct of
research documents of the Michigan State University Internal Review Board (IRB): “The
privacy of subjects should not be compromised in any way. This means that researchers
must propose to protect human subjects’ privacy by using research designs wherein the
subjects are anonymous during the gathering and use of the data, or wherein the
investigators hold the subjects’ identities in confidence in any use of data.” Your
confidentiality and privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

165

Participant Review of Data and Access to Results. At some point following the
collection and/or analysis of data, you may be asked to voluntarily examine the data that
had been previously collected to assist the researcher in making sure of its accuracy. Near
the completion of this research study, you will be provided an opportunity to review the
findings of this study with the researcher.

Voluntary Participation. It is understood that your university assigned supervision
responsibilities will remain your highest priority, and that your participation in this
research study is completely voluntary. You have the right to refuse to participate, or
discontinue participation at any time. If at any time during the research process you
should decide to discontinue your participation, any data collected through your
participation will be withheld from analysis and destroyed.

Questions and Contact Information. If you have any questions about this study, please
feel free to contact the primary investigator overseeing this doctoral study, Thomas D.
Bird, 166 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University. (phone: 517-432-2367, e-mail:
tombird@msu.edu.) If you have any questions about your rights or responsibilities as a
research participant, feel free to contact Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human
Subject Protection Programs at Michigan State University. Phone: 517-355-2180, fax:
517-432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu., or US mail service: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing,
Michigan, 48824.

Participation Agreement. Please indicate below whether or not you agree to voluntarily
participate in the research study under the conditions set forth above, allowing the use of
data collected to be used for research purposes as identified above, please sign in the
space provided below.

D Yes, I agree to participate in this study under the above stated conditions.
0 No, I would prefer not to participate in this study at this time.

University Field Supervisor/instructor’s Printed Name:
University Field Supervisor/instructor’s Signature:
Date:

Thank you for considering this request. If I can provide additional information, or if you
have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Michael J. Roskamp

Ph.D. Candidate- Kinesiology Department
Michigan State University
roskampm@gvsu.edu, 616-331-8681

166

MICHIGAN STATE (Effective date)
U N I V E R S I T Y

Moves Made by Fieldwork Supervisors

During the SupervisiOn of Pre-service Teachers
Student Teacher Participation Consent Form
Dear Student Teacher:

I would like to invite you to participate in my doctoral research stud; that will examine
the moves made by university supervisors, the things that they say and do, during the
supervision of pre-service teachers. Information will be collected during the fieldwork
experience of pre-service teachers, like yourself, who are being mentored by university
supervisors in the process of learning to teach. The study is designed to provide insight
into the supervision process in order to help universities and university supervisors
improve teacher education programs. Your willingness to contribute to these efforts to
improve teacher education would be greatly appreciated.

This study will involve collecting and analyzing data from university supervisors, student
teachers, and cooperating teachers. The research findings will be published in reports and
journal articles for an audience of teacher educators, physical educators, and others with
interest in the process of teacher education.

Data Collection Procedures. Data will be collected in two forms, digital voice
recording and carefully written or recorded field notes. Digital voice recorders will be
used to record interactions among the university supervisor, the student teacher, and the
on-site cooperating teacher. The researcher will also be writing or recording field notes
during on-site visits to the K-12 schools, and might also ask you to provide copies of
lesson plans, journals, or other written work associated with your student teaching. In
addition, you will be asked to participate in a follow-up interview with the researcher,
approximately 45-60 minutes in length, for the purpose of reflecting on your work, the
c00perating teacher’s role, the role of the university supervisor.

The researcher will be making two (2) visits to each school, and each visit will involve
the process identified in this document.

Data will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office on the campus of
Grand Valley State University when not being used, and will be transported in a locked
briefcase during the research process.

167

Data will be stored for five years following the completion of this study and will only be
accessible to the researcher.

Benefits and Risks Resulting from Your Participation. You will not receive financial
or other benefits from your participation in this study, although future pre-service
teachers, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers may benefit from the findings
resulting from this study if they are used to improve teacher education programs and
instruction. At the completion of your involvement, you will receive a $50 gift card to a
local store or restaurant as a token of thanks for your participation.

There are some risks to your participation in this study, although steps will be taken to
reduce or eliminate those risks. It is possible that your name or identity could be
unintentionally revealed in connection with this study in ways that could effect your
reputation or relationships with others. These risks will be minimized or eliminated
through careful handling of the data as outlined in the paragraph that follows. In addition,
knowledge that your voice is being recorded and that you are being carefully observed
may cause your behaviors and/or interactions to be altered. However, through the use of
unobtrusive digital voice recording equipment, through assurances of confidentiality as
outlined below, and by establishing a level of personal integrity and trust between the
researcher and participants these risks will also be minimized or eliminated.

Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality. Data collected in this research study will be
organized and analyzed in its audio form and some of it may also be converted to written
form. In addition, the researcher will be writing or recording field notes based on
observation. Whenever data in this study is recorded in written form, or if personal
written work such as lesson plans, personal reflections, or joumaling, are collected and
included as data in this study, all personal identifying information will be deleted or
replaced with pseudonyms. Pseudonyms, or alternate names, will be replace all personal
names and the names of institutions in the study making it difficult, if not impossible, for
individuals reading this study to identify you or your institution. It is important to note
that no data will be collected from minor children in the K-12 schools, and that no
videotaping will occur as part of this study.

Throughout the entire research process your rights to privacy, confidentiality, and
anonymity will be protected as specified in the ethical and responsible conduct of
research documents of the Michigan State University Internal review Board (IRB): “The
privacy of subjects should not be compromised in any way. This means that researchers
must propose to protect human subjects’ privacy by using research designs wherein the
subjects are anonymous during the gathering and use of the data, or wherein the
investigators hold the subjects’ identities in confidence in any use of data.” Your
confidentiality and privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

168

Participant Review of Data and Access to Results. At some point following the
collection and/or analysis of data, you may be asked to voluntarily examine the data that
had been previously collected to assist the researcher in making sure of its accuracy. Near
the completion of this research study, you will be provided with an opportunity to review
the findings of this study with the researcher.

Voluntary Participation. It is understood that your teacher education program
requirements and responsibilities will remain your highest priority, and that your
participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You have the right to refuse
to participate, or discontinue participation at any time. If at any time during the research
process you should decide to discontinue your participation, any data collected through
your participation will be withheld from analysis and destroyed.

Questions and Contact Information. If you have any questions about this study, please
feel free to contact the primary investigator overseeing this doctoral study, Thomas D.
Bird, 166 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University. (phone: 517-432—2367, e-mail,
tombird@msu.edu.) If you have any questions about your rights or responsibilities as a
research participant, feel free to contact Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human
Subject Protection Programs at Michigan State University. Phone: 517-355-2180, fax:
517-432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu., or US mail service: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing,
Michigan, 48824.

Participation Agreement. Please indicate below whether or not you agree to voluntarily
participate in the research study under the conditions set forth above, allowing the use of
data collected to be used for research purposes as identified above, please sign in the
space provided below.

D Yes, I agree to participate in this study under the above stated conditions.
0 No, I would prefer not to participate in this study at this time.

Student Teacher’s Printed Name:

Student Teacher’s Signature: Date:

Thank you for considering this request. Ifl can provide additional information, or if you
have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Michael J. Roskamp

Ph.D. Candidate- Kinesiology Department
Michigan State University
roskampm@gvsu.edu, 616-331-8681

169

MICHIGAN STATE Date:
U N I VE R S I T Y

Request for Permission to Do Research in Your School Building
Dear Building Principal:

I am writing to request permission to do research in your school building. I am a
doctoral candidate at Michigan State University in the Kinesiology (Physical Education)
Department, and am currently working to complete my dissertation under the guidance of
Thomas Bird, Ph.D. from the Teacher Education Department. My dissertation is entitled,
“ Learning to teach physical education: University field supervision as a link between
coursework and practice.” My research question involves examining how university field
supervisors play their supervision role while working in schools with student teachers and
cooperating teachers. My goal is to be able to publish the research findings from my
study in reports and journal articles for an audience of teacher educators and others with
an interest in teacher education.

The student teacher from who is working in your school, the college
supervisor overseeing his/her work, and the faculty member from your school who is
working with the student teacher, all appear to meet the qualifications necessary to be
participants in my study. My study will involve collecting data from university
supervisors, student teachers, and cooperating teachers through both audiotaping and
observation. I will not be doing any videotaping, and I will not be collecting any data
from the children who attend your school. It is possible that I might include references to
comments made by students during an observed lesson, but any such references would
not include any information identifying a specific child.

I intend to collect data for my study in two (2) ways. I will using digital voice recorders
to capture conversations that occur among the university supervisor, the student teacher,
and the cooperating teacher, and I will also be writing and recording field notes while
observing the supervision process as it unfolds during the supervisor’s on-site visits. My
research plan calls for me to make two (2) visits to each school to observe and collect
data, and each visit will consist of the same process. The confidentiality and privacy of
all individuals involved will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Your school will not receive financial or other benefits from the study, however,
future pre-service teachers, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers may benefit
from the findings of this study if they are used to improve teacher education programs or
instruction. You should also know that whenever data in this study is recorded in written
form, pseudonyms will be used for both your institution’s name and the names of
individuals participating in this study, making it difficult, if not impossible, for

170

individuals reading this study to identify your institution or the individuals associated
with it.

If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact the primary
investigator overseeing this doctoral study, Thomas D. Bird, 166 Erickson Hall,
Michigan State University. (phone: 517-432-2367, e-mail: tombird@msu.edu.), or you
may contact me directly. If you are willing to allow me to conduct research in your
building as specified above, I would appreciate it if you would sign and date this
document in the space provided below.

Building Principal: Date:

 

Schook

 

Thank you for considering this request. If I can provide additional information, or answer
any additional questions, please fell free to contact me.

Michael J. Roskamp

Ph.D. Candidate- Kinesiology Department
Michigan State University

roskampm @ gvsuedu

616-331-8681

171

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ball, D. L. ( 1997). Developing mathematics reform: What don’t we know about teacher
learning—but would make good working hypothesis. In S.N. Friel & G.W. Bright
(Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF Teacher Enhancement in K-6 mathematics.
(pp. 77-111). Latham, MD: University press of America.

Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown,J.S. & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Harvard Business School
Press.

Brown, 1.8., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Bruckerhof, C.E., & Carlson,J.L. (1995). Loneliness, fear, and disrepute: The haphazard
socialization of a student teacher. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 431-444.

Carr, A Jonasscn. D. Litzinger. M. (1998) Good ideas to foment educational
revolution: the role of systemic change in advancing situated learning,
constructivism, and feminist pedagogy. Educational Technology. 38, 5-15

Clift & Brady (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of
the AERA panel on research and teacher education. p.. 261

Cochrane-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research in teaching and teacher research: The
issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 3, 2-10.

Denyer, J ., & Florio-Ruane, S. (1995). Mixed messages and missed opportunities:
Moments of transformation in writing conferences and teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 539-551.

Dewey, J. (1974). In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected
readings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dooley, C. (1998). Teaching as a two-way street: discontinuities among metaphors,
images, and classroom realities. Journal of Teacher Education, 49, 97-107.

Elkind, D. (2004). The problem with constructivism. The Educational Forum, 68, 306-
312.

172

Floden, RE. (1997). Reforms that call for more than you understand. In N .C. Burboles
& D.T. Hansen (Eds.), Teaching and its predicaments. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Floden, R.E. & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework in the arts
and sciencesand in the foundations of education. In M. Cochran-Smith & K.
Zeichner (eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on
research and teacher education. p.. 261

Goodlad, J. (1990). Why our schools don’t get much better—and how they might.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 17-4, 5-21

Graham, P. (1997). Tensions in the mentor teacher-student teacher relationship: Creating
productive sites for learning within a high school English teacher education
program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 513-527.

Graham, P. (1999). Powerful influences: A case of one student teacher renegotiating his
perceptions of power relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 523-540.

Kirk , D. I., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376-387.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated leaming: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of
school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding
of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ, AL:
Lawrence ErlBaum.

McDiarmid, G.W., Ball, D.L., & Anderson, CR. (1989). Why staying one chapter
ahead doesn’t really work: Subject specific pedagogy. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.),
Knowledge base the beginning teacher. New York: Pergamon.

Merriam S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San
Francisco: J ossey-Bass Publishers

Murray, F. & Porter, A. (1996). Pathway from the liberal arts curriculum to lessons in
schools. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook: Building a
knowledge base for the preparation of teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

173

O’Callaghan, C. (2001). Social construction of Student teachers’ instructional strategies
for reading. The Teacher Educator, 36, 265-281.

Richardson, V. (1999). Teacher education and the construction of meaning. In G. A.
Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rink, J. E., French, K., & Tjeerdsma, B. (1996). Foundations for the learning and
instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15,
399-417.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching; Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-21.

Slick, SK. (1997). Assessing versus assisting: The supervisor’s role in the complex
dynamics of the students teaching triad. Teaching and Teacher Education,13,
713-726.

Tabachnik, B., Popkewitz, T., & Zeichner, K. (1979). Teacher education and the
professional perspectives of student teachers. Interchange, 10(4), 12-29.

Vygotsky, LS. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weaver, D., & Stanulis, RN. (1996). Negotiating preparation and practice: Student
teaching in the middle. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 27-36.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of
Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Wiggins, R.A., & Clift, RT. (1995). Oppositional pairs: Unresolved conflicts in student
teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 17, 9-19.

Wilson & McDiarmid (1996). Something old, something new: What do social studies
teachers need to know? In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook:
Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

174

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

lllllllllllllIlllllllllllIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllll