a“: ,
.VMWLQJ
lbw... .11.
_ 1...

n
.J ..r\.m

ofin¢1\\luu|
... .. .
35.3.1.» 4.
”:3... 1.4

Paar"?

 

. .2... J
S. 3.33;]!
frail: 3.
.1906. ((1

 

 

 

 

i o.
it L... .yo _
3.210...” A 51:14.21

.1..I!Po... '15....erv.
v9;

 

, mariufizxmfimmi.

J.

glifi “rim-"qr . “Temmwt . .

 

1 news

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

NURTURING OUR FUTURE COLLEAGUES:
COOPERATING MUSIC TEACHERS’ RELATIONSHIPS
WITH THEIR STUDENT TEACHERS

presented by

TAMI JONES DRAVES

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Music Education

 

Wflwflt

Major ProfessoFs Signature

MA ZJSL zoo S;
I /

Date

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

o.-.-.-.-.-.-._.-.-.-.-.-..-.-.-.—.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-._.

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'IProtlAcc&Pres/CIRC/DateDue indd

NURTURING OUR FUTURE COLLEAGUES: COOPERATTNG MUSIC TEACHERS’
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR STUDENT TEACHERS

By

Tami Jones Draves

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Music Education

2008

 

ABSTRACT

NURTURING OUR FUTURE COLLEAGUES: COOPERATING MUSIC TEACHERS’
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR STUDENT TEACHERS

By
Tami Jones Draves

With the intent of better understanding the music student teaching experience, this
dissertation examines the nature and extent of the student teacher/cooperating music
teacher relationship, looking specifically at the various types of relationships that exist
between student teacher/cooperating music teacher pairs. Though much research exists
on the music student teaching experience, few researchers have investigated the bonds
formed between student teacher/cooperating music teacher pairs. I explored specific
questions about student teacher and cooperating teacher characteristics, development of
the relationship within the context of the music classroom, power sharing between
cooperating music teacher and student teacher, and teacher identity.

Four student teacher/cooperating music teacher pairs from a major Midwestern
university served as participants, resulting in ten total participants due to placements that
were split between grade levels and music disciplines. Criteria used to identify potential
participants were experience as a cooperating teacher, teaching experience, grade level
and teaching assignment, and gender match between cooperating teacher and student
teacher. I used ethnographic methodological techniques to collect data. These included
in-depth observation of participants, formal individual interviews and focus group
interviews, collection of artifacts (i.e. lesson plans, reflective notes, observation reports),

and informal conversations. Ethnographic data were coded and analyzed for emergent

themes. Three measures were used to establish trustworthiness: data triangulation,
member checks, and peer review.

The five themes that emerged from the data were Cooperating Teacher
Characteristics, Student Teacher Characteristics, Relationships, Power Sharing, and
Teacher Identity. Both cooperating teachers and student teachers described characteristics
of both parties that contributed to the relationships formed and characteristics of the
relationships themselves. Cooperating teachers recalled experiences that influenced how
they approached their role, with their own student teaching experience having been most
powerful. Participants explained how power was shared in their classrooms in terms of
teaching responsibilities, administrative responsibilities, and classroom management.
Performances and split placements proved to be mitigating factors in cooperating
teachers’ power sharing. Cooperating teachers referred to aspects of their student
teachers’ identities as they took shape over the course of the experience and how their
role as cooperating teacher impacted their own teacher identities. From these five themes,
I proposed a model that illustrates the interactions and relationships between themes.

I offer recommendations for practice that include: making careful student
teacher/cooperating music teacher matches; providing opportunities for student
teacher/cooperating music teacher pairs to interact prior to the beginning of student
teaching; promoting meaningful discourse between cooperating music teachers; preparing
cooperating music teachers for working with student teachers; implementing activities in
music teacher preparation programs that foster characteristics of effective teachers and
nurture teacher identity formation in preservice teachers; and widespread implementation

of professional development partnerships in music teacher education.

Copyright by
TAMI JONES DRAVES
2008

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Ian Draves, who embraced my dreams as
his own and with his steadfast love, support, and encouragement, helped me realize them.

These words only begin to express the depth of my love and gratitude.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My most sincere thanks go to the members of my Committee: .Dr. Mitchell
Robinson, my advisor, for his nurturing spirit, his perennially open door, and his many
long talks full of wisdom; Dr. Cynthia Taggart for her constant encouragement and
genius in editing; Dr. Sandra Snow for challenging me by example to always think more
deeply; and Dr. Kevin Sedatole for his passion and commitment to artistic music making.

This project would not have been possible without the teachers who graciously
participated and freely shared their time, thoughts, and experiences. I thank them for
allowing me to look into their classrooms and their relationships with one another. Their
honesty, professionalism, and exemplary practices inspired me.

I wish to thank my parents, Bill and Jeanne Jones, who have supported me and
who have always been there, even when “there” was a concert hours away. I especially
thank my Dad, who taught me my first note on the clarinet when I was ten years old. I
also would like to thank my sister, Laura French, for setting the bar of achievement high.

I have experienced immeasurable learning both by being mentored and mentoring
others. These individuals deserve acknowledgement and thanks: Carla Gallahan,
Katherine Ingram, Dr. Randy Stowe, Lucy Fabrick, Dr. Diane Ray, Zachary White,
Susan Smith Brough, Joel Schroter, and D’Wayne Dubose.

Lastly, I give special thanks to my friends Nate and Lisa, who lit the path ahead of
me and kindly shared their map, and to Bridget who walked the path with me. Their love,

laughter, and encouragement will always be treasured.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... l
Rationale for Study ....................................................................................... 4
Research on Student Teaching in Music Education ..................................... 8
Role-Identity and Socialization of Music Teachers ...................................... 17
Cooperating Teacher Research ..................................................................... 25
Cooperating Teacher Preparation ..................................................... 25
Characteristics of Effective Cooperating Teachers ........................... 27
Cooperating Teachers as Teacher Educators .................................... 29
Cooperating Teachers’ Professional Growth .................................... 32
Purpose and Problems ................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER II
RELATED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 39
Seminal Studies of the Music Student Teaching Experience ....................... 40
Krueger: The Hidden Curriculum ..................................................... 40
Schleuter: Curricular Thinking ......................................................... 42
Schmidt: Learning from Experience ................................................. 44
Frameworks of Mentoring ............................................................................ 47
The Mentoring Relationship ........................................... 51
Student Teacher Perspectives ........................................................... 51
Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher: Joint Perspectives ........ 56
Cooperating Teacher Perspectives .................................................... 60
CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 68
Researcher Lens ............................................................................................ 68
Design ........................................................................................................... 69
Participants .................................................................................................... 69
Procedure ...................................................................................................... 72
Analysis ......................................................................................................... 74
Cooperating Teachers ................................................................................... 76
Kate Jackson ..................................................................................... 76
Kristen Sykes .................................................................................... 77
Susan Crisp ....................................................................................... 77
Darcy Taylor ..................................................................................... 78
Steven Dillard ................................................................................... 79
Nina Daugherty ................................................................................. 79
Student Teachers ........................................................................................... 80
Emily Lawson ................................................................................... 8O

vii

Jack Collins ....................................................................................... 81

Meg Kramer ...................................................................................... 81
Ryan Miller ....................................................................................... 82
CHAPTER IV
WHO AM 1, WHO ARE YOU?: CHARACTERISTICS OF COOPERATING
TEACHERS, STUDENT TEACHERS, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS ............. 83
Cooperating Teacher Characteristics ............................................................ 83
Vignette: Kate Jackson, Cooperating Teacher and Emily Lawson,
Student Teacher ................................................................................ 83
Personal/Professional ........................................................................ 95
Musical .............................................................................................. 98
Educational ....................................................................................... 99
Influential Experiences ..................................................................... 100
Student Teacher Characteristics .................................................................... 105
Vignette: Steven Dillard, Cooperating Teacher and Ryan Miller,
Student Teacher ................................................................................ 105
Personal Professional ........................................................................ 1 13
Musical .............................................................................................. 115
Educational ............................................................................. , .......... 1 18
Relationships ................................................................................................. 123
Vignette: Interview with Susan Crisp, Cooperating Teacher ........... 123
Vignette: Interview with Jack Collins, Student Teacher .................. 126
CHAPTER V
WHO WILL WE BE?: POWER SHARING AND TEACHER IDENTITY ........... 136
Power Sharing ............................................................................................... 136
Vignette: Darcy Taylor, Cooperating Teacher and Meg Kramer,
Student Teacher ................................................................................ 136
Vignette: Kristen Sykes, Cooperating Teacher and Jack Collins,
Student Teacher ................................................................................ 142
Teaching: Gradual Progression ......................................................... 146
Teaching: Differences in Classroom Setting .................................... 148
Teaching: Ensemble Performances and Festivals ............................. 151
Teaching: Balancing Responsibility and Intervention ...................... 153
Classroom Management .................................................................... 157
Administrative ................................................................................... 160
Teacher Identity ............................................................................................ 163
Vignette: Nina Daugherty, Cooperating Teacher ............................. 163
Cooperating Teachers and Teacher Identity ..................................... 167
Student Teachers and Teacher Identity ............................................. 171
CHAPTER VI
BECOMING TEACHERS AND COLLEAGUES: THEMES AND THEIR
CONNECTIONS .................................................................................................. 180
Cooperating Teacher Characteristics ............................................................ 180

viii

Student Teacher Characteristics .................................................................... 185

Relationships ................................................................................................. 1 87

Power Sharing ............................................................................................... 190

Teacher Identity ............................................................................................ 195

Connections ................................................................................................... 198

Summary ....................................................................................................... 202
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................ 204

Summary ....................................................................................................... 204

Purpose and Problems ....................................................................... 204
Method .............................................................................................. 205

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 206

Implications for Practice ............................................................................... 212

Suggestions for Future Research .................................................................. 219
APPENDIX A

CONSENT DOCUMENT ............................................................................ 224
APPENDIX B

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................ 227
APPENDIX C

PROCEDURE FOR FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS AND INTERVIEW

QUESTIONS ................................................................................................ 230
APPENDIX D

SAMPLE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT ...................................................... 232
APPENDIX E

SAMPLE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT WITH CODES ............................. 233
APPENDIX F

PRELIMINARY CODE LIST ...................................................................... 234
APPENDIX G

FINAL CODE LIST ..................................................................................... 237
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 240

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Power sharing continuum of cooperating music teachers ......................... 146

Figure 2. Model of thematic relationships ................................................................ 202

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Journal entry from my student teaching: February, 1997

Ms. Carlisle] is letting me take over the percussion class for the next two weeks. I
can’t believe she trusts me to work with them, especially since percussion is probably my
weakest instrument. Working with the trumpet class last week was really fun and the two
pages of notes that Ms. Carlisle gave me afterwards really helped. I like it when she does
that. She and Mr. Lawrence have let me jump right in and take over teaching
responsibilities with the seventh grade classes. [find myself doing a lot of the things that
she does, like saying “Excuse me ” to get students ’ attention, but it ’s working for me. I am
so lucky to be here and I have totally fallen in love with middle school kids. I will

definitely look for a middle school job for next year.

Email to university supervisor while serving as a cooperating teacher: March, 2005 i

Hi Neil! Darryl tells me that you will be out to observe him next week Would it be
possible for us to have some time to meet privately? I am really struggling to help Darryl
improve. I provide him feedback, let him know at least a full day in advance when he will
be teaching a class, and try to have a meeting with him daily. He just isn ’t getting any
better, and in some regards is getting worse. His error detection skills are really
problematic, and he gets very impatient with the students. I want this to be a good

experience for him, and am concerned that I am not doing the things I should to support

 

' All names used in the study are pseudonyms

him. Perhaps you ’11 have some ideas for me on what I can do better in terms of mentoring
him. It ’s so different fi'om mentoring new teachers who at least already have student

teaching under their belt. Thanks in advance for your help!

Journal entry following my first student teacher supervision: October, 2005

I have never felt out of place in a music classroom before, until today. That was
unnerving. I wanted to say: “I was teaching middle school band just six months ago! ”
The dynamic between Mrs. Douglas [cooperating teacher] and Ellen [student teacher]
was really odd. Mrs. Douglas expressed satisfaction with Ellen, but there was an
undercurrent of something there, like she had concerns but didn ’t want to tell me. Almost
like she was protective of Ellen, which is even odder since Ellen has expressed her own
dissatisfaction with Mrs. Douglas before. Apparently Mrs. Douglas doesn ’t want her to
work with the high school orchestra, and is only willing to use her right now to take out
individuals for extra help. I wish I could figure out the issue; is the problem with Ellen,

or Mrs. Douglas, or both? I’m on their side, but I’m not sure either of them believes that.

Throughout my career, I have benefited from supportive mentors. Starting with
Ms. Carlisle in student teaching, Dr. Stewart and Ms. Floyd in my first job, and now as a
student again in a doctoral program, mentors have played prominent roles in my life. That
is why I jumped at the opportunity to mentor new teachers in my former job as a middle
school band director. I found the experience invigorating, rewarding, and sometimes
exhausting. Mentoring a student teacher was the next logical step, and I was excited to

welcome one into my classroom. My own student teaching had been an exceptional

experience. I hoped to provide a similar experience to a student teacher and help him
launch his career in a positive and supportive environment.

Darryl was my first student teacher. I felt prepared and ready to guide him
throughout his experience of learning to teach. Every effort I made to support his growth,
however, seemed to fail. I was quickly frustrated and sought the advice of Darryl’s
university supervisor, Neil. Neil tried to help me as best he could and conversation with
him on a regular basis did make me feel better about what I viewed as my increasing
inadequacy with Darryl. By the time Darryl left, I was certain the experience had been a
failure for him and me. Reflecting upon my own student teaching experience and my
experience as a cooperating teacher with Darryl, I became interested in why music
teachers accept this daunting responsibility. This became the focus of my first research

study when I returned to graduate school.

From interview with Sarah Burgess, Cooperating Music Teacher, November 2006
I don ’t take this lightly, this is a big deal; I ’m actually influencing this person to
go out [and teach]. I’m developing myself as well. . . but selfishly I do enjoy what

I get out of it too, in watching them grow and helping them.

In a pilot study completed in March 2006, I studied the perspectives of three
cooperating music teachers on the student teaching experience. Through interviews and
guided email responses, I explored the beliefs of Sarah, Nick, and Mary regarding their

roles as cooperating teachers in the music student teaching experience. Five themes

emerged from data analysis: Motivation of Cooperating Teacher, Professional
Development, Preparation, Expectations, and Power.

Power sharing between cooperating teachers and student teachers varied among
the three participants and reflected the relationship formed between the two parties.
These relationships fell on a power sharing continuum ranging from student/teacher
relationship, to team—teaching relationship, to collaborative partnership. A student/teacher
relationship, in which the student teacher remained a student with limited responsibility,
resulted in the lowest level of power sharing. The team-teaching relationship fell in the
middle of the power sharing continuum and was characterized by the student teacher
having responsibility for instruction in the classroom. An equitable allocation of
instructional and professional responsibilities characterized the highest level of power
sharing by cooperating teachers, the collaborative partnership. This relationship played a
central role in the satisfaction expressed by cooperating teachers about the practicum.
Sarah and Nick both preferred a collaborative partnership with their student teachers,
while Mary was more satisfied with a student/teacher relationship. Relationships between
music student teachers and cooperating teachers have become the focus of this qualitative

dissertation.

Rationale for Study
A full understanding of the student teaching experience requires knowledge of the
structure, content, and delivery of field experience programs, characteristics of the
placement setting, and relationships between the preservice teacher and others in the field

experience. Zeichner (1987) calls this interaction of content, context, and people the

ecology of field experience. All three dimensions are important, but researchers have not
thoroughly explored which component contributes most to the overall educative quality
of student teaching. Conflicting research findings about the influence of cooperating
teachers upon student teachers led Zeichner to suggest that direct observation of a field
experience is needed to understand its ecology. The complexities of the interpersonal
relationships during student teaching can be better understood using a naturalistic
approach (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996). “Qualitative research provides better access to
thinking and behavior and holds more promise of generating information about
appropriate roles, responsibilities, and goals” (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990, p. 524).

Several researchers have raised issues concerning cooperating teachers.
Philosophical preferences, personality, years of teaching experience, and level of
education have been suggested as indicators of potential effectiveness as a cooperating
teacher (Watts, 1987). Griffin (1986) stated that the body of research literature about
student teaching was “surprisingly small” in relation to its importance in teacher
preparation (p. 266). Some believe that research about cooperating teachers should
explore selection and training, experience, role and responsibilities, effect on student
teacher attitudes, socialization and philosophy, supervisory style, and interpersonal
communication from the viewpoint of the cooperating teacher as well as the student
teacher (Applegate, 1987; Griffin, 1986).

Cooperating teachers believed that the relationship established with their student
teacher was critical (Applegate, 1987). Their roles and responsibilities, however, were
often ill-defined (Applegate, 1987; Griffin, 1986; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; McIntyre et

a1., 1996; Watts, 1987). This confusion about roles could be partially blamed on the

developmental nature of the student teaching experience, since the role of the student
teacher and cooperating teacher changes over time (McIntyre et al., 1996). Role
confusion and a lack of shared expectations lead to an unsuccessful experience (Guyton
& McIntyre, 1990). Open communication and collaboration among all parties is needed
regarding responsibilities and role expectations in this process of supervision and
mentoring that is full of “invention and improvisation” (Bowles & Runnels, 1998; Clark,
2002, p; 79). While open communication is necessary, it is not easily achieved. “Student
teaching is a complex process and one of its most abstruse components is the cognitive
complexity of the triad members” (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990, p. 523).

Hawkey (1997) reviewed the existing literature on mentoring in teacher education
in the hopes of establishing an agenda for future research. Hawkey outlined four main
approaches to research in mentoring. The four approaches included roles and
responsibilities of mentors, a functional approach that identified stages of student teacher
growth and developed a mentoring model accordingly, investigation of the typical stages
of mentoring which place emphasis on the interpersonal aspects of mentoring, and the
examination of the views brought by mentors to the experience which shape their
mentoring role (p. 326). Researchers rarely considered the intricacies of mentoring
interactions, how relationships operate between the individuals involved in mentoring,
and how or what student teachers learn from mentoring.

An effective student teaching placement relies on a good relationship between
those involved, particularly in terms of creating a warm and supportive environment for
the student teacher. The cooperating teacher is the key participant in determining the

quality of the experience for the student teacher (Zeichner, 2002). Laboskey and Richert

 

(2002) agreed, stating that the student teacher/cooperating teacher relationship must be
safe, supportive, promote reflection, and result in collaborative learning between both
parties. However, being a good cooperating teacher is not always synonymous with being
a good teacher. A cooperating teacher must engage in active mentoring. “Learning to be a
good mentor is a complex and demanding process” (Zeichner, 2002, p. 59). Active
mentoring significantly improves the quality of the student teaching experience for
preservice teachers.

Student teaching is the seminal experience of undergraduate music teacher
preparation (Conway, 2002; Gray, 1999; Legette, 1997; Richards & Killen, 1994;
Rideout & Feldman, 2002; Roulston, Legette, & Womack, 2005; Sudzina & Coolican,

l 994). Inservice and preservice music teachers consider it the most valuable part of
preservice teacher education (Conway, 2002; Verrastro & Leglar, 1992). Student teachers
begin the practicum in a limited role, on the edge of the teaching experience. They hope
to gradually move toward the center, increasingly take on more responsibility, and step
fully into the teacher role (Rideout & F eldman, 2002). The cooperating teacher assists or
impedes the student teacher’s move to the center.

Field experience research suggests that influences beyond the university setting,

such as the cooperating teacher and the school context, may interfere with the

ability of the preservice teacher to transfer what was learned in the methods class

to the actual teaching situation. (Verrastro & Leglar, 1992, p. 683)

Though most research identifies the cooperating teacher as the most influential member
of the student teaching triad from the student teacher’s point of view, little of it has

focused on cooperating teachers as primary participants (Verrastro & Leglar, 1992).

Research of the student teaching experience in music education has information about the
cooperating teacher embedded in it, rather than as the focus of the study (Rideout &
Feldman, 2002). The meager effort given to research in music teacher education
indicates a need for more investigation of all aspects of the student teaching experience
(Asmus, 2000).

The literature review for this dissertation begins with an overview of research on
the student teaching experience in music education, including a brief look at three
seminal studies: Krueger (1985), Schleuter (1991), and Schmidt (1994b). Following these
seminal studies is a review of research on role-identity and socialization in music teacher
education. Next is a review of research in general education and music education
focusing on the cooperating teacher in the areas of preparation, characteristics,
professional growth, and role as teacher educator. The literature review concludes with

the Purpose and Problems for the current study at the end of this chapter.

Research on Student Teaching in Music Education

Many research studies have focused on the perceptions and teaching performance
of music student teachers (F rederickson & Pembrook, 1999; Kelly, 2000; Krueger 1985;
Madsen & Kaiser, 1999; Paul, Teachout, Sullivan, Kelly, Bauer, & Raiber, 2001, 2002;
Schmidt, 1994a, 1994b; Stegman, 2001 , Yourn, 2000). Researchers have examined
student teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about field experience (F rederickson &
Pembrook, 1999; Kelly, 2000; Madsen & Kaiser, 1999). Paul et al. (2001, 2002)
investigated the relationship of occupational role development and prior field experience

to initial teaching performance in student teaching. Krueger (1985) and Schmidt (1994a,

 

 

1994b) both studied the development of teacher identity, beliefs, and learning about
teaching over the course of the internship. Stegman (2001) studied the reflective practices
of student teachers. Schmidt and Knowles (1994) examined the failure experiences of
four student teachers following their internship. Schleuter (1991) investigated student
teachers’ instructional and curricular thinking during the internship.

Madsen and Kaiser (1999) and Kelly (2000) investigated the pre-intemship fears
of student teachers. Over a 3-year period, subjects (N = 115) in an orientation session
prior to student teaching were asked to write down their three greatest fears about student
teaching (Madsen & Kaiser, 1999). Reponses were analyzed and classified into
categories. Student teachers were also classified into groups of exceeds expectations,
meets expectations, and adequately meets expectations. Descriptive analysis of subjects’
answers revealed that the biggest fear of student teachers related to student teaching was
discipline and classroom management, which was identified twice as often as the second
most closely rated fear, that of failure (Madsen & Kaiser, 1999).

Kelly (2000) asked subjects (N = 62) to write down their three greatest fears about
Student teaching and their three greatest fears about their first year of teaching. Data were
analyzed and classified using the same taxonomies as Madsen and Kaiser (1999). Like
subjects in the Madsen and Kaiser (1999) study, discipline was ranked as the number one
fear associated with student teaching. The second greatest fear about student teaching in
this study was concern over relationships with supervisors and principals (Kelly, 2000).
Madsen and Kaiser (1999) and Kelly (2000) suggested that music teacher educators

incorporate experiences in undergraduate preparation that alleviate these fears and build

 

confidence in preservice music teachers, therefore leading them to success (Kelly, 2000;
Madsen & Kaiser, 1999).

Frederickson and Pembrook (1999) investigated the perceptions of student
teachers during field experience. Student teaching placements for all subjects (N = 30)
included an elementary general music placement for half of the semester and a secondary
setting for the other half. Subjects were asked to keep a daily journal throughout the
practicum. Each day subjects recorded their expectations for the day, described daily
activities, reported best and worst aspects of the day, and gave an overall evaluation at
the end of each day.

Frederickson and Pembrook (1999) found that the best aspects of the day were
related to the advantages of teaching, like choosing literature and getting to talk with
other teachers. The highest and lowest evaluations for each day revolved around music-
making with students, either excellent or poor. Most evaluations focused on positive
examples of music-making rather than negative. When expectations and evaluations
differed significantly, control was the main issue. If the student teacher perceived a lack
of being in charge or in control of a situation in the classroom in terms of student
instruction and behavior or decision-making, evaluations tended to drop sharply when
compared to the expectations for the day. Frederickson and Pembrook suggested that
helping student teachers gain control during student teaching could be a key issue in
music teacher education.

Paul et a1. (2001) examined the effects of authentic-context learning (ACL)
activities on initial teaching performance in student teaching for instrumental music

education majors. Initial teaching performance was significantly related to the number of

10

early field experiences, number of peer-teaching experiences, and the number of self-
observations of peer—teaching. There was a significant difference in initial teaching
performance for high, medium, and low levels of ACL activity (p = .001). Differences
existed between high and medium groups and high and low groups, but not medium and
low groups. Paul et al. suggested that more research into appropriate feedback from
instructors, reflective practice techniques, and those factors’ relationships to initial
teaching performance is warranted. The researchers also recommended firrther research
into ACL activities and initial teaching performance for choral and general music student
teachers.

Paul et al. (2002) investigated the level of occupational role development in
instrumental music student teachers and their initial teaching performance in the student
teaching practicum. Role development did not correlate significantly with initial teaching
effectiveness. The researchers encouraged continued study of occupational role
development and initial teaching performance that included a subject sample from a
wider range of universities and specialty areas.

Qualitative researchers in music education have also turned their attention to the
student teaching experience. In a collective case study of six choral music student
teachers, Stegman (2001) looked at student teachers’ perceptions of their own successes
and failures using guided reflection. Participants engaged in guided questioning
following instruction, completed questionnaires, and provided lesson plans to the
researcher. The researcher also used field notes and her own journal as data. Coding of

data revealed five themes: Beliefs about Teaching and Learning, Orientation to Subject

11

Matter, Perspectives Regarding Curriculum and Planning, Reflective Capacity, and
Images/Models/Metaphors.

The student teachers who perceived their role as one of facilitator better
understood student learning (Stegman, 2001). Stegman suggested that guided
observations focusing on student-teacher interactions, student participation, instructional
representations, and assessment would provide contrasting views from which student
teachers could learn. A powerful connection between the images student teachers had of
teaching and their teaching practice was discovered. Inquiry into student teachers’
practices and the practices of others, and time spent considering theory and philosophy,
may help construct images. Exposure to a wide variety of classrooms is important also to
the construction of images. Following up this exposure with discussion and activities like
writing personal histories and biographies was suggested. Stegman recommended that
supervision be based on guided questioning to increase meaningful reflection by student
teachers. Discussing images, models, and metaphors that emerge during student teaching
is important to reflection and development of teaching practice. Focusing supervision on
dialogue that builds collegiality and collaboration models these attributes, which are
necessary for future success in the profession.

Yourn (2000) examined preservice music teachers’ perceptions of how they learn
to teach during a four-week practicum. Nine student teacher and cooperating teacher
participants engaged in interviews, focus group meetings, and completed questionnaires.
Yourn analyzed data using a developmental model illustrating student teachers’ concerns
in three sequential stages: (1) concern with self, (2) concern with teaching, and (3)

concern with pupils. Yourn found that student teachers often moved back and forth

12

between the three stages, though all did not progress from one stage to the next. Student
teachers and cooperating teachers expressed concerns about classroom management and
about the limitations of the teaching placement. Student teachers’ relationships with their
cooperating teacher and university supervisor also emerged as important. A variety of
relationships were formed including ones that clicked and ones that were wrought with
conflict. Yourn encouraged fiirther research into the cooperating teacher’s role as mentor
and its effect on the student teacher’s development.
Four student teachers’ beliefs about good teaching were reported by Schmidt

( 1994a). Using participant-observation, audio and video of teaching, weekly discussions
during student teacher seminar, interviews, and journals, Schmidt delineated three
themes: Personal Qualities, Instructional Practices, and Management Strategies. Personal
qualities of good teachers as identified by student teachers included respect, which good
teachers earned from their students. Good teachers also created community in their
Classrooms. Good teachers’ instructional practices were informed by university methods
Courses, ensembles, and applied teachers. Student teachers believed that a good teacher
used well-paced and interesting instruction that minimized behavior problems. Good
teachers communicated high expectations to students. Though each student teacher had
multiple cooperating teachers, only one cooperating teacher stood out for each student
teacher as an example of good teaching.

Student teachers’ own experiences as students guided their teaching practices, so
music teacher educators must work to expand their experiential knowledge of good
teaching (Schmidt, 1994a). Guided reflection to identify and evaluate beliefs could be

implemented using case studies, observations, mini-ethnographies of classrooms, and

13

experimentation with teaching practices in a safe environment. Because of the wide range
of contextual and personal variables, teaching ‘good teaching’ is difficult (p. 23).
Schmidt encouraged more research detailing preservice music teachers’ construction of
beliefs about good teaching. She also recommended investigating the developmental
patterns of beliefs about good teaching in terms of age, gender, and personality.

Schmidt and Knowles (1994) combined several case studies to tell the story of
four women who experienced failure in their music student teaching experience. This is
the only known study that examines failed student teaching experiences in music. The
researchers uncovered four factors of failure: personal histories, understanding of self as
teacher, instructional problems, and contexts of the student teaching experience. The
personal histories of each woman played an important role in the failure of the internship,
along with the relationship established with mentors. None of the four women ever
viewed themselves as successfiil during any point of their student teaching practicum.

Music teacher educators must broaden the concept of the ways people learn to
teach in order to avoid failure experiences (Schmidt & Knowles, 1994). Using prior
experience to explore personal histories and develop models of teaching could lead to a
positive internship. Validating the personal experience of the preservice music teachers as
students and as teachers, and helping student teachers create expectations of success for
themselves might help. Expectations for appropriate support and mentoring are also
important to ensure a successful experience. Schmidt and Knowles recommended
investigating the personal qualities of effective student teacher-cooperating teacher

matches to find how and if they impact the success of the student teaching experience.

14

 

Both quantitative and qualitative music education researchers have examined the
student teaching experience. Most research has focused on the student teacher as primary
participant, during the student teaching internship (Frederickson & Pembrook, 1999; Paul
et al., 2001, 2002; Schmidt, 1994a; Stegman, 2001; Yourn, 2000). Personal history, prior
experience, and reflection emerged as important factors in student teaching (Paul et al.,
2001, 2002; Schmidt, 1994a; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994; Stegman, 2001). A few studies
revealed the importance of context and mentoring in the student teaching experience and
suggested further research into contexts of student teaching and the match between
student teacher and cooperating teacher (Schmidt, 1994a; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994;
Stegman, 2001; Yourn, 2000).

The following three studies used the qualitative paradigm to explore student
teachers’ experiences during student teaching. Incorporating ethnographic techniques,
such as participant-observation, was a core part of each study. All three studies followed
a case study design, and data were analyzed within and across cases.

Krueger (1985) examined choral music student teachers’ perspectives toward
their role as teacher and the influence of the hidden curriculum on those perspectives.
The hidden curriculum was defined as existing school structures and policies like
organization, scheduling, curriculum, and the cooperating teacher’s instructional
practices. Krueger found that student teachers’ perceptions were greatly influenced by the
hidden curriculum and that student teachers perceived this hidden curriculum as
unchangeable. Developing reflective and critical thinking skills in the music teacher

preparation program may help student teachers better negotiate the hidden curriculum.

15

Schleuter (1991) examined the preactive and postactive curricular thinking of
elementary music student teachers in a mixed-methods ethnographic case study. She
wanted to understand the curricular thinking of the student teachers and how it changed
over the course of the student teaching experience. Data included notes from participant-
observation, lesson plans, journals, audiotapes of meetings between student teachers and
cooperating teachers, and formal and informal interviews. Curricular thinking was
categorized by five frameworks: (1) Aims/Goals/Objectives/Scope/Sequence, (2)
Content/Concept, (3) Activities, (4) Nature of the Learner, and (5) Pupil/Program/Self-
Evaluation.

Schleuter (1991) discovered that student teachers devoted attention to all
categories at times throughout the semester, but not all categories all the time.
Cooperating teachers influenced the curricular goals of student teachers more than any
other factor in the student teaching practicum. Schleuter concluded that student teachers
needed to learn in methods courses the clear connection between concept, activity, scope,
and sequence. She also recommended more instruction about musical development in
children, individual and group evaluation techniques, and more practice of appropriate
feedback for failure outcomes.

Schmidt (1994b) investigated the learning of four instrumental music student
teachers during student teaching. Through observations, interviews, journals, notebooks,
student teacher seminar, formal observations and conferences, and informal interaction,
Schmidt examined the lessons learned by the participants. She found that not all of the
student teachers learned the same things from their internship, though they had all

completed the same university music teacher preparation program. Their learning was

16

cumulative, based on prior experience, and dependent on the nature of the relationship
formed with the cooperating teacher. The importance of “being themselves” as teachers
permeated all aspects of the student teachers’ experiences.

The preceding research focused on the student teacher as the primary participant,
with research taking place during the student teaching experience (Frederickson &
Pembrook, 1999; Krueger, 1985; Schleuter, 1991; Schmidt 1994a, 1994b; Schmidt &
Knowles, 1994; Stegman, 2001, Yourn, 2000). Though the research focused on a variety
of aspects of student teacher development and practice, there were some common
findings. Past experiences of student teachers played an important role in the student
teaching experience (Schmidt, 1994a, 1994b; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994; Stegman,
2001). Personal beliefs about self and about teaching influenced perceptions (Schmidt,
1994a, 1994b; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994; Stegman, 2001). Cooperating teachers and
mentoring practices also affected student teachers’ experiences (Krueger, 1985;
Schleuter, 1991; Schmidt, 1994a, 1994b; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994; Yourn, 2000).
Despite evidence of their importance in the student teaching experience, less research has

focused on the roles and perspectives of cooperating teachers.

Role-Identity and Socialization of Music Teachers
Sociological and educational researchers have studied role identity, occupational
identity, and socialization, and their applications to preservice teacher education (Bouij,
1998, 2004; Broyles, 1997; Isbell, 2006, 2007; Fuller, 1969; McCall & Simmons, 1978;
Paul, 1998; Raiber, Teachout, Killian, Dye, & Vandehey, 2007; Roberts, 1991; Scheib,

2007; Waterman, 1984; Yourn, 2000). McCall and Simmons (1978) defined role-identity

l7

as “the character and the role that an individual devises for himself as an occupant of a
particular social position” (p. 65). They went on to state that “more intuitively, such a
role-identity is his imaginative view of himself as he likes to think of himself being and
acting as an occupant of that position” [italics in original] (p. 65). This theory of role-
identity, along with theories of occupational identity and teacher concerns, has been the
basis for a growing body of research on music teacher identity and socialization (Bouij,
1998, 2004; Broyles, I997; Carper, 1970; Conkling, 2003, 2004; Ferguson, 2003; Fuller,
1969; Mark, 1998; Isbell, 2006, 2007; Paul, 1998; Raiber et al., 2007; Roberts, 1991;
Robinson, 2005; Scheib, 2007; Yourn, 2000).

Fuller (1969) examined the concerns of preservice and inservice teachers across
multiple studies. He identified three stages of concern: (1) concern with self, (2) concern
with teaching, and (3) concern with pupils. Fuller found that student teachers were
concerned with themselves for most of the student teaching semester, and then became
concerned with pupils towards the end of the semester. Subsequent studies supported
these findings; preservice and novice inservice teachers were often more concerned with
themselves, while experienced teachers were more concerned with pupils. Music
education researchers have used Fuller’s stages of teacher concerns to analyze, interpret,
and foster the formation of teacher identity in preservice music teachers (Broyles, 1997;
Paul, 1998; Raiber et al., 2007; Yourn, 2000).

Woodford (2002) identified two categories of socialization for undergraduate
music education majors: primary and secondary (Woodford, 2002). Primary socialization
occurs prior to entering college and is influenced mostly by family members, teachers,

. and others to which a person is emotionally close. Secondary socialization begins post

18

high school and is less salient in the formation of a music teacher identity than primary
socialization (Woodford, 2002). University schools of music socialize students as
performers, making the development of a teacher identity difficult for undergraduate
music education majors until they actually begin teaching (Bouij, 1998, 2004; Mark,
1998; Roberts, 1991; Scheib, 2007; Woodford, 2002).

Reflective and critical practices throughoutlthe undergraduate music program can
foster music teacher socialization (Woodford, 2002). Activities and experiences that
challenge students’ thinking and encourage them to “explore a wide variety of teaching
roles” may promote teacher identity development in undergraduate music education
majors (p. 690). To help music education majors begin thinking of themselves as
teachers, music teacher educators must make explicit students’ beliefs about teaching and
challenge the idea of performer as “primary determinant of their social status and
professional identity” (p. 690).

Bouij (1998, 2004) explored role—identity theory in the socialization of preservice
music teachers. He found that new activities or experiences during secondary
socialization can change the role-identity of music majors from performer to teacher.
When an undergraduate music education major’s collectivity — the place where norms
and values of a certain group are transmitted —- becomes teachers and pupils, a shift in
identity occurs. The preservice teacher begins forming their identity in relation to this
new collectivity.

Feedback from members of the collectivity implies one’s potential for success in
teaching and further informs identity formation (Waterman, 1984). Mentor teachers, who

are experts in the craft, can be helpful in the identity formation of preservice teachers

19

(Waterman, 1984). They should allow the preservice teachers to discover their own
identity within the profession, rather than fitting the preservice teacher into their
preconceived mold of what a teacher is or should be (Waterman, 1984).

Isbell (2006, 2007) administered a questionnaire to more than five hundred
preservice music teachers to elicit information about socialization and occupational
identity in preservice music teachers. He found slightly stronger correlations between
secondary socialization and occupational identity than primary socialization and
occupational identity. Results also showed that experiences, rather than people, were
significant predictors of occupational identity. Isbell concluded that various experiences
and people impact occupational identity during preservice training. He recommended a
diversity of curriculum offerings, multiple methods of instruction, and patience with
students in their early field experiences to help foster the formation of a teacher identity
in undergraduate music education majors.

Paul (1998) studied the impact of a two-year peer teaching lab experience on the
professional teacher role development of three instrumental music education majors.
During their student teaching semester or first year of teaching, the three participants met
with Paul for interviews and to view and discuss video from their peer teaching
experience. Paul used Carper’s (1970) four categories of role development as a
framework: (1) ownership of occupational title and identity, (2) commitment to
professional tasks and knowledge, (3) institutional position and reference group
identification, and (4) recognition of social position. Paul also examined participants’

development using Fuller’s (1969) stages of concerns of teachers.

20

Participants varied in strength in role development category one, occupational
title and identity. Paul (1998) attributed this variation to experiences outside of the peer-
teaching laboratory, particularly interactions with students and other teachers in “real”
classrooms. Category two, commitment to professional tasks and knowledge, showed the
strongest link to the peer teaching laboratory, with the length and structure of the
laboratory experience being beneficial in this area. Categories three and four were strong
in all three participants. Paul observed movement of all of the participants to the third
stage of Fuller’s (1969) model of teacher concerns: concern with pupils. Paul concluded
that, overall, the peer teaching laboratory experience contributed positively to the
participants’ development of a teacher identity. Peer teaching helped them learn how to
teach, develop a strong base of professional knowledge, and helped move them through
Fuller’s stages of concern so that they were prepared for interactions with students in
their student teaching experience.

Broyles (1997) studied the effects of videotape analysis on the identity
development of music student teachers. Twelve undergraduate music education majors
answered questionnaires, kept journals, and completed observation instruments while
viewing video of themselves teaching. University supervisors and cooperating teachers
also completed questionnaires about student teachers’ development. Using Fuller’s
(1969) three stages of teacher concerns and Carper’s (1970) levels of occupational
identity, Broyles interpreted each student teacher’s level of role development. Over the
course of the semester, the student teachers’ concerns for self diminished and concerns
for students increased. Occupational identity increased for most of the student teacher

participants. Both university supervisors and cooperating teachers liked the videotape

21

analysis and observed positive changes in student teachers’ practices and understanding
of teaching and learning.

Ferguson (2003) used a multiple case study approach to examine the relationship
between a university String Project and the development of the undergraduate
participants’ understanding of themselves as teachers. Four undergraduates who were
assistants in the String Project served as participants. Ferguson collected ethnographic
data including field notes, interviews, email correspondence, and documents. The
undergraduates’ past personal experiences with teaching and learning and their personal
beliefs about themselves filtered the experience of becoming a teacher for each of them.
For example, participants varied in their reactions to full group teaching based on their
past experience as students and teachers in individual and group settings. Feedback
played a prominent role in the participants’ ideas of themselves as teachers. They valued
the feedback received not only from their mentor teachers in the String Project, but from
the students as well. Ferguson recommended that field experiences be designed to engage
preservice music teachers’ personalized definitions of teaching. Through that
engagement, teacher educators can challenge students to take risks as they grow and
develop as teachers.

Conkling (2003) examined the role of reflective thinking in preservice choral
music teachers’ process of learning to teach in a professional development school (PDS).
She was particularly interested in what their reflective thinking showed about their
professional growth and identity development in an early field experience. Using
observations, student journals, and interviews, Conkling found that the cooperating

teacher was an influential model whom the preservice teachers “looked to for strength of

22

character and the relationships she developed with students,” though they did not imitate
her teaching (p. 17).

The preservice teachers tested their own competency for teaching and tried out
various teacher personas during their field experience at the PDS (Conkling, 2003). They
felt a sense of ownership of their own teaching practices. Conkling found that the
preservice teachers were concerned with constructing their teacher identities as well as
the technical aspects of their teaching. She recommended further research on preservice
teachers’ reflective thinking as it relates to their professional growth.

Scheib (2007) made recommendations for fostering socialization and providing
support to preservice and inservice music teachers. He recognized the tension between
the musician-performer identity formed in undergraduate studies and the teacher identity.
In order to ease the transition and support both identities in music teachers, Scheib
developed recommendations for preservice and inservice activities. For preservice
teachers he proposed mentoring and immersive experiences that bridged the gap between
the two identities. He suggested music-making at professional conferences, musicianship
components in music education graduate programs, and participation in community
ensembles for inservice teachers. These solutions may help ease the transition from
college to professional life, and sustain the practicing music teacher over the course of
her career.

Conkling (2004) turned her attention to inservice teacher identity in another study
of a PDS. Conkling discovered the possibility that the inservice teachers who were part of
the PDS restyled their identities as they worked with the preservice teachers. The

inservice teachers perhaps found that “the boundary between teaching and learning to

23

teach is less certain than they previously believed it to be” (p. 13). She suggested further
research on teacher identity development in all participants in a PDS.

Robinson (2005) studied the effects of a state sponsored new music teacher
evaluation program on the veteran teachers who participated as evaluators. He looked
specifically at changes in the classroom performance and attitude towards teaching of the
veteran educators, their professional growth, and changes in their relationships with
fellow teachers. Four themes emerged during data analysis: (1) Professional
Awareness/Recognition of “Best Practices”, (2) Confidence/Validation, (3) Reflection
and Critical Analysis of One’s Own Practice, and (4) Professional Development and
Growth.

The veteran teachers changed their own teaching practices to ensure they were
including “best practices” (Robinson, 2005). Participation in the program boosted the
confidence of the veteran teachers and solidified their belief in the importance of music
teaching. Veteran teachers reported that they reflected and analyzed their own teaching
practices more often. They found themselves considering if what they were doing in their
classrooms was worthy of being a model for a novice teacher. As a result of their
participation, veteran teachers were challenged and grew professionally without having to
leave their classroom. Robinson suggested implementing mentoring, induction, and
assessment programs that challenge and sustain veteran teachers while allowing them to
stay in their classrooms. “In order for our best teachers to have the opportunities to
advance without leaving the profession, there is a need for the creation of new roles and

responsibilities for teachers” (p. 57).

24

Researchers have examined socialization and identity formation in preservice
music education majors (Bouij, 1998, 2004; Broyles, 1997; Ferguson, 2003; Isbell, 2006,
2007; Paul, 1998; Scheib, 2007; Woodford, 2002). Secondary socialization, which occurs
during college studies, typically fosters a musician-performer identity in undergraduate
music education majors (Bouij, 1998; Mark, 1998; Roberts, 1991; Scheib, 2007;
Woodford, 2002). Experiences, people, and reflective and critical thinking during
secondary socialization potentially influence the formation of a teacher identity in
preservice music teachers (Broyles, 1997; Conkling, 2003; Ferguson, 2003; Isbell, 2006,
2007; Paul, 1998; Woodford, 2002).

Certain curricular tools and models like reflective thinking and PDS have shown
promise in fostering teacher identity in preservice music teachers (Broyles, 1997;
Conkling, 2003; Ferguson, 2003; Paul, 1998). Conkling (2004) and Robinson (2005)
researched the effects of two different programs on teacher identity and development in
practicing music teachers, while Scheib (2007) recommended specific activities to sustain
the musician identity of inservice music teachers. Research remains unclear about the
impact of student teaching on the teacher identity of preservice and inservice music
teachers. The importance of fostering and sustaining a music teacher’s identity across a

career points to the need for further research in this area.

Cooperating Teacher Research
Cooperating Teacher Preparation
In a delicate balancing act, any preparation of cooperating teachers must meet the

needs of the cooperating teacher while also meeting the needs of the university and

25

student teacher. Issues of time, relevance, graduate credit, and status abound when
attempting to develop and implement an appropriate preparation program for cooperating
teachers (Connor, Killmer, McKay & Whigham, 1993; Hamlin, 1997; Kent, 2000;
Richards & Killen, 1994; Smith, 1990). Ideas about what cooperating teachers need prior
to their first assignment as a cooperating teacher are plentiful (Clarke, 2001; Connor &
Killmer, 1995; Connor et al., 1993; Garland & Shippy, 1991; Kahn, 2001; Kent, 2000;
Smith, 1990).

Connor et al. (1993) identified four areas of importance to address in cooperating
teacher preparation. One area of importance included a collaborative approach that gives
cooperating teachers respect and recognition, the inclusion of current research so that
cooperating teachers will know what their student teachers are learning, interpersonal
communication skills such as mentoring, counseling, conferencing, and observation
techniques, and well-stated expectations with clearly defined roles for each member of
the student teaching triad — student teacher, cooperating teacher, and university
supervisor (Koerner, Rust, & Baumgartner, 2002).

Koerner (1992) found that cooperating teachers expect the university to provide
definitions of their role. One preparation program meeting this particular expectation of
cooperating teachers revolves around the implementation of the clinical supervision
model. Several studies in general education investigated the use of the clinical
supervision model in the student teaching experience (Kent, 2000; Smith, 1990). This
model consists of a pre-observation conference, observation, and post-observation
conference, ideally completed many times throughout the practicum. When student

teachers and cooperating teachers both received training in this model, the student

26

teaching experience seemed most satisfying to the student teacher (Smith, 1990). Kent
(2000) found that using the clinical supervision model decreased the tension in the
cooperating teacher-student teacher relationship. A foundation of trust developed
between the student teacher and cooperating teacher, and the cooperating teacher
functioned more as helper than an evaluating supervisor (Kent, 2000).

Drafall (1991) conducted a case study that followed two choral music cooperating
teachers who had been trained in clinical supervision. Data were collected through
observations, interviews with participants and secondary informants, videos of weekly
supervision conferences between cooperating teachers and student teachers, videos of
student teachers’ lessons, and cooperating teachers’ and student teachers’ journals. Both
cooperating teachers expressed high opinions of the clinical supervision program
regardless of the performance of their student teachers. They also expressed satisfaction
with the preparation and instruction they received in clinical supervision.

The Clinical Supervision Model is one way to prepare cooperating teachers for the
responsibility of accepting a student teacher into their classroom. Preparation of any type
must meet the needs of the individual cooperating teacher, making them highly

contextual.

Characteristics of Effective Cooperating Teachers

To be a successful and effective cooperating teacher, one must possess certain
characteristics. The selection of cooperating teachers should be based upon the
cooperating teacher’s ability to provide a supportive environment, organization,

enthusiasm, pedagogical skills, and flexibility (Connor et al., 1993; Morin, 2000). One

27

study in general education determined that the selection and evaluation of cooperating
teachers has remained unchanged over decades (Blocker & Swetnam, 1995). Due to their
influential role in shaping the teaching behaviors and curricular thinking of preservice
teachers, cooperating teachers must be selected, trained, evaluated, and valued
appropriately in a teacher preparation program (Connor & Killmer, 1995; Morin, 2000;
Schleuter, 1991).

In a longitudinal study conducted by Woolley (1997), student teachers identified
positive qualities of cooperating teachers. On the open-ended survey, student teachers
indicated they valued cooperating teachers who were experts, provided feedback, were
welcoming, supportive, and shared ideas and power in the classroom. Findings of a study
seeking to define the role of each person in the student teaching triad supported the
earlier conclusions of Woolley. Those findings showed agreement among all three
members of the student teaching triad that good cooperating teachers take time with
student teachers, share their knowledge about good teaching, and are good role models
and mentors.

Connor and Killmer (1995) reported evaluations of cooperating teacher
effectiveness as measured by student teachers and cooperating teachers themselves. In the
study, cooperating teachers responded to a questionnaire that identified attributes of
effective cooperating teachers. Cooperating teachers indicated that flexibility, providing
feedback, sharing ideas, nurturing, and encouraging were all qualities that they should
possess. In Kahn’s (2001) qualitative study of twenty cooperating teachers, they named

flexibility and good communication skills as important cooperating teacher

28

characteristics that contribute to success in the student teaching experience, supporting
the earlier findings of Connor and Killmer.

Cooperating teachers and student teachers hold similar opinions about
characteristics of effective cooperating teachers. Flexibility, communication skills, and
interpersonal skills were cited as important attributes (Connor & Killmer, 1995; Connor,
et al., 1993; Kahn, 2001; Morin, 2000; Woolley, 1997). These characteristics, along with
knowledge of subject matter, increase the likelihood of a positive student teaching

experience for all members of the student teaching triad.

Cooperating Teachers as Teacher Educators

Clarke (2001) surveyed 1300 cooperating teachers who had worked with student
teachers from the University of British Columbia. Cooperating teachers completed a
survey that requested demographic information as well as their beliefs about important
issues in student teaching. The findings of this large-scale study led Clarke to conclude
that common assumptions about a lack of preparation among cooperating teachers were
false. Cooperating teachers suggested that qualifications for becoming a cooperating
teacher be put in place, including requirements for teaching experience, the right
personality for working with student teachers, excellence in teaching, and a willingness to
work hard in their role as cooperating teacher. Furthermore, an overwhelming eighty-five
percent of the cooperating teachers in the study desired feedback on their own
performance as cooperating teachers.

When asked about important ideas they conveyed to their student teacher,

cooperating teachers pointed to preparation, which they believed was the most important

29

 

pedagogical task in teaching (Clarke, 2001). Classroom management, flexibility, and
relationships with the students ranked high as well. Clarke suggested that the information
from his study reflected a shift in the role of cooperating teacher from supervisor to
teacher educator. “This shift underlines a professional practice dimension that
[cooperating] teachers perceive in their work with student teachers” (p. 15).

Schleuter (1999) examined the in-conference sharing of curricular information by
cooperating teachers in elementary general music. Using a case study design, Schleuter
gathered data from dialogue of conferences between cooperating teachers and student
teachers and information provided by cooperating teachers. Data were triangulated using
student teachers’ interviews, observation and conference notes of the university
supervisor, and student teachers’ lesson plans and journals. The pattern of
communication between the c00perating teachers and student teachers was established
early in the relationship. The cooperating teacher guided the conference style, and the
cooperating teacher’s influence on the student teacher was determined by the conference
style and control orientation of the cooperating teacher (p. 97). Most of the curriculum
sharing related to classroom events and how the cooperating teacher approached planning
greatly influenced the student teacher. Data revealed that the cooperating teachers
assumed the student teachers knew more about curricular planning than they actually did.

Schleuter (1999) recommended that the university supervisor play a bigger role in
facilitating communication between the cooperating teacher and student teacher and
prepare the student teacher to ask questions about curriculum. As teacher educators, the
cooperating teachers needed to focus more on sequence and relay their students’ prior

experiences with concepts when talking with the student teachers. When the cooperating

30

 

teacher let the student teacher plan long-range, the student teacher experienced a more
real-world situation. Longitudinal studies on cooperating teachers could examine the
mentoring role in terms of curricular sharing. Schleuter suggested comparing the
curricular sharing of cooperating teachers who had and had not received training for their
role as cooperating teacher.

Brophy (2002) administered a survey about general music teachers’ perceptions
of preservice teacher preparation. Respondents indicated that the student teachers they
mentored were lacking in pedagogical and classroom management skills. Suggestions to
improve these deficiencies revolved around more fieldwork experience for teachers prior
to student teaching, implying that the cooperating teachers themselves had a desire to be
more involved in the education of the preservice music teacher or, in other words, be a
teacher educator. Kahn’s (2001) study of twenty c00perating teachers also showed a
desire by cooperating teachers to be more involved and valued in the teacher preparation
process by participating in and providing input for methods classes.

Classroom teachers need the time to develop the necessary skills to make the shift
from educator to teacher educator (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987). “Cooperative
teachers set the affective and intellectual tone and also shape what student teachers learn
by the way they conceive and carry out their role as teacher educators” (F eiman-Nemser
& Buchmann, 1987, p. 256). Cooperating teachers became more like teacher educators as
they developed communication and listening skills and knowledge of different teaching
models. In an ideal student teaching practicum, cooperating teachers believed they should
have an active role in teaching the student teacher how to teach rather than just letting

them practice over and over (Borko & Mayfield, 1995). Proper preparation and valuation

31

of cooperating teachers as teacher educators will help ensure a positive and successful

student teaching placement.

Cooperating Teachers’ Professional Growth

Koerner (1992) examined the professional growth that cooperating teachers
experience as a result of their role. In journals kept by eight elementary level cooperating
teachers, consequences of having a student teacher included interruption of instruction,
cooperating teacher displacement, disruption of classroom routine, breaking cooperating
teacher isolation, and shifting of the cooperating teacher’s time and energy. Because
having a student teacher affects the c00perating teacher so profoundly, one questions the
motivation for accepting a student teacher. One benefit that cooperating teachers reap
from their experience with student teachers is professional development and growth.
Throughout their experience, the eight teachers in Koemer’s study experienced growth as
they reflected upon themselves as practitioners and the teaching profession in general.

Being a cooperating teacher promotes reflection and rejuvenation (Ganser, 1997).
Teaching can be an isolated profession, particularly in music, and talking with another
person about teaching benefits the cooperating teacher as well as the student teacher.
Ganser found that cooperating teachers identified learning new ideas as the largest area of
their own professional growth as a result of having a student teacher. Cooperating
teachers reflected on their own work as they acquired new knowledge in their content
area and new teaching techniques from their student teacher.

Another study focusing on the self-reported professional growth of the

cooperating teacher uncovered similar ideas. From the responses of cooperating teachers

32

on an open-ended survey, Hamlin (1997) concluded that the benefits to cooperating
teachers of having a student teacher could be classified into the following categories:
New Activities Learned, Refinement or Review of Teaching Methods, Team-teaching,
Analysis of Practice, and Good Role Modeling. Cooperating teachers learned new ideas
from their student teachers and began closely scrutinizing their own practices. Having
someone to share ideas with also pushed them to be good role models, boosting the
professional development of the cooperating teacher. Because cooperating teachers found
the experience so valuable, some suggested a Professional Development Component
option that provided graduate credit be made available to interested cooperating teachers.

Conkling and Henry (1999) discussed Professional Development Schools (PDS)
as a way of preparing new music teachers. With PDS as a learning community between
the university, student, and public school teacher, cooperating teachers benefited through
this collaboration by continuing their own professional development. The partnership
ideally allowed for ongoing dialogue between all parties and helped turn theory into
practice, from the university classroom to the public school classroom. University
supervisors’ first responsibility is to their student teachers, just as the cooperating
teachers’ first responsibility is to their students; a professional development partnership
provides the opportunity to address both needs and enhance the learning experience for
all.

Promoting and encouraging professional growth surfaces as an advantage of
serving as a cooperating teacher. The opportunity for professional growth and increased
reflection helped cooperating teachers become better educators and improved student

achievement in their class (Arnold, 2002). The collaboration with student teachers over

33

the course of the internship benefited cooperating teachers as well as student teachers and
students (Arnold, 2002). Cooperating teachers enjoyed the sharing and mutual learning,
especially in subjects such as music in which teachers may feel isolated (Veal & Rikard,
1998)

Several important studies exist in general education addressing the viewpoints of
cooperating teachers. There are studies of cooperating teachers’ perspectives about
preparation programs, such as Clinical Supervision training (Daane, 2000; Kent, 2000;
Smith, 1990; Stanford, Banaszek, McClelland, Rountree, & Wilson, 1994). Other
researchers investigated the professional development that occurred with and among
classroom teachers when they served as cooperating teachers (Arnold, 2002; Conkling &
Henry, 1999; Ganser, 1997; Hamlin, 1997; Koerner, 1992). Studies exist that define
characteristics of effective cooperating teachers by those serving as cooperating teachers
(Clarke, 2001; Connor & Killmer, 1995; Kahn, 2001). In several studies, the desire of the
cooperating teacher to be viewed as a teacher educator emerged (Borko & Mayfield,
1995; Brophy, 2002; Clarke, 2001; Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1987; Kahn, 2001).
While these studies investigated the student teaching experience as seen by cooperating
teachers, a dearth of information exists about the student teaching experience specifically
in music as seen from the viewpoint of the cooperating music teacher.

“Only a few music researchers have studied the role of the cooperating teacher”
(Rideout & Feldman, 2002, p. 878). Research has shown that student teachers identify
most with cooperating teachers who share the student teachers’ beliefs and views of
teaching (Rideout & Feldman, 2002; Schmidt, 1994b). When a cooperating teacher

validates the student teacher as a person and a developing teacher, the experience is more

34

educative (Rideout & F eldman, 2002; Schmidt, 1994a, 1994b; Schmidt & Knowles,
1994). A difficult match between cooperating teacher and student teacher, though, can
lead to less development and reflection by the student teacher, because the student
teacher focuses more energy on negotiating the stormy relationship (Laboskey & Richert,
2002). All student teaching placements are difficult for everyone in the experience at
some point. The challenge is to make sure the experience has the highest educative
quality possible, even when the match between cooperating teacher and student teacher is
imperfect (Clark, 2002).

The cooperating teacher has been treated by most researchers in music education
as an independent variable “whose instructional setting and learning context are
independent of the conditions of the research study” (Rideout & Feldman, 2002, p. 879).
However research has borne out the fact that the match between student teacher and
cooperating teacher and school setting is important (Krueger, 1985; Schmidt, 1994a,
1994b; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994). Researchers have failed to follow up on Krueger’s
(1985) findings that the hidden curriculum prevents the full involvement of student
teachers in their placement (Rideout & Feldman, 2002). A student teacher may become
an assistant, rather than being allowed classroom teaching or podium time. There is a gap
in the research literature in music education on the amount of time that cooperating
teachers give student teachers in actual teaching situations, like running class or a
rehearsal. Perhaps university supervisors feel powerless to dictate this and therefore do
not address it (Rideout & Feldman, 2002, p. 880). Research that examines the

relationship between the cooperating teacher and student teacher and the effects of the

35

hidden curriculum may illuminate how cooperating music teachers share power with
music student teachers (Rideout & Feldman, 2002).

The lack of music education research investigating the cooperating teacher’s
viewpoint indicates a need for this research study. Knowledge about the relationship
formed between a cooperating teacher and student teacher affects the understanding and
growth of both parties. An incomplete picture of this influential bond leaves a gap in the
knowledge of the educational process. With the importance of the student
teacher/cooperating teacher relationship evident in other research, this relationship must
be studied in the context of the music student teaching practicum. The performance
emphasis in music adds a unique contextual dimension to the relationship formed by
cooperating music teachers with their student teachers, making it unique and worthy of
closer examination.

By exploring the relationship viewed as successful by the cooperating teacher, a
university professor can prepare student teachers more effectively for the practicum.
Because the student teaching practicum provides learning and growth opportunities for
cooperating teachers, student teachers, and their pupils, providing a positive and
successful student teaching experience for all parties involved is paramount. As
preservice teachers become inservice teachers, they rely on their student teaching to
inform their practice. To build a successful career in education, novice teachers must
enter the profession with the best preparation possible. Therefore, a close examination of

the student teacher/cooperating teacher dynamic is imperative.

36

 

Purpose and Problems

With the intent of understanding the music student teaching experience, the
purpose of this research project is to examine the nature and extent of the student
teacher/cooperating music teacher relationship, looking specifically at the various types
of relationships that exist between student teacher/cooperating music teacher pairs. The
following four research questions were designed to guide this investigation:

1. How do cooperating music teachers describe their relationship with their

student teacher?

2. What personal, musical, educational, and professional characteristics of student

teachers contribute to developing the relationship between the student teacher and

cooperating teacher?

3. How is that relationship developed in a music classroom?

4. How does any preparation or experience of the cooperating music teacher,

including their own student teaching experience, contribute to the type of

relationship that is developed with a student teacher?
In a qualitative study, emic issues ofien emerge during the data collection and analysis
and may guide the formation of new research questions (Stake, 1995). Following data
collection and analysis in this study, the issue of teacher identity emerged and a fifth
research question was added.

5. How does the relationship impact the teacher identity of both the student

teacher and cooperating teacher?

37

 

Secondary questions include:

a)

b)

C)

d)

How do cooperating music teachers decide what the student teachers’ teaching
responsibilities will be?

What constraints prevent cooperating music teachers from sharing the
classroom fully with the student teacher?

When do cooperating music teachers feel that an equitable partnership in the
classroom in possible? When is it not possible?

What type of power sharing is most satisfying for cooperating music teachers?
How do the student teachers’ views of the power sharing in the classroom

differ from their cooperating teachers’ views?

38

CHAPTER II

RELATED RESEARCH

The related research for this dissertation begins with an in depth look at three
seminal studies in music education introduced in Chapter I: Krueger (1985), Schleuter
(1991), and Schmidt (1994b). These studies are seminal not only for their findings, but
for their methodologies and the tangential information that they revealed about contexts
and cooperating teachers.

The review continues with frameworks or models of mentoring as illustrated by
McIntyre and Hagger (1993), Maynard and Furlong (1993), Amherst School of
Education (1989, as cited in Martin, 1994) and Abell, Dillon, Hopkins, McInemey, and
O’Brien (1995), followed by research exploring the student teacher viewpoint and the
cooperating teacher vieWpoint on mentoring relationships. Some researchers examine the
mentoring relationship from the perspective of the student teacher (Agee, 1996; Capa &
Loadman, 2004). Other researchers have studied the relationship collaboratively with
student teachers and cooperating teachers (Fairbanks, Freedman, & Kahn, 2000;
Liebhaber, 2003; Stanulis & Russell, 2000). Elliott and Calderhead (1993), Hawkey
(1998), Veal and Rikard (1999), Weasmer and Woods (2003), and Sanders, Dowson, and
Sinclair (2005) focused primarily on cooperating teachers’ viewpoints in their research.
Krueger (2006) looked specifically at cooperating music teachers and their perspectives

of the student teaching experience.

39

Seminal Studies of the Music Student Teaching Experience
This section begins with Krueger’s (1985) ethnography of the hidden curriculum
in music education. Following Krueger is Schleuter’s (1991) case study of student
teachers’ curricular thinking, and Schmidt’s (1994b) exploration of experiential learning
by student teachers. Each research study has the student teacher as primary participant,

but findings about others, including cooperating teachers, emerged.

Krueger: The Hidden Curriculum

Krueger’s (1985) ethnography examined the extent to which student teachers’
perspectives of their teacher role changed over the course of the student teaching
experience due to influence of the hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum was defined
as established school structures, policies, and goals such as organization, scheduling,
cun'iculum, and the cooperating teacher’s instructional practices. Using ethnographic
research techniques, Krueger studied two cases in-depth through interviews and
participant-observation. She used a framework of five dilemmas to guide her initial data
collection: (1) The Teacher’s Role: What to Teach, (2) The Teacher’s Role: How to
Teach, (3) The Teacher’s Role: School Rules and Regulations, (4) Teacher-Pupil
Relationships: Distant-Personal, and (5) Teacher-Pupil Relationships: Teacher vs. Pupil
Control over Pupil Behavior High-Low (pp. 216-217). The findings most relevant to this
dissertation are discussed here and focus on the influence of the cooperating teacher and
the existing school structures as they related to student teacher growth.

Participants were two choral music student teachers, chosen on the basis of their

responses to a questionnaire administered to 40 total student teachers prior to the research

40

 

study (Krueger, 1985). The two participants were typical of the student teacher
population. Both participants had placements in elementary general music and choral
music, with eight weeks spent in each setting. Krueger spent two days a week over the
course of the semester observing each student teacher in the classroom. The researcher
observed student teacher interactions, collected video and audio tape, conducted formal
and informal interviews, examined artifacts provided to the student teacher by school
personnel, and read the student teachers’ journals. Secondary participants were
cooperating teachers, school personnel, and pupils in the student teachers’ classrooms.
Data collected from the informal discussions with these secondary participants were used
for triangulation. The two participants member-checked and provided feedback on the
data.

In terms of what and how to teach, the student teachers were strongly influenced
by the existing school structures (Krueger, 1985). They made little effort to implement
their own ideas and even began using previously rejected ideas as they attempted to work
within the existing constraints of the school setting. The cooperating teacher’s modeling
and positive reinforcement implicitly communicated acceptable behavior to the student
teacher. These institutional constraints and the influence of the cooperating teacher
became increasingly important over the course of the experience (Krueger, 1985, 1987).
The hidden curriculum influenced the student teachers’ ability to learn and grow during
the student teaching experience, and to implement what they were taught in their
undergraduate preparation program (Krueger, 1985, 1987).

Krueger (1985) believed that student teachers could think more critically about

their teaching during the student teaching experience. She argued that, if student teachers

41

 

are to become independent professionals capable of decision-making, they must develop
critical and reflective thinking skills in music education courses prior to the student
teaching practicum, particularly in curriculum and pedagogy. She suggested that research
concerning the student teacher centinue into the induction year of teaching, when the
influence of the cooperating teacher is not present. Krueger also encouraged more
ethnographic research in music education.

As one of the first qualitative research studies in music education, Krueger (1985)
blazed the trail for researchers to follow, especially those wanting to use an ethnographic
approach. Since its completion, her study has influenced research in teacher preparation
in music education, student teaching, and induction year teaching. Findings from
Krueger’s study revealed the importance of context and the effect of the cooperating
teacher on the student teacher. Krueger examined a unique aspect of the student teaching
experience in music education — the hidden curriculum — that begs, but has not received,

further investigation in subsequent research (Rideout & F eldman, 2002).

Schleuter: Curricular Thinking

Schleuter (1991) used an ethnographic approach to a collective case study that
examined the preactive and postactive curricular thinking of elementary general music
student teachers. Schleuter wanted to find out what the participants’ preactive and
postactivecurricular thinking was in terms of five categories, and how it emerged or
changed over the course of the student teaching practicum. The five foci of curricular

thinking that provided the framework for her study were as follows:

42

(1) Aims/Goals/Objectives/Scope/Sequence, (2) Content/Concept, (3) Activities, (4)
Nature of the Learner, and (5) Pupil/Program/Self-Evaluation (p. 48).

The three student teacher participants in Schleuter’s (1991) study included two
males and one female. They all split their day with mornings in secondary schools and
aftemoons in elementary schools. Though all of the student teachers indicated a desire to
teach at the secondary level in their first jobs, they all had a positive attitude toward
elementary general music. Schleuter collected data through participant-observation,
examination of lesson plans and daily journals of participants, audiotapes of conferences
between student teacher, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor, structured
interviews before, during, and after student teaching, and informal interviews. She
employed stimulated recall to help participants remember and describe events in detail.
All data were triangulated on a weekly basis to help guide further inquiry and were
analyzed using the five curricular codes.

Schleuter (1991) found that all of the student teachers prepared lessons with
objectives, activities, and pupil evaluation as components. The individual nature of the
student teaching experience for each participant was evident in lesson planning. Goals
were developed based on interactions with cooperating teachers. One participant was
completely unaware of classroom goals for learning and relied on continuous help from
the cooperating teacher. Another participant formulated his own goals for lessons, while
the third participant formulated his own goals until the cooperating teacher shared hers
and then he followed her structure. Overall, the cooperating teacher in each situation
provided inadequate curricular information to the student teacher, particularly in terms of

the students’ prior knowledge or experience with musical concepts.

43

The Nature of the Learner was the category that was most influenced by the
student teaching experience (Schleuter, 1991). Consecutive grade placements seemed to
increase awareness of this, perhaps due to the longitudinal view of learning they
provided. Preactive and postactive planning focused primarily on group instruction with
little attention given to individualized instruction. Schleuter recommended that student
teachers be exposed to elementary music basal series due to the curricular knowledge
they provide in terms of planning, even if they do not use them for instruction.

Schleuter (1991) is another example of a music education researcher who used
qualitative methodology before its widespread acceptance in the discipline. Interestingly,
she also used quantitative analysis to answer two of her research questions; the
information from the ethnographic data provided richer insight and greater detail. The
sheer number of conclusions she provided, 15 total, opened a wide variety of future
research agendas and implications for practice. Presented in her conclusions were several
points involving the cooperating teacher, including their influence over the planning

decisions made by student teachers.

Schmidt: Learning fiom Experience

The depth and richness of Schmidt’s (1994b) study of student teacher learning
during the practicum make it an important study in music education research. Schmidt
followed four instrumental music student teachers throughout their internship to discover
the lessons they learned. She specifically looked at learning in terms of perceptions of

good and poor teaching, defining themselves as teachers, and problems and successes in

the classroom. She also explored what experiences shaped their perceptions and what
connections existed among experiences, perceptions, and teaching practices.

Schmidt (1994b) followed an emergent case study design and employed
ethnographic techniques including participant-observation to collect data. Data from
student teacher participants included observations, journals, notebooks, formal
observations and conferences, informal conversation, and comments from student teacher
seminar. Other data were collected from secondary participants including cooperating
teachers, university supervisors, and other music faculty. Schmidt coded data and
compared cases with one another.

Schmidt (1994b) discovered that, though all of the student teachers went through
the same teacher preparation program, they did not all learn the same things from their
experiences. Their perceptions of self and of teaching directly influenced instructional
practices, and learning from instructional practices altered their perceptions of self and of
teaching. Participants seemed to be in a constant state of flux. The learning that
participants experienced was all based on prior experience. Student teachers filtered their
learning through the lens of previous experience in order to make sense of present
experience. Participants’ perceptions of the ability to “be themselves” as teachers was the
mitigating factor in terms of what they learned from evaluation and feedback from others,
and from any coursework they applied to student teaching. The relationship established
with their mentor was also important to what was learned; a supportive relationship could
make any experience, good or bad, an educative one for the student teacher.

Devoting more attention to reflective practice in music teacher preparation,

beginning with students’ own experiences in education, would improve the educative

45

quality of student teaching (Schmidt, 1994b). Comparing their experiences to other
situations may help student teachers gain multiple perspectives of teaching. Preservice
music teachers must learn to identify and evaluate other models of teaching, beyond the
ones they ascribe to, so they do not lose the ability to learn from a variety of models and
experiences. A one-size-fits-all approach to field experience may not be best for
preservice music teachers. Novice music teachers who are shy or timid may need more
field experience prior to student teaching. An appropriate preparation program that is
tightly prescribed may not meet the needs of all of its students.

Schmidt (1994b) proposed several avenues for further inquiry. Research into early
field experience, because of its influence on student teaching, was recommended. She
also suggested research into age and gender and its impact on student teachers’ learning.
The examination of teacher role identity was also recommended, as well as examining
student teachers’ perceptions of their own successes during the internship. Because of the
interaction among personalities that she found in her study, Schmidt proposed that further
research could examine the contexts and placements that affect the educative experiences
of student teachers. Schmidt also suggested examining the supervisory practices and
styles of c00perating teachers and university supervisors.

Schmidt (1994b) has been cited in numerous studies of music teacher preparation.
Her thorough look at student teacher learning during the practicum was the first of its
kind in music education. Like Krueger (1985), Schmidt provided a new view of the music
student teaching experience. Schmidt was also one of the first researchers to study
instrumental music student teachers in qualitative research. This study produced many

implications for research and practice, opening up inquiry into gender issues and

46

attention to reflective practices of preservice music teachers (Schmidt, 1994b). Like
Krueger (1985) and Schleuter (1991), evidence of the influence of the cooperating
teacher emerged in Schmidt’s (1994b) study. The student teacher/cooperating teacher
relationship affected the educative quality of the experience.

Krueger (1985), Schleuter (1991), and Schmidt (1994b) were pioneers of
qualitative research in student teaching in music education. The findings from all of these
studies have continued to affect music education research and practice. Krueger (1985)
essentially paved the way for Schleuter (1991), Schmidt (1994b), and many others to
employ an ethnographic approach to music education research. While these researchers
opened the door to this paradigm, and to research in the music student teaching
experience, gaps still persist in this area of the literature. More qualitative research,
focusing on a variety of issues in the student teaching experience, is needed. The
importance of the student teaching experience is evident in the research discussed here,

and continues to demand the attention of music education researchers.

Frameworks of Mentoring
Mentoring goes far beyond the instinctual, habitual, repetitive, reinforcement, or
pedagogical steps that comprise training. It is the sum of all of these steps. A
high-order communication and learning process, mentoring is built on the analysis
of professional-environment experiences, a learning cycle that includes observing,
analyzing, and comparing known experiences and situations and applying them in

new situations (Conway, 2003, p. vii)

47

This explanation of mentoring defines the essence of the student teaching
experience. Often the student teacher begins the experience by observing. A cooperating
teacher as mentor makes craft knowledge, defined as actions taken in the classroom and
the reasons for them, accessible to the student teacher (McIntyre & Hagger, 1993). Both-
cooperating teacher and student teacher should discuss the preconceived notions and
ideas held by the student teacher and use them to make sense of the current setting.
Ideally, from these discussions and interactions, a close relationship forms.

Danger exists, though, in the relationship that the cooperating teacher and student
teacher develop through this mentoring process (McIntyre & Hagger, 1993). When both
parties recognize one another’s commitment to teaching and validate one another’s
beliefs, a supportive and close relationship results. When this type of relationship does
not develop, it can be devastating to a student teacher’s growth and development.

In order to create this supportive relationship, McIntyre and Hagger (1993)
propose that mentors employ four strategies. The first strategy is collaborative teaching,
where cooperating teachers and student teachers plan together and teach together. A
second strategy involves accessing cooperating teachers’ craft knowledge. Cooperating
teachers should be sharing their craft knowledge with their student teachers, so that the
novices can begin to understand the decisions made by experienced teachers. The last two
strategies the cooperating teachers should employ are the discussion of the student
teachers’ ideas and management of student teachers’ learning opportunities. Using these
four strategies enables cooperating teachers to guide student teachers as they learn the

complex process of teaching.

48

McIntyre and Hagger (1993) suggest that mentors may extend mentoring beyond
these four strategies once a student teacher shows gains in competency. Once a student
teacher displays competence, the cooperating teacher and student teacher become more
equal partners. The student teacher takes the lead in his or her own development as the
role of the mentor shifts. Transitioning to this new type of relationship may be
challenging for the cooperating teacher, but it is needed to support the student teacher’s
continued development.

Three models, or phases, of mentoring were outlined by Maynard and Furlong
(1993). The apprenticeship model, the competency model, and the reflective model are
progressive stages through which the mentoring relationship moves. In the apprenticeship
model, the student teacher works alongside the cooperating teacher, who acts as a model.
The cooperating teacher and student teacher ofien engage in collaborative teaching
during this early stage, which is most appropriate while the student teacher is still
becoming acclimated to the classroom.

The competency model is a model of “systematic training” (Maynard & Furlong,
1993, p. 80). The cooperating teacher lays out a specific program of behaviors that the
student teacher must demonstrate. Observation and feedback from the cooperating
teacher is a critical part of this model. The feedback helps the student teacher gain
competency in the prescribed behaviors. Once the student teacher has gained
competence, the reflective model can be implemented. The c00perating teacher should
encourage the student teacher to change focus from self and begin reflecting on student

learning. Cooperating teachers must take an active role in getting student teachers to

49

move to this stage following the competency model. The reflection model demands that
the mentor role shifts “from being a model and instructor to being a co-enquirer” (p. 82).

Amherst School of Education (1989, as cited in Martin, 1994) described three
stages in the mentoring relationship between cooperating teachers and student teachers.
The formal stage begins with the student teacher as prospective teacher. The cordial stage
follows this formal stage, as the student teacher and cooperating teacher begin to get to
know one another. Trust and respect grows on personal and professional levels, and
mentors serve as instructors and critics during this phase. In the last phase, the friendship
stage, student teachers have gained confidence in their new role. They begin to see
themselves as teachers and need their mentors less as they prepare to move on to their
first professional positions.

The mentoring relationship has been described as a series of phases through
which the parties involved pass (Maynard & Furlong, I993; McIntyre & Hagger, 1993).
Amherst School of Education (1989, as cited in Martin 1994) described specifically the
type of interpersonal relationships that develop between student teachers and cooperating
teachers. In all cases, the relationship formed between the cooperating teacher and
student teacher gradually becomes more equal as it progresses successfully through
various phases (Maynard & Furlong, 1993; McIntyre & Hagger, 1993; Amherst School
of Education, 1989, as cited in Martin 1994). In my pilot study for this dissertation, I
discovered a power sharing continuum that progresses through three phases that become
more equal as well: student/teacher relationship, team-teaching relationship, and
collaborative partnership (Draves, in press). The investigation of a relationship

framework or continuum between cooperating music teachers and student teachers is the

50

basis of my dissertation. The viewpoint of the cooperating teacher on how the
relationship forms and progresses along a continuum, if it indeed does, to a collaborative

partnership is of particular interest.

The Mentoring Relationship

Student Teacher Perspectives

Researchers have devoted attention to student teachers’ perspectives of their
student teaching experience. Both quantitative and qualitative research has examined
student teachers’ beliefs about the mentoring relationship they had with their cooperating
teachers. Capa and Loadman (2004) asked 66 student teachers to evaluate the mentoring
they received from their cooperating teachers. They investigated four aspects of the
mentoring experience and included mentoring strategies used by their cooperating
teacher, the relationship between themselves and the cooperating teacher, the mentor’s
performance as a teacher, and the mentor’s personality. A Likert-type survey was
designed to measure the responses of the student teachers in terms of their ideal mentor
and their actual mentor. The researchers then used t-tests to find differences between the
student teachers’ ideal mentoring experience and their actual mentoring experience.

Significant differences were found between the ideal mentoring and the actual
mentoring that student teachers received (Capa & Loadman, 2004). In all cases, the ideal
mentor rankings were higher. In terms of the relationship, student teachers had hoped that
the cooperating teachers would keep aspects of the student teachers’ performance
confidential in order to build more trust between them. Overall, student teachers had

hoped that their c00perating teachers would be more “patient, helpfirl, and caring” (p. 8).

51

Because the researchers operated under the assumption that the student teachers’
reported perceptions accurately reflected reality, Capa and Loadman (2004)
recommended that more research include direct observation of cooperating teachers and
their relationships with student teachers. In-depth interviews with cooperating teachers
and student teachers would yield rich and meaningful data that may elaborate on the
survey findings. Research on the cooperating teachers’ perceptions of mentoring
practices was also recommended.

A qualitative case study examined two English student teachers’ lived experience
during their internship (Agee, 1996). Lived experience fell into four categories that
included issues of space, body, time, and human relations. Space referred to physical
space, which included the classroom that the cooperating teacher and student teacher
shared daily. Body referred to the “physical messages” sent between two people “with
little or no prior knowledge of one another who are expected to form a working
relationship” and that define “gender, position, and openness to others” (p. 282). Time, in
this case, meant the way time was spent in the relationship between the cooperating
teacher and student teacher and how the time spent met each person’s expectations. It is
subjective in nature; time was what the person experienced rather than actual clock time.
Human relations was defined by the relationship formed between cooperating teacher and
student teacher as their “lives and work intersect” (p. 282). Data included personal
histories and expectations of the student teachers as gathered through observations,
interviews, and documents. Agee investigated the way relationships formed between the
student teachers and cooperating teachers, and its effect on the student teachers’

pedagogies and attitudes.

52

Anne, one of the student teachers, held expectations for her cooperating teacher
that revolved around freedom (Agee, 1996). She wanted her cooperating teacher to be
’ supportive, while allowing her to grow as a teacher. It was important to Anne that she
become independent as a teacher, and that meant that the cooperating teacher would
eventually leave her alone to practice her teaching. She hoped her cooperating teacher
would hold beliefs about teaching similar to hers, would help her see potential pitfalls,
and would preferably be a female.

Anne’s expectations were fulfilled in her relationship with Jeannie (Agee, 1996).
Jeannie, the cooperating teacher, drew on her own experience as a student teacher to
inform her practices for mentoring Anne. She was committed to making the experience a
positive and successful one for Anne. Jeannie began this collegial relationship by
providing physical space in her classroom for Anne. By the end of the first week, she
already had Anne teaching in some of her classes.

Anne and Jeannie planned together and regularly discussed instruction (Agee,
1996). Anne trusted Jeannie and felt validated by her. This validation allowed Anne to
develop her own teaching persona. The match of teaching philosophies between Anne
and Jeannie also contributed to their collegial relationship. Anne felt that she learned how
to be a teacher and a future mentor while being mentored by Jeannie.

Wendy, the second student teacher in the study, desired a female cooperating
teacher because she believed a female would be more nurturing (Agee, 1996). Wendy
expressed concern about being left alone in the classroom by her cooperating teacher, and
preferred to be supervised most of the time. She hoped to gain a lot of ideas from her

cooperating teacher and wanted their teaching styles to match.

53

Wendy was assigned two different c00perating teachers, Harry and Tim. Harry
had never student taught prior to becoming a high school English teacher and, as a first
time cooperating teacher, said that he was learning throughout the experience along with
Wendy. His desire for Wendy was for her to have the freedom to try her own things and
be “innovative” in his classroom (Agee, 1996, p. 295). Tim recalled his own positive
student teaching experience, in which he and his cooperating teacher shared similar
philosophies about teaching. Tim believed a student teacher could be successful without
much guidance from a cooperating teacher.

Wendy struggled in her experience with both Harry and Tim (Agee, 1996).
Wendy perceived Harry’s teacher presence in the classroom as so strong that she was
unable to develop her own. With Tim, Wendy desired more communication about
planning for classes. Tim blamed the university’s preparation program for Wendy’s
shortcomings, effectively shutting down discussion between him and Wendy. Neither
Harry nor Tim shared physical space with Wendy in their classrooms.

The sharing of physical space can be a concern of cooperating teachers and
student teachers (Agee, 1996). Often the “intruder phenomenon” occurs, in which the
student teacher is perceived to be encroaching on the territory, in this case the classroom,
of the cooperating teacher (p. 295). Wendy seemed to experience this in both of her
placements. Discussion time between the student teacher and cooperating teacher also
affected the formation of the relationship between the cooperating teachers and student
teachers. For Anne and Jeannie, discussion was a daily part of their life, whereas Wendy
and her cooperating teachers rarely engaged in discussion, particularly toward the end of

the practicum. The similarity of the cooperating teacher and student teacher’s teaching

54

philosophies provided the opportunity for a strong bond to form between Anne and
Jeannie, while the differences between Wendy and her cooperating teachers prevented a
bond from forming.

“Crucial to the relational health of these partnerships was the ability of the
cooperating teacher to share power and status with the preservice teacher” (Agee, 1996,
p. 299). Jeannie made a concerted effort from the beginning of the placement to make
Anne feel like it was her classroom and that she shared ownership in it along with Jeannie
and the students. Harry and Tim did not attempt to share power and status with Wendy in
any way during the experience and afforded her no situational power with students.

Agee (1996) encouraged placements of student teachers with cooperating teachers
who had the time to mentor and share with the student teacher. She also encouraged
cooperating teachers to take the time to talk with student teachers when there is a conflict.
In turn, she suggested that the cooperating teachers and university supervisor must listen
to student teachers. She recommended further case studies investigating the dynamics of
student teacher/cooperating teacher relationships. Focus group discussions with
cooperating teachers and student teachers might bring to light important issues in the
mentoring relationship.

The theme of power sharing from Agee’s (1996) study will be investigated in my
dissertation. Recommendations from both Capa and Loadman (2004) and Agee (1996)
are followed in the current study. Direct observation, which in my study will be
conducted in the form of participant observation, is one type of data collection. Individual
interviews with cooperating teachers and student teachers, as well as focus group

interviews, are also part of data collection. As a multiple case study, data are rich and

55

plentiful and will provide insight into this complex relationship from the cooperating

teacher’s viewpoint.

Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher: Joint Perspectives

In an action research study, Liebhaber (2003) examined the deve10pment of the
mentoring relationship between the members of the music student teaching triad. Using
two triads as cases, she looked at the relationships between each member, and then the
triadic relationship as a whole. Interviews, observations, and journals provided data for
the study. Liebhaber found that the cooperating teacher and student teacher relationship
was strengthened when there was an early meeting prior to the beginning of the
practicum. The cooperating teachers and student teachers both learned teaching
strategies, assessment techniques, classroom management, scheduling, motivational
techniques, rehearsal techniques, and materials from one another. The optimal situation
was one in which the triad worked together as a collaborative group of individuals.
Though finding the time to schedule meetings was challenging, substantive issues were
addressed in meetings including assessment methods, classroom management, student
teacher preparation, student teacher responsibility, the cooperating teacher’s program,
scheduling, teaching concepts, and teaching strategies.

Liebhaber (2003) concluded that the choice of a cooperating teacher should be
based on finding someone who is interested in not only teaching the student teacher, but
also in learning from the student teacher. The cooperating teacher should have the ability
and desire to communicate with the student teacher and university supervisor. She

recommended that the university supervisor invite the cooperating teacher to join weekly

56

student teacher seminars and make time to meet with the cooperating teacher and student
teacher on a regular basis. The cooperating teacher and the university supervisor set the
overall tone for the student teaching experience, with the university supervisor being the
primary force in nurturing a collaborative relationship. Liebhaber encouraged firrther
research on how cooperating teachers are chosen, suggesting the use of graduates of the
university or graduate students at the university who are teaching full-time. She also
urged researchers to look further into what the university supervisor and university can
do for the cooperating teacher in terms of support, seminars, and professional
development.

Trust and Communication, Jumping In, and Conversation emerged as themes in a
case study of how two student teacher/cooperating teacher pairs — Jane and Diane, Julie
and Andrea -— made sense of their role in a year-long student teaching placement (Stanulis
& Russell, 2000). Using field observations, conferences, and journals, the researchers
constantly compared data to guide their research over the course of the study. The student
teachers, Jane and Julie, were part of an alternative masters program in which teacher
candidates with Bachelor’s degrees in disciplines outside of education enter a program to
earn a Master’s degree in Education.

Stanulis and Russell (2000) found that trust and communication in the mentoring
relationship moved through three stages: observing, questioning, and participating.
Initially, student teachers observed their mentors, received emotional support from them,
and asked many questions. In the next phase, student teachers assumed more teaching
responsibility and began framing their questions in terms of curriculum and students. By

the time student teachers were fully participating as teachers in the classroom, the student

57

teacher had earned trust of the mentor by displaying enthusiastic teaching and kindness
toward students.

Jumping In was defined by the researchers as easygoing participation in the
mentoring relationship and was based on trust (Stanulis & Russell, 2000, p. 69). A caring,
supportive atmosphere with open conversation between student teacher and cooperating
teacher promoted trust. This trust and conversation paved the way for the student teacher
to fully “jump in” to the experience, and for the cooperating teacher to fully “jump in” to
the mentoring role. Though Jane and her cooperating teacher, Diane, firlly “jumped in” to
the relationship, Julie and Andrea did not.

The researchers found that as challenges increased and support decreased, Julie
“shut down” in terms of her active engagement in her teaching responsibilities, thus
preventing her full participation in her student teaching placement (Stanulis & Russell,
2000). Collaboration among all members of the triad that includes scaffolding for the
student teacher could help prevent this scenario. Mutual mentoring between all parties is
important, and the university supervisor and cooperating teacher must be actively present
for the student teacher during the experience: “For it is only as mentoring becomes
mutual and shared that equity can be achieved among all participants” (p. 79).

Fairbanks et al. (2000) explored the characteristics of successful mentoring with
15 cooperating teachers and student teachers. “Mentoring consists of complex social
interactions that mentor teachers and student teachers construct and negotiate for a
variety of professional purposes and in response to the contextual factors they encounter”
(p. 103). Interviews, journals, videotaped conferences between cooperating teacher and

student teacher, monthly workshops, and artifacts from student teacher supervision

58

provided data. Participants aided the researchers in data analysis, which resulted in three
categories: (1) helping the student teacher survive their beginning teaching experiences
and define their teaching lives, (2) establishing relationships based on dialogue and
reflection, and (3) building professional partnerships.

Helping the student teacher survive revolved around concerns for instructional
practices along with negotiating a new professional setting (Fairbanks et al., 2000).
Cooperating teachers began by introducing student teachers to the school setting, with
some cooperating teachers choosing to do this on the weekend so that they could give the
student teacher their full attention without the presence of students. Cooperating teachers
welcomed student teachers into their schools, provided them physical space such as their
own desk, and introduced them to other faculty and staff in the building. Developing a
relationship with other faculty and staff in the school helped student teachers adopt a
teacher role and view themselves as professionals.

Conversation and reflection formed the basis of effective relationships between
mentors and student teachers. Cooperating teachers described mentoring a student teacher
as a give and take process. Establishing a relationship that promoted the professional
growth of the student teacher was important, and negotiating power was part of that
process. This type of relationship resulted in role shifting between student teacher and
cooperating teacher in terms of leading, following, supporting, and challenging one
another (Fairbanks et al., 2000).

Mentors and student teachers described their professional relationships as
collegial (Fairbanks et al., 2000). This collegial relationship resulted in two-way learning

through questioning, sharing opinions, and offering suggestions. Though some found the

59

progression to a collegial relationship more difficult, all of the mentor/mentee pairs
described their relationship as collaborative by the end of the practicum. “What began as
a clearly experienced/novice relationship moved progressiVely toward collaborative
partnerships” (p. 108).

Stanulis and Russell (2000) explained that mutual mentoring between parties was
necessary to achieve an equitable relationship, an assertion echoed by Fairbanks et al.
(2000) and Liebhaber (2003). Conversation was paramount to the development of an
equitable relationship (Agee, 1996; Fairbanks et al., 2000; Liebhaber, 2003; Stanulis &
Russell, 2000). Through participant observation of dialogue between cooperating teacher
and student teacher, I will collect fieldnotes on this facet of the relationship. Power also

emerged as an important issue across several studies and will be investigated in my study

as well (Agee, 1996; Fairbanks et al., 2000).

Cooperating Teacher Perspectives

Hawkey (1998) studied two mentoring relationships using a case study design.
She collected data through interviews with cooperating teachers and student teachers and
through audiotapes of recorded conversations between the two parties. In the initial
interviews with cooperating teachers, Hawkey discovered that the preservice preparation
of the cooperating teachers influenced their approach to mentoring student teachers. This
was borne out in the conversations between the cooperating teachers and student
teachers. The style of each cooperating teacher came through clearly; one implemented a

directive, advisory approach and the other a collaborative approach (p. 662).

60

Hawkey (1998) concluded that the cooperating teachers’ approaches to the
mentoring relationship were rooted in the school culture, the status of the cooperating
teacher in the school, their own teacher preparation, and personally held perspectives
about mentoring. These conclusions led Hawkey to suggest that a model program of
mentor training may have little value to cooperating teachers, since prior experience
seemed to be most influential. The agency of the mentoring relationship might be
compromised by promoting one model of mentoring, which could “undermine mentor
authenticity” (p. 667).

In a study of elementary school cooperating teachers, cooperating teachers
perceived their role as one of guide, leader, good listener, or being a fiiend (Elliott &
Calderhead, 1993). Overall, they believed that their relationship should center on
nurturing and supporting the student teacher. The cooperating teachers reported a variety
of approaches to mentoring that were compatible with their perceptions of their role. For
example, those cooperating teachers who believed the relationship was the most
important aspect of mentoring approached conversations with student teachers like
interpersonal counseling sessions. The rationale for the approach chosen by a cooperating
teacher was based on personal experiences and the cooperating teacher’s image of
teaching. The importance of the interpersonal relationship was stressed by most of the
cooperating teachers, and they believed that mentoring was a function of that
relationship.

In research conducted by Abell et al. (1995), mentor teachers in a state-mandated
beginning teacher intern program in Indiana defined their roles as mentors. Eight

mentor/beginning teacher pairs participated in the study. Mentors defined their roles in

61

four ways: (1) parent figures, (2) support system and trouble shooters, (3) colleagues, and
(4) scaffolders. As a parent figure, mentor teachers believed they should let the beginning
teacher develop into the teacher they wanted to be and not the notion of what the mentor
teacher believed they should be. Mentors as parent figures sought to shield beginning
teachers while also promoting their independence and struggled to strike a balance
between helping and stepping back.

Mentor teachers as support system and trouble shooters included “supporting and
helping the intern during moments of crisis” (p. 181). Mentor teachers believed that,
without their help, the beginning teacher could fail and therefore strived to provide the
beginning teacher the knowledge and support needed for success. As a colleague, mentor
teachers believed that both parties could bring new ideas to one another and therefore
learn from one another. Mentor teachers showed the beginning teachers that they valued
learning from them. When mentors acted as scaffolders, they shared their own “paths or
models for how they addressed everyday issues” (p. 182) like parent communication,
conceptual teaching, and student motivation.

Roles adopted by the mentor teacher determined the nature of the relationship
between the mentor and mentee, including interactions and learning. Both mentors and
mentees desired multiple roles for the mentor within the relationship. In terms of
interaction, proximity, frequency and format of meetings, and meeting topics, all helped
foster the relationship. These roles and the daily interactions between both parties
determined the overall success of the relationship. Mentors and mentees placed more

intrinsic value on the mentoring relationship than the state-mandated program and those

62

relationships that were full of trust and respect were most productive and successful
(Abell et al., 1995).

In a qualitative study conducted by Veal and Rikard (1998), the interpersonal
relationships between cooperating physical education teachers and their student teachers
emerged as such a major theme in the cooperating teacher interviews that it warranted a
second in-depth analysis. In this second analysis, Veal and Rikard defined two triads in
the student teaching experience, the Functional Triad consisting of cooperating teacher,
student teacher, and pupils and the Institutional Triad of university supervisor,
cooperating teacher, and student teacher. The Institutional Triad emerged when the
university supervisor visited the school for an observation. The Functional Triad emerged
in the daily routine of the student teaching practicum.

In the Functional Triad, the cooperating teacher described working with the
student teacher as “teaching together and sharing ideas” (Veal & Rikard, 1998, p. 114).
When the university supervisor visited, power shifted away from the cooperating teacher
and student teacher to the university supervisor. This power shift resulted in tension,
which the cooperating teacher minimized for the student teacher by emphasizing their
interpersonal relationship. The cooperating teacher hoped that focusing on the
interpersonal relationship would make the shift between the Functional and Institutional
triads easier. By focusing on the interpersonal relationship, both cooperating teacher and
student teacher benefited from a sense of mutual respect and learning.

Weasmer and Woods (2003) interviewed 28 cooperating teachers about their
perceptions of their roles as mentors to student teachers. Three roles emerged through

data analysis: model, mentor, or guide. When serving in the model role, the c00perating

63

teacher had a stake in looking good in front of the student teacher. The cooperating
teacher modeled behaviors inside and outside of the classroom, working hard to provide
an appropriate model as instructional leader and professional. C00perating teachers were
motivated to demonstrate their very best teaching at all times, thus benefiting both
parties.

The mentor role involved an intervention approach on behalf of the cooperating
teacher (Weasmer & Woods, 2003). When acting as mentor, the cooperating teacher
observed the student teacher, took notes, and met with the student teacher to discuss
strengths and areas for improvement. Frequent conferences with the student teacher were
necessary and helped promote professional growth. In these conferences, the cooperating
teacher encouraged the student teacher to begin reflecting on his or her own practices. As
a guide, cooperating teachers believed they could develop a non-threatening rapport with
the student teacher that would enhance the overall mentoring process. Weasmer and
Woods concluded that exposing cooperating teachers to various styles of mentoring is
important for the development of the mentoring relationship.

Sanders et al. (2005) observed cooperating teachers in action to compare observed
roles with those defined in research. Sanders et al. also wanted to discover what
cooperating teachers said about their roles. From existing research on cooperating
teachers, Sanders et al. identified seven roles: (1) Model Teacher, (2) Observer/Evaluator,
(3) Planner, (4) Conferencer, (5) Professional Peer, (6) Counselor, and (7) Friend.
Analysis of interviews and observations revealed that the roles of Model Teacher and

Planner were most important to cooperating teachers. Closely following Model Teacher

64

and Planner were Observer/Evaluator, Friend, and Professional Peer, with Counselor and
Conferencer appearing least often in role descriptions and observed interactions.

Cooperating teachers believed that, as a Model Teacher, it was their responsibility
to demonstrate effective teaching. As Planner, they helped the student teacher determine
what and how to teach. Evaluations, stemming from the Observer/Evaluator role, were
typically short and done ‘on the run’. When in the Friend role, the cooperating teacher
was concerned with the student teacher as a whole person. All of the cooperating teachers
acknowledged their student teacher as a professional colleague and conveyed it by
communicating it directly to the student teacher, communicating it to students in the
presence of the student teacher, insisting that students show respect for the student
teacher, and letting the student teacher develop his or her own teaching style. As
Counselor, the cooperating teacher attended to the emotional well-being of the student
teacher. When engaged in the role of Conferencer, cooperating teachers usually discussed
topics related directly to teaching like pedagogy.

Multiple roles were required of cooperating teachers. Though Model Teacher and
Planner dominated the interactions between cooperating teacher and student teacher, the
importance of these roles are not reflected in the literature. Sanders et al. (2005)
concluded that being a good teacher did not make someone a good cooperating teacher,
particularly when related to evaluation of the student teacher. However, time constraints
and a lack of understanding about their roles affected the opportunity for cooperating
teachers and student teachers to talk meaningfully. Sanders et al. recommended further

explanation and exploration of cooperating teachers’ roles with the cooperating teachers

65

themselves, and further research investigating roles and potential role conflict in the
cooperating teacher-student teacher relationship.

Cooperating music teachers shared their views on empowering music student
teachers during their practicum (Krueger, 2006). Ways to empower student teachers
began with the introduction of the student teacher as a full partner in the classroom. This
meant providing physical space to student teachers and gradually increasing their
teaching responsibilities. Cooperating teachers described their introduction of the student
teacher to their classes, often explaining to students that the student teacher was a teacher
who would be spending the next ten weeks with them. This collaborative approach to
establishing the relationship benefited both parties. As the student teacher moved in to
their first year of teaching, the cooperating teacher hoped to continue serving as a mentor
and colleague upon whom the student teacher could call.

Cooperating music teachers serve as mentors to preservice music teachers
throughout their practicum experience (Duling, 2000; Krueger, 2006; Liebhaber, 2003).
Training in interpersonal communication, especially mentoring techniques, is vital for
cooperating teachers (Connor & Killmer, 1995; Sanders et al., 2005; Weasmer & Woods,
2003). The overall success of the practicum depends heavily on the rapport between the
cooperating and student teacher (Agee, 1996; Berthelotte, 2007; Elliott & Calderhead,
1993; Fairbanks et al., 2000; Veal & Rikard, 1999). Issues of power and communication
are particularly salient in the development of a positive relationship (Abell et al., 1995;
Agee, 1996; Fairbanks et al., 2000; Liebhaber, 2003; Sanders et al., 2005; Stanulis &

Russell, 2000). Often the cooperating teacher occupies multiple roles in the relationship

66

with the student teacher (Abell et al., 1995; Berthelotte, 2007; Elliott & Calderhead,
1993; Sanders et al., 2005; Weasmer & Woods, 2003).

The cooperating teacher and student teacher forge a deeply personal relationship.
Cooperating teachers value this personal relationship and believe they must establish a
pattern of communication that fosters positive rapport (Abell et al., 1995; Berthelotte,
2007; Elliott & Calderhead, 1993; Fairbanks et al., 2000; Koerner, 1992; Krueger, 2006;
Veal & Rikard, 1999; Weasmer & Woods, 2003). This dissertation explores the
relationship between cooperating music teachers and student teachers from the
perspective of the cooperating teacher. Through participant observation and interviews
with cooperating music teachers and student teachers, rich data will be gathered about
this important relationship. Issues of power and influences on the development of the
relationship are examined. The bonds formed between the cooperating music teacher and

student teacher are the focus of this study.

67

CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Researcher Lens

In dialogue with colleagues throughout my previous school who served as
cooperating teachers, I discovered various motivations for taking on this difficult, time-
consuming, and vitally important task. Some saw a student teacher in their classroom as
simply another body to lighten their workload, while others considered it a status symbol;
a student teacher in their classroom validated their worth as a teacher to the rest of the
school. Certainly, their thinking seemed to be, if a university trusted its preservice
teachers to them, they must be exceptional educators. Rarely did teachers discuss their
role as a cooperative in the context of service to their profession. The profoundness of the
role of cooperating teacher went unrecognized.

When I was asked to accept a student teacher into my classroom, I eagerly agreed.
However, I quickly found my preparation for this new opportunity to be minimal.
Thinking that my experience teaching children qualified me for this role, I surprised
myself when I struggled in my capacity as a c00perating teacher. Though trained and
certified as a teacher mentor, I lacked the preparation to handle the distinctive challenges
presented to me by a preservice teacher. Because I considered my responsibility to be not
only to my student teacher, but to my profession in a global sense, I took this
responsibility very seriously. As I stumbled through allowing the student teacher to take

on my teaching responsibilities and provided him with appropriate feedback, I felt

68

increasingly inadequate. My desire to improve this process for other cooperating music

teachers brought me to this research study.

Design

This project was a qualitative study, focusing on several different cases. Because I
sought to study multiple cases in-depth, a collective case study design was appropriate
(Stake, 1995). Characteristic of the case study design in qualitative research, data were
collected in multiple forms (Creswell, 1998). Common themes may emerge across
multiple cases, allowing for more thorough analysis and interpretation.

Ethnographic methodological techniques were used to collect data. These
included in-depth observation of participants, formal individual interviews and focus
group interviews, collection of artifacts (e.g., lesson plans, reflective notes, observation
reports), and informal conversations. Ethnographic data was coded and analyzed for
emergent themes. Though the research design is framed by ethnography, the data were

interpreted from a music education perspective.

Participants
Four student teacher/cooperating teacher cohort pairs from a large Midwestern
university served as participants. Selection of participants was bound by those student
teaching and those serving as cooperating teachers during spring semester 2007. Since
the study focuses on the relationship created between the student teachers and

cooperating teachers, both had to voluntarily agree to be involved. While I served as a

69

university supervisor for the music student teachers during spring semester 2007, I did
not serve as supervisor to any of the participants in the current study.

In choosing participants, selection criteria should be based on providing the best
opportunity for learning (Stake, 1995). With this in mind, I identified potential
participants using several criteria. It was necessary to select cooperating teachers with
experience supervising more than one student teacher in order to provide a broad lens and
allow participants to draw on multiple experiences. I also sought cooperating teachers
who represented a wide variety of teaching experience. In terms of grade level and music
teaching assignments, I hoped to include cooperating teachers and student teachers from
elementary, middle, and high school and representing general music, band, chorus, and
orchestra. Including like gender and opposite gender matches between cooperating
teacher and student teacher was also important because of potential differences in the
way relationships formed due to gender.

Potential participants meeting these criteria were identified by recommendations
from public school colleagues and the university faculty as those who would also provide
rich and meaningful data and therefore maximize what could be learned from their
participation and experience. This purposeful sample resulted in ten total participants due
to student teaching placements that were split between grade levels and music teaching
assignments. Though most of the criteria were met, a representation from orchestra could
not be included due to limitations of who was student teaching spring semester. Also,
only one opposite gender match between cooperating teacher and student teacher was
included due to the same limitations. “Balance and variety are important; opportunity to

learn is of primary importance” (Stake, 1995, p. 6).

70

Cooperating teachers represented a variety of teaching expertise and experience.
All cooperating teachers had at least two student teachers prior to their current one. One
cooperating teacher was male and five were female. The one male was a high school
band teacher. Three females were elementary general music teachers, one female was a
middle school band teacher, and one female was a middle school choir teacher. Teaching
experience among cooperating teachers ranged from six to 23 years. All participants were
identified by pseudonym to protect their identity.

The student teachers were completing a 5-year degree program in music
education, culminating in the student teaching practicum. Their degree program prepared
them over 4 ‘/2 years to student teach for one semester in a music setting of their choice.
Undergraduates are not “tracked” into an instrumental or vocal degree program. Instead,
students choose to take the methods courses for the disciplines in which they would like
to teach, and then student teach in those areas. Student teachers represented traditional
disciplines often found in school music teaching and learning settings: general music,
choir, and band. They were placed with various disciplines and age groups, and some
split their time between placements resulting in more than one cooperating teacher
working with one student teacher. Two student teachers were male, and two were female.
One male student teacher was split-placed in middle school choir and elementary general
music. The other male was placed in high school band. One female was placed in
elementary general music. The other female had a split placement between middle school

band and elementary general music.

71

Procedure

Participants were contacted initially by email to request their participation. Once
initial contact was made, I met with participants individually at their request to explain
the study and distribute the consent document (see Appendix A), requesting voluntary
participation. Data collection stretched over thirteen weeks during March-May 2007.
Final interviews with cooperating teachers were conducted through May 2007 after
student teachers had graduated, because cooperating teachers were still in school.

Three types of data were collected and included individual interviews, focus
group interviews, and field notes based on observations. The data types were chosen
because they provided the best means for understanding each case individually and as a
collective (Stake, 1995). Observing the cooperating teachers and student teachers interact
was significant to investigating the issue of their relationship. Interviews with individuals
and focus groups allowed me to access information I could not observe, gain impressions
of all participants, and assisted me in understanding the “multiple realities” of the
participants (p. 64). Using interviews, which were guided by me, and observations, which
provided data that were not controlled by me, meant that I could seek answers to my
research questions directly and in a naturalistic setting.

I conducted two formal individual interviews with each participant. Cooperating
teacher interviews took place at the site of their choice. These included their schools,
homes, and a local coffee house. Interviews with student teachers were conducted at a
location of their choice, and included the university and a local coffee house. One student

teacher chose to be interviewed once at his student teaching site without the presence of

72

the cooperating teacher. Participants received an advance copy of interview questions one
week prior to the interview (see Appendix B).

I conducted one focus group interview with the student teacher group and one
with the cooperating teacher group. An explanation of focus group procedures and
interview questions (see Appendix C) was provided to the participants one week prior to
the interview and then reviewed before the interview began. Focus group procedures
outlined the expectation of privacy, emphasized the importance of confidentiality, and
protected participants and the integrity of the data.

Individual and focus group interviews were recorded on an Olympus DS-2 digital
voice recorder and transcribed as soon as possible following the conclusion of the
interview (Appendix D). The interviews were downloaded to a Hewlett-Packard Pavilion
laptop computer and stored there, along with transcriptions. Participants received a c0py
of interview transcripts to member check, thus ensuring the credibility of the data.
Changes made by the participants were incorporated into the data.

I spent five days observing each student teacher/cooperating music teacher pair,
with the exception of one. One pair was observed only four days to due irreconcilable
scheduling issues. Fieldwork focused on interactions between student teachers and
cooperating teachers. These interactions included co-teaching, conferencing, planning,
feedback meetings for the student teacher, a question-answer session, and routine
interactions like eating lunch together or making photocopies. Each situation and
atmosphere determined how I documented interactions. Options included a digital voice

recorder, writing field notes or jottings at the time, or taking mental notes or “head notes”

73

and writing them up after leaving the observation site (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, p.
18).

My participation during fieldwork was determined by the student
teacher/cooperating teacher pair. Participating in teaching or learning activities may have
reduced the anxiety that could arise by simply watching and taking notes, since this
posture is often associated with evaluation in a classroom. Because my role was to learn
from my participants, I wished to avoid the appearance of evaluator in the classroom.
While none of the participants asked me to participate as a teacher, I was invited to
participate, as a student, in one elementary general music class, and I offered my
assistance in several classrooms to help the cooperating teacher and student teacher
organize materials.

Each week I wrote up field notes, using a narrative style as illustrated by Emerson
et al. (1995). Interspersed with the narrative were my own thoughts and reflections, offset
by a different typeface or style. Continually reviewing these field notes determined the
direction subsequent observations and interviews took. Data from each pair pointed in a
different direction, though hopefully all data led me to understand the dynamic

relationships formed between music student teachers and cooperating teachers.

Analysis
Data were coded and analyzed for emergent themes. I began coding by reading
through each set of interviews as one data set. Reading the interviews as a whole
encouraged the recognition of patterns and allowed me to make comparisons (Emerson,

et al., 1995, p.145). I then open-coded each interview (see Appendix E), reading line by

74

line and writing down any ideas I had for codes, “no matter how varied and disparate”
(Emerson et al., 1995, p. 143). Codes included etic codes - those that I brought to the
data and based upon the research questions — and emic codes — those that emerged from
the data (Stake, 1995). Following open coding of all interviews, I began dropping some
codes (see Appendix F and Appendix G) as the overall research focus began to narrow
(Emerson et al., 1995). I used field notes to triangulate data from interviews by searching
for confirming and disconfirrning evidence within them. Student teacher interviews also
served as triangulating data. Ideas and themes that occurred to me as I coded and
analyzed were jotted as memos, or written down in a separate notebook, and were
referenced throughout the data analysis as I connected data to identify themes (Emerson
et al., 1995). Approaching the data and analysis inductively allowed me to look for
themes and theory to emerge from the data, rather than fitting the data into existing
theory.

Creswell (1998) recommends the use of at least two measures to ensure
trustworthiness. This study used three measures to establish trustworthiness: data
triangulation, member checks, and peer review. Different types of data, collected from
different sources, provided corroborating evidence for emerging themes and perspectives
(Creswell, 1998; Stake, 1995). Data collected from individual interviews, focus group
interviews, and fieldwork served to corroborate accounts. Member checks of interview
transcripts performed by participants ensured the accuracy of the data. Changes or
corrections made by participants were incorporated into the data to establish its
credibility. Outside readers with experience in qualitative and ethnographic research

methods performed peer reviews of coded data.

75

A variety of backgrounds, experiences, and personalities characterized the
participants in the study. In the following section, I introduce you to each participant,
beginning with the six cooperating music teachers and followed by the four music student
teachers. These descriptions provide background and information about each participant
that may allow the reader to further know and understand each of them as they read their
stories.

Cooperating Teachers
Kate Jackson

In only a few minutes, Kate Jackson mesmerizes anyone in her elementary music
classroom at Blue Creek. Her masterful teaching befits that of a 30-year veteran teacher,
not her seven years of experience. Kate is a learner and continuously seeks opportunities
to improve herself as a music educator. Her practice is informed by research and rooted
firmly in an understanding of the way children learn music. Her students engage in
music-making from the moment they walk through her classroom door until they leave
again. Kate Jackson’s students learn, create, perform, and live music with her.

Her skills as a teacher of young children are matched by her skills as a
cooperating teacher. Kate approaches seriously her role as mentor, providing regular
feedback and engaging in mutual learning with her student teacher. Emily Lawson is
Kate’s third student teacher, but while watching her one would suspect that she has had
twice as many. Kate holds a masters degree in music education and contributes regularly
to the profession and to her own learning by writing articles and attending and leading

workshops. Kate Jackson is equally a teacher and a learner.

76

Kristen Sykes

Kristen Sykes is a talker. Friendly and extroverted, one is easily caught up in
laughter with her. Her gregarious personality is perfect for drawing out even the most
timid middle school singers in her choir at Grove and her current student teacher, Jack.
She knows her students well and works hard at providing them opportunities to excel in
vocal performance. Most days find her working with students after school. When she is
not putting in extra time at her school, Kristen offers her expertise to other vocal
programs as a clinician or adjudicator. Kristen also has various responsibilities in the
state vocal music associations. She is busy and she likes it that way. Kristen is a
committed vocal music educator.

Kristen’s delight in working with others extends to her role as a cooperating
teacher. The personal connection she has made with her student teachers has been a
central part of the experience for her. Her own student teaching experience was positive
and she feels a professional responsibility to provide a similar experience for her student
teachers. In her 11 years of teaching, Kristen has supervised three student teachers and
looks forward to having more. She believes it is important work and feels honored that
the university where she earned her masters degree in choral conducting sends her
student teachers.

Susan Crisp

Susan Crisp plans and then analyzes every move she makes in her elementary
general music classroom at Hillside. Her attention focuses on providing her students a
musically educative experience. After twenty years of teaching, seven student teachers,

and a masters degree in music education, Susan continues learning on a regular basis. She

77

seeks new ideas, new materials, and is committed to her role as a professional music
educator. Susan has the uncanny ability to look at any teaching and learning situation
from multiple lenses and consider its many possibilities.

Over the course of Susan’s career, experience as a mentor and mentee has
informed her own approach to serving as a cooperating teacher. With a background that
includes teaching in several different schools, Susan relates easily to the newness that
student teachers experience during their practicum. The critical eye that she turns on her
teaching guides student teachers to mull over and analyze their own practice. Susan and
Meg together often pondered the teaching and learning occurring in the classroom during
their daily planning and feedback sessions. Susan is a thinker and her students and
student teachers reap the benefits.

Darcy Taylor

Everything about Darcy Taylor is organized. Darcy explained that organization
was the only way to prevent her job from taking over her life. As the director of a
thriving middle school band at Grove, Darcy operates her classroom with efficiency.
Darcy has honed her teaching craft and her organizational skills over her seven year
teaching career. She has everything perfected from planning her lessons for each day to
how she collects and distributes practice records. She conveys calm control from the
podium and her students reflect her persona. They are prepared, engaged, and attentive
throughout her class.

Darcy has supervised 11 student teachers including Meg, her current student
teacher. That seems excessive, especially considering that she has had more than one at a

time due to split placements, but Darcy’s organization leaves her unfazed by the

78

responsibility. She knows what she expects of her student teachers and what experiences
she believes are necessary for them to have. Her path to teaching was slightly
unconventional, with a bachelors and masters degree in performance followed by a
bachelors degree in music education. However, there is no mistaking that Darcy Taylor is
the consummate music educator. She belongs in the classroom.

Steven Dillard

Steven Dillard is affable and easygoing. He possesses a true passion for music,
both teaching and performing. Steven’s day of teaching at Valley High School begins
early with 7am jazz band, but his enthusiasm never wanes. In his sixth year of teaching,
Steven is completing his masters degree in music education. He believes continued
learning is essential to being a successful music teacher. He looks forward to making
music with his students each day, and is eager to learn along with them.

He described his relationship with Ryan, his current and third student teacher, as a
positive one. Their social and professional interaction played prominently in Steven’s
satisfaction with Ryan. Steven valued and trusted Ryan, treating him as a colleague in the
classroom. Similar to his role as a high school band director, Steven talked a lot about
continuing to learn how to be an even better cooperating teacher. Steven shared his
responsibilities with Ryan freely and genuinely enjoyed watching his growth over the
semester.

Nina Daugherty

Nina Daugherty is a veteran teacher and holds a masters of arts in teaching. Her

23 years of experience shows in everything she does in her elementary general music

classroom at Kennedy. She organizes, plans, and executes lessons with expert

79

knowledge. However Nina does not stop working at the end of a class. Her mind races
constantly as she reflects on her lessons. Nina understands the wealth of having a variety
of materials for teaching. She holds certifications in Orff and Music Learning Theory and
attends conferences and workshops on a regular basis, always looking for new ideas and
resources.

Nina’s reflective practices carry over into her work with student teachers. She
instills the reflective piece in her student teachers so that they continue to grow and learn
as professionals on their own. Immediately following a lesson, Nina would often look at
Jack and ask him to tell her what went well, did not go well, and what could be changed.
She also shared her vast resources generously with Jack. This attention to reflection and

resources benefits Nina, her students, and her student teachers.

Student Teachers

Emily Lawson

Emily Lawson joyfully approached each day of her student teaching. She radiated
positive energy that she seemed to have in endless supply. Frequently her whimsical
laughter accented her sunny smile and dancing eyes when she interacted with her
students at Blue Creek Elementary School. Previous experience teaching early childhood
music prepared Emily well for student teaching. A flutist, pianist, and vocalist, she drew
on a variety of musical experiences to inform her practice. As an undergraduate, Emily
initially planned to teach band, but found her calling in the early childhood music

methods course at the university. Following graduation, Emily secured a job as an

80

elementary music teacher at a public school and an early childhood music teacher at a
community music school close to her childhood home.
Jack Collins

Jack Collins’s physical presence commanded attention and respect. Tall,
thoughtful, and generally quiet, his bass voice filled the room when he spoke. Jack’s
musical background included extensive instrumental experience in high school, college,
and drum and bugle corps. During his summers, he toured with drum corps as an
instructor. He did not begin the music education degree program until his junior year in
college, and therefore completed his college degree in six, rather than five, years. An
accomplished musician on euphonium, Jack chose to take choral music, elementary
general music, and secondary general music methods during his undergraduate studies.
When I asked Jack about his choice to student teach in elementary general music at
Kennedy and middle school choir at Grove, he explained that, though he loved marching
band and drum corps, he wanted his teaching to be more about music and not always
about perfecting a performance. Jack secured a position with an American International
School overseas as an elementary general music teacher.
Meg Kramer

Meg Kramer conveyed a sense of calm and professionalism throughout her
student teaching experience. Always prepared and reliable, Meg never seemed ruffled by
any task or responsibility. She excelled as a flutist, and pursued a graduate degree in
performance at another university directly following her graduation. While an
undergraduate, Meg took the instrumental music, early childhood music, and elementary

general music methods courses to prepare her for a firture teaching career. In determining

81

her student teaching placement, she deliberately requested a middle school band and
elementary general music assignment. Her concern over the possibility of teaching
elementary general music, and her desire to be prepared to do it well, made her eager to
have that experience under her belt. Her student teaching at both Grove Middle School
and Hillside Elementary were successful. Though she proceeded directly to graduate
school, Meg spoke about her future teaching plans and even hoped to find a part-time
teaching position while she was a graduate student.

Ryan Miller

Ryan Miller exuded enthusiasm and excitement over his student teaching
placement at Valley High School. He attributed this to the opportunity to research
potential placements and have some input into where he was assigned. Ryan looked
specifically for a situation where he would be given a lot of opportunities to teach and
share responsibilities with his cooperating teacher. Ryan worked extensively on his
performance skills on saxophone and his wind conducting skills, beyond the expectations
of a typical undergraduate degree.

During his undergraduate studies he took instrumental, early childhood, and
secondary general music methods. He also taught private lessons and several band camps.
Ryan eagerly sought the chance to work with as many ensembles, at as many grade
levels, as possible in his student teaching placement. He was particularly interested in
learning secondary instruments and developing his teaching skill with beginners.
Following his graduation, Ryan moved across the country to accept ajob as a middle

school band director in an area with a renowned reputation for excellent band programs.

82

CHAPTER IV

WHO AM 1, WHO ARE YOU?: CHARACTERISTICS OF COOPERATING

TEACHERS, STUDENT TEACHERS, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS

It takes a lot of effort on your part and if you didn’t see promise in that
person from the start that would kind of cause the relationship to fail.

-— Susan Crisp

Cooperating Teacher Characteristics

Kate Jackson, Cooperating Teacher and Emily Lawson, Student Teacher
Blue Creek Elementary School, March 21

Walking into the portable at Blue Creek where Kate Jackson teaches
K-4 music makes it abundantly clear that this is her bag. The portable itself
is very large, a good size for an elementary music classroom. Bright
sunshine lights up the room through the many windows on the long sides
of the portable, even on this cold winter day. On the windows hang student
artwork and cards to Ms. Jackson. Curtains with a musical motif, sewn by
Kate, adorn each window. The classroom is warm, inviting, and visually
and aurally stimulating.

Kate divided the room thematically into two parts. When you walk In

through the door, to your left is the area where most of the music-making

83

takes place. A brightly colored rug, in shades of red, purple, and yellow,
takes center stage. A large white circle on the rug outlines where the
students sit for class. At this end of the room, the walls are covered with
musical content, accented with bright colors. The walls are decorated with
musical information and activities including composers, a music word wall,
musical symbols, tonality, meter, musical form, tonal patterns, instrument
and composer riddles, music bingo, dynamics, tempo “cats”, instrument
family posters, and motivational posters. LP’s hang from the ceiling with
tempo and dynamic markings on them. A computer and sound system sit
at the end of the room underneath a whiteboard. The five rules of the class
hang on the white board at the left end of the room, where most kids will be
facing it.

1. Enter Quietly

2. Everyone Participates

3. Respect for...Teachers, Students, Materials

4. Try Your Best

5. Exit Quietly

Everything has a place, which makes the room neat and safe. At the

front end of the room, a cart holds cans of mallets, plastic drawers teeming
with a variety of goodies, a basket of bees and butterflies, and another
container holding echo mikes. A multi-tiered, mesh basket full of stuffed
animals hangs from the ceiling. In one day alone I have seen Kate use the

following items in her classes: paper awards, bees, butterflies, a feather, a

84

recorder, a compact disc of John Phillip Sousa, gingerbread men, hand

chimes, rhythm sticks, and a stuffed fish that resembles the movie

‘ character “Memo”.

The other end of the portable contains a vast assortment of Orff
instruments, chairs, risers, a piano, and the teachers’ desks. Kate and
Emily each have a large desk, right next to one another. The computer sits
on Kate’s desk, with email always open. Strewn across the desks are
lesson plans and an assortment of homemade items. Emily made ghosts
on Popsicle sticks to use in a lesson, and a few are still haunting various
corners of her desk.

As I walk up the long wooden ramp into the portable, I hear laughter
inside. School has not begun yet, so Kate and Emily must be inside
enjoying themselves. They both greet me warmly, and Kate offers a hot
chocolate that she picked up on the way to school this morning for all of
us. Both also have muffins that they picked up this morning in the faculty
lounge. This is teacher appreciation week, and Kate and Emily went to
enjoy goodies brought by PTA for all of the teachers, taking some time to
interact with the other faculty in the school.

“Here, have some hot chocolate,” says Kate. “We were just down in
the lounge. If you’d like to go down and help yourself, there is plenty. Emily
and l were just laughing over a story one of the first grade teachers told us
about a student. They can be so naughty sometimes, and it is just so

funny.”

85

Forty minutes still remain before the first class of third graders
arrives. Kate attended a professional conference this weekend and shares
some of what she learned with Emily, and even made some copies of
handouts for both of us. Both Kate and Emily are curious to hear more
about my research, and so I share how I became interested in this topic.
Kate then shares her own experience as a student teacher:

“In my own student teaching, I had two very different experiences. I
student taught with two women, and one was very close to retirement and
just kind of wanted to let go. So I just sort of jumped into the deep end in
that situation. I quickly took on a lot of the teaching responsibility. Week
one was observation, week two I began teaching kindergarten, and she just
added a grade a week until I was in charge of everything. It was good,
because i could do my own thing. But I was resentful and sometimes even
passive-aggressive toward her because she would often take my lesson
plans and use them in the afternoon when I was gone so that she didn’t
have to plan any lessons on her own.”

“The other woman was a choral director, which was not necessarily
my strength, and I did learn a lot from her as far as choir goes. She was
just very engaging and very outgoing and also had a fairly good
relationship with her students. Those students just adored her and would
do anything for her. I think that’s mostly what I tried to take, even though I
did learn a lot of choral stuff. I think I sat back quite a bit. I did spend the

semester before in there at least once a week and sometimes more than

86

once a week. So I got to know her over a longer period of time and she got
to know me, so that was a really good situation with us. During my first few
years of teaching, I would just call her and we would get together for coffee
every once in a while. I really appreciated that closer relationship. Also, I
was further away from my family and she was a mothering type, so I really
took to that.”

“My relationship with her, and other opportunities l have had like
apprenticing in a workshop last summer, really have helped me in my work
as a cooperating teacher. Practicing giving feedback to teachers in the
workshop and to the students from the university that come here for field
experience has been helpful. I feel like it’s getting better and better every
time I have a student teacher because i understand how to scaffold better.
You don’t always know exactly what’s too much for someone that you’ve
just met and you don’t necessarily know this person as they are going
through school. It’s challenging to give feedback that will work for the
student teacher without breaking them down.”

Kate looks at the clock and realizes that the kids will be here soon.

“Emily, tell me about your lesson plan for today. I hope my
suggestions over email last night helped you with some ideas.”

Emily explains her plan for third grade today. The discussion is give
and take, with Emily explaining each activity and Kate providing
suggestions for additional resources like including hand chimes as part of

the lesson. Kate guides Emily with questions about various aspects of the

87

lesson. Emily offers her own suggestions too and Kate helps her set up the
room.

“Should I have them close their eyes for same/different so that they
are making their own decisions?” Emily asks.

“That’s good, or you could have them turn around. I know third
graders; if they close eyes, they’ll cheat {smiles}.”

Kate questions Emily: “Do you need the fish? Do you have enough
footage for your assignment in seminar, or do you want me to tape some
more today for you?”

Emily continues asking Kate questions about the lesson as they
move around the room to get materials out and set up for the first few
classes.

Kate comes over to where I am sitting, which is behind the circle of
students just into the other half of the room. She explains that Emily is
teaching the next few consecutive classes and she (Kate) will be jumping in
to do learning sequence activities (LSA). Kate grabs a chair, a brown
plastic one with metal legs sized for a child, and sits near me with a yellow
legal pad and pen, poised to take notes while Emily teaches.

Shortly, the sound of feet pattering across the wooden ramp
signifies the arrival of the first class. The portable door opens and Emily
begins singing as the kids gather around the circle. Kate takes notes
throughout Emily’s lesson and sings chord roots to the songs. She and

Emily discussed singing chord roots during their pre-Iesson meeting,

88

which she includes because research shows specific benefits. About 10
minutes into the class, Emily cues Kate.

“Ms. Jackson, do you want to play your game?”

Kate seamlessly moves into the circle to do LSA for five minutes and
seamlessly moves out to let Emily continue. As Emily begins teaching the
next activity on tonal patterns, she struggles to find the correct pitches.
Kate chimes in from her chair.

Emily smiles gratefully. “Thank you.”

Emily continues struggling and looks to Kate: “This is hard.”

“It is hard.” Kate moves quickly across the room to join the circle,
with a student sitting between her and Emily, and takes over the lesson.
Kate asks students to turn around with their backs to the inside of the
circle and show same/different, the way the Kate suggested to Emily this
morning. Emily watches intently.

Kate says to the students, “Do it again. I’m going to see if I can trick
you this time.”

Kate taps Emily on the knee and mouths “go ahead” so that Emily
can give the major pattern. On the next minor pattern, Emily struggles
again and smiles at Kate with a mix of panic and embarrassment. Kate
sings the minor pattern for the class and then taps Emily again and says

quietly, “You do the first pattern and I’ll do the second.”

89

Once Emily succeeds, Kate says “Okay, that’s it” and jumps back to
. her seat at the back of the room. She returns to note-taking. Time is quickly
up and Emily lines up the class while Kate does music riddles with them.

As soon as the class leaves, Emily turns to Kate, and, with a nervous
laugh, says, “Sorry.”

“Don’t be sorry. It’s good for you to know that’s difficult.”

“I practiced it last night.”

Kate talks about tonality and offers specific suggestions to Emily like
removing syllables. Emily nods and answers “okay” and “all right.” Kate
continues giving feedback telling Emily “you are good with names,” “refer
to your pitch often” and offers specific feedback on activities and lesson.

“These are just ideas, and there are a lot of them, and you don’t have

to use them,” Kate tells her. Emily laughs.

Kate’s feedback continues to be specific, even re-phrasing some of
Emily’s exact sentences. Emily continues smiling and laughing.

“Okay, you know what i thought? It was very interesting, I don’t
know if you noticed this, but some of them, I’m going back to the first
activity, some of them are getting {singing} ‘do do’ and when it goes to ‘ti’
they’re sort of all over the place.”

Emily nods. “Yes, I noticed that.”

“There are a couple of them. That’s why I went and sat down next to
Kyle because he was accurate at {singing} ‘do’ and then when it came to

{singing} ‘ti’ he sort of went elsewhere.”

90

“Okay.”

Kate goes on. “Oh, so your chants, was that your second activity?”

“The chant, yes.”

“Okay, you said, ‘were you hearing du-de du-de or du-da-di du-da-
di'?’ I just put ‘great job with consistency of macrobeat between the two
micros.’ It seems like you’re either trying to do that or you’re doing that.”

“It’s conscious, like, keep them the same.” Emily says, laughing.

“That’s good!”

“Okay, thank you.” Emily laughs again.

“Did you notice that your movement is being mirrored by the
students? It’s so much fun to watch them when you’re doing your chant
because they’re all just sort of grooving with it.”

Emily replies, “But they didn’t do that last time. I noticed in there.”

“With Mr. B’s class?” Kate asks.

“No, with the last chant that I did.”

“Hmm. So I wonder what was different?” Kate asks.

“Maybe because they saw me do it before.” Emily suggests.

“Maybe. Was Jonah’s pattern in duple meter? Oh, after he did a
successful ‘du-de du’ pattern, you could start putting it out there. It’s sort
of like giving them a rubric.”

‘6 ”
Mmm, mmm.

91

Kate demonstrates what Emily could say to students. “Okay, so
Jonah’s pattern fit really well with our tune. Was his pattern in duple
meter? Yes, that’s why it fit.”

“Okay.” Emily responds.

Kate moves on to another part of the lesson. “Great teachable
moment with the ‘du-ta-de-ta du’ in the chant and you put it back in there.
That was good. It’s great to see that you’re flexible and that you can kind of
go with what they give you. Especially at this point because it’s rare to find
someone this soon in their student teaching who can really listen and put
that back in and have their teaching influenced by what they’re hearing in
the classroom. You see a lot of people who are able to conduct their choir
or their band or whatever, then they stop and they’re like ‘what should we
work on because I wasn’t really listening? Okay, that went really well, the
kids were all focused, but I didn’t hear anything!”

Emily nods.

“Great job with your series of patterns.” Kate says enthusiastically.

Emily laughs and says, “Thank you! I was really audiating while you
were doing LSAs.”

Both Kate and Emily laugh. Kate says, “That’s it. Great!”

For lunch, we head to the faculty lounge. Inside the lounge are two
long tables, a microwave, and refrigerator. The window looks out into a
central courtyard that is surrounded by the school. The tables are almost

full with other teachers, but we find a spot to sit. Kate provides Emily a little

92

 

more feedback about her lesson, and solicits from Emily what she thought
went well, what could have been better, and what she thought should be
changed.

For the second half of lunch, talk shifts to weekend plans as we are
joined by other teachers and student interns. As we walk back up to the
portable after lunch, Emily and Kate begin discussing job applications.

“I am working on my resume right now.” Emily tells her.

“If you want to bring it to me, I would be glad to look over it for you,
just to be another pair of eyes. I can even show you mine if you want
another example of one.”

“Sure, that would be great. I also want to talk to you sometime about
graduate school. I know you have done your masters and will do your
Ph.D., too. I am trying to decide when to start mine, and whether to do a
summer program, or do a thesis option or what.”

“Well, you have to do as much work either way. And if you ever plan
to do your Ph.D., the thesis option is good so that you have had practice at
research and writing.”

We arrive at the portable about 15 minutes before first grade arrives.
Kate will teach the afternoon classes, and as she begins preparing for the
class she pulls out her lesson plan and begins asking for Emily’s input on
her activities. As I listen to them talk, I realize that Kate is the curriculum
chair for the district and therefore'in charge of professional development

for all of the music teachers.

93

 

Kate tells me more. “I inherited it from someone who had held the
position for quite a while. I enjoy presenting workshops here and at other
conferences. It’s great interacting with other teachers. There are so many
things that we can learn from other teachers, especially our student
teachers. If you aren’t open to learning from your student teacher, it’s
going to be only a one way street and it’s not going to be as much as it
could be as far as learning for both people.”

Kate teaches the remainder of the classes for the day, with Emily
sitting in the circle with the students and participating. At the end of the
day, Kate and Emily quickly review general plans for the day tomorrow and
then leave to teach early childhood music classes at the local community

music school.

The preceding narrative illustrated the cooperating teacher characteristics that
both cooperating teachers and student teachers felt were important. Though this is a
narrative that compiles the experiences and comments of all of the participants, it is based
on real interactions between Kate and Emily and the other student teacher/cooperating
teacher pairs. Characteristics of cooperating teachers fell into four categories or sub-
themes: (1) Personal/Professional, (2) Musical, (3) Educational, and (4) Influential
Experiences. These sub-themes are discussed below in relation to the narrative and the

experiences of each student teacher/cooperating teacher pair.

94

Personal/Professional

Kate’s willingness to nurture and support Emily was evident throughout the
narrative. As Emily prepared for teaching her lessons, Kate provided ideas and was
accessible to Emily via email to answer any questions that might arise. She was open and
accepting of the new activities Emily wanted to include in the classroom, giving Emily
the autonomy to plan her own lessons. Kate displayed flexibility in working within
Emily’s lesson plan and allowing her to incorporate her own activities.

All of the participants cited the characteristics of nurture, support, flexibility, and
openness as important for cooperating teachers. For example, Susan worked particularly
hard at supporting and nurturing Meg as she developed her singing skills during student
teaching. Kristen remained open to Jack’s ideas and let him use them in teaching her
sixth graders in a way that she had never taught them before.

Kate’s organization, planning, and variety of resources benefited Emily
throughout her student teaching experience. Organization and planning by Kate provided
an effective model for Emily. Cooperating teachers who were organized and planned for
classes helped the student teachers be prepared and therefore successful. Kate had lesson
plans each day, and this was modeled by most of the other cooperating teachers too.
Though Steven still worked at his own planning for classes, he admitted this was a
weakness for him and an important characteristic to instill in Ryan.

The resources upon which Emily could draw were vast. Not only was Kate an
exceptional resource for ideas, but the materials in her classroom provided endless
teaching and learning opportunities. Providing a variety of resources and ideas for student

teachers was also important to Nina. She exposed her student teachers to a wide variety

95

of ideas and activities. Jack recognized this as a particular strength of Nina’s and
appreciated her openness to his ideas and her willingness to share her own.

In the narrative, Kate had just returned from a professional conference. This
showed Emily that Kate valued continued learning. The cooperating teachers cited
continued learning as an important aspect of being a professional educator. Steven
believed that a sense of “educational curiosity” was vital for any teacher, but particularly
a cooperating teacher. All of the cooperating teachers continually engaged in searching
for new resources, going to conferences, and taking classes and workshops. Some student
teacher/cooperating teacher pairs continued their learning together. Nina and Jack
attended a workshop together, and Kate and Emily attended an out-of-town conference
together.

Kate’s interactions with colleagues within the school and the larger music
education community underlined the importance of professional relationships. Also
punctuating the importance of professional relationships was Kate’s sharing of
professional advice and guidance, in terms of resumes and job applications. District
music meetings and conferences, along with lunch at school with other faculty, provided
the chance for cooperating teachers to model professional relationships with colleagues.
Ryan valued the opportunity to observe Steven being sociable with the rest of the school
faculty and felt relieved to see that this was possible for a music teacher.

I don ’t want to be that music teacher that is isolated fiom the rest of the stafif'

that ’s been one of my largest concerns. Seeing that ’s not how it has to be and

seeing that [Steven] has made eflorts to be an integral part of the rest of the staff

96

 

even though he is doing his own thing down here, was really important... Now I

know that that ’s something that’s possible {laughing}.

Having had more than one student teacher helped Kate in learning how to support
and nurture each one individually. The student teachers recognized the benefits of
working with cooperating teachers who had some experience already with student
teachers. Meg explained this in the following excerpt.

1 think it’s good that both of these cooperating teachers have had multiple student

teachers, which I think makes a difierence. They know what they are doing and

they have an idea of what they want the student teacher to get out of the
experience.
The cooperating teachers had a vision for what they expected their student teachers to
learn and worked to provide those experiences. Likewise, the cooperating teachers knew
that with experience they were becoming better at supporting the student teachers. As
Kate said in an interview, “I feel like it’s getting better and better every time I do it
because I understand how to scaffold [the student teacher] better.”

Kate freely gave her time and effort in order to support Emily effectively. She
easily could have left the room while Emily taught and enjoyed some “free time.”
Instead, Kate watched Emily’s teaching attentively and took copious notes during each
class. Passing time between classes was spent giving Emily feedback. As Susan
explained in the following excerpt, supervising a student teacher does not decrease your
work load. A cooperating teacher must be willing to put forth the time and effort to make

it worthwhile.

97

In general, I think you have to be willing to give your time. I have met people who
see that you have a student teacher and think ‘wow, you get to sit in the lounge. ’
You are not going to be a good cooperating teacher if that is what your goal is
because it really does take a lot of extra time.
Musical
Kate displayed exemplary musical knowledge, not only in her feedback to Emily
but in her teaching when she stepped in to assist. Emily found Kate’s knowledge of
Gordon’s music learning theory exceptional and enjoyed learning more from her over the
course of the semester.
[Kate] is so intelligent at music learning theory, at being a teacher, at just her
craft... Everything 1 say she says: ‘well research says... ’or ‘well, Gordon would
say.... ’ So I am just really learning a lot about music learning theory even, that I
probably should have learned in college, {laughing} I am still learning about
that.
Ryan flourished under Steven’s tutelage in learning seCondary instruments. This musical
knowledge was particularly important to Steven, and he urged Ryan to learn as many
secondary instruments as he could. Darcy also encouraged this type of musical
knowledge with Meg, often giving her the opportunity to play low brass instruments
during sixth grade band so that Meg, a flutist, could develop those skills. Nina was
certified in both Orff and Music Learning Theory, but drew upon Kodaly as well. She
had a thorough understanding of these methods, and Jack was able to take advantage of

her knowledge in these areas.

98

Educational

Kate provided direction to Emily without usurping her autonomy. She used
guiding questions to help direct Emily’s lesson planning. When Emily struggled during
the lesson, Kate stepped in and scaffolded for her, provided a model, and then stepped
back as soon as Emily experienced success. Nina would often model a class for Jack, and
then ask him to teach an activity she had done for the next class. Darcy consistently
provided direction to Meg throughout her student teaching experience. She gave Meg the
opportunity to choose pieces for the spring concert, with Darcy’s recommendations in
terms of appropriate styles and difficulty, as she described in her interview.

For the spring concert, I picked the piece for the 6‘” grade, but I sent [Meg] back

into the stacks and said: ‘Find things that you think the 7m and 8th grade might be

able to do. Here are some guidelines to look for ' and gave her my library list that
says what grade levels have played what pieces before, to give her some sort of
direction instead of ‘here are a thousand pieces, go find one. ’

Kate provided detailed, specific feedback after each class that included positive
reinforcement, constructive criticism, questioning, suggestions, and demonstrations. Each
cooperating teacher provided feedback in his or her unique way. Darcy used sticky notes
that she would casually place on the music stand during class, so that the student teacher
could incorporate it right then. Susan provided feedback to Meg during planning each
day, and Steven would sit with Ryan and give him feedback following a rehearsal. Nina
sometimes took written notes, like Kate, and sometimes provided verbal feedback to

Jack. Kristen also provided verbal feedback to Jack early in the semester. He explained

99

that during the semester as the schedule became busier he failed to seek feedback from
Kristen and held himself responsible for not asking her.

Kate modeled reflective thinking during the feedback session and then engaged
Emily in it during the lunch hour. Nina engaged in reflective practice on her own
teaching and nurtured it in Jack. After a lesson that either of them taught, she would
immediately ask Jack what was good, what was bad, and what could be changed. Susan
also reflected out loud during planning sessions and feedback meetings with Meg. In the
interviews, all of the cooperating teachers engaged in reflection on their practice as
cooperating teachers while they answered the interview questions.

During the narrative, Kate mentioned that not all student teachers could absorb
and adjust as much as Emily. “All of them are different, so you have to tailor it to the
person.” The cooperating teachers approached each student teacher like a student in their
class, eager to find out where they were in terms of music teacher development and
customize the experience to meet those needs. Learning how to approach the student
teachers in terms of activities, feedback, and responsibility in order to maximize their
growth occupied the first few weeks of student teaching for the cooperating teachers. The
one exception to this was Steven, who instead looked for consistencies among his three
student teachers. He used these consistencies to guide his approach to working with
Ryan.

Influential Experiences

The cooperating teachers discussed experiences that had shaped them as teachers

and influenced their roles as cooperating teachers. Kate recalled her own student teaching

experience as having been influential. She sought to emulate the relationship with one of

100

her cooperating teachers that she found most satisfying. Kate benefited from supervising
students in their early field experiences. During the focus group interview, Kate described
her work as an apprentice in a summer workshop as having helped develop her skills at
providing feedback to student teachers.

I had to give feedback to grown ups about their teaching. So the first week I was

saying: ‘That was good’ {laughing all around}. I was being watched by someone

and they would say: ‘okay, you need to be a little more flank with them. ’Just to
see how much feedback I was supposed to give them and what kind would be
helpful, that really helped out a lot. T 0 have that experience and sort of struggle
there, I came to giving the student teacher more specific feedback.

Darcy tried to incorporate specific things that she missed in her high school
student teaching placement. Her high school cooperating teacher did not provide
appropriate supervision and feedback, so Darcy worked hard to provide those things for
her student teachers.

when I did get supervised, he would swoop in and say: ‘do it this way, this is

wrong, do it this way, have them try this, ’ he ’d make 17 announcements and

leave... Because of that I am very careful about how I instruct a student teacher
in fi'ont of the class. I try not to do it in front of the class unless it ’s absolutely
necessary. And maybe I should leave more often than I do, but that ’s something
that bothered me, that I never had anybody in there when I was teaching.
Darcy also avoided assigning administrative work to Meg. She suffered from an overload
of administrative tasks as a student teacher and limited those responsibilities with her

student teachers.

101

Kristen had an exceptional experience in her high school choir placement, but not
in her high school band placement. She described her experience with the choir director
as “team-teaching.” The choir director provided regular feedback and support and shared
teaching responsibilities. Kristen bonded with both her and the students in the class.

I always feel this sense of responsibility to my student teachers, thinking I had

such a great experience with her, I need to give that kind of experience, that kind

of feedback, that kind of daily support to my student teachers. It had a huge

influence on me, it really did.

Nina described her student teaching experience as “okay.” She only remembers
one teacher who made her sit down and actually reflect on her teaching. She also recalled
that her teachers had little resources to offer her. Nina explained that is why she works so
hard with her student teachers on reflective practice and tries to provide them with a
variety of resources. In addition to her student teaching, Nina’s role as a mentor and a
teacher in a local Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program has developed her skills as
a cooperating teacher.

Steven had a single placement for student teaching, which he described as “weird,
but great.” At the beginning, his cooperating teacher freely shared responsibilities. Steven
prepared his own group for concerts and enjoyed a good bit of autonomy in planning and
teaching class. He was often unsupervised and described the situation as “sink or swim,”
but claimed that he flourished by learning that way. Halfway through student teaching,
festival season began and Steven became a “non-musical assistant.” He made copies and
occasionally taught a sectional, but had no other responsibilities. Both of these parts of

his student teaching influenced his role as a cooperating teacher. He hesitated to ask Ryan

102

to do any administrative work that was not directly related to Ryan’s teaching
responsibilities. Steven provided direction to Ryan and shared teaching, concert, and
festival responsibilities throughout the semester.

Susan was particularly influenced by experience as a mentor and experience being
mentored. Having been a new teacher many times due to moving around, Susan had been
mentored by many people.

I have had a number of different mentors who have all done a good job, but in

different ways. I have gotten to see what they did that was helpful to me.

Susan explained how collegial relationships over the years have affected her approach to
working with student teachers as well.

The more music teachers that you meet, the qualities that they have that you wish

they didn ’t or ‘wow, I wish more people had that. ’ Over time, the picture of who

you want your colleagues to be changes, or maybe just becomes more refined

That is how I see my role; I am helping to churn out someone who could be my

colleague someday.

Usually the cooperating teachers displayed the characteristics that they and their
student teachers explicitly spoke about during interviews. However, Kristen
inconsistently displayed one characteristic that she spoke about in her interview, which
Jack also discussed in his interview. Kristen believed strongly in the importance of
providing feedback; however Jack indicated that he felt that he did not get enough
feedback from Kristen. Interestingly, Jack considered it his responsibility to ensure that
he received feedback from his cooperating teacher, rather than expecting that she would

provide it to him without him asking.

103

Similarly, Steven identified planning as an important characteristic for him to
model and cultivate in Ryan. However Steven admitted to his own shortcomings in that
area and reflected on it during his interview.

I think my own shortcoming as a cooperating teacher and one thing that I need to

work on a lot is that I am a really last minute person. It is not a good thing at all.

I came in today and had not thought about my job at all until I drove in this

morning... That is not fair to him at all and as a cooperating teacher that is where

I need to improve.

Steven’s awareness of that made him sensitive to encouraging Ryan to plan more than he
did. He was also aware that Ryan needed that opportunity to plan because “he is not good
enough yet to just walk in and rehearse a band and get a lot of stuff done without a lesson
plan.” Steven also acknowledged that an improvement in this area would make him “a
better teacher and definitely a better cooperating teacher.”

Both cooperating teachers and student teachers identified characteristics of
cooperating teachers that were important to them. Characteristics fell into four categories:
(I) Personal/Professional, (2) Musical, (3) Educational, and (4) Influential Experiences.
Personal/Professional and educational characteristics were more salient than musical
characteristics. Cooperating teachers’ own student teaching experiences were most

influential in determining their approach to their role.

104

Student Teacher Characteristics

Steven Dillard, Cooperating Teacher and Ryan Miller, Student Teacher
Valley High School, April 9

Valley High School is part of a small community school district,
nestled within a larger city. The township straddles a county border, and
many years ago chose to form a small community school system.
According to Ryan, the district is facing some budget cuts next year, as the
population in the township ages. There is an elementary school,
intermediate 5/6 school, 718 middle school, and high school. Today I arrive
at Valley High School in the dark for zero hour at 6:50am.

I wind through the halls towards the band room, as sleepy students
enter the common area from their buses. There are some classes in
session, but not many. As I make my way into the music department, I hear
what sounds like a jazz band coming from the auditorium. I make a right to
head into the music department wing, passing the chorus room, orchestra
room, and a keyboard lab. The band room is at the very end of the hallway
on the left.

The brown-painted cinder block walls of the large band room have
light brown acoustic foam panels hanging from every section that is not
covered with the tall, taupe cabinets that line the room. The cabinets look
like they 'might hold band uniforms. Nothing hangs on the walls other than

a marching band banner in the school colors, announcing “Valley High

105

School.” The floor is light brown linoleum and the room is outfitted with the
standard black Wenger posture chairs and metal Manhasset music stands.
The room feels clean and uncluttered.

The band directors’ office is in the back left corner, and connects to
a music library and to the orchestra room. On the window to the office
hang some music cartoons from “Far Side” and other comics. This is the
only aspect of the room that has a personal touch to it. The office is
cluttered, with one wrap-around desk. The music department seems to
have its own suite of interconnected rooms, practice rooms, and
passageways that allow them to live in their own area without having to
leave it much.

Ryan is sitting at the desk looking over his scores. He even has a
rehearsal plan sketched out in front of him. There is a baton in one hand
and a pencil in the other. He is dressed professionally in a light blue button
up oxford shirt, a tie with a dark blue and yellow pattern, taupe dress pants,
and suede brown cap toe shoes.

Ryan says, “Steven is teaching the pit orchestra right now, so he’ll
be in soon. I am looking over this music that lam working with the kids
today.”

Over the weekend, a score preparation resource book that Ryan
ordered arrived. The book is sitting on the desk, open to the chapter that
addresses his particular piece of music. Steven comes in shortly and

greets me, then gives Ryan a hard time for actually arriving to school this

106

morning before him. Ryan laughs and says, “I had to get these parts sorted
for my piece with Symphonic Band, so I had to get here extra early. By the
way, can you run the video camera for me today? I want to get some more
rehearsal footage.”

Ryan leaves the room to make one more copy of music and Steven
talks to me a little bit about him.

“He is really enthusiastic, just gung-ho, ready to go, he wants to go
teach. He’s suggested doing some chamber music on our spring concert
and I think we’re going to try and work it in. I’ve never done that before.
Ryan is just so different from my two previous student teachers. Asking
them to do anything was like ‘ugh, fine I guess I’ll teach this or do that.’
Ryan is like ‘I will do anything; I’ll teach the rest of the year if you want me
to and you can sit in youroffice’; he would do anything.”

The band room suddenly fills with high school students, more
awake than I expected. They begin pulling out chairs and stands to set up
the room. Percussionists move through a set of double doors on the
opposite side of the band room and begin pulling out equipment. Ryan
moves around the room, helping students get set up and chatting with
them. He walks up to the whiteboard and writes the rehearsal order.
Quickly, he rushes in and out of the office with the score, the parts, and his
rehearsal plan. As students slowly get settled, he and Steven begin

passing out parts.

107

Ryan begins with a warm-up that Steven has put into place, which he
uses because it is a routine that “centers the class.” Ryan launches into
his rehearsal of the first piece. This particular section of music includes a
tempo change that the students are not getting.

Steven interjects: “Also, at F, we start out and the tempo gets faster
and at H we’re really cruising; it’s the same material, just faster each time”

Ryan says, “Okay” and then “Everybody in” and waits for them to be
quiet before beginning again. The tempo change shows little improvement,
so Ryan moves on. Throughout his 20 minutes of class, he sings and
chants for students. Occasionally his pitch is not quite accurate, but he
smiles and corrects it. He walks to the piano twice to demonstrate an idea
and for pitch reference. At the end of his part of the class, Steven takes
over and Ryan moves into the ensemble.

During Steven’s part of the rehearsal, Ryan stands in the percussion
section and then the trumpet section, alternating mostly between the two.
He quietly leans over and points out missed notes and rhythms to the
students. At one point he looks over at two students in the percussion
section and says, “You guys need to be paying attention and not talking.
Isn’t one of you covering the cymbal part?”

At the end of class, the students pack up their instruments but leave
the chairs and stands out for the next rehearsal. Steven and Ryan walk into

the office. Ryan asks: “So you take that part faster?”

108

“Yes, F and G are the same material, so I speed up through there and
do a big ritardando at J.” Steven replies.

“Alright, that makes sense.” Ryan says.

“Another thing I meant to tell you. I do this some too, but you repeat
yourself a lot, say things twice.”

“Yea, I do that. I had tried really hard at the middle school not to do
that, but that just doesn’t work with them.” Ryan says in exasperation.

Steven replies, “Well, you do it here when you don’t need to. It’s a
really bad habit. I almost came up to the podium and whispered to you, but
we were too busy doing something else.”

“Alright, I’ll work on that for sure.”

In the few minutes remaining before the next class, Ryan picks up
some stray music on the desk and begins sorting it while Steven checks
his email. Then Ryan walks out into the band room and straightens up the
chairs and stands. As the students come in for the next class, Ryan stops
to talk with me for a moment.

“I looked for places to student teach where I would get a lot of
opportunity to teach, and I have. He’s been great about letting me get up in
front of groups, though I have been pretty proactive about it too. He saw
from the beginning with all of the questions I asked and all of the interest
that I showed that I really wanted to be involved and that made a big

difference to him, I think.”

109

Steven begins the next rehearsal. Ryan sits off to the side of the
ensemble with his score and looks through it. The middle school band
director is also present for this class, and over the next few classes here
and at Clark Intermediate school, the three of them will tag-team
rehearsals. Ryan takes the last seven minutes of rehearsal to hit one spot
in his piece, focusing on phrasing.

“From measure 16-24, phrasing should sound like this.” Ryan
explains and then demonstrates on his saxophone.

“Alright, measure 16. Remember the phrasing.” Ryan’s baton comes
up and he opens his mouth, but Steven catches his eye. Ryan smiles
sheepishly and begins the group.

As the students leave, Ryan walks over to Steven. “I saw you looking
at me and realized I was about to repeat myself again. Augh, it’s so hard!”
Ryan says. i '

Steven laughs and says, “Yea, but you caught yourself this time.”

At this point in the day, all of the directors head over to Clark for fifth
and sixth grade band. We pile into the middle school director’s van for the
short drive to the school.

Ryan says: “I really worked on singing those parts in ‘Lone Star
Overture’. Can I get a chance to work on it with them today?”

Steven replies: “Sure, that’ll be fine. Then I’ll hit ‘Canon of Peace.”

“Good, that will give me the chance to sit in the clarinet section and

play along with them. Or maybe I’ll do trumpet today.” Ryan says.

110

As we walk into Clark, the students are already coming down the
hallway to the music classrooms. Steven and the middle school director
walk ahead of us and begin to get the room set up, while Ryan hangs back
and talks quietly to me.

“I am looking forward to getting a lot more time with the fifth and
sixth graders. I have gotten to know the kids and I have tried to get to know
the different instruments so that I can be a little bit better with feedback. In
some ways it’s most difficult to teach them. I have to do some things that I
am not as comfortable with, like we do a lot of singing with fifth grade.
That’s already improved a lot but I’m really looking forward to the
opportunity to get a lot more comfortable with that and get a better idea of
howl would approach teaching beginners.”

Ryan begins the warm-up and then works his part in “Lone Star
Overture.” As soon as he finishes, the middle school director takes over
and Steven and Ryan walk into the office.

“Whenever I try and stop to actually teach something, I lose them.
How do you keep that from happening?” Ryan asks.

“You can isolate sections without isolating individual kids. But
sometimes It’s good to get through something and come back. But pacing
is an issue too.”

“It felt slow. I get in trouble when I try to teach them something.”

“This Is where lesson plans come in handy - I don’t mean to sound

sarcastic - because otherwise you try and teach too much in one class.”

111

Ryan smiles. “Yea, I tried to teach two things at once but had to
change that to one thing because it wasn’t working.”

“Good for you.” Steven says.

Ryan continues, sounding frustrated. “I struggle because I want
them to play all the time, but then I hear something that needs to be fixed,
but it takes too long.”

“Follow the 10 second rule. Whatever you have to say to them has to
be 10 seconds or less when you stop them.”

The next class trickles into the room and Ryan grabs a trumpet and
joins the kids for the warm up and first two pieces of class. With 10
minutes left, Steven cues Ryan to come up to the front to work on his piece
of music. This time, Ryan deliberately gives students one brief direction
each time he stops the group. As the directors leave the intermediate
school to head back towards Valley, Steven says: “Much better with that
group. You gave them specific, concise directions, and they stayed with
you.”

Ryan smiles and says, “Thanks, I was really trying. I watched the
clock on the back wall for my 10 seconds.”

As the directors pile into the middle school director’s van, talk turns
toward the upcoming trip to Chicago with the high school students.
Steven’s teaching day Is over, but Ryan will go to the middle school and
finish out his day with those students, forgoing any preparation time so

that he can get as much experiences as possible.

112

In this vignette, Ryan Miller displayed many of the characteristics that
cooperating teachers and student teachers believed were essential for student teachers.
Student teacher characteristics fell into three sub-themes that were similar to the
cooperating teacher characteristics: (1) Personal/Professional, (2) Musical, and (3)
Educational. Cooperating teachers identified desirable and undesirable characteristics of
student teachers. Some of the cooperating teachers identified characteristics of previous
student teachers that perhaps were not present in their current student teacher or were
present to a lesser degree. In some instances, the characteristics were even stronger in
their current student teacher.

The student teachers spoke about their own characteristics that contributed to
forming the relationship they had with their cooperating teacher. Emily, Jack, Meg, and
Ryan displayed a fairly well-developed sense of self-awareness in their interviews. Their
actions in their placements matched the identified characteristics well. The three sub-
themes of student teacher characteristics are discussed below.

Personal/Professional

Ryan showed motivation and initiative in his actions and discussions with Steven.
He arrived at school early to prepare for his class and took initiative on and off the
podium in instruction and administrative responsibilities. He asked for the opportunity to
teach something specific with the fifth and sixth graders that he had been working on and
was eager to try with them. His enthusiasm for all aspects of teaching impressed Steven.

Cooperating teachers and student teachers identified motivation, initiative, and

enthusiasm as important characteristics. Cooperating teachers appreciated student

113

teachers who were motivated and ready to “jump in” to their placement. Darcy described
some of her best student teachers.

It was probably the most self-directed student teachers [that I have had the best

relationships with] [They were] really people that just seemed comfortable right

away and would jump in and do things.

Emily recognized the importance of coming into her student teaching with Kate
exhibiting a strong sense of motivation.

I was really nervous that I wasn’t going to be able to be as good as the other

student teachers were, actually. So I went in going: ‘I want to do this, this, and

this’ and she was like: ‘whoa’. So I think that kind of set the bar {laughing}.

Darcy and Susan both expressed a desire to have seen Meg take more initiative in
her placement. Often Meg would sit and wait to be given direction, rather than taking
action herself. In separate interviews, Darcy and Susan talked about how they often had
to find things for Meg to do and wished that she “would have gotten up and done some
things around the room.” By contrast, Kristen appreciated what she called Jack’s ability
to be “intuitive.”

He would see things and do things. I didn’t have to tell him everything to do. He

was very intuitive in that way... whereas my other student teachers have been

more like ‘what would you like me to do? ’ and sometimes I am thinking ‘would

you just figure it out? ’

As depicted in the vignette, Ryan was prepared daily for his responsibilities at
Valley. He was responsible, showed up on time, and was always professionally dressed.

Steven was confident that Ryan was reliable and could be counted on in any situation.

114

Meg believed that her sense of responsibility and preparation were important to both of
her cooperating teachers. As Meg explained:

If [they] asked me to get something done, I would get it done. [They] could know

that I was going to be responsible. I think both of them knew they didn ’t have to

worry about it.

Susan agreed that Meg was “exceedingly professional.” Kristen liked Jack’s
professional appearance: “He showed up professionally dressed every day, in a shirt and
tie. I appreciated the fact that he took it very seriously.”

Some cooperating teachers believed that these personal and professional
characteristics might supersede any others. In an interview with Susan, she stated:

I would want them to be really dedicated to what they were doing and put their all

into it. The responsibility thing, showing up on time, making sure they

communicate to you if they are not going to be there, being prepared. It ’s funny
because you have musical and educational, and those are important too

{laughing}, but if you aren’t there and you aren ’t putting your all into it, it

doesn ’1 really matter about the other stufl
Musical

Ryan exhibited several of the musical characteristics that cooperating teachers and
student teachers identified as important, including secondary instrument and piano skills.
There was variety, however, in the musical skills that the c00perating teachers discussed.
All of the cooperating teachers described their student teachers as “musically strong,” but

also recognized weak areas of their musicianship.

115

Steven believed that developing secondary instrument “chops” was vital for
teaching band. Susan, Kate, and Kristen all discussed their student teachers’ singing and
piano skills. Here Nina commented on Jack’s overall musicianship and singing skills.

He was a good musician, so that helped him. Some of that vocal part wasn ’t there

yet and that does show a little bit in trying to figure out where the kids are

vocally.

The cooperating teachers often commented on the differences between their own
musical characteristics and those of their student teachers. Darcy and Susan both
considered Meg’s flute skills a bonus in their classroom, because it was a skill neither of
them possessed. Susan discussed these musical differences.

their skills may be different than mine. I am a pianist, and so playing the piano

is easier for me. My student teachers from this university have struggled with that.

In my mind, you don ’t have to be a pianist to be a good general music teacher,

but it helps. Meg brought her flute in and she ’s an amazing flute player. If you are

musical in some way, that is what ’s important.
Kristen also valued Jack’s musical characteristics that were different from hers.

I love Jack’s instrumental background. He is passionate about musical things that

I am not and I like that he incorporates that into his teaching in my room. I think

the kids enjoy having a little variety as well.

Though the cooperating teachers discussed the musical characteristics of their
student teachers when asked, less attention was given to those particular characteristics in
comparison to personal/professional and educational characteristics. Perhaps this was

because, as Steven said, “most people come out of college being pretty accomplished

116

musicians.” However, Steven described musical characteristics as Ryan’s “biggest
weakness.”

Musically, I would say that is probably his biggest weakness, not that that makes

a difference. He knows that but he doesn ’t let it get in his way. He’ll sing stuff and

sing it wrong and we '11 look at each other and smile. But he knows that and is

willing to work on it... I know he was really good on his instrument and he started
doing secondary instruments and worked hard on his conducting.

The student teachers understood their musical strengths and weaknesses in the
classroom as well. Ryan recognized his strong musicianship in performance and
conducting, but realized that he needed to continue developing his singing skills. Meg
worked on her low brass skills during her student teaching. Jack knew that he needed to
continue developing his piano skills.

I am able to accompany warm-ups and the choir rounds that I want to do. I am

practicing the parts to whatever we choose to do. My skills are getting better.

When [my university supervisor] came to visit, she was really impressed with how

my skills have progressed since choral methods.

Emily reflected on the need to have worked on her piano skills more during student
teaching, too.

[I could have done] more piano stufl... even though like [said] would have been

like ‘don ’t make me do it’ {laughing}. That probably would have been good for

me, to force me into that uncomfortable area.

117

Educational
Ryan showed an openness and willingness to learn about all aspects of teaching.
His interest in learning to play trumpet and clarinet in the intermediate classes showed his
desire to learn about those instruments in order to teach beginners better. In regards to
willingness to learn, Kate spoke about student teachers in general, and then Emily
specifically.
I am hoping that when a student teacher comes out, they are willing to make some
changes... If a student teacher fizels like the timer has gone off and they are done
before their student teaching, then I don ’t think they could get as much out of it as
than if they realized that they are still growing... I thought [Emily] would want to
work with the younger kids first because that is where her strength and her
experience is, but she wanted to do the older kids. I thought that was pretty
commendable.
Kristen appreciated Jack’s openness and willingness to learn about things in the class
with which he was unfamiliar. For example, Jack was not well versed in musical theater
and Kristen encouraged him to learn more.
we are doing a spring concert and we are doing a musical theme. We are
chatting about musicals, and he doesn’t know much about musicals. So he went
home that night and he downloaded some clips from ‘Wiclced. ’ I had some
musical CDs at school and he asked if he could put them on his computer. Today

he came in and said ‘I listened to the whole Wicked CD and it’s pretty good. ’

118

Part of a student teacher’s willingness to learn included the ability to accept
direction from the cooperating teacher. Steven was especially pleased by Ryan’s ability
to do this, as Ryan demonstrated in the narrative with the “10 second rule.”

he takes direction pretty well. My first student teacher did not. Ryan never did

that; he always did what I asked him to do. I would say that’s pretty good, pretty

important.
Nina stated that a poor student teacher “basically doesn’t follow or listen to any
directions given.” The student teachers realized that accepting the direction provided by
their cooperating teachers was important. Jack believed this helped him during his
experience.

I think that I really appreciated everything that they had to offer — the comments,

the feedback and everything that they wanted to help me with.
Meg echoed Jack when she stated:

I respect them as teachers. I am there to learn. I come prepared and do what they

tell me to do. I make mistakes, but they point them out and I try to fix them.

The student teachers’ ability to adapt and adjust in the classroom related to their
openness, willingness to learn, and acceptance of direction from the cooperating teacher.
Student teachers who listened closely to their cooperating teacher could often adapt or
adjust their lessons accordingly. Ryan adapted to Steven’s feedback from one class to the
next at the intermediate school by working on his 10 seconds of feedback. Jack impressed
Kristen with his ability to make changes too.

He ’s so instantaneous, the way he immediately reacts to feedback When he is

teaching seventh grade, the two classes are right in a row, so he has an instant

119

do-over. It has always amazed me from the get-go. At the end of the third hour
we’ll have a chat or I ’11 write things down and say ‘look at this before you teach
again fourth hour’ and he can just make instant changes.
Kate compared Emily’s capacity to adapt lessons to a past student teacher.
I did feel like I had the opportunity to observe Emily, give her feedback, and have
her incorporate some of what she might think about adapting, so that was
good... [But my last student teacher], I felt like I was giving the same feedback
over and over and over. So it didn’t seem like she was capable of changing or
making the changes I suggested.
Kristen recalled a similar experience with a past student teacher.
The last student teacher I had wasn ’t any different from the day she ended than
from the day she walked into my room, which was very frustrating and afier a
while I gave up. If you aren 't going to take or apply anything I am telling you,
what is the use?
Nina described how she provided feedback to student teachers so that they could try and
make adjustments.
I would try to take notes and then give them notes in between classes so they can
fix it for the next class or the lesson.
Emily and Ryan both commented that they enjoyed having two similar classes in a row,
so that they could “try and improve that quickly what was just talked about” with their
cooperating teacher.
Ryan often asked Steven questions about his own teaching practice. He also asked

Steven questions about specific teaching issues like conducting the tempo change in his

120

first class in the vignette. Ryan’s curiosity impressed Steven. Cooperating teachers
enjoyed being asked questions and were disappointed when a student teacher did not
question them more. Each cooperating teacher pointed to this characteristic as important.
Kate talked about Emily:
She would say ‘why did you do this? ’ We talked a little bit more about
methodologies, the ‘whys. ’ What was good about her, she didn 't just say ‘I ’ve got
to do this. ’ She ’d say ‘why did you do this and why wouldn ’t you do this instead? ’
Darcy on Meg:
We had some good conversations because every afternoon she ’d come out [after
working with individual students] and she 'd say ‘okay, how do you fix this
because I tried this, this, and this and it didn’t work, so what do I do?’
In contrast to Darcy’s experience, Susan said “I was disappointed that I didn’t get more
questions about why I did certain things.” Nina also wished that Jack had questioned her
more.
He needed to ask me more ‘whys ’ and challenge me. ‘Why did you do this? ’
‘Well, why?’ He needed to ask me those questions so I can answer them, to find
out why I was doing things.
Cooperating teachers and student teachers understood the importance of bringing
new ideas to their classrooms. As Emily said:
...we do a lot now that I don ’t think she used to do before... She tells me activities
that she ’s done and I always try and do something different. It ’s bringing in a
different perspective for her, so I always try and do that for her because it doesn ’t

really help if you bring in the same stuff all the time {laughing}.

121

Kristen commented on Jack’s wealth of ideas saying:

He has brought the most into my room as any student teacher has... He is

teaching my sixth graders right now in a way that I have never taught them.
Along with new ideas, Nina also hoped that student teachers would bring their own
resources in terms of lessons. Nina thought a good student teacher would “come in and
already have some ideas musically of what they would want to do with a grade. Some
will be good and some will be bad, but at least they have some ideas.”

The cooperating teachers talked about their student teachers’ classroom
management capabilities. They believed that often their student teachers’ expectations for
classroom management were lower than their own, and accepted that they would have to
help the student teacher develop those expectations. Nina summed it up well when she
said: “I just assume they aren’t strong [with classroom management].” Kate talked about
that part of the student teaching experience.

...a lot of what I feel like they are here for is to see how the classroom is managed

and see the administrative portion...
Steven talked about classroom management, too.

Classroom management is the toughest issue because the kids think of him as a

student teacher. [Ryan] was good about that... Having a student teacher who

understands that commitment or expectation is really important.
Jack’s classroom management standards concerned Nina, though she was hopeful that he
would experience success in the future.

He needed to work on what level of behavior was acceptable to him. His level was

not acceptable to me... But there is something about him that when he walks in,

122

he does kind of demand that respect and I think that is why he will be okay when

he figures out his expectations.

Student teacher characteristics fell into three categories, which were similar to
those of cooperating teachers: (1) Personal/Professional, (2) Musical, and (3)
Educational. Like cooperating teacher characteristics, personal/professional and
educational characteristics were most salient. Student teachers described their own
characteristics that they believed were important. Cooperating teachers identified
characteristics of their current student teachers as well as past student teachers. Most of
the identified characteristics were present in the student teacher participants, though
sometimes to a greater or lesser extent than the previous student teachers with whom the

cooperating teachers had worked.

Relationships

Interview with Susan Crisp, Cooperating Teacher

Mid-morning on a sunny day in late May, I drive to Susan Crisp’s
house for our second interview. When I arrive, her door is open and I
walked right in through the screen door at her greeting: “Good morning,
come on in.” She directs us into the dining room and we sit at the long,
dark, farmhouse table to do the interview. We both have a glass of ice
water. With the windows open, a gentle breeze blows in as we begin
talking. I begin the interview asking Susan to talk about her relationships

with student teachers in general.

123

“I have been lucky; I think I have had good relationships with all of
the student teachers that l have had. I see my role as a cooperating teacher
more as a mentor now than I Initially did. You also have to be willing to be a
role model.

“I was thinking with my last student teacher how it’s almost the goal
to be colleagues. It’s not really that because I still have power over her. I
am supposed to report to her supervisor and she really needs me more
than someone who would be my colleague necessarily. But you are kind of
setting that relationship up. You want this person to be someone who
could be your colleague. I sometimes bounce ideas off of them to get their
input. If something really flopped that l was teaching, I talk to them as
though they were a colleague: ‘Can you believe that happened? Where do
you think I went wrong?’ That shows that you respect them, value their
opinion and trust them. I think that really helps.”

“How would you describe your most satisfying relationship with a
student teacher?” I ask.

Susan laughs and says: “I have trouble narrowing it down.”

“That’s okay; you can talk about a few then.” I say with a smile.

“Well, I had one when I was younger. She was a very talented
musician, Which was wonderful to have in the classroom. She found such
joy with the kids. She just really loved to be there. She was super-
responsible and she had very creative ideas. We were pretty close in age

at that time and I don’t know if that also had something to do with it. We

I24

 

kept in touch and she ended up getting her graduate degree in a place we
were living, and she spent a summer living with us and sang at our
wedding. Now she has a really fabulous job outside of New York City and
we exchange Christmas cards and every once in a while I will get a phone
call from her. It turned into a friendship too, but like I said I don’t know if It
was because we are similar ages.

“The student teacher I had this fall had a similar personality. She was
also very cheerful, very excited about the kids and her relationships with
the kids were very close. She and l have kept in touch in just the short time
that she has been away. Both of those people were planning to go on as
teachers, and I don’t know if that also had something to do with it. Maybe it
is easier to see them as a colleague when you know that’s what they really
want to do. You feel like the time you are putting in is really worth it. Quite
a few of my other student teachers were doing it for other reasons, not
because they planned on being teachers.”

“How do these two compare to your relationship with Meg?”

Susan replies: “I think by the end we had a good working
relationship. I could see us keeping in touch, but I don’t know that she
would ever reach out though. Meg was more reserved than those other two,
but I am kind of a reserved person too. Maybe like and like is not a good
combination. Maybe the others, because they had a bubbly personality that
I don’t have, maybe that made a nicer, better working relationship than two

people who are similar. There was no time for small talk though, because

125

the last moment I saw her each day was a 30 minute preparation period and
we had to be prepared for the next day. I always felt like it was rushed. The
small talk might have helped us have a better personal relationship, if only

we had just a few minutes extra to get to know each other.”

Interview with Jack Collins, Student Teacher

Jack breezes into the room, having just been throwing a Frisbee with
some friends on the green space outside the music building. Jack will be
leaving to tour with drum and bugle corps next week, so I feel lucky to
catch him for this final interview before he goes. Graduation is two days
away, and there is a buzz in the air.

“So how would you describe your relationships with each of your
cooperating teachers?” I ask.

Jack says: “Kristen is very friendly and always Is willing to talk about
stuff. I think talking about stuff other than school is something that I do
more with her. That helped to build our relationship. My relationship with
Nina, we were less buddy-buddy. A lot of that may be that she is older than
Kristen. She has two kids in high school. So we had less in common as
individuals, but we worked well as a team in the class. I didn’t really know
these people before I chose to be with them. They were kind of picked out
for me in November, and then I went and saw them a couple of times. It’s
worked out really well and I’m really happy it’s worked out that well. I know

some people have not been so excited about who they have been with. I

126

don’t know how well they knew them beforehand or not, so I’ve been pretty
pleased with my luck.”

He continues: “I’ve known other people who have been really buddy-
buddy with their cooperating teachers and talk to them outside of school. I
thought that would be nice if that happened, but I don’t think that was likely
for me, just because of who l‘am. I don’t think I would have done that with
anybody.”

“Why do you say that?” I ask.

Jack pauses and then replies thoughtfully: “I don’t know. I tend to
give people space and I don’t ask a lot from anybody, or I try not to, and I
think that in general that over time creates a less open relationship, so
that’s what usually happens.”

“Do you wish, though, that you had a close relationship like that?”

Jack responds: “Not really. I’m pretty happy with what I’ve had. It
looks nice, what the other people had, but I realize I have to think about
who I am. So that’s why I have the relationships that I had. I’m fine with
that. I’m satisfied. I valued what they had to offer. I trusted them and knew
they were giving me a good experience. That led to good relationships on

both sides, with both people.”

The two vignettes, portrayed as interviews with Susan and Jack, depicted the
relationships that cooperating teachers and student teachers in this study developed with

one another, or the relationships that cooperating teachers formed with past student

127

 

teachers. Susan and Jack defined the relationships by characteristics like trust and respect.
Cooperating teachers and student teachers also pointed to specific factors that determined
the type of relationship created including personality, level of communication, and the
ability to forge a personal connection with one another. Susan spoke directly about the
multiple roles she embodied in her relationships with student teachers.

Cooperating teachers and student teachers described positive relationships as
trusting and respectful. For the most part, the cooperating teachers enjoyed these types of
relationships with their former student teachers and had similar relationships with their
current student teachers. Steven experienced a less trusting relationship with a former
student teacher and appreciated that he and Ryan had established a more positive
relationship based on mutual trust and respect.

[My first student teacher] would say things that to me were really offensive about

my program and my teaching, but I am sure he wasn ’t trying to offend me. But I

took them offensively, so we didn’t have a great relationship. This was not a

person that I would spend any time with if he was not my student teacher. For me

that was hard, and is probably my own shortcoming. In my own opinion, the
reason I have such a good relationship with Ryan is because I am fi'iends with
him. I am able to be his mentor and say things to him and he doesn ’t take any
offense to them and vice versa and we get along really well
In the vignette, Jack spoke about the value he placed on his cooperating teachers’ input
and knowledge. The importance of valuing one another was apparent to both cooperating

teachers and student teachers. As Darcy said about Meg:

128

 

I ’ve got Meg right now who is an awesome flute player, so whenever the
opportunity arises I ’1] ask her opinion on what I should do with the flutes to help
their sound and that kind of thing. I think that probably helps too that I am
valuing what they bring to the table as well.
Meg agreed that valuing her cooperating teachers’ expertise was important to establishing
a positive relationship.
They know what they think is important so they tried to provide those
experiences...Darcy is very organized; she knows what ’s important, and I trust
her.
Cooperating teachers often referred to the personality of student teachers, as
Susan did in the vignette. Though cooperating teachers considered personality to be an
un-teachable characteristic, it nonetheless played a role as Darcy explained here.
Part of it is just how well a person clicks with you anyway. Is this a person that if
you were in different circumstances, you would be fiiends with this person? The
comfort level as far as when you ’re just having a conversation with them does
make a diflerence. That’s a personal thing, not something you can necessarily
train a potential student teacher to do.
Like Susan, some participants believed opposite personalities matched better, while
others believed that similar personalities matched better. There was no question that from
the cooperating teachers’ vieWpoint, student teachers’ personalities were an important
aspect of the relationship.
Kate: ...there is just only so much I can do with the time that I have and

personality traits are not things that I can necessarily have a big influence on... I

129

think part of the reason that Emily and I get along so well is because we are both

spitfires and she is really positive.

Kristen: The student teacher I had last year had no personality. We could talk, but

she had nothing to ojjer. She was just bland oatmeal with no salt or brown sugar.

She was as bland as they come.

In his interview, Jack alluded to prior relationships or knowledge of one another.
Both cooperating teachers and student teachers spoke about this as a bonus. Ryan felt this
was particularly vital to his experience.

I would say that we have a very positive working relationship and we also have a

pretty good social relationship. One thing that I think is really important and why

that is the case is that I did a good bit of investigation before deciding where to

student teach. We get some bit of say in music education of where we get to go.

That way we can get to know the person, kind of have a little bit of a relationship

going, and know whether or not it is going to work already before we get there.
Cooperating teachers wanted even more prior knowledge about their student teachers, so
that they could help support them effectively. In an exchange between Kate, Darcy, and
Nina in the focus group interview, they addressed this particular point.

Kate: I would like to know if we can be given more information about the student

teacher before they come to us. I guess you quickly find out what their strengths

and weaknesses are, but I really didn’t know what they would need a lot of help

with. Maybe some examples of their assignments and things like that.

Darcy: A portfolio.

Kate: They came in to observe me, so I ’d like to talk to their teachers.

130

Nina: Right. If we are supposed to be helping them, we need to know their
Weaknesses so we can help strengthen them because we don ’t have a lot of time
with them.

The level of communication between the pairs factored prominently in the
relationship. Sometimes communication was limited by time. Jack and Meg were in split
placements, so time was limited at each site and with each cooperating teacher.
Depending on how the schedule was negotiated, the student teacher may have ended up
with more time to talk with one cooperating teacher than another. Susan spoke about this
in the vignette and its effect on forming a personal relationship with Meg. Nina struggled
with time constraints and communicating with Jack as she explained in the focus group
interview.

we didn ’t really have time to talk except ‘this was going to happen today and

remember we talked about it yesterday. ’ When he was not there in the morning
and something was important that I needed to tell him, I had a pile: ‘this is what I
need to tell Jack when I get a chance ’ pile {laughing all around}. ‘Jack, you need
to look at that and ask me about it whenever we have a moment. ’
Kristen felt that she had an advantage by having Jack in the mornings when she had a
planning period.
I have first hour preparation. We were always at school by 7:15, and he would
actually beat me there. We had basically from 7:15-8: 45. That was lots of time to
get work done and to talk about what needed to happen musically and to interact

on a personal level. Jack was a little hard to get to know at first and was very

131

quiet and reserved. We became much friendlier, but it would have been hard if we

didn ’t have that time.

The student teachers who had a single placement, and their cooperating teachers,
welcomed the opportunities they had to communicate throughout the day.

Kate: I had [Emily] all day. We talked meaningfully all the time... We would talk

about personal stufif but maybe that 's a luxury of having someone all day. I never

really planned in the morning, so we would just sit there and talk before school

started. It was all great. Now I feel like we ’re soul mates {laughing all around}. I

feel like I was really able to get to know her very well.

Personality and level of communication contributed to the overall ability of the
cooperating teachers and student teachers to make a personal connection with one
another. Susan discussed the importance of this personal connection in the vignette, as
did many of the other participants. Emily spoke about her relationship with Kate.

1 think it’s a really good relationship because it’s a working relationship but

we ’re building a friendship too. I think that ’s really cool that we can do that. On

the weekends, she 's invited me over for game night and I’ve met her husband and

her dog {laughing}. I think it ’s really cool that we kind of developed that balance
between fiiendship and working-ship {laughing}.
In contrast, Jack explained in the vignette that a close personal relationship was not
necessary for him. He was satisfied with his experience and felt good about it, though
Nina and Kristen each wished they had formed a stronger personal connection with Jack.
Nina: I wish he had talked more... I didn ’t know a whole lot of the personal stufi‘

going on with him... It would help to know a little more personal things because

132

then I could help him manage his time... I wish he had just shared more of the
personal things with me maybe.
Kristen: At first, Jack was very quiet... I still don’t think he ’s ever said to me ‘how
was your weekend? It was funny because at the end of the semester I offered to
take Jack out to dinner and he always said ‘I can ’t ’ or ‘I ’m really tired. ’ I finally
thought that this was making him uncomfortable. The personal relationship that I
had with my student teacher prior to Jack was more gratifizing and fulfilling. She
was much easier to talk to and we enjoyed being together.
Kate and Steven believed strongly in the power of the personal connection with their
student teachers. Both truly desired a close personal bond with their student teachers.
As Steven described:
I have a personal relationship with my student teacher now that I didn ’t have
with the other guys. That was just they way that we hit it off
Emily described her relationship with Kate in her final interview.
I would say that we are pretty good friends. I didn ’t ever expect that kind of
relationship to form. A relationship where she gives me the key to her house and
tells me to go in and work on whatever I need to work on while she goes out to
dinner with her husband. I don ’t feel weird there. It ’5 way better — I hoped it
would be good — but it ’s way better than I could have ever hoped.
The future plans of the student teachers played a part in the relationships, too.
Susan spoke about how many of her student teachers had not planned to pursue a
teaching career. In interviews with the other cooperating teacher participants, the

relationships that were described as less satisfying were those where the student teacher

133

did not plan to teach. Kate and Steven both referred to student teachers who acted like,
“this wasn’t really what they wanted to do.”
Susan referred to the multiple roles that she fulfilled as a cooperating teacher.
These roles included colleague, role model, mentor, and friend. These roles were
identified by the other cooperating teachers, like Darcy in the following excerpt.
I will tend to treat them more as a mentoring situation than as a teaching
situation, if that makes sense. I won ’t treat them like they don’t know anything yet.
Like a colleague that ’s just starting out is how I try to think about it.
Steven also said that he tried “to treat my student teachers more as colleagues than as
students.” Depending on the situation, the cooperating teacher moved through these roles
on a regular basis. Though the friend role was particularly prevalent by the end of the
semester, neither the cooperating teachers nor the student teachers felt that it got in the
way of the cooperating teacher providing direction or feedback. Here Steven explained:
we are fiiends and we hang out together on the weekends and do stufl together.
It has never really gotten in the way of me being able to say anything that I need
10.
Emily agreed, saying about her developing fiiendship with Kate:
It ’s on a more personal level, but it doesn ’t get to the point where if she were to
say, ‘you ’re doing this wrong, ’ I would be hurt by that. It’s still a working
relationship.
Like Susan, the cooperating teachers spoke fondly of relationships with student
teachers that continued beyond the student teaching experience. Cooperating teachers

looked forward to continued contact with their student teachers and were eager to provide

134

 

further encouragement and support. Kate preposed that the relationship continue on a
formal basis.

I think it would be really great — and this would only work out if you had a

positive relationship with your cooperating teacher — I think beyond your student

teaching you should still have a relationship with this person. There is so much
that is learned in the first year of teaching and so much support that they still
need It should be the semester and the first year of teaching... I still will provide

Emily whatever she needs as far as support, but that would be great if that was

something that would continue for everybody.

Cooperating teachers and students teachers described the relationships they
formed with one another. Some cooperating teachers spoke of relationships with past
student teachers as well. Factors salient to the formation of the relationship were
personality, communication, and the personal connection they forged with each other.
Participants described positive relationships as trusting and respectful and the student
teacher/cooperating music teacher pairs enjoyed this kind of relationship with one

another.

135

CHAPTER V

WHO WILL WE BE?: POWER SHARING AND TEACHER IDENTITY

I think it’s a power thing too. Some cooperating teachers can’t give up the

power or don’t want to give up the power. - Kristen Sykes

Sharing the bag of tricks is fun. It's fun watching the student teacher get

better at doing things and it’s also fun to Ieam from them. — Darcy Taylor

Power Sharing

Darcy Taylor, Cooperating Teacher and Meg Kramer, Student Teacher
Early January, 2007

It is planning hour at Grove Middle School. Darcy, Meg, and I finish
lunch in the faculty lounge and return to the band room. When I walk in the
door to the band room at Grove, it seems much smaller than it actually is.
The entryway is narrow and does not provide a full view of the classroom.
The entrance itself is on the highest level, along with Darcy’s office,
practice rooms, a percussion storage room, and the instrument storage
room. The room has built-in risers that descend from the entrance, like an

amphitheatre. Darcy hates the risers because she says it has ruined her

136

conducting. She conducts with her wrist up so that the top rows can see
her.

The room has powder blue and dingy white linoleum tile flooring,
and there are a total of four risers in the amphitheatre. Light blue foam
panels hang on the walls, and overhead is a dropped and open ceiling
painted black on the inside and fitted with acoustic panels. The open space
that is left on the walls is filled with festival plaques. A bulletin board at the
top of the room is covered with student pictures, with a corner reserved for
pictures of Darcy’s two children. A blackboard hangs at the level of the
lowest riser and announces in neat chalk printing the class agendas and
listening logs for the day. There is a television and a sound system for
recording with mikes hanging from the ceiling.

Students sit in light blue Wenger posture chairs and use black metal
Manhasset music stands. A bass drum, xylophone, and Vibraphone are
already out on the top level. From the acoustic sound panels, since no wall
space is available, hang classroom guidelines and procedures and a
calendar. At the bottom level in a corner is Darcy’s work area. She has
outfitted it with a desk, her computer, the podium, and two music stands -
one conductor and one regular black one. Above the teacher’s desk in the
corner, thumbtacks secure various memos along with décor like a white
ceramic music note and a pair of sparkly gold sixteenth notes. The
teacher’s corner includes a phone, and a piano is shoved up against the

wall. Stacked on a shelf above the piano are plastic inlout trays for each

137

class. Darcy and Meg settle into the work area by her computer and begin
talking.

Darcy: How did re-stringing that French horn go for you last hour?

Meg: I’m getting better and faster {smiling}!

Darcy: Let’s look at our large scale plan for January-March, especially
since festival is coming for seventh and eighth grade band. That is really
going to affect what you can do here at the beginning; I don’t want to just
toss you into that.

Meg: Right. I know we worked out my schedule between here and Hillside
so that I get to see sixth graders everyday since I won’t get to do very
much anyways with seventh and eighth grade.

Darcy: You’ve been mostly observing now for almost two weeks, except for
running warm-ups in a few of the groups this week. I think in sixth grade
band, it’s time to start having you work with some individuals. Do you have
your notes from the playing tests with them yesterday?

Meg: Yes.

Darcy: So what did you notice?

Meg: Well, it sounds like Derek could use some work on tonguing. It
sounds like he still isn’t getting it very well.

Darcy: Right, I wrote down the same thing. What else?

Meg: Casey’s grip on the snare sticks is causing him some problems as he

tries to start learning rolls. I also think that Lindsey and Caitlin could both

138

use some help with their embouchure. That would really improve their
sound.

Darcy: Great — I have all those things written down too. What about Joey?
He’s having a hard time hitting the lower partials, and so is Zach.

Meg: Okay.

Darcy: During today’s class, why don’t you pull out Derek, Casey, Caitlin,
and then Lindsey to work with for about 10 minutes each? If you have time
to get to Joey and Zach, that would be great. Here are some exercises in
this book that you can go copy and use with Casey {hands snare drum
method book to Meg with pages marked for copying}.

Meg: Sounds good. {Meg takes book and heads to copy room, then turns
back to Darcy} The sight-reading folders are done for seventh grade, but I
still need to get the last piece in the eighth grade folders. I’ll finish that

when I get back.

The preceding exchange between Darcy and Meg from early in the student
teaching experience illustrates aspects of the power sharing between cooperating teachers
and student teachers. At only two weeks into student teaching, Meg has occupied a role
similar to that of a student, observing Darcy and her classes and being involved only
peripherally. Meg had recently run some warm-ups with them, but otherwise had little
teaching responsibility. Darcy was gradually sharing more teaching responsibility with

Meg, including working with individuals in the sixth grade band.

139

Meg’s other responsibilities were administrative. She had repaired instruments,
like the French horn, and prepared sight-reading folders for the seventh and eighth grade
bands. With festival looming for seventh and eighth grade, Darcy limited Meg’s
responsibilities with those groups. In fact, Meg arranged her schedule between her
secondary and elementary placement specifically to accommodate festival, so that she
saw the sixth grade band more often than seventh and eighth grade band since she would

have more opportunity to work with them.

Late March, 2007

Darcy: Now that festival is over, let’s look at what you can do with the
seventh and eighth grade bands the rest of the semester.

Meg: That reminds me, I still have the handle to the baritone saxophone
case that fell off while we were at festival {laughing}.

Darcy: That’s funny {laughing}, I just can’t believe that happened. Thanks
so much, though, for putting out fires. I know you probably think you didn’t
do much, but you helped out a lot by just being there as another adult who
knows the kids.

Meg: Well I’m glad I was helpful to you.

Darcy: You really were. Now, for seventh and eighth grade, I would like for
you to choose a piece to work with each group for the spring concert. I
have already chosen two pieces for each group, but I want you to choose
the third. They can be all yours; you are in charge of planning for it,

rehearsing it, and teaching it. Of course, I will help you whenever you want

140

me to, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to have something of your
own with the full groups. What do you think?

Meg: I’d like that a lot. I’m excited to get up in front of the groups and
conduct some more. I was glad at the first concert to just watch and grab
music that kids forgot, or reeds, or whatever {laughing}, but I’m ready to go
for this one.

Darcy: Good! Let me give you a copy of the music library list and show you
which pieces we’ve played, and then you can dig in there and look for
some others. Let me ask you another question - how comfortable are you
with the level of talking while you are teaching, like during warm ups
today?

Meg: Not very.

Darcy: I’ve been trying hard not to step in, but during the warm-up with
sixth grade today I couldn’t help but give them my “teacher look.” I can
swoop in and fix things if you want me to - how much do you want me to
step in? I can help with that if you want.

Meg: I should do that.

Darcy: That’s what I was thinking.

Meg: Should I just sit on them and count more? Try proximity? A glare?
Darcy: Have you given them warnings yet? You can use that system that is
already in place. You don’t have to come up with something new.

Meg: Okay, I know I have been hesitant to use that, but I will try it.

141

Meg was halfway through student teaching and Darcy’s bands had just completed
their festival performance in the above vignette. Together, Darcy and Meg planned her
responsibilities with seventh and eighth grade band for their final concert. Darcy gave
Meg a sense of ownership, offering her the opportunity to choose the music and giving
her responsibility for all aspects of the teaching and learning, including lesson planning
and implementation. Darcy and Meg were team-teaching, and Meg continued accepting
more teaching responsibility as Darcy offered it to her.

Discussion in the vignette moved toward classroom management. Darcy shared
her concern about Meg’s ability to maintain appropriate levels of talking in the class.
Darcy explained to Meg the challenge of allowing Meg to handle a situation and have
authority with students versus intervening to correct student behavior. Meg admitted
hesitation to use the classroom management power that Darcy shared with her, but

committed to try it in the future.

Kristen Sykes, Cooperating Teacher and Jack Collins, Student Teacher
Late March, 2007

I join Kristen and Jack in her. office at Grove Middle School. The
office is rather small and at the back right corner of the room. Kristen sits
at her desk/computer, Jack is across from her sitting in a chair with his
laptop, and I am squeezed in behind the door. The door can open only
partially with me in there, so when students come to pick up their medals

from festival, 1 have to carefully open the door, lest I get smashed.

142

Kristen’s office is adorned with pictures of her friends and family.
There is a bookcase with picture frames, movies, and books. Musical
playbills and copies of musical scores hang on the walls complete with
signatures of cast members and students. She decorates the window that
looks out into the room with a ruffled topper and “gel gems” on the glass
that she changes for the season. Currently there are colorful flowers and
yellow chicks hatching out of broken eggs for springtime.

I ask Kristen and Jack to explain the schedule and the sixth grade
music class. Apparently Jack is totally responsible for that class.

“Today we’re doing a ‘STOMP’ type project and tomorrow they’ll be
presenting it.” Jack explains.

Kristen adds, “Yes, we see all of the sixth graders that are not in
band, which is a good recruitment tool. Usually I make it more of an
‘Introduction to Choir’ class and we sing more, but right now Jack is totally
in charge.”

Jack leaves the office to set up for class and Kristen continues
talking to me. “Yes, my last student teacher, I just hardly shared any power
with her. She also seemed un-interested in doing more. I never felt like she
made a connection with the students, so I never really trusted her with my
kids. But Jack does want more responsibility.”

Kristen and I leave her office and walk into the choir room. As Jack
and Kristen set up the room for sixth grade, Kristen keeps asking Jack

where he wants things and how he wants the room set up.

143

“It will be a bit chaotic in here.” Jack says to me.

“Jack can tolerate more chaos than I can in the classroom.” Kristen
says Iaughingly.

As students enter the classroom for Jack’s sixth grade music class,
Kristen and I move back to her office. Kristen says, “I pretty much stay in
here, out of his way during this class. I teach the class on Wednesday
mornings when he is at Kennedy, but otherwise it’s all his responsibility.
He plans, teaches, and grades the students. On Tuesdays, I make sure that
I find out what he wants me to do with them on Wednesday morning, and
then Wednesday afternoon I give him the synopsis of class that day so that
he can go from there on Thursday. He is working on the performance for
this group that they do for parents and the other encore classes during
school. He has been a bit uncomfortable preparing it. I’ve had to push him
a little. The performance is next week and he told me ‘I just don’t think
we’re going to get ready.’ I told him that he needed to get ready, that he’s
known it was coming for several weeks now and that part of preparing a
performance is pacing yourself to get there. I know he will do fine, but he
seems really stressed about it right now.”

Even in the office, which is in the corner of the room, Kristen is in full
view of the students and full earshot of what is happening in the
classroom. She does stay out of Jack’s way. At one point she leaves the
room completely for several minutes and when she returns, we engage in

some small talk. Kristen interjects at one point as she watches Jack’s

144

lesson: “Some students are over there making paper airplanes. I don’t
know if I should point that out to him or let him recognize it. Oh, he just

caught it.”

In this vignette, Kristen had given Jack complete responsibility for the sixth grade
general music class that Kristen teaches every six weeks. Jack observed and assisted
Kristen in teaching the previous rotation of students at the beginning of his student
teaching semester, but had taken over the current class in its six-week rotation. He was
responsible for all of the teaching and administrative aspects of the class including the
curriculum, lesson planning, teaching and learning, classroom management, and student
assessment. He even planned the performance that the students gave during class. Kristen
contrasted Jack’s interest and involvement with a previous student teacher, pointing out
that his interest in having more responsibility prompted her to share more with him.

The collaborative partnership that Kristen and Jack established with this class
allowed Jack to take ownership of this part of his student teaching. Though Kristen taught
the class on Wednesday mornings because Jack was at his elementary placement, she
deferred to Jack’s planning for the class. At times, Jack was completely unsupervised if
Kristen stepped out of the room. She usually stayed in her office and “out of his way”
during this time. At one point Kristen struggled with a decision to intervene in a
discipline issue, but held back when she realized that Jack handled it.

The vignettes with Darcy and Meg and Kristen and Jack depicted the various
types of power sharing between cooperating teachers and student teachers. Power sharing

emerged across three different areas: (1) Teaching, (2) Classroom Management, and (3)

145

Administrative. Teaching was further delineated into the four sub-categories of gradual
progression, classroom setting, ensemble performances and festivals, and balancing
responsibility and intervention. Power sharing also moved along a continuum, as
described by Draves (in press) from least power sharing to most power sharing, with a
student/teacher relationship on the least power sharing end of the continuum, moving to a
team-teaching relationship, and then a collaborative partnership on the most power
sharing end of the continuum (see Figure l). The three areas of power sharing and the

power sharing continuum are discussed below.

Figure 1. Power sharing continuum of cooperating music teachers

 

Student/Teacher Team-Teaching Collaborative
Relationship Relationship Partnership
Least Power Most Power
Sharing Sharing

 

Teaching: Gradual Progression

Generally, cooperating teachers shared teaching responsibilities easily with their
student teachers. The cooperating teachers and student teachers recognized a gradual
progression toward increased responsibility by the student teacher. In implementing this
progression, cooperating teachers referenced an outline provided by the university
supervisor that suggested a gradual integration of the student teacher into the classroom.
Cooperating teachers usually began by having student teachers teach small parts of
lessons and then a full class, then perhaps adding by grade levels until student teachers

experienced a full day of teaching. This approach was particularly prevalent with

146

elementary music student teacher/cooperating teacher pairs. Though most cooperating
teachers followed the university’s recommendations and the student teachers appreciated
the progression, there was some departure from the suggested outline. As Kate said,
“They do give you some guidelines, but I think it’s different for every person you have.”
Teaching responsibilities in ensemble settings usually began with warm-ups and
individual teaching, as Meg and Darcy demonstrated in the vignette. Ryan also worked
with individuals at the beginning of his placement, particularly while the high school
students prepared for solo and ensemble festival. Ryan understood the gradual
progression, but expressed frustration with it too.
It has been a reasonably traditional progression. 1 have been able to feel the
different levels and feel the time frame that the university supervisor sets out. I
have never really felt overloaded. There have been times that I wish I could do
more, but I understand the nature of the beast I guess {laughing} I think earlier
in the semester I started to get really frustrated, in that first month. I think
[Steven] was really honest with the university supervisor ’5 plan, but I fill like I
could have gotten into the thick of things earlier than the university supervisor’s
plan suggested
Cooperating teachers also had student teachers doing sectional teaching. Kristen
explained some of Jack’s responsibilities with the seventh and eighth grade choirs.
Jack did warm-ups a lot and did a lot of the sight-reading and ear training
exercises. He did a lot of sectional work and I miss having someone else to do
sectionals with. Those were the big teaching things. He did do a lot of the

listening logs.

147

Teaching: Differences in Classroom Setting

Cooperating teachers in secondary ensemble settings shared responsibility for
portions of their classes with their student teachers. Occasionally the student teachers
taught full rehearsals, but they did not teach ensembles for an extended period of time.
Student teachers in ensemble settings did not have responsibility for a full concert
program with any group, but rather were responsible for only one piece.

In contrast to secondary ensemble settings, cooperating teachers at elementary
and secondary general music settings shared complete responsibility for classroom
teaching. Kate, Kristen, Nina, and Susan often gave student teachers a block of time to
take over teaching a grade or several grades, like Jack did with sixth grade general music.
Emily described how Kate shared teaching responsibility with her over the course of her
student teaching.

I started just observing the first week. Then I did two activities with each grade

for a while, maybe a month and a half Well, maybe not that long, because I took

over fourth grade at the end of February, no middle of February, and had fourth
grade until the end of the year, until the end of when I was there. Then a week
later I took over third grade and had them to the end I worked with those two
grades and then two activities with the other grades for a long time. Somewhere
around spring break, at Blue Creek, I took over for second grade, so I was doing

I, 2, 3, 4. After spring break I was doing all the teaching, all day long, except for

choir, fiflh and sixth grade choir... So, lots of teaching on my own.

Jack explained how Nina shared teaching responsibilities with him.

148

So [Nina will ] do a lesson and say: ‘why don 't you try this part of the lesson with

the next two classes? ’, and that happened in the first Mo weeks. So I started to do

stuff right away. That has happened more and more. With the play that we did

with the fifth graders, she was thinking of other stuff so there was three weeks in

there that I did all second grade and all first grade... So I feel like I have done a

lot more with the elementary, even though it ’s only been with grades K-2. I still

feel like I ’ve gotten more experience in the elementary. I ’ve done a lot of warm-
ups and stuff and I ’ve had a lot of time in fi'ont of the middle school kids,
especially now that we are doing the listening logs every day.

Susan shared teaching and performance responsibilities with Meg at Hillside
Elementary. Meg took charge of classes for several days and prepared part of the spring
program for third and fourth grade. Susan described Meg’s responsibilities in her
classroom.

I had her do a lot of teaching. I think she came in really ready to get in there and

teach, so I let her do that. Really, throughout the semester she had a chunk of

almost every class that she would be responsible for teaching. Even though I

spoon-fed what it was, we talked about it and she definitely had input, but there

was a structure there. She was responsible to come in and be prepared for that...

There was one week where she did all of the teaching... Then at my spring

concert she had worked out an arrangement. She had both grades that were on

the concert create something in class and then they performed that on the concert.

149

Ryan, Meg, and Jack perceived a difference in the way power was shared in
elementary and secondary general music classrooms versus ensemble settings. Here they
talked about it in the focus group’interview.

Ryan: I basically will be on one piece out of three in a band. So I get experience

with every band at every level, but I never take over an ensemble as a whole.

Versus it sounds like at one point, you [Emily] took over: ‘this grade level is

yours, yours to work with and I’ll give you feedback. ’ So that ’s an experience that

maybe normally, I don ’t think normally happens quite as much in the world of

band, choral or orchestral student teachers, but I think could be really valuable. I

don ’t know why, but it seems like maybe just because of the concert setting and

everyone having to get up on the podium, the directors fieel a need to simply only
share rather than say: ‘okay, here’s your ensemble, let’s see how it goes. ’

{laughing}

Meg followed up Ryan’s comments with:

I would just totally agree. I think that ’s why I felt like I have more power over the

kids in elementary than in middle school just because I get more face time with

them.
Jack firrther echoed Ryan and Meg.

I think performance ensemble directors are less willing to give the reigns

completely over to the student teacher. I feel that way in the chair, in the middle

school. I will do one piece with a group, either grade. That ’s fine, I enjoy it, but I

don’t really expect to get complete control over any rehearsal or any unit before a

concert.

150

Emily offered her insight on power sharing and performances.
Going off of that, I think really a lot, ninety-five percent of it, depends on your
cooperating teacher 's outlook on the performance. If you have a teacher that
doesn ’t view the performance as the curriculum or doesn ’t view competition as
something they want to make their band all about, then it’s going to be way more
relaxed than someone who is pressured by the community that ‘we have to get a I
at festival, and it ’s going to be the end of the world if we don’t. ’ That ’s going to
drive the curriculum and the student teacher isn’t going to get much experience.
Like Kristen suggested in the vignette, some of the cooperating teachers felt that
the student teachers lacked the ability to prepare students for a performance. This was
expressed by cooperating teachers at all levels, whether elementary or secondary.
Nina described this as a weakness in all of the student teachers she has worked with.
I ’ve found that that is a weakness for all of the student teachers I have had so far.
When I say, ‘this is the performance and this is the topic and you need to come up
with something to show a music skill that ’s in the curriculum, preferably, and
something that ’s performance worthy. ’ I’ll give them things to look at and I’ll
suggest movement or instrumental things. They seem to flounder when it comes to
finding that performance piece; all of them have for me.
Teaching: Ensemble Performances and Festivals
Kristen and Darcy did not share festival performances with Jack and Meg, though
both did share other performance responsibilities like spring concerts. Darcy talked about

this challenge in her interview.

151

It’s hard I know that there are some cooperating teachers that will give the
student teacher a piece to do for festival. It ’sfimny; I think every spring semester
I talk with my student teacher about that. Of course they are the student teacher
and they are probably a little uncomfortable saying anything against what I am
doing, but most of them seem to think that would be an awful lot to ask of a
student teacher right away, to throw them into festival immediately. My seventh
and eighth grade, we continue to work out of the method book and we continue to
work on scales. So I will get the student teacher in fiont of the group doing that
sort of thing, so they are at least conducting and not just handing out sight-
reading music.

Interestingly, both Jack and Meg felt they would have been ready to be involved with

festival with the right support or situation. When asked how they would have felt if given

the opportunity to conduct a piece at festival, these were their responses.
Jack: I think I would have been excited about having that responsibility and
confident that I would have done a good job. I would have had to rehearse more
of the music with the groups and this would have been a challenge, but I think
that it would have been good for me to have to learn the piano part to another
piece.
Meg: I think it would have depended on the circumstances. I only got to see the
seventh and eighth graders twice a week. If I was totally responsible for the piece
they were playing, and they only got to play it twice a week when I was there, then
I would not have been comfortable. If Darcy had worked on the piece with them

while I wasn't there then I would have probably been okay with it. If I had been

152

there full time, I think it would have been a good experience for me to get to
conduct at festival.
Steven gave Ryan Opportunities at festival and other performances. Here Steven
explained Ryan’s teaching responsibilities over the course of the semester.
I think I mentioned this last time, but I tried to give [Ryan] as much responsibility
as possible without it having a drastic efi‘ect. He was pretty good He was able to
rehearse stuff for festival ...During festival season, for a month, we split both
groups in half and he would have woodwinds and I would have brass, and then
we would flip for another week We would just kind of chisel away at stuff He had
a lot of responsibility. He got to conduct at festival with the second group. He
conducts a song at each concert.
Kate shared conducting responsibilities with Emily at the middle school chorus concert.
I thought it was great because I just basically let [Emily] conduct the concert and
I was just the accompanist. For me, I didn ’t feel as much pressure and I knew that
the kids knew what to do. So essentially she just did the concert. I stood up and
talked to the parents and walked back to the piano.
Teaching: Balancing Responsibility and Intervention
Cooperating teachers, like Darcy and Kristen, struggled with balancing
responsibility and intervention with their student teachers. The performance aspect of the
music classroom played a role in the balance between student teacher autonomy and
cooperating teacher intervention. Darcy explained this below.
The relationship, because it is performance based and there are skills that I want

my kids to be getting, makes me more hands-on in helping with what’s she ’s doing

153

when she ’s teaching when I see something not being fixed, because it needs to be

fixed
Kristen experienced the same struggle as Darcy.

It was hard for me sometimes, especially when he was with my seventh and eighth

graders, it was hard for me to not say things. I didn ’t want to get in his way, but

there were times where, okay. I would try, we talked about it before or after so as
not to intercede, but when it’s a performance based room and he’s doing all the

preparation, there are times when you have to intercede. There were times when I

had to.

Negotiating the delicate balance between sharing responsibility and intervening
was not limited to just performance preparation. The cooperating teachers constantly
juggled “when to stay out of the way and when to step in and rescue.” Kate described this
juggling act.

It is different. Some people can recover from this much struggle {shows shoulder

to shoulder distance with hands} and some people you really can’t give them that

much struggle or they will feel defeated So you really have to figure out each
person ’s personality.
Susan agreed that striking the right balance challenged her.

I want [the students] to see her as another teacher in the room. They know that

she is a student, but if she is teaching I always think when she is teaching that

a part of me wants to blurt in and interrupt. I try as much as I can not to. It’s like

my husband and I parenting. If I were to criticize what he was saying to the kids

in fiont of them, then that is going to undermine his authority. It ’s the same thing

154

in the classroom. If I jump in, unless I think things are really just falling apart and
it ’s going to be bad for the kids, I try not to say anything for that reason.
Steven relayed a situation where he had to step in with Ryan and “fix a bunch of stuff.”
I have had to do that, I have had to jump up in front of the class and say, ‘we are
starting here ’ and fix a bunch of stuff I know that he was really; I did it one day
that I can think of specifically, he was I don’t know if I ’d say offended, but was
disappointed that I had to do that. I am sure he was not happy with me, but I think
he was more disappointed with himself [He] knew things were not going well and
he obviously knew that I had to step in and take over for the rest of class. But you
just have to do that sometimes.
Nina described how she initially stepped in more often and then gradually gave the
student teacher more autonomy in the classroom.
At the beginning I probably interject a little more in the lesson and try to wean
myself off of that as the relationship goes. As they are teaching the lesson maybe
at the very beginning I will say verbally in front of the class I’d say ‘tweak this ’ or
‘try this. ’ But I would try to come ojf of that and maybe take notes and then give
them notes in between classes so they can fix it for the next class or the lesson.
Student teachers understood the necessity of their cooperating teachers stepping in, but
were also relieved when their cooperating teachers began receding into the wings or even
exiting the stage.
Ryan: I know the last time I talked about him stepping in to the rehearsal and us
going back and forth. That doesn ’t happen quite as much anymore. It’s pretty

much me just up there doing my thing. He may step in every once in a while and

155

say ‘why don ’t you try it at 53? ’ But that’s not as present. A lot of times,
sometimes he watches, but a lot of time he will leave the room. Probably with
both of the ensembles that I work with at the high school I have enough trust that
I can run the rehearsal practically on my own. So I don ’t think he feels like he
has to watch over me. He ’s never really been that way, but I know some
cooperating teachers are.
Meg: I definitely feel like I have more authority in the elementary setting than in
the band setting. Sometimes [Susan] will step away, sometimes she ’11 interact
and be a part of the activity, but she won ’t jump in. [Darcy] doesn ’t really jump
in as much as she did in the beginning, but I feel like I get so much less time with
the middle school kids as a whole. It ’s never just me doing the class, she ’s always
there too.
Ryan and Meg alluded to being left unsupervised by their cooperating teachers as
a kind of power sharing. Many of the cooperating teachers wondered about this out loud.
They had mixed feelings on the subject, unsure if leaving the room was appropriate.
Nevertheless, both cooperating teachers and student teachers believed that leaving the
room made the student teacher feel trusted and let them experience what it was like to “be
the teacher.” Kristen explained that in the following excerpt.
I try to treat Jack very much as an equal in front of the kids, not ‘I am the teacher
and you are the student. ’ I think the kids totally pick up on that. When I leave the
room and Jack is teaching, I don’t think there is any difference in the kids’

eyes... I think that also is a way that the kids understand if the teacher doesn ’t

156

leave the room, it 's because she doesn’t trust the student teacher. Even if they
can ’t articulate that, they know that ’s what it ’s about.
Susan described how her presence in the room affected the classroom atmosphere.
I think for both my students and the student teacher, I think there is kind of a
safety in my being there. If I leave the room, I definitely feel confident doing it. I
would never leave if I felt that there was a chance that things would go awry. But
afterwards a couple of them have said, ‘gasp, I looked up and you weren ’t there
and I panicked’ {laughing}. So knowing that in a way just to give them the
confidence that yes, they could do it even if I wasn ’t there. And the students are
always acutely aware that you are in the room too and I think sometimes that they
are not totally themselves as they would be for the student teacher knowing that I
am in the room.
Classroom Management
Cooperating teachers shared classroom management power with their student
teachers and often felt challenged in this particular area. They were concerned that the
student teachers could not maintain the classroom as well as they could, and felt a
constant struggle between intervention and autonomy. Here is an excerpt from the
cooperating teacher focus group interview where they discussed power sharing and
classroom management.
Kate: [Student teachers] really do help your perspective and seeing your
students in a diflerent light. I would think: ‘I am sitting right in the classroom,
why are they doing that? ’

Group: {laughing}, yes, mmhmm.

157

Kristen: Isn ’t that amazing?
Kate: ‘Hello, I ’m right here. '
Darcy: Sometimes I couldn’t handle it. I would clear my throat and sit up really
straight and all of a sudden they’re silent and it ’s like, ‘aw, come on. ’
Kristen: ‘Do you hear me singing right behind you? ’
Nina: But if I had extinguished that behavior, I didn ’t want that behavior coming
back again.
Group: I know, exactly.
Kristen: He would try to talk over them and it would be like, ‘Don ’t talk over
them. Don ’t let them think that ’s okay because it 's not okay with me. ’
Darcy: However much [the students] are allowed to do, they are going to go that
much further.

Kate spoke more at length about power, classroom management, and intervention in her

individual interview.
That 's really tough. To know where to draw the line and where to intervene and
not intervene is probably the toughest thing as far as management goes. That’s
where I feel like the power is... That power control is in the perception of the
students as much as anything else. It ’s difficult to know where to draw the line or
to let her take care of a situation and when to step back in. If I had my own
children and that child is being rude to somebody, then you would right away step
in and make sure that person didn ’t feel like they were being treated poorly.
That ’5 my first instinct, to step in to make sure the kids are at least being polite:

There is not necessarily a formula, but when I feel like she can be successful with

158

something at the beginning, I just try to let that go and let her handle that and

step in when necessary. Then there are other times when you say, ‘this is going to

be a little but of a struggle, but I am going to let her struggle with that. ’I always
try to, and I don ’t know how I do this, I always try to make sure that she either
feels successful or has the opportunity to try again. So if something didn ’t work,
we can figure it out and try to change it... I always try to let them take care of
what I think that they can handle.

The student teachers felt supported by their cooperating teachers in terms of
classroom management. In the following excerpt from the student teacher focus group
interview, the student teachers discussed how their cooperating teacher shared classroom
management power with them.

Meg: Mine are always just there to back me up. Especially in the beginning, if a

kid even started they were like, ‘guys. ’ They were very good about being there to

support me so that it wasn ’t really an issue.

Tami: Did any of you have the same experience in terms of classroom

management and kids being on task?

Emily: I had a similar experience in the way that she set it up for me. She didn’t

say that I was a student teacher, she said that I was a guest teacher coming fiom

a different school and that when I was done with my experience at Blue Creek, I

would take it back to my own kids and share what I have learned from them. So

she set me up with more authority with the kids instead of just saying, ‘this is a

student teacher’, and they’re like, ‘oh lame’, so I thought that was pretty cool that

she did that.

159

Ryan: It depends on the different grade level that I ’m working at... If it ’s the
intermediate, fifth and sixth grade, I think he thinks it ’s learned by crashing and
burning, so they just sit in the office while I crash and burn, that ’s fun {laughing}.
My experience at the middle school [is] more similar to the fifth and sixth grade
experience, but if it gets really bad discipline-wise, the teacher there will step in.
Jack: With the middle school kids, I see the power as being two different areas.
There’s the power during instruction and then there is classroom control power
that can happen at two different times. When my cooperating teacher is teaching,
I can go around and tell kids to shut up and stop touching each other. When I am
teaching, she keeps an eye on kids and goes over and does what she needs to do to
stop them from interrupting rehearsal. In elementary school the power is pretty
much whoever is in charge has absolute power. That’s how I see the diflerence
between the two. At the elementary school, if I ’m running the class, then I’m
running it and I take care of everything unless the kids get out of hand and she
thinks I ’m struggling. Then she’ll step in and say how disappointed she is and the

kids will straighten up.

Administrative

Cooperating teachers shared power for administrative tasks with their student

teachers. Most cooperating teachers hesitated to ask their student teacher to do any sort of

administrative chore, despite the fact that it was “part of the job.”

Steven: I hesitate to ask my student teacher to do anything that is not related to
what he is doing. When I student taught, I was like a graduate assistant. ‘Can you

file this music, can you copy this, this, and this? ' and it had nothing to do with

160

TI

'1’ «r ..' Ha. I“

 

1'79

me. I will ask Ryan to make copies, but it is of the piece he is doing. I would never
ask him to copy mine. Occasionally I send him to get my mail because I don’t
have time, that’s the only thing I ever ask him to do. I can ’t send a student
because they are not allowed in the teachers’ lounge. That is the only thing I ask
him to do that is not related to his own thing.
Steven believed that Ryan should not be responsible for any administrative tasks that
were not directly related to his teaching, even though he said it was “thirty to forty
percent of your job.” Nevertheless, Steven admitted that Ryan “will be shocked next year
when he sees all that.”
The cooperating teachers admitted that the ability to delegate was not always their
strongest quality. Kate, Darcy, and Nina all discussed this in the focus group interview.
Kate: We ’re not used to - I don’t know about you - but I ’m not used to having
someone help me. I 'm the only music teacher in our building and so we are so
used to doing everything ourselves and it’s hard to delegate and learn how to
delegate.
Darcy: We’re all detail oriented, controlling type people anyway {laughing}.
Nina: When I am delegating, I don ’t want them to feel like I am saying: ‘go put up
the 50 chairs in the gym. ’ That is something I would normally do, but I don ’t want
them to feel like I am making them.
Cooperating teachers were sensitive to not making the student teachers feel like a
“secretary” or “slave labor.” Kate said that she tried not to hand off too many

administrative responsibilities to Emily that would be specific to the setting at Blue

161

Creek. Kate explained, “I didn’t have her do any of the grunt work in that it will change
from place to place.”

Darcy and Steven explained that their particular hesitation to give student teachers
administrative tasks was related to their own student teaching experience. Both felt they
had been given so much of that type of responsibility in their own placements that they
did not want to saddle their own student teachers with it. Meg spoke about how this
affected her experience.

There is just tons of administrative stuff that goes on that I don '1 see. [Darcy]

gave me a list of everything she does each week for the entire year. It’s mostly

administrative stuff so I have the list and technically I know what she is doing,
but I never actually see any of the stuff She does it before I see it or won ’t let me
stay to do it, which I always feel bad about because she says ‘go home I think
she was trying to be very careful of not pushing those responsibilities ojf onto me.

But at the same time, it’s part of the job, so I think maybe if I actually had to do

that stuff more than I did that would have been helpful.

Cooperating teachers shared power with student teachers in three areas: (1)
Teaching, (2) Classroom Management, and (3) Administrative. Power sharing by
cooperating teachers fell along a continuum from least power sharing to most power
sharing (Draves, in press). Within Teaching, power sharing further delineated into
gradual progression, classroom setting, ensemble performances and festivals, and
balancing responsibility and intervention. Sharing classroom management power often

challenged cooperating teachers. Cooperating teachers generally tried to minimize the

162

amount of administrative power they shared with their student teacher, citing their own

past experiences or the contextual nature of the responsibilities as rationale.

Teacher Identity

Nina Daugherty, Cooperating Teacher
Kennedy Elementary School, May 21

The children had just filed out of Nina’s room when I arrive with
lunch for the two of us. The aroma of school cafeteria pizza wafts through
the hallways as I make my way to her classroom. Children’s artwork hangs
from the walls in preparation for the upcoming parent night. The theme is
“Spring” and everything from butterflies made with colorful tissue paper to
daffodils with the children’s school pictures in the center of the bloom
decorates the inside of the school.

Nina busily tucks away materials from her last class - woodblocks
and mallets, giant coffee cans, and sandblocks - and then sits down to
enjoy her preparation hour and some lunch. Jack completed his student
teaching and graduated two weeks earlier, so Nina is back to business on
her own.

“How is it with Jack gone?” I ask.

“Oh, it’s fine. I enjoyed having him here of course, but it’s okay
without him too. It’s always nice to have that other adult in the room. I

really do like having student teachers.” Nina replies.

163

“What do you enjoy about it?” I ask.

“I always learn so much when l have a student teacher. I’ve been
teaching for twenty-something years. I go to a conference and see
something and say, ‘why didn’t I know that?’ or ‘why haven’t I been doing
that?’ I am still learning and that includes learning from my student
teachers. When you are really talking with someone else on a regular basis
about what you do, having to explain it, you end up learning a lot about
your own teaching through that sharing and that reflection and dialogue. I
also feel like it’s my professional responsibility to work with student
teachers. I am giving back to the profession when I work with them.” Nina
says.

“How would you describe your role as a cooperating teacher?” I ask.

“I feel like I have become a role model and a mentor. I am being
watched in terms of what I do in the classroom, almost scrutinized, and I
have gotten comfortable with that. It almost makes you feel like you have to
be the best teacher you can be, constantly. You should be doing that
anyway {smiling}, but having that person in there watching you makes you
step it up a bit. It was really interesting in the focus group interview the
other night to hear everyone talk about being a cooperating teacher. I
shared Jack with another person. Talking with his other mentor teacher,
the next time we do share somebody, we will have conversations with each
other. I can’t believe we never picked up the phone or dropped an email to

each other {laughing}.”

164

“I did find that interesting in the focus group interview too. The two
pairs of cooperating teachers that shared a student teacher never did talk
to one another about the student teacher.” I reply.

“I know. And I could have been asking her, ‘is he doing this for you?
is he struggling here?’ We could have potentially moved things along more
quickly for him. But he did a great job here. I was definitely satisfied with
his progress. There were some things that could have improved more,
there always are, but I think he did well. I do get that sense of personal
satisfaction when the student teachers have a successful experience.
Maybe that is selfish of me, but I do like that part of it too.”

“I don’t think that is selfish at all. You should get some personal
satisfaction out of seeing someone that you have worked with closely
succeed. That makes perfect sense to me!” I say.

“It was neat to watch Jack develop his own teacher persona and
style. When we were preparing performances during the last part of his
student teaching, I could really see that start to come through. He was
thinking like a teacher, considering the outcomes of the things he did In
class and the lessons he was teaching. I tried to share with him why I did
things certain ways, and he really soaked that information in and used it
towards the end as he planned for class. I love seeing that growing
awareness, where they are worrying less about themselves and what they
are doing — which is completely normal for where they are - and become

aware of the students and what they are doing and how that all is

165

connected. He had a good relationship with the students too. I liked how he
interacted with them. He was genuinely interested in them.”

“It sounds like Jack experienced a lot of growth over the semester.” I
reply.

“He did. I like seeing student teachers get better at things, and Jack
certainly did. He learned a lot about what things will work, what things
won’t work. He also did some ‘extras’, like he went to an Orff conference
with me, which is good. He could have probably done some more of those
things, but he did also help out with our showcase of music and that was
extra time that he put in that he didn’t have to.”

“Well that’s good. It’s those extras that are sometimes surprising to
new teachers in their first jobs.” I say.

“That’s true, and those things are part of being a teacher. I really do
like being a cooperating teacher, and hope to continue having student
teachers. I feel like I have been successful and I want them to be

successful. That’s what I wish for them.” Nina says.

The vignette with Nina depicted the influence of the student teaching experience
on the teacher identities of both cooperating teachers and student teachers. For
cooperating teachers like Nina, serving as a cooperating teacher added new layers to their
teacher identity. Student teachers developed a teacher identity over the course of the

experience, which they exhibited in a variety of ways and was observed by their

166

cooperating teachers. Teacher identity in both cooperating teachers and student teachers
is discussed in the next section.
Cooperating Teachers and Teacher Identity

Nina enjoyed having student teachers because of the mutual learning that she
experienced when working with them. All of the cooperating teacher participants
recognized mutual learning as a benefit of working with their student teachers. The
cooperating teachers agreed that they learned along with their student teachers over the
course of the semester. Learning from one another was an important part of the
experience for both parties. As Kate described:

The student teacher has to be flexible enough too to accept things they have not

seen before, but the same thing goes for the cooperating teacher. There are so

many things that we can learn fiom other teachers. If you aren ’t open to learning
fiom your student teacher, it ’s going to be only a one way street and it’s not going
to be as much as it could be as far as learning for both people.

Cooperating teachers considered working with a student teacher as a type of
professional development. Having a student teacher prompted reflection upon their own
practices and deeper thinking about what they did in their classrooms. Susan discussed
this in the following excerpt.

It was interesting because I was thinking about myself as a cooperating teacher,

looking down. I think all that makes you a better teacher when you start

questioning why it is that you do things. I also got to see my students in a different

way. When she was teaching, it gave me a chance to see things that I hadn ’t really

167

seen before, behaviors and all sorts of things. It was also interesting for me to
watch my students from a diflerent place.

Darcy described a specific way that she benefited from having Meg as a student teacher.
My last student teacher was a flute player, I’m a tuba player. Watching her, ‘why
don ’t you tune the flutes today? ’ I ’d just sit back and watch and see what she was
doing. It makes me a better teacher too and I know that ’s probably selfish.

Darcy went on to explain why she liked having student teachers.
one of my favorite things about having a student teacher is that it makes me
think a lot harder about what I am doing and why, because [Meg] would ask.

As Steven said, “I personally like having a student teacher because it makes me a better

teacher.” The observation, interaction, and dialogue, and the act of explaining their

decisions and rationale for the things they did — their craft knowledge — helped the
cooperating teachers improve their own practice.
Like Nina, many of the cooperating teachers felt they had a responsibility to “give
back to the profession.” Kristen described this sense of professional responsibility.
I had such a great student teaching experience myself; I always feel this
obligation that I want to do that as well. Knowing the work that goes into it, the
sacrifices that you have to make in your classroom, it is really in the end a very
fulfilling thing to do. It’s great to be a mentor. You get to meet great people and
have them be a part of your life.
Fulfilling this professional responsibility led to a feeling of personal satisfaction for

Kristen and the other cooperating teachers. Seeing a student teacher learn and grow over

168

the course of the experience nourished the teacher identity of the cooperating teachers,
leaving them with a sense of satisfaction at ajob well done. Kate said:

It’s great to see them progress from the beginning to the end, that’s

fantastic... There is so much that you get fiom a student teacher that is really
rewarding personally and professionally...

Despite all of the benefits they experienced, cooperating teachers felt isolated in
their role. In the focus group interview, the cooperating teachers who shared a student
teacher realized they had never communicated about their student teacher.

Tami: So you never really talked about student teachers that you shared? That ’s

interesting.

Darcy: That is interesting.

Susan: I did think about it.

Darcy: Maybe we should.

Susan: I was going to email you about it, but then I felt strange about writing it on

email. What if you open your email and what if she ’s sitting there? It’s not really

private.
Kate alluded to a sense of isolation as a cooperating teacher too and appreciated the
interaction with the other cooperating teachers in the focus group interview. She longed
for even more dialogue between herself and the university.

Even this [focus group interview] is really good Again, I have all the time in the

world but it would be really nice every once in a while to meet. Even time for the

people who are in charge of the student teaching situation to say, ‘What ’s going

on? ’ I feel like sometimes it’s like they drop in at the beginning, the middle and

169

the end. Maybe it’s because I didn ’t fill out that one evaluation form {laughing}.

But I do feel like even saying, ‘What do you think about your student teacher? ’

‘What do you do in that situation?’ Even having the university folks here to say,

‘Is that really what you are seeing there? ’ So that cooperation once a month

would be great.

Serving as a cooperating teacher added new layers to their teacher identity,
including role model and mentor. As a role model, the cooperating teachers felt the
pressure of being watched closely and having every move analyzed. “It is pressure being
a cooperating teacher” Susan said. Having a student teacher always present made them be
the best teacher and role model they could.

Darcy: Even when I am on the podium, when there is someone else in the room,

this is philosophically not how it should be, I am a little more on top of things and

a little better.

Kristen: Absolutely.

Susan reflected on the challenge and importance of being a role model and mentor for her

student teachers.
You have to be willing to be a role model. It’s hard; I find it nerve-wracking in a
way to stand up and have your every move scrutinized because you know that is
what is happening. You have to have enough confidence to be able to open
yourself up and have them see you fail. I think you are better if you talk about
your failures and what you could have done to make it better because the person
that you are mentoring is going to be going through that too. I think that would be

positive.

170

Student Teachers and Teacher Identity

Cooperating teachers enjoyed witnessing the development of a teacher identity in
their student teachers. Nina talked about Jack’s teacher persona and style and the
development of his teacher thinking. She appreciated his willingness to do the “extras”
that are part of every teacher’s job. Nina liked the relationships that Jack formed with her
students and admired his interest in and enthusiasm for them.

Cooperating teachers were sensitive to the developing teacher persona and style
of their student teacher. They recognized that a student teacher “doesn’t exactly have to
be the teacher” that they are. As Kate explained, “I think that we are different teachers so
she’s going to find some things that work better for her and some things work better for
me.” Steven was particularly pleased at Ryan’s ability to establish his own teacher
persona and style after a trip he took with some of the students.

Along similar lines, we actually went on a trip a month ago and Ryan went with

us. He went from being the guy who runs class for 10-15 minutes to the kids

taking the relationship to the next level. It was only my older kids, one group, but
he had a different relationship the rest of the semester with them than any other
class. That instant rapport was so much better with that group. He was able to
really learn a lot and become himself Something that is so hard when you start
teaching is how much is yourself and how much is a teacher persona. I think he
was able to figure that out more than anything else. It was neat to see that.

Seeing the student teachers begin to think like teachers was rewarding for the
cooperating teachers. Thinking like a teacher meant thoughtful lesson planning, multi-

tasking in the classroom, and reflecting on one’s own practice. Teacher drinking indicated

l7l

a developing awareness on behalf of the student teachers that extended beyond

themselves. The cooperating teachers saw this to some degree in all of the student

teachers. Here Kate described Emily’s teacher thinking.
She knows what she wants to do and she’s not afiaid to experiment. With other
people, it ’s ‘this is what I was taught in college and I’m going to do it this step,
that step and that step and that ’5 just what we do. ’ Emily would kind of play
around with that and that was nice. You can tell someone is going to be a good
teacher when they are able to start thinking for themselves already and realizing
that black ’s not always black and white ’s not always white, there’s gray in
between there.

Susan expressed some concern about Meg’s teacher thinking, but felt it could work to her

advantage in the future.
I think part of the reason why she was willing to take risks is that she was not
always so serious about the consequences. As a teacher you think about ‘well, am
I ready to do this? ’ or ‘are the students ready? ’ I don ’t think she really cared as
much about the outcome {laughing}. I don ’t know if that is good or bad The good
thing is that if she does teach she will be a better teacher because she is willing to
try new things and let the students try new things. But I wasn ’t sure that she
always had the attention to the quality ending of that, that I hoped for.

The student teachers showed evidence of their growing teacher thinking in their focus

group interview, which occurred at the beginning of their last month of student teaching.

Jack described the change from thinking like a student to thinking like a teacher.

172

But then when we become teachers we are completely responsible for all these
other peoples’ success. That ’s a big shift in schooling dynamics and what ’s
happening. I feel the most stress when I am teaching my sixth graders. That ’s all
me, my cooperating teacher leaves the room and goes and sits in her office.
As their teacher thinking evolved, the student teachers struggled to shift from
preoccupation with their own success to the success of their students. Here is an
exchange between Jack, Emily, and Ryan highlighting the struggle between concern for
self and a concern for student success.
Jack: I am so worried about what ’s happening, they might just go crazy and get
out of control, and I ’m worried about whether or not they’re learning. I want to
make sure that they learn something and are able to perform at the end of the
semester so the parents aren’t like, ‘why did he not teach my kids how to do
anything? ’{laughing all around}
Ryan: You have so many other things to worry about than just trying to teach the
music.
Emily: You have your own success to worry about too.
Ryan: Yes, and it ’s really difficult to judge how you are doing at the same time as
trying to help them improve. I know you are always improving as a teacher, but
when you are student teaching you are trying to help yourself get better but at the
same time you are trying to make progress with the students...
Cooperating teachers spoke at length about their student teachers’ relationships
with students. Many of them fondly described how the student teachers took interest in

the students and established a rapport with them. Cooperating teachers were often

173

“inspired” by their student teachers’ relationships with students and were delighted when
a close relationship formed. Susan spoke about the relationship two previous student
teachers had with her students.
She was a very talented musician, which was wonderful to have in the classroom.
She found such joy with the kids. She just really loved to be there. The student
that I had this year in the fall ...she had a similar personality. I was trying to think
what they had in common. She was also very cheerfitl, very excited about the kids
and her relationships with the kids were very close.
Showing interest in the students and exuding enthusiasm about them was important to
Susan and the other c00perating teachers. Kristen talked about J ack’s relationships with
the students. She described herself as a “big rapport person” and hoped to see the same
thing in her student teachers. She was particularly excited when Jack stepped outside of
his comfort zone so that he could make connections with the students.
I could tell that Jack wanted to get to know the kids... Another thing that I loved
about him was when ‘American Idol’ started So I asked, ‘Have you ever watched
‘American Idol’? ’, knowing fitll well what the answer would be {laughing}. So I
said, ‘Just so you know, American Idol is a big thing in a lot of middle schoolers
lives, especially in choir. Do I like it? Not really. Do I watch it? Not usually, but I
try to watch it once in a while so I can have a conversation with the kids So
about a week passes, maybe two, and I am in the office at the end of class and I
can hear him talking to some of the kids about ‘American Idol’. He had watched it
{laughing}. So I said, ‘Did you watch it? ’And he said ‘Yes, I watched it last

night. ’ {laughing} I said ‘I am so proud of you. {laughing}

174

Kate valued her own close relationship with her students and wanted her student teachers
to develop a similar rapport with them. She described Emily and a past student teacher’s
relationship with students.

Especially Emily — and my first student teacher — really likes children and was

interested in that aspect of her teaching. Emily is just really positive and she

gushes over ‘did you see when this student did that or this student did this? ’ So
even after class we do feedback but we also do the ‘did you notice that? ’

{laughing} That was something else that I couldn ’t teach and I don ’t think you

can teach people. She really seemed to respect the students and value getting to

know them. That’s what made her successful with the students.

When the student teachers were asked about the most rewarding part of student
teaching, they responded enthusiastically with comments about the students. They were
excited and gratified over the relationships they had formed with students. Ryan
described this in his final interview.

I know,earlier in the semester, this is kid-related, I didn ’t feel that connected. But

now it’s only been four months, and I feel like it’s going to be strange when I

leave. It will be strange for them to not have me around in the classroom and

strange for him not to have me around in the classroom. The same all goes the
other way. I think that was definitely most important in earning trust and

[Steven] realizing me personally as a student teacher.

In the focus group interview, Emily expressed joy and satisfaction over working with the

children.

175

The most rewarding is just the kids, getting to know the kids and having them
begin trusting you. They are really buying into me. They see me in the hallway
and a bad kid who was just running around and kicking everything in the room
the next day comes up and gives me a hug and asks, ‘How did I do in music
today? ’ He really cares about my opinion, ‘You did great. ’Just the kids,
especially when I ’m even teaching music and they do something so great that
someone observing would think ‘Yea, that’s a kid, they probably didn _’t even mean
to do that’ and I 'm like, ‘Yea, you did that, look at you go! ’ So that ’s probably the
best thing.

Jack echoed Emily’s sentiments about students and seeing them succeed.
Student success as well, I agree. When the students, not the ones so much who
always succeed and who succeeded before I got there, but the students who
succeed because of something that I did, that’s great. When they get excited about
music because of something I was doing, that’s the best part.

Meg also valued the relationship she established with the sixth graders at Grove Middle

School. Her connection with them made her feel like a “real teacher.”
Myfavorite group to work with is the sixth graders. I think it ’s because it ’s the
only group that I am able to see every day and really gives me a sense of what it
would be like to be a real teacher.... Watching the improvement, because every
day they come in something is better, they can do something else that they
couldn ’t the day before and that ’s just really cool. And they are still excited about

it, which is cool, too.

176

Cooperating teachers referred to the extra things that student teachers did during
their student teaching experience. These included involvement in after school rehearsals,
performances, and even arriving early or staying after school to put in extra preparation
time. Cooperating teachers appreciated this show of commitment in their student teachers
because these extra things are “part of the job.” Susan admired Meg’s willingness to
“give more of herself.”

She volunteered to spend the whole night [at our showcase of music]. She

performed in a group and basically assisted in whatever way she could to help

groups know when they were supposed to get on. She did that. Then at my spring
concert she had worked out an arrangement. She had both grades that were on
the concert create something in class and then they performed that on the concert.

She was very professional; it didn ’t seem to faze her in the least. Got right out

there and led the group and then she helped me at the end tear down.

Kate liked that Emily was willing to stay after school to work on things for the students.
I like that she was motivated to do stufir for the kids and not when the school day is
over, the school day is over and that ’s it. She would say ‘I have this much time
here, and let ’s work on this or that. ’

Nina considered these extra things an important part of developing oneself as a teacher.

Here she described a previous student teacher in comparison to Jack.

She did a lot of things outside of school, extra, would come and help with the
play, make extra things. She just did the extra things, I guess you could say. She
was also preparing herself for that future. So this person went above and beyond,

I think... [Jack] did go to an Orff thing one time and he did do some extra things,

177

like helping with the play. I just wanted him to be more familiar with more
resources and I am not sure that happened
Cooperating teachers recognized developing teacher identities in their student
teachers. The student teachers themselves showed evidence of a burgeoning teacher
identity when talking to me in some of their interviews. Jack reflected on his own
teaching practices with the sixth grade general music class in the following excerpt.
I wanted to engage all the students because I realize that a lot of the kids don’t
want to sing and feel weird about coming into a choir class when it ’s called
‘World Music. ’ So I wanted to give everyone an opportunity to music —— verb... I
ended up doing too much with the kids. I think I didn ’t prep well enough for the
things I wanted to do. The two major projects were STOMP and a songwriting
activity-worksheet. I think for both I could have done one of those really well, and
that would have been fine with other smaller stuff But they were fi'ustrated by the
songwriting because they just had no idea what they were doing.
In Meg’s final interview, she talked about the impact of her student teaching experience,
and her cooperating teachers specifically, on her ability to see herself as a teacher.
It ’s been good to see that they are actually real people as Opposed to just
teachers. There are a couple of teachers who they place student teachers with
sometimes who kind of scare me because it doesn ’t seem like they have real lives
and it ’s really nice to see that they do because I think that ’s important.

Tami: So seeing that they have a lifiz outside of their classrooms?

178

Meg: Right. Talking about the kids in such a way that you can tell the kids make
them angry. It ’s not like everything they do is perfect. Being real people about it,
not just the perfect teacher that doesn ’t exist probably anywhere.

Tami: Coming across as more realistic?

Meg: More realistic and maybe more accessible and easier to see yourself doing

it. It ’s not like I am going to do everything exactly the way they have done things.

But at least I have a model that I know works, that I can adapt.

Student teaching impacted the teacher identities of both cooperating teachers and
student teachers. Cooperating teachers added new facets to their professional identities
such as role model and mentor. The teacher identities of student teachers also evolved
over the course of the experience. This evolution was observed in student teachers’
preparation and implementation of instructional activities, their relationships with

students, and their discussions of themselves as teachers.

179

CHAPTER VI

BECOMING TEACHERS AND COLLEAGUES: THEMES AND THEIR

CONNECTIONS

That’s kind of a funny question because I think every characteristic of my

cooperating teachers has contributed to our relationship. - Jack Collins

In the preceding chapters, 1 introduced and discussed five themes. These five
themes were Cooperating Teacher Characteristics, Student Teacher Characteristics,
Relationships, Power Sharing, and Teacher Identity. In this chapter, I summarize each
theme and its relationship to existing research. I also draw connections and highlight
interactions between the five themes. Finally, I propose a model that illustrates the

connections and interactions between the five themes.

Cooperating Teacher Characteristics
Cooperating music teachers and student teachers shared similar beliefs about the
characteristics important for cooperating teachers to possess. These characteristics fell in
to four categories: (1) Personal/Professional, (2) Musical, (3) Educational, and (4)
Influential Experiences. Many of the personal/professional and educational
characteristics like flexibility, organization, and providing feedback support existing
research (Berthelotte, 2007; Connor & Killmer, I995; Connor et al., 1993; Kahn, 2001;

Morin, 2000; Woolley, 1997). Cooperating teachers and student teachers agreed on the

180

importance of these characteristics and found the cooperating teachers in this study
possessed most, if not all, of them.

The student teachers appreciated cooperating teachers who were accepting of
them as developing teachers. Agee (1996) and Schmidt (1994b) discovered similar
findings. Like the student teachers in Schmidt (1994b), the ability of Emily, Jack, Meg,
and Ryan to be themselves as teachers positively influenced their experiences. The
participants believed that cooperating teachers should nurture and support student
teachers, a finding supported by Elliott and Calderhead (1993). Participants also
identified planning and modeling professional behavior, which have typically been
ignored in previous research, as characteristics of effective cooperating teachers (Sanders
et al., 2005).

Cooperating teachers and student teachers valued educational characteristics of
cooperating teachers including modeling, explanation, and reflection. Cooperating
teachers believed modeling effective teaching practice and reflection was vital to the
overall experience. Providing feedback was also considered essential. Cooperating
teachers strived to differentiate for their student teachers’ developmental needs, and
searched for their strengths and weaknesses in order to promote growth. This
differentiation was apparent in the way the cooperating teachers provided feedback and
direction to their student teacher.

Theory and practice usually matched in cooperating music teachers’ descriptions
of important characteristics. Two exceptions were Steven and Kristen in terms of
planning and feedback, respectively. Steven recognized the importance of planning, but

admitted to inadequacy on his own behalf. Kristen identified feedback as an important

181

aspect of her role as a cooperating teacher, yet Jack stated that he wished for more
feedback from Kristen as the semester progressed. Steven was also unique in his
approach to working with his student teachers. While each cooperating teacher stressed
that each student teacher was different, Steven looked for similarities among them and
used those to guide his mentoring practices.

Few negative characteristics existed in these particular cooperating teacher
participants. When asked to speak generally about characteristics that might contribute to
a poor relationship, cooperating teachers pointed to those teachers who were “divas” or
who would not share anything in their classrooms. In jest, Darcy referred to the group of
cooperating teacher participants as “detailed-oriented, controlling type people” during the
focus group interview. In interviews with many of the participants, including Meg, Ryan,
Kristen, and Jack, they referred to themselves and their cooperating teachers as “type A”
or extremely organized personalities. These characteristics arguably contribute to the
success of these teachers in their classrooms. As cooperating teachers though, a
controlling disposition may be less desirable. This supports assertions by Zeichner (2002)
and Koerner (1992) that the characteristics that make one a good teacher do not
necessarily make one a good cooperating teacher. The cooperating teacher participants
managed mostly to overcome those controlling characteristics and provided a positive
and educative experience for their student teachers.

Though all participants were directly asked about the musical characteristics of
cooperating teachers, no one addressed this question in detail. Participants simply stated
that the cooperating teacher should be knowledgeable. Musical characteristics of

cooperating teachers contributed less than other characteristics to the formation of the

182

student teacher/cooperating teacher relationship. Perhaps this is unique to the context of
music teacher education. Because their musician identity has been nurtured extensively in
undergraduate studies, the student teachers look to the cooperating teachers as models for
forming their teacher identities (Woodford, 2002; Bouij, 1998, 2004; Mark, 1998;
Roberts, 1991). Both student teachers and cooperating teachers believe a cooperating
teacher’s primary role is to develop teaching skill in the student teacher because musical
skill has been adequately achieved. Therefore, the musical characteristics of the
cooperating teacher take a secondary or tertiary position to the personal/professional and
educational characteristics.

Cooperating teachers’ own student teaching experiences profoundly impacted
their approach to and disposition as a cooperating teacher. A positive experience resulted
in a cooperating teacher who wished to re-create the experience for their student teacher.
A less positive or even negative experience resulted in a cooperating teacher who
attempted to right the wrongs they experienced, or provided opportunities they did not
enjoy as student teachers themselves. This was prevalent among all of the cooperating
teacher participants, and though two of the cooperating teachers had been teaching for
more than 20 years, their student teaching continued to inform the choices they made as
cooperating teachers.

Agee (1996) and Hawkey (1997) both found that preservice preparation,
including student teaching, had the biggest influence on cooperating teachers’ practice.
Kate supported this claim when she said: “No one trains you to be a cooperating teacher.
You have student teaching; essentially your student teaching is your training, your own

experience.” The clinical supervision medel is one suggested and researched program for

183

preparing cooperating teachers across all disciplines (Drafall, 1991; Kent, 2000; Smith,
1990). Hawkey (1997) argued, though, that a model program of mentoring may have
little impact on the practice of cooperating teachers. The findings of this research support
this assertion by Hawkey (1997). It is notable that none of the cooperating teachers in this
study completed a formal preparation program for their role, so determining which would
have a stronger impact is impossible in this context. What is unquestionable, though, is
the persistent and pervasive influence of their student teaching on the practice of these
cooperating teachers over their many years as music educators.

Cooperating teacher characteristics seem to be an independent variable over
which teacher educators have little control (Rideout & F eldman, 2002). The challenge
lies in fostering the characteristics that are agreed upon as necessary for success as a
cooperating teacher. This study suggests that their own positive student teaching
experience is a powerful step in ensuring that cooperating teachers develop these
characteristics. Models like a PDS offer a possibility for collaboration that may cultivate
effective characteristics. Thinking of preservice teachers as future cooperating teachers, it
behooves teacher educators to instill these characteristics in preservice teachers too.
Every music teacher should possess characteristics such as flexibility, communication
skills, interpersonal skills, reflection, and strong musicianship. Preparing preservice
teachers and supporting cooperating teachers in a way that fosters these characteristics

and solidifies them so they can benefit future student teachers makes sense.

184

Student Teacher Characteristics

Cooperating teachers held firm ideas about the characteristics that they wanted in
their student teachers. Student teacher characteristics fell into three categories: (I)
Personal/Professional, (2) Musical, and (3) Educational. Cooperating teachers and student
teachers agreed on the personal and professional characteristics that student teachers
should possess, and in this category the student teachers generally met expectations.
Participants cited motivation, commitment, initiative, and preparation as important
personal/professional characteristics. Typically the student teachers possessed the
identified characteristics, but not always to as strong a degree as the cooperating teacher
would have liked. Overall the cooperating teachers were pleased with their student
teachers’ personal/professional characteristics. Personal/Professional characteristics
exerted a stronger influence than other categories in the formation of a positive student
teacher/cooperating teacher relationship.

Identified musical characteristics differed slightly between and among
cooperating teachers and student teachers. Though the cooperating teachers felt that their
student teachers were good musicians, there were specific areas in which they had hoped
for more skill, such as piano and singing. None of the cooperating teachers pointed to a
deficit or lack of musical skills that adversely affected the student teachers’ ability to be
effective music teachers. When asked about musical characteristics of student teachers,
Steven summed up the feelings of the cooperating teachers when he said that “everyone
comes out of college a pretty well accomplished musician.”

Like cooperating teacher characteristics, musical characteristics of the student

teachers were less salient than other characteristics. In this research, student teachers’

185

musical characteristics were adequate, perhaps explaining the lack of attention or
discussion of them from cooperating teachers. In other situations where musical
characteristics are less adequate, they may receive more attention. Also, cooperating
teachers may intuit that musician socialization takes place extensively in undergraduate
preparation, either from their own experience as an undergraduate or their experience
working with undergraduates, so they realize those characteristics are not the ones to
attend to in student teaching (Bouij, 1998; 2004; Mark 1998; Roberts, 1991; Woodford,
2002). Cooperating teachers may remember the difficult shift from musician to teacher
and seek to ease that transition with the student teachers by preparing them for the
teacher aspect of theirjob (Scheib, 2007). Therefore, the cooperating teachers focused on
the student teachers’ personal/professional and educational characteristics to a greater
degree than the musical characteristics.

Cooperating teachers generally agreed on the educational characteristics that
student teachers should have including openness, a willingness to learn, and the ability to
adapt and adjust. Cooperating teachers expected student teachers to accept direction from
them. Most of the student teachers possessed those characteristics, but some cooperating
teachers pointed to past student teachers who were stronger in certain areas. All of the
cooperating teachers expressed concern about the classroom management skills of their
student teachers, which matched findings by Brophy (2002). There were no desirable
characteristics identified by cooperating teachers that were completely absent in their
current student teacher, and many of them were most pleased with their current student

teacher’s characteristics as compared to past student teachers.

186

There is little existing research in which cooperating teachers identify desirable
characteristics of student teachers. Stanulis and Russell (2000) identified student teacher
characteristics of questioning, enthusiasm, and kindness towards students as important to
developing a positive student teacher/cooperating teacher relationship. The cooperating
teachers in this research study identified and believed strongly in many of the same
characteristics. Personal and professional characteristics of student teachers were
particularly important to cooperating teachers and deserve continued attention (Schmidt,
1994b). While much time is spent in undergraduate programs fostering musical and
educational characteristics of preservice teachers, less attention is given to discussing
effective personal and professional characteristics. Music teacher educators must make
this implicit knowledge of effective personal and professional characteristics explicit to
preservice teachers. This will ensure a positive student teaching experience for all

participants.

Relationships

Cooperating teachers and student teachers described both positive and poor
relationships. The participants in the current study felt that they had positive relationships
with one another, based on trust and respect. Cooperating teachers and student teachers
valued one another and their contributions to the experience. When student teacher
participants felt valued by their cooperating teachers, a good relationship formed (Agee,
I996; Rideout & Feldman, 2002; Schmidt, 1994a, 1994b; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994).
These supportive relationships made the student teaching experience an educative one for

both the cooperating teachers and student teachers (Schmidt, 1994b).

187

Both cooperating teachers and student teachers desired a close personal
connection. One exception was the relationship between Jack and his cooperating
teachers. Nina and Kristen both wanted a closer relationship with Jack, while Jack
preferred more space. Factors contributing to the relationships included personality
characteristics, communication, and time spent with one another. Any prior relationship
or knowledge of one another was important for cooperating and student teachers. The
cooperating teachers expressed a need for even more information about their student
teachers prior to the beginning of the experience. Suggestions included samples of
student teachers’ work, a teaching portfolio, or an evaluation of strengths and weaknesses
from professors and the student teachers themselves. Cooperating teachers felt these
things would allow them to support their student teacher even better. At the very least,
following the suggestion by Liebhaber (2003) for a meeting between the student teacher
and cooperating teacher prior to the beginning of student teaching is a way to begin
moving the relationship forward.

Previous researchers found that communication and conversation were vital to the
student teacher/cooperating teacher relationship (Agee, 1996; Fairbanks et al., 2000;
Liebhaber, 2003; Sanders et al., 2005; Stanulis & Russell, 2000). Sanders et al. (2005)
found that the time that student teachers and cooperating teachers spent together also
impacted the relationship. Those findings shed light on the influence that split placements
had in this research study and are important for music teacher education and other K-12
disciplines in teacher education. Since music teachers are usually certified to teach at all

grade levels, placements in elementary and secondary classrooms during student teaching

188

are necessary. This limits the time the student teacher spends with each cooperating
teacher, thus influencing the relationship formed.

Evidence of the influence of these factors — communication, time, prior
relationship — can be seen in the differences in the relationships in this study. All of the
relationships were positive and educative, but differences existed. Kate and Steven had
the closest relationships with their student teachers, Emily and Ryan. These placements
were not split because Kate and Steven had teaching responsibilities at both elementary
and secondary levels. A prior relationship also existed between these pairs. Kate and
Steven’s relationships with Emily and Ryan began as cordial and collegial and ended up
as friendships. By contrast, Susan and Darcy and Nina and Kristen had good, but not as
close, relationships with Meg and Jack. These pairs began their relationships as more
formal and collegial, eventually becoming friendly. They did not develop the same close
friendship relationship seen with Kate and Emily and Steven and Ryan. This may be
explained by the split placements and that no prior relationship with one another existed.
Their time spent together was limited by the context of the placement, which affected
how often they communicated and subsequently shaped their relationships. One,
however, cannot overlook the individuals themselves. Personality characteristics of Jack
and Meg may have attributed to the difference in relationships. Jack stated that he did not
need, or even want, a closer relationship with Nina and Kristen and Meg described her
relationship with Susan and Darcy in this way: “For a student teacher-cooperating teacher
relationship, it was what it should be.”

Within the student teacher/cooperating music teacher relationship, the cooperating

teachers occupied multiple roles. These multiple roles, identified in prior research and the

189

current study, included colleague, role model, mentor, and friend (Abell et al., 1995;
Elliott & Calderhead, 1993; Sanders et al., 2005; Weasmer & Woods, 2003). Cooperating
teachers and student teachers recognized these multiple roles and appreciated their
influence on the overall relationship. Like the cooperating music teachers in Krueger’s
study (2006), these cooperating teachers and student teachers looked forward to
continuing their relationships beyond the parameters of the student teaching experience,
hoping to remain in contact and continue learning from each other. 8
Researchers have described relationship types, including progression from one
type to another. Fairbanks et al. (2000) identified collegial relationships that eventually
turned collaborative. Amherst School of Education (1989, as cited in Martin, 1994)
described a formal, cordial, and then friendship relationship. Similar relationship types
existed between the student teacher/cooperating teacher pairs in this study, with the

relationship moving through phases similar to those described by existing research.

Power Sharing
Cooperating teachers shared power with their student teachers in three categories:
(1) Teaching, (2) Classroom Management, and (3) Administrative. Teaching delineated
further into the four sub-categories of gradual progression, classroom setting, ensemble
performances and festivals, and balancing responsibility and intervention. Student
teachers’ responsibility for instructional planning and implementation gradually increased
over the course of the semester. Cooperating teachers carefully monitored how much

teaching power the student teacher could accept successfully and were generally willing

190

to share it. Overall, the cooperating teachers wanted the student teachers to feel a sense of
ownership in their classrooms.

In elementary and secondary general music classrooms, cooperating teachers
shared teaching power more freely than in ensemble settings. Student teachers assumed
responsibility for entire classes and grade levels for at least one week at a time.
Performances in elementary general music did impact the power sharing between
cooperating teacher and student teacher. General music teachers, like ensemble teachers,
expressed concern about student teachers’ abilities to bring students to an appropriate
level of performance, but were more willing to share performance responsibilities with
their student teachers.

Cooperating teachers in ensemble settings shared power differently than those in
general music settings. When preparing ensembles for concerts and festivals, cooperating
teachers were less willing to share power with student teachers. Steven was one exception
to this, as he freely shared teaching responsibilities with Ryan for festival and other
concert performances. Darcy, Kristen, and Kate shared limited responsibilities with their
student teachers for concert performances. Darcy and Kristen did not share any power
with Meg or Jack for festival, even though they would have accepted responsibility had
their cooperating teachers offered. Student teachers in ensemble settings never assumed
complete responsibility for a performing ensemble. They usually were responsible for
only one piece of music with each ensemble and though the student teachers may have
had all of the responsibilities associated with teaching an ensemble such as warm ups,
fundamentals, or a piece of music, they never held all of those responsibilities at once for

an extended period of time. As implied by other researchers, the hidden curriculum of

191

performances and festivals influenced the power sharing of all of the cooperating teachers
in this study (Krueger, 1985; Rideout & Feldman, 2002)

Sharing classroom management power with their student teachers challenged the
cooperating teachers. They often struggled with allowing the student teachers to have
authority with students while also not letting the students behave below their
expectations. Allowing extinguished behavior to return while the student teacher was in
charge proved difficult for cooperating teachers. Student teachers appreciated the support
they received from their cooperating teachers in terms of classroom management,
particularly in the early stages of their student teaching.

Cooperating teachers grappled with balancing the student teacher’s responsibility
and their own intervention in both teaching and classroom management. Cooperating
teachers wanted their students to recognize and respect the student teacher as another
teacher in the room, but found it hard not to step in when things might be going poorly.
They wondered out loud at where the line was between staying out of the situation and
stepping in to “rescue” the student teacher. Most agreed that unless the student teacher
was “crashing and burning” with a lesson, or the students were completely out of control,
that they would leave the student teacher to handle the teaching or management situation.
The cooperating teachers also recognized that the amount of struggle each student teacher
could handle differed. All of the cooperating teachers wanted their student teachers and
students to feel success, so they often remained in the wings and sometimes even left the
room so the student teachers could feel what it would be like to be the teacher.
Cooperating teachers questioned the appropriateness of leaving the student teacher

unsupervised, but believed a judicious use of their absence could be effective. While the

192

student teachers appreciated the cooperating teacher’s initial support and presence at the
beginning of the experience, they also reveled in the trust and autonomy afforded them
when left unsupervised.

Cooperating teachers shared administrative responsibilities on a limited basis with
their student teachers. Some of the cooperating teachers, like Kate and Steven, felt that
administrative tasks were contextual and therefore not a useful a way to utilize their
student teachers. Steven and Darcy also hesitated to share administrative tasks with their
student teachers because of the amount of tasks their own cooperating teachers had
burdened them with. Though all of the cooperating teachers agreed that it was part of the
job, they were reticent about having the student teacher complete administrative duties.

Power sharing varied over the course of the student teaching experience and with
each student teacher/cooperating teacher pair. Power sharing was defined on a
continuum, as shown in Figure 1, from a student/teacher relationship, to a team-teaching
relationship, to a collaborative partnership (Draves, in press). This power sharing
continuum correlated closely with the student teachers’ movement through the three
stages of teacher concerns (Fuller, 1969). As student teachers moved through Fuller’s
stages, cooperating teachers shared more power with them.

Split placements mitigated cooperating teachers’ power sharing. Time spent at
each placement limited the responsibility and power that was shared with the student
teacher, particularly when the student teacher saw a class for only two or three days a
week due to their schedule. The time of year and events on the music teachers’ calendars
also influenced how much power was shared with the student teacher. Performances and

festival usually resulted in a shift to the left end of the continuum, or less poWer sharing.

193

The individual contexts of each placement necessitated different movement along the
power sharing continuum throughout the student teaching experience.

A power sharing ceiling seemed to be in place for each cooperating teacher.
Cooperating teachers had pre-determined how much power they would share with their
student teachers and were willing to share it, as long as the student teacher displayed
appropriate interest and ability in wielding that power. All of the student teachers in the
study wanted their cooperating teachers to share power with them; however Meg was
content with less shared power than Emily, Ryan, or Jack (Woolley, 1997). Darcy and
Kristen did not share festival responsibilities with any of their student teachers, whereas
Steven did. Kate showed a willingness to share all aspects of her teaching situation with
Emily with the exception of the choir at Blue Creek. Typically, the c00perating teachers
easily shared things for which they were not publicly held accountable.

At the beginning of the experience, student teachers were generally students
taking direction from their cooperating teachers. They began their placements in an
observing phase and then moved into a participatory stage (Stanulis & Russell, 2000).
Later in the experience, cooperating teachers and student teachers began team-teaching.
The team-teaching relationship was prevalent between Meg and her cooperating teachers,
and Jack and his cooperating teachers. Emily and Ryan developed a collaborative
partnership with their cooperating teachers, in which they became responsible for every
aspect of teaching and learning (Draves, in press). Kate and Steven welcomed Emily and
Ryan as full partners in their classroom in this collaborative partnership (Krueger, 2006).
The hidden curriculum of performances affected how and when power was shared at both

elementary and secondary levels (Krueger, 1985; Rideout & Feldman, 2000). The student

194

teacher/cooperating teacher pairs moved back and forth across the power sharing
continuum throughout the semester depending on the context and content of the calendar

and curriculum (Draves, in press; Krueger, 1985; Rideout & Feldman, 2002).

Teacher Identity

Serving as cooperating teachers nourished the teacher identities of Darcy, Kate,
Kristen, Nina, Steven, and Susan. The cooperating teachers benefited from mutual
learning with their student teachers and viewed their work as professional development
for themselves. Professional growth as a benefit of serving as a cooperating teacher has
been established by researchers (Arnold, 2002; Conkling, 2004; Conkling & Henry,
1999; Ganser, 1997; Hamlin, 1997; Koerner, 1992; Robinson, 2005), and all of the
cooperating teachers pointed to this as one of the best parts of their service. The
cooperating teachers enjoyed Ieaming from their student teachers, which is an ideal
disposition for a cooperating teacher (Liebhaber, 2003).

Conkling (2004) and Robinson (2005) found that veteran teachers improved their
own teaching practice and reflected more thoughtfully and more often after experiences
as participants in a PDS and as evaluators of new teacher portfolios. Several of the
cooperating teachers in this study reflected aloud on their practices during their
interviews, wondering if their choices and approaches were the best possible ones. They
said that sharing their craft knowledge with the student teachers also helped them become
better teachers. The act of explaining what they did and why made them think harder
about their own teaching and the decisions they made in their classrooms. Like the

veteran teachers in Robinson’s study (2005), they often considered if their example was

195

good enough to serve as a model for a novice teacher. Simply having another person in
the room, observing their practice, encouraged them to always be doing their best work.

The cooperating teachers felt a sense of professional responsibility as they
nurtured and guided these novice members of the profession. They gleaned personal
satisfaction from their student teachers’ growth and success. Being a cooperating teacher
added new layers to their teacher identity, including role model and mentor. They felt
isolated in their role as a cooperating teacher, however, and wished for more interaction
with other cooperating teachers and the university. The cooperating teachers commented
on how they enjoyed their focus group interview because it gave them an opportunity to
discuss their role with one another.

Student teaching cultivated the budding teacher identities of the student teacher
participants. The cooperating teachers observed this development in their student teachers
and took pleasure in watching them discover their own teacher persona and style. Abell et
al. (1995) stated that cooperating teachers believed that student teachers should be
allowed to develop their own teaching style. Susan and Steven especially recognized the
importance of developing one’s own self as a teacher and encouraged that growth in their
student teachers.

Though past research has shown that student teachers want cooperating teachers
with a teaching style similar to theirs (Agee, 1996), this seemed less important to these
student teacher participants. Emily, Jack, Meg, and Ryan wanted to figure out who they
were as teachers. They hoped for supportive, nurturing cooperating teachers who would

help them find their teaching selves. Schmidt (1994b) found that getting to be themselves

196

as teachers was important to student teachers in her research and she recommended
further research into teacher identity. This research suggests similar conclusions.

Cooperating teachers also watched as student teachers began gradually thinking
like teachers. Their evolving teacher thinking manifested itself in teacher talk, increased
interest in students and student learning, and a general awareness that extended beyond
themselves. As the student teachers gradually began moving beyond concern forjust
themselves, they developed a greater awareness of all aspects of teaching. The
willingness of the student teachers to do extra things and go “above and beyond” further
signified to the cooperating teachers their commitment to teaching. This growth in
commitment to professional tasks and knowledge has also been observed in preservice
teachers in a peer teaching lab experience (Carper, 1970; Paul, 1998).

The student teachers moved through Fuller’s (1969) three stages of concerns of
teachers. Not only did the cooperating teachers observe this shift, but the student
teachers’ interviews from the first to the last showed a shift in concern from themselves
to their students. All of them grappled with the dual nature of student teaching in terms of
their own development and that of their students. By the end of the student teaching,
Emily, Jack, Meg, and Ryan all showed awareness of and excitement about student
progress. Schleuter (1991) discovered that student teachers’ knowledge of the “nature of
the learner” grew the most in her research with student teachers and the participants in
this study exhibited similar growth.

Of particular importance to cooperating teachers were the relationships the
student teachers cultivated with students. Clarke (2001) reported that cooperating

teachers in his research identified relationships with students as important, too. The

197

 

cooperating teacher participants appreciated student teachers who showed joy and
enthusiasm over working with students, who were willing to step beyond their comfort
zone to connect with them, and who valued students’ musical growth and success.
Student teachers spoke directly about their relationships with students in their interviews.
They referred to the most rewarding part of student teaching as these relationships. All of
the cooperating teachers and student teachers recognized the student teachers’ positive
relationships and rapport with students as a hallmark of a successful experience.

Student teachers demonstrated their teacher identities in interactions with their
cooperating teachers, students, and me, and by the end of the student teaching semester
began seeing themselves as teachers. Teacher identity strength differed for each student
teacher. Paul (1998) found that ownership of occupational title and identity differed in his
preservice teacher participants as well (Carper, 1970). In this research, Emily and Ryan
had the strongest sense of self as teacher by the end of student teaching, though all of the

participants gained strength in this area.

Connections
Characteristics of both cooperating teachers and student teachers determined the
types of relationships formed. The cooperating teachers were especially concerned with
the personal and professional characteristics of the student teachers. They also recognized
their own characteristics that were helpfirl in forming a positive relationship with their
student teachers. Educational and musical characteristics contributed, but were less

salient to, the formation of the relationships.

198

Relationship types varied across the student teacher/cooperating teacher pairs.
The cooperating teachers looked forward to forming a personal connection with their
student teachers. All of the pairs progressed from a more formal relationship to a more
friendly relationship by the end of the experience. Participants referred to one another as
colleagues and friends. There were differences in the relationship types among the pairs,
with Kate and Emily, and Steven and Ryan, developing the closest relationships and
forming a strong personal connection. Everyone looked forward to a relationship that
continued beyond the end of the student teaching semester.

The emphasis on the personal connection by cooperating teachers is not
surprising, since teaching is about making connections with others. If the cooperating
teachers struggled to make a connection with a student teacher, they may grow concerned
about the student teacher’s ability to connect with students and therefore be a successful
teacher. Kristen alluded to this issue of a personal connection and its role as a potential
indicator of teaching success. “Someone who was really withdrawn or super private or
just couldn’t communicate to me ‘hey, how was your day’, that would be very difficult
for me to handle because 1 am a rather extroverted persoanlus, if they couldn’t talk to
me, how could they control fifty kids?”

When a relationship between the student teacher and students was not observed
by the cooperating teacher, the student teacher/cooperating teacher relationship suffered.
Susan, Kate, Kristen, and Steven all discussed this as a problem with past student
teachers. When past student teachers did not connect closely with their students, these

cooperating teachers did not connect closely with the student teacher. Cooperating

teachers understand innately, as part of their own teacher identity, the importance of

199

finding one’s own teacher persona and style and connecting with students. As
cooperating teachers initially cultivate a relationship with their student teacher, the
cooperating teacher begins sharing power. The student teacher’s identity as a teacher
develops in light of this power sharing. The cooperating teacher recognizes the evolving
teacher identity and shares even more power, and the relationship between the pair
strengthens. An unwillingness or inability on the part of the student teacher to accept a
teacher identity would lead to a breakdown in their relationship.

Agee (1996) argued that the power sharing of the cooperating teacher determined
the type of relationship formed between the student teacher/cooperating teacher pair, but
in this study the relationship determined the power sharing. A positive relationship
between a student teacher and cooperating teacher, as seen with Kate and Emily and
Steven and Ryan especially, led to a large amount of power sharing by Kate and Steven.
As positive relationships form between student teachers and cooperating teachers,
movement to a collaborative partnership is more likely. A collaborative partnership is
also more likely as teacher identity begins developing in student teachers. C00perating
teachers witness the developing teacher identity in their student teachers and are willing
to share more power. In a circular process, more power is shared as a stronger teacher
identity evolves. The maturing teacher identity of the student teacher strengthens the
relationship between the student teacher/cooperating teacher pair, a relationship that
likely will continue beyond the parameters of the student teaching experience.

Emily and Ryan possessed characteristics that Kate and Steven valued and that
led to the formation of their positive relationships. These relationships, which promoted

power sharing by the cooperating teachers, nurtured the emerging teacher identities in

200

Emily and Ryan. As Emily and Ryan’s teacher identities gained strength, Kate and
Steven shared more power with them, which eventually led to a collaborative partnership
where power was shared equitably. The collaborative partnership helped Emily and Ryan
discover the teacher within (Palmer, 1998).

Jack and Meg also developed their teacher identities during student teaching, but
perhaps not as strongly as Emily and Ryan. Their cooperating teachers shared less power
with Jack and Meg, suggesting that their teacher identities evolved to a lesser degree and
continued to dictate less power sharing by their cooperating teachers. The combination of
both theirs and their cooperating teachers’ personal and professional characteristics, the
relationships formed with their cooperating teachers, and the subsequent power sharing
interacted to shape their emerging teacher identities differently than Emily and Ryan.
Darcy, Susan, Kristen, and Nina expressed pleasure and satisfaction over their
relationships with Meg and Jack, but admitted they were not as close as they had been
with past student teachers. This difference between current and past relationships may be
explained by differences in the student teachers’ characteristics.

The relationships of the five themes are complex and circular to a certain extent.

A model of these relationships between themes is shown in Figure 2.

201

Figure 2. Model of thematic relationships

 
     
   

      
          
  
  
   

  

Student
Teacher
Characteristics

Cooperating
Teacher
Characteristics

Relationships

 

 

Power Sharing Continuum

 

Teacher Identity

Summary

The findings from this research study suggest a complex interplay of various
themes in the student teacher/cooperating teacher pair. Five themes emerged from this
study as components of the student teaching experience in music. Characteristics of both
cooperating teachers and student teachers contributed to the relationships they formed
with one another. Personal/professional and educational characteristics seemed more

significant than the musical characteristics of all participants in the study. The

202

cooperating teachers’ own student teaching experience informed their approach to their
role. Participants described their relationships as collegial and friendly, and considered
them successful and educative. These positive relationships affected how cooperating
teachers shared power, which in turn affected the teacher identity formation in the student
teacher participants. As the student teachers’ teacher identities grew stronger, the
cooperating teachers showed a willingness to share more power. Student teachers whose
teacher identities emerged most strongly ended up with the closest relationships with
their cooperating teachers. The student teaching experience also nourished the teacher
identities of the cooperating teachers, as they learned from their student teachers and

added new roles to their professional identities.

'203

 

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

One thing that I didn’t realize is that [Steven] says that having a student
teacher really makes him evaluate the way that he teaches. That
willingness to improve his own teaching through making efforts to help me

is really important for everyone - me, the kids, and him. — Ryan Miller

Summary

Purpose and Problems

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationships formed between
student teacher/cooperating teacher pairs and therefore gain a more thorough
understanding of the music student teaching experience. The four original research
questions were as follows:

1. How do cooperating music teachers describe their relationship with their

student teacher?

2. What personal, musical, educational, and professional characteristics of student

teachers contribute to developing the relationship between the student teacher and

cooperating teacher?

3. How is that relationship developed in a music classroom?

204

 

4. How does any preparation or experience of the cooperating music teacher,
including their own student teaching experience, contribute to the type of
relationship that is developed with a student teacher?
Following data collection and analysis, a fifth research question was added.
5. How does the relationship impact the teacher identity of both the student
teacher and cooperating teacher?
Method
Following the collective case study design in qualitative research, multiple forms
of data were collected. Ethnographic methodological techniques were employed for data
collection and analysis. Interviews (see Appendixes B and C) and in-depth observations
of participants were the primary forms of data collection, with informal conversations
and artifacts like lesson plans and observation notes also providing data. By using these
modes of inquiry, I was able to collect data directly and in a naturalistic setting therefore

maximizing what I learned from my participants (Stake, 1995). Data triangulation,

member checks, and peer review established trustworthiness of the data (Creswell, 1998).

Following transcription of interviews and field notes, data were coded and
analyzed for emerging themes. Preliminary codes (see Appendix F) were refined as
themes began taking shape during data analysis (Emerson et al., 1995). Immersion in the
data revealed similarities between cases and connections between themes. Final coding
(see Appendix G) revealed five themes: (1) Cooperating Teacher Characteristics, (2)
Student Teacher CharacteriStics, (3) Relationships, (4) Power Sharing, and (5) Teacher
Identity. From this analysis, I proposed a model of interaction between the five themes.

Conclusions and implications for practice and research are discussed in the folloWing

205

 

sections. The findings of this study are limited in their generalizability, however one may
be able to transfer findings to circumstances similar to those of the participants of this

research.

Conclusions

Cooperating teachers desired a personal connection with their student teachers and

a relationship that was trusting, respectful, and resulted in learning for both parties.

Cooperating teachers wanted a close relationship with their student teachers. Split
placements challenged the participants when forming their relationships. The issue of
time spent with one another because of a split placement affected the formation of the
relationship between cooperating teachers and student teacher. This influence was seen in
the relationships between the pairs in this study. A marked difference existed in the
relationships of those who had full time placements and those who had split placements.
While all of the relationships in this study were positive, those with full time placements
developed closer ties with one another. Personality characteristics of the student teachers
also affected the closeness of the relationships that were formed.

Regardless of whether the placement was split or full time, cooperating teachers
hoped to form a relationship where trust and respect flowed both ways. Cooperating
teachers viewed their student teachers as colleagues and established collegial
relationships with them. Mutual learning was a hallmark of those relationships and
cooperating teachers looked forward to the new things they would learn by working with

student teachers. Ideally, cooperating teachers hoped their relationships with their student

206

teachers would continue beyond the student teaching experience. They enjoyed

remaining in contact with their student teachers and being called upon as a resource.

Cooperating teachers valued specific characteristics, particularly personal and
professional, in their student teachers and looked for those as a basis for forming
the relationship.

Personal and professional characteristics were the most salient factors in the
formation of the relationship between the cooperating teacher and student teacher.
Educational and musical characteristics seemed less important. An inability on the part of
the cooperating teachers to find those personal and professional characteristics they
deemed important in their student teachers resulted in a less satisfying relationship and
subsequently less power sharing. What remains unclear was how cooperating teachers
communicated those expectations for characteristics to their student teachers, or whether
cooperating teachers assumed those characteristics would be present before the student
progressed to student teaching. Cooperating teachers may have believed that the
responsibility for instilling those characteristics rested with the university and that the
student teacher would not have passed through the barriers that are in place without them.
This may also explain why cooperating teachers focused less on educational and musical
characteristics. Cooperating teachers may have assumed that of all the characteristics that
student teachers would possess, these would be the strongest as a result of their
preparation program and therefore need less attention.

The lack of focus on educational and musical characteristics may also be

explained by the lack of preparation given to cooperating teachers for working with adult

207

learners. Cooperating teachers focus their own practice on young students, developing
and implementing age appropriate pedagogy. Prior to working with student teachers, they
were not prepared to analyze the musical and educational characteristics of their student
teachers, nor were they prepared to engage in age appropriate andragogy with them
(Kruse, 2007). This failure of preparation may point to the lack of importance that the
cooperating teacher assigned to musical and educational characteristics. Another
explanation may also be that those characteristics were satisfactory in all of the student

teachers and therefore required less attention.

Each cooperating teacher had a power sharing ceiling, which was mostly affected by
the hidden curriculum. Throughout the student teaching experience, power sharing
moved back and forth along a continuum from least power sharing to most power
sharing.

Each cooperating teacher had predetermined the amount of power they would
share with their student teacher. The height of the power sharing ceiling was influenced
by their knowledge of their own hidden curriculum and by their past experiences as
student teachers and cooperating teachers. The cooperating teachers had their own
personal power sharing continuum that fit within the larger continuum model. Power
sharing by the cooperating teachers moved along a continuum from the least amount of
power sharing in a student/teacher relationship to the most amount of power sharing in a
collaborative partnership. Movement back and forth along the continuum continued over

the course of the student teaching experience and was dependent on the circumstances of

the placement at the time.

208

The context of the placement, including whether it was a full or split placement,
affected how much power the cooperating teachers shared. Split placements typically
resulted in less power sharing by the cooperating teacher. Sometimes this was due to the
logistics of the split, where the student teacher saw a class only once or twice a week.
Other times, this was due to the way the relationship formed as a result of the split
placement, thus affecting power sharing by the cooperating teacher as illustrated in
Figure 2. Aspects of the hidden curriculum, such as performances, also determined the
amount of power the cooperating teachers shared.

The points along the power sharing continuum coincided with several frameworks
of mentoring, and particularly the stages of teacher concerns (Fuller, 1969; Maynard &
Furlong, 1993; Mclntyre & Hagger, 1993). When student teachers began moving through
the stages of concern towards concern for pupils, power sharing by cooperating teachers
increased. In contrast to the stages of teacher concerns and other models of mentoring
where movement through the stages always progressed forward, the power sharing
relationship in the music classroom moved backwards on the continuum as well (Fuller,
1969; Maynard & Furlong, 1993; Mclntyre & Hagger, 1993). Power sharing relationships
did not continuously move forward, but rather ebbed and flowed along the continuum
over the course of the student teaching experience. The context of the music classroom —

performances and split placements — contributed to this back and forth movement.

209

 

The most influential experience for approaching the role of cooperating teacher is
one’s own student teaching experience.

Cooperating teachers were most influenced in their role by their own student
teaching experience, a finding that supports existing research by Agee (1996) and
Hawkey (1997). In the current research, the cooperating teachers’ own student teaching
informed their approach to their role in several ways. Some cooperating teachers looked
to repeat their own positive experience. Others sought to provide the experience they
wished they had to their student teacher. Even many years after their student teaching, the
experience continued to impact the cooperating teachers’ practices. Cooperating teachers
drew from other experiences, such as mentoring, field experience supervision, and
graduate work, but none of these were as strong or persistent in their influence.

If one carries out this pattern, it may be assumed that the student teachers in this
study will draw on this experience to inform their practice as future cooperating teachers.
This possibility bodes well for these participants. Less positive experiences, though, may
serve to provide a troublesome influence that reverberates throughout the profession.
While negative experiences from their own student teaching were not reproduced by
these cooperating teachers, there is no guarantee that in other cases a negative experience
will not be replicated due to a lack of awareness on the part of the student teacher-turned-
cooperating teacher. Without a positive experience or other preparation to guide them,

they may duplicate the mistakes of their own experience rather than correct them.

210

 

Student teaching informs and nourishes the teacher identities of both student
teachers and cooperating teachers.

Evidence of developing teacher identities in student teachers emerged through
cooperating teachers’ observations and the student teachers’ own interviews. Over the
course of the student teaching experience, student teachers’ focus turned away from
themselves and towards the students in their classes. As relationships grew stronger
between the student teacher/cooperating teacher pair, teacher identities in the student
teachers evolved. Waterman (1984) stated that feedback from one’s collectivity, in this
case cooperating teachers, can influence identity formation. The act of simply being in
another teacher’s presence, or having an occupational reference group as described by
Carper (1970) and Paul (1998), resulted in the ability of student teachers to begin seeing
themselves as teachers. Isbell (2006) found that experiences rather than people correlated
significantly with occupational identity in preservice music teachers. In this study the two
were inseparable, equally contributing to the formation of teacher identity in the student
teachers.

Serving as cooperating teachers nourished and sustained the cooperating teachers’
identities in this research study. Conkling (2004) proposed that teachers in a PDS might
augment their teacher. identities as a result of their involvement, and the current study
found evidence of that in the cooperating teachers. Cooperating teachers spoke about the
new roles they adopted by working with student teachers, which included role model and
mentor. Acting as a cooperating teacher added new layers to their teacher identities and
promoted reflective thinking on their own practices. The veteran teachers who served as

evaluators of new music teacher portfolios in Robinson (2005) experienced similar

211

 

benefits. Like those veteran teachers, these cooperating teachers enjoyed professional

development and personal enrichment through their work with student teachers.

Implications for Practice

These four student teacher/cooperating music teacher pairs enjoyed positive
experiences. All of the participants were satisfied with their relationships and the level of
learning that took place. The importance of student teaching as a successful experience
that informs teacher identity in student teachers, nourishes teacher identity in cooperating
teachers, and influences the practices of future cooperating teachers cannot be
overlooked. It is imperative that music teacher educators continue working to understand
and improve the music student teaching experience for all participants. With that charge

in mind, the following implications for future practice are suggested.

1. University supervisors must work to make a good match between cooperating
teachers and student teachers.

Researchers identified the importance of a good match between cooperating
teachers and student teachers, a point echoed by the participants in the current study
(Krueger, 1985; Schmidt, 1994a, 1994b; Schmidt & Knowles, 1994). University
supervisors should explicitly discuss with each party what they want from the student
teaching experience. Identifying characteristics that are important to both the cooperating
teacher and student teacher will assist the university supervisor in making an appropriate
placement. The university supervisor should also openly discuss the level of power

sharing that the student teacher expects and the cooperating teacher is willing to give.

212

Determining these factors in advance will provide the university supervisor with the

opportunity to make a productive match and ensure a successful experience.

2. Cooperating teachers and student teachers need opportunities to work with one
another prior to the beginning of student teaching.

Real differences existed between the relationships of the student
teacher/cooperating teacher pairs in this study that had prior knowledge of one another E
versus those that did not. By providing an opportunity for the student teacher and

cooperating teacher to work with one another, they pass through the “getting to know

 

you” phase sooner and the relationship can develop more fully over the student teaching
experience. This was one benefit that both Ryan and Emily pointed to in their
relationships with Steven and Kate. By accelerating the formation of the relationship,
power sharing may be greater over the course of the student teaching experience, result in
greater teacher identity formation in the student teacher, and overall be more beneficial to
both parties.

In her own student teaching experience, Kate recalled having visited her student
teaching site once a week the semester before she began her student teaching. This was
voluntary on her part, but perhaps music teacher preparation programs could institute a
similar requirement or at the very least encourage the preservice teacher to make a similar
effort. Placing the preservice teacher in the student teaching site for field work prior to
their student teaching would also achieve this end. If a more meaningful opportunity is
not possible, the university supervisor should facilitate a meeting between the two parties

prior to the beginning of the student teaching experience. In this meeting, the student

213

teacher may provide the cooperating teacher some background information in the form of
a portfolio or video of her teaching. This will help the cooperating teacher prepare a

developmentally appropriate experience for the student teacher.

3. Cooperating teachers should be provided opportunities to engage in meaningful
discourse with one another.

The cooperating teachers in this study described a feeling of isolation in their role.
Most universities hold a seminar for student teachers to gather on a regular basis and
discuss their experiences. A similar opportunity for cooperating teachers should be made
available. Both Agee (1996) and Arnold (2002) recommended this kind of regular
contact, and when implemented, Arnold found that the cooperating teachers in her study
experienced meaningful growth. Cooperating teachers in Berthelotte’s (2007) study said
that sharing their practices with one another promoted reflection and motivated them to
improve their future practices. Email, instant messaging, discussion boards, and other
available technology might be used in addition to regular in person seminars or if
necessary, in place of them. Having the opportunity to share best practices in a seminar
and discuss the challenges of being a cooperating teacher will benefit everyone in the
experience.

Another opportunity for cooperating teachers to interact with one another could
be through mentoring. Experienced cooperating teachers could serve as mentors to novice
cooperating teachers. This would promote the discussion of best practices, age
appropriate andragogy, and generally assist novice cooperating teachers as they navigate

their new roles. Weasmer and Woods (2003) suggested that cooperating teachers be

214

 

exposed to various types of mentoring. Being mentored through the act of mentoring a
student teacher may prove to be a powerful process. In this research, the cooperating
teachers were in close proximity to one another, some in the same school or district, and
some just one school district away. Building or district mentoring between cooperating
music teachers may be possible in a similar circumstance. This type of contact between
cooperating teachers may also serve to enrich their teacher identities as they share their
craft knowledge with each other. The role of cooperating teacher allows the inservice f

teacher to grow professionally without having to leave the classroom, a point emphasized

by Robinson (2005).

 

ln-

4. Cooperating teachers should receive preparation and support for working with
student teachers.

Cooperating teachers are typically selected because of their exceptional and
successful work with their students. While they may be master teachers of children, those
skills may not transfer to work with adult learners (Kruse, 2007). Characteristics that
define those who teach children as master teachers are not the same characteristics that
define those who are master teachers of adults. Koerner (1992) and Zeichner (2002)
stated that those characteristics that make one a successful teacher do not necessarily
make them a successfiil cooperating teacher and this might be due to a lack of preparation
or skills for working with them.

Several of the cooperating teachers described a sense of uncertainty about crafting
experiences for their student teachers that appropriately balanced responsibility and

intervention. Cooperating teachers need information on how to design effective

215

experiences for their student teachers, rather than drawing on their own student teaching
experience to inform their practice. Providing opportunities to earn staff development or
continuing education credits would encourage inservice teachers to serve as cooperating
teachers and take advantage of programs to prepare them for their role. Preparing
c00perating teachers for working with student teachers will ensure an experience that

benefits the student teacher, cooperating teacher, and the students in the classroom.

5. Music teacher preparation programs should implement activities to foster ideal
characteristics, prepare students for student teaching, and nurture teacher identity
from the earliest stages of the program.

Music teacher educators must begin by making explicit the characteristics and
dispositions that are suitable for teaching. As students progress through the program,
faculties act as gatekeepers through barriers like interviews, recommendations, and juries.
The focus is often on the musical and educational characteristics and less on the personal
and professional characteristics that cooperating teachers cited as so important. This may
be due to the ambiguity involved in identifying and evaluating those personal and
professional characteristics in preservice teachers. Music teacher educators may be
uncomfortable evaluating a student on their personal characteristics. Making those
characteristics explicit to students from the beginning of a preparation program may ease
that discomfort and make it easier to evaluate. Incorporating activities to foster those
characteristics may also alleviate those concerns.

Researchers have identified various activities and strategies that may contribute to

the success of student teachers and the evolution of their teacher identities (Broyles,

216

1997; Conkling, 2003; Ferguson, 2003; Isbell, 2006, 2007; Paul, 1998). Woodford (2002)
argued that a systematic implementation of critical practices that encourage students’
thinking about teaching may enhance the development of a teacher identity. Music
education majors should be expected to maintain a portfolio over the course of their
degree program with work from each music education class that highlights their progress,
provides examples of their work, and includes critical reflection on their work. A
systematic focus on reflective thinking, from the earliest parts of the program, will help
students begin to develop a teaching identity.

Once students begin teaching experiences, consistent videotaping and discussion
of the video with professors, peers, and through reflective activities will assist students in
identifying their own strengths and weaknesses (Broyles, 1997; Conkling, 2003). These
practices will help student teachers be prepared for student teaching and be closer to the
third stage of teacher concerns, concern for students, when they begin student teaching
(Paul, 1998). Student teachers who have developed their teacher identity to the point
where they can turn their attention to their students may enjoy more power sharing from
their cooperating teachers.

Teacher identity in this study began to emerge strongly as student teachers formed
relationships with their cooperating teachers and students. Providing opportunities for
music education majors to interact with inservice teachers and “real” students sooner may
foster the evolution of a teacher identity. Development of early field experiences and
professional development partnerships may spur the process of music teacher

socialization and identity formation.

217

 

 

6. Music teacher education should undertake the widespread implementation of
Professional Development Partnerships as a way to benefit all persons invested in
music teacher preparation.

Conkling and Henry (1999) reported on professional development partnerships
(PDP) as a model of field experience for music teacher preparation. PDP focus on the
development of the preservice music teacher, the professional development of the
practicing music teacher, and continued inquiry into teaching and learning to improve
music education practice. PDP allow for socialization of the preservice music teacher,
helping them to shift their identity from student to teacher. The collaboration in a PDP
allows for regular dialogue between experienced and novice music educators, which
promotes reflective practice for all parties. Subject matter expertise, collaboration,
ongoing inquiry and learning, and reflection are all part of a PDP for preservice music
teachers and experienced music teachers (Conkling & Henry, 1999, p. 5).

PDP would achieve many of the goals suggested in the aforementioned
implications. PDP provide opportunities for meaningful collaboration between university
supervisors, cooperating teachers, and preservice teachers. They also provide an
opportunity for preservice teachers to interact with students. Through PDP, cooperating
teachers and university supervisors could communicate the characteristics considered
important for preservice teachers to develop. Both cooperating teachers and preservice
teachers’ dispositions could be observed for the purpose of making effective matches in
future student teaching experiences. Critical thinking activities suggested above like

videotaping and reflection can be implemented as part of the PDP.

218

As preservice teachers work together with cooperating teachers and students, their
burgeoning teacher identities will strengthen. This collectivity of inservice teachers will
provide feedback and support that nourishes preservice teachers (Bouij, 1998, 2004;
Waterman, 1984). Cooperating teachers within a PDP can also work with those same
preservice teachers as student teachers in the future. Both the cooperating teacher and
student teacher will have prior knowledge of one another and both will likely already
understand one another’s expectations.

Feimann-Nemser and Buchmann (1987) said that classroom teachers need time to
develop a teacher educator disposition. A PDP provides this opportunity. The PDP may
become an influential experience that helps cooperating teachers gain knowledge of how
to work with adult learners. Serving as a field experience supervisor in a PDP also
prepares a c00perating teacher for working with a student teacher on their own.

Cooperating teachers’ own teacher identities will be nourished through their work
in PDP (Conkling, 2004). PDP provide inservice music teachers the opportunity and
challenge of adopting new roles. By working with preservice music teachers, they may
add new facets to their teacher identities including role model and mentor. They also may
begin reflecting more deeply on their own practice, therefore reaping the same benefits
that these cooperating teachers and other veteran teachers have identified in their work

with novice music teachers (Robinson, 2005).
Suggestions for Future Research

Researchers have suggested that the cooperating teacher be the primary, rather

than the secondary subject, of research on the music student teaching experience (Rideout

219

& Feldman, 2002; Verrastro & Leglar, 1992). Cooperating teachers deserve continued
attention in research as they play a primary role in the student teaching experience. As
Rideout and F eldman (2002) observed, they have too often been treated as an
independent variable over which music teacher educators have no influence. However
this research suggests that, in fact, the influence over cooperating teachers begins when
they are preservice teachers in a music education preparation program. As preservice
music teachers begin developing their teacher identities throughout their preparation, they I
inform their future roles as cooperating teachers.

Cooperating music teachers in this research wanted to discuss their practice and

often thought deeply about their work with student teachers. Researchers should continue

 

asking cooperating teachers about their roles. Some avenues of inquiry may include
examining (1) what cooperating teachers believe will make them better cooperating
teachers, (2) what type of match between teacher persona and style cooperating teachers
believe is most successful in a student teacher/cooperating teacher relationship, and (3)
how colleges and universities can best support cooperating music teachers.

Music teacher identity is a burgeoning area of research, but a particular dearth of
research exists on inservice music teacher identity. Conkling (2004), along with this
current study, provided an initial look at the teacher identities of inservice music teachers
in a PDS model and the student teaching experience. Findings from both of these
research studies suggest that a deeper examination of these models and experiences may
uncover vital knowledge about inservice music teacher identity. Further examination of
how teacher identity is influenced through work with preservice teachers and student

teachers might provide insight into effective retention practices, which have become a

220

concern of researchers (Scheib, 2007). The health of the global profession will benefit by
investigating what nourishes and sustains music teachers over their career.

Future research may consider how the student teaching experience influences the
teacher identities of all three members of the student teaching triad. An investigation of
specifically how the relationship, both positive and negative, between the cooperating
teacher and student teacher influences the student teacher’s developing teacher identity is
needed. The enrichment to one’s teacher identity as a result of serving as a university
supervisor could also be investigated. Though the university supervisor’s, interaction with
the student teacher and cooperating teacher may not be as intensive as the student
teacher/cooperating teacher pair, Liebhaber (2003) said that as a university supervisor she
experienced growth and sustenance in her teacher identity and similar findings may result
from more research.

Krueger (1985) examined the effects of the hidden curriculum on the experiences
of two student teachers. In this study, the hidden curriculum played prominently in the
experiences of the student teachers. In particular, scheduling and curriculum affected the
power sharing practices of the cooperating teachers. Scheduled performances and
festivals determined how and how much power cooperating teachers shared with their
student teachers. The hidden curriculum requires continued attention, including
examination of how student teachers can more fully participate in these aspects of the
hidden curriculum. Researchers may also investigate how the hidden curriculum impacts
inservice teachers’ practices and how its influence may be minimized in order to ensure

an educative experience for teachers and students.

221

 

The persistent influence of student teaching over the career of a music teacher is
intriguing. These cooperating teachers, even 20 years later, still drew on their student
teaching experience to inform their role as a cooperating teacher. Discovering what other
areas of their teaching practice that student teaching permeates would be of interest to
music educators. Researchers may also want to turn their attention to other aspects of
undergraduate music teacher preparation to find out if and how it persists in influence
across the career of a music teacher.

The people and experiences that ignite preservice music teachers’ sense of being a
teacher begs further investigation. Paul et al. (2001) examined the effects of authentic-
context learning (AC L) activities — peer-teaching, early field experiences — on initial
teaching performance in student teaching and suggested further research in this area.
While they found significant differences in ACL levels and initial teaching performance
in instrumental music education majors, their research provided quantitative results. ‘
Though these results are quite valuable, Guyton and Mclntyre stated (1990): “Qualitative
research provides better access to thinking and behavior and holds more promise of
generating information about appropriate roles, responsibilities, and goals” (p. 524).
Qualitative researchers could examine these same questions about the influence of early
field experiences and other activities or models like PDS, portfolios, reflective thinking,
and videotaping that are designed to promote teacher socialization and lead to more
success in student teaching and beyond. The impact of the student teaching experience on
the teacher identity of the student teacher can be examined in a longitudinal study that

follows the student teacher in to the early years of teaching.

222

Zeichner (1987) challenged researchers to continue investigating the ecology of
field experience and determine which part — content, context, or people — contributed the
most to the educative quality of the student teaching experience. This research suggests
that it is the people, followed by context and then content, who contribute the most to the
student teaching experience. The model proposed illustrates that the potential for an
educative experience begins with the characteristics of the people involved. Once their
relationship is formed, then the context and content of the classroom begin exerting their
influence. First, though, it begins with the people and most especially the cooperating
teachers. Music teacher educators must continue to seek ways to highly value and

effectively support the cooperating teachers who accept the challenge of nurturing their

future colleagues.

223

 

Appendix A
Consent Document

“Firecrackers” and “Duds”: Decoding the Relationship between
Cooperating Music Teachers and their Student Teachers

March 1, 2007

Dear,

I write this letter to request your participation in my dissertation research. The
title of my dissertation is “‘Firecrackers’ and ‘Duds’: Decoding the Relationship between
Cooperating Music Teachers and their Student Teachers”. The purpose of the study is to
examine the relationship between cooperating music teachers and their student teachers.
By collecting this data I hope to offer insight that may improve the student teaching
experience for all stake holders.

Attached to this letter is a consent form and signature page, outlining your role in
the study. Thank you for taking your time to consider this request for participation in this

research study. If you are willing to participate in this study, please sign the attached
form and return to me.

Sincerely,

Tami Draves

dravesta@msu.edu

224

“Firecrackers” and “Duds”: Decoding the Relationship between
Cooperating Music Teachers and their Student Teachers

The title of my dissertation is “‘Firecrackers’ and ‘Duds’: Decoding the
Relationship between Cooperating Music Teachers and their Student Teachers”. The
purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between cooperating music teachers
and their student teachers. By collecting this data I hope to offer insight that may improve
the student teaching experience for all stake holders.

Your participation in this study would include interviews and observations. Three
individual interviews and one focus group interview with other cooperating music teacher
participants or student teacher participants, depending on your role, will be conducted.
Additional data collection would involve the researcher observing interaction between the
cooperating teacher and student teacher for one week in the school setting. Observations
may include, but are not limited too, conferences between cooperating teacher and
student teacher, planning for instruction, and teaching. The research project will take
place over twelve weeks of the spring 2007 semester. You will receive a copy of the
interview questions prior to the interviews. Interviews will be recorded on digital voice
recorder and transcribed; you will receive a copy of the transcription and given the
opportunity to ensure the accuracy of the data. You can expect the entire study to take
approximately 8-10 hours of your time — approximately 1 hour for each of the four
interviews and 1 hour for the review each of the four interview transcriptions.

There are no known risks associated with participation in this study. You may
benefit from this study by your reflection on the relationship formed between the
cooperating music teacher and student teacher during the student teaching experience.
Your participation may contribute to the understanding of a successful student teaching
practicum, which may help improve the student teaching experience for all stake holders.

Your participation in this research project is strictly voluntary. You may choose
not to participate or choose to pull out of the study at any time. You may refuse to answer
any question. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent of the law. Your
identity and responses will be kept confidential. Audio taped data will be store in a secure
location, without any identifying information. If you have any questions about this study,
please contact the Responsible Project Investigator: Dr. Mitchell Robinson, Assistant
Professor of Music Education by phone: 517.355.7555, email: mrob@msu.edu, or regular
mail: 208 Music Practice Building, East Lansing, MI 48824. Any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or any dissatisfaction with the study may be
directed — anonymously if you wish - to Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human
Research Protections, (517)355-21 80, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu, mail:
202 Olds Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047.

225

Participant Consent Form
Study Title: “Firecrackers” and “Duds”: Decoding the Relationship between
Cooperating Music Teachers and their Student Teachers

Responsible Project Investigator: Dr. Mitchell Robinson
Secondary Investigator: Tami Draves

Department: Music Education

Participant Name

 

l voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

Participant Signature ‘ Date

 

226

Appendix B
Individual Interview Questions
Student Teacher Interview Questions for Individual Interviews
Interview 1
1. Please describe the type of relationship you have with your cooperating teacher.
2. How have you helped form this relationship?
a. What personal, musical, educational, and professional characteristics of
yours contributed to forming this sort of relationship?
b. What characteristics of the cooperating teacher contributed to forming this
sort of relationship?
3. What type of responsibilities do you currently have as a student teacher?

a. What responsibilities do you hope to have while student teaching?

Interview 2
1. Please describe the relationship you have now with your cooperating teacher.
a. How does it differ from what you expected the relationship to be?
2. What personal, musical, educational, and professional characteristics about you
contributed to the relationship formed?
3. What responsibilities have you had in your cooperating teacher’s classroom?
a. What responsibilities had you hoped to have?
4. How do you wish this relationship was different?
Cooperating Teacher Interview Questions for Individual Interviews
Interview 1

1. How would you describe a poor relationship with a student teacher?

227

 

a. What personal, musical, educational, and professional characteristics of a
student teacher may contribute to forming this sort of relationship?
b. What characteristics of a cooperating teacher may contribute to forming
this sort of relationship?
2. How would you describe a positive working relationship with a student teacher?
a. How do you foster this sort of relationship?
b. What personal, musical, educational, and professional characteristics of a
student teacher contribute to forming this sort of relationship?
c. What characteristics of a cooperating teacher contribute to forming this
sort of relationship?
3. How would you describe your relationship with your cooperating teacher when
you student taught?
a. How has that influenced the decisions you have made as a cooperating
teacher?
b. What other experiences have contributed to the formation of the
relationship you have with student teachers?
4. How do you share power with your student teachers?
Interview 2
1. Please describe the most satisfying relationship you have had thus far with a
student teacher.
2. Please describe the relationship you had with your most current student teacher.
a. How does it differ from student teacher relationships you have had in the

past?

228

What personal, musical, educational, and professional characteristics about this
student teacher contributed to the relationship formed?
What responsibilities did the student teacher have in your classroom?

a. What responsibilities had you hoped to see them take on?

How do you wish this relationship had been different?

229

Appendix C

Procedure for Focus Group Interviews and Interview Questions
Please find attached the questions for the focus roup interview to be conducted A ril 9,
2007. The interview will take place at 7pm at h in *

Ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants is very important. When
discussing others in the interview, such as your cooperating teacher, please do not
identify them by name. No information from this focus group interview may be collected
and disseminated, in any form, elsewhere. Protecting the participants and information
gathered is crucial to the integrity of this study. Thank you for your cooperation.

  

Student Teacher Focus Group Interview Questions

1. How does your cooperating teacher share power with you in the classroom?

b. How do performances affect that power-sharing?

c. How do you perceive that this is different from other types of classrooms?
2. How often do you get to talk with your cooperating teacher(s) in a meaningful

way?
a. Do you wish this was different?
b. How has it affected the relationship between you and your cooperating
teacher(s)?

3. What is the most difficult thing about being a student teacher?

4. What is the most rewarding thing about being a student teacher?

Procedure for Focus Group Interviews and Interview Questions

Please find attached the questions for the focus group interview to be conducted May 16,
2007. The interview will take place at 6:30 m at in the

  

Ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants is very important. When
discussing others in the interview, such as your student teacher, please do not identify

230

them by name. No information from this focus group interview may be collected and
disseminated, in any form, elsewhere. Protecting the participants and information
gathered is crucial to the integrity of this study. Thank you for your cooperation.
Cooperating Teacher Focus Group Interview Questions
1. How did the performance based nature of the music classroom impact/effect your
relationship with your student teacher?
a. How do you perceive that this is different from other types of classrooms?
2. How often did you get to talk with your student teacher in a meaningful way?
a. Do you wish this was different?
b. How did it affect the relationship between you and your student teacher?

3. What is the most difficult thing about being a cooperating teacher?

4. What is the most rewarding thing about being a cooperating teacher?

231

Appendix D
Sample Interview Transcript
I: How would you describe a poor relationship with a student teacher?

S: Probably one where there was such a poor level of communication that it inhibited any
kind of mentorship or any kind of education. I think that would be the first thing. With
my first student teacher, I was young. It was only my second year teaching. He would say
things that to me were really offensive about my program and my teaching, but I am sure
he wasn’t trying to offend me. But I took them offensively, so we didn’t have a great
relationship. This was not a person that I would spend any time with if he was not my
student teacher. For me that was hard, and is probably my own shortcoming. In my own
opinion, the reason I have such a good relationship with Ryan is because I am friends
with him. I am able to be his mentor and say things to him and he doesn’t take any
offense to them and vice versa and we get along really well. We were friends before he
student taught here. For me, that works really well. Maybe if we weren’t so close in age,
if I were older, that might be different. But for me right now at this point in my career, it
helps me to be able to be friends with the person and know that there is a relationship
there outside of student teaching.

I: You mentioned personal things, and being friends. Any professional, musical, or
educational characteristics that a student teacher brings that might contribute to a poor
relationship?

S: This might not be a relationship, but I can speak about my colleague next door. His
student teacher is late all the time, doesn’t tuck his shirt in, and drives him crazy. That
kind of professional thing, if you are not on time, not prepared, that kind of stuff could
definitely get in the way of any kind of good relationship. Not necessarily musical, I
assume that when somebody comes in to being a student teacher that they have very little
skills when it comes to being on the podium and teaching a class or rehearsing a group.
So I kind of assume that they are going to have very little skills in that department. If they
are advanced, that is great, but I assume that is why they are here, they don’t have those
skills. It helps me when a student takes an interest in learning secondary instruments. My
first student teacher had no interest whatsoever. I mentioned to him all the time to try
playing baritone or saxophone. He always played trombone or clarinet, which is good,
that’s another one. There didn’t seem to be any interest in knowing how to teach how to
play flute or anything else. When someone takes an interest, like my student teacher right
now who tries to play every instrument every week. From a musical standpoint that to me
says something about their level of commitment, level of musicianship or level of
preparedness.

What was the other one? Musical, professional?

232

Appendix E
Sample Interview Transcript with Codes

1: How would you describe a poor relationship with a student
teacher?

S: [Probably one where there was such a poor level of
communication that it inhibited any kind of mentorship or any

kind oreducationli think. .that_w_<?_qld.b9__fl19-fir.s_t .thiaeMithmy

first student teacher, I was young. It was only my second year

teaching-11H; uguldéaxthingfithet £9199 werersallyeffeneiys _____

about my program and my teaching, but I am sure he wasn’t
trying to offend me. But I took them offensively, so we didn’t
have a great relationshiplll‘his was not a person that I would

.................................................................

spend any time with if he was not my student teacher. [For me

that was hard, and is probably my own shortcoming- lllt Malia jjjjj

opinion, the reason I have such a good relationship with Ryan is
because I am friends with himljl am able to be his mentor and

say things to him and he doesn’t take any offense to them and

vice versa and we get along really WC“llW.¢..W¢F9fllfifl§$_l?_¢f9[¢___..---“
he student taught here- 15901.19- .thatwrks -.rsal.|_y_we_l.l.-_ Mame if _ ..

we weren’t so close in age, if I were older, that might be
different. [But for me right now at this point in my career, it
helps me to be able to be friends with the person and know that

there is a relationship there outside of student teaching. I ______________

I: You mentioned personal things, and being friends. Any
professional, musical, or educational characteristics that a
student teacher brings that might contribute to a poor
relationship?

S: This might not be a relationship, but I can speak about my
colleague next door. [His student teacher is late all the time,
doesn’t tuck his shirt in, and drives him crazy. That kind of
professional thing, if you are not on time, not prepared, that
kind of stuff could definitely get in the way of any kind of good

relationship; INS?!_9§9§$.$§Ell>_’.QQSIQQU-?§§9919-Il!§l.YYh9fi .............

somebody comes in to being a student teacher that they have
very little skills when it comes to being on the podium and
teaching a class or. . . rehearsing a group. So I kind of assume
that they are going to have very little skills in that department.
If they are advanced, that is great, but I assume that is why they

are here, they don’t have those skills. [It__l_r_e__lps__rr_1_ewhenau. ___________ "

233

..Eomment: Valuing, l

..vrComment: Friend, ‘
jrCommentCTmultil

[Warm i

 

Comment:
Communication

Comment:
Experience

 

 

 

 

Respect J

Comment: Personal l
Connection,
LPersonality

 

 

LPersonal Connection 4

 

 

roles-mentor, CT/ST
L line

 

#

 

Prior rel/knowledge

 

 

Comment: Friend.
Personal Connection

 

 

Professional char —
preparation, dress

.-[commene ]

 

 

Comment: Musical
char

 

 

Appendix F

Preliminary Code List

Relationshigs
Personal Connection

Communication
Personality Match
Continues beyond ST-ing
Trust

Respect

Valuing

Friend

Prior relationship

CT Characteristics

0 Personal

O

0000

O

Nurture
Support
Accepting
Flexible
Open
Controlling

0 Professional

0

00000

0

Continued learning

Var. of resources
Accessible

Plans

Organized

CT experience

Models prof. relationships

0 Musical

0

Knowledgeable

0 Educational

O

0000

0

Provide din-Expectations?
Modeling

Feedback (developmental)
Differentiates for ST
Reflective

Explains

ST Characteristics
0 Personal

O

0000

Motivation
Initiative

' Commitment

Interest
Confidence

234

 

o Enthusiasm

0 Flexible
0 Professional

0 Responsible

o Reliable

0 Preparation

0 Communication

0 Dress
0 Musical

0 Pedagogy
Resources
Singing
Secondary instruments
New ideas

0 Piano skills
0 Educational

0 Open
Willing to Learn
Adapt/adjust
Experience
Accepts direction

0 Asks questions
In uential ex eriences-C T
Student teaching
Collegial relationships
Practicum Supervision
MAT program
Mentoring
Power sharing
Individual teaching
Sectional teaching
Lesson planning
Gradual progression- tchg. resp.
Classroom management
Administrative responsibilities
Split Placement
Student/teacher
Team-teaching
Collaborative partnership
CT gives ST ownership, shares
responsibility Unsupervised ST
Festival
Performance Responsibility
Non-perf. responsibility

0000 0000

235

 

Others

Mutual Learning

Professional Development

CT multiple roles — mentor, role model, colleague
CT-balance direction and responsibility

ST future plans

ST/CT line

Awareness of other relationships

CT gives professional help

CT time/effort

ST relationship with students — knowledge, interest, rapport
CT balance direction/responsibility/intervention
CT isolation

ST developing awareness

Teacher Identity — personal, style, thinking,
Multi-tasking, extras

236

Appendix G

Final Code List

Cooperating Teach er (C T 1 Characteristics

Personal/Professional

Nurture

Support

Gives professional help
Accepting

Flexible

Open

Controlling

Continued learning

Variety of resources
Accessible

Plans

Organized

Cooperating teacher experience
Models professional relationships
Gives time/effort

Musical

Knowledgeable

Educational

Provide direction/expectations
Modeling

Feedback (developmental)
Differentiates for student teachers
Reflective

Explains

Promote student teacher grth

Influential experiences

Student teaching

Collegial relationships

Practicum supervision

Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) program
Mentoring

Workshop

Student Teach er (ST) Characteristics

Personal/Professional

Motivation
Initiative
Commitment
Interest

237

 

Confidence
Enthusiasm
Flexible
Responsible
Reliable
Preparation
Communication
Dress

Musical

Aural skills

Singing

Secondary instruments
Piano skills

Educational

Open

Willing to learn
Adapt/adjust
Experience

Accepts direction

Asks questions
Pedagogy

New ideas

Resources

Classroom management

Relationships

Personal connection
Communication

Personality match

Prior relationship/knowledge
ST/CT line

Time

ST fisture plans

Continues beyond Student teaching

.Trust

Respect
Valuing
Friend
Colleague
Mentor
Role Model

Power Sharing

Split placement

Teaching

CT balance direction/responsibility/intervention

238

CT gives ST ownership/shares responsibility
Lesson planning
Gradual progression
Individual teaching
Sectional teaching
Festival
Performance responsibility
Non-performance responsibility
- Unsupervised student teacher
Classroom management
0 CT balance direction/responsibility/intervention
0 CT gives ST ownership/shares responsibility
Administrative responsibilities
Continuum
o Student/teacher
o Team-teaching
0 Collaborative partnership

 

Iggyher Identitv
Student teacher identity
0 Persona
0 Style
0 Thinking
0 ST developing awareness
o Multi-tasking
- Extras

0 ST relationship with students
Cooperating teacher identity (new layers & benefits)
Mentor
Role model
Mutual Learning
Personal Satisfaction
Professional Development
Professional Responsibility
CT isolation
Craft knowledge

239

REFERENCES

Abell, S. K., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J ., McInemey, W. D., & O’Brien, D. G. (1995).
“Somebody to count on”: Mentor/intem relationships in a beginning teacher
internship program. Teacher and Teacher Education, 11(2), 173-188.

Agee, J. M. (1996, December). “I was kind of hoping for a woman”: Issues of lived

experience in the preservice-cooperating teacher relationship. English Education,
28(4), 280-302.

Applegate, J. H. (1987). Early field experiences: Three viewpoints. In M. Haberman & J.
M. Backus (Eds), Advances in teacher education: Vol. 3 (pp. 75-93). Norwood,
NJ: Abex.

Arnold, P. (2002). Cooperating teachers’ professional growth through supervision of
student teachers and participation in a collegial study group. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 29(2), 123-13 2.

Asmus, E. (2000, Fall). The need for research in music teacher preparation. Journal of
Music Teacher Education, 10(1), 5.

Berthelotte, M. B. (2007). Co-operating teachers’ and student teachers’ expectations
about instrumental music student teaching in an Ontario placement. (Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University).

Blocker, L. S. & Swetnam, L. A. (1995, Winter). The selection and evaluation of
cooperating teachers: A status report. Teacher Educator, 30(3), 19-30.

Borko, H. & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university
supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518.

Bouij, C. (1998). Swedish music teachers in training and professional life. International
Journal of Music Education, 32, 24-31.

Bouij, C. (2004, December). Two theoretical perspectives on the socialization of music
teachers. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 3(3).

httpz/lmas.siue.edu/ACT/v3/Bouij04.pdf

Bowles, C. & Runnels, B. D. (1998). The need for collaboration in the student teaching
experience. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 8(1), 15-24.

Brophy, T. (2002, November-December). Toward improving music teacher education.
Arts Education Policy Review, 104(2), 3-8.

240

Broyles, J. W. (1997). Effects of videotape analysis on role development of student
teachers in music. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1997).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3.

Capa, Y. & Loadman, W. E. (2004, April). Evaluation of mentoring practices
experienced by student teachers during a teacher preparation program. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association,
San Diego, CA.

Carper, J. (1970). The elements of identification with an occupation. In H. S. Becker
(Ed.), Sociological work (pp. 177-188). Chicago: Aldine Publications.

Clark, C. M. (2002, Spring). New questions about student teaching. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 29(2), 77-80.

Clarke, A. (2001). Characteristics of cooperating teachers. Canadian Journal of
Education, 26(2), 237—256.

Conkling, SW. (2003, Winter). Uncovering preservice music teachers’ reflective

thinking: Making sense of learning to teach. Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education, 155, 11-23.

Conkling, S. W. (2004, December). Music teacher practice and identity in professional
development partnerships. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education,
3(3). http://mas.siue.edu/ACT/v3/Conk1ing04.pdf

Conkling, S.W. & Henry, W. (1999, March-April). Professional development

partnerships: A new model for music teacher preparation. Arts Education Policy
Review, [00(4), 19-23.

Connor, K. & Killmer, N. (1995, October). Evaluation of cooperating teacher

effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Educational
Research Association, Chicago.

Conway, C. (2002, Spring). Perceptions of beginning teachers, their mentors, and
administrators regarding preservice music teacher preparation. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 50(1), 20-36.

Conway, C. M. (2003). Great beginnings for music teachers: Mentoring and supporting
new teachers. Reston, VA: The National Association for Music Education.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

241

 

Daane, C. J. (2000, Spring). Clinical master teacher program: Teachers’ and interns’

perceptions of supervision with limited university intervention. Action in Teacher
Education, 22(1), 93- 1 00.

Drafall, L. E. (1991). The use of developmental supervision with student teachers in
secondary choral music: Two case studies. (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52,
3852.

Draves, T. J. (in press). “Firecrackers” and “duds”: Cooperating music teachers’
perspectives on their relationships with student teachers. Journal of Music
Teacher Education.

Duling, E. (2000, Fall-Winter). Student teachers’ descriptions and perceptions of their
mentors. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 19(1), 17-21.

Elliott, B. & Calderhead, J. (1993). Mentoring for teacher development: Possibilities and
caveats. In D. Mclntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds), Mentoring: perspectives
on school-based teacher education (pp. 166-189). London: Kogan Page.

Emerson, R., F retz, R. & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Fairbanks, M., Freedman, P., & Kahn, C. (2000, March-April). The role of effective
mentors in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 102-112.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1987). When is student teaching teacher
education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(4), 255-273.

Ferguson, K. (2003). Becoming a string teacher. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 15 7, 38-48.

F rederickson, W. E. & Pembrook, R. G. (1999, Summer). “I got to teach all day!”

(Perceptions of student teachers). Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, 141, 36-40.

Fuller, F. F. (1969, March). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization.
American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.

Ganser, T. (1997). The contribution of service as a cooperating teacher and teacher

mentor to the professional development of teachers. Paper presented at American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Garland, C. & Shippy, V. (1991). Improving the student teaching context: A research
based program for cooperating teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 13(1) 37-
41.

242

 

Gray, J. (1999, February). A collaborative model for the supervision of student teaching.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, Washington DC.

Griffin, G. A. (1986). Issues in student teaching. In J.D. Raths & L. G. Katz (Eds),
Advances in teacher education: Vol. 2 (pp. 61-74). Norwood, NJ: Abex.

Guyton, E. & Mclntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W.R.
Houston, M. Haberrnan, & J. Sikula (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher
education: A project of the association of teachers educators (pp.514-534). New
York: Macmillan. '

Hamlin, K. (1997, Winter). Partnerships that support the growth of supervising teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(1), 77-88.

Hawkey, K. (1997). Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: A literature
review and agenda for research. Journal of Teacher Education, 48, 325-335.

Hawkey, K. (1998). Mentor pedagogy and student teacher professional development: A
study of two mentoring relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(6),
65 7-670.

Isbell, D. S. (2006'). Socialization and occupational identity among preservice music
teachers enrolled in traditional baccalaureate programs. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Colorado at Boulder, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International,
67, 10.

Isbell, D. S. (2007, September). Musicians and teachers: The socialization and
occupational identity of preservice music teachers. Paper presented at the
Symposium on Music Teacher Education, Greensboro, NC. ,

Kahn, B. (2001, Winter). Portrait of success: Cooperating teachers and the student
teaching experience. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 48-58.

Kelly, S. N. (2000). Preservice music education students’ fears of the internship and

initial inservice teaching experience. Contributions to Music Education, 27(1),
41-50.

Kent, S. I. (2000, Spring). Supervision of student teachers: Practices of cooperating
teachers prepared in a clinical supervision course. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 16(3), 228-244.

Koerner, ME. (1992). The cooperating teacher: An ambivalent participant in student
teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 323-331.

243

Koerner, M., Rust, F. O., & Baumgartner, F. (2002, Spring). Exploring roles in student
teaching placement. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 35-58.

Krueger, P. J. (1985). Influences of the hidden curriculum upon the perspectives of music
student teachers: An ethnography. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 1223.

Krueger, P. J. (1987, Summer). Ethnographic research methodology in music education.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 35(2), 69-77.

Krueger, P. J. (2006, January). Empowering music student teachers: Cooperating teacher
views. Music Educators Journal, 92(3), 56-61.

Kruse, N. B. (2007). Andragogy and music: Canadian and American models of music
learning among adults. (Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University).

Laboskey, V. K. & Richert, A. E. (2002, Spring). Identifying good student teaching
placements: A programmatic perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(2), 7-

34. I

Legette, R. M. (1997, F all-Winter). Enhancing the music student-teaching experience: A

research review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 16(1), 25-
28.

 

Liebhaber, B. G. (2003, February). Mentoring in music education the collaborative
relationship among the student teacher, cooperating teacher and college
supervisor: An action research study. (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 437.

Madsen, C. K. & Kaiser, K. A. (1999, Spring/Summer). Pre-intemship fears of student
teaching. Update: Applications for Research in Music Education, 17(2), 27-32.

Mark, D. (1998). The music teacher’s dilemma: Musician or teacher? International
Journal of Music Education, 32, 3-22.

Martin, S. (1994). The mentoring process in pre-service teacher education. School
Organisation, 14(3), 269-277.

Maynard, T. & Furlong, J. (1993). Learning to teach and models of mentoring. In
D. Mclntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-
based teacher education (pp. 69-85). London: Kogan Page.

McCall, G. J. & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of
human associations in everyday life. New York: Free Press.

244

Mclntyre, D., Byrd, D. & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J.
Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds), Handbook of research on teacher
education, 2'"! edition: A project of the Association of Teacher Educators (pp.
171-193). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Mclntyre , D. & Hagger, H. (1993). Teachers’ expertise and models of mentoring. In
D. Melntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-
based teacher education (pp. 86- 102). London: Kogan Page.

Morin, F. (2000, Fall). Developing collaborative partnerships for student teaching in
music. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 10(1), 6-15.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher ’3
life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Paul, S. J. (1998, Summer). The effects of peer teaching experiences on the professional
role development of undergraduate instrumental music education majors. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, I 3 7, 73-92.

Paul, S. J ., Teachout, D. J., Sullivan, J. M., Kelly, S. N., Bauer, W. I., & Raiber, M. A.
(2001, Summer). Authentic-context learning activities in instrumental music
teacher education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(2), 136-145.

Paul, S. J., Teachout, D. J., Sullivan, J. M., Kelly, S. N., Bauer, W. I., & Raiber, M. A.
(2002). Role development activities and initial teaching performance.
Contributions to Music Education, 29(1), 85-95.

Raiber, M., Teachout, D., Killian, J., Dye, K., & Vandehey, P. (2007, September).
Variations on a theme: Applications of social role development theory in music

teacher education. Paper presented at the Symposium on Music Teacher
Education, Greensboro, NC.

Richards, C. & Killen, R. (1994, July). Collaborative solutions to key problems in the
practicum. Paper presented at the 24th annual conference of the Australian
Teacher Education Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Rideout, R. & Feldman, A. (2002). Research in music student teaching. In R. Colwell &
C. P. Richardson (Eds), New handbook of research on music teaching and

learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 874-886).
New York: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, B. (1991). Music teacher education as identity construction. International
Journal of Music Education, 18, 30-39.

245

 

Robinson, M. (2005, Spring). The impact of beginning music teacher assessment on the
assessors: Notes from experienced teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education, 164, 49-60.

Roulston, K., Legette, R. & Womack, S. T. (2005, March). Beginning music teachers’

perceptions of the transition from university to teaching in schools. Music
Education Research, 7(1), 59-82.

Sanders, M., Dowson, M., & Sinclair, C. (2005). What do associate teachers do anyway?
A comparison of theoretical conceptualizations in the literature and observed
practices in the field. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 706-738.

Scheib, J. W. (2007, September). Music teacher socialization and identity formation:
Redesigning teacher education and professional development to enhance career

satisfaction. Paper presented at the Symposium on Music Teacher Education,
Greensboro, NC.

Schleuter, L. (1991). Student teachers’ preactive and postactive curricular thinking.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(1), 48-65.

Schleuter, L. (1999). Elementary general music cooperating teachers’ in-conference
sharing of curriculum. Contributions to Music Education, 26(2), 78-104.

Schmidt, M. E. (1994a). Defining “good” music teaching: Four student teachers’ beliefs
and practices. Paper presented at the Qualitative Methodologies in Music
Education Conference, Urbana, IL.

Schmidt, M. E. (1994b). Learning from experience: Influences in music student teachers’
perceptions and practices (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1994).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 936.

Schmidt, M. E. & Knowles, J. G. (1994, April). Four women ’s stories of “failure " as
beginning teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Smith, D. J. (1990, June). Intern satisfaction with cooperating teacher supervision.
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 36(2), 133-140.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Stanford, R L., Banaszak, R. A., McClelland, S. M., Rountree, B. S. & Wilson, E. K.
(1994, February). Empowering cooperating teachers: The University of A labama
clinical master teacher (CMT) program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA.

246

Stanulis, R. N. & Russell, D. (2000). “Jumping in”: trust and communication in
mentoring student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 65-80.

Stegman, S. F. (2001, Fall). Perceptions of student teachers in secondary choral
classrooms. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 11(1).

Sudzina, M. R. & Coolican, M. J. (1994, February). Mentor or tormentor: The role of the
c00perating teacher in student teacher success. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Atlanta, GA.

Veal, M. L. & Rikard, L. (1998, March-April). Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on the
student teaching triad. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(2), 108-119.

Verrastro, R. E. & Leglar, M. (1992). Music teacher education. In R. Colwell (Ed.),
Handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music
Educators National Conference (pp. 676-696). New York: Schirrner Books.

Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology of individualism. New York: Praeger.

Watts, D. (1987). Student teaching. In M. Habennan & J. M. Backus (Eds), Advances in
teacher education: Vol. 3 (pp. 151-167). Norwood, NJ: Abex

Weasmer, J. & Woods, A. M. (2003, March-April). The role of the host teacher in the
student teaching experience. The Clearing House, 76(4), 174-177.

Woodford, P. (2002). The social construction of music teacher identity in
undergraduate music education majors. In R. Colwell & C. P. Richardson (Eds),
New handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the
Music Educators National Conference (pp. 675-694). New York: Oxford
University Press.

Woolley, S. L. (1997, February). What student teachers tell us. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Washington, DC.

Yourn, B. R. (2000). Learning to teach: Perspectives from beginning music teachers.
Music Education Research, 2(2), 181-192.

Zeichner, K. (1987). The ecology of field experiences: Toward an understanding of the
role of field experience in teacher development. In M. Haberrnan & J. M. Backus

(Eds), Advances in teacher education: Vol. 3 (pp. 94-117). Norwood, NJ: Abex.

Zeichner, K. (2002, Spring). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 59-64.

247

 

M GAS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Ill/1111111121Ill/lllllllllllllll ll llllllll

3 1 93 02956 5631