Paper Summary

Student Teaching and Supervisors: Goals and Questions

Sat, April 14, 4:05 to 5:35pm, Vancouver Convention Centre, Floor: Second Level, West Room 222

Abstract

Objectives: For many tenure-line faculty members in teacher preparation programs, curricular expectations of student teaching is clearly structured. Yet few studies have assessed implementation of curriculum by those who actually supervise STs. This presentation addresses how supervisors understand the curricular mandates they are expected to incorporate and how they assess the success of STs they oversee in light of the curriculum they actually bring to their supervisory practice.

Perspectives: The structure of student teaching, including time spent in classrooms, classroom management, and planning/presenting lessons, is well-described (Ajayi & Lee, 2005; Cuenca, 2010; Fernandiz & Erbilgin, 2009; NRC, 2010). STs are supported by both cooperating teachers and supervisors who act as liaisons between university programs and schools, although recent studies reflect on the “ambiguity” of the role of supervisors in terms of the ultimate goals of supervisory experiences (Cuenca, 2010; Gimbert & Nolan, 2003; NRC, 2010) and alignment of supervisory goals with conceptual frameworks of teacher preparation programs (Gimbert & Nolan, 2003; Rennert-Ariev, 2008; Slick, 1998; Tillema, 2009; Zimpher & Howey, 2005).
Teacher preparation programs make assumptions about student teaching experiences, yet, other than specific, easily-measured skills (Rennert-Ariev, 2008; Wang,
Spalding, Klecka, Lin, Wan, & Odell, 2011) and ways supervisors interact with STs (Bates, Ramirez, & Drits, 2009; Trout, 2008), few works discuss curricular aspects of student teaching/supervision paradigms. Thus, alignment of actual versus expected curriculum sheds light on specific challenges in the teacher education paradigm.

Methods: Twenty-four supervisors who oversee the practice over 300 STs/year were invited to participate in an interview discussing how they understand and implement student teaching curriculum. Twelve supervisors (tenure-line faculty, retired administrators and teachers, university administrators) volunteered and were interviewed. Supervisory frameworks surrounding curricular presentation were identified through phenomenological analysis (Creswell, 2007) of supervisors’ discussions of practice and interactions with STs, cooperating teachers, and other university faculty. Interview responses were organized and categorized in an NVivo database allowing identification of thematic structures across supervisor type. We employed the constant comparison method to identify core concerns and responses (Charmaz, 2006; Richards, 2005), illustrating supervisors’ understandings of interplay between experience, practice, and university perspectives in terms of curricular implementation.

Results: Inconsistent presentation of and support for university-supported student teacher curriculum is the norm. Retired teachers as supervisors reflect their own experiences in their practice while devaluing conceptual frameworks and theoretical underpinnings for teaching. Little attention is paid to inductive and deductive processes through which teachers tie broad, theoretical and research-based practices to realities of classroom experiences. Faculty and retired administrators supervisors articulate the coordination of teacher preparation program goals with classroom realities.

Significance: Increasing calls for alternative teacher preparation models, including extended clinical experiences for preservice and STs, require that teacher preparation programs improve oversight of supervisory models. Strong theoretical foundations are associated with improved clinical practice (Zeichner, 2011), yet if the practice of supervision does not explicitly tie theory to practice, novice teacher initiation may be compromised. This work questions assumptions we make about supervision and the curricular values that may or may not be shared.

Authors