How Cooperating Teacher and University Supervisor Characteristics and Expectations Are Associated With Elementary Teaching Candidates' Opportunity to Learn and Knowledge for Teaching

• In Event: Reimagining Clinical Experiences and Improving Opportunity to Learn for Both Teachers and Students at Public Schools

Abstract

Objective. Research indicates that teachers are the most important school-related factor affecting student achievement (Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). In addition, previous studies have examined how the characteristics of student teaching placements are associated with beginning teachers’ retention and effectiveness (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2009; Ronfeldt, 2012). But fewer studies have considered how such placements seem to affect more proximate outcomes such as novice teachers’ knowledge or instruction. This study addresses this gap by investigating how cooperating teacher and university supervisor characteristics and expectations are associated with 197 elementary teaching candidates’ opportunity-to-learn (OTL) mathematics and English language arts (ELA) instructional strategies, mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT), and pedagogical content knowledge in ELA (PCK-ELA).

Perspective. We ground this study in cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), which views learning as a collective activity that occurs through social interaction in particular settings and is mediated by individual and institutional histories and conceptual and material tools (Engeström, 1999; Wenger, 1998). CHAT calls attention to the interaction between elementary candidates’ conceptions of teaching and learning and the tools and social practices available in their student teaching placements. Candidates’ beliefs shape whether and how they appropriate the instructional tools and practices promoted in the school classrooms in which they learn to teach. In addition, these tools and social practices are influenced by the characteristics and expectations of the cooperating teachers and university supervisors who work with them (Grossman et al., 2000; Leko & Brownell, 2010; Thompson, Windschitl, & Braaten, 2013).

Data Sources. Our sample consists of 197 elementary teaching candidates from four universities, 81 university supervisors, and 120 cooperating teachers. Each of the teaching candidates completed three surveys during their final year of teacher preparation (2015-16): a teaching candidate survey, an MKT survey, and a PCK-ELA survey. The university supervisors and cooperating teachers each completed one survey in 2015-16 about their practices and expectations for student teachers.

Methods. We used multiple regression to study the main outcomes as a function of several independent variables (including individual candidate characteristics and characteristics and expectations of university supervisors and cooperating teachers) and interactions among these variables. Our primary outcomes were candidates’ OTL mathematical and ELA instructional strategies, MKT, and PCK ELA. All models included a vector of controls for candidate attributes (e.g., the candidate’s ACT/SAT score, selectivity of undergraduate institution, undergraduate grade point average) and school attributes (e.g., student race/ethnicity, student eligibility for free/reduced lunch, school size, urbanicity).

Findings. Our findings indicate that cooperating teachers’ mathematics instructional practices seemed to affect elementary candidates’ OTL in math. In addition, university supervisors’ beliefs about ELA were associated with elementary candidates’ beliefs about ELA.

Significance. This study provides evidence about the characteristics and expectations of effective cooperating teachers or university supervisors. Further, our findings will inform teacher education programs in regard to hiring and training cooperating teachers and university supervisors who are likely to help elementary candidates acquire knowledge and learn to engage in mathematics and ELA instruction.

Authors

• Jason Miller, University of Virginia

• Veronica Katz, University of Virginia

• Peter A. Youngs, University of Virginia