"Symbolic Boundaries" and the Clinical Preparation of Preservice Teachers

• In Event: Negotiating the Boundaries of Student Teaching: A Reconsideration of Shared Clinical Practice

Abstract

Purpose
This paper’s purpose is to understand and explore three “symbolic boundaries” in the clinical preparation of pre-service teachers. As a joint AACTE and NEA (2010) policy brief on clinical practice in teacher education authored by Grossman argued, “Designing high-quality clinical experiences for prospective teachers requires bridging a number of divides: between professional knowledge and skilled practice; between universities and PK-12 schools; and between the settings in which prospective teachers learn and the contexts of their early years of teaching” (p. 1). We understand these three divides as symbolic boundaries, and in this paper, we explore these boundaries to understand how they are situated in clinical practice.

Conceptual Perspective
Social science research has conceptualized boundaries in different ways. We understand boundaries as symbolic: “Symbolic boundaries are conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space” (Lamont & Molnár, 2002, p. 168). This understanding builds on the work of scholars such as Durkheim (1965) who theorized “classification systems and their relationship with the moral order”, and Weber (1978) who theorized “the production and reproduction of inequality” (Lamont, Pendergrass, & Pachuki, 2015, p. 850). For this paper, we extend the work of these scholars to conceptualize boundaries in relation to divides that exist in the clinical preparation of pre-service teachers.

Literature Review
We understand clinical practice in teacher education as opportunities for pre-service teachers “to gain experience in authentic settings of actual teaching practice”; however, “One of the challenges to designing professional education around the development of clinical practice is the organizational and institutional fragmentation that surrounds those who are learning to teach” (AACTE and NEA, 2010, p. 1). Labaree (1996) perceived the fragmentation (or, as we argue, “symbolic boundaries”) between university programs and PK-12 schools in contending “A primary function of the education school is to provide a border crossing between these two countries, each with its own distinctive language and culture and with its own peculiar social structure” (p. 42). Feiman-Nemser (2001) affirmed this view by advocating for stronger relationships between academic courses and field experiences. Without relationships, “there is no joining of forces around a common agenda and no sharing of expertise” (p. 1020). These relationships and agendas are important for teacher educators in universities and PK-12 schools as they aim to link pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge and skilled practice and prepare them for the first years of teaching. Pre-service teacher preparation is complex and requires several distinct yet related forces to work cooperatively (Darling-Hammond, 2006). Symbolic boundaries, therefore, help us understand existing divides in teacher education with the goal of strengthening preparation programs for prospective teachers.

Significance
This paper enhances understanding of three symbolic boundaries that exist in the preparation of pre-service teachers. Scholars argue that when these boundaries are bridged through collaboration between universities and school districts, teacher education programs can be more effective in preparing teachers. Such collaborative work will build a strong foundation to meet the demands of teaching and learning in the 21st century.

Authors

• Don McClure, St. John's University

• Bilge Cerezci, St. John's University