The Role of Cooperating Teachers in Preparing Preservice Teachers: A District-Wide Portrait

• In Event: 34.047 - Mentoring Matters, but How? Conceptualizing Mentoring Effectiveness From Preservice to In-Service Teaching

Abstract

Student teaching has long been viewed as a cornerstone of teacher preparation, but recently has become the subject of multiple reform and policy debates (NRC 2010, NCATE 2010). Much of this discourse emphasizes structural dimensions of teacher preparation rather than specific features of student teaching that most influence teacher candidates’ (TCs’) learning. Cooperating teachers (CTs), in particular, are viewed as key contributors to the student teaching experience (e.g Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1993; Clift & Brady, 2005; Grossman, 2010; Zeichner, 1980). Despite being viewed as central partners in teacher education, we know little about whom CTs are, the kinds of mentoring they provide, or their effects on TCs.
Increasingly states require a prerequisite number of years of teaching experience and subject matter expertise in order to become a cooperating teacher (CAEP 2013; NCATE, 2010). Yet little empirical evidence exists to suggest that teaching experience or effectiveness results in stronger mentoring. In fact, it’s possible that being an effective PK-12 teacher may be less important than and/or possibly unrelated to a CT’s capacity to effectively facilitate a TC’s development. This dual role of CT as both a model of effective instruction and a facilitative coach is central to this paper’s framework.
Data were collected from online surveys that were administered to all TC’s student teaching in a large, Midwest, urban district. Pre/post student teaching surveys targeted TCs’ perceptions about mentoring experiences and how instructionally prepared they felt across various instructional domains. TC Survey data were linked to district administrative and evaluation data on CTs and placement schools. Our analytic sample consisted of 583 TCs, 44 preparation programs, and 463 CTs. We constructed Rasch measures about TC perceptions of preparedness and CT mentoring. T-tests were used to compare CTs to non-CTs. Two-level, multilevel regression models were used to estimate post-student teaching preparedness as a function of characteristics of CTs and their coaching practices, controlling for pre-student teaching preparedness, TC, CT and program covariates.
We found that CT selection may be more purposeful than what is often assumed—CTs were significantly more experienced and effective across multiple measures than non-CTs. In addition to being promising models of teaching, both TCs and CTs agreed that, on average, CTs provided helpful and extensive coaching; although CTs perceived their coaching practices more favorably than TCs. Finally, results suggested that that both CT roles-- model and coach, matter. Specifically, TCs felt better prepared to teach in some domains of instruction when their CTs modeled more effective teaching and received stronger district observational/evaluation ratings; and when they received stronger instructional support and feedback, along with a balance of autonomy and encouragement from CTs.
An implication of this study is that CT recruitment should target teachers who are instructionally effective but who are also skilled coaches. While the programs in the district we studied are currently having some success recruiting CTs who are instructionally effective, they would likely benefit from providing more formal training to CTs about facilitative coaching, especially given that most CTs report little to no such prior training.

Authors

• Kavita Kapadia Matsko, National Louis University

• Matthew Ronfeldt, University of Michigan

• Hillary L. Greene, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Michelle Reininger, Stanford University

• Stacey L. Brockman, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor