32
This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut] On: 31 August 2013, At: 03:39 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20 Doing Reflective Supervision with Student Teachers in a Professional Development School Culture Eileen Mary Weiss & Stephen Weiss Published online: 18 Aug 2010. To cite this article: Eileen Mary Weiss & Stephen Weiss (2001) Doing Reflective Supervision with Student Teachers in a Professional Development School Culture, Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 2:2, 125-154, DOI: 10.1080/14623940120071343 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940120071343 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Doing Reflective Supervision with Student Teachers in a Professional Development School Culture

  • Upload
    stephen

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 31 August 2013, At: 03:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

Reflective Practice:International andMultidisciplinary PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crep20

Doing Reflective Supervisionwith Student Teachers in aProfessional DevelopmentSchool CultureEileen Mary Weiss & Stephen WeissPublished online: 18 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Eileen Mary Weiss & Stephen Weiss (2001) Doing ReflectiveSupervision with Student Teachers in a Professional Development School Culture,Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 2:2, 125-154,DOI: 10.1080/14623940120071343

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940120071343

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Practice, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2001

Doing Re� ective Supervision with StudentTeachers in a Professional DevelopmentSchool CultureEILEEN MARY WEISSLong Island University, C. W. Post Campus, Department of Curriculum andInstruction, Brookville, NY 11548, USA; e-mail [email protected]

STEPHEN WEISSStephen Weiss, New York University, Department of Teaching and Learning, 239Green Street, New York, NY 10003, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT This paper describes a developing model of student teaching supervision thatcenters on re� ective practice for student teachers, co-operating teachers, and supervisors asmembers of a community of learners. The model emerged as a result of collaborative effortsbetween a professor, principal, and co-operating teachers in a Professional DevelopmentSchool site over a period of three years. The collaborative school culture has been crucial tosupporting every cohort of student teachers in learning to become re� ective practitioners.Student teachers in this newly developing program are expected to take an active role intheir professional development and evaluation. The speci� c working dimensions of themodel depicted can provide practitioners with a framework that may be adapted to theirown contexts.

Introduction

More than ever before, new teachers need to develop the skills of re� ective practiceas they meet the changing face of classrooms across the USA and other pluralisticsocieties (Banks, 1991, 1995; Berlin & Sum, 1988; Coleman, 1987; Craft, 1996;Department for Education and Employment, 1998; Hodgkinson, 1988; Levin,1989; Minority Rights Group Internation, 1998; Ogbu, 1987). Re� ection is aspecial way of thinking about action and experience. Re� ective thinking permits thelearner to understand and resolve unsettling, con� ictual situations through cognitiveinquiry. The process of inquiry requires analyzing current experiences in the contextof prior knowledge to � nd their meaning and signi� cance (Dewey, 1933, 1938).When insights occur, a learner is better able to create new knowledge from theseexperiences and to develop alternative ways of behaving. As educators examine the

ISSN 1462-3943 print; ISSN 1470-1103 online/01/020125-30 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/14623940120071343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

126 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

assumptions that guide their actions, re� ection can be an agent for informing,challenging, and transforming the norms of professional practice.

Over the last decade, there have been numerous teacher education reform initia-tives that focus upon preparing pre-service teachers to become re� ective practi-tioners (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Levine &Trachtman, 1997). Re� ective practice for teachers includes: (1) having command ofa broad spectrum of knowledge and skills to address the diverse needs of childrenand becoming thoughtful and analytic as they consider how to apply those skills; (2)engaging in inquiry-oriented study of their practice to enhance their abilities; (3)participating in decision-making about curricular and instructional matters; (4)collaborating with colleagues with an open-minded spirit; and (5) actively pursuingcontinuous professional development (Brubacher et al., 1994; Clift et al., 1990; Rosset al., 1993; Smyth, 1989; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). Research suggests that newteachers are more likely to have a greater commitment to the profession whenworking in a school culture that values teachers’ mentoring, collaboration, andactive participation in decision-making (Weiss & Weiss, 1999).

The education of pre-service teachers typically includes � eld supervision byuniversity faculty and school-based educators during student teaching experiences.The literature on supervision contains many strategies and activities meant to fostercritical re� ection (Goethals & Howard, 2000; Pelletier, 2000; Sullivan & Glanz,2000). However, traditional student teaching programs often do not providelearners with faculty and supervisors who model re� ective behavior nor with a � eldcontext that fosters re� ective practice (Goodlad, 1990). Supervisory approaches thatpromote re� ective teaching have little chance for success unless the university andschool culture support re� ection as part of everyday practice. This paper describesa framework for re� ective supervision with student teachers in a ProfessionalDevelopment School (PDS) context — a school-university relationship that involvesshared decision-making and which creates new and extended roles, relationships,and responsibilities for all those involved with the intention of bringing some kindof bene� t to the personnel and programs at both institutions.

Traditional Models of Student Teaching Supervision

Traditional models of student teaching supervision are often characterized byassumptions that student teachers are expected to defer to ‘outside forces [that]determine standards, … conform to established practices, and … follow mandateshanded down by those in authority’ (McIntyre et al., 1996, p. 172). State educationagencies, with assistance from professional education organizations, typically de� nethe standards necessary for certi� cation of new teachers (Weiss, 1999; Weiss &Weiss, 1999). To meet the directives, university teacher education faculty andadministrators design student teacher supervision approaches and develop require-ments for performance of teacher candidates in � eld work (Garland & Shippy,1994). Campus-based supervisors typically transmit these expectations to school-based administrators and teachers who agree to co-operate with the university(Neufeld, 1992). ‘Co-operating teachers’ generally are selected who allow the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 127

student teacher to practice the university’s favored models of curriculum andinstruction in an apprentice role. However, especially when the school is asked toaccept a large number of student teachers, the principal may recruit co-operatingteachers regardless of their theoretical orientation. Some administrators may evenpurposely assign student teachers to weak teachers to provide classroom support(Guyton et al., 1993). Co-operating teachers often agree to accommodate studentteachers in return for: (1) improved working conditions by reducing work-loadthrough additional assistance in the classroom and shifting repetitive, less gratifyingtasks to the student teacher; (2) economic incentives of supplemental income andfree tuition for academic course work; and (3) socio-political inducements such asgaining the status of university af� liation and currying favor with school administra-tors.

Primary roles and functions of the student teacher, university supervisor andco-operating teacher are often implicit and, therefore, unclear to each other (Guyton& McIntyre, 1990; Yates, 1981). When goals and responsibilities are not clearlyagreed upon, con� ict among the participants is more likely to occur and the growthof the teacher candidate is likely to suffer (McIntyre et al., 1996). For example, sometraditional programs may not require the student teacher to meet jointly with thesupervisor and co-operating teacher to clarify expectations and plan further develop-ment. While both the co-operating teacher and supervisor may evaluate the studentteacher’s performance, the student teacher ultimately is expected to follow therequirements of the university, which confers the degree and recommends graduatesfor state certi� cation. The student teacher’s reactions to the experience may not bevalued. Therefore, if the supervisor and co-operating teacher differ in their directivesor disagree in their assessments, the student teacher often tries to appease both soas to assure both an excellent academic grade and an outstanding job reference. Thisprocess perpetuates the status quo. As a student teacher in a traditional programtold one of the authors regarding her method for resolving a con� ictual experience,‘I want to graduate and get a good job in a good school. So, when they talk their talk,I try to walk their walk’.

Traditional models of student teaching supervision are not usually orientedtoward fostering student teacher re� ectivity, collaboration, and decision-making.When policies are not reviewed regularly by all participants in the student teachingprocess, guidelines may become anachronistic and unresponsive to current theoryand practice. Without continuing communication between the university and theschool-based teacher educators, the student teaching experience cannot be adaptedto the needs of student teachers as individuals, their co-operating teachers or thechildren with whom they work. When student teachers’ perceptions are not con-sidered as a meaningful component of professional development, they are not likelyto learn independent skills of re� ection, inquiry, and analysis.

Creating a Context that Supports Re� ective Supervision: formation of aprofessional development school relationship

To address such issues of professional staff development and pre-service teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

128 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

education, in 1997 a university dean and a superintendent of schools in a suburboutside of New York City designated a professor of education to form a school-uni-versity partnership with the principal and faculty at the Crossroads School(pseudonym), a public elementary school formed in 1996 to serve a multiculturalpopulation of students. Among the dean’s goals was development of a new � eld-based model for pre-service student teaching. The superintendent’s primary aim wasto establish greater communication between the school district and the university inorder to keep teachers aware of best practices in the profession.

When the association began, the Crossroads School was starting its second year ofoperation and the principal, known as an innovator from her work at other schools,was in the early stages of leading the staff to de� ne a vision of what they were tryingto accomplish with children. From Crossroads’ inception, the principal encouragedstaff to revisit habitual approaches to teaching and to participate in decisions aboutcurriculum, instruction, and staff development. During the same period, the re-cently appointed university professor, one of the authors, EileenWeiss, also experi-enced as a classroom teacher, was re-examining traditional assumptions aboutteacher education as part of her research. Thus, the site, the people, and the timingseemed right for developing new relationships and collaborating in the preparationof new teachers for the � eld.

As a result of much discussion, the principal, teachers, and professor decided toadapt the Holmes Group’s (1986) view of a school-university partnership known asa Professional Development School (PDS) that:

would provide superior opportunities for teachers and administrators toin� uence the development of their profession, and for university faculty toincrease the professional relevance of their work, through: (1) mutualdeliberation on problems with student learning, and their possible solu-tions; (2) shared teaching in the university and schools; (3) collaborativeresearch on the problems of educational practice; and (4) co-operativesupervision of prospective teachers and administrators (p. 56).

After a year of trial and error learning with initial cohorts of student teachers, it wasapparent to the PDS that the traditional, uni-directional, linear model of learning toteach, ‘from considerations of theory to supervised practice, is in need of consider-able reconsideration’ (Grif� n, 1999, p. 13). The partnership’s continuing efforts atbuilding collaboration, shared leadership, and a spirit of inquiry in the larger schoolculture provided a supportive climate for creating a more interactive student teach-ing supervision model rooted in a re� ective approach to teaching (Zeichner &Liston, 1987).

Crossroads School currently serves more than 330 children from Pre-Kinder-garten through Grade 5. Class size averages 17 children in the earlier grades andrises to 22 children per class in Grades 3 through 5. Approximately 7% of thestudent population are ethnic minorities, mainly Spanish from Central America andEuropean Portuguese. Almost 9% are students of limited English pro� ciency, butmore than 25% are from families where English is not spoken as a � rst language.The 16 teachers at Crossroads School are mentoring cohorts of 5–10 student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 129

teachers per semester to meet the needs of a diverse student population. Undergrad-uate and graduate level pre-service student teachers are placed at Crossroads for fullschool days over a 14-week semester. Seven consecutive weeks are spent with oneclass of children chosen from either Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 2 or fromGrades 3 through 5. The student teachers then are placed for another seven-weekperiod with a different class selected from the remaining grade range. ProfessorWeiss, who helped to design the partnership, also serves as university � eld supervisorfor the student teachers. Although the professor was given ‘release time’ of one dayper week by the university to work with the partnership, the full role often requiresspending several days a week at the school.

Inquiry as an Integral Part of the PDS Culture

The Crossroads PDS intends to promote a school environment that encouragesteachers to ask questions that become ingrained in their consciousness of practice,such as, What do I value in teaching? What are my goals for professional growth?How do my assumptions shape my behavior? What are my objectives for thechildren’s learning? What was effective about my teaching strategies? What is theevidence that supports my � ndings? As responses emerge from analyses of practice,another set of questions may be expected to naturally arise, in continual regenerativecycles of re� ective thought (Dewey, 1933).

An attitude of inquiry is encouraged to be at the heart of re� ective practice acrossall the experiences of the Crossroads PDS. The newly developing student teachingprogram is guided by the belief that ‘to be genuinely thoughtful, we must be willingto sustain and protract that state of doubt which is the stimulus to thoroughinquiry …’ (Dewey, 1933, p. 16). Forethought is integral to making decisions,whether teachers have plenty of time to plan ahead or whether teachers are in themidst of an activity and have to ‘think on their feet’. Every action that a teachertakes, or does not take, needs to be a result of decision-making and subject toopen-minded evaluation. In a regenerative model of learning, teachers are expectedto continually ask themselves what were the outcomes of their decisions, what didthey learn as a result of their decisions, and what decisions will they make next?

As teachers learn what works and why, they are in a better position to build uponthe students’ successes. The goal for the Crossroads PDS is that the results oftoday’s decisions become the plans for tomorrow’s actions. Student teachers andco-operating teachers are expected to collaborate when planning and evaluatingteaching practice. Student teachers are supposed to be challenged to articulate thereciprocal relationship between theory and practice during dialogues with theco-operating teacher and during seminar conversations. The on-going objective is todevelop re� ective habits of practice that support continual learning and an expand-ing repertoire of teaching skills. As a new co-operating teacher described herexperience thus far:

Before I came to Crossroads, I was a co-operating teacher for anothercollege. We saw the supervisor maybe three times a semester. The college

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

130 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

left it up to me, so I tried to get to know the student teacher and tried toshow her what to do. I think I did a good job.Now, there’s been a major change in the expectations for us to relate to thestudent teachers. Prof. Weiss is here at least two days a week. That’s good;she really knows the school. We’re supposed to ask the student teachers fortheir ideas and opinions—get them to be re� ective. It’s not just having thestudent teachers give lessons; now we’re expected to plan with them aheadof their lesson and debrief them afterward. They often ask me why I didsomething with a child or why I taught in a particular way. It de� nitelymakes me think and be on my toes! There are meetings to go to where weget to talk about how this PDS approach is working. Prof. Weiss issupportive and concerned that we solve whatever problems come up … it’sclear that she and the principal are working together. However, it isn’t easy.It takes a lot of effort and energy to make it work. It’s going to take timefor us and the student teachers to get used to the changes.

Fostering Re� ective Practice

Dewey (1938) suggests that without cognitive analysis and understanding, experi-ence alone may be ‘miseducative’. Increasing teachers’ higher-order thinking abouttheir practice leads to greater empathic behavior, more thoughtful decision-making,use of innovative teaching methods, and higher levels of student achievement (Costa& Garmston, 1994; Knapp & Peterson, 1991; McKibbon & Joyce, 1981; Miller,1981).

Teacher educators have long advocated creating collaborative school environ-ments that support meaningful teacher learning and where norms of inquiry are partof a shared culture (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Dewey, 1916; Fullan, 1991;Howey, 1996; Lieberman, 1990; Lieberman & Miller, 1999; Little & McLaughlin,1993; Rosenholtz, 1989; Zeichner & Liston, 1987). The concept of re� ectivity in aPDS context is based on engaging children, teachers, principal, professor, andparents as partners in a collaborative learning environment.

Re� ective teaching includes teachers learning from children as well as from otherteachers, re� ning practice by learning from practice. Teachers are learning how toteach by understanding how children have learned from earlier experiences (Karpov& Haywood, 1998). Helping others to learn, as well as learning ourselves, are partof a reciprocal, interactive process. In this light, the role of ‘teacher’ is de� ned notso much by title, as by the quality of a person’s thinking and behavior.

Teachers’ re� ective thinking and behavior are often enhanced through mentoringand coaching strategies (Joyce et al., 1989; Sparks, 1998). Co-operating teachers atthe Crossroads PDS deliberately work as a team to improve the mentoring relation-ships with the student teachers and strive to build new ways of thinking aboutteaching and learning so that the student teachers begin to internalize habits ofcareful judgement. Co-operating teachers at Crossroads, for example, encouragestudent teachers to question underlying assumptions about teaching and, after a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 131

level of trust has been established with each cohort, expect to hear student teachers’thinking about their mentors’ observations and suggestions.

To maximize opportunities for professional growth, teachers need to adapt tocomplex and sometimes stressful situations by learning to respond � exibly andproactively (Wadron et al., 1999). The co-operating teacher-student teacher rela-tionship experiences times of challenge and times of support and is crucial inmediating the quality of teaching practices. Hawkey (1997) observes that during thementoring relationship between student counselors and supervisors, a ‘gradualawakening’ occurs regarding transference and counter-transference; students be-come increasingly more willing to explore personal assets and limitations. Althoughprofessor, principal, and co-operating teachers at Crossroads may have more exper-tise and experience, they continue to learn more about what constitutes thoughtfulteaching from interacting with student teachers. Co-operating teachers at this PDSacknowledge that mentoring student teachers to become re� ective has made themmore conscious about their own habits of self-re� ection as an integral part of theirown teaching style. The process of mentoring in a re� ective mode often requires oneto ‘think aloud’ about decisions that gradually become interactive communicationbetween mentor and student teacher, rather than a linear communication frommentor to student teacher.

Standards without Standardization

To promote best practice, critical re� ection must be based on a strong foundationof knowledge and experience. Teacher educators have grappled with determiningwhat teachers need to know and be able to do in order to be effective in theclassroom (Carnegie, 1986; Carter, 1990; Holmes Group, 1986; INTASC, 1992;NBPTS, 1991). Capable new teachers must acquire a broad repertoire of knowl-edge, skills, and dispositions that are drawn from research in areas such as socio-cul-tural learning contexts, developmental psychology, content knowledge andcurriculum design, instructional strategies, educational technology, organizationaltheory, and effective schooling (Sclan, 1994). Effective teacher education programsaddress the complexities of classroom, school and community; are attuned to howteachers think and feel; and are guided by a comprehensive, veri� able knowledgebase (Sprinthall et al., 1996). Pre-service teachers need to recognize teaching andlearning as a contextually bound, social process that is situated in everyday practice.

Prior to establishing the Crossroads PDS, student teachers were not alwaysrequired to actively participate in their learning by applying a common frameworkof skills and knowledge in a collaborative environment that supports the goal ofenhancing re� ection and professional growth. Professional development activities,portfolios, journals, and inquiry projects were sometimes introduced, but were oftenpresented as disparate evaluative tasks rather than as part of a planned, uni� ed,integrated conceptual framework for re� ective practice. In fact, many of the studentsin the teacher education department had felt overwhelmed by the sometimesdisconnected student teaching requirements.

The traditional university supervision model had not provided student teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

132 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

with a communal set of teaching expectations nor with agreed upon re� ectivelearning approaches that required active involvement by documenting and interpret-ing their performance. Since student teachers had limited knowledge of practice,they were anxious about being judged by supervisors and co-operating teachers attheir � eld site. To cope, student teachers often resorted to implementing routinecurricula and to teaching children in the same ways that they had been taught aschildren–a common occurrence for new teachers (Weiss & Weiss, 1998). As onenearly immobilized student teacher remarked:

My supervisor is coming to observe my lesson again tomorrow. First shesaid that I shouldn’t worry about grades and then told me that I only did‘B’ level work on my � rst lesson. She gave us this assignment to keepa journal, but I don’t think she ever read it because she never makesany comments. I don’t know what to think. She wants to see me doa group, so my co-operating teacher gave me this book to read to thekids. But I never read to the class before. Supposing I can’t control them?I don’t know what to do � rst. I feel like I’m drowning—it’s like sinkor swim.

The PDS re� ected on the issues raised by traditional student teaching models andasked how seemingly disconnected student teaching requirements could be uni� ed?How could student teachers be helped to focus on the elements of re� ectivity acrossthe entire knowledge base of teaching and learning as applied to everydaypractice? Although the PDS decided to focus on fostering re� ective habits, wewere still left with the question: by what criteria do we judge re� ective practice? ThePDS turned to the national efforts to develop teaching standards for possibleanswers.

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), established adecade ago, included the views of teachers, other educators, and policy-makers indesigning a framework upon which to evaluate the performance of accomplishedteachers. At the same time, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and SupportConsortium (INTASC) has been developing the use of performance-based criteriafor evaluation and credentialling of beginning teachers with 33 states, 11 of whom arepiloting prototype performance assessments. These standards provide an overallframework upon which the process of re� ection can become part of every teacher’sprofessional development and evaluation of professional growth (Weiss & Weiss,1998). Congruent with the expanding knowledge base of teaching and learning, theINTASC performance standards offer a framework for recon� gured assessmentdesigns that require student teachers to develop an array of re� ective, analytic skillsin collaboration with peers and mentors. The National Council for the Accreditationof Teacher Education (NCATE) has codi� ed the INTASC standards into � vedomains: Motivation/Learning/Development; Curriculum; Instruction; Assessment;and Professionalism (ncate.org). After careful study, the PDS decided to adopt theINTASC standards, which represent what is generally agreed upon in the professionabout what new teachers need to know and be able to do (see Appendix A).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 133

FIG. 1. Re� ective supervision model.

Dimensions of a Re� ective Supervision Model

After two years of experimenting, re� ning, and clarifying alternative methods ofstudent teacher supervision at the Crossroads PDS, the current Re� ective Supervi-sion model has evolved. Every dimension of the model is characterized by studentteachers’ active participation in judging their performance across a common set ofcriteria, the INTASC standards, with the expressed purpose of making their theoriesof teaching explicit (see Figure 1). In a � nal re� ection on student teaching, agraduating senior stated that using the INTASC criteria afforded her ‘a tool uponwhich to craft better questions for co-operating teachers and supervisor across all thedomains of teaching’. Working alongside their co-operating teachers, student teach-ers provide evidence of accomplishment that include artifacts such as lesson plans,children’s work, units, � eld trip plans, projects, parent newsletters, and actionresearch with accompanying re� ections.

Although student teachers are expected eventually to take full responsibility forplanning and evaluating their own teaching, co-operating teachers continue to teachelements of various activities so that student teachers have a model for collaborative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

134 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

analyses, a process which we call ‘reciprocal observation’. Student teachers exercisecareful judgement by applying knowledge and skills in practical action, by analyzingteaching problems in light of relevant theories, and by considering ethical/moral andsocial issues that may arise in everyday classroom situations. Each of the dimensionsof the model emerged as interdependent and interactive in supporting the process ofprofessional growth in learning how to teach. Student teachers who participated indevelopment of the PDS model expressed feeling more con� dent about teaching atthe completion of their � eld work at Crossroads. As one student remarked:

It’s not just that I’ve had more experience in the classroom. I think aboutteaching differently. I never thought about asking the kids what theythink … I always thought that I was supposed to know what to do forthem. I expected my co-operating teacher and supervisor to tell me whatwas right. They ask me what I thought about the lesson … they get me tothink about why I did what I did. My co-operating teacher asks me whatI think about her work. I NEVER expected that! My supervisor and I sende-mails about what goes on in my classroom and she knows that I’m intocomputers … so I was asked whether I’d be willing to give a seminar to theCrossroads staff on using the computer to do Internet stuff. Now I knowwhat they mean by ‘a community of learners’. I didn’t trust it at � rst, butthey’re serious.

Compared to student teachers who began working at the school before its develop-ment as a PDS model, recent cohorts feel that Crossroads is a place where they cantrust and learn. The principal and professor have commented on the noticeablyimproved status of student teachers and co-operating teachers as a result of increas-ing collaboration.

The dimensions of the Re� ective Supervision Model are described in the follow-ing sections (see Figure 1).

Co-operating Teacher: university supervisor meetings

Co-operating teachers are the most powerful in� uence on the quality of the studentteaching experience and often shape what student teachers learn by the way theymentor (Glickman & Bey, 1990). Communication between co-operating teacherand student teacher is enhanced when co-operating teachers have opportunities tore� ne their mentoring skills (Wilkens-Canter, 1996). As a PDS, we try to makeexplicit co-operating teachers’ approaches to mentoring in order to increase theirunderstanding of how student teachers are learning to teach. Successful teachingoften depends on having a metacognitive awareness of students’ approaches tolearning (Karpov & Haywood, 1998). Provision of professional development timefor strengthening co-operating teachers’ mentoring and coaching approaches isatypical for the profession (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). However, at this PDSco-operating teachers meet with the university supervisor (and principal whenpossible) on a weekly basis during the school day while the student teachers takeresponsibility for the classroom. Since co-operating teachers tend to do with student

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 135

teachers what was done with them when they were student teachers (Koerner,1992), it is important to increase co-operating teachers’ awareness of alternativementoring approaches.

As the PDS model developed, more co-operating teachers at Crossroads seemedto value opportunities to explore questions about mentoring. For example, last yearthey wanted to know more about the balancing act of providing too much or toolittle guidance to their student teachers. The professor pointed to research thatsuggests that varying amounts of support and challenge can combine to affectlearning within a mentoring relationship. Daloz (1986), for example, describes fourdifferent outcomes: high support and low challenge for the student teacher leads tofeelings of con� rmation but no further development; low support and high challengeleads to withdrawal from learning; low support and low challenge leads to a learningstandstill; and high support and challenge leads the learner to grow (Hawkey, 1997).Discussions about such issues appears to have sharpened co-operating teachers’awareness of varied mentoring approaches as well as increasing con� dence in theirexpanded roles. Indeed, several co-operating teachers and the principal contributefurther to our new model by making formal presentations at the university abouttheir roles as co-operating teachers and how they coach their student teachers inbecoming re� ective practitioners.

On-site Student Teacher Seminars

A weekly seminar, held at Crossroads and open to all PDS members, is designed asa forum for collaborative creative problem solving about practice. The seminarstructure is adapted from Graham’s (1995) action learning group approach wherestudent teachers share experiences, personal insights, and thinking that lead toassociation, integration, and validation of new meanings that are collaborativelyconstructed from practice. As student teachers progress through their � eld experi-ence, they use the seminar to collectively re� ect upon, analyze and re-formulate eachother’s work. Student teachers, as well as co-operating teachers, are often not awareof what they have done with children nor why they have done it. Behaviors andsituations that have not reached conscious awareness are studied so that theybecome part of the student teacher’s available repertoire of teaching skills (Delpit,1995). Just as student teachers work towards setting the stage for the children tomake connections between prior and new knowledge, the supervisor, co-operatingteachers, and principal at this PDS work towards supporting the student teachers inmaking associations between their prior revelations and new realizations aboutpresent practices.

Conducting seminar meetings at the school site has made it easier and morecomfortable for co-operating teachers, special teachers, and principal to attend andshare their expertise in areas such as: co-operative learning, authentic assessment,the � rst year of teaching, the Basic School philosophy, inclusion of children withspecial learning needs, interdisciplinary curriculum development, interviewing skills,planning for bilingual and multicultural classrooms, using technology in curriculumdevelopment, and critical analysis of lessons taught.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

136 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

Summary of Professional Development Activity

The Summary of Professional Development activity (see Appendix B) requires thatstudent teachers assess their own teaching performance by providing evidence ofaccomplishment and accompanying re� ective thinking across the � ve domains of theINTASC standards. Co-operating teachers also use this exercise to assess studentteachers’ performance. The student teachers, university supervisor and co-operatingteachers interact to evaluate student teachers using Zahorik’s (1988) model ofsupervision: alternative behaviors are considered; ideas analyzed; and personalsupport provided. Although student teachers and co-operating teachers completetheir own versions of this form at the end of each placement, they collaboratethroughout the placement experiences so that the student teachers have everyopportunity to improve or strengthen their work.

In addition to providing evidence of accomplishment, student teachers are ex-pected to assess the quality of their evidence. Rubric ratings are used to individuallyand collectively assess quality of evidence of accomplishments across all � ve do-mains of the INTASC standards (see Appendix C). Both the student teacher andco-operating teacher submit � nal versions of this form to the university supervisor atthe end of each placement.1

Re� ective Practice Exercise and Formal Observations

The Re� ective Practice exercise includes two parts: planning before the learningactivity and evaluating during and after the activity that provide an open-endedstructure for fostering re� ective thinking (see Appendix D). Questions, such as,‘Were there unanticipated events that required you to change plans? How/Why?’expect student teachers to engage regularly with co-operating teachers in higher-or-der critical thinking and problem solving about their practice.

Student teachers are continually encouraged to create learning environments thatinvolve children in higher-order thinking, co-operative learning and as active partic-ipants in developing understandings and new knowledge. The Re� ective Practiceexercise is co-ordinated with every student teacher’s lesson plan for each formalobservation by the supervisor. In the Post-Observation Conference, the supervisorand the student teacher use the second part of the Re� ective Practice form thatincludes analyses of one domain of the INTASC standards. Two of these exercisesare required per placement and are critiqued in weekly seminars with peers,supervisor and, whenever possible, with co-operating teachers and principal.

Critical re� ection is a developmental process. Student teachers experience differ-ent stages of re� ective thinking at different rates and need individual coaching inextending understandings of the knowledge-base to their next level of development.Re� ective habits may also be affected by cognitive ability and willingness to engagein the process (Stein, 2000).

Student teachers’ ability to confront their own beliefs in directing, choosing, ortransforming practice may in� uence their professional development. The supervisor,co-operating teachers, and principal work toward creating a ‘high comfort zone’ that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 137

enables the student teachers to take risks. At the end of the � eld placement, Mrs.Cleo Jones, a co-operating teacher, described her work with Ms. Alice Smith, herstudent teacher:

Alice is a very intuitive student teacher. She seems to have a gift forknowing the right thing to do at the right time, especially when it comes tochildren’s social behavior. I asked her what she had read about sociallearning that was of help to her. I guess that I put her on the spot becauseshe turned red. I apologized, saying that I didn’t mean the question as atest, rather I was very interested in learning myself. I also shared myknowledge of Boyer’s work with her and suggested that she might read itand that we talk about how it in� uenced my teaching.

Ms. Smith responded:

When I � rst began at Crossroads, I was intimidated by Cleo. It took meweeks not to call her ‘Mrs. Jones’ in private, even though she asked me tobe informal with her. She is only a few years older than me but she is sucha great teacher that it’s hard not to think of her that way. Anyway, whenshe asked me about theorists, I didn’t want to sound stupid. I could onlythink of Carl Rogers, who was very humanistic, but he’s considered oldfashioned. Then I read a book by Nell Noddings about caring and it reallystruck me. So, I told Cleo about it. Then SHE mentioned Rogers to me!That just blew me away. That’s when I began to call her Cleo.

Videotaped Re� ective Practice Exercise

Student teachers at this PDS analyze at least one video-taped teaching activity perplacement with co-operating teacher and/or peer. The Re� ective Practice Exerciseform is used as a guideline for planning and post-lesson analysis. If time permits,viewing selected excerpts during on-site seminars allows for collaborative analyseswith peers, supervisor, and/or principal. Student teachers often comment on theeffectiveness of feedback that videos provide and the alternative lens for collabora-tive analyses.

Supervisory Conferences

Formal meetings between co-operating teacher, student teacher, and supervisor areencouraged, as often as needed, to provide a forum for clarifying communicationsand developing professional trust and respect. At a meeting, the university supervi-sor and co-operating teachers decided to function as guides in the mentoring rolerather than prescribers (Goldsberry, 1988; Mayer & Goldsberry, 1993). The supervi-sor and co-operating teacher attempt to guide the student teacher through a processof analyzing teaching behaviors and their possible effects on the children. Oftenmaterial from the Re� ective Practice Exercise, lesson plans, curriculum artifacts,and children’s work are used as vehicles for stimulating re� ective discussion. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

138 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

supervisor frequently asks the student teachers to analyze how and why they useparticular theories of curriculum and instruction in order to support them inbecoming more self-directed and analytical.

Observe Other Practicing Teachers

Given the demands and time constraints of the student teachers, the PDS decidedto make observations of other teachers optional. Student teachers who have chosento do this reported that they had gained a broader perspective regarding thevariations in teaching styles to which they can refer when they have their ownclassrooms.

Peer observations and conferences. The literature suggests that peer review is associ-ated with improved instruction and increased communication about instructionalissues (Danielson & McGreal, 2000). The Crossroads PDS applied this strategy topeer observation among the pre-service student teachers. The design calls forstudent teachers to observe one peer per placement and learn to review observationnotes with a partner in a ‘Critical Friend’ mode. Student teachers generally chooseto adapt particular parts of the Re� ective Practice Exercise form for this experienceto guide their observations and post-observation conferences. The experience hasshown mixed results thus far. One student teacher reacted ambivalently:

Peer observation has helped me improve my teaching and class manage-ment skills but peer review has been dif� cult. It’s good when I can watchand learn by myself. But I don’t feel comfortable criticizing a fellow studentteacher. I also discount many of their criticisms of me. They are notseasoned teachers and neither am I. We all have basically the same ideasand solutions, so I � nd their help less helpful than the co-operatingteachers. It would be better for me to observe other teachers at differentlevels.

Another student teacher was more positive:

The peer review has strengthened my understanding that teaching andlearning is a continuum. I know how important it is to re� ect on youreducational experiences. Having a peer evaluate your performance givesyou the opportunity to see what you need to improve on and what thingshave worked, so that you can use them in the future. It is also an excellenttool for socialization. It allows you to have an educational conversationwith a colleague.

Curriculum development. Student teachers at this PDS have numerous opportunitiesto play a major role in curriculum design. The program is designed to foster studentteachers’ con� dence in their ability to assume greater responsibility for contributingto shaping the nature and direction of the curriculum. For example, the faculty hadadopted a computer software program, which was introduced by a student teacher,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 139

that provides challenging practice in mathematics computation and understanding.After collaborating with the special education teacher, the student teacher integratedplans that accommodated children with disabilities into the mathematics curricu-lum.

Student teacher projects for curriculum development arise directly out of theneeds of the co-operating teacher’s class. Within this context student teachers areexpected to draw on constructivist theories, such as Howard Gardner (Armstrong,2000), Bruner (1960), Vygotsky (1993), Dewey (1933, 1938) and Bloom (1994),that provide conceptual foundations that consider the lives of the children they areteaching. Re� ective questions such as, Why should children learn this? How can itbecome meaningful to them? How will this help them develop a sense of joy aboutlearning, about the content of the learning? What guiding attitudinal frameworkdoes it provide in creating curricula? The ‘Curriculum’ domain for INTASCstandards (see Appendix A) is used in assessing professional growth of studentteachers’ curriculum development skills.

This PDS emphasizes the value of focusing on common human experiences thatenable children to acquire both a core knowledge in subject areas and at the sametime discover the relationships across separate subjects, enabling them ‘to see howwhat they study in the classroom actually relates to them, how their own lives candevelop in a personally, socially, and ethically constructive way. Students learn, aswell, that the human experience we all share are lived out in very different ways fromone culture to another’ (Boyer, 1995, pp. 85–86). Deciding whether or not to designa curriculum from an interdisciplinary perspective is not an either/or issue (Jacobs,1991). There are, however, many psychological, socio-cultural, and pedagogicaljusti� cations for interdisciplinary curricula (Jacobs, 1989). Individually or as a team,student teachers create and implement units and learning areas that are interdisci-plinary, critical, creative, and contextual. Co-operating teachers and universitysupervisor encourage student teachers to consider the children’s interests, abilities,and diversity. Co-operating teachers situate the local contexts for the studentteachers by providing district and state frameworks, Basic School curriculum, andother instructional designs.

Action research: a tool for inquiry. Action research in teaching generally refers toteachers identifying a problem or question from everyday practice and then develop-ing an investigative framework that may offer solutions or further understandings.Although there is a wide variation among activities known as ‘action research’, thesequence usually follows these steps: formulate the problem, plan for data collection,collect data, analyze data, report results, take action (Sagor, 1992). The concept of‘teacher as researcher’ brings together inquiry about self and context; the focus isteacher concerns as they emerge in the classroom (Bullough & Gitlin, 1995).Teacher action research focuses on helping teachers to become re� ective practi-tioners.

Although the teacher education program at the university has begun to includeaction research as part of its program, the present cohorts of student teachers, aswell as their co-operating teachers, had little or no experience with conducting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

140 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

action research prior to the PDS. Thus, co-operating teachers are learning alongwith the student teachers about how to do action research as the student teachersimplement their projects. As the co-operating teachers become familiar with thepossible conceptual framework and methodologies, they are better able to mentorstudent teachers about the content of their project (e.g. curriculum, behavioralintervention strategies). In addition, Prof. Weiss’ presentation at a faculty meeting,‘Teachers Doing Action Research’, served to further clarify understandings about itspurposes and bene� ts. Co-operating teachers and student teachers are beginning tosee action research as a productive part of inquiry-oriented teaching, as a way ofevaluating and understanding the effects of their practice, rather than as an additionto their already overloaded list of mandated tasks.

Research areas emanate from meaningful questions about practice. Some studentteachers have investigated issues of curriculum (content analysis given a particulargoal), pedagogy (experiential learning vs. ‘paper-pencil’ approach) and classroomsocial interaction (how friendships are formed), while others have conducted childstudies to analyze behavioral problems and intervention possibilities. Depending onthe topic, the student teachers refer to the INTASC standards from the domains,Motivation/Learning/Development; Curriculum; Instruction; Assessment; and Pro-fessionalism, to guide their theoretical and practical questions.

Student teachers present one action research project at the � nal on-site seminar.For example, one cohort of student teachers gathered artifacts that provided evi-dence that the teachers had provided educational experiences for the children tolearn what it means to be ‘virtuous’. As a ‘Basic School’, Crossroads subscribes toBoyer’s (1995) philosophy that virtues such as honesty, respect, responsibility,compassion, self-discipline and perseverance need to be formally taught as part ofthe curriculum. Pairs of student teachers conducted interviews with teachers,children, and principal and carried out observations in the cafeteria, classrooms,gym and playground. Each set of partners analyzed different data (interview,observational, and artifacts) and arrived at conclusions and recommendations. Theeffects of this collaborative project were presented at a regional educational researchorganization in Fall, 2000. Through these projects, student teachers begin to gain� rst-hand experience in understanding how inquiry and re� ective teaching areintegrally related.

Teaching portfolios: a dynamic process. Portfolios offer a meaningful approach toprofessional development and evaluation by including information about the teach-ing context, diversity of students, and feedback from colleagues in peer review.Portfolios may be viewed from three perspectives: ‘as a credential, as a set ofassumptions about teaching and learning, and as making possible a powerful,personal re� ective learning experience’ (Lyons, 1998). Using the portfolio as anauthentic assessment tool allows as much personalization as possible. A teachingportfolio is one strategy for assessing the outcomes of professional developmentbased on the assumption that self-re� ection and self-assessment are crucial formeaningful and long-lasting growth (Green & Smyser, 1996).

At this PDS, the portfolio is considered a living document that changes as the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 141

student teachers grow and that helps student teachers develop their techniques andphilosophy. Student teachers are encouraged to include artifacts and re� ectionsfrom all of the dimensions of this student teaching program in their portfolios. Thecontents for the teaching portfolio are organized around the same domains of theINTASC standards: Motivation/Learning/Development; Curriculum; Instruction;Assessment; and Professionalism (see Appendix A). This structure provides admin-istrators and teachers with access to a comprehensive evaluation model that capturesmany aspects of the complexities of teaching and the process of student teachersdeveloping expertise. The supervisor guides the student teachers in developing theteaching portfolio as they ask themselves: ‘Does the material in each domain vividlyportray who I am, what I believe, and how I relate to children and colleagues? Doesit convey a clear picture of my approach to teaching? Is it alive and growing? Howdo I use it as a teaching tool?’

E-mail communication and utilizing web-sites. Telecommunications provides oppor-tunities to share a common set of experiences and expectations among supervisors,co-operating teachers, and pre-service teachers (O’Neill, 1996). The act of writinge-mail may help to crystallize thoughts about teaching experiences and provideadditional opportunities for re� ective decision making. The university supervisorregularly communicates professionally with individual student teachers on e-mailregarding after-thoughts about classroom observations and ideas that occurred toher when the school day was over. She also contacts the student teachers as a groupthrough a distribution list to discuss collaborative tasks, seminars and interpretationof events that have happened in the school. Students interact with each other‘on-line’ and have slowly been accepting the supervisor’s invitation to initiate e-mailcontact with her. Due to limited resources, discussions about establishing a ‘chatroom’ where the student teachers and supervisor could meet as a group have notbeen implemented.

At Crossroads, the computer teacher and librarian provide a workshop for eachcohort of student teachers, designed to support re� ective practice when usingcomputers to teach children. The goal of the workshop is to support studentteachers in creating challenging curriculum; individual coaching is available forcreating an array of curriculum units and/or learning areas and addresses of curricu-lum web-sites are also provided. Student teachers conduct at least one e-mailcommunication per week with an e-mail partner that collaboratively critiques ateaching situation. Last year technology resources and training became more readilyavailable for teachers. The likely result will be an increase in co-operating teachersusing e-mail this year as an added dimension to mentoring student teachers.

Professional development activities. A 1998 report of the National Commission onTeaching and America’s Future, Doing What Matters Most, reports that high qualityprofessional development experiences for teachers translate into higher achievementfor students. Student teachers at this PDS participate with co-operating teachers inprofessional development activities and as a result generally adapt or adopt thenewly acquired ideas in the classroom. After having attended a few in-service

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

142 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

workshops, one student teacher commented: ‘I never looked at learning how to readin this light before … I now see the importance of guided reading in making thecontent meaningful by linking it to real life experiences … but now I have morequestions about how to teach comprehension skills than I had before the workshop!’

Atypical for the profession, student teachers at this PDS give formal presentationsfor other student teachers at the university about their evidence of accomplishmentsacross the INTASC standards and their thinking processes while constructingteaching portfolios. Optional other activities include: attendance and/or presenta-tions at outside professional organizations, Board of Education meetings, or teacherunion meetings. Past cohorts of student teachers have made formal presentationswith the professor on teaching portfolios and action research at state level meetingsfor the Council for Exceptional Children, Educators of Young Children, and theNortheastern Educational Research Association, which were highly valued. Thisyear, student teachers are formally presenting evidence of accomplishment usingINTASC standards in student teaching meetings at the university and a graduatecurriculum class.

Supervised parent communication. Re� ective habits of teaching include reaching outto parents to get and to give information and insights about the school curriculumand the children. At Crossroads, parental involvement is viewed as crucial to theirchildren’s success and is valued as a part of the total school program (Comer et al.,1996). Student teachers write at least one parent newsletter per placement incollaboration with co-operating teachers and also observe during at least oneparent-teacher conference. Student teachers confer with co-operating teachers todiscuss preparation for the conference and, again, to analyze the outcomes. ThePDS aims to prepare student teachers as professionals who are active partners withparents, administrators, and students in making educational policy (Zeichner &Liston, 1987).

Re� ective Supervision Model at the PDS Adopted by the University

As this PDS’s Re� ective Supervision Model for Student Teachers continues togrow, our community of learners continues to expand between university and schooleducators. The Re� ective Supervision Model emerged during a period of intenseteacher certi� cation reform in New York State. The State Board of Regents’ recentlyimplemented new regulations for teacher education institutions and school districtsthat call for greater connections between schools and universities and higher stan-dards for teachers’ practice. These are consistent with the INTASC standards. Notsurprisingly, requests are continuing to increase from co-operating teachers in otherschools for more communication between � eld and campus about creating struc-tures that support re� ective teaching and supervision. The stronger linkages betweentheoreticians and practitioners appears to bene� t student teachers in their everydayinteractions with children.

As outcomes from the new supervision paradigm have been disseminated, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 143

model expanded beyond the PDS site to a larger pilot program across the univer-sity’s teacher education department during 1999–2000. The department began tocapitalize on the increased leadership roles of teachers, principal, supervisors, andprofessor as inspired by learning at our PDS site. Constant communication betweenschool and university appears to have been crucial to strengthening the trustbetween partners. The professor is reaching out to co-operating teachers, co-operat-ing principals, superintendents, and supervisors across her department by invitingthem to student teaching meetings on campus during the 2000–2001 academic year(see Appendix E).

Re� ections on Re� ective Supervision at the Crossroad’s PDS: limitationsand learnings

Need for Prior Field Experiences Related to Re� ective Practice

The present cohorts of student teachers at Crossroads are required to performaccording to the newly developing constructivist model of teaching performance,with a tighter linkage between campus and � eld. However, university courseworktaken prior to student teaching may not have included the same expectations.Therefore, there is a ‘disconnect’ between some prior preparation experiences andthe intense, in-depth rigor of the new student teaching paradigm. This issue hasbeen discussed openly and additional support has been provided by the supervisor.In response to recent New York State Regents regulations, future cohorts will arriveat student teaching with more substantial prior � eld experiences that affords oppor-tunities to apply theory to practice.

Need for Additional Time to Learn

Each cohort of student teachers voices the frustration of time limitation in a sevenweek, � ve days per week placement: ‘It’s over and I feel like I’ve just begun’. ‘It’snot that I don’t want to, but there’s just not enough time to do everything I’msupposed to’. ‘I spent the � rst week getting to know the kids and the last weekwinding things up. In between, I’ve done a lot but there’s so much more to learn’.The greatest stress appears to be in the area of curriculum development. Studentteachers and supervisors realize that more time is needed for student teachers to doin-depth study of curriculum content, pedagogy and for responding to children’sdiverse needs. As a result of the PDS’ concerns for student teachers not havingenough time for professional development, the university’s Department of Curricu-lum and Instruction granted two days of released time to student teachers at all � eldsites for the purpose of learning how to provide evidence of accomplishment usingthe INTASC standards, developing and using portfolios, interviewing, and resumewriting. The university supervisor allows another day for curriculum developmentwork at Crossroads PDS.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

144 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

Reactions to Change

Prof. Weiss spearheaded the changing supervision paradigm at Crossroads with theprincipal, the co-operating teachers, and student teachers at Crossroads; then oncampus with the department Supervisors and co-operating teachers who chose toattend the forums. The co-operating teachers have experienced a wide variation intheir own teacher preparation backgrounds. Each projects his/her own view of whatpre-service teacher education should look like and may embrace or resist change.Therefore, acceptance and support of the Re� ective Supervision model varies acrossthe school. For example, as Mrs. Richmond said, comparing her own traditionalstudent teaching program to the PDS model, ‘If it was good enough for me, it’sgood enough for these student teachers. And I’ve been teaching successfully for anumber of years’. However, Mrs. Collins, a contemporary and graduate of a similarteacher education program as Mrs. Richmond, felt differently:

When I began teaching, it was a different world. The kids were different;they all spoke English, divorce was not so common, kids didn’t seem soangry, and no one ever heard of Hip-hop. I taught reading from a readerand used the teacher’s edition to plan. I expected everyone to follow along.I’ve had to change to relate more to the children as individuals. My studentteaching program was OK for the time but it wouldn’t have prepared meto deal with now. We haven’t been involved in this new student teachingdesign very long but at least its a start and we’ll see how it works out

While all the PDS teachers do not have to agree on the value of re� ective supervi-sion, an open- minded attitude must prevail if negative attitudes are not to create atoxic climate for the model’s development. For example, some Crossroads teachersinitially reacted with suspicion when student teachers completed their own versionof the Summary of Professional Development Activity to promote re� ective think-ing. The questions were raised: ‘What if student teachers lie or overstate what theyhave accomplished? What does that teach them? How will we know?’ After dis-cussion with the university supervisor and principal, who validated the possibility ofsuch an occurrence, the teachers agreed to a pilot process. As a result, the teachers,who had initially questioned the process, came to realize that exaggerations wouldbe discovered and confronted, rather than hidden, as a result of the open, collabora-tive approach to evaluation and supervision.

Institutional Support

A Re� ective Supervision Model appears to be workable in a collaborative, participa-tory school culture such as the Crossroads PDS. However, any school-universitypartnership remains tenuous until full institutional support is provided. Fullan(1991) warns that although ‘combining individual and institutional development hasits tensions … you cannot have one without the other’. For partnerships to besustainable over time, they cannot be solely dependent on good will.

In return for their efforts, co-operating teachers are eligible to receive tuition

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 145

remission from the university to take academic courses. However, some teachers donot use the tuition remission because they are enrolled at other universities or havecompleted advanced degrees. No institutional support is offered by the local schooldistrict or university to the principal for her involvement in the project. Additionally,continued funding for the professor’s released time, equivalent to one day per week,is not guaranteed and is contingent upon unpredictable university budgets.

Since the partnership has not yet become fully ‘institutionalized’, ongoing com-mitment of individual teachers and professors to participate in the partnership isuncertain. Therefore, the professor and the Crossroads principal must rekindle thecommitments from semester to semester.

Conclusion

A re-conceptualized meaning of supervision is needed to support new teachers inbecoming re� ective practitioners. The new de� nition of supervision at CrossroadsPDS includes recon� gured supervision roles and relationships. The PDS is begin-ning to challenge an embedded traditional ‘top-down’, hierarchical paradigm, withthe student teachers at the bottom as passive recipients of training. Student teachersare experiencing professional development occurring in a community of learners thatfosters collegiality among professors, principal, teachers and student teachers. Theyare taking active roles in the learning process, roles that are re� ective and responsiveto children’s needs in a school culture that expects teachers to take leadership.

The Re� ective Supervision Model that has emerged at this PDS illustrates oneway that professors, principal, and teachers can work together to create a trusting,collaborative school culture that supports re� ective teaching and re� ective supervi-sion. The PDS’ guiding assumption in the development of this model has been thata school environment that fosters critical re� ection provides pre-service and practic-ing teachers with maximum opportunities for professional development that, in turn,affords meaningful educational experiences for children (Darling-Hammond, 1998;Sparks, 1998). However, further research is needed as to how re� ective attitudesand behaviors attained by pre-service students at the Crossroads PDS will carry overbeyond student teaching to professional practice in their own classrooms. In otherwords, the process of critical re� ection needs to be continued to the next level ofteacher development.

Note

1. Because this exercise is used as both an evaluative and a re� ective teaching tool, theuniversity supervisor and the co-operating teachers write a formal letter of recommendation,which becomes part of student teachers’ permanent � les for the purpose of job searches.

References

ARMSTRONG, T. (2000) Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, 2nd edn (Alexandria, VA, ASCD).BANKS, J.A. (1991) Teaching multicultural literacy to teachers, Teacher Education, 4(1), pp. 135–

144.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

146 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

BERLIN, G. & SUM, A. (1988) Toward a More Perfect Union: Basic Skills, Poor Families and ourEconomic Failure (New York, Ford Foundation).

BLOOM, B. (1994) Re� ections on the development and use of the taxonomy, in: L. ANDERSON &L. SOSNIAK (Eds) Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Forty-year Retrospective. Ninety-third Yearbook for theNational Society for the Study of Education: Part II (Chicago, University of Chicago Press),pp. 1–8

BOYER, E.L. (1995) The Basic School. A Community for Learning (New York, Carnegie Foun-dation).

BRUBACHER, J.W., CASE, C.W. & REAGAN, T.G. (1994) Becoming a Re� ective Educator. How toBuild a Culture of Inquiry in the Schools (Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin).

BRUNER, J. (1960) The Process of Education (New York, Vintage Books).BULLOUGH, R.V. & GITLIN, A. (1995) Becoming a Student of Teaching: Methodologies for Exploring

Self and School Context (New York, Garland).CARNEGIE FORUM ON EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY (1986) A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the

21st Century. The report of The Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (New York,Author).

CARTER, K. (1990) Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach, in: W.R. HOUSTON (Ed.)Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (New York, Macmillan), pp. 291–310.

CLIFT, R.T., HOUSTON, W.R. & PUGACH, M.C. (1990) Encouraging Re� ective Practice in Edu-cation: An Analysis of Issues and Programs (New York, Teachers College Press).

COLEMAN, J.S. (1987) Families and schools, Educational Researcher, 16(6), pp. 32–38.COMER, J.P., HAYNES, N.M., JOYNER, E.T. & BEN-AVIE, M. (Eds) (1996) Rallying the Whole

Village. The Comer Process for Reforming Education (New York, Teachers College Press).COSTA, A.L. & GARMSTON, R.J. (1994) Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools

(Norwood, MA, Christopher-Gordon Publishers).CRAFT, M. (Ed.) (1996) Teacher Education in Plural Societies. An International Review (Pennsylva-

nia, Falmer Press).DALOZ, L. (1986) Effective Teaching and Mentoring (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).DANIELSON, C. & MCGREAL, T.L. (2000) Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice

(Alexandria, VA, ASCD and Princeton, NJ, ETS).DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (Ed.) (1994) Professional Development Schools: Schools for Developing a

Profession (New York, Teachers College Press).DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (1998) Doing what Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching (New

York, NY, National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future).DARLING-HAMMOND, L. & SYKES, G. (Eds) (1999) Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook

of Policy and Practice (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).DELPIT, L. (1995) Other People’s Children: Cultural Con� ict in the Classroom (New York, NY, WW

Norton).DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1998) Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Change.

http://www.dfee.gov.uk/teachers/pressnotice.htm.DEWEY, J. (1916) Democracy and Education (New York, NY, Free Press).DEWEY, J. (1933) How We Think. A Restatement of the Relation of Re� ective Thinking to the

Educative Process (New York, NY, Houghton Mif� in).DEWEY, J. (1938) Experience and Education (New York, Macmillan).FULLAN, M. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York, NY, Teachers College

Press).GARLAND, C. & SHIPPY, V. (1995) Perspectives on the Future. Guiding Clinical Experiences (Nor-

wood, NJ, Ablex).GLICKMAN, C.D. & BEY, T.M. (1990) Supervision, in: W.R. HOUSTON (Ed.) Handbook of

Research on Teacher Education (New York, NY, Macmillan), pp. 549–566.GOETHALS, M.S. & HOWARD, R.A. (2000) Student Teaching. A Process Approach to Re� ective

Practice. A Guide for Student, Intern, and Beginning Teachers (Upper Saddle River, NJ,Merrill).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 147

GOLDSBERRY, L. (1988) Three functional methods of supervision, Action in Teacher Education,10(1), pp. 1–10.

GOODLAD, J.I. (1990) Teachers for our Nation’s Schools (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).GRAHAM, I.W. (1995) Re� ective practice: using the action learning group mechanism, Nurse

Education Today, 15(1), pp. 28–32.GREEN, J.E. & SMYSER, S.O. (1996) The Teacher Portfolio. A Strategy for Professional Development

and Evaluation (Lancaster, PA, Technomic).GRIFFIN, G.A. (1999) The Education of Teachers. Ninety-eighth Yearbook of the National Society for

the Study of Education (Chicago, NSSE).GUYTON, E. & MCINTYRE, D.J. (1990) Student teaching and school experiences, in: W.R.

HOUSTON (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (New York, NY, Macmillan),pp. 514–534.

GUYTON, E., PAILLE, E. & RAINER, J. (1993) Collaborative � eld-based urban teacher educationprogram, Action in Teacher Education, 15(3), pp. 7–11.

HAWKEY, K. (1997) Roles, responsibilities, and relationships in mentoring: a literature review andagenda for research, Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), pp. 325–335.

HODGKINSON, H. (1988) The right schools for the right kids, Educational Leadership, 45(5),pp. 11–14.

HOLMES GROUP (1986) Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group (East Lansing, MI,Author).

HOWEY, K. (1996) Revisiting the purposes of professional development schools, ContemporaryEducation, 67(4), pp. 180–186.

INTERSTATE NEW TEACHER ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT CONSORTIUM (INTASC) (1992) ModelStandards for Beginning Teacher Licensing and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue(Washington, DC, Council for Chief State School Of� cers).

JACOBS, H.H. (1989) Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design and Implementation (Alexandria, VA,Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).

JACOBS, H.H. (1991) Planning for curriculum integration, Educational Leadership, 49(2), pp. 27–28.

JOYCE, B.R., MURPHY, C., SHOWERS, B. & MURPHY, J. (1989) School renewal as cultural change,Educational Leadership, 47(3), pp. 70–77.

KARPOV, Y.V. & HAYWOOD, H.C. (1998) Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky’s concept of mediation.Implications for instruction, American Psychologist, January, pp. 27–36.

KNAPP, N. & PETERSON, P. (1991) What does CGI mean to you? Teachers’ ideas of aresearch-based intervention four years later, Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago.

KOERNER, M.E. (1992) The cooperating teacher: an ambivalent participant in student teaching.Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), pp. 46–56.

LEVIN, H.M. (1989) Financing the education of at-risk students, Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 11(1), pp. 47–60.

LEVINE, M. & TRACHTMAN, R. (1997) Making Professional Development Schools Work. Politics,Practice, and Policy (New York, NY, Teachers College Press).

LIEBERMAN, A. (1990) Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now (New York, NY,Falmer Press).

LIEBERMAN, A. & MILLER, L. (1999) Teachers—Transforming their World and their Work (NewYork, NY, Teachers College Press and Alexandria, VA, ASCD).

LITTLE, J.W. & MCLAUGHLIN, M.W. (1993) Teachers’ Work: Individuals, Colleagues, and Contexts(New York, NY, Teachers College Press).

LYONS, N. (Ed.) (1998) With Portfolio in Hand: Validating the New Teacher Professionalism (NewYork, NY, Teachers College Press).

MAYER, R. & GOLDSBERRY, L. (1993) Searching for re� ection in the student teaching experience:two case studies, Teacher Education Quarterly, 20(1), pp. 13–27.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

148 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

MCINTYRE, D.J., BYRD, D.M. & FOXX, S.M. (1996) Field and laboratory experiences, in: J.SIKULA, T.J. BUTTERY & E. GUYTON (Eds) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2ndedn (New York, NY, Macmillan), pp. 171–193.

MCKIBBIN, M. & JOYCE, B.R. (1981) Psychological states, Theory into Practice, 19(4), pp. 248–255.

MILLER, A. (1981) Conceptual matching models and interactional research in education, Reviewof Educational Research, 51(1), pp. 33–84.

MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP INTERNATION (1998) education in multi-ethnic societies of Central andEastern Europe. A skills exchange workshop. Workshop Report Bulgaria, November 7–10(London, Minority Rights Group).

NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS (NBPTS) (1991) Toward High andRigorous Standards for the Teaching Profession. Initial Policies and Perspectives of the NationalBoard for Professional Teaching Standards, 3rd edn (Detroit, MI, Author).

NEUFELD, B. (1992) Professional practice schools in context: new mixtures of institutionalauthority, in: M. LEVINE (Ed.) Professional Practice Schools. Linking Teacher Education andSchool Reform (New York, NY, Teachers College Press), pp. 133–168.

OGBU, J.U. (1987) Opportunity structure, cultural boundaries, and literacy, in: J.A. LANGER (Ed.)Language, Literacy, and Culture: Issues of Society and Schooling (Norwood, NJ, Ablex),pp. 149–177.

O’NEILL, A. (1996) Increasing re� ective instructional decision making by clinically supervisingteachers using telecommunications, Paper presented at the Annual National EducationalComputing Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

PELLETIER, C.M. (2000) Strategies for Successful Student Teaching. A Comprehensive Guide (Boston,Allyn & Bacon).

ROSENHOLTZ, S. (1989) Teachers’ Workplace. The Social Organization of Schools (New York, NY,Teachers College Press).

ROSS, D.D., BONDY, E. & KYLE, D.W. (1993) Re� ective Teaching for Student Empowerment (NewYork, NY, Macmillan).

SAGOR, R. (1992) How to Conduct Collaborative Action Research (Alexandria, VA, Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development).

SCLAN, E. (1994) Performance Evaluation of Experienced Teachers. Trends and Issues Paper, No. 7(Washington, DC, ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, AACTE).

SMYTH, J. (1989) Developing and sustaining critical re� ection in teacher education, Journal ofTeacher Education, 40(2), pp. 2–9.

SPARKS, D. (1998) Making assessment part of teacher learning, Journal of Staff Development,19(4), pp. 33–35.

SPRINTHALL, N.A., REIMAN, A.J. & THIES-SPRINTHALL, L. (1996) Teacher professional develop-ment, in: J. SIKULA, T. BUTTERY & E. GUYTON (Eds) Handbook of Research on TeacherEducation (New York, NY, Macmillan).

STEIN, D. (2000) Teaching Critical Re� ection. Myths and Realities, No. 7 (Washington, DC, ERICClearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education).

SYKES, G. (1996) Reform OF and AS professional development, Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7),pp. 464–467.

SULLIVAN, S. & GLANZ, J. (2000) Supervision that Improves Teaching. Strategies and Techniques(Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin).

VYGOTSKY, L.S. (1993) The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 2 (trans. J. Knox & C. Stevens)(New York, NY, Plenum).

WADRON, P.W., COLLIE, T.R. & DAVIES, C.M.W. (1999) Telling Stories about School: An Invitation(Upper Saddle River, NJ, Merrill).

WEISS, E.M. & WEISS, S.G. (1998) New Directions in Teacher Evaluation. ERIC DIGEST(Washington DC, ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, AACTE).

WEISS, E.M. & WEISS, S.G. (1999) Beginning Teacher Induction ERIC DIGEST (Washington,DC, ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, AACTE).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 149

WILKINS-CANTER, E.A. (1996) Providing effective cooperating teacher feedback, in: D.J. MCIN-

TYRE & D.M. BYRD (Eds) Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers: The Field Experience. TeacherEducation Yearbook IV (Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin), pp. 169–177.

YATES, J.W. (1981) Student teaching in England: results of a recent survey, Journal of TeacherEducation, 32(5), pp. 44–47.

ZAHORIK, J.A. (1988) The observing-conferencing role of university supervisors, Journal of TeacherEducation, 39(2), pp. 9–16.

ZEICHNER, K.M. & LISTON, D. (1987) Teaching student teachers to re� ect, Harvard EducationalReview, 57(1), pp. 23–48.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

150 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

Appendix A

INTASC Standards1

I. Motivation, Learning & Development

Standard 2: The teacher understands how children/adolescents learn and develop, and canprovide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social and personaldevelopment.

Standard 5: The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behaviorto create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, activeengagement in learning, and self-motivation.

II. Curriculum

Standard 1: The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of thediscipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make theseaspects of subject matter meaningful for students.

Standard 7: The teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students,the community, and curriculum goals.

III. Instruction

Standard 3: The teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning andcreates instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners.

Standard 4: The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encouragestudents’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills.

Standard 6: The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, non-verbal, and media communi-cation techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interactionin the classroom.

IV. Assessment

Standard 8: The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies toevaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social and physical development ofthe learner.

V. Professionalism(includes taking initiative, demonstrating reliability, and a co-operative spirit and articulating aphilosophy of teaching that supports student learning and well-being)

Standard 9: The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continually evaluates the effects ofhis/her choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals inthe learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow profes-sionally.

Standard 10: The teacher fosters relationships with school colleagues, parents, and agencies inthe larger community to support students’ learning and well-being.

Note

1. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. www.ccsso.org/intaspub.html.INTASC standards categorized into five NCATE domains.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 151

Appendix B

Student Teaching Summary of Professional Development

Student Teacher DateSchool Grade levelSupervisor Completed byCo-operating teacher Student teacher

Ratings: 1 (unsatisfactory) 2 (basic) 3 (satisfactory) 4 (accomplished)

I. Motivation, Learning & Development (INTASC Standards 2, 5) Rating

II. Curriculum (INTASC Standards 1, 7) Rating

III. Instruction (INTASC Standards 3, 4, 6) Rating

IV. Assessment (INTASC Standard 8) Rating

V. Professionalism Rating(INTASC Standards 9, 10; also includes taking initiative, demonstrating reliability, punctuality,and a co-operative spirit and articulating a philosophy of teaching that supports student learningand well-being)

Co-operating teacher name (print) SignatureStudent teacher name (print) Signature

Please submit this form to the university supervisor at the end of each placement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

152 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

Appendix C

Rubric Ratings1 for Student Teaching

Summary of Professional Development and Portfolios

The following ratings will assist the student teacher, co-operating teacher, and univer-sity supervisor in formative and summative evaluation of the student teacher’sperformance during each placement. In addition to appropriate artifacts and in-depthreflections, final documents should be well-edited and portfolios should present anoverall professional appearance.

4. Accomplished. Candidates have accurate, deep and comprehensive (broad) understanding of thecontent relevant to each standard as exemplified in their performances as teachers.

The level 4 performance provides clear, convincing, consistent and appropriate evidence that thecandidate has the knowledge of the content described in each standard, has the proficiencies toapply that knowledge to the teaching situation, has enthusiasm and attitudes appropriate tosuccessful teaching, and can have a positive impact on the learning of all his/her students withrespect to the content in the standards.

3. Satisfactory. Candidates demonstrate accurate understanding of the content relevant to eachstandard as exemplified in their performance as teachers.

The level 3 performance provides clear and appropriate evidence that the candidate has theknowledge of the content described in each standard, has the proficiencies to apply thatknowledge to the teaching situation, has enthusiasm and attitudes appropriate to successfulteaching, and can have a positive impact on the learning of all his/her students with respect to thecontent in the standards.

2. Basic. Candidates demonstrate surface, limited, inconsistent understanding of the contentrelevant to each standard as exemplified in their performance as teachers.

The level 2 performance provides little evidence that the candidate has the knowledge of thecontent described in each standard, has the proficiencies to apply that knowledge to the teachingsituation, has enthusiasm and attitudes appropriate to successful teaching, and can have a positiveimpact on the learning of all his/her students with respect to the content in the standards.

1. Unsatisfactory. Candidates demonstrate incorrect or no understanding of the content relevantto each standard as exemplified in their performances as teachers.

The level 1 performance provides little or no evidence that the candidate has the knowledge of thecontent described in each standard, has the proficiencies to apply that knowledge to the teachingsituation, has enthusiasm and attitudes appropriate to successful teaching, and can have a positiveimpact on the learning of all his/her students with respect to the content in the standards.

Note

1. Modified NCATE ratings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

Re� ective Supervision with Student Teachers 153

Appendix D

Reflective Practice Form

Student teacher SchoolCo-operating teacher Grade levelDate Supervisor

Part I: planning

Before the activity. Co-operating and student teachers discuss the formal lesson plan and thefollowing questions:

Describe what went into your planning. Did you consider background and traits of the students,curriculum materials, school, community, technology sources, research on content, feedback fromcolleagues?

What strategies will you use to guide students’ learning (e.g. scaffolding approaches: modeling,prompts, cues, questions, clarifications, visual aides, etc.)?

How can the observer (supervisor, co-operating teacher, peer, principal, or other teacher) helpyou?

Student teacher Date

Part II: Evaluating

After the activity Student teacher and observer(s) discuss the following & any additionalpertinent questions:

Was the activity successful? Why? Did the student accomplish what you had planned? (Reflect onmaterials, subject, behavior management, groupings, student behavior, alternative pedagogicalapproaches, etc.)

Describe your ‘thinking on your feet’ Were there unanticipated events that required you to changeplans? (e.g. practical, pedagogy, content, social moral & ethical issues, etc.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013

154 E. M. Weiss & S. Weiss

How does your learning relate to the INTASC standards? (Choose one domain that is mostappropriate to the activity.)

How will your next experience with the students build upon what you have learned today?

Appendix E

Reflective Supervision Model Expands Department-wide

At these events, the principal and teachers with the professor at this PDS site communicate whatthey are learning about becoming more reflective and accountable for teaching performancestandards. The PDS educators offer our model as one that may be used as a general framework,but we realize that each school will implement its own version that considers its context andcommunity. We have learned that it takes time to develop trust, to articulate common goals, andto face practical obstacles (such as need for release time or other renumeration for professor,principal, and teachers).

This year the department’s student teaching program includes the following new institutionalstructures that serve as forums for communication for all members of the student teachingcommunity:· Co-operating Teacher Forums. All co-operating teachers are invited to articulate their newly

developing roles as mentors to the student teachers.· Supervisor Forums. Supervisors communicate with each other about interacting with co-operat-

ing teachers, principals, seminars, mentoring student teachers to interpret the INTASCstandards in everyday practice.

· Departmental Student Teacher Professional Development Day. For the first time student teachershave a day-long opportunity to share concerns, learn from each other, view samples of previouscohort’s portfolios, meet with other supervisors and professors.

· Departmental Prospective Student Teacher Orientation Meeting provides an Introduction/Oridenta-tion to the INTASC standards for performance evaluation prior to the semester of studentteaching placements

· Career Service Office and Departmental Student Teacher Professional Development Day provides aday-long opportunity to learn about interview portfolios, resume writing, moc interviews andguest speakers from surrounding school districts.

· Departmental Portfolio Fair offers student teachers professional development experiences bypublicly interpreting and presenting their teaching portfolios to peers, principals, professors, andteachers.

· Presentation by the professor, principal, and teacher representatives at our PDS site: What is aProfessional Development School? All superintendents, principals, teachers, student teachers, andprofessors are invited. This and other related presentations are planned to create an inclusivespirit and place for increased camaraderie between school and university educators.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

3:39

31

Aug

ust 2

013