How student teachers describe their pupils

0742-05I.X 91 $3 00~0.00 Pergamon Press plc

HOW STUDENT TEACHERS DESCRIBE THEIR PUPILS

DONA M. KAGAN

University of Alabama, U.S.A.

and

DEBORAH J. TIPPINS

University of Georgia, U.S.A.

Abstract-The focus of this study is the knowledge teachers acquire about their pupils and how

it may change as teachers gain classroom experience. Twelve student teachers (five elementary, seven secondary) were asked to describe several of their pupils at the beginning, middle, and end of the student teaching experience. In addition, summary evaluations of the student teachers’ pro-

fessional growth were obtained from their university supervisors. The elementary teachers injected more of themselves into the protiles than their secondary counterparts. That is, they reasoned psychologically and described interventions almost four times more often than the secondary novices; and included their affective responses to pupils three times more often. As

the elementary novices acquired experience, they began to see pupils as well-rounded individuals with lives that extended beyond the classroom. They also tended to perceive themselves as

intimately connected to their pupils’ problems. In contrast, the secondary novices appeared to approach student teaching with many inaccurate assumptions about pupils. This may have been

the result of a teacher education program that entailed several brief - rather than one extended - clinical experiences prior to student teaching. As the semester progressed. the secondary

student teachers saw expectations and stereotypes violated. Low-growth elementary and secondary student teachers injected themselves least into the profiles they wrote, and they tended to describe pupils in terms of relatively few characteristics.

Some researchers have suggested that the heart of classroom teaching and learning lies in the individual relationships teachers form with their pupils, and that most of the classroom dilemmas teachers face are associated with those relationships (e.g., Lyons, 1990; Pinnegar & Carter, 1990). In more mundane terms, Doyle (1979) and Haller (1967) have argued that pupils play an important role in socializing teachers - a role that may increase as teachers gain experience and become more sensitive to their pupils (Larson, 1986).

The focus of this study is the knowledge teachers acquire about their pupils and how it may change as teachers gain classroom experience. Although this has not been an area of

educational research per se, one can draw inferences from two large categories of em- pirical literature: quantitative studies of teachers’ expectations and attributions for pupil performance; and qualitative studies of teachers’ interactive cognitions.

Studies of Teachers’ Expectations and Attributions

A variety of studies suggests that in forming expectations for a pupil’s classroom performance, a teacher is often influenced by the pupil’s personality, gender, and prior history of academic success (Brophy & Good, 1974). Studies concerning “salient” students have

45s

456 DONA 51. KAGAN and DEBORAH J. TIPPINS

been particularly revealing. When Jackson, Silberman, and Wolfson (1969) asked teachers to name all their pupils from memory, they discovered that teachers knew more about and were more personally involved with the students they named first. These “salient” pupils tended to be models: conforming, dependent, and acquiescent (Brophy & Good, 1974; Feshbach, 1969).

A series of studies attempted to explain teachers’ perceptions of their pupils in terms of discrete typologies. Silberman (1969, 197 1) provided teachers with four categories of pupils and asked them to nominate students in their own classes who fell into each category: Attach- ment, Indifference, Concern, Rejections (the names reflecting teachers’ attitudes towards the pupils). Findings indicated that Attachment pupils were conforming and made few demands on teachers. Pupils in the Concern group made extensive but appropriate demands upon teachers and received most of the attention. Pupils in the Indifference group had relatively few contacts with teachers, while those in the Rejection group were perceived to make illegitimate or overwhelming demands on teachers (Silberman, 1969, 1971). Jenkins (1972) verified this typology with classroom observations.

Rohrkemper and Brophy (1983) focused on typologies of problem students and teachers’ attributions for pupil failure. They began with a typology of problem students and constructed vignettes for each type: Instructional problems (failure syndrome, perfectionist, underachiev- ing, low-achieving); Aggression problems (hostile aggressive, passive aggressive, defiant); Classroom Adjustment problems (hyperactive, short attention span, immature); Peer Relation difficulties (rejected by peers, shy. withdrawn).

Teachers’ responses to the vignettes revealed that they tended to perceive problem behavior as being caused by factors internal to the student - a finding also reported by Burley, Hall, and Villeme (1989), and Peterson and Barger (1984).

Connell (1985) conducted the only extant study we could locate in which typologies were inferred from teachers’ responses to semi- structured interviews: that is, no a priori categories were imposed upon the data. From

his interviews with Australian teachers, Connell (1985) inferred four categories of comments about pupils: comments concerning (a) pupil success in formal learning situations; (b) pupil enthusiasm, energy, or motivation; (c) pupil’s disruptive or compliant classroom behavior; and (d) unique personality attributes.

From his interview data, Connell (1985) also concluded that teachers tended to “psycho- logize” (his term for analyse psychologically) their interrelationships with pupils. He suggested that this served to create emotional detachment and social distance, which teachers learn to associate with “professional” behavior. Connell’s observation is consistent with Whelage’s (cited in Ginsburg & Clift, 1990) report that Teacher Corps interns tended to grow less concerned with the personal development of their pupils as they gained classroom experience.

However, Connell’s (1985) hypothesis about creating social distance stands in sharp con- tradiction to studies based on Fuller’s model of teacher development. These suggest that as teachers gain experience, they grow more sensitive and responsive to their pupils (Adams, 1982; Fuller & Bown, 1975; Marso & Pigge, 1989; Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1990: Wildman, Niles, Magliaro, & McLaughlin, 1990).

Studies’ of Teacher Cognition

Qualitative studies of teachers’ interactive cognitions suggest that experienced teachers are highly sensitive to their pupils’ reactions to instruction (referred to as “student cues”), which they often use to modify their lessons (Borko & Livingston, 1989; Evertson & Weade, 1989; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Pinnegar, 1988; Yinger, 1987). There is some evidence that experienced teachers are more sensitive to positive student cues, novice teachers to negative cues (Housner & Griffey, 1983).

Teachers’ knowledge of their pupils has also been examined from an information processing perspective. Comparisons of novice and experienced teachers suggest that, as their classroom experience grows, teachers learn to focus on fewer and more selective pupil characteristics, chunking and differentiating information in ways that reduce the information

Student Teachers Describe Pupils 457

processing load within the classroom (Calderhead, 1981; Como, 1981; Doyle, 1977; Morine & Valiance, 1975).

Over the final 2 months of a school year, Ropo (1987) interviewed three experienced and four novice math teachers about their interactions with pupils. Compared to the novices, the experienced teachers focused more on concrete interactions designed to promote student learning and on their analyses of students’ responses to academic work.

Pinnegar (cited in Carter, 1990) conducted the only truly developmental study we could locate. Pinnegar observed and interviewed 12 secondary science teachers: four student teachers, four first-year, and four experienced teachers. She asked the teachers to select and discuss pupils at each of five points during the first semester of a new academic year: before the term started, after 3 days, after 3 weeks, at the end of the first grading period, and at the end of the first semester.

Pinnegar found that all of the teachers focused on student cooperation. The experienced teachers appeared particularly skilled at identifying pupils who resisted cooperation and at thinking of ways to engage them. First- year teachers also emphasized the importance of knowing which students were likely to be un- cooperative, while the student teachers focused on the importance of establishing good rapport.

From Pinnegar’s (cited in Carter, 1990) findings, one could infer that with experience teachers learn to attend to particularly un- cooperative pupils. This is consistent with a hypothetical “ideal” strategy suggested by Doyle (1979): namely, at the beginning of a new school year, an experienced teacher would consciously direct his/her attention to a particular, “steering” group of pupils, which the teacher would then use as a gauge in selecting instructional routines.

Purpose and Expectations

As university supervisors of student teachers, we wanted to take a close look at developmental changes in the information student teachers acquired about their pupils and in their discussion of that information. We had no clear hypotheses about developmental changes that might occur, largely because the implications of

the research discussed above are inconsistent and somewhat contradictory. That is, based on the studies cited earlier, one could expect student teachers to manifest progressively more: (a) selectivity in terms of the kinds of pupil information they discussed; (b) interest in salient (model) pupils and positive (as opposed to negative) student cues; (c) interest in problem students who do not cooperate in class; (d) reasoning psychologicaliy about pupil -teacher relationships, effectively creating greater social distance between themselves and their pupils.

One could also expect that student teachers would tend to attribute academic failures to pupils’ internal qualities and to discuss pupils in terms of any of several typologies.

Method

Participants

Twelve student teachers participated in this study. Five were elementary teachers enrolled in an undergraduate teacher education program at the University of Georgia. Each of these novices taught in an elementary school (in kindergarten, grades 1, 3, and 4, respectively) for 10 weeks, one academic quarter. They were supervised by the second author.

Seven of the student teachers were at the secondary level, enrolled in a teacher education program at the University of Alabama: five as undergraduates, two as fifth-year Master’s students. All of the secondary teachers completed 16 weeks (one academic semester) of student teaching, supervised by the first author. The two graduate student teachers coincident- ally kept a single assignment throughout the semester, each working with an experienced English teacher at the same high school. The other five student teachers had double majors and were required to complete a “split assignment. ” This meant that they spent half the semester working with a secondary English teacher, the other half with a secondary history teacher and a completely new set of classes.

The teacher education programs at both universities are traditional in nature. That is, each entails an initial block of foundational coursework, several clinical experiences, and

458 DONA hi. KAGAN and DEBOFUH J. TIPPINS

finally one quarter/semester of student teaching. While student teaching, candidates are observed and evaluated 4-6 times by their university supervisors. As university supervisors, we share a constructivist approach to teaching and tend to provide similar kinds of feedback to our student teachers.

Ultimately we compared and merged the charts and summaries. The charts and patterns they elicited are described in remaining sections of this article. Pseudonyms are used throughout.

Results

Procedures

We asked our student teachers to submit written profiles of their pupils three times during student teaching: at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester/quarter. At each of these points the secondary teachers described three pupils; the elementary teachers described two. Different pupils were described at each point of time.

The elementary teachers wrote a total of 30 profiles, seven (23%) of which described non- problematic or model children. The remaining 77% of profiles described children who were disruptive, lacked motivation, or possessed poor social skills.

The pupils could be described in terms of any of the following: academic achievement or aptitude, intellectual characteristics, interests, personality, family, daily behaviors, relationships with peers or teachers, learning style, motor skills, physical characteristics. The student teachers could also include their own feelings about the pupils. The student teachers were asked not to conduct special research for this assignment, but to base the profiles on their own classroom observations and interactions. The profiles were not going to be graded, so the student teachers would feel free to write them in any ways they desired.

The secondary teachers wrote 63 profiles, 15 (24%) of which described model students. Fifteen pupils posed minor concerns, usually because they lacked motivation to work up to potential. The remaining 52% of profiles described very disruptive students. The profiles written by both the elementary and secondary teachers were almost equally distributed in terms of pupil gender.

Analysis of Characteristics

At the end of the student teaching experience, we evaluated the professional growth of our respective student teachers. This took the form of brief written essays describing changes in beliefs, attitudes, or classroom behaviors. We used relatively gross criteria, mentally comparing each student teacher’s growth to that of the other student teachers we had known. We wrote these essays before reading any of the student teachers’ pupil descriptions.

We analyzed the profiles by coding them for “pupil” and “author characteristics.” For pupils these included: physical appearance/ motor skills; academic performance (ability, achievement); classroom behaviors (positive as well as negative); social interaction with peers; academic motivation; personality; favorite activities (including intramural sports); family life.

Data Analysis

Author characteristics consisted of ways in which the student teachers injected themselves into the profiles by (a) describing their affective reactions to a pupil; (b) reasoning psychologically (trying to account for a pupil’s behavior); (c) describing interventions that the author had tried; and (d) predicting a pupil’s future personal or academic life. Table 1 contains examples of each of these author characteristics.

We each read all of the pupil profiles: a first Since each profile was coded for multiple time to obtain a general sense of the profiles: a pupil and author characteristics, the frequency second time to take detailed notes: and a third distributions cited throughout total to more than time to summarize each profile in global terms. 100%. It is important to note that all of the pupil This involved the preparation of charts noting and author characteristics were identified as a the pupil characteristics included in each posteriori: that is, derived from the profiles profile, and short summaries of each profile. themselves as they were read.

Table I

Ewmples of Aurhor Characteristics

Including affecrive responses:

Stephen is a live-year-old boy with a lot of energy. . . He is very energetic and has a hard time sitting still. I really feel good around Stephen. He is an adorable child who is learning not to be aggressive. [written by Amy. a kindergarten teacher, at the beginning of student teaching]

Mike always finishes his homework and seatwork. He asks me for help when he is unsure of a word. He smiles a lot and seems to want to please. I really like Mike, because he always tries his best . [written by Diane, a first grade teacher, at the beginning of student teaching]

Reasoning psychologically

Arnie is a student who demands a lot of individualized attention. He is very lazy and would love for me to do all of his work for him. He never pays attention during a lesson, but once it is over, he is the first to ask for help. . He is very impatient and wants to get the answers without thinking. He often pouts when I tell him to think about a problem for a few minutes.

The main problem I see with Arnie is his lack of motivation and dependence on the teacher. He always seems so stressed.

1 have a hard time being patient and understanding with Arnie when he simply refuses to try. . Once we’ve done one problem together, and he seems to understand, I’ll leave him and when he asks for help, I offer very few words. The key to helping Arnie is to tell him to relax and take his time. He thinks he should be able to answer questions in a flash, and this is why he is stressed. [written by Melissa, a third grade teacher, at the beginning of student teaching]

Jason is a student in sixth period. He is friendly. polite, attentive, and fairly productive. . On an essay he wrote for mc, he expressed himself wonderfully. I was very impressed with his control and use of words. Although he usually participates in class, he too often settles for Bs when hc is capable of making As. I think he finds English to be a minimal challenge and puts his efforts into other subjects. Hc is taking college prep courses like calculus and physics and may be putting his time and effort into them. Hc has a natural gift for writing and should not push it aside. because he linds it easy and unchallenging at this Icvcl. [written by Jody, a high school English teacher. at the middle of the scmestcr]

Describing infervetffions:

James is a real character. He knows all the street words - I assume bccausc he has older siblings or parents that use them.

He tests me once in a while. I told the class to sit down, and James stood by his chair and looked right at mc. 1 looked down at him and asked the class to get out their pencil boxes. James knew he was supposed to sit down, but he still stood there.

I linally said, “James, what did I just ask the class to do’?” James looked at the floor and shrugged his shoulders. I said it again, and he sat down with a mad pout, While I was reading a story later that day. I had to ask James twice to stop playing with the chairs.

When I asked him to move away from them, he whispered to Joey, “I hate teachers.” Joey immediately told me what he said. I said, “No. he doesn’t, he’s just angry with me.” I don’t know if that was the right thing to say. but

it got him off the hook. Later that day after recess, James came up and hugged me. [written by Jessie, a first grade teacher, at the beginning of the quarter]

Predicting the pupil’s Jkure personal or academic life:

Mary is a short, overweight girl with unkempt hair. Her clothes are nice and clean but look as though they sat on the floor in a pile for a week. The other children don’t like Mary. They are cruel to her. calling her names like “fatty,” etc. Mary does not take their jeers well.

Mary needs to learn why she is disliked by the other students, and she needs to find out what she can do about it. She needs some self-esteem building skills and social skills. I can see Mary as an adolescent, depressed because she thinks no one likes her; depressed because of her appearance - grades falling through the basement. Someone needs to pick her up out of her hole. [written by Ellie, a fourth grade teacher, at the beginning of the quarter]

Dick is an emotionally disturbed male student in my third period class. His grades are up one week and down the next, but Dick always stays up - out of his seat, that is. He cannot be seated for more than 5 minutes. He is constantly going to the pencil sharpener. the garbage can, or window. And when he is up, hc bothers the other students. No disciplinary mcasurcs seem to work. The child is in need of psychological counseling. If he were to receive it, he could successfully complete school and become a productive member of society. Without it. he will probably wander aimlessly through life and be a real menace to others. [written by Bobby, a seventh grade history teacher. at the end of the semester]

160 DONA M. KAGAN and DEBORAH 1. TIPPINS

The elementary novices. The frequency with which each of the pupil characteristics was mentioned by the elementary novices was as follows: academic = 73 %, physical/motor = 63 %, behavior = 60%, social interaction = 57%, family = 43 70, personality = 33 % , motivation = 13 %, activities = 13 %. Although the profiles were weighted slightly toward academic and physical characteristics, they generally presented well-rounded portraits of children.

There appeared to be no chronological patterns in terms of when, during the quarter, certain characteristics were noted. Each student teacher tended to focus on some of the characteristics more than others. All of the elementary novices tended to mention more pupil characteristics after the mid-point of student teaching. Perhaps they got to know their pupils better, or came to realize the relevance of characteristics they failed to mention in the profiles written at the beginning of the quarter.

In terms of author characteristics, the elementary novices injected themselves into profiles most frequently by describing interventions they had tried (50% of the profiles). In 40% of the profiles, they included their affective responses to pupils. They reasoned psychologically in 33 % and predicted pupils’ futures in 13% of the profiles. There were no chronological patterns in terms of when during the quarter these author characteristics appeared.

The three elementary novices who were evaluated by their supervisor (the second author) as achieving the most growth (Melissa, Diane, Ellie) injected themselves more than the other elementary novices: that is, they described interventions, reasoned psychologically, and predicted pupils’ futures twice as often as the other elementary teachers. The elementary teacher described as achieving no growth, Jessie, injected herself least of all and mentioned the fewest pupil characteristics. Table 2 contains excerpts from profiles written by high- and low-growth teachers.

me secondary novices. Frequencies of pupil characteristics found in the profiles written by the secondary student teachers were as follows: academic = 78%, behavior = 52 % , personality = 27 %, motivation = 25 %, ohvsical/motor = 22%. familv = 13%. social

interaction = 1170, activities = 5%. In comparison to the elementary profiles, the secondary profiles were more limited, focused around two characteristics: academic achievement and (disruptive) classroom behavior. Family, personality, and social interaction were nearly ignored.

Frequency rates for author characteristics were as follows: reasoned psychologically = 37 %, described interventions = 14%) included affective responses = 14%, predicted pupil’s future = 11%. Thus, the secondary novices injected themselves less frequently, particularly in terms of describing interventions and affective responses. All but two of the secondary teachers did not begin describing interventions until the second set of profiles, which was written midway through the semester. In contrast, the elementary teachers mentioned interventions from the outset.

The secondary teachers who were described by their supervisor (the first author) as manifesting greatest growth, Paula and Sharon, tended to reason psychologically more and earlier than the other secondary novices. In addition, Paula included more affective responses in her profiles than the other secondary teachers.

Carol, who did not manifest great change, but who was the strongest secondary teacher (in terms of inventing creative and motivating activities), also reasoned psychologically and described her affective responses early in the semester. The other secondary novices, like Jim and Jody, who were described as manifesting little or no growth, reasoned psychologically only in profiles that they wrote at the end of the semester. Lois, who manifested the least growth, injected herself the least (75% less frequently than Paula) and noted the fewest pupil characteristics. This was consistent with the performance of Jessie, the elementary novice described as achieving the least growth. Excerpts from profiles written by high- and low-growth secondary teachers are included in Table 2.

Global Analysis of the Profiles

We also completed a more global analysis of the pupil profiles, by categorizing them in terms


Table 7

kcerprs from Profiles Writfen by High- and Law-Growth Student Teachers

Elemenlary Teachers

Melissa (grade 3): High growth Written at the beginning of student teaching:

Rico is a model student. I have yet to hear him shout out, be called on for talking. pushing, or being off task. He is very quiet. but I don’t see him as shy, because he’ll ask questions as well as answer them.

Sometimes I wonder what he is thinking. He doesn’t seem to have a friend that he pals around with. although the others seem to like him

He strikes me as a loner. Rico doesn’t smile much, but I don’t think he is unhappy. I think he gets angry at the other students who get the whole class in trouble.

Rico doesn’t show much emotion during the day. Even when he receives an award. he doesn’t seem real impressed. I was shocked today when Rico gave me a hug. He is very sweet. and I think he is comfortable with me. I try to give him recognition, because he is so ofrcn forgotten about.

Jessie (grade I): Low grobvrh

Also written at the beginning of the quaner:

All day long 1 observed the class to prepare for this profile. I wanted lo choose a student who really rose above the rest. Erin is taller than most of the others. has shon brown hair and large brown eyes. From the very beginning she was very affectionate to me. She loves to gel out of her seat to get a hug from the reacher. the aide, or myself. Sometimes this gets her into trouble. I hate to send her away when she smiles and looks at me with those huge eyes, but she does need to stay on task.

Secondary Teachers

Paula (grade 9): High growth Written at the beginning of student teaching:

Sally is repeating ninth grade. The first day I was left alone with her class, she tested me. All period long she made faces and talked with her friends. About half-way through the class, Sally came and asked me is she could go 10 the restroom. She seemed sort of subdued and sad. Two days later. my coop teacher suggested that I move her from her seat in the back of the room to the front row.

My coop teacher later told me that she allowed Sally to get away with more than other students. Last year Sally ran away from home and was missing for three weeks. All that time she was with her 24-year-old boyfriend. Presently she is living in a foster home.

Luis (grade II): Low growth Also written at the beginning of the semester:

Nancy is a petite girl with long brown hair. She is very quiet, but talks some lo a girl who sits beside her. She never volunteers answers. even though she is an excellent student. I would describe her as one of those students who would be outstanding. if she would just apply herself.

-

‘Yore. This chan is designed to illustrate differences between the initial capacities of high- versus low- growth student teachers. At the beginning of the student teaching experience. high-growth novices demonstrated greater ability to reason psychologically about pupils and to perceive small inconsistencies in behavior.

of mutually-exclusive themes: (a) cause -effect theme apparent). A fifth category, “can’t figure relationships (the author attempted to account it out,” had to be added to analyze the profiles for the pupil’s behaviors); (b) cause-effect written by the secondary novices. This last relationships plus description of interventions category included profiles that described a (same as the first category, supplemented with student teacher’s inability to understand the discussion of interventions the author tried); (c) cause(s) of a pupil’s disruptive behavior or lack paradox (pupil’s behaviors are described in of motivation. Table 3 contains examples of terms of a paradox or in terms of violating a profiles that fell into each of these thematic stereotype); (d) plain description (no major categories.

Table 3

Examples of Profiles Representing Different Themes

Cause-effect reasoning: Today was Mark’s third day. and it didn’t go any better than the previous two. On his first day. Mark

caused as much trouble as possible with the other main trouble-maker in the class. Johnny. He and Johnny were trying to get into tights all day. They are both very aggressive and insulting.

They are both insecure in their own ways. Both come from troubled homes. Mark’s mother had him when she was 15, his father 16. The boy has already been to five elementary schools in town, as a result of moving around. He stayed with him mom for a while. then moved in with his father. Now he is living with the grandmother. Apparently he had tried to burn down the family house just before he was sent to live with his grandmother.

What I find really sad about Mark is that he is extremely intelligent. He just uses his negativeness against others. . . I have thought that perhaps he is also bored with the curriculum. that he feels he has to act out. Others in the class who are equally as smart have other coping mechanisms to deal with their boredom. [written by Ellie, a founh grade teacher. at the end of student teaching]

Cause -effect reasoning plus description oj intervention: Margie is a cute, tiny girl, She does not form her letters correctly and needs a lot of one-on-one

attention. She is a little immature but lovable. Margie enjoys working on the computer, but she doesn’t get to do so often. because her seatwork is rarely finished on time.

Her mom works I2 hours a day and doesn’t get to spend too much time with her. Margie doesn’t bring her homework back, and when she does, it usually isn’t finished.

I have been working with Margie on writing and spelling. She doesn’t write her letters in the correct spaces, and she doesn’t spell correctly. I love working with her. I made a “clothes line” spelling center for her. She pulls out a word. matches the letters to the word. then writes the word on a chalkboard. She has improved a great deal. and I am anxious to see how she does on her spelling test this Friday. [written by Diane. a first grade teacher, at the middle of the quarter]

Parado.r : Chris is a student in my fifth period history class. The entire class is very bright, but Chris rises above

everyone else. She is smart and loves class discussion. She is one of the most vocal students in the class. However. since the beginning of school she has had severe personal problems. Her mother was in a serious au10 accident. and it has taken several operations and months for her to recover. A few weeks ago, Chris told mc that her parents were in the process of getting a divorce. Through all of this. Chris has somehow maintained straight As. She is a model student and a real pleasure to have in class. [written by Paula, a secondary teacher, at the end of the scmcstcr]

Parudox in the form of a broken stereotye: Jennifer is a student in second period. She is of average height. has long brown hair, blue eyes, and a

big smile. She is the epitome of the high school cheerleader. Cheerleaders often have the reputation of being flighty, but Jennifer is anything but. She is very hard working and always turns in her homework - usually done correctly. She is also very responsible. Since she is often excused to perform in various school functions. she misses tests and assignments. She is always careful to come by later to take a test she missed or to turn in or pick up assignments. She is respectful and a pleasure to have in my English class. [written by Jody. a high school teacher, at the end of the semester]

Plain description: Kim is five years old. She has long brown hair, usually worn in a pony tail. Kim sucks her thumb often

and has a distinct baby talk. She is the only child in the class who cannot identify her own name. She has no concept of what a letter is. She requires lots of repetition. Kim likes to talk and often finds herself in time-out. During learning centers, she spends every chance she can in housekeeping. She has a great imagination. My coop teacher has decided to watch Kim for the next few weeks. She thinks she may be a slow learner who would qualify for special ed. [written by Amy, a kindergarten teacher, at the beginning of student teaching]

“I can ‘t figure it out I’: James is a student in my ninth grade homeroom and first period history class. My coop teacher and I

recently discovered that he will be 17 in January. James wears a number of gold rings on each finger and walks with a distinct strut. Every few days, James gets suspended - usually because a teacher refused to let him go to the restroom, and he simply walked out of his or her class. Last week James told me a story about his wife and baby - but I am sure he doesn’t have a wife or a baby. I think he may be into dealing drugs. I also heard that his family receives a benefit check as long as he stays in school. He doesn’t pay attention in class. and on the last test wrote, “I don’t know.” in every blank. James is more than strange. I guess nothing can be done with him. [written by Paula. a secondary teacher. at the end of the semester]


The 30 profiles written by the elementary student teachers were distributed as follows: cause-effect = 10 (33%); cause-effect plus intervention = 9 (30%); paradox = 2 (7%); plain description = 9 (30%). Most of the plain descriptions were written by Amy, who taught kindergarten. We found no chronological patterns or relationships between themes and evaluations of growth.

The 63 profiles written by the secondary novices were distributed as follows: paradox = 25 (40%); plain description = 18 (29%); cause-effect plus intervention = 10 (16%); cause-effect = 6 (9%); “can’t figure it out” = 4 (6%).

As these statistics indicate, in comparison to the secondary teachers, the elementary teachers did twice as much psychological (cause-effect) reasoning, particularly in terms of describing intervention efforts and their success. The secondary teachers wrote six times as many paradoxical profiles. The two groups of novices engaged in almost the same amount of plain description.

Discussion

Results of the two kinds of data analysis were consistent and suggested that the elementary novices injected more of themselves into the pupil profiles than their secondary counterparts. They accomplished this by reasoning psychologically and describing intervention efforts almost four times as frequently; and by including their own affective responses to pupils three times as frequently as the secondary teachers.

This suggested that the elementary student teachers were more intimately involved with their pupils (also noted of elementary teachers by Burley et al., 1989), or that they were more able to reason psychologically about pupils’ problems than the secondary student teachers. The latter hypothesis was consistent with our analysis of case studies that these novices wrote during the same time period (Kagan & Tippins, 1991).

The elementary novices also perceived their pupils in more multifaceted terms than the secondary novices, who consistently focused on academic skills and disruptive classroom behaviors. It may be significant that the second-

ary teachers judged as achieving greatest professional growth during the semester tended to have more rounded views of their pupils and to reason psychologically about their problems relatively early in the student teaching experience. Interestingly, the elementary and secondary novices judged to have grown the least (Jessie, Lois) each mentioned relatively few pupil characteristics and engaged in little psychological reasoning.

One of the more curious findings concerned the “can’t figure it out” profiles written by Paula, the secondary teacher judged as achieving the greatest amount of professional growth. These profiles described Paula as much as her pupils, in that they documented her futile attempts to diagnose problems. Her obvious concern over these failures may indicate a particularly reflective disposition.

Another provocative finding concerned the paradoxical profiles, found almost exclusively among the secondary student teachers. These profiles suggested that the secondary novices expected each pupil to manifest consistent behaviors and to adhere to particular stereotypes. In essence, the paradoxical profiles explained how expectations and stereotypes were shattered. Considering the small percent- age of paradoxical profiles written by the elementary teachers, one might infer that the secondary novices had approached student teaching with more concrete, inaccurate expectations about pupils. Perhaps they were more naive, because they had not been exposed to pupils as intensely as their elementary counterparts.

A close comparison of the clinical com- ponents entailed in the teacher education programs represented by the elementary and secondary novices, respectively, indicated that this was, in fact, the case. During their teacher education program at the University of Georgia, each elementary novice had completed a 4-week clinical assignment in one elementary classroom, where he/she had gotten to interact with a group of children. In contrast, the secondary novices at the University of Alabama had each completed several brief clinical assignments prior to student teaching. Each assignment lasted only 2-5 days, effectively preventing a novice from getting to know pupils on more than a superficial level.

16-l DONA M. K.AGAN and DEBORAH J. TIPPINS

Relationships to Prior Research Conclusions and Inferences

Contrary to research on salient students (e.g.. Jackson et al., 1969). the novices in this study did not focus on dependent, conforming, or acquiescent pupils. Instead, they concentrated on deeply problematic and disruptive students. Like the experienced teachers described by Housner and Griffey (1983), they may have been particularly sensitive to negative (as opposed to positive) pupil cues. Or. as Doyle (1979) speculated, focusing on problem students may simply represent an effective approach to class management.

Contrary to Connell’s (1985) suggestion, the tendency to reason psychologically about pupil problems did not appear to be a method of creating social distance. Indeed, the tendency to reason psychologically was associated with the expression of affective responses to problem pupils.

The elementary and secondary student teachers differed in several significant ways. The elementary novices tended to inject their thoughts and reactions into the student profiles they wrote, where the secondary novices re- mained relatively aloof. As student teaching progressed, the elementary teachers included more pupil characteristics in their profiles; the secondary teachers continued to focus primarily on their pupils’ academic behaviors. The two groups of novices were similar in only one respect: reports of great professional growth were associated with the tendency to see pupils in multifaceted terms, to reason psychologically, and to respond effectively to pupils.

Findings confirmed only some of the student typologies found in prior research. The major themes that Connell (198.5) found in experienced teachers’ descriptions of pupils were evi- dent: academic achievement, motivation. disruption, and individual temperament. Each

type of problem student reported by Rohrkemper and Brophy (1983) was also found in the profiles we obtained: Instructional, Aggression, Classroom Adjustment, and Peer Relation problem.

From this pattern, one might infer that for the elementary novices learning to teach meant learning to see pupils as well-rounded individuals with characteristics and lives that extended beyond the classroom. Learning to teach also meant coming to perceive themselves as intimately connected to their pupils’ problems.

However, Jenkins (1972) and Silberman’s (1969, 1971) typology of pupils was not supported (Attachment, Indifference, Concern. Rejection). The vast majority of the pupils described by the novices fell under the category’ of “Concern.” About 25% were model students who might be considered “Attach- ment” pupils. The only Rejection pupils were described by Bobby, a secondary student teacher, at the end of the semester: three disruptive seventh-graders heavily involved with gangs, for whom Bobby predicted dire futures. We found no evidence of Indifference pupils. Finally, the novices tended to perceive pupil problems as attributable to internal qualities. consistent with findings reported by Burley et al. (1989). Peterson and Barger (198-l). and Rohrkcmper and Brophy ( 1983).

In contrast, the secondary novices appeared to approach student teaching with many unrealistic expectations about pupils. This may have been the result of a teacher education program that entailed multiple brief - rather than one extended - clinical experiences prior to student teaching. As student teaching progressed, the secondary novices saw their expectations violated: Pupils were not consistent in their motivations and behaviors, and they did not conform to stereotypes. While the secondary novices grew increasingly perplexed by their pupils’ seemingly paradoxical characteristics, the elementary novices expanded their perspectives, ultimately seeing their own feelings and behaviors as inextricably bound up with their pupils’ problems. One is reminded of the distinction between “separate” and “con- nectrd knowing,” the latter rhetoric reflecting an intimate relationship between the knower and that which is known, a vocabulary of feeling and reference to self (Helle, 1991).

How can one account for these differences in the perspectives of the elementary and secondary student teachers’? The most obvious and logical factor appeared to be the differential


nature of teaching in elementary and secondary classrooms. By this we-mean differences in: pupils’ ranges and rates of cognitive development, the nature of disciplinary problems, learning objectives, practices and beliefs, of teachers in the school, the size of classes, and the number of pupils with whom a teacher interacts each day. Here it is interesting to note that the elementary student teachers interacted with an average of 25 pupils per day, the secondary student teachers with 125-250 pupils per day (depending upon whether a student teacher completed a single or a split assignment). One could logically assume that the secondary teachers had less personalized classroom experiences and got to know their pupils less well than the elementary teachers.

Limitations

However, it is also true that the two groups of student teachers were enrolled in different teacher education programs. Other than the differences in clinical experiences noted above and the academic calendar (semester versus quarter system), we could not identify elements of the programs that might have accounted for the differential nature of the profiles. it is unlikely that the difference in academic calendars was responsible for the findings, because the teachers who spent more time in the classroom (the secondary student teachers on the semester system) appeared to know their pupils less intimately than the teachers who spent less time in the classroom (the elementary teachers on the quarter system). However, it is possible that we overlooked some other factor associated with the two programs. An examination of profiles written by elementary and secondary student teachers enrolled in the same program might resolve this issue.

A second limitation in methodology concerns our evaluations of the student teachers’ growth. We made no attempt to estimate the interrater reliability of our evaluations (e.g., by obtaining other supervisors’ assessments of our student teachers). Although we feel we defined growth in blatant terms and were careful not to look at any of the profiles until after writing our evaluations of the student teachers, the fact remains

that we made no attempt to validate our judgments. Gender (ours as well as our student teachers’) also may have played a role in our evaluations.

Despite these limitations, our findings suggest that a novice teacher’s profile of one of his/her pupils may reflect significant aspects of the teacher’s professional growth and pedagogi- cal knowledge. We hope other researchers will pursue this method and some of the themes it revealed.

References

Adams. R. D. (1982). Teacher development: A look at changes in teacher perceptions and behavior across time. Journal of Teacher Education, 33. 40 -43.

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. Americun Educurional Research Journal, 26, 473-498.

Brophy, J. E.. & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relarionships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt. Rincttart & Winston.

Burlev. W. W.. Hall. B. W.. & Villeme. M. G. (1989 Maich). Attributions rhar experienced reachers hold IO account for srudenrs ’ academic success and failure and rhe relationship IO leaching level and reacher feedback prucrices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Calderhead, J. (1981). A psychological approach to research on teachers’ classroom decision making. Brirish Educational Research Journal, 7, 51-57.

Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of reseurch on reacher educaorion (pp. 291-31 I). New York: Mac- millan.

Connell. R. W. (1985). Teachers’ rvork. Sydney, Australia: George Allen & Unwin

Corno. L. (1981). Cognitive organizing in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 359 -377.

Doyle. W. (1977). Learning the classroom environment: An ecological analysis. Journal of Teacher Educarion. 28. 51-55.

Doyle, W. (1979). Making managerial decisions in classrooms. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Classroom monage- menr (78th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. pp. 42-74). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ever&on, C. M.. & Weade, R. (1989). Classroom manaeement and teaching stvle: Instructional stability and tariability in two 5. high English classrooms! Elemenrarv School Journal. 89. 379-393.

Feshbach, i. (1969). Student leacher preferences for

466 DONA M. KAGAN and DEBORAH J. TIPPINS

elementary school pupils varying in personality study of‘ reacher and pupil perceprlons of classroom in- characteristics. Journai of Educurional Ps.~hology, 60. rerucrion (Technical Report No. 75-l l-6). San Fran- l’6- 132. cisco: Far West Laboratory.

Fuller, F. F.. & Bown. 0. H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Wencher Educnrion (74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II.

pp. 25-52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ginsburg, M. B., & Clift. R. T. (1990). The hidden cur-

riculum of preservice teacher education. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher educarion (pp. 450-465). New York: Macmillan.

Haller. E. (1967). Pupils’ influences in teacher socializa- tion: A sociolinguistic study. Socioloyy of Educnriotr, 40. 316-333.

Noordhoff. K.. 8~ Kleinfeld, J. (1990). Shaping the rhetoric of reflection for multicultural settings. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), En- cauraging rejlective practice in education (pp. 139- 162). New York: Teachers College Press.

Peterson. P. L., Rc Barger. S. A. (1984). Attribution theory and teacher expectancy. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.), Teacher crpecfuncies (pp. 159- 184). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pinnegar. S. E. (1988. April). Learning rhe lnttguczge of prncfice fiotn pracricing reuchers: An explorution into the term ‘ ‘rvith me. ’ ’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, New Orleans.

Helle. A. P. (1991). Reading women’s autobiographies. In C. Witherell & N. Noddinns (Eds.). Stories lives fell (pp. 48-66). New York: Tiachers College Press.

Housner, L. D.. & Griffey. D. C. (1983, April). Teacher cognition: Differences in pkmtring and interactive decision making bentven e.rperienced Ed ine.rperienced tmchers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Canada. Jackson, P.. Silberman, M.. s( Wolfson. B. (1969). Signs

of personal involvement in teachers’ descriptions of their students. Jourtud of Educutionnl Psychology. 60, 22 -27.

Jenkins. B. (1972). Teachers’ vierG*s of particulur srudenrs and their behrkor in fhe clussruottt. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation. University of Chicago.

Kagan, D. M., & Tippins. D. J. (1991). Classroom case studies as indirect gauges of professional growth. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Larson, S. (1986). Learning from experience: Teachers’ conceptions of changes in their professional practice. Journal of Curri&utn Studies. 19, 35 -43.

Lcinhardt. G.. s( Grecno, I. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educcttioncd Psychology. 78. 75-95.

Lyons, N. (1990). Epistcmological dimensions of teachers’ work and development. Hurvurd Educclrioncrl Rerinc,, 60. 159- 180.

Marso, R. N.. & Pigge. F. L. (1989). The influence of prescrvice training and teaching experience upon attitude and concerns about teaching. Tetrchit~~q~ curd Teclcher Educarion. 5. 33 -41.

Morine, G.. & Valiance, E. (1975). Specitrl SIU& B: A

Pinnegar. S.. Rr Carter, K. (1990). Comparing theories from textbooks and practicing teachers. Juurnul of Teczcher Educurion. 41, 20 - 27.

Rohrkemper. M. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1983). Teachers’ thinking about problem students. In J. M. Levine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher turd studenr perceptions: Ittr- pkcuions j?tr lccrrning (pp. 75- 103). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ropo, E. (1987, March). T~,~~chers conceptions of teachiq cmd teaching behnvior: Some c1tfft~rettce.s befween expert and novice teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Silbcrman. M. (1969). Behavioral expression of teachers’ attitudes toward elementary school students. Jourtrrd of Educurioncrl Psychology. 60, 402 -407.

Silberman, M. (1971). Tcachcrs’ attitudes and actions toward5 their students. In M. Silberman (Ed.), 771~ es- periences of schooling (pp. 86-96). New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.

Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1990). Promoting renective practice among beginning and experienced teachers. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), El!- courqitrg rejlective practice in education (pp. l39- 162). New York: Teachers College Press.

Yinger. R. J. (1987, April). By I/I< SC(II of your punts: An inquiry info improvisation curd raclching. Pupcr prescntcd at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington. DC.

Documents

How student teachers describe their pupils