Professors and the Practicum: Involvement of University Faculty in Preservice Practicum Supervision

http://jte.sagepub.com/Journal of Teacher Education

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/53/1/6The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0022487102053001002

2002 53: 6Journal of Teacher EducationClive Beck and Clare Kosnik

Professors and the Practicum: Involvement of University Faculty in Preservice Practicum Supervision

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

can be found at:Journal of Teacher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/53/1/6.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 2002Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jte.sagepub.com/

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/53/1/6

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.aacte.org

http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/53/1/6.refs.html

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/53/1/6.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002

PROFESSORS AND THE PRACTICUMINVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY FACULTYIN PRESERVICE PRACTICUM SUPERVISION

Clive BeckClare KosnikOntario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto

Preservice practicum supervision is often carried out by special supervisory staff rather than by ten-ured or tenure-track education faculty. Some researchers feel this creates an unfortunate separationbetween the campus program and the practicum and results in lost opportunities to strengthen theschool-university partnership. Five years ago, in an elementary preservice cohort program, the au-thors adopted a policy of heavy involvement in practicum supervision by all members of their fac-ulty team; the authors also devised ways of supporting the faculty in their supervision. Over thepast 4 years, the authors studied the effects of applying this model; it was found to strengthen theschool-university partnership, enhance both the practicum and the campus program, and help fac-ulty grow in knowledge and understanding of schooling. However, the approach was time-consumingand presented some other challenges for faculty. If it is to be adopted widely in preservice education,stronger institutional support is needed.

I kind of expected to be more of a number. I expectedto go to big lecture halls and hear some mighty edu-cation god, probably male, stand at the front of theroom and give us this dogma on child developmentand so on. . . . I certainly never expected to get toknow my professors on a one-on-one basis, wherethey would understand who I am and where I’mcoming from and . . . be able to understand whether apracticum placement is going to work for me or not.

—Janet, Mid-Town student teacher,toward the end of her program

Involvement of education faculty in super-vising preservice students in their practicumplacements does not occur to the degree onemight expect. In many teacher education pro-grams, practicum supervision is conducted byspecially appointed supervisory staff, typicallydoctoral students, retired teachers, teachers onleave from their school board, or retired educa-tion professors. In programs where practicumsupervision is carried out by tenured or tenure-

track faculty, supervisory staff often make justthe minimum number of school visits neededto assign a practice teaching grade (Borko &Mayfield, 1995; Goodlad, 1990a, 1994; Slick,1998).

There are several reasons for the phenome-non of limited faculty supervision, the mostobvious being time pressures on university fac-ulty. In addition to preservice teaching, educa-tion professors typically have commitments tograduate teaching, thesis supervision, research,publishing, administration, and committeework. A second reason is that in most universi-ties today, preservice work is not as highlyregarded or rewarded as graduate work,research, and publishing. As a result, facultyoften give lower priority to preservice courseinstruction; and practicum supervision, therationale and expectations for which are oftenvague, tends to receive the least attention of all.

6

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002 6-19© 2002 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014jte.sagepub.comDownloaded from


A third reason for the neglect of practicumsupervision, in our view, is that many educationprofessors believe they can make a greater con-tribution to schooling through research andtheorizing.

Five years ago, in the Mid-Town elementarypreservice program at the Ontario Institute forStudies in Education, University of Toronto(OISE/UT), we adopted a policy of intensivepracticum supervision by all members of ourfaculty team, including subject specialists andfoundations instructors. For the past 4 academicyears (1996-2000) we conducted research on ourprogram to assess whether the effects of imple-menting this model of supervision were such asto warrant continuation of the approach. In thisarticle, we provide a brief review of relevant lit-erature on practicum supervision; describe ourmodel of supervision; outline the goals andmethodology of our research; present the find-ings of the research; and discuss a number ofissues that arise, notably the need for institu-tional support for practicum supervision byfaculty.

RESEARCH AND THEORYON PRACTICUM SUPERVISIONBY UNIVERSITY FACULTY

The research literature reveals that in manypreservice programs, there is little communica-tion between the academic program and thepracticum (Goodlad, 1990b; Zeichner, 1990,1996); two largely separate worlds exist side byside. The problem is not just lack of contact andcommunication. In many programs, there is nota coherent philosophy of teaching and learningthat guides both the campus program and thepracticum (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Zeichner,1990, 1996). As Goodlad (1994) said in his wryfashion, even if the various parties involved inteacher education “were to come together toassemble the parts of the vehicle each has cre-ated, the composite result would not functionwell” (p. 25).

Studies of the role of associate teachers, theterm we use at OISE/UT for cooperating ormentor teachers, reveal a gulf between theviews of these teachers and university faculty.Associate teachers often see their task as a fairly

practical one, a matter of initiating studentteachers into the “realities” of teaching(Bullough & Kauchak, 1997; Guyton &McIntyre, 1990; Maynard, 1996). Many univer-sity faculty, by contrast, feel associate teachersshould take an interventionist stance; theyadvocate adopting a “critical” approach, inquir-ing into current practices rather than merelytransmitting them (Maynard, 1996; Williams,1994; Winitzky, Stoddart, & O’Keefe, 1992).However, as long as education professors andassociate teachers live in separate worlds, it willbe difficult to resolve these issues and develop asound, shared approach to teaching and learn-ing (Beck & Kosnik, 2000).

Casey and Howson (1993) argued that educa-tion professors, field supervisors, and associateteachers should work closely together in athree-person teaching team. This team shouldmeet to discuss goals and strategies and attemptto build “a strong scaffolding for preservice stu-dents” as they implement ideas discussed in thecampus courses (p. 365). But, although interac-tion and dialogue of this kind is a step in theright direction, it does not provide sufficientbasis for integration of campus and field experi-ences. As long as most supervision is done bynonprofessorial field personnel, a separationbetween the campus courses and the practicumwill persist.

Bullough and Gitlin (1995) implemented apreservice program in which a cohort of about25 student teachers were together for mostaspects of the program under the guidance of asmall faculty team. They moved to this modelbecause student teachers, when consulted, com-plained about “duplication and superficiality”in course content, lack of integration of coursesand fieldwork, and inadequate student advis-ing (p. 4). With the establishment of the cohortprogram, in which faculty did “much of theadvising that had formerly been done by theadvising office,” it became possible to “experi-ment with different approaches”; in particular,the faculty were able to explore the same con-cepts in both the classroom and the field andkeep revisiting these concepts throughout theyear (pp. 5-6). In a more recent work, Bulloughand Kauchak (1997) concluded that university

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002 7



faculty need to spend even more time inpracticum schools than had been previouslyrealized.

One vehicle widely advocated in recent yearsfor bringing education faculty into practicumsettings is the professional development schoolor PDS (Darling-Hammond, 1994, 1999; Fullan,Galluzzo, Morris, & Watson, 1998; Goodlad,1994; Teitel, 1997; Whitford & Metcalf-Turner,1999). In a PDS, a school and university agree towork together in a combined program ofinservice and preservice teacher developmentand school-based research. The teacher educa-tion program is “jointly planned and taught byuniversity-based and school-based faculty.Cohorts of beginning teachers get a richer, morecoherent learning experience when they areorganized in teams to study and practice withthese faculty” (Darling-Hammond, 1999). Asuniversity faculty become involved with PDSs,there is significant improvement in theirapproach both to practicum supervision andcampus teaching (Teitel, 1997).

However, even if increased faculty presencein practicum sites would enhance teacher edu-cation, is such an approach to the practicum fea-sible given the many pressures on faculty in uni-versities today? Research grants, publications,and formal conference presentations are typi-cally the main bases for promotion, tenure, andmerit pay increases (Samaras & Gismondi, 1998;Snyder, 1994; Whitford & Metcalf-Turner, 1999).Can teacher education faculty afford a majorcommitment to working in partner schools?Winitzky et al. (1992) hypothesized that pastschool-university partnerships have failedlargely because most faculty opted out, and thefew who carried the burden “simply ran out ofenergy” (p. 16). They suggested that perhapspracticum supervision has to be mandatory forall education faculty; but would schools of edu-cation be willing to adopt this stance?

THE MID-TOWN PROGRAM’S MODELOF PRACTICUM SUPERVISION

At OISE/UT, there are approximately 1,200student teachers in the 1-year, postbaccalaure-ate preservice program. About half of these arein the elementary stream, preparing to teach

either kindergarten through grade six or gradesfour through eight. Since the mid-1980s, the ele-mentary stream has been divided into cohorts ofabout 65 students, each cohort with its own fac-ulty team. Our elementary cohort program iscalled Mid-Town because the location of ourpracticum schools is just north of downtownToronto in the multiracial, multiethnic urbancore. It should be noted that urban schools inToronto receive the same funding as in otherschool districts in Ontario and are viewed byteachers as desirable schools in which to beplaced. Hence, they do not share the problemsof poor funding and low morale encountered insome urban schools in North America.

The Mid-Town program has an explicit phi-losophy of teaching and learning, which is pre-sented in our handbooks for student teachersand associate teachers. Its emphases include aninquiry approach to teaching and learning;teachers as researchers; a close teacher-studentrelationship; an interactive, dialogical peda-gogy; integration of academic learning with lifelearning; collaboration in teaching and learning;and a strong class community. As far as possi-ble, we model this approach to teaching andlearning in the program. For example, actionresearch by the student teachers is the centralassignment of the program, we get to know ourstudents well and seek their input in runningthe program, there is emphasis on group discus-sion and student collaboration in projects, wecollaborate in our own teaching, and we putconsiderable effort into building community inthe program.

Our students are required to do two 5-weekblocks of practice teaching during the year, eachin a different school. Prior to each block, stu-dents spend 1 day per week in STEP (studentteacher experience program) in the classroomwhere they will do their practice teaching. STEPand practice teaching combined are what werefer to as the practicum. During the practicum,we cluster five or more student teachers in eachschool, thus enabling us to work with a smallnumber of partner schools. The advantage ofthis is that over the years, we develop close rela-tionships with these schools and achieve com-mon understandings on teaching and learning

8 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002



and on the practicum. Also, because we staywith the same school or schools from one semes-ter to the next and from one year to the next, weare better able to provide support to associateteachers, and we do our supervision in settingswhere we are known and feel welcome. Further-more, from a purely logistical point of view, wecan see many student teachers in a single schoolvisit rather than having to commute from schoolto school.

Although we visit our student teachers sev-eral times during the practicum, we feel we donot see enough of their teaching to do the prac-tice teaching evaluation; accordingly, this task isperformed by the associate teachers. They are inthe best position to do the evaluation, and giv-ing them this role strengthens their ownershipof the program and increases the time and effortthey devote to it. From the student teachers’point of view, although they feel under closerscrutiny, the arrangement means they do nothave the age-old worry of teaching “a disas-trous lesson” the day the university supervisorvisits. Although the program faculty do not per-form the evaluation, we support the evaluationprocess in several ways. We develop evaluationrubrics, guidelines, and procedures and discussthem with both the associates and the students.We intervene in cases where it appears a studentis likely to fail. We act to protect the student andpossibly move her or him if we feel the difficul-ties are due to features of the placement, or wesupport the associate teacher in her or his deci-sion if we agree that a student should indeed failthe practicum. In such cases, we make specialvisits to the school to observe the student teach-ing and have discussions with the associate andstudent. We often involve the principal and theprogram coordinator in assessing the situation.

A key aspect of the Mid-Town practicummodel, noted earlier, is that all members of thefaculty team, including subject specialists andfoundations instructors, are required to dopracticum supervision. We had several reasonsfor adopting this policy. First, spreading thework around in this way ensures that no one fac-ulty member has so many students to supervisethat the task is overwhelming. Second, thisarrangement helps avoid having “first- and sec-

ond-class citizens” in the program: those whodo research and publishing, and those who“merely” teach and do practicum supervision.Third, the approach promotes team buildingand refinement of our program philosophy aswe work together across the whole program.

An essential element of this model is provid-ing support to faculty members in practicumsupervision. The evaluation rubrics, guidelines,and procedures are developed by the team as awhole. Materials on expectations for associateteachers and student teachers are also gener-ated by the team. General issues and particularcases are often discussed at team meetings andin telephone and e-mail exchanges. Schoolsand associate teachers are carefully selected bythe program coordinator, in consultation withthe team, to ensure as far as possible that thepracticum placements are satisfactory. There aregeneral inservice sessions for associate teachersand regular liaison meetings with representa-tives from all partner schools. When a studentteacher has to be moved, the program coordina-tor and other team members help find a suitablealternative placement. The cohort communitystructure itself is a considerable help inpracticum supervision. Before the practicumbegins, we already know the student teachersquite well and typically have a positive relation-ship with them.

If the Mid-Town faculty do not evaluate thestudents’ practice teaching, what do we do inthe practicum setting? We supervise the wholecontext and process of the practicum, establish-ing links between the campus and the school,building trust and goodwill, communicatingthe general philosophy of the program, model-ing an approach to teacher-student relation-ships, and supporting the associate teachers intheir work. We also, of course, give support tothe student teachers to a greater extent than inmany programs. Because of our prior knowl-edge of the students, our familiarity with theschools and associate teachers, and our frequentvisits, we are in a stronger position to arrangegood placements for them, resolve disagree-ments or misunderstandings between them andtheir associate teachers, move them to a moresuitable placement if necessary, and suggest




pedagogical directions and strategies. We alsoapproach the student teachers at a given schoolas a group rather than just as individuals. Webring them together for lunchtime chats,encourage them to share with and support eachother, and generally extend the cohort commu-nity and program into the school.

GOALS AND METHODOF THE RESEARCH

We conducted the present study because wewanted evidence on the effectiveness of theabove model of practicum supervision, both forour own consideration and to offer to our col-leagues and to university and school of educa-tion administrators. Specifically, in this studywe sought to (a) identify the effects of imple-menting our approach to practicum supervi-sion and (b) assess whether, on balance, theseeffects were sufficiently positive to justify con-tinuing the approach. Among the effects westudied were (a) effects on the school-universitypartnership, (b) effects on the student teachers’experience of the practicum, (c) effects on thecampus program and cohort community, and(d) effects on the university faculty.

Our research approach was qualitative, asdefined by Punch (1998). For example, ourmethod had the following characteristics citedby Punch as typical of, although not exclusiveto, qualitative research: We used participant-observers, including ourselves; we had a rela-tively small sample, which we studied in depth;our data were not usually expressed in num-bers; our interview and observation sessionswere largely open-ended; and our categories or“codes” emerged as the study progressed.However, following Hammersley (1992),Merriam (1998), and Punch (1998), there was aquantitative component to our reporting: Weoften indicated the number, proportion, or per-centage of respondents who held a particularview or responded in a particular way. Webelieve such information is relevant even in aqualitative study and can help readers under-stand why we reached certain conclusions.

We gathered many forms of data over the 4years of the study. Initially, we focused mainlyon the nature and effects of our own work as

practicum supervisors. We relied heavily on ourjournals and reflective conversations. Withtime, we began to “triangulate” these data byincluding the perspectives of our student teach-ers, our associate teachers, and the other fivemembers of the Mid-Town faculty team. Spe-cifically, the data sources were as follows: (a)Over the 4 years, the authors kept detailed jour-nals, had conversations on their role with eachother and with other members of the facultyteam, recorded their reflections, kept a log oftime spent doing supervision, and responded tothe following questions: What am I trying toachieve as a practicum supervisor? What is myapproach to supervision? What am I learning?What words characterize my work with my stu-dent teachers and associate teachers? How doesthe investment in practicum supervision affectme professionally? (b) In the spring of the 3rdyear of the study, a questionnaire on the role ofthe faculty supervisor was administered to thecohort (53 of 62 students were present at thetime). (c) In the spring of the 4th year, a question-naire on the practicum experience was adminis-tered to the cohort (61 of 64 students were pres-ent). (d) Alarger study we conducted on the roleof associate teachers also provided relevant datafor this study. In 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, weinterviewed 20 of our associate teachers indi-vidually on their role in general and asked spe-cific questions about their expectations and per-ceptions with respect to university supervisors;these interviews were audiotaped and tran-scribed. (e) In each of the 4 years, we conductedin-depth interviews on the program as a wholewith a random sample of 6 students; some ofthese data were relevant to the issue ofpracticum supervision. (f) In the last 2 years ofthe study, we audiotaped and transcribed dis-cussions of the practicum at faculty teammeetings.

In analyzing the data from these six sources,we started by reading all the journal entries,reflection notes, transcriptions, and question-naire responses to identify references to positiveor negative effects of faculty involvement inpracticum supervision. As we read, we notedrecurring themes, for example, support for stu-dent teachers, support for associate teachers,




evaluating student teachers, modeling goodpractice, facilitating action research, increasedfaculty workload, and time spent on problemcases. When we moved to second and thirdreadings of the data, we used these themes ascodes for categorizing references. We developeda table to record the frequency of each coded ref-erence and the location of the references withinthe data sources. As we continued to review thedata, we found it necessary to modify or deletesome of the codes, merge some of them, and addnew ones. For example, evaluating studentteachers was placed under support of associateteachers, and facilitating action research wasplaced under both supporting student teachersand enhancing the campus program. In mostcases, the themes we chose for inclusion in thefinal report were the ones mentioned most fre-quently, or with greatest emphasis, in the datasources. Sometimes, however, we includedthemes—notably those having to do with effectson faculty—that in our view were important butunlikely to be considered by most categories ofrespondent. In the later stages of analysis, webegan to gather quotations that we felt would beuseful in clarifying and elaborating particulareffects. As we drafted the report, we continuedto go back to the data to check the appropriate-ness of categories and quotations.

It is possible that some of the effects identifiedin the study were due to other features of ourcohort program or to influences of which wewere not aware. This brings us to the question of“history” identified by Campbell and Stanley(1966, pp. 7, 13-14). Given the time lapse duringthe study, how can one be sure other factors didnot produce the changes we have ascribed toinvolving faculty in the practicum? In respond-ing to the history question, we would appeal inpart to the qualitative nature of the study. Webelieve the participant-observers (student teach-ers, associate teachers, and faculty, includingourselves), given their knowledge of the con-text, were in a position to weigh the phenomenabefore them and make a judgment about theextent to which faculty involvement in thepracticum was a factor in the effects observed.We would also note, however, that even in tradi-tional types of research, one cannot be sure that

all variables have been controlled. One must, asfar as possible, continue to repeat the experi-ment to minimize the risk of mistaken conclu-sions, as Campbell and Stanley (1966) acknowl-edged. As with any research, our conclusionsare hypotheses, subject to future research.

EFFECTS OF APPLYING THEMID-TOWN MODEL OFPRACTICUM SUPERVISION

Our general conclusion, based on the datagathered over the 4 years of the study, was thatinvolving education faculty in practicum super-vision in accordance with the Mid-Town modelhad substantial beneficial effects for the pro-gram and the student teachers and both positiveand negative effects for university faculty.Whereas the negative effects for faculty maywell reduce the transferability of the approachto other teacher education settings, in our owncase we feel the benefits of the approach out-weigh the negative aspects, and accordingly, weplan to continue to follow it. In reporting thespecific findings of the study, we look first atpositive and then at negative effects.

Positive Effects

The School-UniversityPartnership Was Strengthened

The presence of university faculty in thepracticum schools resulted in greater interest inand commitment to the program by the schoolsand associate teachers. There were two sourcesof data here: first, observations of the facultyteam; and second, the associate teacher inter-views. The faculty observed that (a) attendanceby associate teachers and other school represen-tatives at school-based practicum in-service ses-sions was higher than in the past and in otherelementary programs, (b) schools were keen tooffer their facilities for programwide liaisonmeetings, (c) schools and associate teacherswere quick to recommit to working with ourprogram for the following year despite the min-imal stipend offered and our growing expecta-tions of them, and (d) attendance of associateteachers at on-campus in-services was higher




than in the past and in other elementary pro-grams. In the 4th year of the study, 53 associateteachers and 6 principals or vice principalscame to this in-service; this number was consid-erably higher than at similar in-services in otherprograms. Furthermore, when we visited theschools, the associate teachers were very wel-coming and were willing to talk with us at con-siderable length about teaching, teacher educa-tion, the student teachers, the current situationin schools, and a variety of other matters. Thiswas surprising, given how busy they were, thepressures they were under, and the generallylow morale of teachers today.

Most of the 20 associate teachers we inter-viewed expressed satisfaction with the facultyrole in practicum supervision. When askedabout the good qualities of the Mid-Town pro-gram, the highest frequency of responses (15)had to do with “communication with theschool” and “support” by faculty of the associ-ate teachers and student teachers. Mary (pseud-onyms are used throughout this article)commented,

I feel that I know people now at the faculty, and theyknow me. Before it was just, well, I’m an associateteacher; I’m trying to do a little bit extra. But it’s niceto get to know the people behind the scenes.

When asked how to improve the program,there were many suggestions about the campuscourses and the schedule of the practicum butjust two individual comments about the univer-sity supervisor role, namely, that we shouldmake longer school visits and spend more timetalking with the associate teachers. When askedabout professional development, the highestfrequency of responses (11) named the valuableimpact on the school of the link with the univer-sity through the student teachers and facultysupervisors.

The PracticumExperience Was Enhanced

With respect to the role of faculty in enhanc-ing the student teachers’ practicum experience,the main data came from faculty observations(notably our own journals), the two question-naires, and the in-depth student interviews.Faculty observed that the student teachers wel-

comed us warmly when we came to the school,were keen to have us in their classrooms, andthanked us repeatedly for supporting them inthis way. Their appreciation of our school visitswas seen in the close relationship that devel-oped between faculty and their supervisees. Atthe end of the first practice teaching block in 1999-2000, the first author wrote this in his journal:

Got an e-mail from Michelle inviting me to join thePrince Arthur student teachers at a pub near theschool, on the last afternoon of practice teaching. Allseven were there, and we had a great time. They hadobviously enjoyed each other during the practicumand become quite close. We had two jugs of the spe-cial brew and some snacks, Rachel ordering. Rachelhad brought an amusing little article to read to us on“how to recognize a teacher”: she copied it from thePrince Arthur bulletin board. They talked abouttheir experiences in practice teaching and manythings were revealed. They told anecdotes about arather unaccommodating secretary and difficultiesgetting photocopying done. Most of them shared, es-pecially with me, how their practice teaching wentand their final evaluation. They said they wishedthey could stay together—and with me—for theirnext practicum, and I explained why we don’t do itthat way: they need to get to know other schools, as-sociates, and student teachers, and I have to main-tain the liaison with Prince Arthur. As we parted,they thanked me warmly for my support during thepracticum.

In the questionnaire on the role of the facultysupervisor administered in spring 1999, with 53of the cohort present, the main theme was howsupportive the faculty were during thepracticum. Asked what role faculty supervisorsshould play, 40 mentioned providing support,and 19 said we should give guidance and ad-vice. When asked about our actual perfor-mance, 45 said we were supportive and helpful,and 6 said that we were not; 10 said we providedguidance and practical suggestions; and 7 saidthat we kept the associate teachers informed.Typical comments were, “My supervisor wasmost supportive, and I was really impressedwith the rapport she had with the school staff”;“My supervisor supports me and understandsmy university workload; the associate teachersare usually in the dark in this regard”; “My twosupervisors were great; they were supportive,encouraged me, and ensured that the universityguidelines were being followed.”




Responses to the spring 2000 questionnaire,with 61 of the cohort present, indicated that ashift had taken place. The percentage of stu-dents describing their faculty supervisors ashelpful had declined slightly, and opinion withrespect to associate teachers was considerablymore positive than in the previous year: 78%found the guidance given by their associateteachers “adequate” or “just right”; 86% saidtheir associate teachers gave feedback that was“adequate,” “satisfactory,” or “just what Ineeded”; and 86% said their associate teachershad their “best interests at heart.” We believethese results reflected, on one hand, partiallapses in supervision on the part of some of ourfaculty in 1999-2000 and, on the other hand,steady improvement in the performance of theassociate teachers, due in part to a clearer state-ment of expectations and continued reinforce-ment of them during our visits and in-services.

Turning to the in-depth student interviews onthe program as a whole, all showed strong ap-preciation of the support given by the Mid-Town faculty. We believe this was due in part toour involvement in practicum supervision,which to many student teachers is the most im-portant and certainly the most stressful aspectof the program. Janet said, “I’m finding the pro-gram fantastic because it’s so supportive . . . ifwe have any questions we can always come toyou. I just feel like it’s a very nurturing environ-ment . . . ” Martha commented,

As soon as we walked in, all of you wrote yourphone numbers on the board. That really made animpact because I thought, these are people who treatus as professionals, who are willing to share theirthoughts with us, who don’t isolate themselves insome kind of hierarchical pyramid . . . the accessibil-ity, the way you made yourselves available.

And Janet said,

I certainly never expected to get to know my profes-sors on a one-on-one basis, where they would under-stand who I am and where I’m coming fromand . . . be able to understand whether a practicumplacement is going to work for me or not.

The Campus Program Was Enhanced

The impact of faculty involvement in thepracticum on the campus program was men-tioned in just two of the data sources: our own

journals and the in-depth student interviews. Inour journals, we noted that our participation inthe practicum gave each of us a much closer re-lationship with our supervisees from the twoplacements. This strengthened the class com-munity in general and resulted in fuller partici-pation and more meaningful dialogue inuniversity courses. We also observed that ourtime in the practicum classrooms gave us awealth of practical examples to bring to ourclasses, examples that were familiar to the stu-dents and honored their experience as practitio-ners. After a foundations class on theimportance of “class community,” the first au-thor wrote,

I was able to cite a number of examples from lessonsI had witnessed recently in the practicum. . . . I talkedabout Marie’s math lesson, where keeping the classworking together as a community meant that somechildren had to be held back while others caught up,and inventive activities were needed to keep every-one interested. I described how Nina talked pri-vately to a potentially disruptive boy before herGrade 8 dance lesson, appealing to him to help makethe lesson work, for her sake and that of the class;much to her relief, he joined in and the lesson wentwell. The student teachers were glad to elaborate onthe examples I mentioned, and provided others oftheir own. I felt my ability to bring examples fromthe practicum made the theoretical concepts moreaccessible and encouraged the students to talkopenly about their practicum experiences.

Our movement back and forth between theuniversity and the practicum schools facilitatedhaving assignments that spanned both do-mains. The major example here was the actionresearch work, the central requirement of theprogram; but there was also the shadow studyin child psychology, the reflection paper onclassroom management, and the essay on therole of the teacher. We believe our familiaritywith the practicum settings encouraged the stu-dents to give more examples from their practiceteaching and helped us understand their work.After a session on campus with two of the actionresearch groups, the second author wrote,

We had good discussions of what they were learningfrom their action research, the problems they werefacing fitting it into the school day, the nature ofteaching today. My involvement in these discus-sions was considerably enhanced by having been in




their classrooms and schools over the last few daysand weeks. I had more to contribute and they tookmy contribution more seriously; but more impor-tantly, we had a basis for working through the issuesand problems together.

Turning to the in-depth student interviewson the program as a whole, the majority indi-cated how our support of the student teachersenhanced their learning, including on campus.Janet observed,

I’ve noticed that about the whole facultyteam. . . . You take time to actually talk to some-one . . . and I’m going to do this with my own classtoo. . . . It makes you feel so special. . . . That’s some-thing I really need in order to develop and learn.

Michael said,

The teachers in the program showed us basicallywhat the program was about, what teaching wasabout, right from the first moment. And that wassomething it took me a while to figure out, that youpeople were modeling everything right from thevery first introduction, although it’s not as if it was asecret.

And Anita commented,

One thing that surprised me (about the program)was that you weren’t solo in anything. There was al-ways somebody that you could call on to talk toabout anything, and everything was open. . . . I hopethat (next year) I will be in a school situation wherethe principal and teachers are supportive of this kindof environment. If not, then at least in my classroom Iwill build a community, you know, a respect for be-ing able to share ideas, they feel comfortable, I feelcomfortable too . . . and I’m listening to the kids, thestuff they’re talking about, and trying to make thatlittle connection.

Although these comments did not address di-rectly the issue of practicum supervision, we be-lieve our involvement in the practicum wasessential to the general pattern of support andmodeling that, according to the interviews, en-hanced the students’ learning in the campusprogram as well.

Faculty Grew in Their Knowledgeand Understanding of Schooling

As Bullough and Gitlin (1995) noted, aca-demics can develop an overly ideologicalapproach to schooling, which leads them todownplay what schools accomplish and the

challenges student teachers face in the class-room. Participation in the practicum made usmore aware of the difficulties and successes of“ordinary” schooling: the skills of teachers incomplex and demanding situations and thepatience, fairness, and compassion teachers dis-play in their daily interactions with students.This was not an effect associate teachers or stu-dent teachers were likely to notice directly,although we believe both groups appreciatedour knowledge of schooling. In this area, werelied solely on our own journals and reflectionnotes.

The second author, who had extensive, recentexperience of teaching and consulting inschools, noted that she gained a number of newinsights while doing practicum supervision. Atone school, the effective use of multiage group-ings made her more aware of the value of thisapproach and showed her strategies for raisingit to a higher level than she had previouslythought possible. At another school sheobserved, for the first time, intermediate-levelteachers planning together a comprehensiveprogram for high-needs students. In this way,they resolved many of the difficulties posed bythe rotary system of teaching subjects. In yetanother school, she saw programming for lan-guage-disabled students that was more innova-tive and successful than she had encounteredbefore.

The first author, who had been largely absentfrom the schools for many years, teaching onlyat the graduate level, acquired learning of amore basic type. For example, he was remindedthat some teachers are considerably more effec-tive than others, and he saw more fully wherethe differences lay. After a 2-day stint of schoolsupervision, he wrote,

In the morning of the first day I saw a couple of class-rooms in which there was a relative lack of direction;the lessons drifted and the student teachers did notseem to mind or, perhaps, notice. . . . The next day Isaw Anita doing art with a Grade 8 class. She knewhow to inspire the whole group but . . . also went toindividuals and got them on track. It was clear to thestudents that she cared both about them and theirdoing the art in a interesting, competent, fulfillingmanner. I learned two things through these experi-ences. First, teachers vary in their teaching level,




with significant consequences for learning; studentsquickly pick up on the style and expectations of theirteacher. Secondly, teachers need to be passionateboth about the students and the subject matter. Theirinterest in the subject matter comes through in somany ways in the classroom.

Learning of this type gave the first author abetter sense of what good teaching involves andwhat skills and attitudes needed to be fosteredin our student teachers during the program.

Negative Effects

Our data did not show negative outcomes ofthe practicum model for our school partner-ships, the practicum, or the campus program;the negative outcomes we observed onlyapplied to the university faculty. These effectswere not noticed by the students or associateteachers; accordingly, in studying them, wewere reliant on our own observations and thoseof the five other faculty members on the team.

The Work of Teacher Education BecameMore Time-Consuming and Challenging

Obviously, becoming involved in practicumsupervision without reduction in course loadadds significantly to the time demands on fac-ulty; that is the main reason education facultyoften avoid such involvement. Given ourmodel, we had to select partner schools andassociate teachers and find suitable placementsfor individual student teachers. Earlier, wedescribed the extensive consultation process wefollowed in selecting schools and associates.With respect to individual student teacherplacements, we took into account not only thedistinctive needs of students but also wherethey lived relative to their practicum school andtheir transportation requirements. Other ele-ments of the model also took a considerableamount of time: the frequent school visits andlunchtime in-service sessions; the programwideliaison meetings and on-campus, in-service ses-sions; and dealing with particular problem situ-ations. The transcripts of our team meetingswere replete with discussions of individual stu-dent cases. Even if a student was not failing, dif-ficulties and misunderstandings often arosethat required special school visits and lengthy

communication by phone or e-mail. Becauseour supervisory role gave us greater knowledgeof the students’ teaching abilities, we becameinvolved in writing reference letters for themand helping them secure positions. Finally,when problems arose, we had to spend timeshoring up relationships with the partnerschools. If we did not handle a student transferor failure delicately, we ran the risk of losing thewhole school. As a result of all these activities,the practice teaching block ceased to be a rela-tively free period when we could turn our atten-tion to research and writing.

Time was not the only added burden of themodel. With the practicum an integral part ofthe program, a new set of complexities and chal-lenges emerged. First, student teachers talkedopenly about their practicum placements andexperiences. Negative comments were some-times made about associate teachers. Weemphasized the importance of professionalismin such matters and tried to place limits on nega-tive comments. But sharing and joint problemsolving are also part of professionalism; wecould not avoid this type of occurrence com-pletely. A second difficulty was that faculty var-ied in the extent to which they wished to makeschool visits, in their opinions about whatshould be done in the schools, and in theircapacity to give the support needed. The tran-scripts of team meetings documented the resis-tance of some faculty to making frequent orlengthy school visits. It also documented dis-agreements about how much support should begiven to students during the practicum. Stu-dents talked among themselves about the fac-ulty in their supervisory role, made compari-sons, and wanted to be supervised by certainfaculty members rather than others. Once again,these dynamics placed a considerable burdenon some members of the team, especially theprogram coordinator.

The Gulf Widened Between Faculty DoingPracticum Supervision and Those (in OtherPrograms) Not So Involved

There was a tendency for faculty extensivelyinvolved in the schools to be looked on—andeven see themselves—as second-class citizens




in a university culture that downgrades thepractical and sees academic work as not requir-ing much reference to practice. This negative ef-fect was noted only by ourselves; the datasources were our own journals and reflectionnotes. In a 1998 paper based on our journals, wewrote,

The work in schools . . . led to some questioningabout our precise role in fieldwork. Clare, who hadbeen a curriculum consultant and has written a lan-guage arts series, began to experience some role con-fusion as she worked with student teachers. Was sheconsultant, teacher, professor, co-researcher? Attimes she was all of these yet there was a tension inhaving to perform so many roles. In order to workcollegially with the associate teachers she had todraw on her experience as a teacher. Most of the dis-cussion was about curriculum practice and class-room management. She seemed to spend the bulk ofher time with field personnel; she was not develop-ing colleagues at the university . . .

Clive, having tenure (and having taught formany years at the graduate level), is sensitive to howhe may be viewed by his academic colleagues. Is hebecoming soft on theory because of all this preoccu-pation with practice? How can he have time for seri-ous scholarly research when he is spending so muchtime in schools and with school-oriented studentsand teachers? (Kosnik & Beck, 1998)

With time, we have in fact overcome some ofthese problems to a degree. By doing researchand writing on our teacher education practice,we have been able to find time for such activityand also make the case that our work in the fieldis of academic worth; this in turn has made usfeel more at home in our department and schoolof education. But this has required a great dealof work and is still an uphill battle; the progresscan quickly be eroded by a period withoutmuch “scholarly productivity.”

Faculty Heavily Involved in the Field EncounteredDifficulties Having Their Work Recognized

Once again, the data sources here were ourown journals and reflection notes. The reducedsense of belonging and respect in the universitycommunity noted earlier was a somewhat sub-jective outcome and, to a degree, it was compen-sated for by a strong sense of belonging andappreciation in our cohort community and thepartner schools. But there were additional prob-

lems. Our fieldwork and “action research” onthe program were not given much weight interms of tenure, promotion, and merit pay. Forexample, we had to fight every year to get anaverage merit rating, whereas others doing con-ventional teaching and research received almostautomatically an above-average rating. We alsoexperienced difficulty obtaining funding oreven approval for research on our program. Wehave documented elsewhere in detail the prob-lems we encountered (Kosnik & Beck, 2000).Research funding and ethics committeesseemed to regard research on one’s own teach-ing as inappropriate and even unethical. Theydid not see the legitimacy of applying, in theuniversity context, the “teacher-as-researcher”approach, which has been so widely acceptedfor school settings. They assumed that studentsagreeing to participate in the research would bedoing so under duress, out of fear of beingpenalized by us, and so they felt the researchshould be discouraged.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

To summarize, there were several positiveeffects of having all members of the faculty teamdo practicum supervision in accordance withthe Mid-Town model. The school-universitypartnership was strengthened, the practicumwas enhanced, the campus program wasimproved, and the faculty grew in knowledgeand understanding of schooling. There werealso some problems—for the university fac-ulty—arising from implementing the Mid-Town approach: heavier time demands, a morecomplex and challenging practicum arrange-ment, further distancing from the academiccommunity, and increased difficulty in havingwork recognized. However, we feel the advan-tages outweighed the disadvantages, especiallyfor the student teachers but also for the faculty;we plan to continue to involve all faculty inpracticum supervision in the future.

It might be argued that practicum supervi-sion is not in general a good use of time for uni-versity researchers, who are sorely needed tocontribute to educational research and theory;




and, furthermore, that education faculty neednot be involved in school-based supervision,because they can have a strong impact onpreservice teachers on campus. However, wefeel there are a number of difficulties with thisapproach. In the first place, we believe it is verydifficult for academics to develop sound educa-tional theory in isolation from the field. Follow-ing Donald Schön, we do not accept a trickle-down concept of educational inquiry, wherebysolutions are developed at a general level andthen applied in schools. One cannot distinguishgood solutions from inadequate ones, even at atheoretical level, without close connections topractice. Furthermore, as we have attempted toshow in this article, involvement of faculty inthe practicum is necessary to establish a basisfor dialogue with student teachers about teach-ing and learning; faculty need to be familiarwith the contexts in which student teachers areworking and with the challenges they face.Finally, we believe involvement in thepracticum is a key part of modeling a soundteacher-student relationship. If we largelyignore this important and stressful aspect of ourstudent teachers’ experience, they will have dif-ficulty accepting our advocacy of a supportiveand caring approach by teachers towardstudents.

What is new in this study? To begin, webelieve that through evidence and argument,we have strengthened the general case for fac-ulty involvement in the preservice practicum.Second, we have presented a model ofpreservice practicum supervision that has anovel set of features: It involves all faculty inpracticum supervision, links practicum super-vision closely with building school-universitypartnerships, provides extensive support forfaculty in their supervisory work, and inte-grates supervisory activities both across super-visors and with the campus program. And,third, we have provided evidence that this par-ticular model of practicum supervision workswell for partner schools, associate teachers, stu-dent teachers, and to a degree, the supervisingfaculty themselves.

Although our study lends credence to theview that preservice faculty should be heavilyinvolved in practicum supervision, we are con-cerned that few teacher education programswill go in this direction without more supportfrom schools of education. Apart from the prob-lems for individual faculty mentioned earlier,one consequence of the present lack of institu-tional support and direction is that if a facultymember does not wish to work within thismodel, he or she can simply move to asubprogram that places less emphasis on con-nections to the field. Preferably, there would bea general requirement that, except in very spe-cial circumstances, all preservice faculty mustparticipate in practicum supervision. The com-mitment of the school of education to thisapproach would be made clear at the time of ini-tial hiring, then emphasized through the systemof tenure, promotion, and merit pay as well asthrough general statements about the goals andpractices of the institution. Of course, asdescribed earlier, faculty should be given exten-sive support so that they can function effec-tively and with a significant degree of satisfac-tion in their supervisory role.

It might be thought that we are being undulyprescriptive here. Why insist on one way ofdoing things? Why not let a hundred flowersbloom? However, we believe this approach topracticum supervision is inherent in theapproach to teaching that most schools of edu-cation explicitly advocate: respect for practice; aclose theory-practice connection; teachers asresearchers; an integrated curriculum; and acaring, supportive, teacher-student relation-ship. What is at stake here is our whole teachereducation enterprise, to which we have com-mitted our careers and on which we spendmany billions of dollars per annum. So long aswe proclaim one approach to teaching andlearning but practice another, our students willsimply be confused and little will be accom-plished. Of course, to a large extent, our institu-tional practice in schools of education, with itsrelative neglect of the field and practice-orientedresearch, has arisen because of values and stric-




tures of the wider university world. But the timehas come, we believe, for schools of education tochallenge this outlook and way of operating,not only through public statements about goodpedagogy but through the teaching andresearch practices we support among our ownfaculty.

REFERENCESBeck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2000). Associate teachers in

preservice education: Clarifying and enhancing theirrole. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 207-224.

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of cooperatingteacher and university supervisor in learning to teach.Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518.

Bullough, R., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teach-ing: Methodologies for exploring self and school context.New York: Garland.

Bullough, R., & Kauchak, D. (1997). Partnerships betweenhigher education and secondary schools: Some prob-lems. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 215-233.

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Casey, B., & Howson, P. (1993). Educating preservice stu-dents based on a problem-centered approach to teach-ing. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 361-369.

Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional develop-ment schools: Schools for developing a profession. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating teachers for thenext century: Rethinking practice and policy. In G. Grif-fin (Ed.), The education of teachers: 98th NSSE Yearbook(Pt. 1, pp. 221-256). Chicago: National Society for theStudy of Education.

Fullan, M., Galluzzo, G., Morris, P., & Watson, N. (1998).The rise and stall of teacher education reform. Washington,DC: American Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation.

Goodlad, J. (1990a). Teachers for our nation’s schools. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. (1990b). Connecting the present to the past. In J.Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. Sirotnik (Eds.), Places whereteachers are taught (pp. 3-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, betterschools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guyton, E., & McIntyre, J. (1990). Student teaching andschool experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teacher education (pp. 514-534). New York:Macmillan.

Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography?New York: Routledge.

Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (1998, April). The effect of studentteachers’ participation in action research on the attitudes and

practices of teacher education faculty: A self-study. Paperpresented at the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, SanDiego, CA.

Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2000). Who should perish, you oryour students? Dilemmas of research in teacher educa-tion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(4), 119-135.

Maynard, T. (1996). The limits of mentoring: The contribu-tion of the higher education tutor to primary studentteachers’ school-based learning. In J. Furlong & R.Smith (Eds.), The role of higher education in initial teachertraining (pp. 101-118). London: Kogan Page.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study appli-cations in education (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative& qualitative approaches. London: Sage.

Samaras, A., & Gismondi, S. (1998). Scaffolds in the field:Vygotskian interpretation in a teacher education pro-gram. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 715-733.

Slick, S. (1998). The university supervisor: A disenfran-chised outsider. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8),821-834.

Snyder, J. (1994). Perils and potentials: Atale of two profes-sional development schools. In L. Darling-Hammond(Ed.), Professional development schools (pp. 98-125). NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Teitel, L. (1997). Changing teacher education through pro-fessional development school partnerships: A five-yearfollow-up study. Teachers College Record, 99(2), 311-334.

Whitford, B. L., & Metcalf-Turner, P. (1999). Of promisesand unresolved puzzles: Reforming teacher educationwith professional development schools. In G. Griffin(Ed.), The education of teachers: 98th NSSE Yearbook (Pt. 1,pp. 257-278). Chicago: National Society for the Study ofEducation.

Williams, A. (1994). The mentor. In A. Williams (Ed.), Per-spectives on partnership: Secondary initial teacher training(pp. 134-150). London: Falmer.

Winitzky, N., Stoddart, T., & O’Keefe, P. (1992). Greatexpectations: Emergent professional developmentschools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 3-18.

Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum:Looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education forTeaching, 16(2), 105-132.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experi-ences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S.Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform inpreservice teacher education (pp. 215-234). New York:Teachers College Press.

Clive Beck is a professor in the Department of Curric-ulum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario Institute forStudies in Education, University of Toronto. He teachessocial foundations and supervises practice teaching andaction research in the Mid-Town preservice program. He isa past president of the Philosophy of Education Society.




His books include Educational Philosophy and Theoryand Better Schools.

Clare Kosnik is an assistant professor in the Depart-ment of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at theOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of

Toronto. She is coordinator of the Elementary PreserviceProgram at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa-tion, University of Toronto and also teaches and super-vises in the Mid-Town preservice program. Her book, Pri-mary Education: Goals, Processes and Practices, wasrecently published by Legas Press.




Documents

Professors and the Practicum: Involvement of University Faculty in Preservice Practicum Supervision