148346__935847524

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

1/10

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:

On: 29 April 2011

Access details: Access Details: Free Access

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t931314917

We're All in this Together: Collaborative Professional Development withStudent Teaching SupervisorsAngela C. Bauma; Beth Powers-Costelloa; Irma VanScoya; Erin Millera; Ulanda Jamesaa University of South Carolina,

Online publication date: 31 March 2011

To cite this Article Baum, Angela C. , Powers-Costello, Beth , VanScoy, Irma , Miller, Erin and James, Ulanda(2011) 'We'reAll in this Together: Collaborative Professional Development with Student Teaching Supervisors', Action in TeacherEducation, 33: 1, 38 46

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2011.559429URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2011.559429

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t931314917http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2011.559429http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2011.559429http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t931314917

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

2/10

Action in Teacher Education, 33:3846, 2011

Copyright Association of Teacher Educators

ISSN: 0162-6620 print/2158-6098 online

DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2011.559429

Were All in this Together: Collaborative ProfessionalDevelopment with Student Teaching Supervisors

Angela C. BaumBeth Powers-Costello

Irma VanScoyErin Miller

Ulanda James

University of South Carolina

Although the work of the internship supervisor is vital to the teacher preparation process, little

attention has been paid to supervisors in research or practice. In response to this issue, the authors

implemented a collaborative professional development experience for internship supervisors. Data

were collected through focus group interviews and an open-ended survey to determine how partic-

ipation in the professional development experience impacted supervisors work and experiences in

their teacher education program. Findings included strengths and weaknesses of the project, as well

as suggestions for future endeavors. The data indicate that such groups are potentially beneficial for

participants.

The importance of high-quality field experiences in teacher education is well documented

(Bullough, Kauchak, Hobbs, & Stokes, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2003; Henke, Chen, & Geis,

2000; Ingersoll, 2001). The university supervisor contributes significantly to this component of

teacher education. Although they play a vital role, supervisors have often been neglected by the

programs they serve and by research on teacher education. A review of literature revealed that

although there has been extensive research on professional development for in-service teachers,

very little has been conducted in the area of professional development for teacher educators.

Even less attention has been paid to university supervisors. This article describes a collaborativeprofessional development experience with student teaching supervisors.

THE NATURE OF SUPERVISION: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The supervisor plays a varied and complex role, typically acting as a conceptual link and liai-

son between the university faculty and the field (Knowles, Cole, & Presswood, 1994, p. 191).

Correspondence should be addressed to Angela C. Baum, University of South Carolina, 209 Child Development

Research Center, 1530 Wheat Street, Columbia, SC 29201. E-mail: [email protected]

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

3/10

COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 39

Their role creates challenges and opportunities for how teacher education programs should sup-

port these vital yet often neglected personnel. High-quality professional development is a key

component of this support.Effective professional development for supervisors emerges from an understanding of the

challenges inherent in supervision. These challenges are well documented in professional lit-

erature and include a feeling of disconnect from teacher preparation programs, the complexities

involved in navigating the differing cultures of schools and university, and the challenge of bridg-

ing an often-present divide between theory and practice (Beck & Kosnick, 2002; Knowles et al.,

1994; Zeichner, 2002).

First, supervisors often express a feeling of disconnect from the teacher preparation programs

in which they work (Knowles et al., 1994). Frequently part-time employees such as retired teach-

ers, teachers on leave from their schools, or doctoral students fill these roles and thus may lack the

close and direct connection to the teacher preparation program that full-time faculty enjoy (Beck& Kosnik, 2002). This can result in a lack of support in relation to their learning of program

principles and goals as well as low compensation for their vital work (Zeichner, 2002). This lack

of contact with program faculty may lead to miscommunication, misunderstanding, and a feeling

of isolation.

Second, navigating the complexities of differing contexts of field and campus-based programs

presents a challenge for many supervisors. For example, in many instances the principal, pro-

gram faculty, cooperating teachers, and students have little opportunity to directly communicate

with each other. This often requires the supervisor to navigate varying ideas, needs, priorities,

philosophies, and personalities.

Finally, prevalent models of supervision are traditionally based on a theory into practice

model reinforcing the notion that preservice teachers learn theories in their university coursesand then learn to apply them in their practicum classroom. Zeichner (2002) asserted that this

model places supervisors in a secondary role within teacher education programs and under-

values the importance of practitioner knowledge in the process of learning to teach (p. 61).

Thus, universities need to reconsider their conceptualization of supervision, including ensuring a

space for dialogue and effective communication among all stakeholders. This requires providing

meaningful professional development opportunities for supervisors.

Based on the issues described, the authors designed a collaborative professional development

experience based on the following goals: (1) building a sense of community among supervisors,

(2) creating a shared vision of supervision, and (3) enhancing skills, competence, and dispositions

related to supervision. Throughout the implementation of this project we sought to explore the

following research question: How does participation in a collaborative professional development

experience impact supervisors work and experiences in a teacher education program?

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE

Context

This project was implemented in an early childhood teacher education program at a large, public

university in the southeastern United States. Four years prior, teacher licensure at this university

was offered exclusively through graduate programs. The programs offerings were expanded to

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

4/10

40 ANGELA C. BAUM ET AL.

include undergraduate initial licensure programs at the early childhood, elementary, and middle

level. The addition of undergraduate programs led to a significant increase in student enrollment,

from approximately 100 students enrolled to approximately 1,000. Due to this rapid expansion,a large number of supervisors needed to be hired in a short period of time. Many of those

hired were retired teachers, school administrators, and doctoral students. Because of the vary-

ing roles, responsibilities, and experiences of those hired, the need for increased communication

and professional development became evident.

The Professional Development Experience

This professional development experience for supervisors was influenced by the literature

describing Professional Learning Communities (PLC) in educational settings. PLC engage indi-

viduals in meaningful collaborations regarding educational improvement (Dufour, 2004). Thebig idea is that educators can and should work together to develop assessments, study cur-

riculum, and collaborate on efforts to enhance student learning (Dufour, Eaker, & Dufour, 2005;

Servage, 2009; Zmuda, Kuklis, & Klein, 2004). Although such groups have not been typically

found in higher education, teacher educators have much to learn about what can be achieved by

applying the principles upon which PLC are founded.

Participants

During the semester in which this project was implemented, 98 preservice teachers were engaged

in their final internship placements (student teaching). All 17 of their early childhood supervisors

were encouraged to join in this professional development experience, with 16 choosing to par-

ticipate. These participants consisted of four full-time university-based faculty (two tenure-track

and two non-tenure-track) and 12 adjunct supervisors (one doctoral student in early childhood

education and 11 former school-based teachers). Each supervisor worked in one or two schools,

supervising as few as four and as many as 12 preservice teachers. Each participant received a

$300 honorarium, in addition to the basic compensation for internship supervision.

Session Format

Sessions were held biweekly over the course of one semester. The first session was a 3-hour

orientation designed to provide participants with an opportunity to get to know one another,

familiarize them with materials and resources, and clarify logistics. Supervisors also had the

opportunity to identify topics that they were interested in learning about. This input shaped

the content of the professional development experience. The remaining seven sessions were

each 90 minutes in length and adopted a semistructured format: for example, beginning with a

brief update from the session leaders and including logistical information and general announce-

ments. Next, participants were provided an opportunity to pose hot topics related to a specific

question emerging from supervision. Finally, the group engaged in a study experience, which

included presentations by program faculty, exploring a topic related to supervision and/or teacher

preparation. These presentations typically included background reading (distributed in advance),

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

5/10


minilectures, and small- and large-group discussion. Examples of topics included triad com-

munication (intern-cooperating teacher-supervisor), supporting interns planning, observing and

conferencing, diversity, technology, and action research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Data Collection

Each supervisor participated in a focus group. Three focus group sessions were conductedtwo

with six participants each (Morgan & Krueger, 1998) and one with four who were unable to attend

the originally scheduled sessions. The participants reflected on the professional development

experience and shared their opinions of the most useful, helpful, and/or meaningful aspects ofproject. They also provided suggestions for improving the experience for future groups.

At the end of the semester, all participating supervisors completed an open-ended survey

to evaluate this project. Survey items elicited information about program logistics (e.g., meet-

ing times and location), group facilitation strategies (e.g., small group discussion and assigned

readings), and professional development topics (e.g., diversity, technology, observation, and

conferencing with students).

We utilized qualitative analysis strategies to help us gain a clearer picture of supervisors expe-

riences participating in the professional development group. Following a data analysis procedure

described by Miles and Huberman (1994), the authors engaged in a process of data reduction,

data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. The primary frame for analysis was the

question, What is going on here? that enabled us to revisit the data to make meaningful interpre-tations (Wolcott, 1994). Additionally, our analysis was based specifically on our primary research

question, How does participation in a collaborative professional development experience affect

supervisors work and experiences in a teacher education program? In particular we were inter-

ested in the following issues: (1) building a sense of community among supervisors, (2) creating

a shared vision of supervision, and (3) enhancing skills, competence, and dispositions related

to supervision. Therefore, we created a coding system that included these areas. We also created

additional codes that were generated from revisiting the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Wolcott,

1994). Based on the analysis of focus group and survey data, the findings are presented in two

main categories successes and strengths of the program and suggestions for improvement.

FINDINGS

Successes and Strengths

Community building. Participants identified creating a community of support as the mostbeneficial aspect of this professional development experience. This included getting to know

other supervisors; sharing ideas, strategies, and tips; and relying on each other for feedback,

advice, and support. For example, one supervisor stated, I was rather craving this opportunity. I

got to talk through how I could be a better supervisor on a day-to-day basis. Another participant

said, I love that no matter how nit-picky or major your problem is, we are all facing the same

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

6/10


things and can brainstorm together. Yet another supervisor shared, I like the fact that we got to

bounce ideas off each other. It makes it so much better to know there is a panel of support behind

you. These comments highlight the fact that participants valued connection and collaboration asa valuable component of this project.

Valuing all participants. Several supervisors found the inclusion of participants acrossvarying roles (university faculty and adjunct supervisors) to be beneficial, allowing for mean-

ingful collaboration. For example, an adjunct supervisor said that It was good to have faculty

involved. Likewise, a faculty supervisor stated that Collaboration makes people feel happy to

work here. They feel supported and it helps them develop an identity as part of the program.

Finally, another faculty supervisor stated, The value of interactions across roles and disciplines

resulted in a very positive experience for adjunct and faculty supervisors. It was clear that inter-

action between faculty types was seen as important by all. But the most important aspect was that

all participants were seen as equal. There was no hierarchy or distinction between full-time, part-time, adjunct, or tenure- and non-tenure-track personnel. These statements reveal the importance

of respecting all participants as equals rather than viewing certain members as having more value

than others.

Logistical information. Another benefit of the professional development experience wasthe opportunity to share relevant details and discuss logistics. For example, an adjunct supervisor

said, Walking through major assignments like the action research project provided clarification

and connected supervisors to the seminar course (the corresponding coursework to the practicum

experience). Several participants who were not originally involved in program planning stated

that they particularly appreciated being able to discuss assignments and timelines.

Relevant topics. Professional development information was shared in the form of presen-tations by faculty, scholarly articles, and interactive dialogues among supervisors. One adjunct

supervisor said, I appreciated presentations from faculty who are experts in their field. Topics

covered included working with diverse children and families, using tablet personal computers to

observe and record observations, suggestions for classroom observations, and triad communica-

tion. Although participants reported that the presentations were particularly helpful, most agreed

that finding time to read the distributed articles was difficult. Recommendations to address this

difficulty are discussed in the next section on suggestions for improvement. One supervisor said,

I think that sometimes even if people dont particularly think they want or will benefit from an

experience, it doesnt mean they dont need it. This person further explained that even though

topics may not seem relevant to some supervisors, they still might benefit from learning aboutthese new ideas.

Suggestions for Improvement

Clarify focus, commitment, and expectations. It is clear from participants feedback thatall supervisors, irrespective of their role, came to this experience with varying needs and expec-

tations. Participants stated that it would have been beneficial for the group leaders to be clearer

about the purpose of the group. For example, one supervisor said, Be clear about the focus. Is it

to study? Create relationships? Provide logistics? If it is all of these, we need to think carefully

how to balance them.

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

7/10


In another example, during one group meeting, participants were asked to provide feedback

related to the processes used to evaluate student teachers. An adjunct supervisor related that she

did not think that they were useful or helpful. However, full-time faculty found this feedback tobe vital to program improvement. These contradictory statements revealed one of the primary

challenges of such groups. Because the participants range in role and experience, their needs and

interests vary greatly. Thus it is difficult to meet all participants needs and interests. Therefore,

some of the information may be redundant and/or unnecessary for certain participants. This

dynamic is addressed further in the section on recommendations for differentiating experiences.

Format. A primary challenge involved varied preferences for meeting format and structure.For example one supervisor stated, We enjoyed the sharing, but it sometimes felt like it was

put on the back burner. This statement reveals a common sentiment among participants that

they wanted time to socialize, check-in, and engage in informal discussion about their work.

On the other hand, one participant felt frustrated that the real work was interrupted by sideconversations.

One supervisor stated that she was overwhelmed by the expectations to spend time outside of

the group meetings reading articles and chapters. Another supervisor added, Discussing articles

is not as effective if everyone has not read them. These statements demonstrate the fact that each

participant had varying expectations about how much time they could commit to the group and

whether they were willing to engage in outside work to support the experience.

Full-time faculty involvement. Another challenge was related to program faculty buy-in.Although participants did express appreciation for the opportunity to interact with faculty super-

visors, it became clear that the majority of participants thought that a better approach would be

to have buy-in from all faculty in the program, not just those who were serving as student teach-ing supervisors. For example, one participant said, I dont think that just one person taking the

responsibility for coordination with schools and supervisors can make that much of a difference.

We really need the faculty, as a whole, to take this seriously. This statement clearly reflects the

need for all faculty members to support such endeavors. Despite efforts by full-time faculty to

present an egalitarian approach to meetings, some participants did not feel that they had enough

time to get to know faculty. For example, one person said, It was good to have the faculty

involved, but we really didnt get a chance to get to know you and what you do. We seemed sort

of rushed in that we didnt have as much conversational time. This comment reflects the need for

participants to have time to get to know one another and to form strong relationships with other

participants, full-time faculty in particular.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Possible Format Changes

The participants unanimously agreed to continue meeting despite the fact that they would not con-

tinue to receive honorariums for participation. They did offer suggestions, however, for possible

format changes. Participants requested more time for personal sharing and for community build-

ing. For example, one participant simply stated include more open time for sharing. One person

suggested that it would be a good idea to have more of a balance between structured (planned)

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

8/10


and non-structured time. Another suggestion was to schedule meetings around important dates

for interns so that supervisors could plan accordingly and support one another at stressful points

in the semester.In addition, one supervisor suggested that the group be divided by new and experienced

supervisors for some sessions so that curriculum can be differentiated by interest and needs.

Differentiating topics and/or formats is one idea that might help facilitators to meet a wider

variety of supervisors needs. For example, one person said, We should consider different expe-

riences for different levels of supervisors experience. After you understand the basics and the

curriculum, perhaps you would be ready to look at some topics (e.g., diversity, classroom man-

agement, lesson planning, etc.). Another participant said, Perhaps they (supervisors) could all

be together, but have choices for group discussions focused on different topics and share out at

the end.

Finally, another supervisor suggested that instead of requiring outside time for reading, thattime could be allotted during each session for reading relevant materials to be discussed. One

supervisor said, I like the idea of using the first 30 minutes to read. The session leader said, I

would like the time and resources for us all to explore topics in more in-depth ways.

Logistics and Support

Although the sessions served a variety of purposes, it became clear that they did serve two

primary functions. These were logistics and social support. One supervisor stated,

I see the meetings as having two purposes: logistical support and collaboration. We dont want toonly discuss logistics, we also need time to socialize with one another. Then we feel supported and it

helps us to develop an identity as part of the program.

There were also many suggestions about the number and duration of future meetings. Several

suggestions included meeting less frequently and having longer sessions. The authors recommend

that organizers develop formal methods for gathering participants input about logistics when

designing such experiences, as preferences will vary with the unique membership of each group.

Link Field Experiences to Campus-Based Instruction

Overall, participants expressed a desire to have knowledge regarding the other courses and expe-

riences in which preservice teachers were enrolled while student teaching. They believed that it

helped them offer valuable support to students throughout the semester. For example, while in the

field, the student teachers implement an action research project that they develop in the seminar

course that accompanies student teaching. Specifically, one participant stated,

I liked that I knew what was going on in seminar and I would have liked to have known even more.

I would recommend that future sessions continue to include information about what was going on in

students other courses such as student teaching seminar.

Efforts should be made to link field experiences to campus-based instruction.

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

9/10


CONCLUSION

Not only is professional development neglected for student teaching supervisors but it is alsosorely needed. Benefits include a stronger connection between school-based and university-based

personnel, enhanced professional development opportunities for supervisors, research oppor-

tunities for faculty informed by field-based practitioners, and improved school and university

relations.

Additional research is needed on the topics of mentoring and supporting supervisors, fostering

more collaborative relationships between universities and school-based practitioners, and provid-

ing professional development for university and school-based supervisors. It is clear from these

findings that although the importance of university supervisors and cooperating teachers has long

been underestimated, the need for professional development cannot be ignored.

Although research demonstrates the importance of field experiences for teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2003), the role of the university supervisor has continually been undervalued.

University-based personnel owe it to themselves, their students, and their supervising colleagues

to understand the complexity of school-based supervision and work to find ways to foster more

collaborative and supportive relationships with supervisors.

REFERENCES

Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2002). Professors and the practicum: Involvement of university faculty in preservice practicum

supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 420432.

Bullough, R.V. Jr., Kauchak, N. A., Hobbs, S., & Stokes, D. (1997). Professional development schools: Catalysts for

teacher and school change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(2), 153169.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 614.

Dufour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 611.

Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities.

Bloomington,IN: National Educational Service.

Henke, R., Chen, X., & Geis, S. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992-93 graduates and elementary/

secondary school teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics.

Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational

Research Journal, 38(3), 499534.

Knowles, J. G., Cole, A. L., & Presswood, C. S. (1994). Through preservice teachers eyes: Exploring field experiences

through narrative and inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (Eds.). (1998). The focus group kit (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Servage, L. (2009). Who is the professional in a professional learning community? An exploration of teacher

professionalism in collaborative professional development settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(1),

149171.

Wolcott, H. G. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zeichner, K. (2002). Beyond traditional structures of student teaching, Teacher Education Quarterly, 29(1), 5964.

Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Klein, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of continuous improvement.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

7/30/2019 148346__935847524

10/10


Angela C. Baum is an assistant professor of early childhood education at the University of South

Carolina.

Beth Powers-Costello is an assistant professor of early childhood education at the University of

South Carolina.

Irma VanScoy is an associate professor of early childhood education, as well as the associate

dean for Academic Affairs in the College of Education at the University of South Carolina.

Erin Miller is a clinical faculty member in the early childhood education program at the

University of South Carolina.

Ulanda James is a former clinical faculty member in the early childhood education program at

the University of South Carolina.

Documents

148346__935847524