Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A Single-case Study

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Drexel University

by

Emily C. Oliva

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

of

Doctor of Education

June 2013

© Copyright 2013 Emily C. Oliva All Rights Reserved

This Ed.D. Dissertation Committee from The School of Education at Drexel University certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A Single-case Study

Emily C. Oliva

Committee: ____________________________________ Kathy D. Geller, Ph.D.

____________________________________ W. Edward Bureau, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Michele V. Hamilton, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Date

iv

Abstract

Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A Single-case Study

Emily C. Oliva, Ed.D.

Drexel University, June 2013

Chairperson: Kathy D. Geller

The cooperating teacher’s ability to effectively support the professional

development and training of student teachers during the field experience may be

impacted by the level of support and guidance they receive. This qualitative single-case

study was designed to explore the relationship between the cooperating teachers and one

university teacher education program. The study further sought to explore what training

and supports were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field

experience, as well as how the cooperating teacher’s level of self-efficacy informed

professional practices. By conducting this study, the researcher took a closer look at how

university teacher preparation programs and school districts may prepare the cooperating

teacher and provide more consistent guidelines and structure during the field experience.

Snowball sampling was used to identify two university supervisors from a single

public university and 11 cooperating teachers from five suburban schools in three

districts. A triangulated approach to data analysis drew on semi-structured interviews,

cooperating teacher journals, and related artifacts. Multiple iterations of analysis

occurred manually and with the online software tool, Dedoose, using in vivo codes and

those created in situ. The following are the three analytic categories that emerged from

v

the analysis: (a) processes and perceptions gap, (b) areas with communication needs, and

(c) opportunities for professional enrichment.

This research illustrated that the criteria for selection was unclear and the

processes for development of cooperating teachers were nonexistent. Therefore, the

cooperating teachers relied on their experiences during the field experience. Although

dissemination of information happened through multiple methods, the primary mode of

communication was expressed in writing. There was a lack of communication, which is

an integral component of the field experience because of its impact on defining roles and

responsibilities, conducting observations and feedback, building relationships, and

supporting the cooperating teacher. The field experience provided enrichment through

reciprocal learning and opportunities to give back to the teaching profession.

Recommendations are offered for the university teacher preparation program and school

sites. The limited size of the sample may limit the study’s generalizability.

Keywords: cooperating teachers, field experience, self-efficacy, student teacher,

teacher of record, university partnerships, university supervisor

vi

Dedication

To my parents, Edwin and Milagros Oliva: Your love, support, and belief in my abilities are endless.

Thank you for showing me God’s goodness.

To my sister, Olivia C. Oliva: You opened my eyes to college and continue to encourage me.

A sister’s love cannot be broken.

To Victoria and Vaughn: Your laughter and smiles make me happy. Reach for the stars, your futures are bright.

I will always believe in you.

vii

Acknowledgment

The completion of this research is possible with the help of others. I would like to

thank my supervising professor, Dr. Kathy D. Geller. Thank you for getting to know me

and my beliefs even before you stepped into your role. Your guidance and questions

helped bring clarity and focus. Thank you for believing in me and providing me with

laughter. I would also like to thank Dr. Michele V. Hamilton. You guided me before

graduate school, showed me the Talking Circle, and joined me for the ride ever since.

Thank you for the encouragement and the reminder of God’s light, which shines bright.

To Dr. Ed Bureau, thank you for your insight and for “the iceberg.”

In addition, I would like to thank Mrs. Charlotte Chadwick and Henry

Kloczkowski for showing me what it means to lead. Your leadership allows your

organizations, and the individuals you serve, to grow, including me. You set the bar high

for those who follow. To Dr. Lary N. Duque, you sparked my pursuit to continue my

education by one simple question; who would have known it would take me this far. To

Dr. Janet L. Papale, you changed my views of writing.

I truly believe that God puts people in our lives for a reason. To Manang Floricel

and Manang MaryLynn, thank you for always supporting and believing in me. To my

friends from St. Anne, thank you for sticking with me through all these years and making

me laugh until my stomach hurts. To Monica, thank you for always being honest and

sharing my love for travel and food. To Janelle and Beatriz, thank you for being a part of

my family and loving them. Thank you for reminding me to focus, but also to take time

to relax. To Lauren, Chris, Elias, and baby-to-be, I know you are a package deal. Thank

you for the long talks and giving me hope. To Emilia, Fatima, and Clairisum, thank you

viii

for reminding me to fight for social justice. To Kourtney, thank you for sharing your

belief in God. To Lanae, Angela, and Zaheerah, thank you for the laughs and the

understanding. To my family, thank you for the laughs.

I would like to thank the participants in this study, who, despite their busy

schedules, gave their time and words to this research. Once again, your dedication to the

teaching profession is demonstrated through your shared experiences.

ix

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH ....................................................................1

Introduction to the Problem ...........................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem to Be Researched ..................................................................3

Purpose and Significance of the Problem ......................................................................3

Research Questions ........................................................................................................4

Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................5

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................8

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ..............................................................10

Summary ......................................................................................................................12

2. THE LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................13

Introduction ..................................................................................................................13

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................13

Literature Review.........................................................................................................15

Summary ......................................................................................................................32

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................33

Introduction ..................................................................................................................33

Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................34

x

Site and Population ......................................................................................................35

Research Methods ........................................................................................................40

Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................48

4. FINDINGS, RESULTS, AND INTERPRETATIONS ................................................50

Introduction ..................................................................................................................50

Findings........................................................................................................................51

Results and Interpretations ...........................................................................................73

Summary ......................................................................................................................78

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................79

Introduction ..................................................................................................................79

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................79

Recommendations ........................................................................................................83

Summary ......................................................................................................................89

LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................................90

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ...................................................................94

APPENDIX B: SCRIPT FOR UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR WHEN INFORMING COOPERATING TEACHER OF STUDY ......................98

APPENDIX C: INTRODUCTORY EMAILS...................................................................99

APPENDIX D: JOURNAL PROMPTS FOR COOPERATING TEACHERS ...............101

xi

List of Tables

1. Organizational Tool for Tracking Possible Participants ..............................................39

2. Timeline for Data Analysis and Reporting ..................................................................48 3. Participant Pseudonyms and Positions.........................................................................52

4. Themes and Findings of this Study ..............................................................................54

5. Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Selection ................................................55

6. Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Training .................................................59

7. Data Summary Table: Methods of Communication of Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors .......................62

8. Data Summary Table: Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers

and University Supervisors ..........................................................................................63 9. Data Summary Table: Supporting the Cooperating Teacher ......................................67

10. Data Summary Table: Reasons to Be a Cooperating Teacher .....................................69

xii

List of Figures

1. Conceptual framework .................................................................................................14

1

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research

Introduction to the Problem

The field experience is a component of a university teacher preparation program

when a cooperating teacher is paired with a student teacher. During this time, the

cooperating teacher has the opportunity to share his or her knowledge about the teaching

profession with the student teacher, who teaches, not just observes, a class, either part-

time or full-time. What should the first meeting between a cooperating teacher and a new

student teacher entail? How does the cooperating teacher ensure effective

communication? What are the responsibilities and expectations of the cooperating

teacher?

Questions like those above may be concerns of cooperating teachers, especially

those who take on the role for the first time and work with student teachers supporting

their preparation for successful entry into the teaching profession. The Elementary and

Secondary Education Act reauthorization, also known as No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 (NCLB), requires all students be taught by “highly qualified” teachers (NCLB,

2002). To be deemed “highly qualified,” teachers must hold a bachelor’s degree, be fully

certified, and demonstrate adequate content knowledge in their subject areas. Because

individual states determine the standards for teacher preparation, there is wide variation

in requirements to become a teacher (Graham, 2006; Levine, 2010). While not federally

mandated, some states require a field experience (student teaching), a component

incorporated into many university teacher education programs. The goal of the program

2

is to prepare those who will enter the teaching profession to be effective their first year

and beyond.

To guide student teachers during the field experience, the cooperating teacher

may need strategies in relationship building or communication and guidance from the

university supervisor or other cooperating teachers (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002;

Margolis, 2007; Russell & Russell ,2011; Soslau, 2012; Stanulis, 1995). Cooperating

teachers bring different perspectives based on their own personal experiences when there

is no formal training (Beeth & Adadan, 2006). Ward (2005) explained, “Most

cooperating teachers do not have access to training related to mentoring successful

student teachers” (pp. 148-149). Some cooperating teachers may lack a positive sense of

self-efficacy and feel they are not capable of influencing the student teacher toward

improvement, especially when the student teacher struggles (Hall, Draper, Smith, &

Bulloughs, 2008).

The literature suggests the support and preparation student teachers receive varies

and is lacking (Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Levine, 2006; National

Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2010; U.S. Department of

Education, 2010). Levine (2006) explained, “More than three out of five teacher

education alumni surveyed (62 percent) report that schools of education do not prepare

their graduates to cope with the realities of today’s classrooms” (p. 4). As a result, after

graduation and during their initial assignments, new teachers may feel overwhelmed and

leave the profession. The United States Department of Education (2010), speaking to

NCLB, stated, “Many prospective teachers attend preparation programs that aren’t

relevant to the work they’ll be doing in the classroom” (p. 1).

3

The researcher has known cooperating teachers who lacked communication

strategies to provide feedback, who were not reflective practitioners, and who became

cooperating teachers for reasons other than improving the teaching profession, such as

using it for an extra preparation period. Consequently, some student teachers may not

have fully benefited from the field experience. In the experience of this writer,

depending upon the teacher education program or the specific university supervisor, there

have been varying degrees of guidance, if any, provided to cooperating teachers. If the

cooperating teachers were provided more support and guidance, they would likely be

better equipped to prepare student teachers for the classroom and their future role as the

teacher of record.

Statement of the Problem to Be Researched

The cooperating teacher’s ability to effectively support the professional

development and training of student teachers during the field experience may be

impacted by the level of support and guidance they receive.

Purpose and Significance of the Problem

While there are a variety of standards for the teaching profession, such as The

Five Core Propositions (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2002) and

the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers,

2011; Hill, Stumbo, Paliokas, Hansen, & McWalters, 2010), there is not widespread and

consistent use of standards when preparing teachers, including during the field experience

(Darling-Hammond, 2006). The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship

between the cooperating teachers and one university teacher education program with the

goal to understand how the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and

4

cooperating teachers are defined and communicated. The study further sought to

explore what training and support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and

throughout the field experience as well as how the cooperating teacher’s level of self-

efficacy informed professional practices. The findings of this study may help university

preparation programs and the school district provide more consistent guidelines and

structure for the cooperating teacher during the field experience.

The field experience provides student teachers insight into teaching and its

everyday responsibilities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Feiman-Nemser, 2001;

O’Brian, Stoner, Appel, & House, 2007). In serving as mentors, current teachers,

including cooperating teachers, are given the opportunity to reflect upon and improve

personal teaching practices (Margolis, 2007; Saffold, 2005; Stanulis, 1995; Ward, 2005;

Weasmer & Woods, 2003). For the cooperating teacher, teacher engagement may

increase, which, in turn, may increase the efficacy of cooperating teachers to prepare

those who may soon join the teaching profession (Hall, Smith, Draper, Bullough, &

Sudweeks, 2005; Saffold, 2005). Studying the interaction between the university

supervisor and the cooperating teacher may offer clarity for role definitions, training,

support, and the self-efficacy of the cooperating teacher during the field experience.

Research Questions

1. What is the experience of the cooperating teacher in regard to the selection,

development, and support for his or her role during the field experience?

2. How are roles and responsibilities defined and communicated between the

university supervisor and the cooperating teacher?

5

3. How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform his or her role

and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?

Conceptual Framework

Stances of the Researcher

The research is grounded with axiological, epistemological, and experiential

stances. The axiological stance considers the researcher’s values, including being ethical

and being a good person, and in this case, becoming a cooperating teacher with the

purpose to guide those who will soon enter the profession of teaching. With experience

as a student teacher, a cooperating teacher, and a teacher of record, the researcher,

drawing on her expertise, holds an experiential stance. An epistemological stance takes

into consideration that this researcher is also in the field of education and will conduct

research at the site where the participants work. Finally, as a social constructivist, the

researcher draws on meanings, which are multiple and varied, and interactions with

others to make sense of the world. As a social constructivist, using open-ended questions

during interviews and providing cooperating teachers with journals allows the researcher

to fully integrate the voices of the participants into this exploration.

Three Research Streams

The conceptual framework is based upon three related streams of theory, research,

and practice: the cooperating teacher experience, the student teacher field experience, and

university partnerships. The first stream, cooperating teacher experiences, provides

insight regarding the roles, benefits, and challenges cooperating teachers face when

working with student teachers (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Bullough, 2005; Goddard, Hoy,

& Woolfolk Hoy, 2004; Graham, 2006; Hall et al., 2008; Kyle, Moore, & Sanders, 1999;

6

Margolis, 2007; Moore, 2003; Russell & Russell, 2011; Saffold, 2005; Soslau, 2012;

Stanulis, 1995; Ward, 2005; Weasmer & Woods, 2003). The second stream, student

teacher field experience, places the field experience in relation to the cooperating teacher

(Hong, 2010; O’Brian et al., 2007). The third stream, university partnerships, is directly

related to the field experience because it links theory and pedagogy to practice (Borko &

Mayfield, 1995; Bullough, Draper, Smith, & Birrell, 2004; Hall et al., 2008; Howey &

Zimpher, 2010; Kyle et al., 1999; Levine, 2010; Moore, 2003; O’Brian et al., 2007; Slick,

1997; Snow-Gerono, 2009; Soslau, 2012; Zeichner, 2012).

The field experience is tied to Dewey’s (1938) theory of experience, based upon

continuity and interactions. According to Dewey (1938), individuals are affected and

learn through experiences, whether positive or negative. Dependent upon past and

current experiences, people react in a specific way. Thus, continuity and interaction leads

one to form his or her beliefs. During the field experience, the cooperating teacher brings

personal experiences regarding what it means to be a teacher and the information

provided by the university teacher preparation program, which in tandem may

consequently affect the field experience.

Self-efficacy may also affect the field experience and knowledge provided by the

cooperating teacher. Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy suggests one’s level of

belief with regard to his or her capacity to complete a task was an accurate predictor of

successfully performing that task. There are two components to self-efficacy theory: a)

the belief that a given behavior will lead to a desired outcome and b) the belief that the

individual has the ability to bring about the desired outcome. Therefore, the cooperating

teacher’s sense of self-efficacy as a teacher and a mentor may affect the experience of the

7

student teacher during the field experience. Moreover, the teaching practices of the

cooperating teacher may be positively influenced.

Together, these three streams provide insight into the current practices and

experiences of those involved in the field experience. Not only are those training to

become teachers affected, but cooperating teachers may also improve their teaching

practices with enhanced direction and support from the university teacher preparation

program.

Cooperating teacher experience. The cooperating teacher, the main focus of

this study, works with the student teacher during the field experience. Although

cooperating teachers are supposed to guide student teachers, there may be “confusion

about roles and responsibilities, [which] undermines efficacy” (Hall et al., 2008, p. 343).

The cooperating teacher may need training and support to integrate reflective practices,

communication strategies, and relationship building into their approach. According to

Ward (2005), “Providing mentoring and other reciprocal learning opportunities can

impact teacher efficacy by transforming teachers into reflective learners who are

competent, confident, and more cognizant of the demands and realities of classroom life”

(p. 152).

Student teacher field experience. The student teacher field experience is a

component of the university teacher preparation program. It provides context to this

research, which focuses on the cooperating teacher. Although the specific guidelines of

the field experience may vary between programs, there are benefits such as observations

of current teachers, collaboration in a school setting, interaction with students, and

application of coursework (Beeth & Adadan, 2006; Graham, 2006; Kyle et al., 1999;

8

Margolis, 2007; Russell & Russell, 2011; Snow-Gerono, 2009; Staulis, 1995). During

the field experience, well-mentored student teachers may also gain a better understanding

of their roles as educators. According to Hong (2010), “Pre-service teachers presumably

begin to shape their professional identity during their teacher education program, which

includes key psychological factors, such as value, commitment, efficacy, emotion,

knowledge and beliefs, and micropolitics” (p. 1540).

University partnerships. Through partnerships among the university, district,

and schools, ongoing capacity building in the form of professional development may

occur, and information can be gathered regarding what schools need for cooperating

teachers to thoroughly and effectively guide student teachers. Feiman-Nemser (2001)

suggested, “Without a set of organizing themes, without shared standards, without clear

goals for student learning, there is not a framework to guide program design or student

assessment” (pp. 1019-1020). Currently, teacher preparation programs vary in the length

of the field experience and classroom experience. Teacher preparation may be addressed

through partnerships to lessen the discrepancies. NCATE (2010) explained, “It [teacher

education] must move to programs that are fully grounded in clinical practice and

interwoven with academic content and professional courses” (p. 2).

Definition of Terms

Cooperating teacher

An individual who, for the purposes of this study, is a high school teacher paired

with a student teacher during the field experience and may be identified as the

mentor teacher in literature (Hall et al., 2008; Kyle et al., 1999; Margolis, 2007;

Saffold, 2005; Snow-Gerono, 2009).

9

Field experience

The component, also known as preservice, of a teacher preparation program in

which the student teacher is paired with a cooperating teacher and teaches, not

just observes, a class, either part-time or full-time.

Self-efficacy

The “beliefs in one’s capacity to organize and execute the courses of action

required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).

Student teacher

An individual who attends a university teacher preparation program, has

completed most, if not all, university coursework, and may be identified as the

preservice teacher in literature (Beeth & Adadan, 2006; Hall et al., 2008; Hong,

2010; Moore, 2003; O’Brian et al., 2007).

Teacher of record

An individual stated in official records as the teacher of a course or section.

University partnerships

University teacher education faculty and their affiliates share their expertise with

school districts through professional development, sharing of resources, and

collaboration over time.

University supervisor

An individual representing the university teacher preparation program during the

field experience, is responsible for ensuring the student teacher has a cooperating

teacher, and provides support for the student teacher and cooperating teacher.

10

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Based upon the researcher’s experience as a student teacher, cooperating teacher,

and teacher of record, four primary assumptions were made relative to the study. First,

the field experience may be influential in forming the student teacher’s perspective of the

teaching profession. The researcher believes if the cooperating teacher provides the

student teacher thorough guidance in various aspects of teaching, including lesson

planning, classroom and behavior management, and addressing logistical demands such

as taking attendance and making parent/guardian calls, the student teacher may be better

prepared to handle diverse situations in a professional position. Second, reflection and

dialogue are necessary for growth. This assumption is based upon the experience of the

researcher as a student in a university teacher preparation program that required constant

reflection and devoted specific time to it. Reflection and dialogue that occurred with

colleagues at the place of employment of this researcher has led to changed teaching

strategies. Being a cooperating teacher and implementing reflecting practices also

benefits the cooperating teacher (Margolis, 2007; Saffold, 2005; Ward, 2005; Weasmer &

Woods, 2003).

Third, cooperating teachers need to have structure and strategies supervised by the

university teacher education program to ensure all student teachers are provided the same

support (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Snow-Gerono, 2009). This assumption is guided by

the experience of sharing a student teacher with another cooperating teacher. Without

explicit guidance from the university supervisor, the two cooperating teachers had

differing perceptions of what it meant to be a cooperating teacher and provided

11

conflicting information to the student teacher. Fourth, constant and clear

communication among the university supervisor, a school or district liaison, the

cooperating teacher, and the student teacher is a key component of the field experience

that seems to be lacking in the current structure of the field experience (Bullough et al.,

2004; Slick, 1997; Snow-Gerono, 2009). This assumption is based upon the experiences

of the researcher and fellow colleagues.

A limitation to this study is the focus on university teacher preparation programs.

Currently, there are alternative routes to the teaching profession that do not necessarily

require the field experience. Moreover, the study involves only cooperating teachers at

the high school level. Because the teaching responsibilities and daily duties of teachers

in grades Kindergarten through eight may differ from higher grades, the selection,

development, and support of cooperating teachers may not be the same.

Another limitation, dependent upon the university teacher program and the size of

the cohort, may be the variety in the size of districts and schools where cooperating

teachers are located. Finally, given the limited size of the single-case study, while it is

hoped the findings and results will add to the knowledge in this arena, the limited size of

the sample may limit its generalizability.

Summary

Cooperating teachers at a school site are key components of the field experience.

However, there are variations in the opportunities provided by a university teacher

preparation program. Moreover, the quality of the cooperating teacher differs because

formal selection criteria, mentoring skill development, and ongoing support may be

lacking, whether in the form of resources, communication, or structure. The cooperating

12

teacher’s ability to effectively support the professional development and training of

student teachers during the field experience may be hindered by the lack of guidance.

Research that takes a closer look at cooperating teacher experiences and university

partnerships may provide insight directly into improving the teaching practices of the

cooperating teacher, and indirectly provide indicators for the structure of the student

teacher field experience.

13

Chapter 2: The Literature Review

Introduction

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as

the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), requires all students be taught by “highly

qualified” teachers (NCLB, 2011). However, teacher candidates are not adequately

prepared to increase student achievement in a standards-based, accountability-driven

system of education (Levine, 2006, p. 5). With the Race to the Top Initiative (United

States Department of Education, 2010), teacher effectiveness and teacher preparation

have, once again, become a national focus in education. Therefore, university

partnerships may enhance the field experience component of teacher preparation by

connecting student teachers attending a teacher education program and cooperating

teachers at school sites. The cooperating teachers are an important component to

ensuring teachers enter the profession with the skills and knowledge to help students

achieve at high levels in our global society. However, the problem this research sought

to explore was that the cooperating teacher’s ability to effectively support the

professional development and training of student teachers during the field experience

may be impacted by the level of support and guidance they themselves received.

Conceptual Framework

The field experience provides cooperating teachers the opportunity to share with

student teachers their knowledge and insight into the teaching profession and its everyday

responsibilities (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). However, teacher preparation programs appear

inconsistent based on the variation in the amount of classroom experience required of

14

student teachers; the selection, development, and support provided to a cooperating

teacher; and the connection between university coursework and practice (Zeichner,

2010). Figure 1 displays the relationship between the three streams and categories

included in preparing high school cooperating teachers. While this study highlighted the

cooperating teacher, the literature review offers an overview of previous research

regarding those involved in the field experience triad.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

High School Cooperating Teachers

Cooperating Teacher

Experience

University Partnerships

Student Teacher Field

Experience

Self Efficacy

Reflective Practice

Relationship Building

Communication Strategies

Theory and Pedagogy

University Supervisor

15

Literature Review

The three literature streams introduced in Chapter 1 are reviewed in this chapter.

They include student teacher field experiences, cooperating teacher experiences, and

university partnerships. The research and literature regarding the three streams overlap

because of the close connection to the field experience. The first stream, cooperating

teacher experiences, examines how self-efficacy and the role of the cooperating teacher

relates to the student teacher and the university teacher education program. The stream

also reviews the benefits and challenges the cooperating teachers face when working with

a student teacher. The second stream, student teacher field experiences, focuses on the

connection with cooperating teachers during the field experience. The third stream of

research, university partnerships, focuses on the role of the university supervisor, the

relationship building and communication strategies used, and the connection between

theory and pedagogy to practice. Together, these streams provide insight into the current

practices, the experiences of the triad, and the integral position cooperating teachers hold

in the preparation of future teachers. Not only are those who are training to become

teachers affected by the field experience, but cooperating teachers may also improve

teaching practices with direction and assistance from the university teacher preparation

program supervisor.

Cooperating Teacher Experience

The cooperating teacher is paired with a student teacher during the field

experience. The roles and responsibilities of the cooperating teacher are not always

explicitly identified. Therefore, the professional identity of the cooperating teacher may

influence what is considered important during the experience (Bullough, 2005; Graham,

16

2006; Russell & Russell, 2011). The cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy and

reflective practices affects the field experience (Hall et al., 2005; Margolis, 2007; Saffold,

2005; Ward, 2005; Weasmer & Woods, 2003). Furthermore, the communication

strategies used by the cooperating teacher may steer relationship-building strategies

utilized to share and create knowledge (Graham, 2006; Moore, 2007).

Understanding the identity formation of cooperating teachers is important because

they work closely with student teachers, preparing them for entry into the teaching

profession. Bullough (2005) conducted a case study to explore issues related to identity

formation of cooperating teachers. Based on the data gathered, he discovered that

expectations of cooperating teachers during the field experience were unclear and led the

cooperating teacher to a reliance on memories of personal field experience for guidance

(Bullough, 2005, p. 148). Moreover, the depth of knowledge shared with the student

teacher was affected. According to Bullough (2005), “Who one is, is integral to

determining what subject positions are made available and how they are made available

for others’ occupation and self-definition” (p. 144). Without guidance, cooperating

teachers feel alone and on their own.

Although the research by Bullough (2005) was based on the viewpoints of one

cooperating teacher and two student teachers, the findings were corroborated by other

research. Russell and Russell (2011) investigated the perspectives of cooperating

teachers on mentoring student teachers. Even when cooperating teachers have a clear

understanding of their identity, “this does not necessarily mean they know how to mentor

or how to be an effective mentor” (Russell & Russell, 2011, pp. 13-14). Research by

17

Graham (2006) echoed this finding. Clear roles and responsibilities of the cooperating

teacher are just as important to a successful field experience as identity formation.

Orienting the student teacher to the teaching profession is a role identified by Hall

et al. (2008). The mixed-methods study compared cooperating teachers’ perceptions of

their roles and responsibilities with the “view commonly embraced by researchers” (p.

329). In the study, 264 cooperating teachers responded to questionnaires while 34 were

randomly selected to participate in an interview for clarification. The findings suggested

differences between the cooperating teachers’ perceptions of their roles and

responsibilities, compared to the commonly held view, which emphasized professional

support. According to the study’s conclusions, emotional and professional supports are

key components in mentor responsibilities. Moreover, cooperating teachers believed

their roles and responsibilities were to get student teachers acquainted to the teaching

profession, to provide opportunities to teach, and were also dependent upon whether or

not the student teacher struggled in the field (Hall et al., 2008, p. 341).

Scaffolding skills and information is identified as a role of the cooperating teacher

(Graham, 2006). Graham’s (2006) research sought to understand the contributions of

cooperating teachers to the process of learning to teach. The research included

questionnaire responses from 95 cooperating teachers and 25 interviews, lasting 45 to 90

minutes, with a focus on how cooperating teachers defined a successful field experience.

Unlike other field placements, the cooperating teachers participated in a workshop or a

course to prepare for the experience. This research suggested four conditions lead to a

successful field experience. Graham (2006) explained:

18

The four conditions are: organizational structures to promote inter-institutional collaboration and to establish relationships based on trust and reciprocity; affective engagement with teaching and learning; cognitive engagement with the intellectual challenges of teaching; and professional mentoring. (p. 1122)

Based upon the findings, specific training can help with role formation and the

preparation of cooperating teachers to be more thorough and effective.

Similar to Graham (2006), Kyle et al. (1999) provided insight regarding the role

of the cooperating teacher through a qualitative study including nine cooperating

teachers. Before becoming a cooperating teacher, there is a need for clarity and an

understanding of the expectations of and insight into their roles. Even when teachers

know the expectations of being a cooperating teacher, they “benefit from more systematic

and focused education about the role” (Kyle et al., 1999, p. 119). The responsibilities of

the cooperating teachers included work related to the development of the student teacher.

According to Kyle et al. (1999):

Mentor teachers are responsible for knowing what curriculum content, instructional strategies, and issues are most current in the field; how to collaborate with colleagues; and how to articulate their beliefs, practices, and goals in ways that are understandable to novices. (p. 112)

The study identified qualities of the cooperating teachers as knowledgeable, but still

willing to learn, willing to share, and skilled in interpersonal relationships. With

information regarding the role and qualities of the cooperating teacher, support and

guidance about how to be effective should follow.

Expert, guide, and model are roles the cooperating teacher uses to assist the

student teacher in becoming an effective practitioner (Russell & Russell, 2003; Weasmer

& Woods, 2003). Russell and Russell (2011) conducted a phenomenological study with

a goal of developing a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of mentoring. The

19

researchers concluded the role of the cooperating teachers were to help and guide the

student teacher, but may be “unrealized” (Russell & Russell, 2003, p. 10). Cooperating

teachers wanted to share and gain knowledge and encourage and collaborate with new

teachers. Moreover, role modeling and mandatory professional development were

emphasized by the cooperating teachers for effective mentoring.

Not only do cooperating teachers influence student teachers through role

modeling, the university teacher education program is also seen as a factor. Stanulis

(1995) conducted a descriptive study of five cooperating teachers and the student teacher

with whom they are paired. One purpose was to determine how cooperating teachers

make sense of their role. Through interviews and observations, Stanulis (1995)

concluded that cooperating teachers felt it was important to align teaching philosophies

with instruction, to develop independent thinkers, and to see student teachers as

colleagues. Moreover, program themes of the university were utilized by cooperating

teachers throughout the field experience and “influenced the construction of their roles”

(Stanulis, 1995, p. 343). Although cooperating teachers assist the university preparation

program with the development of the student teacher, the cooperating teacher holds two

positions because of their role.

The cooperating teachers hold “dual responsibilities: to the students in their care

and to the pre-service teacher” (Graham, 2006, p. 1127). This is further supported by

Soslau (2012). Soslau (2012) conducted a qualitative study to determine how student

teachers develop adaptive teaching, which uses context to make decisions, reflect, and

reform actions. Once the student teachers realized they also have multiple purposes,

communication with the cooperating teacher regarding how to best help students were

20

discussed. To facilitate the process of the field experience, training for and

development of the cooperating teachers could lead to higher self-efficacy (Borko &

Mayfield, 1995, p. 516). Development of the cooperating teacher and self-efficacy go

hand-in-hand when guiding a student teacher.

Since there are a variety of details of which a student teacher needs to be

cognizant in the classroom, such as classroom management and content knowledge, the

cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy could affect the success of the field

experience. Goddard et al. (2004) defined self-efficacy as the belief about capabilities to

achieve a task and suggested a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy is a “significant predictor”

of productive teaching practices (p. 4). Two sources of efficacy shaping, mastery

experience and vicarious experience, are most closely related to the field experience

when the student teacher is paired with a successful cooperating teacher (Goddard et al.,

2004). A mastery experience is the most powerful source of efficacy shaping and takes

into consideration what contributes to an outcome. Vicarious experience is when a skill

is modeled by another, which is similar to the role of the cooperating teacher. According

to Goddard et al. (2004), “The higher teachers’ sense of efficacy, the more likely they are

to tenaciously overcome obstacles and persist in the face of failure” (p. 4). When a

performance is perceived successful, then efficacy beliefs increase.

According to Hall et al. (2005), “Better understanding of teachers’ self-efficacy as

mentors of other teachers hold promise for shedding light on improving teacher

preparation through strengthening the quality and effectiveness of mentoring” (p. 188).

The findings by Goddard et al. (2004) and Hall et al. (2005) were reiterated by Saffold

(2005) who conducted a qualitative study to determine how to increase self-efficacy in

21

cooperating teachers. Saffold (2005) explained, “When a person believes they have

what it takes to succeed, they develop a resilient sense of efficacy” (p. 13). Awareness of

self-efficacy and mentoring influenced the cooperating teachers to become more

reflective educators because they were “allowed to reflect on their practice, examine it,

and then reevaluate the ideas, guiding principles, theories, and objectives attached to their

personal philosophy of teaching and learning” (Saffold, 2005, pp. 14-15). Not only does

the field experience benefit the student teacher, the cooperating teacher learns as well.

The field experience provides cooperating teachers the opportunity to reflect upon

practices to improve teaching and understand why specific pedagogies are used to

improve student learning. Research by Saffold (2005) suggested mentoring allowed

cooperating teachers to be reflective, leading to a reevaluation of philosophies and

objectives. To better understand how explicitness is used between cooperating and

student teachers, Margolis (2007) carried out a year-long qualitative study including

seven cooperating teachers. The findings from this study indicated cooperating teachers

examined their own teaching and procedures to explain their reasons and actions to the

student teacher. Consequently, the examinations led to increasingly reflective teaching

decisions.

A quantitative study conducted by Ward (2005) sought to determine the impact of

the training the cooperating teachers received through a university and school-based

partnership. Based on the data gathered, Ward (2005) determined that after mentoring,

cooperating teachers felt, at varying degrees, more confident about being an effective

cooperating teacher. Research by Margolis (2007) supports the findings by Ward (2005).

In another study, Stanulis (1995) explored how cooperating teachers model critical

22

reflection. The findings suggested the cooperating teachers made connections between

taking risks, trying new ideas, and reflecting. When time from the demands and

responsibilities of teaching was devoted to reflection, the cooperating teacher placed

value in the practice.

To gain a deeper understanding of the cooperating teacher’s reflection on

practices, Weasmer and Woods (2003) conducted a qualitative study of 28 cooperating

teachers to examine reflective practices and to discover changes in their perspectives on

teaching that may have been caused by the field experience. Two types of reflection,

reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action, were discussed. Reflection-in-action is

reflection on experiences as they are happening (Weasmer & Woods, 2003, p. 66).

Reflection-on-action occurred when the cooperating teacher had to explain their actions

to the student teacher. Explanations held the cooperating teacher accountable for

modeling and also validated his or her actions. The practice of reflection was a self-

assessment tool for the cooperating teacher. According to Weasmer and Woods (2003),

“Hosting a student teacher can offer the mentor teacher a closer look at the effectiveness

of her own instructional pedagogy” (p. 70). Weasmer and Woods (2003) concluded the

field experience resulted in reciprocal learning and “served to inform and ultimately

change their [cooperating teachers’] own teaching and in some cases alter their practices”

(p. 71). The amount of dialogue that occurred between the cooperating teacher and the

student teacher, regarding reflection-on-action, was dependent upon the relationship and

communication strategies used between the two.

Communication allows the cooperating teacher to explain teaching practices and

decision-making. Moreover, the dialogue provides an avenue for questions to be asked

23

and answered to inform the choices in pedagogy, theory, and action (Graham, 2006;

Margolis, 2007; Moore, 2003). A qualitative study by Moore (2003) examined the

cooperating teachers’ perceptions of the teaching effectiveness of student teachers. The

study included 62 cooperating teachers and 77 student teachers. The findings of this

study indicated that to assist student teachers in making connections between the

coursework and the field experience, trust between the cooperating teacher and the

student teacher needed to be built (Moore, 2003, p. 40). A lack in, or absence of,

communication before and during the field experience may hinder the progress of the

student teacher and may not provide the cooperating teacher with innovative teaching

practices that may be learned through the university teacher preparation program.

Being explicit creates an environment that allows the relationship between the

cooperating teacher and student teacher to grow. Margolis (2007) also examined how

explicitness from the cooperating teacher, when explaining reasons behind decision-

making as a teacher, impacted the field experience. It is important to know how

cooperating teachers talk with student teachers and what is discussed when feedback is

provided (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Margolis, 2007). To help the relationship between

cooperating teacher and student teacher move forward, the expectations of both teachers

need to be explicitly addressed in the beginning of the experience as a “professional

courtesy and necessity” (Margolis, 2007, p. 82). By being explicit, transparent, and

direct, the cooperating teacher helps the novice become acquainted and prepared for the

complex teaching profession (Margolis, 2007, pp. 79-82). The cooperating teacher needs

support regarding effective communication skills and relationship building.

24

The relationship between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher may

influence the success of the field experience. Russell and Russell (2011) explained,

“Promoting successful mentoring relationships is a very important step toward

developing student interns into effective practitioners” (p. 3). Furthermore, Russell and

Russell (2011) determined that cooperating teachers want to share and gain knowledge,

and encourage and collaborate with new teachers (pp. 11-12). Similarly, Stanulis (1995)

found that cooperating teachers felt relationships were formed through collaboration and

consistent interaction (p. 343). The research by Graham (2006) corroborated these

findings. Her data indicated open communication, reciprocal arrangements, focused

dialogue, and reflection based on feedback benefited the development of the relationship.

Understanding what creates a positive and supportive relationship during the field

experience may guide teacher preparation programs to develop cooperating teachers

equipped with strategies and skills to prepare student teachers for the teaching profession.

Student Teacher Field Experiences

The student teacher field experience, also known as the practicum, is a component

of the university teacher preparation program that allows the student teacher an outlook

of what teaching entails (Moore, 2003; O’Brian et al., 2007; Russell & Russell, 2011).

During this time, the student teacher works closely with a cooperating teacher based at

the school site. To better mentor the student teacher, a professional relationship may

need to be built. It is also important that there is open communication between the

student teacher and the cooperating teacher. According to O’Brian et al. (2007),

“Communication and trust were relationship indicators that were interwoven as the

primary, foundational factor in the field experiences from all participants” (p. 269).

25

Dialogue between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher may lead to

reflective practice that provides the student teacher with the opportunity to “build a praxis

for teaching that acts as a personal and theoretical knowledge base” (Moore, 2003, p. 33).

The field experience may affect a student teacher’s decision to continue in the

teaching profession. Hong (2010) conducted a mixed-methods study seeking to answer

how student teachers of different levels perceived their identity. The study included

questionnaire responses from 84 participants and 27 interviews. The findings from this

study suggested the student teachers’ beliefs about teaching came from past and present

personal school experiences and may affect retention in the teaching profession.

Moreover, they suggested the perspective of the student teacher is dependent upon the

progression of their placement, a conclusion also supported by O’Brian et al. (2007).

Through relationships with the cooperating teacher, the student teacher may learn to cope

with issues that arise during the field experience and beyond.

Relationships impact the experience of the student and cooperating teacher.

Research by O’Brian et al. (2007) explored how relationships and roles are described by

student teachers and cooperating teachers. In their chosen setting, there were no criteria

for selection or training of nine cooperating teachers, who, along with their student

teachers, were involved in observations and interviews. Their findings indicated the

relationship between cooperating teacher and student teacher affected both the knowledge

and performance of the student teacher and is based upon communication and trust

(O’Brian et al., 2007, p. 269). They concluded the cooperating teacher may better assist

the student teacher with these concerns by receiving training regarding “coaching roles,

including affective and cognitive coaching” (O’Brian et al., 2007, p. 274). Although the

26

field experience is meant to assist those who will enter the profession, it also affects

those who are currently in the field.

University Partnerships

There are many values and ideologies driving educational policy regarding

teacher preparation (Howey & Zimpher, 2010). Consequently, there is a constant

struggle to balance self-interest, economics, and democratic and general social values.

Because the values are not completely separate, it may cause issues when dealing with

ideologies. As a result, there is disagreement regarding how to allocate resources and

whether to professionalize teaching. Regardless of what route a person may take to

become a teacher, there needs to be agreement about what an effective and adequately

prepared teacher knows and is able to do.

Dependent upon the route taken into teaching, there may be differences in the

quality of preparation. To address the issue of equality, teacher preparation needs to be

addressed through partnerships between universities, districts, and schools, and created

and strengthened to drive school reform and to connect theory and practice (Darling-

Hammond, 2006; Howey & Zimpher, 2010; Levine, 2010). By learning in a classroom

with a cooperating teacher, student teachers have the opportunity to connect theory to

practice and affect those who will lead our society.

Zeichner (2010) provided an overview of the connections between universities

and the field experience. Currently, there are few incentives for tenure-track faculty to

participate in the field experience. Instead, they often carry out research, which is also

necessary (Zeichner, 2010, p. 90). For the field experience, the site placement and

selection of the cooperating teacher is not always done at the university level. Instead,

27

the decision is often made by district offices. Consequently, there may be

disconnection during the field placement. According to Zeichner (2010):

It is very common for cooperating teachers with whom students work during their field placements to know very little about the specifics of the methods and foundations courses that their student teachers have completed on campus, and the people teaching the campus courses often know very little about the specific practices used in the P–12 classrooms where their students are placed. (p. 91)

It is important the university supervisor helps decrease the gap between the two entities,

especially during the field experience. Moreover, it is beneficial to understand the role of

the university supervisor when discussing the field experience and university

partnerships.

Levine (2010) explained that within the partnership, the common goal is to

connect theory and practice while developing skills and knowledge. Levine (2010)

stated, “Partnerships should be reciprocal by nature – reflecting a commitment to a shared

responsibility for teacher learning and for improved student achievement” (p. 12).

Similar to the responsibilities of the cooperating teacher, the university supervisor may

have discussions as to why certain decisions were made and provide feedback to the

student teacher, also supported by Soslau (2012). When a true partnership is created, the

roles are developed and resources are blended to support the development of the student

teacher and to increase student achievement.

Resources are an important factor in university partnerships. Snow-Gerono

(2009) conducted a phenomenological study including nine veteran teachers, a principal,

and the university supervisor to explore and analyze how veteran teachers view school-

university partnerships with respect to enhancing teacher preparation. The cooperating

teachers’ perspectives led to an appreciation of the university supervisors, who were

28

considered human resources who provided time and effort (Snow-Gerono, 2009, p.

264). However, time constraints were noted as a reason of dissatisfaction by university

supervisors (Borko & Mayfield, 1995, p. 511). The field experience is a component

when the student teacher should be provided with support and be able to connect what is

taught in coursework with what occurs in classrooms every day.

Both university supervisors and cooperating teachers agreed it is during the field

experience when student teachers learn to teach (Borko & Mayfield, 1995; Darling-

Hammond, 2006; Graham, 2006). During the field experience, there is a connection

between the theory and pedagogy, and the practice. Kyle et al. (1999) explained, “We

must be careful not to perpetuate the view that the university is about theory and the

school is about practice; instead, we must communicate that excellent teachers know that

‘best practice’ is grounded in theory” (p. 118). Bullough et al. (2004) supported this

claim, referring to the role of the university supervisor as a link and a bridge between the

university and schools. Although partnerships may come in the form of clinical practice,

laboratory schools, or mentored internships, the key is reciprocity (Levine, 2010, p. 12).

Because the university supervisor is in contact with all entities involved in the field

experience, it is important to take a closer look at their roles and responsibilities.

The university supervisor has the unique role of working with those at the

university and those who are at the school sites. Similar to the findings by Graham

(2006) and Soslau (2012) in which the cooperating teacher had a responsibility to the

students and to the student teacher, the university supervisor has dual responsibilities.

Slick (1997) carried out a case study to explore the role of the university supervisor and

how time is divided between schools and individuals. The findings suggested the

29

university supervisor had to provide support to both the cooperating teacher and the

student teacher, yet uphold the standards of the university (Slick, 1997, p. 714). It may

be beneficial for the university supervisor if there is a separation of duties between the

university supervisor and a university teacher educator. One individual may hold the role

of supporter, and the other as evaluator of the student teacher. To support the university

supervisor, Slick (1997) also suggested “that teacher educators at the university need to

take a more active role in not only defining standards and expectations for student

teachers, but also in becoming more involved in helping the supervisor to interpret and

uphold these expectations” (p. 724). The importance of role clarification of the

university supervisor is discussed by others in the field of education.

Although the research by Slick (1997) was based upon the viewpoint of one

university supervisor, the findings were supported by other research. Borko and

Mayfield (1995) conducted a qualitative study of 12 participants consisting of university

supervisors, cooperating teachers, and student teachers. The purpose of the study was to

discover what characteristics were important for discussions and relationships among the

field experience triad. Based upon the data of their study, Borko and Mayfield (1995)

recommended “that university supervisors use their limited time in schools to help

cooperating teachers become teacher educators” (p. 517). Because the university

supervisor also works with the student teacher, there are parallel roles to those of the

cooperating teacher.

Bullough et al. (2004) conducted a qualitative study, including interviews of 32

university supervisors, 14 university faculty members, the dean of the school of

education, and two department chairs to understand the role of the university supervisor.

30

Moreover, they sought to understand the relationship between the university supervisor

and the cooperating teacher. They concluded the university supervisor holds the roles of

being a supervisor, a coach, and a model to the student teacher, especially with the

connection to the teacher preparation program (Bullough et al., 2004). However, their

findings suggested the responsibilities of the university supervisor were not always

clearly defined, which led to confusion and tension (Bullough et al., 2004, pp. 512, 515).

At times, the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities has effects on the

university supervisor’s sense of self-efficacy.

The self-efficacy of the university supervisor may also have an impact,

comparable to the effects of the cooperating teacher, on the success of the field

experience. Although university supervisors seemed to enjoy their work with student

teachers, they felt “uncertainty and self-doubt” when their role was not bounded and

clearly defined (Bullough et al., 2004, p. 509). Research by Borko and Mayfield (1995)

found discrepancies in the university supervisors’ satisfaction of the relationship with the

student teacher because the supervisors did not feel their impact on the student teacher

was high (p. 512). When roles are not clearly defined, tension, doubt, and confusion are

caused, which may have a negative effect on the field experience.

Various individuals, including cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and

student teachers are involved in the field experience and its progress, which is why

communication is extremely important. When the roles are not clearly defined, the

tension is amplified if all members of the triad are not informed of changes or

expectations. Moreover, the expectations are better made and communicated at the

beginning of the field experience (Slick, 1997, p. 724). To address issues and to best

31

support the student teacher, the communication needs to be open, clear, and consistent

(Bullough et al., 2004; Snow-Gerono, 2009). Furthermore, all levels of the triad are

encouraged to partake in communication because each has specific responsibilities and

needs during the field experience. Additionally, communication allows for a successful

relationship to grow.

Howey and Zimpher (2010) explained there are four attributes to consider for

successful partnerships: 1) goals are shared, 2) formalized arrangements are created to

commit to support work, 3) mutual benefits are included, and 4) interdependence is

acknowledged among partners (pp. 6-7). Because the university supervisor has such a

transitory role, it is important the above attributes are taken into consideration and

worked toward to build a positive relationship between all members within the triad.

Hall et al. (2008) explained that having a comfortable relationship may not always benefit

the student teacher because it may cause the university supervisor or the cooperating

teacher to withhold feedback that may assist in the growth and development of the

student teacher (p. 343). Not only should a relationship be built, it should be monitored

and changed accordingly, based on the progress of the student teacher.

During the field experience, both the cooperating and student teacher may benefit.

The student teacher is developing teaching practices and the cooperating teacher may also

learn new skills or refine old ones. On the other hand, there may be tension between the

two or the cooperating teacher may lack strategies to best support the development of the

student teacher. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the university supervisor to

oversee the relationship between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher.

According to O’Brian et al. (2007), “They [university supervisors] should be diligent in

32

assessing the relationship, identifying barriers to the relationship, and intervening when

necessary. Additionally, university supervisors should clearly communicate the program

demands” (p. 274). It is important the field experience triad of university supervisor,

cooperating teacher, and student teacher communicate and build a relationship that

provides insight into the teaching profession and how to deal with issues that may arise.

Summary

The literature and research indicates the field experience holds many facets the

cooperating teacher must understand to become an effective guide for student teachers

who will enter the teaching profession. The research suggests support, training, and

development of the cooperating teacher should be provided in the areas of

communication and relationship building. Moreover, the cooperating teacher’s sense of

self-efficacy provides insight into the types of training that should be provided prior to

the field experience. Reflective practices have contributed to the field experience by

providing the cooperating teacher opportunities to examine, reconsider, and explain

pedagogy. However, in order for the field experience to improve and be beneficial to the

student teacher, a partnership between the university and school should be considered.

This research will add to the existing literature because it will suggest whether or not

cooperating teachers understand their role and responsibilities and know how to mentor

during the field experience. Moreover, this research will indicate how a cooperating

teacher’s sense of self-efficacy influences their professional practices. Chapter 3

describes the research methodology, including research design and rationale. The chapter

concludes with a summary of ethical considerations.

33

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the cooperating

teachers and one university teacher education program with the goal to understand how

the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers are

defined and communicated. The study further sought to explore what training and

support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field

experience as well as how the cooperating teachers’ levels of self-efficacy informed

professional practices. The findings of this study may help university preparation

programs and the school district provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the

cooperating teacher during the field experience.

The study addressed three research questions: (a) What is the experience of the

cooperating teacher in regard to the selection, development, and support for his or her

role during the field experience? (b) How are roles and responsibilities defined and

communicated between the university supervisor, the district or school liaison, and the

cooperating teacher? (c) How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform

his or her role and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?

This chapter describes the methodology used for this single-case study. It also

includes information regarding the description of the site and population, the research

design and rationale for the research approach, methods of data collection, and phases of

data collection. The chapter concludes with a summary of ethical considerations.

34

Research Design and Rationale

A qualitative approach was used because it is grounded in the constructivist

viewpoint. Creswell (2007) defined a case study as

a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and artifacts, and reports), and reports a case description and case-based themes. (p. 73)

Using a qualitative research design allowed for holistic analysis in which the researcher

looked for themes and descriptions based upon the whole case (Creswell, 2008; Merriam,

2009). Using a single-case study created a bounded system that allowed the researcher to

extrapolate meanings of experiences based on the data collected within the system.

It was the intention of the researcher to use a qualitative approach so the themes

would emerge from the thick, rich data drawn from multiple sources of information and

collected through interviews, journals, and artifacts. By conducting a single-case study,

the researcher was able to go in-depth and gather rich descriptions from the experiences

of the participants. Qualitative research holds the following three characteristics: (a)

researchers listen to the views of participants of the study, (b) general open questions are

asked and data collection occurs where people live and work, and (c) research has a role

in advocating for change (Creswell, 2008). By using a qualitative approach, the

researcher analyzed and described the case in context, which, in this case, was a

university teacher preparation program.

35

Site and Population

Population Description

A snowball sampling procedure, which is a type of purposeful sampling, was used

to select the sample for the study. Purposeful sampling is a method used for case-study

methodology because the individuals and sites purposefully inform the research based on

their understandings of the research problem (Creswell, 2008). Specifically, criterion

sampling was initially used because the participants were all associated with the same

teacher education program. The criteria for participant selection included:

• All university supervisors are employees of the same California public university

teacher education program.

• All university supervisors work with secondary education cooperating teachers

during the student teaching field experience.

The university supervisors were identified by their positions within the School of

Education. The participants included two university supervisors and 11 cooperating

teachers. The participants spanned three content areas. Each cooperating teacher

reported to a university supervisor, some of whom did not participate in the study.

Moreover, the cooperating teachers were associated with the participating university

teacher preparation program and located at five local school sites within three school

districts where the student teachers were placed during the field experience.

The cooperating teachers comprised approximately 85% of the participants. Five

of eleven (45%) cooperating teachers were females, while 6 of 11 (55%) were males.

Moreover, the participating cooperating teachers were distributed among the three

content areas almost equally. All cooperating teachers indicated having another position,

36

at the time of the study or in the past, in the field of education. The experiences of the

cooperating teachers varied. The average number of years a cooperating teacher taught

was 17, with the greatest being 30 and the least being seven. Four of eleven cooperating

teachers taught grades outside the high school level. There was a wide range, 2-35, of

student teachers with whom a cooperating teacher had worked. Cooperating teachers

worked with student teachers for either a year (9 of 11, 82%), a semester (6 of 11, 55%),

or both (3 of 11, 27%).

Site Description

The university teacher preparation program is part of a School of Education at a

public university in California. The university enrolled approximately 30,500 students in

Spring 2013, and provided 101 undergraduate majors and 90 graduate programs.

However, the School of Education enrolled approximately 429 students, and 321 were

females and 108 were males. The goals of the School include, but are not limited to,

conducting high quality research addressing key educational issues, deep and sustained

engagement in regional public schools, and a focus on practice and improvement.

Although the university’s first teacher-training program was held approximately 100

years ago, the School of Education only became an official School during the 21st

century.

The School awards a Minor in Education, Teacher Credential, Master of Arts,

Doctorate in Education, and a Doctorate in Philosophy. The teacher credential/Master of

Arts program enrolls the largest population of students within the School of Education.

In Fall Quarter 2012, the School of Education included 35 faculty members (full- and

part-time) with 53.3% of full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty engaged in externally

37

funded research projects. However, the Teacher Education Program included 15 full-

time tenured or tenure-track faculty and 272 students. Student teachers at this institution

are placed within a 50-mile radius at five districts that employ the cooperating teachers.

Site Access

There were three levels of access through which the researcher had to go in order

to speak with cooperating teachers. The researcher had to gain access from Drexel

University Institutional Review Board (IRB), the Director of the Teacher Education

Program at the School of Education, and an administrator at the school sites. To gain

access to the School of Education, it was pertinent to speak with the Director of Teacher

Education, a gatekeeper, to discuss the goals of this research study and gain support for

access and participation of university supervisors. When the Director of Teacher

Education had an understanding of the study, he spoke with the university supervisors

regarding their possible participation in this study and assured university supervisors that

this was not an evaluative study. The Director of Teacher Education could not require

the university supervisors to participate in this study; therefore, those who participated

did so voluntarily.

Although the Director of Teacher Education made university supervisors aware of

the study and granted the researcher access to them, it took multiple rounds of

communication from the researcher to university supervisors to get responses. This may

have been due to the fact that summer break was still in session. The researcher initially

had four university supervisors agree to participate. However, one accepted a job at

another university and dropped, while another abruptly decided to withdraw before the

interview. After an interview, a university supervisor expressed interest in the research

38

and decided to remind colleagues to consider participating in the study. This led to an

opportunity for the researcher to contact the university supervisors again. Only one other

university supervisor responded and agreed to participate. Yet, when the interview

needed to be rescheduled, the university supervisor stopped responding to

communication from the researcher.

The university supervisors were also gatekeepers because they provided

information regarding the cooperating teachers. Moreover, the university was linked to

different school districts based on the placement of the student teachers. Although the

university supervisors were open to personally contacting cooperating teachers regarding

this study, the reactions differed regarding their willingness to share information about

them. Therefore, when information regarding cooperating teachers was not directly

provided, the researcher requested the school site names where student teachers would be

placed because gaining access to the cooperating teachers, employees of the school

district, not the university, also needed to be considered.

To gain access to cooperating teachers, the researcher contacted the principal at

each site through phone and/or email. Although multiple messages were left via both

methods of communication, the response rate was low. The researcher later found that

many schools were in the process of changing administrators. Consequently, those in the

interim did not want to provide approval, but instead chose to leave the decision to the

permanent administrator. This postponed the site approval process and contact with the

cooperating teachers. However, once approval was granted, the university supervisors

provided more information regarding the cooperating teachers.

39

The cooperating teachers were contacted through email and/or phone

depending on the information provided by the university supervisor. If contact

information for the cooperating teacher was not provided, the researcher sent an email

through the school web page. However, this did not provide the researcher with the

possible participants’ direct contact information. Instead, it provided a copy of the

communication and left it up to the cooperating teacher to respond. Therefore, a

reminder from the university supervisors, and the balanced persistence of the researcher

that a response whether or not the cooperating teacher would like to participate in the

study, was crucial. Insight from the university supervisor regarding the preferred method

of communication for individual cooperating teachers was also beneficial to the

researcher. It is pertinent the researcher did not overwhelm the cooperating teacher with

communication. Therefore, an organizational tool, similar to Table 1, was created.

Table 1

Organizational Tool for Tracking Possible Participants

School Name Email Content

Area Participate Interview

Date Interview

Time ABC Emilio

YES 11/xx/12 3:30 p.m. 11/08 11/14

EFG DejaRae

NO

11/08 11/14 As the number of possible participants increased through snowball sampling, the

researcher organized communication and confirmation of participation by using a tool

similar to Table 1. It was pertinent to keep the table updated with email and phone

40

numbers to ensure the researcher could contact the possible participants, especially

with the administration changes at various school sites.

Research Methods

Description of Each Method Used

Multiple methods, including semi-structured interviews with participants,

cooperating teacher journals, and artifact reviews, were used to triangulate the data with

the goal to enhance confidence and seek comparable findings.

Interviews of university supervisors and cooperating teachers.

Instrument description. Semi-structured interviews with the university

supervisors were conducted separately from that of the cooperating teachers. Interviews

were conducted one-on-one and face-to-face utilizing open-ended questions, which were

pilot tested and revised accordingly for this research. The interviews with the university

supervisors were held at the university, unless the participant requested a different

location. Audio recordings were taken using two digital recorders. Field notes were also

taken by the researcher throughout the interview. Unless the cooperating teacher

requested a different location, the interviews occurred at the school site of the field

experience. Field notes were taken by the researcher throughout the interviews. The

interviews with the cooperating teachers and university supervisors included 14 questions

and took approximately 60 minutes each (see Appendix A). When an interview was

completed, the audio recording was transcribed verbatim.

Participation selection. The university supervisors were employees of a

California public university School of Education. The placement of student teachers

41

during the field experience was the responsibility of the university supervisors.

Moreover, the content area of focus of the university supervisors differed.

The cooperating teachers were teachers of record at the high school level. They

worked directly with student teachers and were in contact with a university supervisor

within the Teacher Education Program. The school site location of the cooperating

teachers was dependent upon the relationship with the School of Education. The

cooperating teachers taught in varied content areas.

Identification and invitation. University supervisors were identified through the

Director of Teacher Education for the University School of Education. The Director of

Teacher Education initially contacted university supervisors regarding a possible

invitation to participate. Details, such as content area and contact information, regarding

the university supervisor were gathered by the researcher through the university website

and confirmed by the Director of Teacher Education. University supervisors were

contacted and invited via email and phone calls. The researcher provided the university

supervisors the option to meet face-to-face to answer questions regarding the study.

However, the offer was not taken.

The cooperating teachers were identified through the university supervisor

through snowball sampling. The university supervisors made cooperating teachers aware

of the research study and the possible invitation to participate. The researcher provided

the university supervisors a script (see Appendix B) to use when informing cooperating

teachers of this study. School site approval was needed from the principals before the

researcher could contact the cooperating teachers. In the initial email to the Principal

(see Appendix C), the researcher provided general information regarding this study. This

42

researcher contacted cooperating teachers through email and/or phone calls. An initial

email was sent to each identified cooperating teacher (also in Appendix C).

Data collection. The interviews were initially conducted with the university

supervisor, and then the cooperating teachers. All interviews were semi-structured and

face-to-face while being recorded on two audio recording devices. Interviews with the

university supervisors commenced in July 2012. From November 2012 through January

2013, interviews with the cooperating teachers were conducted.

Journals written by the cooperating teachers.

Instrument description. Journals were provided to cooperating teachers after the

interview with the researcher. Short prompts were provided to guide the writing of the

cooperating teacher. However, the cooperating teachers were not required to use the

prompts (see Appendix D). Instead, the cooperating teachers had the option to free write

and reflect upon their experience. The prompts were specific to the research questions of

the study and asked the cooperating teachers to discuss their experiences as a teacher and

a cooperating teacher in more depth.

Participant selection. The cooperating teachers were teachers of record at the

high school level. They worked directly with student teachers and were in contact with a

university supervisor within the Teacher Education Program. The school site location of

the cooperating teachers was dependent upon the relationship of the school with the

School of Education. The cooperating teachers taught in various content areas.

Identification and invitation. Cooperating teachers were the same as those

identified by the university supervisor to be interviewed. When the researcher contacted

43

the cooperating teachers to participate in the study, the journal component was also

described.

Data collection. After the interview, the researcher provided the journal and

prompts to the cooperating teacher. The cooperating teachers were encouraged to utilize

the provided guiding questions, which focused on supports, struggles, and benefits of

being a cooperating teacher. Furthermore, they were asked to write when meetings with

their student teacher occurred or when they felt compelled. Many cooperating teachers

asked they be given the option to journal electronically to which the researcher agreed.

Also, the prompts were provided via email from the researcher. Some chose to send their

journal electronically. For those who had a hard-copy journal, the researcher picked it up

at the school site no sooner than a month after the interview was conducted. One

cooperating teacher who was pregnant submitted the journal via email sooner than a

month after the interview.

Artifacts from the School of Education Teacher Education Program.

Instrument description. The artifacts included the Cooperating Teacher

Handbook, which, according to the university supervisors, was provided to all

cooperating teachers who worked with a student teacher attending the participating

teacher preparation program. However, it was not clear as to whether the Cooperating

Teacher Handbook was provided to the cooperating teacher for each instance they had a

student teacher or if it was provided only one time, regardless of the number of times

they took on the role. An informal survey created by individual university supervisors

and completed by the cooperating teachers; a formal quarterly evaluation completed by

the cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and student teacher; an informal

44

evaluation completed by the student teacher; a pamphlet by the California Department

of Education regarding selection of cooperating teachers for a given content area; a

document, Expectations for the Cooperating School Sites; and the Teacher Profession

Expectations document were gathered. The documents provided insight to the paperwork

provided to cooperating teachers.

Data collection. The artifacts were collected by the researcher from the

university supervisors via email. Moreover, the pamphlet was received by the researcher

from the California Department of Education.

Data Analysis Procedures

The data went through multiple iterations of analysis, including journal writing by

the researcher and open coding, which included the use of a software package.

Bloomberg and Volpe (2008) explained, “Analysis is ultimately about capturing the

meaning or essence of the phenomenon and expressing it so that it fits into a larger

picture” (p. 134). The interviews were transcribed and peer reviewed for verification.

The researcher employed the data analysis spiral, which “engages in the process

of moving in analytic circles rather than using a fixed linear approach” (Creswell, 2007,

p. 150). The interviews, journals, and artifacts were read so the researcher understood the

interconnection of the data. Moreover, the data were uploaded to the online research

analysis program, Dedoose. Dedoose is an online software tool that allows data to be

uploaded and analyzed using open coding. The program was developed by Thomas

Weisner, Ph.D., and Eli Lieber, Ph.D., who are both faculty from the University of

California, Los Angeles.

45

During the first read-through of transcriptions, the researcher took notes of

phrases, ideas, and general patterns. Consequently, codes were created in situ from the

raw data and noted in the researcher’s journal. Moreover, the frequency of codes was

tracked using the participants’ assigned number and/or the artifact name. Using Dedoose,

the next read-through led to codes being added and organized into a hierarchy based on

the analysis. During a third read-through, in vivo codes, which are “names that are the

exact words used by participants,” were identified and used in addition to or in place of

current codes (Creswell, 2007, p. 153).

In addition to highlights and code assignments, the researcher used charts to

display data according to codes, descriptors, and/or frequency. Moreover, the web-based

tool was used to pull excerpts related to single, then multiple codes. For example, the

researcher looked at codes that appeared most often using the Code Co-Occurrence chart.

After, the chart was used to identify the frequency that two codes were encompassed

within the same excerpt. The researcher reviewed excerpts based on the co-occurrence

chart and wrote notes within the margins.

When an excerpt fell within multiple questions, discussions occurred and

connections were noted. Furthermore, it was important to note uncommon responses,

which also helped provide a holistic picture because qualitative research utilizes the

words and experiences of participants. This led the researcher to group codes based on

similarities, and categories were created. According to Merriam (2009), “Categories

should be responsive to the purpose of the research” (p. 185). Before writing the

findings, the researcher, once again, cross-referenced the codes with each piece of data.

46

The findings are based on the data from this research and organized using templates

similar to those provided by Bloomberg and Volpe (2008).

Stages of Data Collection

As part of the preparation for the proposal hearing, the researcher contacted the

Director of the Teacher Education Program to determine whether or not there was interest

in participating in the study if it were approved. Moreover, the Institute Review Board

(IRB) of the University of the Teacher Education Program was contacted to determine

what approval was needed. The researcher also participated in a webinar regarding the

IRB process for Drexel University. Once the proposal of the research was approved by

the committee of the researcher, approval from the Drexel University IRB was

completed.

Although the cooperating teachers are the focus of the study, phase one of data

collection began at the School of Education with interviews of the university supervisors.

Initially, the Director of the Teacher Education Program made the university supervisors

aware of the possible contact from the researcher. Then, the potential participants were

contacted through email and phone calls. The interviews were the main method of data

collection. The interviews with university supervisors were conducted prior to meeting

the cooperating teachers and lasted approximately 60 minutes each.

The interviews with the university supervisors provided context regarding

background information of the teacher preparation program and the university-school

partnership. Moreover, it provided insight regarding the perceptions the university

supervisors held regarding their role and how it was communicated to the cooperating

teacher. The questions, shown in Appendix A, were created based on the interview

47

questions for the cooperating teacher. The questions are similar to those asked of the

cooperating teacher, but focused on the perspective of the university supervisor.

The second phase of data collection focused on the cooperating teachers. The

potential participants were contacted through email and phone calls. Cooperating

teachers were interviewed regarding their selection, development, and role, and their

relationship with the university supervisor. Moreover, questions were asked with respect

to their sense of self-efficacy and how it has informed the role of being a cooperating

teacher and their teaching practices. Previously, interview questions relating to the topic

of this research were created and used for a qualitative research project required of the

researcher. The questions were used during interviews and revised based on whether the

responses provided answered any of the research questions. The revised interview

protocol for cooperating teachers is shown in Appendix A.

Journals were provided for the cooperating teacher to reflect upon their

experiences while working with the student teacher. Short prompts regarding topics,

such as the benefits, challenges, and support provided, were included to help the

cooperating teacher focus entries. The proposed timeline for data collection, analysis,

and reporting are included in Table 2.

48

Table 2

Timeline for Data Analysis and Reporting

Date Data Collection

June 2012: Proposal hearing

July 2012: Drexel University IRB Approval

July 2012: University supervisors contacted through email and phone calls

July - August 2012: University supervisors interviewed

August 2012: School of Education teacher preparation program document collection

August 2012: School site and cooperating teacher information gathered

August 2012: Administrators at identified schools sites contacted to gain access to cooperating teachers

September - December 2012:

Cooperating teachers contacted through email and phone calls

November 2012 - January 2013:

Cooperating teachers provided with journals, including prompts

November 2012 - January 2013:

Interview cooperating teachers and collect journals

February - April 2013:

Data analysis

April - May 2013: Chapters 4 and 5 drafted

May 2013: Dissertation revised

June 2013: Dissertation defense

Ethical Considerations

IRB approval was needed for the study because there were interactions with

individuals. To ensure an ethical approach was used throughout the research, the

research investigator clearly explained:

49

• the purpose of the study,

• the methods and processes used to collect and analyze data,

• how the findings and results would be used,

• any anticipated impacts of the study on the subjects’ own professional careers or

the future success of their organization, and

• that participants could cease their participation in the study at any time.

The information-gathering interviews and journals focused on the experiences of

cooperating teachers. Because cooperating teachers discussed the support and resources

provided from the university, privacy and confidentiality were pertinent. Pseudonyms

were used for identifiers. In addition, the university supervisors at the Teacher Education

Program at the School of Education were interviewed. As a result, confidentiality and

privacy were pertinent because a lack of it could affect the individual’s position within

the institution. When storing information into the computer, passwords provided security

and safeguarded data. Furthermore, pseudonyms were assigned to protect the identities

of participants. The research followed the three basic principles outlined in the Belmont

report: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

The aggregate findings of the institution included in the case study may be

published and will be available to the Director of the Teacher Education Program,

university supervisors, and cooperating teachers. It is pertinent to keep the names and

identities of participants confidential even from the Director of the Teacher Education

Program. The report must be based solely on the data gathered.

50

Chapter 4: Findings, Results, and Interpretations

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the cooperating

teachers and one university teacher education program with the goal to understand how

the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers are

defined and communicated. The study further sought to explore what training and

support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field

experience as well as how the cooperating teacher’s level of self-efficacy informed

professional practices. The researcher believes a better understanding of these

relationships may inform university teacher preparation programs and help the school

districts by providing guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher during the field

experience.

A single-case study approach was used and in-depth interviews were conducted,

while journals and artifacts were collected from participants. The data were initially

analyzed using in situ and in vivo coding, and then analyzed further using Dedoose, a

web-based analysis tool. Finally, in-depth cross referencing led to the grouping of codes

into categories. The study was conducted to address the following three research

questions:

• What is the experience of the cooperating teacher in regard to the selection,

development, and support for his or her role during the field experience?

• How are the roles and responsibilities defined and communicated between the

university supervisor and the cooperating teacher?

51

• How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform his or her role

and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?

This chapter discusses the findings, results, and interpretations that emerged from

the analysis of the data. The findings are presented as “thick, rich descriptions” drawing

from the voices and experiences of the participants who may “be representative of a

group of people who share the same sentiment” (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008, p. 110).

Data that do not support previous research are also reported to provide new insights. The

results include a discussion of patterns and trends related to the literature reviewed in

Chapter 2. Through a systematic and thoughtful process, the interpretations elaborate on

the findings and results.

Findings

The key findings were revealed through coding and analysis of (a) 13 semi-

structured interviews with 11 cooperating teachers and two university supervisors, (b)

journals of cooperating teachers, and (c) artifacts from the university Teacher Education

Program. The pseudonym and position of participants are provided in Table 3.

52

Table 3

Participant Pseudonyms and Positions

Pseudonym Position Raul Cooperating Teacher Anese Cooperating Teacher Elias Cooperating Teacher Amalia Cooperating Teacher Kyree Cooperating Teacher Xavier Cooperating Teacher Billijean Cooperating Teacher Emilio Cooperating Teacher Victor Cooperating Teacher Kelci Cooperating Teacher Myrna Cooperating Teacher Gena University Supervisor Stephanie University Supervisor

The 11 cooperating teachers were spread amongst five school sites within three

school districts. Raul has taught for 30 years and has worked with approximately 35

student teachers, which is approximately 25 more than the next highest amount in this

study. Raul worked at the middle school and graduate school level, specifically in

teacher education. Often, he is invited to be a speaker at workshops across California

regarding his specific content area. Anese has taught for 20 years and has also taught at

the middle school level. At her current school, there are approximately 1,200 students.

Elias has also taught 30 years: 17 at the middle school level and 13 at the high school

level. The school where he currently teaches has approximately 2,900 students, of whom

approximately 61% take an Advanced Placement course. Amalia has taught within two

content areas for seven years at the same high school, which opened less than ten years

prior to this research. She worked with two student teachers. Kyree has taught for 15

53

years and also worked at the district level. He currently teaches at a school that offers

21 Advanced Placement courses. Xavier has taught seven years and worked with two

student teachers. He teaches at a school where 53% of the students receive free or

reduced lunch and offers 13 Advanced Placement courses. Billiejean has taught for ten

years and has worked with seven student teachers. She currently works at a school where

52% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Emilio has taught for 27 years and

worked with nine student teachers. However, he now helps oversee all student teachers

within his content area, regardless of which institution they come. Similar to Amalia,

Victor has taught two content areas for 14 years and worked with four student teachers.

Currently, he works at a school that serves approximately 1,800 students and includes

Career Technical Education Programs and Advanced Placement courses. Kelci has

taught for 17 years and worked with four student teachers. She works at a school with

approximately 1,600 students with approximately 3.7% enrolled in Advanced Placement

courses. Myrna has taught for 11 years and has worked with eight student teachers. She

taught at a school with approximately 1,800 students, of whom approximately 69% are

eligible for free or reduced lunch.

Themes and Findings of the Study

Three major findings emerged from this study: (a) processes and perceptions gap,

(b) areas with communication needs, and (c) opportunities for professional enrichment.

These are illustrated in Table 4.

54

Table 4

Themes and Findings of this Study

Processes and Perceptions Gap

Areas With Communication Needs

Opportunities for Professional Enrichment

• Selection to be a

Cooperating Teacher

• Training to Become a Cooperating Teacher

• Defining Roles and

Responsibilities

• Conducting Observations and Providing Feedback

• Building Relationships • Supporting the

Cooperating Teacher

• Reciprocal Learning

• Giving Back to the

Teaching Profession

Processes and perceptions gap. The participants expressed that the criteria and

processes for selection and training to become a cooperating teacher was informal and

minimal, if existing at all. From the beginning of the field experience, there was a gap

between the cooperating teacher’s perceptions of how one is selected to work with the

student teacher during the field experience and the actual process identified by university

supervisors. Furthermore, data suggest cooperating teachers relied on their own previous

and/or current experiences to guide them through the field experience.

Selection to be a cooperating teacher. During the field experience, the

cooperating teacher provided the student teacher insight regarding the teaching profession

(Hall et al., 2008). Because the field experience occurs in the classroom setting, it is

pertinent to understand how a cooperating teacher is selected. Based on the responses, as

shown in Table 5, it appears the methods of selection used in the five school settings

were inconsistent.

Table 5

Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Selection

Selection Criteria No Selection Criteria

Name

Det

erm

ined

by

Cal

iforn

ia

Dep

artm

ent o

f Ed

ucat

ion

Aca

dem

ic

know

ledg

e

Atte

nd

wor

ksho

p

Tenu

re

Sche

dule

per

mits

Adm

inis

trato

r ap

prov

al n

eede

d

Stru

ctur

e th

roug

h

crite

ria t

otal

Take

who

ever

is

giv

en

Hap

haza

rd

Adm

inis

trato

r ap

prov

al n

ot

need

ed

Pers

onal

co

nnec

tions

No

sele

ctio

n cr

iteria

1 Raul 2 Anese X X X X X 3 Elias X X 4 Amalia X X X X X 5 Kyree X X 6 Xavier X X 7 Billiejean X X X 8 Emilio X X X X 9 Victor X X 10 Kelci 11 Myrna X X X X 12 Gena X X X X 13 Stephanie X X X Artifacts X X X Cooperating Teacher Total (n = 11) 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (9%)

1 (9%)

2 (18%)

2 (18%)

5 (46%)

2 (18%)

2 (18%)

2 (18%)

4 (36%)

8 (73%)

TOTAL (n = 13) 1 (8%) 1

(8%) 1

(8%) 2

(15%) 2

(15%) 4

(31%) 7

(54%) 2

(15%) 2

(15%) 2

(15%) 5

(38%) 9

(69%)

55

56

Forty-six percent (46%) of the cooperating teachers interviewed indicated they

were aware of a formal criterion for selection, as Anese expressed, “Administration

would still have to approve the placement of the student teacher there.” Based upon the

varied responses of the cooperating teachers regarding how they came to work with a

student teacher, the selection process was neither explicitly communicated nor clearly

understood between all entities, including school site administrators, such as principals.

In two unique instances, teachers took specific steps, although not required by the

Teacher Education Program, to be selected as cooperating teachers. One of the eleven

teachers completed a workshop while another noted, “I also went through an informal

application process with my administration once” (Myrna).

The university supervisors identified processes for cooperating teacher selection,

such as noting the guidelines set by the California Department of Education. They

expressed similar criteria:

I mean, we have a general set of expectations that the cooperating teachers, um, for the whole program, I would say, um, have obviously expertise in their field, academically and in content area. But they have, um, a good, uh history of, um (pause) not just respect, but that, that their colleagues at their site. (Gena) Previous connections with the university supervisor were identified as how one

became a cooperating teacher. Gena described, “And I do have, um, a number of resident

teachers now, who have been my students before, which is super because they know the

program and, um, usually it’s worked out well.”

Stephanie described her selection process based on the needs of the student

teacher, stating:

57

I try to figure out, okay, where is their [student teacher] weakest point, and what school can help develop that weakest point. And so, when they come out, they actually have this very, they’re more well-rounded. (pause) And, um, I also try to match personalities. I try to meet (pause), you know, I meet with the student teachers and I don’t just randomly hodge-podge it.

Within the study, only two cooperating teachers responsible for placement of

student teachers within their content area at their school site explained that the master

schedule creates parameters for teacher selection. For example, Xavier stated,

“Scheduling and subject, yeah. And they have to be, and they can only be here in the

mornings. They have to be gone by fourth period.” Consequently, the selection of the

cooperating teacher may be dependent upon the classes available during the times the

student teacher is at the school site. Xavier further explained, “We don’t have enough

teachers to really pick and choose much anymore…you’re just stuck.” However, these

restrictions may not be communicated to the other teachers at the school site, regardless

of whether or not they were chosen to work with the student teacher.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of participants suggested the process to be selected to be

a cooperating teacher was not based on formal criteria. Furthermore, 73% of cooperating

teachers indicated there was no rationale for being selected to “take those people [student

teachers] by the hand and be willing to walk them through the steps.” Elias explained,

“So I do whatever my boss says. So, that was the process.” Most frequently, the way

one was put in their position was identified as being a previous connection between the

university supervisor and the cooperating teacher. Furthermore, 36% of the cooperating

teachers expressed the selection as “haphazard” and they “just take who they send me”

(Billiejean).

58

The cooperating teachers may not know the intricacies the university supervisor

takes to determine placement of student teachers and may not be provided the

documentation explicitly stating the process of selection. Consequently, it may be left up

to the cooperating teacher to come up with their own explanation of how they came to

their position. A cooperating teacher, although uncertain, cited the following as criteria

for the selection:

Um, I guess we had to teach more than two year. We had to be tenured…the school is a little bit stable…and I think that we have to have a, a strong academic and support system that Stephanie feels comfortable with for the student teacher…and maybe proximity. (Amalia)

Training to become a cooperating teacher. One hundred percent (100%) of the

cooperating teachers expressed that their training, if any was provided, was informal.

They noted it included talking with other cooperating teachers and sharing their

experiences about teaching. Table 6 includes responses from participants regarding the

training they received prior to having a student teacher for the field experience.

59

Table 6

Data Summary Table: Cooperating Teacher Training

Formal Informal

No Training

Name

Dinner/ Reception Workshop

Talking with other

cooperating teachers

Just being a teacher None

1 Raul X X 2 Anese X 3 Elias X X 4 Amalia X X 5 Kyree X 6 Xavier X 7 Billiejean X X 8 Emilio X 9 Victor X 10 Kelci X 11 Myrna X X 12 Gena X 13 Stephanie Artifacts Cooperating Teacher Total (n = 11) 2 (18%) 1 (9%) 1 (9%) 6 (55%) 6 (55%) TOTAL (n = 13) 3 (23%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%) 6 (46%) 6 (46%)

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the cooperating teachers interviewed explicitly

answered, “none” when asked what trainings they received prior to having a student

teacher. The sentiments of those who mentioned they did not receive any training were

expressed by Emilio, who succinctly responded, “None. (pause) That would be fair.

None.” Similarly, Elias commented, “Like I said, none. (laughs) Other than my own

experience, that’s what I work from.” During interviews, the university supervisor was

rarely mentioned when discussing the development or training of the cooperating teacher.

60

Based on the responses from the cooperating teachers, there was evidence

suggesting a limited amount of training and development of the cooperating teacher due

to constraints in the budget of the university teacher education program. Twenty-three

percent (23%) of the participants mentioned a formal dinner/gathering as training and

cited budget cuts as a reason these development gatherings no longer occurred prior to

working with the student teacher. Myrna, a cooperating teacher, shared the following:

For the first few years when I was a mentor teacher, Pleasant University held a reception for mentor teachers and student teachers, in which the university supervisors outlined our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the student teacher. This reception was eliminated because of budget cuts.

The budget cuts were confirmed by a university supervisor who stated:

Um, and recently because of budget cuts, um, we’ve had to cut out a few of the activities that we used to do where we brought everyone together that, I thought were really successful. Um, so now, I’m sort of relying on, uh, people either having been resident [cooperating] teachers for a long period of time and a kind of remembering, you know, all of the expectations we have set up earlier. (Gena)

The 55% of cooperating teachers who stated they had no training or development

for their role prior to working with a student teacher moved the conversation to drawing

from their own experiences. Speaking to his training experiences, Xavier noted, “Uh,

just experience, just as a teacher. I’ve never, wasn’t ever put into any formal training,”

and Billiejean commented, “I guess just teaching for the three or four years that I taught

and then my own personal experience.” One cooperating teacher suggested, “there’s a

presumption (pause) that if you’ve had a student teacher before, just do the same thing”

(Kyree). It was also suggested a cooperating teacher knows what a student teacher needs

based on their own field experience, as described by Kelci who recalled:

61

And, what I felt like I needed, and I had a good experience, so I learned from that. And um, (pause) you know, I’m a teacher. So, part of it is figuring out what the person needs to learn what they’re doing.

Moreover, Anese shared her thought process regarding how to best help the

student teacher during the field experience, stating, “Most of the rest of it I’ve done

because (pause) it’s what I feel I would want if I was a student teacher. I’ve just kind of

taken it upon myself.”

Areas with communication needs. Multiple methods of communication,

including written, verbal, and in-person contact, are utilized throughout the field

experience. During the field experience, participants identified the need for

communication between the cooperating teacher, the university supervisor, and the

student teacher, when discussing roles and responsibilities, such as conducting

observations and providing feedback, relationship building, and support for the

cooperating teachers.

Defining roles and responsibilities. One hundred percent (100%) of the roles and

responsibilities of the cooperating teacher or university supervisor discussed by the

participants were communicated in writing. Written communications included the

Cooperating Teacher Handbook or emails, while face-to-face interactions and phone

conversations occurred at a lower rate, as shown in Table 7.

62

Table 7

Data Summary Table: Methods of Communication of Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors

Note. C.T. = cooperating teacher

Of all the roles and responsibilities mentioned by participants and provided

through written communication, 71% were described in the Cooperating Teacher

Handbook. According to Kelci, “Um, I got a (pause) written description of exactly what

the roles of the, of the university supervisor and what the expectations were on me as a

supervising teacher.” However, the detail and use of written information varied, as

described by a university supervisor:

I know a lot of people put pretty elaborate handbooks together and things. And, I always felt when I was teaching that (pause) it was overwhelming and it was something I put on the shelf and just look at, you know, when I wanted to or needed to. But, um, so, what I’ve done is, um (pause) just make it simple (chuckle) and have, you know, um, and overview letter. (Gena)

Although the roles and responsibilities were provided in written form, a reliance on one’s

experience occurred when there was no follow-up with another method, as explained by a

cooperating teacher:

But, you know, I think that, you know, that is (pause) a, nobody ever said to me, this is really what we’d like you to do. This is, this is what would work the best

Prov

ide

feed

back

/ C

onst

ruct

ive

advi

ce

Obs

erve

Rev

iew

less

on

plan

s

Bui

ld

rela

tions

hips

, B

e a

liais

on

Prov

ide

supp

orts

and

re

sour

ces

Prob

lem

solv

e an

d ce

lebr

ate

Be

a co

ach

Included in the C.T. Handbook X X X X X

Written (not C.T. Handbook) X X X X X X X Phone conversations X X X X X Face-to-face X X X X

63

for us with you working with the student teacher…And so, I’ve just gone with what I think is the, is the best. (Anese)

Table 8 shows the responses of the participants regarding roles and responsibilities and

who oversees them.

Table 8

Data Summary Table: Roles and Responsibilities of Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors

Prov

ide

feed

back

/ C

onst

ruct

ive

advi

ce

Obs

erve

Rev

iew

less

on

plan

s

Bui

ld

rela

tions

hips

, Be

a lia

ison

Prov

ide

supp

orts

an

d re

sour

ces

Prob

lem

solv

e an

d ce

lebr

ate

Be

a co

ach

Name C.T

.

U.S

.

C.T

.

U.S

.

C.T

.

U.S

.

C.T

.

U.S

.

C.T

.

U.S

.

C.T

.

U.S

. C

.T.

U.S

.

1 Raul X

2 Anese X X X X X X X X 3 Elias 4 Amalia X X X 5 Kyree X X X 6 Xavier X X X X 7 Billiejean X X X 8 Emilio X X X X X 9 Victor X X 10 Kelci X X X 11 Myrna X X X 12 Gena X X X X X 13 Stephanie X X X

TOTAL (per title of participants )

6 (4

6%)

8 (6

2%)

5 (3

8%)

6 (4

6%)

2 (1

5%)

2 (1

5%)

0 (0

%)

4 (3

1%)

0 (0

%)

4 (3

1%)

0 (0

%)

3 (2

3%)

1 (8

%)

1 (8

%)

Cooperating Teacher and/or University Supervisor TOTAL (n = 13)

10 (77%)

6 (46%)

3 (23%)

4 (31%)

4 (31%)

3 (23%)

2 (15%)

Note. C.T. = cooperating teacher; U.S. = university supervisor

64

Fifty seven percent (57%) of the roles and responsibilities identified by

participants were overseen by both the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor

and included the following: providing feedback/constructive advice, observing the

student teacher, reviewing lesson plans, and being a coach. One hundred percent (100%)

of the shared roles and responsibilities were included in the Cooperating Teacher

Handbook, while 75% of those roles were also communicated through all three forms of

communication: written, phone conversations, and face-to-face. Common roles and

responsibilities were associated more frequently as a duty of the university supervisor,

with the exception of reviewing lesson plans, which was equal. On the other hand,

building relationships, providing supports and resources, and solving problems were

defined as a responsibility solely of the university supervisor.

Conducting observations and providing feedback. A closer look into the roles

and responsibilities yields 85% of participants indicated that conducting observations

and/or providing feedback are roles of either the cooperating teacher or the university

supervisor, or both. The positive values of these components are reiterated in a pamphlet

provided by the California Department of Education, which states, “The master

[cooperating] teacher is expected to possess and demonstrate the ability to provide formal

observations and feedback to student teachers.” Moreover, observations and feedback

are explicitly stated multiple times in the Cooperating Teacher Handbook as a duty of

both entities, as cited:

Throughout the student teaching year, your University supervisor(s) will make regularly scheduled visits to your classroom to provide feedback, meet with the resident teacher(s), and offer suggestions and helpful hints…During these visits I will watch the entire class period taking notes to share with the student teacher

65

about how the class goes. This is a coaching function not an evaluation and is intended to offer the student teacher ideas on teaching. (pp. 9, 14)

Because observations were slated to occur frequently, a binder was used as a

written form of communication between all entities, as the Cooperating Teacher

Handbook described, “Written notes or feedback forms can be very helpful in allowing

student teacher to reflect on the observation. These notes should be kept in the notebook

along with daily lesson plans” (pp. 6, 11, depending on content area). The importance of

dialogue and the process of providing feedback was discussed by the Cooperating

Teacher Handbook, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers. An emphasis on

the pertinence of communication during the field experience was included in the

Cooperating Teacher Handbook:

It is important during all phases of the student teaching experience to maintain open communication…The basis for constructive feedback and evaluation is open communication. It is important to share concerns and praises throughout the quarter to ensure this open communication. (p. 8)

Participants shared the same sentiments regarding connections between communication,

observations, feedback, and relationships as Victor who declared:

I think a lot of times we’re worried about people’s feelings and not about addressing, not that they’re not doing a good job, ‘cause they’re doing a good job, but everyone could use improvement. And the only way you get there is by constructive criticism or, you know, pointing things out. And I think there needs to be an open air between the student teacher and the university professor and the cooperating teacher about those things. And if there’s a, a feeling of trust there, then you can have those conversations. Building relationships. The field experience incorporates multiple individuals,

such as the student teacher and cooperating teacher, and institutions, including the

university and the school site. 31% of participants cited only the university supervisor

when it came to building relationships during the field experience. Speaking to the

66

connections created between individuals, Amalia noted, “The university supervisor is

kind of like a liaison, I think, between, um, the tenured or veteran teacher and the student

teacher,” and Victor commented, “Um, they are the bridge between the university and the

profession in terms of trying to convey, both ways, the expectations of the university to

the school and the, and the school to the university.”

The university supervisors also implicitly validated the cooperating teacher and

the student teacher by valuing their thoughts through surveys and evaluations. The

Resident Teacher Survey, a tool that used a Likert-type scale to gain input from the

cooperating teacher regarding the university supervisor and the Teacher Education

Program, stated, “Your role in our teacher preparation program is a critical one, and your

perspective on the degree of preparation and support for student teachers can help guide

critical changes as we continue to make adjustments” (p. 1). On the other hand, the

student teacher completed an Evaluation of Supervision/Student Teaching Placement,

which also used a Likert-type scale, tied to the cooperating teacher and the university

supervisor, and included statements such as “My cooperating teacher encourages me to

develop my style,” and “My university supervisor provides me with valuable critiques

and suggestions about my classroom teaching” (p. 1).

Supporting the cooperating teacher. When asked about what supports, if any,

and who provided them to ensure the student teachers were adequately prepared for the

teaching profession, the university supervisor was consistently identified as the source, as

shown in Table 9.

67

Table 9

Data Summary Table: Supporting the Cooperating Teacher

Name

Cooperating teacher is aware that

university supervisor provides

support

Cooperating teacher would contact university supervisor if issues with the student teacher arise

University supervisor is available by phone, email, and in-person

1 Raul X X 2 Anese X 3 Elias X X 4 Amalia X X X 5 Kyree X 6 Xavier X X X 7 Billiejean X 8 Emilio X

X

9 Victor X X X 10 Kelci X X X 11 Myrna X X X 12 Gena X 13 Stephanie X X X Artifacts X Cooperating Teacher Total ( n = 11) 8 (73%) 6 (55%) 11 (100%) TOTAL (n = 13) 9 (69%) 7 (54%) 13 (100%) Note. The difference between the two columns is awareness and action.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the cooperating teachers indicated the university

supervisor would have their “back” and be a source of support. Raul illustrated the

connections in support, stating, “And she [Stephanie] provides the strategies and support

systems, all of those kinds of things.” One hundred percent (100%) of the participants

and the Cooperating Teacher Handbook noted the university supervisor is available via

phone, email, and occasionally, in-person. According to Myrna, “The student teacher

supervisors at Pleasant University have always made themselves available if we had

68

questions about the student teachers or we wanted to discuss some concerns we had

about the student teacher,” and Victor reiterated the idea stating, “Um, the university

representative is around all the time. And I know that with a phone call, anything that I

needed will be taken care of. That’s not a concern.”

Although 73% of cooperating teachers cited they were aware the university

supervisor provided support, 55% explained that when contact occurred, it was in relation

to problems or concerns about the student teacher. Xavier, a cooperating teacher stated,

“Uh, I guess that’s say, the communication and support, you know, provided by the

university to um, you know, (pause) to back you on anything you need with your student

teacher.” Similarly, Stephanie, a university supervisor articulated, “Um, if the

cooperating teacher (pause), uh, is having problems, if they are having problems with the

student teacher, then the support comes in (pause)…We want to keep that relationship

with the teacher and the cooperating teacher.”

Opportunities for professional enrichment. Although the field experience was

focused on the development of the student teacher, the professional practices of the

cooperating teacher were also informed and enhanced. Table 10 illustrates how partaking

in the field experience provided professional enrichment opportunities.

69

Table 10

Data Summary Table: Reasons to Be a Cooperating Teacher

Reciprocal learning

Giving back to the profession

Name

Keeps Fresh/ Current in the

Teaching Profession

Cooperating Teacher

Engages in Reflective Practice

Student Teacher

Engages in Reflective Practice

Helps build confidence

Enjoys Teaching/ Shows fun

1 Raul X 2 Anese X X X 3 Elias X X X 4 Amalia X X 5 Kyree X X X X 6 Xavier X X 7 Billiejean X X X 8 Emilio X X X 9 Victor X X X 10 Kelci 11 Myrna X X X X 12 Gena X 13 Stephanie X X Cooperating Teacher TOTAL (n = 11) 8 (73%) 6 (55%) 3 (27%) 6 (55%) 5 (45%) TOTAL (n = 13) 9 (70%) 7 (54%) 3 (23%) 6 (46%) 6 (46%)

Reciprocal learning. Seventy percent (70%) of participants suggested the field

experience led to opportunities for reciprocal learning by keeping current, along with

engaging in reflective practices. The Cooperating Teacher Handbook stated, “Student

teaching is a learning process” (p. 13). However, 73% of cooperating teachers suggested

working with student teachers kept them “fresh” in the profession through new ideas and

reminders of good teaching. Consequently, their participation allowed the cooperating

teacher to grow in the process too. Speaking to his learning and growth, Victor noted:

70

It keeps you current. It keeps you, it, it allows you to have someone in your class watching what’s going on and asking questions about why thing happen...So, from that perspective, having another set of eyes in the classroom and a fresh set of eyes, enthusiastic set of eyes, it keep you (pause) fresh, as long as you’re not intimidated by new ideas.

Seventy percent (70%) of participants explained that when questions were being

asked, either by the student teacher or the cooperating teacher, the opportunity for

dialogue was created, which may have led to reflective practices, and ultimately,

reciprocal learning. Having the student teacher in the classroom brought another set of

eyes, questions regarding teaching strategies, and decisions that affect the students. Elias

expanded on this idea, stating, “And it also helps to see somebody who’s doing

something differently than I would do them…And then we can both think about how that

might have gone better.” Billiejean wrote:

They definitely help keep me fresh and reflective in my practice as we discuss them. Some of my student teachers have been very creative and innovative and have given me new ideas to use in my own classroom. I listen to them as they discuss what they are doing in the university classes with respect to lesson construction and accommodations for English Language Learners, which also helps keep those things at the forefront of my mind.

Not only were student teachers able to reflect on their practices, along with those

of the cooperating teacher, through dialogue, it was encouraged through written

communication. The importance of instilling reflective practices within the student

teacher was illustrated in The Evaluation of Supervision/Student Teaching Placement,

which stated, “My university supervisor guides me to be reflective about teaching” (p. 1).

This was further suggested in the Cooperating Teacher Handbook, which explained,

“Written notes or feedback forms can be very helpful in allowing the student teacher to

reflect on the observations” (p. 6 or 11, dependent upon content area).

71

Participants associated reflective practices to a willingness to learn. Amalia

expressed, “And if I’m not willing to accept their ideas then, I mean, I can’t allow them

to grow and I don’t grow as a professional.” The need for participation from both entities

was expressed by Elias who stated:

I think it’s uh, both a reflected, a reflective, um, student teacher and a reflective master teacher, and an open dialogue between the two of them about what’s going on in the classroom. And the, and the student teacher’s willingness to take criticism and act upon the criticism (pause), and the master teacher’s willingness to see things occurring in their classroom and (pause) and, uh, allowing things to go, let go a little bit.

Giving back to the teaching profession. Seventy-three percent (73%) of the

cooperating teachers expressed that working with a student teacher during the field

experience provided an opportunity to give back to the profession. In addition to

providing feedback after conducting observations, the participants noted that sharing their

enjoyment of the teaching profession and helping build confidence within the student

teacher allowed them to enhance the field.

When participants spoke about the teaching professions, negative aspects were

occasionally discussed. However, 45% of cooperating teachers recognized they enjoyed

their profession and wanted to show others the “fun” in teaching. One cooperating

teacher explained that, although new to the profession, the student teacher may need to be

reminded of the positives in the profession and exclaimed:

And it was very, you know, so it was a positive on the whole and that was my job. My role was to make sure that even the negative (pause), where they’re never fun, but even the negative activity could be a positive learning experience. (Emilio)

Similarly, the university supervisors saw the effects the energy and ideas brought into the

classroom by the student teacher had on the cooperating teacher, as Stephanie explained:

72

I think the most, the thing they gain is (pause), um, a new enthusiasm for teaching. (pause) When you have young people coming into the classroom, they’re very enthusiastic and (pause), and unfortunately, educators get very jaded, and (pause) they get jaded (pause) because there are many things, there are many obstacles put in the way (pause) of, of doing a great job with students.

Even though the adversity was faced day-to-day, the cooperating teacher exuded

confidence.

When cooperating teachers spoke about the cultivation of their confidence in

teaching practices, they gave credit to those who helped them along the way. Raul

expressed his gratitude to others by saying, “I’m confident because people have spent

time with me now and in, in my early years (pause) to encourage me to become the

teacher I’m currently. And it’s all about other people, it’s not about me.” Anese echoed

the appreciation, and explained, “I didn’t get to where I am on my own, you know. I’ve

had teachers that have lifted me up and helped me and guided me and shared things with

me and let me visit their classroom.”

Not only did cooperating teachers want to share their passion for teaching, they

also hoped to give back to the profession by sharing their confidence. Fifty-five percent

(55%) of cooperating teachers expressed their hope that the confidence student teachers

gained during the field experience led to success. Kyree and Billiejean described their

experiences:

And so, (pause) um, getting a positive experience out of teaching is the best thing that a, uh, supporting teacher could do. (pause) And to the extent that I do that, (pause) I hope I am able to communicate that confidence. Cause you do have to have confidence in what you’re doing for it to be fun to do. (Kyree) This year, with its challenges aside, I find being a cooperating teacher to be very fulfilling because I know that I am a very good teacher who enjoys her job, most days, and I like sharing that with someone. I like teaching them how to be a good teacher. It’s also nice to work with someone. (Billiejean)

73

The university supervisor also recognized certain qualities, including positive self-

efficacy, in those who work with student teachers and hope to share it with the student

teachers. Gena explained the connection between confidence, self-efficacy, and the field

experience:

I think, um, (pause) so, you know, I think that self-efficacy is, is a good way to describe those who are, are typically, um, recommended as, as being effective, or, you know, likely to be effective for the student teacher as well as, um (pause), well, just generally, that, that they would be pretty confident in their ability or in their, their success.

Although the field experience was a time for the student teacher to gain first-hand

experience in the classroom, learning was not a one-way path.

The major findings from this study: (a) processes and perceptions gap, (b) areas

with communication needs, and (c) opportunities for professional, arose from the voices

of the participants. The processes and perceptions gap included the selection and training

to become a cooperating teacher. The evidence presented by the participants showed

there are areas with communication needs, including defining roles and responsibilities,

conducting observations and providing feedback, building relationships, and supporting

the cooperating teacher. Moreover, participants explained that the field experience

provides opportunities for professional enrichment through reciprocal learning and giving

back to the teaching profession. The findings of this study serve as the evidentiary base

for the results and interpretations, which follow in the next section.

Results and Interpretations

The results of this study emerged from the findings, along with the analysis,

which created an integrated picture of the field experience, especially from the

74

perspective of cooperating teachers. Because of the complexity of the field experience,

along with the personal experiences each teacher brings, the results are intertwined across

research questions. The experiences of the research participants, framed the analysis of

this research. New connections were also created based on the individual experiences

participants provided.

Cooperating Teachers Rely on Their Experiences During the Field Experience

The findings brought to light that from the beginning of the field experience,

which includes the selection of the cooperating teacher, there are inconsistencies and

gaps. O’Brian et al. (2007) connected the lack of criteria for selection with the need for

training of the cooperating teacher. The lack of common selection criteria, combined

with the lack of training, left the cooperating teacher to figure out how to best help the

student teacher. Consequently, past and current experiences of the cooperating teacher

guided their efforts during the field experience.

According to Bullough (2005), when expectations of cooperating teachers were

unclear, there was a dependence on memories of personal field experiences. In addition,

Bullough’s findings corroborate the theory of experience by Dewey (1938), which

associates experiences, regardless of whether positive or negative, to what individuals

learn. The confidence level of a cooperating teacher likely informs the amount and type

of training and development he or she feels is needed to help with the student teacher.

Moreover, the reliance on experiences also is true for how to conduct observations and

provide feedback.

Although the participants of this study identified feedback and observations most

frequently when asked about their roles and responsibilities, there was no mention as to

75

how to do so effectively. Based on the research by Bullough (2005), cooperating

teachers relied on their experience as student teachers. In addition, the cooperating

teacher’s confidence in his or her own teaching practices and enjoyment of teaching may

be why he or she feels capable and willing to provide feedback. For example, Victor

shared:

I think if you’re passionate about being an educator and you believe that being an educator is a set of skills that you can develop and define over a period of time and the person that you are working with wants to improve at it, that it’s a natural process.

Communication is an Integral Component of the Field Experience

The findings of this study revealed that communication was embedded through

multiple facets of the field experience: defining roles and responsibilities, building

relationships, providing feedback, and supporting the cooperating teacher.

Open communication and trust were needed for relationships to be built. Since

conducting observations and providing feedback were identified most frequently when

asked about roles and responsibilities, the communication and relationships should be

strong. This is supported by Margolis (2007) who addressed expectations and explicit

dialogue and by Moore (2003) who expressed the need for trust to make connections

between the cooperating teacher and student teacher.

When the cooperating teachers communicated with the university supervisor, it

was often reactive, not proactive, and focused on problems and/or concerns about the

student teacher. This may be explained by Feiman-Nemser (2001) who posited the need

for structure, including goals and standards, to guide the field experience. However,

based on the information provided by the participants of this study, there possibly were

76

multiple reasons tied to communication for this specific reactive interaction. One

probable explanation is the cooperating teachers may not be aware of the various

resources and supports the university supervisor may provide for them or the student

teacher. According Kyle et al. (1999), cooperating teachers need to know the content,

strategies, and issues in the field to guide student teachers. The effects of the lack of

clarity is addressed by Xavier who explained, “I didn’t really need any support but if I

needed anything, like if I was having trouble, which I never did, um (pause) the Pleasant

University instructor was always there.” Therefore, when an issue first arises with the

student teacher, the cooperating teacher may not know how best to handle the situation or

communicate their concerns until it becomes a larger problem.

Another likely explanation for the lack of proactive communication is that if the

roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined and communicated to the cooperating

teachers at the beginning of the field experience, this could possibly affect what supports

the cooperating teacher may need. If a cooperating teacher is uncertain of what he is

supposed to do, as defined by the teacher preparation program, he may, once again, rely

on his own experiences, and may not feel the need to speak with the university

supervisor.

Cooperating Teachers Also Benefit from the Field Experience

Cooperating teachers’ sense of self-efficacy led them to give back to the

profession and also showed student teachers the fun and excitement of being a teacher.

The success achieved by a cooperating teacher, regardless of how they define it, was a

component of teaching they wanted to share with the student teacher. This study

corroborates the theory of self-efficacy by Bandura (1977), which suggested there are

77

two components: a given behavior will lead to a desired outcome and the individual

has the ability to bring about that outcome. Raul explained:

I have, there’s very little things that I can remember that I didn’t try and I wasn’t, at, at certain level of success, and, and a lot of great things have come from it. And, it’s because of people (pause) that I’ve had, over time, and, and that’s what I want to provide for other student teachers.

Once again, the experience of the cooperating teachers helps guide their interactions and

intentions with the student teacher.

The field experience may be considered a learning experience for both the

cooperating teacher and the student teacher. The findings of this research substantiate the

research by Stanulis (1995), which explained that relationships were formed through

collaboration and consistent interaction, and by Graham (2006), which mentioned

relationships, communication, reciprocal arrangements, focused dialogue, and reflection.

It is feasible there is a connection between observations, feedback, and reciprocal

learning. During the observation or the discussions about it, the cooperating teacher may

reflect on her own practices and learn from the student teacher. Amalia supported this

idea explaining, “So, it’s kind of like mutual, I, I’d like to think of it as mutual, a mutual

learning process with someone that just was a little, is further along in their learning.”

Working together may lead to reflective practices and likely lead to improvement.

The information, ideas, and strategies learned by the student teacher during

coursework at the university could possibly be beneficial to the cooperating teacher as

well. This research study supports the findings of Weasmer and Woods (2003), which

connected self-reflection and pedagogy of the cooperating teacher. Myrna expanded on

this idea, stating, “I often get new teaching strategies and curriculum ideas from my

78

student teachers.” At times, having a student teacher in the classroom reminded

cooperating teachers of certain student populations and different strategies to utilize.

Summary

This chapter illustrates the intricate connections of the various components of the

field experience, from the selection of the cooperating teachers to the support and

guidance they receive. The analysis of the findings took multiple iterations due to the

intersection of the responses across research questions. Consequently, specific codes

were identified in vivo, which allowed for holistic analysis. The findings of the study

included three major themes: (a) processes and perceptions gap, (b) areas with

communication needs, and (c) opportunities for professional enrichment. Furthermore,

the results of this study highlight patterns and trends that emerged from the research. The

results included: (a) cooperating teachers rely on their experiences during the field

experience, (b) communication is an integral component of the field experience, and (c)

cooperating teachers also benefit from the field experience.

There are multiple components of the field experience, such as the selection

process and roles and responsibilities of the cooperating teacher, which are not clearly

defined or explained to the cooperating teacher. However, cooperating teachers do

acknowledge that support from the university supervisor is available, if necessary.

Because there is no consistent or formal training, many cooperating teachers rely on their

past and current experiences as a student teacher and as a teacher of record to guide their

work during the field experience. Although the field experience is structured to help the

student teacher gain insight into the teaching profession, the cooperating teacher also

learns through the observations and discussions that occur between the entities.

79

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the cooperating

teachers and one university teacher education program with the goal of understanding

how the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers

are defined and communicated. The study further sought to explore what training and

support were provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field

experience as well as how a cooperating teacher’s level of self-efficacy informed

professional practices. Three findings emerged from the data: (a) processes and

perceptions gap, (b) areas with communication needs, and (c) opportunities for

professional enrichment. The conclusions of this study address the research questions

based on a synthesis of the findings and interpretations. This chapter includes the

conclusions, the researcher’s recommendations, and a final summary of this study.

Conclusions

What is the experience of the cooperating teacher in regard to the selection, development, and support for his or her role during the field experience?

Criteria for selection are unclear. One major finding of this research is that

there is no specific structure when a cooperating teacher is selected. Cooperating

teachers believe they are selected for their role by a department chair or through their

previous connection to the university teacher preparation program. Some even believe

the administrators at their school site are unaware of with whom student teachers are

placed. However, cooperating teachers were able to clearly identify that the master

schedule may be the only reason for their selection. By doing so, the cooperating

80

teachers may have inferred they were working with a student teacher by default, not

because they were selected by choice. The varied reasons provided by the cooperating

teachers conclude the cooperating teachers are not explicitly told about how or why they

were selected to work with a student teacher.

Processes for development are nonexistent. Many cooperating teachers cited

they did not receive formal training, if any, for their duties working with a student

teacher. Consequently, cooperating teachers based their interactions with the student

teacher on their own experiences. A conclusion drawn from these findings is that the

cooperating teachers are left to determine what is needed to support the student teachers

with whom they work. Therefore, the breadth and depth of certain aspects of being a

teacher, such as specific teaching strategies and Individual Education Plan meetings, to

which a student teacher is exposed is dependent upon the choices of the cooperating

teacher. Although cooperating teachers can rely on their own experiences, it does not

ensure an equitable learning experience for the student teachers.

Cooperating teachers were confident of their success as teachers and/or abilities to

prepare student teachers. Regardless of the selection process, the amount of training and

development, or support received, the cooperating teacher often reverted back to their

own experience when working with the student teacher. Therefore, the conclusion that

can be made is that the cooperating teachers will often base what they do with their

student teacher on their past or current experiences. However, a connection between the

expressed confidence and the roles and responsibilities of the cooperating teachers should

be taken into account.

81

How are the roles and responsibilities defined and communicated between the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher?

Written communication is identified most frequently and actions occurred

when problems arose. The cooperating teachers cited that the university supervisor is

available via multiple methods, most notably written communication. However, the

university supervisor is contacted most frequently by the cooperating teacher when there

is a problem or issue with the student teacher. A conclusion that can be made from this

finding is that the supports and resources the university supervisor can provide to the

cooperating teacher are unclear. Therefore, cooperating teachers are mainly reaching out

as a reaction, instead of figuring out how to prevent these issues or how to work through

them with the student teacher. A further conclusion may also be made connecting roles

and responsibilities to support. If the roles and responsibilities of each entity were clearly

defined and explicitly communicated at the beginning of the field experience, the

cooperating teachers could possibly have a better idea of what supports and resources

they would need to better prepare the student teacher.

Communication is needed to build relationships and to understand roles and

responsibilities. The university supervisors and cooperating teacher have common roles

and responsibilities, the most identified being conducting observations and providing

feedback to the student teacher. Coincidentally, these are the two roles and

responsibilities of the participants addressed multiple times within the Cooperating

Teacher Handbook. Moreover, it is communicated in-person when the university

supervisor goes to the school site for an observation. The conclusion that may be made is

82

that frequency and the use of multiple methods for communication regarding roles and

responsibilities has an effect on what is emphasized most by cooperating teachers.

Some participants indicated that building relationships between different entities

is a role solely for the university supervisor. Both cooperating teachers and university

supervisors acknowledged it is necessary for a successful field experience. Moreover,

they identified the need for clear lines of communication and open air. The conclusion

that may be made is tied to communication and support. Because the cooperating

teachers do not identify relationship building as their own role and responsibility, they

call on the university supervisor when there is a problem. Furthermore, another

conclusion to be made is that the cooperating teacher may lack training in communication

strategies.

How does the cooperating teacher’s sense of self-efficacy inform his or her role and professional practice during the student teacher field experience?

Participating in the field experience is mutually beneficial. Another major

finding is that cooperating teachers indicated a cooperating teacher’s sense of self-

efficacy caused them to share their knowledge, experiences, and enjoyment of teaching

with a novice to give back to the teaching profession. The conclusion that may be made

is that regardless of how cooperating teachers came upon the responsibility to work with

a student teacher, they still want to share their experiences of being a teacher with others.

Although being a cooperating teacher for the field experience provides another set of

eyes in the classroom, the cooperating teacher is still responsible for the growth of the

students of the class and the student teacher. A further conclusion that may be made is

that those who are cooperating teachers have an altruistic quality.

83

Cooperating teachers expressed that reciprocal learning opportunities, which

includes learning strategies from the student teacher, growing as a teacher, and reflective

practices, are available when a student teacher is in the classroom. The conclusion that

may be made is there are also practical benefits to being a cooperating teacher, regardless

of whether it is explicitly or implicitly stated. An additional conclusion that may be made

is that dialogue may occur more frequently compared to when the cooperating teacher

does not participate in the field experience because of the observations and feedback

provided to the student teacher. Furthermore, the teaching practices of the cooperating

teacher may be positively affected due to self-reflection and inquiry from the student

teacher.

To determine self-efficacy, it would be beneficial to know the specific tasks and

roles for which cooperating teachers are responsible. Therefore, in this study, the

cooperating teachers based their self-efficacy on unclear and inconsistent roles and

responsibilities that were not clearly communicated. The conclusion that may be made is

that cooperating teachers may have an inflated sense of self-efficacy based on incomplete

information.

Recommendations

University Teacher Preparation Program and Participating School Sites

The researcher offers recommendations based on the findings, analysis, and

conclusions of this study. The recommendations that follow are for university teacher

preparation programs and school sites where student teachers are placed.

Communicate that the cooperating teachers are not chosen at random. The

university teacher preparation program may consider including the selection process in

84

the Cooperating Teacher Handbook to communicate that cooperating teachers are not

chosen at random. The selection of the cooperating teacher and the placement site of the

student teacher are integral components of the field experience since this is where and

with whom the student teacher is exposed to the teaching profession in a live setting. The

university teacher education program may consider creating a list or rubric, such as that

provided by the state, which identifies how cooperating teachers and field placement sites

are selected. Prior to the student teacher being placed at the school site, the selection of

the cooperating teacher should be made clear both explicitly articulated verbally and in

written form to all entities involved, including the administration at the school site and

the cooperating teacher.

Set expectations with all involved. The university supervisor should consider

providing the complete version of the Cooperating Teacher Handbook to all persons

involved prior to an initial meeting so members have the opportunity to read and jot

down questions. A meeting should be scheduled prior to the field experience that

includes the university supervisor, the cooperating teacher(s), the school site

administrator(s), and the student teacher(s). During this time, the Cooperating Teacher

Handbook should be on the agenda for discussion. Moreover, the purpose of the field

experience, along with the roles and responsibilities of those involved, especially those of

the cooperating teacher and university supervisor, should be thoroughly discussed. The

expectation of the student teacher and the field experience should be consistent and

explicitly communicated and reviewed at the meeting.

Use technology to support training. The use of technology is highly

encouraged. Since the budget was cited as a reason cooperating teachers did not attend a

85

formal training, using a webinar or modules is suggested. Moreover, keeping an

archive for those who are not able to attend the meeting may be beneficial.

Create training modules and observation and feedback tools to foster equity.

When the university identifies topics, strategies, and skills to which the student teacher

should be exposed and that the student teacher should acquire prior to the completion of

the field experience, it is suggested that observation and feedback strategies and tools are

provided to the cooperating teacher from the university supervisor. These tools should be

provided and explained to the cooperating teacher prior to the first observation of the

student teacher. The university may consider creating a module or showing a short clip

of a previous student teacher as an example of an observation and the use of the tools and

evaluations. To keep costs low, the university may consider using a PACT video from a

previous student teacher. Moreover, a module or clip may be used for training regarding

communication and relationship building strategies.

Connect classroom and applied experiences. Some cooperating teachers were

open about their need for more information about the connection between university

coursework and the field experience. To create continuity and support for the student

teacher, the university teacher education program may consider the creation of formal

documents that include the schedule of the student teacher for the quarter, a pacing guide

of what they are to learn throughout the year (with approximate months), and coursework

concepts. Some documents may already be available from the university supervisor since

one of their roles is to be a faculty member at Pleasant University and to teach courses.

Therefore, the course syllabus may suffice for fulfilling the explanation of coursework

86

concepts. However, these should be provided to the cooperating teachers prior to the

beginning of each quarter.

Only one content area within the Pleasant University Teacher Education Program

has a document, Expectations for Cooperating School Sites, which is separated into

months within the school year that includes university expectations of the student teacher

and of the cooperating teacher. The university teacher preparation program may consider

providing a similar chart for all persons involved in the field experience, such as the

cooperating teacher and a site administrator, regardless of the content area.

Establish a feedback loop with each cooperating teacher. Although the

university supervisor visits the school site when conducting an observation or when the

cooperating teacher makes contact due to a problem or issue with the student teacher, a

regular check-in by the university supervisor may possibly provide a feedback loop to

connect the coursework of the student teacher with the field experience. In addition, the

university supervisor may consider using this feedback loop as an opportunity to share

resources and connect learning.

Educational Community

The researcher offers recommendations based on the findings, analysis, and

conclusions of this study. The recommendations that follow are for the educational

community and policy makers. Change must begin either at the state or federal level.

Otherwise, the possibilities for inconsistencies in implementation will increase. Because

states vary in the extent of local control, certain policies may be leveraged.

Adopt professional teaching standards. The coordination of training and

development of the cooperating teacher is dependent upon the university teacher

87

preparation program. However, the educational community, including teacher

credentialing, should consider using the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards, either

in part of in whole (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2011; Hill et al.,

2010). The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards

are separated into three different categories: knowledge, dispositions, and performances.

Performance standards “can be observed and assessed in teaching practices” (p. 6). The

Essential knowledge includes “declarative and procedural knowledge,” while Critical

Dispositions “indicates the habits of professional action and moral commitments that

underlie the performances” (CCSSO, 2011, p. 6). The InTASC Model Core Teaching

Standards intertwine pedagogy, practice, and behaviors. Professional standards for

school administrators, including principals and vice principals, should also be considered

and aligned to the NCATE accreditation standards. As instructional leaders of the

school, the school administration should also be held to certain standards.

Create university-school partnerships for clinical preparation including an

apprentice model. The teaching profession is impacted by the preparation that novice

teachers receive. The evidence from this research showed that cooperating teachers often

base what they do with a student teacher upon their own experiences. Therefore,

university-school partnerships need to be considered for clinical preparations.

Furthermore, an apprentice model that identifies cooperating teachers who exemplify the

adopted professional teaching standards should be implemented. The Commission on

Teacher Credentialing will need to guide the identification of teacher education programs

that are aligned to the adopted professional teaching standards and are accredited. The

institutions, including the district and teacher preparation program, in the partnership

88

share the common goal of connecting theory and practice. The level of immersion at

the school site varies. For example, the laboratory experiences include analysis of

teaching, observations, journaling, and analysis of student work. The clinical experiences

include collaboration in a professional community and the applying the pedagogies

learned during the laboratory experiences. It is imperative that time is explicitly allocated

each week for journal writing for student teachers to reflect upon their progress.

Update licensure and credentialing requirements to align with accreditation

standards. With an update in professional teaching standards and the creation of

university-school partnerships, licensure and credentialing requirements need to be

revisited and updated.

Further Research

This research study was limited to a single site and a small number of

participants. Therefore, the researcher recommends further studies be conducted to

include a larger database of information to gain more comprehensive insight into the

experience of the cooperating teacher with respect to selection, development and training,

support, and roles and responsibilities. Moreover, the communication strategies of the

university supervisor and the cooperating teacher should be further investigated.

Consequently, the following should be considered:

• A replication study should be conducted since this was only one traditional

university teacher education program. Perhaps conducting the replication study

with a non-traditional teacher education program or a private institution of higher

education to explore the experiences of cooperating teachers.

89

• A similar study using the same criteria should be conducted with a university

teacher education program that has specific selection processes, including criteria,

to determine how it affects the rest of the field experience and to what extent the

same or similar findings would be discovered.

• Based on the lack of funding identified for training and development, a study

exploring the use of technology and its effects on the preparation of the

cooperating teacher should be undertaken.

Summary

The field experience is an integral component in preparation for the teaching

profession. From the beginning, it is pertinent there are consistent and clear structures,

such as criteria for the selection of cooperating teachers. Moreover, the roles and

responsibilities of all entities, including the university supervisor, the school site

administrator, the cooperating teacher, and the student teacher need to be communicated

via multiple methods. The quality of the field experience cannot be left up to the

personal experiences of cooperating teachers. Consequently, the training and

development of the cooperating teachers need to be deliberate and purposeful with topics

covered such as building relationships and communication strategies. Just as the students

we work with deserve an equitable education, the same is true for those who will soon

enter the teaching profession.

90

List of References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Beeth, M., & Adadan, E. (2006). The influence of university-based coursework on field experience, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 103-120. doi: 10.1007/s10972-006-9013-8

Bloomberg, L., & Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A roadmap from beginning to end. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501-518. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X(95)00008-8

Bullough, R., Jr. (2005). Being and becoming a mentor: School-based teacher educators and teacher educator identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 143-155. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.002

Bullough, R., Jr., Draper, R., Smith, L., & Birrell, J. (2004). Moving beyond collusion: Clinical faculty and university/public school partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 505-521. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.007

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 286-032. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053004002

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan Company.

91

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices to learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 17-30. doi: 10.1177/0022487101052001003

Giebelhaus, C., & Bowman, C. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? Journal of Educational Research, 95, 246-254. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542385

Goddard, R., Hoy, W., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004, April). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.

Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 1118-1129. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.007

Hall, K., Draper, R., Smith, L., & Bullough, R., Jr. (2008). More than a place to teach: Exploring the perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of mentor teachers. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 16, 328-345. doi: 10.1081/13611260802231708

Hall, K., Smith, L., Draper, R., Bullough, R., Jr., & Sudweeks, R. (2005). Measuring the self-efficacy of mentor teachers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 188-192. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ps/retrieve.do?retrieveFormat=PDF_FROM_CALLISTO&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=drexel_main&workId=PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-184.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-185.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-186.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-187.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-188.JPG&docId=GALE|A142636414&callistoContentSet=PER&isAcrobatAvailable=false

Hill, D., Stumbo, C., Paliokas, K., Hansen, D., & McWalters, P. (2010, July). State policy implications of the Model Core Teaching Standards (InTASC Draft Discussion Document). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Hong, J. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1530-1543. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003Edc

Howey, K., & Zimpher, N. (2010, April). Educational partnerships to advance clinically rich teacher preparation. Retrieved from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education website: http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hccwyqMLlSo%3d&tabid=715

92

Kyle, D., Moore, G., & Sanders, J. (1999). The role of the mentor teacher: Insights, challenges, and implications. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 109-122. doi: 10.1207/s15327930pje7403#4_9

Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf

Levine, M. (2010, November). Developing principles for clinically based teacher education. Retrieved from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education website: http://ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qhv0TxP2Gm0%3d&tabid=715

Margolis, M. (2007). Improving relationships between mentor teachers and student teachers: Engaging in a pedagogy of explicitness. The New Educator, 3, 75-94. doi: 10.1080/15/176880601141540

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experience of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 31-42.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/what_teachers.pdf

The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010, November). Teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat 1425 (2002)

O’Brian, M., Stoner, J., Appel, K., & House, J. (2007). The first field experience: Perspectives of preservice and cooperating teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 30, 264-275. doi: 10.1177/088840640703000406

Russell, M., & Russell, J. (2011). Mentoring relationships: Cooperating teachers’ perspectives on mentoring student interns. The Professional Educator, 35(2), 1-21.

93

Saffold, F. (2005). Increasing self-efficacy through mentoring. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(4), 13-16. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/ps/retrieve.do?retrieveFormat=PDF_FROM_CALLISTO&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=drexel_main&workId=PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-9.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-10.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-11.JPG|PI-0HSU-2005-WIN00-IDSI-12.JPG&docId=GALE|A142636383&callistoContentSet=PER&isAcrobatAvailable=false

Slick, S. (1997). Assessing versus assisting: The supervisor’s role in the complex dynamics of the student teaching triad. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 713-726. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00016-4

Snow-Gerono, J. (2009). Voice less silenced: What do veteran teachers value in school-university partnerships and initial teacher preparation? The Teacher Educator, 44, 248-267. doi: 10.1080/08878730903186348

Soslau, E. (2012). Opportunities to develop adaptive teaching expertise during supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 769-779. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.009

Stanulis, R. (1995). Classroom teachers as mentors: Possibilities for participation in a professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 331-344. doi: 10.1016/0742-051X

U.S. Department of Education. (2010, May). Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Educational Act: Supporting teachers. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/supporting-teachers.pdf

Ward, R. (2005, Winter). Impact of mentoring on teacher efficacy. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9, 148-152.

Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. (2003, Summer). Mentoring: Professional development through reflection. The Teacher Educator, 39(1), 64-77.

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99.

94

Appendix A: Interview Protocols

Interview Protocols (University Supervisor) Time of interview: Date: Investigator: Emily C. Oliva Interviewee #: Position of interviewee: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the cooperating teachers and a single university teacher education program with the goal to understand how the roles and responsibilities of both supervising faculty and cooperating teachers are defined and communicated. The study further seeks to explore what training and support are provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field experience, as well as, how an individual’s level of self-efficacy informs professional practices. The findings of this study may help university preparation programs and the school district provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher during the field experience. Questions:

How many years have you been a university supervisor?

At what grade level(s) are your student teachers placed?

What other positions, if any, did you hold in the field of education?

Approximately how many cooperating teachers have you worked with in your current capacity?

Could you please describe the field experience as defined by your university teacher education program? What do you feel is important to a successful field experience?

What does your position as a university supervisor entail?

What are your roles and responsibilities as a university supervisor?

How are your roles and responsibilities communicated to the cooperating

teacher?

How are cooperating teachers selected?

95

What supports, if any, are provided to the cooperating teacher? Are there any exceptions?

In your experience, what does the cooperating teacher gain from serving in this

role? In your view, what differentiates the better cooperating teacher? What are your perceptions regarding the university-school partnership? What do

you feel is important to its success?

Is there anything you would like to add that you feel may contribute to my study? Thank you for participating in this interview. The information you provided will remain confidential.

96

Interview Protocols (Cooperating Teacher)

Time of interview: Date: Investigator: Emily C. Oliva Interviewee #: Position of interviewee: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between a university teacher education program, school districts and local schools, and the cooperating teachers seeking to understand how the relationships between the entities and the roles are defined. The study further seeks to explore what training and support are provided to the cooperating teachers throughout the field experience and how self-efficacy informs professional practices with a goal to understand how a university preparation program and the school district may better provide guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher for the field experience. Questions:

How many years have you taught? What grade level(s) do you teach? What content area(s) do you teach?

What other positions, if any, have you held in the field of education?

How many Student Teachers have you formally mentored? For what length of time?

Describe the field experience as you understand it? What do you feel is

important to a successful field experience?

What process(es) did you go through to become a cooperating teacher? For example, were you appointed by administration? Volunteer? Interview? Apply? Other? What is the role of the university supervisor? How was it communicated to you?

What are your roles and responsibilities as a cooperating teacher? How were they communicated to you?

What training did you receive to be a cooperating teacher prior to having a

student teacher in your classroom?

97

What supports, if any, did you receive, and from whom, including resources and communication to help ensure the student teacher(s) you work with are adequately prepared for the teaching profession?

Do you, as a cooperating teacher, feel you were completely supported to prepare

your student teacher? Please explain.

What training or support do you feel would help cooperating teachers prepare student teachers for the teaching profession?

What are your perceptions regarding a university-school partnership? What do you feel is important to its success?

How has your sense of self-efficacy, or belief that you have the capacity to prepare a student teacher, informed your role as a cooperating teacher and your professional practice?

Is there anything you would like to add that you feel may contribute to my

study?

Thank you for participating in this interview. The information you provided will remain confidential.

98

Appendix B: Script for University Supervisor when informing Cooperating Teacher of Study

Good afternoon. I, insert name, will be participating in a research study titled

“Preparing High School Cooperating Teachers in a University-School Partnership: A

Single-case Study.” The study is conducted by a Doctoral Candidate, Emily C. Oliva,

from Drexel University. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between

the cooperating teachers and a university teacher education program with a goal to

understand how the roles and responsibilities of the entities are defined and

communicated. The study further seeks to explore what training and support are

provided to the cooperating teachers before and throughout the field experience, as well

as, how self-efficacy informs professional practices. The findings of this study may help

university preparation programs and the school district provide more consistent

guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher during the field experience.

The Director of Teacher Education, Dr. xxxxxx, has already provided a site letter

approval to the researcher. Since I will be participating in the study, I would like to offer

your name to the researcher as a possible subject. With your consent, I will provide your

contact information to the researcher, Emily C. Oliva. The data that is collected will be

confidential and you will not be identifiable. The researcher will further discuss this with

you when you are contacted. If you have any questions or concerns, please call Emily C.

Oliva at (916) xxx-xxx or eoXX@drexel.edu.

99

Appendix C: Introductory Emails

Introductory Email to Principals

Dear (Insert Name): Good morning. My name is Emily Oliva and I am a Doctoral Candidate at Drexel University. I am conducting research regarding Teacher Education. As part of my research, I would like to speak with cooperating teachers who are working with student teachers. Your school has been identified in my research as a site of interest. However, I would need your site approval to speak with specific teachers. The information that I am collecting will be with respect to their roles and responsibilities as a cooperating teacher. Also, I will ask information regarding what supports and trainings are provided to them. The findings of this study may help university preparation programs and school districts provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the cooperating teacher when working with the student teacher. The information that teachers provide to me will be kept confidential. I will only interview the cooperating teacher one time for approximately an hour. I will also ask them to journal about their experience. If you would like more information regarding my research purpose, design, methodology, and data collection, I am more than happy to speak with you, whether over the phone, in person, or over email. I understand that your time, along with the time of your teachers, is valuable. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Emily C. Oliva (916) xxx-xxxx eoXX@drexel.edu

100

Introductory Email to Cooperating Teachers Dear (Insert Name): Good morning. My name is Emily Oliva and I am a Doctoral Candidate at Drexel University. I am conducting research regarding Teacher Education. As part of my research, I would like to speak with cooperating teachers who are working with student teachers. Through the University Supervisor, you have been identified in my research as a cooperating teacher of interest. The information that I am collecting will be with respect to your roles and responsibilities as a cooperating teacher. Also, I will ask information regarding what supports and trainings are provided to you. The findings of this study may help university preparation programs and school districts provide more consistent guidelines and structure for the cooperating teachers when working with the student teacher. The information that teachers provide to me will be kept confidential. I will only interview you, the cooperating teacher, one time for approximately an hour. Also, I ask that you journal about your experience. I will provide you with a journal and prompts in case you are uncertain about what to write. If you would like more information regarding my research purpose, design, methodology, and data collection, I am more than happy to speak with you, whether over the phone, in person, or over email. I understand that your time is valuable. However, I believe my study will greatly benefit from your input. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Emily C. Oliva (916) xxx-xxxx eoXX@drexel.ed

101

Appendix D: Journal Prompts for Cooperating Teachers

Thank you for participating in my study. I am providing you with a journal so you can write your thoughts regarding your experience as a cooperating teacher. Feel free to write as often as you wish. There are no limits or restrictions regarding your chosen topic or how much to write. Prompts and questions are provided to focus your writing, if needed.

Briefly describe your teaching philosophy.

What has influenced your teaching practices the most?

Why did you decide to become a cooperating teacher?

Describe the benefit(s), if any, you perceive have emerged due to your role as a cooperating teacher. Explain why you believe this is so.

Describe the challenge(s), if any, you have encountered as a cooperating teacher. How did you overcome these challenges?

Who and/or what has been most supportive to you in your role as a cooperating

teacher? What support(s) were provided? Why do you believe this was helpful?

What do you believe would help cooperating teachers prepare student teachers for the teaching profession?

Describe what university supervisors could do or provide to assist you in your role as a cooperating teacher.

Based on your experience as a cooperating teacher, describe what you perceive to

be the most important aspect of the field experience.

In any publication or presentation of research results, your identity will be kept confidential, but there is a possibility that records which identify you may be inspected by authorized individuals such as representatives of the Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP), the institutional review board (IRB), or employees conducting peer review activities. You consent to such inspections and to the copying of excerpts of your records, if required by any of these representatives.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding any aspect of the journals, feel

free to contact the researcher, Emily C. Oliva, at emily.oliva@drexel.edu.