This article was downloaded by: [Gazi University]On: 04 October 2014, At: 07:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Scandinavian Journal ofEducational ResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Student Teachers' Viewsabout their Relationshipswith University Supervisors,Cooperating Teachers and PeerStudent TeachersUlla Talvitie , Liisa Peltokallio & Paivi MannistoPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Ulla Talvitie , Liisa Peltokallio & Paivi Mannisto (2000) StudentTeachers' Views about their Relationships with University Supervisors, CooperatingTeachers and Peer Student Teachers, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,44:1, 79-88, DOI: 10.1080/713696662

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713696662

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2000

Student Teachers’ Views about theirRelationships with UniversitySupervisors, Cooperating Teachersand Peer Student TeachersULLA TALVITIE, LIISA PELTOKALLIO & PAÈ IVIMAÈ NNISTOÈDepartment of Health Sciences, University of JyvaÈ skylaÈ , PO Box 35,

FIN-40351 JyvaÈ skylaÈ , Finland

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine student teachers’ views about thein¯ uence of contributions from university supervisors, cooperating teachers and student teacherson their professional development. Journals kept by 16 vocational student teachers during theirteaching practice showed that cooperating teachers and university supervisors played a meaning-ful role in their professional development. The most important factor seemed to be the qualityof the dialogue that was maintained during the practicum. The more open the dialogue and themore divergent the views allowed, the more satis® ed the student teachers were with theirpracticum. The study also indicated that peer students were felt to have a particularly importantsupportive role.

INTRODUCTION

Most teacher education programmes are organised so that the student teachersspend some time in the classroom teaching and observing. The goal of their practicalteaching sessions is to learn from doing. Research in cognition strongly supports theproposition that without the knowledge acquired from practice, wise action is notpossible (Cervero, 1992). However, in this process there is clearly also a role forsystems of abstract professional knowledge. The question is how to organise thepracticum so that student teachers are able to adopt a critical view of teaching. Thework of the practicum is usually accomplished through a combination of thetrainee’s learning by doing, his or her interactions with instructors and fellowstudents and a process of background learning (SchoÈ n, 1987).

JaÈ rvinen et al. (1995) state that student teachers’ re¯ ective skills can be im-proved and accelerated when the relevant training is started immediately at thebeginning of their studies and is supported by simultaneous and systematic trainingin critical awareness designed by their supervising teachers. However, contrary® ndings have also been expressed. Zeichner & Liston (1987) recognized that student

ISSN 0031-3831/00/010079-10 Ó 2000 Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

80 U. Talvitie et al.

teachers’ ideologies are resistant to change. Calderhead (1987) found that studentteachers’ re¯ ection was generally super® cial and pragmatic and that students quicklyreached a plateau in their professional learning. On the other hand, student teachershave been shown to adopt ideas that they did not initially bring into their teaching(Hollingsworth, 1989). The basic question then becomes identifying where teachereducation ® xes students’ attention and how it manages to retain a balance betweenthe technical aspects of teaching and its intellectual and moral demands (Grossman,1992).

Development and change in student teachers are gleaned from a number ofsources, such as peer interaction, interaction with pupils and instructors and makingexplicit one’ s beliefs about learning (Clarke, 1995). According to various studiesuniversity supervisors and cooperating teachers have a substantial in¯ uence on thedevelopment of student teachers’ orientations, dispositions, conceptions and class-room practices, but their in¯ uence over student teachers’ behaviour seems to beinconsistent (Kettle & Sellers, 1996). There have been shown to exist con¯ ictingexpectations of the roles of different supervisors, a lack of consensus and an inabilityto work together on the part of university supervisors and cooperating teachers, anda super® cial way of handling matters with students (Duffy, 1987; Borko & May® eld,1995; Haggarty, 1995).

The ® ndings of Gonzalez & Carter (1996) that cooperating teachers andstudent teachers do not share interpretive practice does not make the situationeasier. Unsuccessful experiences during teaching practice may either create a fruitfullearning experience or lead to oppressive feelings of inadequacy and self-blame.Johnston (1993) argues that dialogue must be collaborative, focusing on the studentteacher’ s images of teaching and reconstructing those images as the problematicalnature of teaching brings inconsistencies and contradictions to light. If the super-visor does not give support and provide the student teacher with opportunities toexplore dilemmas and contradictions, when the student begins to question theexisting structure of his or her classroom he or she may withdraw from the searchrather than take further risks. The commonsense notion that student teachers shouldbe placed with teachers with whom they agree and that the choice of cooperatingteachers should fall on those who are model teachers according to the philosophy ofthe programme has been questioned in various studies (Hollingsworth, 1989;Grossman, 1992; Guillaume & Rudney, 1993).

It is evident that the role and function of cooperating teachers and universitysupervisors is different. Whereas cooperating teachers focus almost exclusively onactual classroom activities, university supervisors are actively involved in both theclassroom and academic settings (Guillaume & Rudney, 1993; McNamara, 1995).The cooperating teachers give practical advice about the classroom situation and thecontent of the curriculum, but the university supervisors answer for all-roundprofessional development and alternatives in the approach to practice (McNamara,1995).

Many studies have shown peer students to be a very important source ofsupport in practical teaching (Duffy, 1987). Kettle & Sellars (1996) reported thatinteraction with peers encourages students to challenge existing views and their own

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Student Teachers’ Views about Teaching Practice 81

views about teaching. Peer students at their best help to develop a non-threateningenvironment for critical discussion. It seems that other students are considerednearly as important as teachers as guides in planning and implementing practicalteaching (McNamara, 1995).

The purpose of this study was to investigate student teachers’ views about thein¯ uence of contributions from university supervisors, cooperating teachers andstudent teachers on their professional development. The problems were as follows:what is the nature of the concerns of university supervisors and cooperating teacherswhich in¯ uence student teachers’ professional development; what is the role of otherstudent teachers during teaching practice?

By professional development as determined in this study is meant a complexprocess, by which the prospective teachers’ experience of change in their criticalthinking, management of classroom planning and implementation, self-esteem andattitude towards teaching and learning in a school setting. The study is a part of anextensive evaluation project with the goal of evaluating the physiotherapy teachereducation programme at the University of JyvaÈ skylaÈ .

METHODS AND SOURCES OF DATA

The study was undertaken with student teachers on a pedagogical course in theteacher education programme at the University of JyvaÈ skylaÈ . The duration of thecourse was 18 months. The participants in the study were 15 women and one man(n 5 16) ranging in age from 32 to 45 years. Fourteen of the students werephysiotherapists, who were enrolled in the post-graduate programme for physiother-apists. Their aim was to qualify as a professional teacher in physiotherapy education.Two students who had taken a university degree in coaching wanted to obtain ateaching quali® cation in anatomy and exercise physiology.

The teacher education programme was organised so that during the ® rst termthe students took courses taught by the faculty of Sport and Physical Education andspent a 2 week preparatory period in the local college of health care (physiotherapy)education. During their second and third semesters they performed their teachertraining practicum in the college.

With their cooperating teachers the student teachers mostly discussed thecontent of the curriculum and subject matter. For questions to do with methods andapproaches they went to their university supervisors. Because of problems inarranging meetings with their different supervising teachers the students mostly ® rstmet the cooperating teacher and then the university supervisor. If possible both thecooperating teacher and university supervisor were present at the student teacher’ slessons.

At the beginning of the teacher education practicum the student teachers wereasked to write down their views on teaching and learning. The students explainedtheir personal theories of what learning and teaching was and what kinds ofprinciples it involved. After ® nishing their practicum the students assessed how theirconception of learning and teaching had changed and what courses of classroom

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

82 U. Talvitie et al.

events and concerns of supervising teachers had in¯ uenced their developmentalprocess.

In this follow-up study we were interested in the role of university supervisors,cooperating teachers and peer student teachers in the student teachers’ develop-ment. The source of the data for the study consisted of journals kept by the studentteachers as part of their practicum and their ® nal reports on their concerns andfeelings relating to the practicum as a whole.

Journals have been recommended as useful sources of information aboutstudent teachers’ thinking and concerns (Bean & Zulich, 1989; Guillaume &Rudney, 1993). Written assignments have been found to be more useful in makingstudents’ cognitive processes explicit than in their actively constructing knowledgeabout teaching and learning (Hoover, 1993).

In their journals students recorded those aspects or events in their teaching,classrooms and teacher education programme that most occupied their thoughts.The structure of journal reporting was left open so that the student teachers couldspontaneously express their concerns in writing.

FINDINGS

Earlier studies indicate that pre-existing beliefs affect student teachers’ post-programme understanding of a major concept of teaching and learning and are asigni® cant factor in suggesting differential learning of programme concepts(Hollingsworth, 1989; Calderhead & Robson, 1991). Peltokallio (1996) examinedstudent teachers’ conception of learning and teaching and development of re¯ ectivethinking at different stages of their studies in physiotherapy teacher education. Theresults showed that the students’ learning and teaching conceptions varied. At thebeginning of their studies they often used the textbook de® nitions of learning andteaching, but in their ® nal reports they expressed a dynamic conception of learningand teaching that was based on their own study and classroom experiences (seeSilkelaÈ & VaÈ isaÈ nen, 1997).

In the present study the changes the student teachers expressed were closelyrelated to certain desired characteristics like re¯ ective thinking, self-assessmentability, planning ability or, commonly, an increase in intentionality and criticalness.Most of the student teachers considered discussion after a lesson and cooperationwith their supervising teachers important factors for boosting their sense of pro-fessional teaching. A wide variety of concerns were present in the student teachers’journals. The most widely reported included subject-related matters, working withpupils, pedagogical and other practical questions and supervising teachers.

The nature of university supervisors’ and cooperating teachers’ concerns

A favourable developmental process mostly consisted of new practical ideas for usein teaching and the creation of different perspectives from which students couldre¯ ect on their practice. According to Clarke (1995) the role of advisors is not so

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Student Teachers’ Views about Teaching Practice 83

much in providing a list of issues for students to re¯ ect upon but rather in providinga variety of perspectives from which students might examine their practice.

Eleven students reported that their supervisors or cooperating teachers had astrong in¯ uence on the changes they experienced. Cooperation was of great import-ance to these students in a number of ways. When the practicum proceededfavourably and new ideas suggested by the university supervisor or the cooperatingteacher proved to be of practical value, cooperation was felt to be signi® cant for thestudent’ s personal development. One student indicated his change of attitude toteaching as follows:

Particularly in the early phase of the training I would have liked morecritical feedback from the guiding teachers about what I did that was goodor bad. Sometimes I wondered if I had carried out a very neutral lessonwhen it was neither praised nor censured. Later on I realised what it wasall about. My choice of approach in teaching was not so crucial becauseanyway we discussed alternative solutions to my implementation. It wasthen my own responsibility to work out teaching solutions that would workin different situations. I may say that my own ability to think developed sothat I was able to assess my own performance by myself, because nobodysaid straight out that you were good or bad in this or that respect.

The students described their favourable development from the safe, traditionalteaching means familiar to them `to more and more taking students’ learning intoconsideration’ . One student teacher wrote `I was cleverly guided (by the universitysupervisor) to experiment with new solutions ¼ ’ . The student teachers expectedtheir supervising teachers to proffer constructive criticism, to be inspiring andcommitted in giving guidance and support, particularly at the beginning of theirpracticum. A good relationship with the guiding teachers gave them the courage toexperiment with new pedagogical solutions.

Some of them felt the post-lesson assessment insulting at the beginning of thepracticum, but later on they were able to accept feedback and deal with concernstouching them personally. One student’ s comment on the change she found inherself, `unintentional action became intentional’ , is a good re¯ ection of the changeprocess. A positive impact was mostly mentioned in connection with a suf® cientamount of time and a positive attitude toward guidance.

My own idea of learning and teaching was very old-fashioned. I supposethat it was also the reason for my fear of being assessed. Very soon,however, I noticed how therapeutic the training was. The supervisingteachers were encouraging; they gave support and approval.

A few student teachers wondered if they had undergone any change at all. Oneof them asked `Did my knowledge of pedagogical theory increase?’ and answered `Isuppose not notably’ .

Negative criticism was more connected with the different supervising teachersthan positive comments. Irrelevant and humiliating criticism of the student teacher’ s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

84 U. Talvitie et al.

lesson and inappropriate criticism directed towards the training college on the partof the university teachers was felt to be unjusti® ed by the student teachers.

Dissatisfaction with cooperating teachers was mostly mentioned in connectionwith the insuf® cient amount of time allocated for guiding and attending the stu-dents’ lessons and being present at the post-lesson assessment. This lack of anadequate amount of time impaired their lesson planning because they were notprovided with enough knowledge about the classroom, pupils and content. Thestudents would meet the cooperating teachers beforehand to make arrangements fortheir lesson, after which they met the university supervisor to plan the course of thelesson.

Some students’ journals described practicum experiences which indicated eithervery high dependence on, mostly, the university supervisor or a con¯ ictual relation-ship with both the university supervisor and the cooperating teacher. It seems thathigh dependence throughout the practicum does not further a student’ s efforts tobecome an independent and expansive teacher.

One student described a very close relation with her university supervisorthroughout the practicum. At ® rst she was afraid of negative feedback: `It (feedback)was also easy because there were not many negative comments’ . She seemed to bedependent on her supervisor’ s comments: ` ¼ in the morning the assessment wasgood, in the afternoon censorious ¼ ’ . She went on to say `everything should be clear(before I go into the classroom) and I must then be a leader and an instructor’ . Inher ® nal report she did not deal with her experience of change as a teacher butanalysed herself and her personal character critically:

I feel uncertain, worry too much about other persons’ thoughts; I shouldlearn to decide for myself and not change according to what others think.I am sensitive, empathic, and I have feelings and I react with feelings; I amlike a yo-yo.

Kettle & Sellars (1996) reported supervising teachers as having a strong in¯ uence onstudent teachers’ development, but at the same time there was no evidence tosuggest that they were encouraging students to think about the wider rami® cationsof their teaching practices.

One student teacher described how her supervisor’ s behaviour brought about acrisis in her training. She related an annoying incident which seemed to destroy theconstructive aspect of her training for a long time. Her cooperating teacher wasunable to ® nd the time to be present for the post-lesson assessment and theuniversity supervisor also went off all of a sudden, leaving the student teacher alone.

I felt that no part of my lessons was a success. It (training) was quite afragmented, monotonous and confused progress. My teaching I felt some-how to be super® cial. I was acting partly as the instrument of otherpersons’ (meaning the cooperating teacher) teaching duties which meansthat I was unable to act as I was supposed to do.

This student closely analysed her experience in her journal. In particular, she

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Student Teachers’ Views about Teaching Practice 85

condemned her university supervisor’ s decision to leave her alone in the classroomand not to explain her behaviour.

This student talked in her ® nal report about her favourable experiences duringthe last few lessons, when she had had an opportunity to discuss with a newsupervisor the ideas she held important in teaching. If cooperation with supervisingteachers did not work satisfactorily, the students either broke off the relationship andchanged the supervising teacher or persisted with the existing unsatisfactory relation-ship. Some student teachers analysed their experiences of con¯ ict in depth andsubsequently felt them to be helpful for their later conception of teaching andlearning.

Peer student teachers’ role

Half of the student teachers mentioned having highly bene® cial experiences in theircooperation with other students. These students had worked together with anotherstudent teacher in planning and carring out either a theme day (for example onewhole day for social worker students under the heading Elderly people and physicalexercise) or a whole course (for example a 20 hour course for physiotherapy studentson the theme Therapeutic exercise).

The meaning of teamwork also became clear to me in a completely newway. Cooperation with others is never easy but it is rewarding. The themeday carried out with other student teachers taught me a great deal aboutjoint planning.

Prior to carrying out the lesson we had agreed on a division of labour, butit didn’ t have to be followed strictly; we had agreed that if the other hadsomething to add, then she would be allowed to interrupt. If joint teachingworks well then the support given by the other teacher is very important.

A relevant comment was also that `you need not carry the responsibility of thearrangement and implementation of the lesson alone’ .

Negative experiences mentioned were an unfair division of labour and failure tocarry out prearranged duties by a collaborating partner. Negative comments aboutjoint planning and implementation occured in only a few jounals, when cooperationwith the other student did not work.

The presence of other student teachers in the classroom and their participationin the conversation afterwards were mostly experienced as an important source ofnew ideas and useful advice during the practicum. At their best, the studentteachers’ relationship with their peer student teachers was seen as lending pro-fessional and emotional support.

Three students experienced the presence of other students as unpleasant. Twoof them reported having to suffer critical remarks during the group discussion afterthe lesson: `The comments were realistic and truthful, but she (the name of thestudent) could have explained them in more detail and not delivered them like a stabin the back’ . The presence of other students made one student nervous and she

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

86 U. Talvitie et al.

expressed her satisfaction when they were not there to observe her. She had alsoexperienced unsuccessful cooperation with another student in planning and imple-menting some lessons.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of teacher education is to help student teachers in their developmentfrom student teacher to quali® ed teacher and to encourage change in their earlierviews of teaching. SchoÈ n (1987) contends that the formation of re¯ ective thinkinghinges on the experience of surprise. This means that changing previously held ideasinvolves questioning earlier traditional models of teaching. Hollingsworth (1989)reported that the question often took place in situations where the student teacherexperienced con¯ ict between her opinions and those of the supervising teacher.

The student teachers’ developmental processes differed from each other. Someof them described profound experiences which touched their feelings deeply. Themost important state of affairs making for a positive ® nal experience of their teachingpractice seemed to be one where the student teachers were able to afterwardsevaluate their practicum frankly and openly, even if they had met with certainunpleasant experiences and had confrontations with their teacher educators. Theresults of this study agree with the argument expressed by Guillaume & Rudney(1993) in that the more clearly the student teachers worked out their own positionson issues of practice, the less willing they were to accept their supervising teachers’suggestions or criticisms and, when given time and an audience, the student teachersre¯ ected broadly upon their aims and educational practices.

The student teachers preferred to lean on their university supervisors when theyhad problems. The role of the university supervisor was to answer for generalprofessional development in the teacher education process. The student teachersexpected more practical advice from the cooperating teachers than they in factreceived. They felt that the cooperating teachers did not invest enough time andinterest in guiding them. In reality, the cooperating teachers in the programme alsohave to cope with everyday tasks of their own at school, and they have indicated thatthey have enough problems with their own pupils. Student teachers’ perceptions oftheir role vis-a-vis their university supervisors seemed to start out egocentrically, butlater on their relationships with their supervisors changed to re¯ ect the studentteachers’ growing con® dence. A similar result was also reported by Guillaume &Rudney (1993), although in their case the process happened with their cooperatingteachers.

Professional development requires that student teachers should have the oppor-tunity to openly discuss their personal histories and understanding of teaching(Gonzalez & Carter, 1996; Kiviniemi, 1997). There is often pressure from bothsupervising teachers and student teachers to con® ne dialogue to the technical levelof teaching (Johnston, 1993). An open, critical dialogue con® ned not only to speci® cclassroom strategies and to the mechanical skills of teaching was possible whensupervising teachers and student teachers shared a con® dential atmosphere. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

Student Teachers’ Views about Teaching Practice 87

comments in the journals brought out the nature of the process, which leads froma handling of individual lessons to a broader perspective on teaching and learning.

This study also indicates that student teachers live in a network of socialrelationships and consequently that peer students are very important (see McNa-mara, 1994). The student teachers stated that they liked working with other studentswho were at the same stage of teaching practice. In certain instances they expresseduncertainty about peer students’ presence. At its best joint discussions proved to bea very effective instrumental means. The utilisation of different kinds of students,however, presupposes that security is felt within the group and that communicationis unconstrained.

The literature on student teaching is rich in suggestions for improving thepracticum experience. However, while the practicum continues to be a dif® cult andunsatisfactory learning experience for many prospective teachers, there remains aneed for further efforts to analyse the problems and make suggestions for improve-ment (Johnston, 1993). What is needed is to provide a foundation for the kind ofdialogue with university supervisors, cooperating teachers and student teacherswhich also allows all the participants to be brought face to face with each other.

The limited time available for supervision may mean rethinking the role ofsupervising teachers. Borko & May® eld (1995) suggest that one way of increasingthe effectiveness of action is to change the roles of the university supervisors andcooperating teachers. They recommend that university supervisors use their limitedtime in schools to help cooperating teachers become teacher educators and alsoprovide support and guidance for student teachers to help them integrate theoreticaland research-based ideas from their university courses into their teaching. JaÈ rvinenet al. (1995) suggest, in a similar way, that university teachers can adopt a morefar-reaching role as catalysts for change, bringing their expertise to bear on thechange process and facilitating schools in overcoming the most dif® cult initial stagesof uncertainty, when they are groping for the right direction.

REFERENCES

BEAN, T. & ZULICH, J. (1989). Using dialogue journals to foster re¯ ective practice with preservice,

content-area teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 16, 30± 40.

BORKO, H. & MAYFIELD, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor inlearning to teach. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 501± 518.

CALDERHEAD, J. (1987). The quality of re¯ ection in student teachers’ professional learning. European

Journal of Teacher Education, 10, 269± 278.CALDERHEAD, J. & ROBSON, M. (1991). Images of teaching: student teachers’ early conceptions of

classroom practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7, 1± 8.

CERVERO, R.M. (1992). Professional practice, learning, and continuing education: an integratedperspective. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 11, 91± 101.

CARKE, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum settings: re¯ ective practice under scrutiny.

Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 243± 261.DUFFY, P. (1987). Student perceptions of tutor expectations for school-based teaching practice.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 10, 261± 268.GONZALEZ, L.E. & CARTER, K. (1996). Correspondence in cooperating teachers’ and student teachers’

interpretations of classroom events. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12, 39± 47.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4

88 U. Talvitie et al.

GROSSMAN, P.L. (1992). Why models matter: an alternate view on professional growth in teaching.

Review of Educational Research, 62, 171± 179.GUILLAUME, A.M. & RUDNEY, G.L. (1993). Student teachers’ growth toward independence: an analysis

of their changing concerns. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9, 65± 80.

HAGGARTY, L. (1995). The use of content analysis to explore conversations between school teachermentors and student teachers. British Educational Research Journal, 21, 183± 197.

HOLLINGSWORTH , S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American

Educational Research Journal, 26, 160± 189.HOOVER, L.A. (1993). Re¯ ective writing as a window on preservice teachers’ thought processes.

Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 83± 93.

JAÈ RVINEN, A., KOHONEN, V., NIEMI, H. & OJANEN, S. (1995). Educating critical professionals. Scandina-

vian Journal of Educational Research, 39, 121± 137.

JOHNSTON, S. (1993). Conversations with student teachers Ð enhancing the dialogue of learning toteach. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 71± 82.

KETTLE, B. & SELLARS, N. (1996). The development of student teachers’ practical theory of teaching.

Teaching & Teacher Education, 12, 1± 24.KIVINIEMI, K. (1997). Opettajuuden Oppimisesta Harjoittelun Harhautuksiin [From the Learning of

Teacherhood to the Fabrications of Practice. Adult students’ experiences of teaching practice and

its supervision in class teacher education], JyvaÈ skylaÈ Studies in Education, Psychology and SocialResearch. JyvaÈ skylaÈ : JyvaÈ skylaÈ University.

MCNAMARA, D. (1995). The in¯ uence of student teachers’ tutors and mentors upon their classroom

practice: an exploratory study. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11, 51± 61.PELTOKALLIO, L. (1996). Re¯ ektiivisen ja kriittisen ajattelun kehittyminen fysioterapian opettajankoulu-

tuksessa [Development of re¯ ective and critical thinking in physiotherapy teacher education].

Licentiate thesis, Department of Health Sciences, University of JyvaÈ skylaÈ .SCHOÈ N, D.A. (1987). Educating the Re¯ ective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

SILKELAÈ , R. & VAÈ ISAÈ NEN, P. (1997). Luokanopettajaksi opiskelevien oppimiskaÈ sitykset opintojen eri

vaiheissa [Class teacher degree programme students’ conceptions of learning at different stages oftheir studies]. The Finnish Journal of Education, Kasvatus, 28, 38± 48.

ZEICHNER, K. & LISTON, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to re¯ ect. Harvard Educational Review,

57, 23± 48.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Gaz

i Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

7:44

04

Oct

ober

201

4