This article was downloaded by: [Bibliothèques de l'Université de Montréal]On: 01 December 2014, At: 13:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

The Cooperating Teacher I's: Effective Mid-LessonResponses to Student Teachers' Critical TeachingIncidentsDonna M. Post aa Southern Illinois University , Carbondale , USAPublished online: 03 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Donna M. Post (2007) The Cooperating Teacher I's: Effective Mid-Lesson Responses to StudentTeachers' Critical Teaching Incidents, Action in Teacher Education, 29:1, 61-70, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2007.10463440

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2007.10463440

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, 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 the Content.

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

The Cooperating Teacher I ’s: Effective MidLesson Responses to Student Teachers’ Critical Teaching Incidents Donna M. Post Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

ABSTRACT: When student teachers experience difficulty during lesson implementation, sea- soned cooperating teachers choose among 6 alternative strategies by which to assist. Collec- tively called cooperating teacher I’S, the strategies are as follows: ignore, intervene, interject, interact, interrupt, and intercept. Appropriate use of these strategies can be taught directly or made more explicit to cooperating teachers as a means to facilitate quick resolution of prob- lems; maintenance of student teacher confidence, self-esteem, and classroom authority; coop- erating teacher confidence in the mentor role; and active or passive choices as they may be appropriate to specific circumstances. Included is a brief summary of research about cooper- ating teachers and their feedback practices, a description of behaviors that generally prove to be ineffective in response to these situations, detailed descriptions of the 6 cooperating teacher 1’s that appear to be effective, and a discussion of general observations and implications.

Consider for a moment this common scenario: The student teacher is delivering a lesson carefully developed in collaboration with her cooperating teacher (CT).’ The CT believes that extensive counsel provided during lesson development will ensure the student teacher’s success, and current student teacher behaviors suggest confidence about an ability to imple- ment the lesson exactly as it was planned. Then, suddenly, things begin to go awry. An unexpected student question, an incorrect statement by the student teacher, a misstep in the lesson sequence, escalating student confu- sion, malfunctioning equipment, disruptive student behaviors, or any number of unantici- pated incidents befall, and the lesson begins to disintegrate at alarming speed. Within sec- onds, the CT faces a critical decision point: Is

intervention appropriate at this time? If so, what form should that intervention take?

In teaching, occurrences of this type are called critical incidents (Tripp, 1993) for good reason: If ignored or poorly handled by the stu- dent or CT, actual lesson outcomes nearly al- ways veer away significantly from expected outcomes-sometimes with dangerous conse- quences. Additionally, student teachers may lose face in front of the very individuals they work so diligently to impress. The ideal, of course, is to avoid critical incidents of this type at all cost; the reality is that student teachers face such incidents many times dur- ing their culminating field experience. It is na’ive to expect otherwise because, develop- mentally speaking, learning to teach is akin to learning any other skill: It takes practice; there

Address correspondence to Donna M. Post, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, 625 Wham Drive, Mail Code 4610, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4610. E-mail: dmpost@siu.edu.

Action in Teacher Education Vol. 29, No. 7 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

62 DONNA M. POST

are challenges to overcome; and mistakes are part of the learning process.

Rather than expect student teachers to avoid critical teaching incidents, logic directs C T s and university supervisors toward research findings that explain how best to proceed when such incidents occur. Yet, little is writ- ten about typical CT behaviors during student teachers’ critical incidents, how effectively CT behaviors resolve the lesson (or other) dif- ficulties, or the effects of CT behaviors on pre- service teacher development and sense of effi- cacy at those moments. Research is clear about what happens in the postobservation confer- ence, but what does the teacher do during the crisis? Information presented here begins to tap that area of CT skill and expertise.

The discussion begins with a brief sum- mary of research about C T s and their feedback practices. It continues with a description of several behaviors that generally prove to be ineffective in response to student-teacher crit- ical teaching incidents such as that described earlier. The next section provides detailed de- scriptions of six CT 1’s that appear to be among the more effective strategies that C T s use. The final section discusses implications for student teacher supervision and CT train- ing and support.

Background

Research about C T s is extensive and multifac- eted. Most of it focuses on the significant im- pact that C T s have on preservice teacher de- velopment (Glickman & Bey, 1990; Karmos & Jacko, 1977; Metcalf, 1991; Price, 1961; Seper- son &Joyce, 1973), the characteristics of C T s (Clarke, 2001; Kahn, 2001; Koerner, 1992), the factors to be considered in selecting C T s (Blocker & Swetnam, 1995; Copas, 1994; Tan- nehill & Goc-Karp, 1992), the nature and sig- nificance of the CT role (Aorko & Mayfield, 1995; Drafall & Grant, 1994; Grimmett & Ratzlaff, 1986; Koskela & Ganser, 1998; Sudz- ina & Giebelhaus, 1997; Weasmer & Woods, 2003a, 2003b), the types of training needed by C T s (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002; Kahn, 2001; Ross, 2002; Saras & Post, 2004), the im-

plementation and impact of such training on CT supervisory behavior (Kent, 2001; Killian & McIntyre, 1986; Morehead & Waters, 1987), and the general effectiveness of C T s as student-teaching supervisors (Roberts, 2005; Roberts & Dyer, 2004). Additional research examines C T s ’ attitudes toward their roles, proteges, and respective university supervisors and programs (Justen, 1999; Knudson, 1998); their motivation for acceptance of the CT role (Koerner, 1992; Mitchell & Schwager, 1993); the teaching perspectives that affect CT advi- sory practices (Clarke & Jarvis-Selinger, 2005); the strategies for success in the CT role (Sanderson, n.d.); the impact of CT task state- ments provided during postobservation confer- ences on the outcomes of student teacher les- sons that are retaught (Coulon, 1991, 2000; Coulon & Lorenzo, 2003); and the nature, quantity, and quality of feedback provided dur- ing postobservation/postlesson conferences (Christensen, 1988; Coulon & Byra, 1997; Freiberg & Waxman, 1988; Kahan, 2002; Ka- han, Sinclair, Saucier, & Nguyen Calozzi, 2003; Wilkins-Canter, 1997).

Relatively little research exists about the actions of C T s during a student teacher’s les- son and, especially, in lessons containing one or more critical teaching incidents. What does exist deals primarily with experimental re- search about effects of the “mechanical third ear” or “bug in the ear” device used by Carmen Giebelhaus (1994) and others as a method by which student-teaching supervisors and C T s can provide immediate feedback and com- ment about student teacher lessons (see also, Giebelhaus & Cruz, n.d.; Kahan, 2002). The Giebelhaus research never attempts to de- scribe or classify by nature the feedback pro- vided to student teachers during lesson imple- mentation, nor does it describe or categorize related CT behaviors; emphasis is on the reac- tions of those involved to the technology be- ing tested. Other research initiatives involve C T s ’ use of a thinking-out-loud technique as C T s observe student teacher lessons, after which oral and written recordings of these data are provided to student teachers for lis- tening and discussion purposes; this research suggests that CTs focus on management and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Cooperating Teacher 1’s 63

presentation of subject-matter teaching be- haviors and provide more positive than cor- rective feedback (Kahan, 1999; Kahan et al., 2003). Indeed, new information presented here fails to add to this research base because it relies solely on extensive observation and experience rather than formal research. Its merit lies in hypotheses resulting from the question, what observations can be made about CT feedback to student teachers given critical incidents similar to the one described in the aforementioned scenario?

The Inexperienced or Ineffective CT Response: Show Concern but Refrain From Action

Given the same critical teaching incident, ex- perienced C T s tend to respond more quickly and more effectively than do novice C T s . A good explanation for this arises from common sense: The experienced CT is likely to have encountered the situation before, whereas the novice CT has not. Thus, the experienced CT has had time to reflect and to hone relevant supervisory skills. Those who lack experience find themselves in the position of needing to make an immediate response but without suffi- cient time for reflection about what to do. If an action is taken before reflection can occur, a disaster might result. Conversely, if the teacher takes adequate time to reflect, another type of disaster is possible, or a snowballing effect may result. In the end, the CT is faced with what is commonly termed the h m of a dilemma. That is, she clearly has choices, but all of them come with associated consequences.

Speaking from extensive experience as a full-time university supervisor, I can say that this is what an ineffective response might look like when the supervisor is present in the room. First, the CT will wince and cast a quick glance to the rear of the room in an effort to discern whether the university supervisor per- ceived the critical situation. She will feel some level of failure and assume that the student teacher’s performance reflects poorly on her fitness for the mentor role. There will be em-

pathy for the student teacher, manifested through body language and a perceivable men- tal search for ways to defend or rescue. Yet, the CT will hesitate to follow through because of the supervisor’s presence or because interven- tion may add to the student teacher’s distress, make the problem more explicit, or reveal an underlying concern about the student teacher’s skill in managing the crisis herself. Perhaps, the CT will attempt (with furtive eye contact) to help the student teacher identify a solution, but this course of action is unlikely to result in an effective resolution. Drawing from limited experience in the CT role, she may wait too long and thus miss her opportunity to assist the struggling student teacher, or she may do something that usually works for her and cre- ate additional problems. She may be reluctant to initiate any action, however perfect, if she fears it may be perceived as interference with the university supervisor’s role. Ultimately, her decision will hinge on what the university su- pervisor might think and on the consequences associated with that circumstance, rather than on helping the student teacher successfully maneuver a quagmire.

Given what research demonstrates regard- ing teacher development over the span of a ca- reer (e.g., Fuller, 1969; Reiman & Thies- Sprinthall, 1998), this is not surprising. As the university supervisor watching this occur, however, one has two options: The first is to anticipate that more experience will cause the CT to become better at her task. The second is to draw on research about the nature of teacher development (Ekxko, 2004; Caruso, 2000; Fuller, 1969) and take the time to ex- plore applications of effective CT 1’s that will equip C T s with the skills that they need to be effective, beginning with the first critical stu- dent-teaching incident that they encounter. In just a few moments of interaction with the CT, it is possible for university supervisors to extin- guish tendencies toward less effective CT be- haviors-for example, to interfere, interrogate, impeach, impugn, impede, and insult (Post, 2000, as cited in Henry, Beasley, & Brighton, 2002)-in favor of six highly effective, easy- to-implement, and easy-to-remember behav- iors, described in detail here (see Table 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

64 DONNA M. POST

Table 1. Effective 1’s Versus Ineffective 1’s

Effective 1’s

Ignore Intervene Interject Interact Interrupt Intercept

Ineffective I B

Interfere Interrogate Impeach Impugn Impede Insult

The Experienced CT Response: Choose Among Six Alternatives and Act Accordingly

CTs with more experience in the mentor role exhibit significantly less anxiety about the sit- uation unfolding before them and nearly al- ways make immediate decisions about how to proceed, by choosing among six alternatives that constitute the CT Is. O n l y one of the 1’s-ignore-is passive, and it represents the lowest level of intrusion into the student teacher’s task. The remaining five behaviors are best characterized as active and occur im- mediately after a problem becomes clear to the CT, whether a university supervisor is present in the room or not. In order from lowest level of intrusion to highest, the additional five are as follows: intervene, interject, interact, inter- rupt, and intercept. O n examination, it be- comes clear that these behaviors demonstrate a higher level of competence among CTs, a characterization that leads naturally to the as- sumption that such behaviors reflect higher stages of professional development and reflec- tion. Each of the six is described here, with il- lustrations from observations of critical stu- dent teaching incidents.

ignore

CTs may choose to ignore problems that occur during a student teacher’s lesson. By defini- tion, this choice requires no response from a CT at the time a problem occurs. To ignore, however, is rarely to forget.2 Here a CT con- siders immediacy and determines that if the problem can be rectified without significant harm to students at a time after the lesson ends, it is probably wiser to refrain from any

action that would threaten the student teacher’s confidence or developing authority over students. The choice is to delay action until a convenient time for discussion with the student teacher, but to label the action “delay” misses another important characteristic of this choice: Often, the CT does not want her stu- dents to become aware that she has noted the problem, for their knowing might force action at a time when she chooses to refrain. She thus pretends it never occurred.

A CT might choose to ignore a mis- spelled word that her student teacher writes on the chalkboard if students already know how to spell the word or if the error is one that students will attribute to student teacher nervousness. A CT might choose to ignore a missed step in a process if the error will not significantly affect lesson outcomes. If the student teacher utters a blatant grammatical error, the CT may ignore it rather than em- barrass her protege by making a correction in front of students. O n other occasions, she might choose to ignore the student teacher’s slow pace, zany comment, disorganization, mispronounced technical term, or misaligned assessment strategy.

It is more often a secondary-level CT who makes this choice, and the choice is gen- erally made because CTs are conscious of the student teachers’ need to be perceived as au- thority figures by students. In choosing to ig- nore the situation, the CT sends a message to students that the student teacher, not the CT, is in charge. There are times, too, when a lesson ends before a CT has time to re- spond; this, by default, becomes an ignore sit- uation. Among experienced CTs, the ignore is a reasoned choice; for those less experi- enced, an ignore may occur because of inde- cision or prolonged hesitation.

Intervene

Sometimes, a CT will choose to resolve the problem herself rather than direct or wait for the student teacher to do so. This is a choice to intervene. When it occurs, the student teacher continues to teach, generally without being aware of her CT’s actions, and the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Cooperating Teacher 1’s 65

problem is resolved for her. At other times, the student teacher may be aware of the problem but not experienced enough to re- solve it. In that case, a CT’s choice to inter- vene allows her to model strategies that work while students remain unaware that she is as- sisting an unskilled student teacher. It is im- portant to note that an intervene is distinct from an interference. An intervene occurs ei- ther because it has been determined the ac- tion definitely will not interfere or because the CT possesses knowledge or skills that her student teacher lacks. In general, astute C T s choose not to intervene unless they feel con- fident that such actions will be appreciated or will go unnoticed by their prot6g6s.

C T s use the intervene to resolve discipline problems that a student teacher overlooks, to correct spelling or grammatical errors in work that student teachers display for students, to turn off Bunsen burners left aflame after sci- ence demonstrations, to put away overhead projectors blocking student vision, and so on. Safety concerns recurrently trigger the inter- vene, but many types of problems are resolved in this manner. Key to this action is the C T ’ s attempt to resolve an issue with minimal fuss and without disruption to the pace or flow of a student teacher’s lesson.

Interject

A third action that C T s use is called an inter- ject. To interject is to jump in with a quick comment delivered in staccato rhythm, some- times as a voice-over to words uttered by the student teacher and sometimes as filler for a pause during student and teacher interaction. Two characteristics distinguish an interject from an interrupt or interact. One is that it fails to stop the flow of a lesson, even briefly. In fact, it occurs so quickly that the student teacher may not realize what happened until several seconds later. The other is that an in- terject is never a complete sentence and may not be a phrase. Similar to the interjection that we know as a part of speech in the En- glish language, the CT interject expresses emotion or it commands attention in a single word or simple phrase delivered with audible

force. Although there is some degree of dis- ruption to the student teacher’s lesson, it is so small as to be quickly forgotten by both stu- dents and prot6g6.

A CT may choose to say the word Oops! when her prot6g6 begins to take the opposite direction from that which was planned for a lesson. In this case, the Oops! serves as a cue that the student teacher just made a mistake and should quickly correct it. Or a CT may use a louder volume to voice a word that the stu- dent teacher is pronouncing incorrectly-for example, saying whinnying when the student teacher repeatedly uses the word whining in a children’s story about animal sounds. Often, a CT simply fills in the blank as a student teacher grapples for the appropriate word to explain her meaning; this might be the case if a student teacher is trying to define a techni- cal word using vocabulary that students at a particular grade level could comprehend. To interject is to jump into and out of the flow of the lesson so quickly that the C T ’ s vocaliza- tion, in hindsight, seems to have been uttered instead by the student teacher.

Interact

Perhaps the most common CT decision is to interact. This is accomplished verbally or non- verbally, through whispers and notes or through body language and signals. When done orally, an interact is always delivered in sotto voice or a whisper during a natural or forced lull in instruction. The choice may de- mand anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds of the student teacher’s attention, but it seldom dis- rupts the flow of a lesson for any measurable period. Essentially, what happens is that either the CT tells her student teacher what to no- tice or do next, or she asks directed questions to help the prot6gC draw her own conclusions about how to proceed. An interact is not a dis- cussion and should not become one. It is a brief redirect of student teacher action or thinking, intended to get a lesson back on track with expedience; it is used liberally be- cause many student teacher lessons need only a bit of fine-tuning to reverse a downward spi- ral. The interact is to student teaching what

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

66 DONNA M. POST

the aside is to stage performance; it is just as brief and just as critical to current conditions. A distinguishing difference is that a student teacher’s audience may or may not hear the in- teract, whereas a performer’s audience always hears an aside.

To interact, CTs use sticky notes, scraps of paper, preestablished or self-explanatory sig- nals, or short sentences to tell student teachers when to get students ready for recess, proceed to the science lesson, or distribute independ- ent practice materials. The interaction may fo- cus student teacher attention on cheating in- cidents during a test, a person asleep in the third row, or the fact that a fire drill will occur at 2:30. Although students in a classroom may hear the interact, it is not intended for them and generally does not directly change their immediate behaviors. As such, it becomes a minor disruption of a student teacher activity, not a classroom student activity.

Interrupt

At times, CTs find that they need to interrupt. This choice occurs when a CT may need to in- form both the student teacher and her stu- dents about some important point, procedure, rule, emergency, or other phenomenon that must be communicated immediately. An in- terrupt is not to be confused with an interact, for the interact occurs in a whisper or in sotto voice during a brief lull in instruction. The in- terrupt, by contrast, is highly visible and audi- ble to students and the student teacher; it may cause a pronounced change in classroom events. Further, an interrupt may break the flow of a lesson for brief periods (a minute or so) to as much as 2 weeks (until the next class, next computer lab day, etc.), but the student teacher always returns to complete the lesson at some later time, generally with noticeably improved focus and clarity. The interrupt is longer than an interact, and it affects both stu- dent and student teacher behaviors.

CTs interrupt to remind students and stu- dent teachers of a classroom rule, explain what is causing students and the student teacher to be confused, provide an example that would

benefit students and the student teacher, tell students and the student teacher that the stu- dent teacher forgot to write an important pro- cedural step on the board, or handle from a whole-class stance a recurrent and disruptive student behavior pattern. This CT behavior never goes without notice by students or stu- dent teachers. In that regard, it is a fairly sig- nificant disruption in the flow of a lesson.

Intercept

When a CT decides to intercept, she decides to take over the lesson and bring it to closure herself, much as a football player steals the ball from another player during an important game and moves it closer to a different goal line. In both cases, the intercept is a reasoned strategy undertaken for valid reasons, essentially to ad- vance more expeditiously toward a critical goal. A distinguishing characteristic is that the football player who intercepts a ball does so to advance his own team’s cause at the expense of another, whereas in teaching, a CT and stu- dent teacher are essentially on the same team and pursuing a shared goal. Furthermore, an intercept in football is never prearranged with another player, whereas a CT intercept may or may not be preplanned.

A CT chooses to intercept when the class is out of control and her student teacher lacks the necessary skills to reestablish authority; when she wishes to model an alternative teaching method to that being applied inap- propriately by the student teacher; when the student teacher becomes so nervous or ill that she is unable to proceed; when the student teacher has droned on and on and seems des- tined to do so forever; or when the student teacher is not well prepared for the lesson and that fact is clearly evident to both students and the CT. This is the most intrusive of all CT behaviors and often leaves the student teacher feeling disappointed in her own per- formance or lack of skill. In an intercept situ- ation, a student teacher’s involvement with the lesson always concludes at or in close proximity to the moment during which the in- tercept begins.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Cooperating Teacher 1’s 67

General Observations Regarding dent teachers and contribute to perceptions of C T s as significant others during the student- teaching experience (Karmos & Jacko, 1977). Use of the CT 1’s

Although all decisions involving the CT 1’s are made shortly after perception of a problem, each behavior (except the ignore) facilitates an immediate adjustment to student teacher behavior. This results in a highly effective and relatively painless correction that resolves the problem before much damage can occur. Addi- tionally, C T s appear to consider one or two al- ternatives before settling on any single action. When possible, they appear to choose the less intrusive behavior over other alternatives.

C T s sometimes use a combination of ac- tions before achieving satisfaction about out- comes. Although it is not always the case, ex- perienced C T s tend to implement progressively more intrusive behaviors until, as a last resort, they find that they have no remaining alterna- tive but to intercept. This suggests that they are less stressed by or more confident about the student teacher’s ability to bring the lesson back on track than are less experienced C T s .

Several contextual variables appear to af- fect CT decisions. Among them are student teacher age and skill, age of the classroom stu- dents, CT gender and experience, severity of the problem, and number of times that a par- ticular student teacher’s behavior has been corrected by CT action. In addition, what constitutes a problem appears to vary by con- text and by individual CT.

Discussion

Personal observations reported here suggest that actions that experienced CTs employ to resolve the lesson implementation problems of student teachers are effective in several ways. First, they are quick. They occur before signif- icant damage can be done to students or to student teachers’ egos, and they manage to redirect the student teachers’ actions with suf- ficient expedience and sensitivity to allow achievement of the lesson’s terminal objec- tive. Apparently, they are comfortable for stu-

~.

Second, the behaviors sometimes occur in hierarchical succession. Having choices allows a CT to select actions by their levels of intru- siveness and facilitates reasoned rather than emotional alternatives, the importance of which is revealed in Pitton (1998). However, with the exception of ignore (do nothing) and intercept (do everything), the order of behav- iors used in succession seems not to be a criti- cal consideration.

Third, any behavior except an intercept can be used multiple times in a single lesson. Especially at the beginning of a semester, when student teachers commonly lack ade- quate skills to manage all that good teaching requires, two or more instances of the same CT I might become necessary during a lesson’s implementation. That is, one might observe a pattern of ignore, ignore, ignore and then in- teract, interact, interject before the CT ob- tains consistent performance of the behaviors targeted for adjustment or extinction. As stu- dent teachers traverse stages of concern, illu- minated in research by Fuller (1969) and Reiman and Thies-Sprinthall (1998), CT as- sistance becomes less persistent, less necessary, and less frequent.

Fourth, CT 1’s have utility, not only when student teachers experience lesson difficul- ties, but also at any time that a CT senses the need to guide student teacher decisions. Fur- thermore, their frequent use at times other than during a student teaching wobble will greatly reduce emotional reactions that stu- dent teachers tend to exhibit after critical in- cidents handled less skillfully by their C T s or themselves.

Fifth, the actions described appear to be natural for C T s , who use many of the same in- terventionist/interactionalist behaviors to re- solve problems with classroom student behav- iors (Levin & Nolan, 1991). Although C T s are sometimes only slightly cognizant of the tools that they use or the varying levels of in- trusiveness among them, once they are dis- criminated and labeled in some logical and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

68 DONNA M. POST

comprehensible way, C T s use them with in- creasing confidence and frequency and with enhanced feelings of competence for the CT role. As mentoring tools, the CT 1’s are consis- tent with guidelines published in Quality Men- toring for Novice Teachers (Odell & Huling, 2000), and they give C T s a sense of pride when they can be used for deliberate-and fairly consistent-ffect.

Implications

After direct instruction about the CT I’s, CTs claim that they become more deliberate in their use, more confident about using them when visitors are present in the room, and more reflective about differing effects of expe- rienced versus inexperienced CT strategies. Perhaps more important, student teachers be- come more comfortable with their C T s ’ be- haviors because the possibility of CT assis- tance in this way is more apt to have been discussed during the first few days of student teaching. C T s will often describe the 1’s to their prottges, explain how or when they might be used during student teacher lessons in a specific classroom and context, and offer suggestions about how to respond should the CT take action.

Still, a few cautionary statements seem prudent: Be ever aware that CT 1’s may stifle, to some extent, certain reflective teacher be- haviors promoted by many teacher education programs. The fact that CT 1’s are quick reme- dies to problems-and that problems, once re- solved, seem relatively unimportant-is a dan- ger that must be guarded against in helping student teachers become reflective practition- ers. The postobservation conference remains critical in student teacher professional devel- opment, and the reason for use of any CT 1’s should be addressed explicitly during feedback conferences.

Further, all university supervisors should be encouraged to watch for CT 1’s and teach them directly to C T s who may not know of their existence. Knowledge of these behaviors makes a difference for CTs , for the student teachers they mentor, and for success of the

teacher education programs where the CT 1’s are embraced and encouraged. C T s need and actively seek simple strategies that make their supervisory tasks more enjoyable and signifi- cant. The CT I’s, by their very simplicity and ease of implementation, provide quick and re- liable guidance about how to perform effec- tively in the CT role. Although the CT 1’s seem to many to be common sense (on seeing or hearing them described in detail), the set of behaviors is not all that common across CT ranks, and further, C T s who frequently use one or all of the behaviors in their supervisory practice almost unanimously fail to recognize their actions as falling into a mere six cate- gories, to perceive them as a hierarchical in level of intrusion, to articulate situations and decisions that undergird their use, or to men- tor fellow C T s regarding their existence or utility. That task falls to the university super- visor focused on helping C T s perform more ef- fectively in their supervisory roles.

Notes

1. Although the feminine pronoun is used throughout when referring to students, teach- ers, and supervisors, I acknowledge that persons of either gender assume the roles described.

2. In the rare instance when ignore means “never mention it to the student teacher,” the cooperating teacher is often feeling sufficient anger, frustration, or emotion to warrant a choice to say or do nothing. Rarely does a coop- erating teacher truly forget to mention a prob- lem affecting outcomes in his or her classroom.

References

Blocker, S. L., & Swetnam, L. A. (1995) The se- lection and evaluation of co-operating teach- ers: A status report. Teacher Educator, 30(3), 19-30.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educa- tional Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The role of the cooperating teacher and university supervisor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Cooperating Teacher 1’s 69

in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Edu-

Caruso, J. J. (2000). Cooperating teacher and stu- dent teacher phases of development. Young Children, 55( l), 75-81.

Christensen, P. S. (1988). The nature of feedback student teachers receive in post-observation conferences with the university supervisor: A comparison with O’Neal’s study of cooperating teacher feedback. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

Clarke, A. (2001). Characteristics of co-operating teachers. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(2),

Clarke, A., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. (2005). What the teaching perspectives of cooperating teachers tell us about their advisory practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21 (l), 65-78.

Copas, E. M. (1994). Critical requirements for co- operating teachers. Journal of Teacher Educa- tion, 35(6), 49-54.

Coulon, S. C. (1991). The effects of self-instruc- tional modules on the task statements of coop- erating teachers. Education, 1 11 (3), 325-338.

Coulon, S. C. (2000). The impact of cooperating teachers’ task statements on student teachers’ pedagogical behaviors. CoUege Student J o d , 34(2), 284-298.

Coulon, S. C., & Byra, M. (1997). Investigating post-lesson dialogue of cooperating teachers and student teachers. Physical Educator, 54( 11, 2-10.

Coulon, S. C., & Lorenzo, D. C. (2003). The ef- fects of supervisory task statements on preser- vice teachers’ instructional behaviors during retaught lessons. Education, 124(1), 181-193.

Drafall, L. E., & Grant, J. W. (1994). Improving communication with student teachers. Music

Freiberg, H. J., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). Alterna- tive feedback approaches for improving stu- dent teachers’ classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 8-14.

Fuller, E (1969). Concerns of teachers: A devel- opmental conceptualization. American Educa- tional Research Journal, 6, 207-226.

Giebelhaus, C. R. (1994). The mechanical third ear device: A student teaching supervision al- ternative. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5),

Giebelhaus, C., & Bowman, C. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort? Journal of Edu- cational Research, 95(4), 246-255.

cation, 1 1 , 501-518.

tion, 4(3), 275-286.

237-256.

EducatmsJournal, 81(1), 35-38.

365-373.

Giebelhaus, C. R., & Cruz, J., J . (n.d.). The me- chanical third ear device: An alternative to tradi- tional student teaching supervision strategies. Re- trieved February 23, 2007, from http://www .iacd.oas.org/La%20Euca%20117/gielbe.htm

Glickman, C. D., & Bey, T. M. (1990). Supervi- sion. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of re- search on teacher education (pp. 549-566). New York: Macmillan.

Grimmett, P. P., & Ratzlaff, H. C. (1986). Expecta- tions for the cooperating teacher role. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 41-50.

Henry, M. A., Beasley, W. W., & Brighton, K. L. (2002). Supervising student teachers: The profes- sional way (6th ed.). Terre Haute, IN: Sycamore Press.

Justen, J. E., 111. (1999). Supervisory beliefs of coop- erating teachers. Teacher Educator, 34(3), 173.

Kahan, D. (1999). Characteristics of and explana- tions for cooperating teachers’ immediate su- pervisory comments: A pilot study using the thinking-out-loud technique. Physical Educa- tor, 56,126-137.

Kahan, D. (2002). The effects of a bug-in-the-ear device on intralesson communication between a student teacher and a cooperating teacher. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22( l), 86104.

Kahan, D., Sinclair, C., Saucier, L., Jr., & Nguyen Calozzi, N. (2003). Feedback profiles of coop- erating teachers supervising the same student teacher. Physical Educator, 60(4), 180-193.

Kahn, B. (2001). Portrait of success: Cooperating teachers and the student teaching experience. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 48-58.

Karmos, A. H., & Jacko, C. M. (1977). The role of the significant other during the student teach- ing experience. Journal of Teacher Education,

Kent, S. I. (2001). Supervision of student teachers: Practices of cooperating teachers prepared in a clinical supervision course. Journal of Curricu- lum and Superuision, 16(3), 228-244.

Killian, J. E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1986). Quality in early field experiences: A product of grade level and cooperating teachers’ training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(4), 367-376.

Knudson, R. E. (1998). Secondary student teach- ing and the supervised experience. High School Journal, 82( l), 49-60.

Koerner, M. E. (1992). The cooperating teacher: Ambivalent participant in student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 46-56.

28(5), 51-55.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

70 DONNA M. POST

Koskela, R., & Ganser, T. (1998). The cooperating teacher role and career development. Educa-

Levin, J., & Nolan, J. F. (1991). Principles of class- room management: A hierarchical approuch. En- glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Metcalf, K. K. (1991). The supervision of student teaching: A review of research. Teacher Educa- tor, 26(4), 2 7 4 2 .

Mitchell, M. E, & Schwager, S. (1993). Improving the student teaching experience. Physical Edu- cator, 50( l) , 31-38.

Morehead, M. A., & Waters, S. (1987). Enhancing collegiality: A model for training cooperating teachers. Teacher Educator, 23( 2), 28-3 1.

Odell, S. I., & Huling, L. (2000). Quality mentoring fur novice teachers. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.

Pitton, D. E. (1998). Stories of student teaching: A case approach to the student teaching experience. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Post, D. M. (2000, February). When the student teacher’s lesson is going down the drain: Empow- ering cooperating teachers with a toolbox full of I’s. Paper presented at the national confer- ence of the Association of Teacher Educators, Orlando, FL.

Price, R. (1961). The influence of supervising teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 12( I), 471475.

Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Men- toring and supervision for teacher development. New York: Longman.

Roberts, T. G. (2005). Developing a model of cooper- ating teacher effectiveness. Paper presented a t the annual conference of the American Asso- ciation of Agricultural Education, San Anto- nio, TX. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://aaae.okstate.edu/proceedings/2OO5/ Articlesl297.pdf

Roberts, T. G., & Dyer, J. E. (2004, February). Stu- dent teacher perceptions of the charactenstics of ef- fective cooperating teachers: A delphi study. Paper presented at the Southern Agriculture Educa- tional Research Conference, Tulsa, OK.

Ross, D. L. (2002). Cooperating teachers facilitat- ing reflective practice for student teachers in a

tion, 1 19( l ) , 106-1 16.

professional development school. Education, 122(4), 682-687.

Sanderson, D. R. (n.d.). Maximizing the student teaching experience: Cooperating teachers share strategies fur success. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol72003/ sanderson.pdf

Saras, L. J., & Post, D. M. (2004). Supervisory re- sponses to critical teaching incidents during speech-language therapy. Clinical Supervisor, 23( l ) , 121-137.

Seperson, M., &Joyce, B. (1973). Teaching style of student teachers as related to those of their co- operating teachers. Educational Leadership, 31(1), 146-151.

Sudzina, M. R., & Giebelhaus, C. R. (1997, Win- ter). Mentor or tormentor: The role of the co- operating teacher in student teacher success or failure. Action in Teacher Education, 18, 23-35.

Tannehill, D., & Goc-Karp, G. (1992). The stu- dent teaching practicum: Placement trends and issues. Physical Educator, 49( l ) , 3948 .

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Deuel- oping professional judgment. London: Routledge.

Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. M. (2003a). Mentoring: Professional development through reflection. Teacher Educator, 39( l ) , 64-77.

Weasmer, J., &Woods, A. M. (2003b). The role of the host teacher in the student teaching expe- rience. Clearing House, 76(4), 174-177.

Wilkins-Canter, E. A. (1997). The nature and ef- fectiveness of feedback given by cooperating teachers to student teachers. Teacher Educator, 32(4), 235-250.

9 9 9

Donna M. Post is an associate professor of graduate and undergraduate teacher educa- tion and the coordinator of the master of arts in teaching program at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Her research inter- ests include preservice and in-service teacher supervision, metaphors of teaching, and teacher cognition.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bib

lioth

èque

s de

l'U

nive

rsité

de

Mon

tréa

l] a

t 13:

56 0

1 D

ecem

ber

2014