Background of the Study

The student teaching experience has been an integral part of teacher preparation for many years. Student teaching is pivotal as the primary opportunity for pre-service teachers to link theory and practice, yet it may also represent missed opportunities (Levine, 2011). As Darling-Hammond (2006) suggests, “It is impossible to teach people how to teach powerfully by asking them to imagine what they have never seen or to suggest they do the opposite of what they have observed in the class room” (p. 308). Thus, teacher educators must continually examine their assumptions, values, and practices; the relationship between these variables; and their commitment to the highest-quality teacher preparation (Sumsion & Patterson, 2004).

As part of this continual query process, this study explored whether there are missed opportunities to clarify expectations for collaboration and to cultivate practices that support collaboration within the student teaching/mentoring experience. The study was based on the perceptions of university supervisors (hired by the university to supervise the student teaching experience) regarding the collaboration of cooperating teachers within the student teaching/mentoring experience. As stated by Levine (2011), “If effective mentoring must honor the idiosyncratic and deeply personal nature of human growth and development, then supervisors should be the ideal candidates within a teacher education program to know and address specific student teachers’ idiosyncratic behaviors, beliefs and needs” (p. 930).

 

Role of Expectations in Fostering Collaboration 

Research regarding expectations is well established in the social sciences. In fact, some of the best known research on expectations relates to the effect of classroom teachers’ expectations on student performance. Regarding the general relationship between teachers and students, educators have known for decades that teacher expectations in the classroom setting can influence the behavior of students. This influence of expectations holds true regarding the influence of expectations for relationships in other areas as well (Manolis, Harris, & Whittler, 1998; Rosenthal, 1994).  

In a relationship setting it is, in fact, the expectations held by the people in the relationship that determine the behavior that will be displayed in that relationship. People in a relationship will change their behaviors to meet the expectations of the other person (Copeland, 1993; Young, 2007). Because expectations are, in a sense, the building blocks for a successful relationship, they have the potential to affect the quality of the work that is produced through the relationship (Taris, Feij, & Capel, 2006).

One of the key factors involving how expectations affect a relationship is alignment. When the expectations of the persons in a relationship are not aligned, a strong and productive relationship is not likely to develop, and the people in the relationship are not as likely to find the relationship to be a rewarding experience (Irving & Montes, 2009). A lack of alignment in expectations might include the setting for the collaboration, specific details of the collaboration, and/or the various knowledge levels of the persons involved (Naismith, Lee, & Pilkington, 2011).

 

Role of Collaboration in Teacher Preparation

Collaboration is here to stay, and university supervisors have a role to play given their positions as mediators between schools and university faculties of education (Hulme, Baumfield, & Payne, 2009). The critical importance of collaboration in teacher preparation has recently been articulated in Standard #10 — “Leadership and Collaboration of the Model Core Teaching Standards” — recently developed by the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) (Hill, Stumbo, Paliokas, Hansen, & McWalters, 2010). The standard states: “The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession” (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2011, p. 19). Under this standard, a core competency in teaching is being able to collaborate in decision making — whether for developing a common purpose and goals or for developing, monitoring, and adjusting instruction “for each student’s learning” (CCSSO, 2011, p. 19).

The inclusion of collaboration within the InTASC standards supports the notion that the need for teachers to collaborate is growing (Hindin, Morocco, Mott, & Aguilar, 2007). This need for collaboration is fueled by the belief that collaboration is a necessary component of the professional growth needed to develop the innovative approaches to learning that are needed to close the achievement gap in student learning (Wackerhausen, 2009). As a specific example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 has mandated that special education teachers and general education teachers collaborate to develop programs that include all students in the mastery of the highest learning standards (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009). General education teachers who utilize strategies acquired in collaboration with special education teachers benefit in multiple areas of instruction, including pedagogy, classroom management, curricula, and assessment (Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006).

As teacher preparation institutions seek to implement InTASC Standard #10, the pre-eminent role of the cooperating teacher must be acknowledged (Parker, Allen, Alvarez-McHatton, & Rosa, 2010). Thus, research is needed to at least initially identify expectations regarding the various roles of the cooperating teacher. The cooperating teacher, the university supervisor, and the student teacher must clearly understand these expectations. This understanding can provide the baseline data for a dialogue that can lead to the conscious modeling of collaboration over the course of the student teaching experience. The focus of this study was on one aspect of this process: the expectations of the university supervisor for the role of the cooperating teacher.

 

Method

For this qualitative study, data were collected in three phases from university supervisors. The first phase utilized a focus group. The second phase consisted of follow-up structured written interviews. Then a final round of surveys was used to determine the coding structure for analyzing alignment of the data collected with InTASC standards.

 

Phase One: Focus Group

Voluntary participants for a focus group were recruited from a convenience sample consisting of university supervisors associated with the college of education of a large public university. The university supervisors were primarily adjunct faculty who were retired elementary teachers. Fourteen participants were recruited using e-mail invitations and personal interactions during professional development training, seminars, or university supervisor meetings. As shown in Figure 1, the focus group participants were asked questions related to the student teaching experience and their expectations for students and cooperating teachers.

Figure 1. Focus Group Questions

Introductory

• Please share some experiences you’ve had as a university supervisor.

Cooperating Teacher-Focused Questions

• What outstanding attribute(s) would you want in a cooperating teacher?
• What are some strengths of cooperating teachers, as well as areas to improve, expectations, etc.?
• What qualities do you look for in a cooperating teacher/what makes a good cooperating teacher?

Student Teacher-Focused Questions

• What outstanding attribute(s) would you want in a student teacher?
• What are some strengths of student teachers, as well as areas to improve?
• What do you look for in a good student teacher?

 

Phase Two: Follow-up Structured Interviews

The structured written interviews that followed the focus group were conducted with the same 14 participants. Figure 2 contains the questions asked of the participants.

Figure 2. Structured Written Interview Questions

• Based on your experiences as a university supervisor, what encourages collaborative teaching between cooperating teachers and student teachers in a classroom setting?
• Based on your experiences as a university supervisor, what discourages collaborative teaching between cooperating teachers and student teachers in a classroom setting?
• Based on your experiences as a university supervisor, when observing collaborative teaching, please describe a highly collaborative classroom setting.
• Based on your experiences as a university supervisor, what strategies (if any) have you found effective in encouraging collaborative teaching between cooperating teachers and student teachers in a classroom setting?

 

Phase Three: Survey to Develop the Coding Structure

Results for the focus group and the structured written interviews were transcribed using QSR’s NVivo software (NVivo, 2006). To develop the coding used in the data analysis, each of the 14 participants was administered an online survey rating 26 InTASC indicators. These indicators were identified by the research investigators based on their alignment with research questions investigating collaborative practices in a student teaching classroom. A four-point Likert scale was utilized for the survey; response choices included “very important,” “important,” “somewhat important,” and “not important.” The university supervisors rated each indicator according to their perceived importance to the collaborative nature necessary within the student teaching environment.

Survey results from the university supervisors were then analyzed. Nine indicators were identified as being “very important” according to 80% of the supervisors’ responses, with 0% indicating disagreement.

Transcripts were then independently coded by the two primary researchers (L.M. and D.B.) and a research assistant. The researchers adhered to a single code process to avoid cross-coding content. Multiple meetings prior to coding established a common understanding and definition for each indicator. Coding results were analyzed using QSR’s NVivo software, and content coding agreement was found to be above 80% for all researchers. Seventeen indicators were ultimately excluded from the coding framework for lower degrees of agreement. The researchers reviewed the focus group transcript and coded supervisor responses according to the subjects’ alignment with the nine indicators identified as very important to collaborative practices.

The NVivo software analysis of coding agreement and intersection codes revealed three patterns from which the researchers extracted practices and expectations that supervisors perceived to be important in establishing a collaborative environment within the student teaching experience. The nine InTASC standards-based indicators that were utilized as the coding criteria are listed in Figure 3.

Figure 3. InTASC Standards-Based Indicators

The nine (9) InTASC indicators identified by participating university supervisors as “very important” to collaborative practice within a student teacher classroom environment.

• 3a. The teacher collaborates with learners, families, and colleagues to build a safe, positive learning climate of openness, mutual respect, support, and inquiry.
• 3c. The teacher collaborates with learners and colleagues to develop shared values and expectations for respectful interactions, rigorous academic discussions, and individual and group responsibility for quality work.
• 3j. The teacher knows how to help learners work productively and cooperatively with each other to achieve learning goals.
• 3k. The teacher knows how to collaborate with learners to establish and monitor elements of a safe and productive learning environment including norms, expectations, routines, and organizational structures.
• 6s. The teacher is committed to providing timely and effective descriptive feedback to learners on their progress.
• 7a. The teacher individually and collaboratively selects and creates learning experiences that are appropriate for curriculum goals and content standards, and are relevant to learners.
• 7m. The teacher knows when and how to access resources and collaborate with others to support student learning (e.g., special educators, related service providers, language learner specialists, librarians, media specialists, community organizations).
• 10n. The teacher knows how to work with other adults and has developed skills in collaborative interaction appropriate for both face-to-face and virtual contexts.
• 10r. The teacher takes initiative to grow and develop with colleagues through interactions that enhance practice and support student learning.

 

Discussion

Three themes, drawn from the InTASC standards indicated in Figure 3 and incorporating a range of practices, emerged from this study that surveyed university supervisor expectations of cooperating teachers for collaboration in the student teaching mentoring experience. These themes were learning environments, professional dispositions, and assessment practices. The quoted comments below, gathered from a variety of university supervisors, offer insight into each of the themes.

 

Learning Environments

This theme was characterized by these comments:

• “… treated as an equal, as a team teacher, as someone who is going to be trusted just like everyone else who is going to be in charge of this classroom and not as a peon.”
• “Ideal classrooms don’t exist, and that you’re really going to have to understand that children still need us to guide and open doors and correct, whatever the setting.”
• “Accept the situation as not as ideal as what they thought it was going to be, and you don’t limit your efforts because of the situation.”
• “Be willing to take a risk on their students to ‘let go’ and let them teach, fail in some cases, and help to pick themselves back up.”

 

Professional Dispositions

This theme was characterized by these comments:

• “Somebody who will accept the ST [student teacher] for what they bring to the situation.”
• “Both teachers did follow what’s in the book, but one shared with a ST all the extra interesting personalized things that really connected with children’s lives.”
• “Teachers embracing and guiding students by providing excellent mentoring.”
• “A willingness to sincerely listen to advice and suggestions for improvement.”

 

Assessment Practices

This theme was characterized by these comments:

• “There has to be a conversation that says ‘yes, you are doing extraordinarily well and here are your potential growth areas.’ And keep an eye on those areas.”
• “Some CTs [cooperating teachers] have been real critical because they’ve identified certain personalities or abilities quickly, and I have to remind them that we all learn to teach by teaching.”
• Regular ongoing communication for expectations, requirements, and concerns helps greatly in encouraging a positive productive ST experience.”

 

Conclusion

With reference to the InTASC standards, our findings suggest that a focus on learning environments, professional dispositions, and assessment practices — combined with monitoring on the part of university supervisors — provides a framework for the development of collaboration as part of the student teaching experience. The findings related to university supervisors will be followed by additional research to gain insight into the expectations that the cooperating teacher and the student teacher hold for the development of collaboration as part of the student teaching experience. After these studies are complete, the final framework for the development of collaboration will be shared with the university supervisors, student teachers, and cooperating teachers associated with the researchers’ college of education prior to the student teaching experience. The framework will also become part of the curriculum in student teaching seminars.

Future teachers leaving teacher preparation with both the skills and the dispositions needed to function purposefully and effectively in the collaborative classroom have the potential to improve learning outcomes (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999) and increase student learning, social skills, self-esteem, and attitudes toward others (Lei, Kuestermeyer, Bailey, & Westmeyer, 2010).

 

REFERENCES

Brownell, M. T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., Waldron, N., & Vanhover, S. (2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 169-185. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19467718&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers' views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53(4), 235-244. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=38594833&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Copeland, J. T. (1993). Motivational approaches to expectancy confirmation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(4), 117-121. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep107726

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011, April). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21^st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314.

Hill D., Stumbo C., Paliokas, K., Hansen D., & McWalters P. (2010). State policy implications of the Model Core Teaching Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2010/State_Policy_Implications_Model_Core_Teaching_DRAFT_DISCUSSION_DOCUMENT_2010.pdf

Hindin, A., Morocco, C. C., Mott, E. A., & Aguilar, C. M. (2007). More than just a group: Teacher collaboration and learning in the workplace. Teachers & Teaching, 13(4), 349-376. doi:10.1080/13540600701391911

Hulme, M., Baumfield, V., & Payne, F. (2009). Building capacity through teacher enquiry: The Scottish schools of ambition. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(4), 409-424. doi:10.1080/02607470903220463

Irving, P. G., & Montes, S. D. (2009). Met expectations: The effects of expected and delivered inducements on employee satisfaction. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 431-451. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=43155465&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26-35.

Lei, S., Kuestermeyer, B., Bailey, N., & Westmeyer, K. (2010). Group composition affecting student interaction and achievement: Instructors’ perspectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(4), 317-325.

Levine, T. (2011). Features and strategies of supervisor professional community as a means of improving the supervision of preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 930-941.

Manolis, C., Harris, M. J., & Whittler, T. E. (1998). Expectancy effects between exchange partners. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(1), 49. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4815963&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Naismith, L., Lee, B., & Pilkington, R. M. (2011). Collaborative learning with a wiki: Differences in perceived usefulness in two contexts of use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 228-242. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00393.x

NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 7, 2006.

Parker A., Allen D., Alverez-McHatton, P. & Rosa, L. (2010). Dance lessons: Preparing preservice teachers for coteaching partnerships. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 26-38

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 176-179. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770698

Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-52.

Sumsion, J., & Patterson, C. (2004). The emergence of community in a preservice teacher education program. Teacher and Teacher Education,20(6) 621-635.

Taris, T. W., Feij, J. A., & Capel, S. (2006). Great expectations – and what comes of it: The effects of unmet expectations on work motivation and outcomes among newcomers. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 14(3), 256-268. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00350.x

Wackerhausen, S. (2009). Collaboration, professional identity and reflection across boundaries. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(5), 455-473. doi:10.1080/13561820902921720

Young, R. L. (2007). Expectancy narratives and interactional contingencies. Symbolic Interaction, 30(4), 585-607. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gvsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27704119&site=ehost-live&scope=site