Roger N. Brindley and Patti Emminger
University of South Florida
"How is my internship placement determined, and by whom? In other words, who is accountable?" "In what ways are cooperating teachers for interns screened, trained and monitored by the university?" "Why isnít there closer interaction between the school district and the university? "If we are working together, why does it feel like the schools think they are doing me, and the university, a favor?"
Preservice teachers reflecting on their field placements ask many pertinent questions. Some are easier to answer than others, many cause teacher educators to squirm with discomfort, but all of the questions deserve an earnest and sincere response. This study addresses the very real lived experience of one such preservice teacher, Gaye, who voluntarily maintained a personal diary outside any assignments throughout her intern experiences. Unfortunately for teacher educators, finding preservice teachers who intrinsically choose to keep a diary of their professional preparation is problematic. Finding a preservice teacher who keeps a thorough, lucid, and deeply analytical narrative record of her or his preservice experiences is a truly rare event! This study mirrors the complex and myriad emotions felt by Gaye during her internships, as told through her own words. After an overview of the research literature on field work in preservice teacher education, this paper follows with self-selected excerpts from Gayeís personal reflection diary, a discussion of significant themes identified in the narrative, and the implications for teacher education.
Is Experience a Good Teacher for Teachers?
Preservice teachers consider the fieldwork elements of their teacher education programs as the best preparation for their future careers (Book & Freeman, 1986; Britzman, 1991; Johnston, 1994b), possibly as the only real learning of their teacher education programs. Johnston (1994b) observed that "the commonly held perception appears to be the more experience one has in classrooms, the more one will automatically learn about teaching" (p. 199). Ryan (1986) reasoned that this situation exists because the ideas and patterns of school culture have become ingrained in the vast majority of preservice teachers all of whom have already logged as students somewhere between sixteen and eighteen thousand hours in classes with approximately 60 teachers.
The high value preservice teacherís place on field experiences notwithstanding, there is some question as to whether student teaching is a significant experience for student teachers in terms of their professional growth. Some studies indicate that student teaching fails to alter the deep-seated personal beliefs and teaching perspectives of student teachers (Borko et al., 1987; Griffin, 1989. Weinstein (1988) asserted that student teachers end up underestimating the difficulties of being a first-year teacher, while Johnston (1994b) reported student teachers disappointed and confused with their student teaching experience which had failed to live up to their expectations. Other studies, however, conclude that student teaching has enormous value. Guilliame and Rudney (1993) noted that the student teachers in their study moved from concrete, undifferentiated thinking to more flexible, integrated thinking about educational matters, while Grossman and Richert (1988) reported student teachers "felt they had learned practical survival skills, which they believed to be invaluable in their professional preparation" (p. 58). Tobin and Tippinsís (1993) study indicated that for student teachers learning to teach included "seeing pupils as well-rounded individuals with characteristics and lives that extended beyond the classroom" (p. 464), while Tabachnick and Zeichner (1984) asserted that the student teachers in their study were able to respond to the experience in unique ways.
Despite entering an internship with a wealth of uniquely personal classroom experiences, preservice teachers often fail to recognize that these beliefs have been acquired from a pupilís perspective and that learning to teach is distinctly different from previous school learning (Bird, Anderson, Sullivan, & Swidler, 1993; Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Wubbels, 1992; Zeichner, Tabachnick, & Densmore, 1987). For example, many student teachers persist in viewing teaching as showing and telling, and learning as memorization (Calderhead, 1991; McDaniel, 1991). Some researchers are concerned that preservice teachers feel they are following a "preordained" path and that they fail to appreciate the complexities and unpredictable nature of teaching (Britzman, 1991; Johnston, 1994b; Kagan, 1992).
Student teachers are surrounded by a myriad of pressures in the school site, including:
In order to encourage student teachers to develop beyond concerns about survival and procedural knowledge, Gore and Zeichner (1991) recommended a greater emphasis on self-reflection to help reconstruct beliefs, and Hollingsworth (1989) and Kagan (1992) advocated placing student teachers with cooperating teachers who could act as catalysts for cognitive dissonance even though this might cause some discomfort for the student teacher. If left untroubled, prior beliefs about teaching remain unchanged and teaching runs the risk of becoming routine, conservative, and non-problematic (Borko, Lalik, & Tomchin, 1987; Calderhead, 1988). Indeed, Livingston and Borko (1989) found that the novice teachers in their study had difficulty developing the skills to satisfactorily critique their own and others' practice. Similarly, Bullough and Knowles (1990) noted that there seems to be a crucial gap in novice teachersí understanding of the nature of pupils and ways to design instruction to meet pupilsí needs, and student teachers can become disillusioned and frustrated "policemen." (Grossman, 1989, p. 205-206). Unable to make adequate sense of their experience, some student teachers fall back on their "latent philosophy" (Bolin, 1988). After thousands of hours internalizing teaching models as a student, this latent culture is activated by field experiences and these values and orientations strongly influence teaching performance (Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Lortie, 1975; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984; Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981).
These studies imply that the student teaching experience might actually be harmful to professional growth. The student teaching experience canít by itself "shape dispositions to inquire and be serious about pupil learning. On the contrary, it may block the flow of speculation and reflection by which we form new habits of thought and action" (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985, p. 56). Zeichner (1980) recognized that teaching activities that were finished in an orderly manner and on time might be deemed successful for those reasons alone, without consideration on the part of the student teacher of the possible criteria of success. Tabachnick and Zeichner (1984) reported that their results "overwhelmingly indicate that student teaching did not significantly alter the substance of the [student teachersí] teaching perspectives" (p. 33).
It seems field experience may only be the best teacher in cases where the preservice teacher is able to actively reflect on specific events to stimulate further learning. However, these studies suggest that new information that tends to support pre-existing beliefs is more likely to be accepted while information that might cause schema conflict is more likely to be filtered out. Consequently prior beliefs will often remain unchallenged (Bullough, 1991; Calderhead, 1991; Kagan, 1992; Zeichner, Tabachnick, & Densmore, 1987). Little wonder that many preservice teachers have idealistic and unrealistic expectations about teaching and their ability to conquer the demands of the profession (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). The value of fieldwork experience in teacher education is accepted unequivocally, but as Zeichner (1980) noted "field-based experiences seem to entail a complicated set of both positive and negative consequences" (p. 46). It might be more realistic to see student teaching as preparing people for the next phase of learning to teach.
What can teacher education do to help?
The literature is split as to the degree to which teacher education coursework informs the student teaching experience. Preservice teachers fail to see the connection between the content of their coursework and the realities of the school classroom (Aitken & Mildon, 1991; Britzman, 1991; Johnston, 1994a; Kagan, 1992; Wubbels, 1992). Bird et al. (1993) noted that teacher education courses involve "an encounter between different communities of knowledge, commitment, and practice, one based in the school and the other based in the university" (p. 265). Tippins, Kagan, and Jackson (1993) observed that within the field experiences this can lead to a "cynical duality between the planning for ënormalí days versus the relatively few days on which they expect to be directly observed by their supervisor" (p. 64-65). The irony is, as Zeichner, Liston, Mahlios, and Gomez (1988) noted, that student teachers and their supervisors have little control over determining the goals of the class and lack the authority to change the content of the curriculum.
Given that the preservice teachersí beliefs when they enter the university will affect their professional growth, some researchers have noted more attention should be paid to the studentsí beliefs when they enter the program (Alexander, Muir, & Chant, 1992; Clandinin & Connelly, 1991; Clark, 1988; Floden, 1985; Hollingsworth, 1989). Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1990) concluded that teacher education programs need to recognize the ways preservice teachers understand themselves before imposing other theories. If unable or unwilling to transfer theory presented in teacher education programs into their own belief systems, preservice teachers might gain a negative attitude toward that theory. In order to improve the transfer of program theory into student teachersí classroom practice, teacher educators should integrate defined program and preservice teacher theories so that they can be applied to practical situations (Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Johnston, 1994a; Wubbels, 1992).
In an effort to encourage preservice teachers as they transfer theory into practice and examine their own classroom actions and personal theories, teacher educators should encourage an environment where reflection becomes an important part of most student teaching experiences. Despite Schönís (1987) assertion that reflective practice is a vital goal in teacher education, Zeichner et al. (1988) documented that only 11-19% of supervisory discourse was reflective, while Gore and Zeichner (1991) found little evidence of reflection despite its being central to the program goals in their study. Johnston (1992) asserted that many programs focus on specific skill and knowledge outcomes but do not require reflection on the ways in which teachers hold, develop, and use knowledge to inform their practice. One possible explanation for this is that program faculty lack consensus about the ways in which to shape preservice teacher beliefs and, consequently, have failed as a group to challenge inappropriate beliefs or assist students wishing to form their own positions (Brousseau & Freeman, 1988).
Where programs help preservice teachers understand the significance of theoretical and abstract content and address their need for procedural knowledge, preservice teachers can come to see the complexities of teaching (Livingston & Borko, 1989; Kagan, 1992). It is the thought and action associated with the field experience which determines its value (Johnston, 1994b; Lortie, 1975). Preservice teachers need specific help interpreting the classroom experience in an atmosphere conducive to reflective discourse. University supervisors must take the time to help each student teacher appreciate the complex task of learning to teach and devise differing teaching strategies most appropriate to her or him (Ball & Feiman-Nemser, 1988; Goodman, 1988; Grossman, 1989; Johnston, 1994b).
Supervisors should assist student teachers analyze not only their successes but highlight things learned that are inappropriate to teaching and might be reinforced if left unchallenged (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Fosnot, 1989), so helping them move from being "unconfident answer-knowers to confident question-askers" (Kutz 1992, p. 69). By mutually constructing these experiences, the supervisor and the student teacher create a sense of collaborative resonance and collegiality (Cochran-Smith, 1991).
Methodology
The following excerpts are gathered from a personal diary kept by a senior-year undergraduate in Elementary Education at a large university in the southeastern United States. Gaye completed her "Level II" internship during the penultimate semester in the program by spending four full mornings a week at an assigned elementary school for the duration of the semester. Then, during the final semester Gaye fulfilled the requirements of a traditional student teaching placement ("Level III"), being placed with a cooperating teacher for the entire semester.
Gaye was a non-traditional student, and a mother to six children. Three are grown children and three were still living at home during university course work. The entries below were chosen by Gaye herself, and were written at the time of her Level II and Level III experience. Her writing was for her own edification and served the purpose of expressing her feelings at a time when she felt no one was listening, and gave her an additional opportunity to "try to make sense of it all." Gaye believed the writing medium helped her reconcile powerful feelings she encountered during her field experiences. As such, those who read her diary accounts receive a truly phenomenological and pure perspective from a writer whose paramount purpose was to be honest with herself. The themes in the discussion that follows the excerpts were also identified and categorized with constant input from Gaye, minimizing the "lens" of an additional researcher.
Excerpts from Gayeís Diaries
Level II Internship
My first internship took place in a large, southern suburb in an elementary school. The area surrounding the school consisted of upper-middle class families and was predominantly white. The majority of students came from professional and white collar households and a number of students were bused in from inner city neighborhoods. Most of these inner city children were African-American and Hispanic. I taught at this school four mornings a week from 8:00 to 11:30 for 15 weeks. The internship was split between the first grade class described in the following excerpts, and a fifth grade advanced placement math class.
January 14. Today was most frightening. Aside from the usual distress, I experienced complete and total panic. I have been actually relieved by the increasing number of times the teacher has left the classroom for short but welcome moments. The relief, however, turned to sudden distress today when a student who was calmly sitting in his seat tucked his arms within his short sleeves because he was cold. He unexpectedly leaned and tumbled off the chair hitting his head on the floor with great force due to having his hands and arms bound within his shirt. My first thoughts and actions involved seeing if he was all right, followed by growing panic as the bump on his forehead promptly swelled. In my constant state of distress within this classroom I had failed to discuss emergency procedures and was completely torn between getting the child to the clinic immediately and leaving the class alone.
Regaining my composure, I sent him with a responsible classmate and tried to find the intercom to notify the office. Of course, thoughts of the teacherís anger at a commotion pointing to her own negligence as well as questions of liability filled my head along with concern for the student. Fortunately, she returned before I had to act further, and quickly headed off responsibility on her part, explaining (after the fact) that I should have filled out an accident form. That would have been difficult since she had not even mentioned the forms prior to this. I am glad Toby is all right, but the stress of this internship experience is taking its toll. I am experiencing headaches and am crying far too often. This is not typical for me.
January 15. I cannot believe I have allowed myself to get this upset, but it would be far worse not to care. I expected to intern under a very caring, very experienced teacher with skills I could carry to my own class one day. She is experienced and has taught for many years. But she is either very set in the old ways or just tired and biding her time until retirement.
I am not upset for myself as much as I am concerned for the children. What is going to happen to them? At least eight of our twenty-seven children are completely lost! Hours of their day are spent feeling frustrated and worthless. Several children are reduced to tears of frustration on a daily basis. I have been reduced to tears of frustration for them (and for myself). She insists on teaching in one large group while only a small group of children can learn at her pace. A large number are bored to death. The rest are the lost children. They will not catch up this school year or perhaps ever. This is a tragedy, considering they are only in first grade-- possibly the most important year of school for them.
January 21. Last week I got to school early, but waited for my cooperating teacher, because the room was locked and she had not arrived. When she got here she chastised me for not waiting outside the room with the children until she arrived. I have not seen any other teachers doing so and had not been instructed to do this. Since then, I have been waiting outside with the students as she has arrived later and later each day. It is quite difficult to keep them settled and quiet, but I try reading aloud or entertaining with a learning game as we all shiver outside the locked door.
Today was the worst. We waited outside as she conferred with a parent inside the classroom. The children could not understand why they were not allowed inside when school was already beginning. A caring teacher finally took us inside her classroom for announcements after which the other teacher finally came for the students and myself. It was embarrassing as I felt like a child myself and was not able to maintain control of the students (i.e., quiet and still) for that length of time under those circumstances. Of course, she lectured them for almost twenty minutes on proper line behavior. I think they were very good until they were expected to be still too long in cold, uncomfortable weather. She later lectured me about keeping them quiet during a parent conference.
January 28. I finally learned an important teaching lesson in this classroom. I should not have learned it the hard way and I certainly should not have learned it at the expense of the children. After spending the last two weeks teaching the concept of the different kinds of coins and their value, using an overhead and transparent coins, it was time for the two page chapter test. I carefully read instructions with the students and they got to work. Those who could read and were more advanced worked carefully while a number of students randomly circled answers. I was not permitted to help except to answer questions about instructions. Students rarely asked because my answer would be immediately followed with a long, reproachful lecture on listening from the teacher.
I noticed one of our best students crying at her desk and knelt down to ask her what was wrong. She clearly understood all of the material prior to the test, so I had no idea what her problem could be. She was very confused because the pennies on our transparencies were brown and the test was black and white. I realized at this point that the test was completely invalid because the coins pictured in the questions were very similar in size and shape and difficult to differentiate as well as missing one of the attributes I had listed and emphasized for this concept. I realized I was responsible for not looking over the chapter test and realizing this sooner. The teacher refused to throw out the test and retest later. Prior to this she had actually kept control of her classroom by constantly handing me activities with no time to prepare, but to present exactly as she ordered. Tests were no exception. I was able to help the child hurriedly and reassure her that it was all right. It was little comfort to her and other students who were distraught and confused by the inconsistencies between the test and the prior learning.
I hope I will be more observant in the future, but the clear line between my usual attention to detail and the lack of control I am experiencing is growing quite indistinct. I am finding I must put forth more and more effort to keep from blaming myself. I am powerless to change the situation.
February 2. The frustration I have experienced with this teacher is extremely trying. The students are frustrated to the point that even the brighter ones give up and cry. The slowest learners are acting out when they get an opportunity. Many are not learning at all. She repeatedly emphasizes to me that behavior is most important and learning will follow. Why canít she see that if they are motivated in an enjoyable learning experience there would be few if any behavior problems?
Sometimes her behavior is mentally cruel. Strong words, but true. I do not understand a school that supports in-school suspensions for first graders. The behaviors in this classroom that lead to the suspensions are: Getting out of your seat, talking out of turn, being off task, and other common behaviors of such young students. It only takes three of these actions per week to result in the punishment. She wields the threat of suspension like a mighty sword. It frightens even me. I have checked out the in-school suspension, which is actually a torturous sitting still for hours on end in the office, staring into space. There is so much learning time lost with the constant threats, reminders, reprimands, and the actual punishment itself!
As an intern, I am losing confidence in myself. She corrects me and interrupts me constantly. Today she stopped my lesson and corrected me by speaking to me like one of her students and showing me the exact strokes in forming a lowercase letter a! She has told me how and when to cut and color, stopping me repeatedly during teaching presentations to tell me her way. She has reprimanded me for helping tie a shoe, yelled at a child because I misunderstood the "signal" for needing to go to the restroom. When he told me he needed what he wanted she got down in his face and said, "Donít you ever say that in my classroom again! You know the signal!" He was there only two weeks, so it was new to him, too.
I wish I could say these are worst case scenarios, but that would be completely untrue. It is degrading and belittling to me and to the students. My heart breaks for these children and for any others who may be suffering through such a negative first grade experience. I cannot help but wonder if they will get on track in the future with a positive, motivating, loving teacher.
February 12. I cannot wait to get out of this classroom. Why am I here? It is beyond my understanding. While at the university, I am being taught wonderful methods for enhancing learning and for motivating students, yet they place me in a completely negative environment where the methods proven to be effective are not only ignored, but I am discouraged from using them at all. Who is accountable?
I had hoped this was just a bad apple teacher, but I found myself comforting a younger intern who was experiencing as much distress as I was. She described the same conflicting feelings. She watched helplessly as her supervising teacher consistently spoke disparagingly to her students and created a negative classroom atmosphere where students could not feel safe in the educational sense. The age of the teacher was surprisingly quite young--about thirty years old, and the students were in Kindergarten.
My situation is obviously not unique. I am not dealing with one bad teacher now. This is a university problem as well as a social problem. There are surely enough effective teachers to match with university interns. Otherwise, the reasoning behind my internship is being rendered immaterial.
February 13. My frustration is growing and I am afraid of becoming a carbon copy of the teacher as I am forced to teach her way, discipline her way, and to check my interaction with students to meet her approval. Why in the world does she have centers, but the students sit at desks all day, leaving only for lunch, media center (weekly) and assemblies? It is worse to have the centers within reach yet inaccessible than not to have them at all. I could not believe my ears when this teacher told me that under no circumstances were the children allowed to touch the bookshelf of books because they mixed them up. This is ludicrous! These arenít teacherís editions or instruction books. They are childrenís literature-- meant to be handled as much as possible! Keys to learning-- within sight, yet out of reach. She reads part of a boring chapter book occasionally to them and has had me doing so. This book is full of words and concepts completely outside their schema.
I cannot help but feel like a failure as I helplessly watch these students flounder or just quit. It is the most negative environment. Several students try repeatedly to finish basic math facts in one minute only to end up in tears. The idea is to improve each time. But these children think the key is speed, so they frantically scribble random numbers, hoping this will be the day they succeed. The only thing they get for their efforts is red marks and the reinforced knowledge that only a very few will succeed. They cry after most of these episodes and sometimes act out in frustration, crumpling the banner of failure or pushing the first person to cross them. I have even witnessed the successful children rebel in exasperation at the rigid classroom regime.
Who is accountable? Who is making sure students are not taught in such a negative way? And why is the university placing interns in such an environment? I am wondering if my supervisor placed me here because I am usually very positive and not prone to complain. I record the daily dismay I feel, yet he does not respond or intervene.
February 17. Today I was once again forced to act against my own principles by this teacher. I am in a subordinate position. Much of my future employment depends upon positive evaluations and referrals from my supervising teachers during my internships. Passing my Level II internship also depends on her evaluation of me. If I were interested in a position at this school, her word could be crucial. Knowing this, I have managed to be as professional as possible, while my ideas and opinions remain unheard due to her resolve to run the class one way only. My self-esteem and self-respect suffer as I am forced to act and speak in ways contrary to my own values. Case in point: I am very dedicated to preserving and building self-esteem in the students with whom I work. I am keenly aware that teachers have the power to instill a great deal of confidence in a child or to shatter that confidence through negative words or actions. I have observed this teacher deflate several studentsí confidence and undermine their sense of self-worth many times in a single day. Today it was T.J. again. T.J. cannot seem to do anything right. He tries every single day and he gives up every single day (usually well before lunch). It tears me apart to watch and not speak. She has told me in no uncertain terms that she is the expert and it is my job to watch and learn. She rarely hears what I say. So, like the children, I suffer silently. I even find myself doing things her way to avoid reprisals in the form of long, humiliating lectures in front of the children.
Today, T.J. was singled out as the only child not to receive a rare and wonderful reward of a lollipop while the entire class enjoyed theirs in front of him. I was instructed to go to the lunchroom, lollipops in hand, gather the children, and bring them to class and hand out lollipops to all but T.J. (his punishment for leaning back in the lunch line before lunch, causing a domino effect and two children to fall without injury. Neither the teacher nor I witnessed the actual event, but T.J. insisted he was pushed by another child. In my experience, this incident is very typical first grade behavior. I do not condone pushing and would not tolerate it, but I would deal with it at the time rather than punish one child forty minutes later while rewarding the rest of the class.
I watched this same child work forty-five minutes to complete a spelling page. This is really a chore for him since he cannot read and barely writes. Upon finally completing his task, he excitedly ran up to the teacher to share his unusual success, only to be chastised severely for getting out of his seat. "Who told you to get out of your seat? You are getting your card turned," (a prerequisite to suspension) she shrieked. Naturally, his face fell from a wide smile to a tearful frown. I watched silently as his shoulders drooped and he slumped back into his seat, quitting for yet another day. I wondered how many days he would quit before he quit for good.
February 21. I have reached the point where I have given up on this internship as a learning experience. It is not only a waste of my time, but is a frustrating and detrimental situation which is negatively affecting my self-esteem and my other endeavors at this university. I realize there are whiners in every profession and educational setting, but I have proven myself many times to my Level II supervising professor. He knows if I am complaining there is a legitimate and significant reason. I have recorded my experiences daily on the log he requires us to turn in. Knowing all of my frustrations and personal distress, he finally resorted to telling me to consider it a negative example of teaching. I felt as deflated as my students must have been feeling. I have worked too hard and spent far too much money to benefit from a negative example. There are far too many negative examples for me to learn from without experiencing it day after day. My goal now is to somehow let each child know he or she is special and to sneak in as much success as possible when the teacher is otherwise distracted or out of the room.
Level III Internship
I completed my Level III Internship at a Title One School which receives government funds due to the low socioeconomic status of a majority of the students. There are more than 800 students, over 70% of which receive free lunch. The majority of the students are white with only a few African American and Hispanic students. The community surrounding the school is primarily rural. Many families are considered transient and poor. I taught five full days a week for fifteen weeks.
September 9. I am very relieved that Liz, my cooperating teacher appears to be very professional. I feel safe asking her questions which she answers in a nonjudgmental way. I think her positive manner and patience with the kids is indicative of a supportive person and we may work well together. Even the more difficult children do not seem to upset her. She is so positive with them! I consider myself to be patient, but she is even far more so than I. I have a good feeling about this.
The children obviously feel safe in this classroom. They interact quite well with one another and approach Liz frequently with questions and ideas and things they have done. It is a warm and inviting environment and I am excited to be here. We should work well together and hopefully the children will continue to thrive as I learn to manage as effectively as Liz does.
September 10. We have agreed that I should observe for at least this week and then ease into teaching at a comfort zone the children and I can handle. They are very receptive to my presence and seem to be very excited at the opportunity to help me learn to be a teacher. I am enjoying the atmosphere of this whole school and this classroom in particular. Liz is great. She has obviously spent a great deal of time establishing a positive environment and a management plan that works. I will be watching her methods closely in hopes of getting some effective tools. She never raises her voice, yet the students are almost always on task (except for Gabe and Tori who need frequent reminders). She doesnít stop class work to get them back on task. I am not sure how she trained them to listen, but they do. Her calmness is reassuring and her professionalism keeps me aware of the importance of remaining professional at all times. While remaining professional, she is always praising the kids in a way that is completely authentic and they respond accordingly.
September 11. I am so amazed at the positive environment of this school! I am beginning to wonder if negativity is checked at the front doors and not allowed to enter the campus. Everyone smiles and speaks kindly to one another! Everyone is very helpful-- from the custodial crew to the cafeteria workers to the para professionals to the principal! Liz seems to be an excellent teacher. The students take accountability for their actions and are quick to apologize when they are impolite or unkind to one another. I have yet to see anyone being mean. I think the teachersí attitudes have set this wonderful atmosphere. Liz has still not raised her voice, but her ongoing praise at appropriate times and her sensitivity to the childrenís needs has paid off in the long run. I watched as she reminded Gabe that he is so special and reminded him that the choices he was making (moving around and disturbing others) were not the best for himself or his classmates. A quick reference to the rules and he rattled off number three to keep your hands to yourself and he was right back on task, listening to the math lesson and contributing enthusiastically. I think I must be dreaming because this is like the school we described as our dream school in some of our classes at the university.
September 13. I get to teach next week and will prepare Language Arts lessons this weekend. I am glad Liz is so willing to answer my questions. She has been very approving of the rapport I am establishing with the children. She answers all my questions and doesnít make me feel stupid or even that I am putting her out in any way. She is very considerate to let me know everything that is going on including faculty meetings and in-services, allowing me a lot of choice and a great comfort zone. She is that way with the kids, too, never reprimanding or belittling. I hope the lessons I come up with are okay. She seems like a natural, but she has done this for a long time.
September 16. Liz approved my lesson plans and let me teach with absolutely no interference or interruption. I couldnít help wondering if she was even paying attention as she sat busily working at her desk. The kids were great and gave me attention and respect. What a relief! The story went well, but I was shaky on the presentation. Liz was paying attention and assured me I will be more at ease with practice. We discussed some points of the lesson and she gave me some pointers which I will definitely use later. I do not feel at all degraded or ineffective as I have in the past.
It is nice to know I can do some practicing and polishing, but that I am "okay" overall. I wonder if I will ever be as confident as Liz. She says I will and that she feels very self-conscious when Renee comes to observe or when she is taking a class and has to present. Youíd never know by her demeanor or her attitude with these kids that she is capable of having a lack of confidence.
I have to remember not to call on Vicki when we are just about out of time. Boy, does this kid love the spotlight! She actually used the pointer and stood at the board to answer a question, firmly telling the class she would present only when everyone was paying attention by looking at her! What a ham! Liz lets her answer in front of the group and does not force her to stay seated to answer. I guess it is okay, but definitely a problem if it is time to go to a special. These kids experience so much success. I would not try to hold any of them back!
September 30. My first formal full day teaching Language Arts and Math, as well as theme. I think Liz knew I was nervous about teaching Math with the manipulatives. The kids did well individually but not so well in teams. Too many leaders. It was a nightmare for a little while, but shifting to groups of four instead of two definitely worked. Liz says it is probably because they are used to sitting in groups of four and the extra children kept one child from dominating. I liked Lizís suggestion to do a movement activity before the Math lesson so they could stretch and get out some energy. They loved her walking song. I am so relieved that she is not nervous with me teaching even when it doesnít go the greatest. She always waits until the children are at a special to discuss the lesson including good and not so good points. It is amazing that she lets me reflect and then initiate the discussion and generate questions. She is like that with the kids, too. She never answers right out, but prompts them to arrive at some conclusions on their own or directs them to where to find it.
I am going to add a nature box and have the children create a science center. Liz is completely approving of this. I think it is so amazing that the only form of discipline needed so far is to put the studentsí names on the sad face side of the board if they are acting up and changing their behavior puts them right back on the happy side. The only thing they lose by being on the sad side is center time, which they perceive as play, but consists of all learning centers! So they ultimately learn during play time at the end of the day. It is a great system.
October 20. Liz is a really good manager and has shown me some great ways to integrate the Weather Theme into all subject areas. I think she likes the lesson I plan to do with the book The Pumpkin Blanket. The freedom and trust I am experiencing is exhilarating. I can get any book I want from the media center and create lessons on the literature. I am so glad the kids love hearing stories so much. I thought Liz might want me to stick closely to the Reading books, but she seems happy that I can take the concepts and lessons they need to learn and teach from the childrenís books.
October 27. Yes! My presentation went really well. I totally blocked out the fact that Ms. Slattery was observing. It feels so good to get a really excited response from a principal! It is the first time I was ever observed by a principal. She gave a few constructive points and some reference to fidgety Gabe, but she really liked the lesson and was impressed with my teaching. What a relief! What an esteem boost! I am so thankful this school is so literature oriented! I have yet to meet a child who does not respond to good stories and great books. I feel so strongly that turning them on to books very early is critical to a positive school experience, and Ms. Slattery and Liz agree wholeheartedly. It helps so much to feel in touch with the principal and to be able to approach any teacher for help. It is just amazing. The sense of community here is incredible. It is really not difficult to speak positively at all times when that is the school norm. I know a very high majority of these children come from extremely poor and troubled families. But they feel so safe and motivated here, it is like a second family-- maybe a real family to them. I am glad Liz is my cooperating teacher. She is very nice, but not all peaches and cream; just so professional and approachable. She always has very logical and workable answers to my questions and still has yet to raise her voice or speak negatively to the children.
November 1. I created a really nice Fall tree today which the students loved covering with their hand painted leaves. I love the freedom in using so much Art in our Language Arts lesson. The students love it, too. I spent a good deal with the media specialist, Mrs. Treadway. She is funny and has done wonders with the feel of the media center. I think that is so important, since the school literally wraps completely around the media center! The work of the students is everywhere! They take so much pride in their school and the walls of work show it.
The community of artists, writers, builders and thinkers reflects a lot of work and a ton of positive reinforcement and empowerment! Liz was very proud of the treasure boxes our kids made and Mrs. Treadway allowed us to display with a big book. I must say it looks great and I am proud of myself on this one! Getting the families to work on it together was a definite plus. I was surprised that every single one made their box and the parents all contributed (only one did so grudgingly).
Liz agreed to let me have the students plant seeds from our pumpkin and graph the growth even though it will mean trips to the ESE pod several times a week. She is so supportive and even goes so far as to encourage me to experiment. There have been so many times she could have gotten in and fixed a situation or even stopped me and led me in a more effective direction, but she would never do that! She lets me make mistakes knowing I will learn from them. This is another thing she does with the students. She gives them the freedom to try and try again until they experience success. That is the key to this school! Everyone is entitled to, encouraged to, and allowed to experience success! There are no failures-- only deltas and successes!
Themes and Implications
Discussion of Themes
Through a process of open dialogue and self-reflection, Gaye was asked to identify the themes and meanings found in her diary entries. Given the dichotomy of emotions experienced in these two internships, Gaye elected to consider some of the themes found in the narrative in terms of continuums. She identified four themes which she described as: 1) Clashing vs shared philosophy manifest in cooperating teacher interaction, 2) concern for the children, 3) isolation vs community, and 4) the accountability of the university.
Clashing vs shared philosophy. Theories of cognitive dissonance suggest that some preservice teachers might benefit from an internship placement with a cooperating teacher who possesses a contrasting philosophy. This clearly was not the case for Gaye during her Level II internship. From the very first days she felt philosophically compromised - being repeatedly reminded by the cooperating teacher of the teaching behaviors expected of her and being "forced" to act against her own principles. Gaye felt that she had no choice but to tolerate being this as ultimately she needed a reasonable evaluation from her cooperating teacher to pass this internship. As a result of being forced as the "subordinate" to teach in a particular fashion Gaye believed she was "becoming a carbon copy of the teacher." Gaye found lesson plans handed to her with little or no preparation time. She was "chastised" and lectured by the cooperating teacher and was frequently interrupted while teaching the children. She subsequently describes feeling "like an idiot" and feeling degraded. Her confidence and her self-esteem are badly shaken, and she speaks of being in a "constant state of distress."
The philosophy of Gayeís Level III cooperating teacher resulted in markedly different interaction. Gaye felt safe in an environment she perceived as positive, encouraging and sensitive to the childrensí needs. Her cooperating teacher did not require that Gayeís teaching style mirror her own, and accordingly Gaye wrote of the "exhilarating freedom and trust" she felt. She used expressions such as "professional and approachable," and "considerate" and more than once described how the teacher "approves" of her. Coming after the Level II experience this teacher helped Gaye to find some value in, and redeem the significance behind, her field experiences.
Concern for children. Gaye speaks to her perceptions of the children she taught during both these internships. However, the narrative content is acutely different. During her level II internship Gaye describes children "floundering" with deflated confidence, feeling "exasperated" and "worthless," and ready to quit. She considers this a "tragedy" and ponders what will happen to these first grade children, and if they will "get back on track." In stark contrast the children in Gayeís Level III internship not only feel safe but excited. In a "child-centered" classroom environment they experience success through active discussion and by deducing their own conclusions. The cooperating teacher keeps a positive rapport, rarely raising her voice or speaking negatively. Gaye wonders if the troubled boy, T.J, in her Level II experience would have achieved as much as Gabe did in her Level III internship had he been given the chance.
Isolation vs community. During Level II, Gaye writes of a school culture that seemingly condones the punitive management system used by her cooperating teacher. There is a failure to discuss emergency/accident procedures and the account of the "caring" teacher who helped her when she was left in the hallway merely appears to heighten her sense of isolation. In comparison, Gaye speaks of the "sense of community" evident during Level III. She reports that the pride felt for the school is seen in the work placed on the hallway walls, the use of positive reinforcement by the teachers and administration, and that "everyone is entitled and encouraged to experience success." Gaye finds teachers "approachable" and feels included in faculty meetings and inservice training. Finally, she had a positive observation from the principal which leaves her "excited."
The accountability of the university. It might be significant that during the positive Level III experience the role of the university is not credited, nonetheless during her Level II experience Gaye clearly believed the university had been inadequate in supporting her when she needed that advocacy the most. In her diary, Gaye wonders why she was placed with this teacher. When she asked her university supervisor to help her, she felt the response was insufficient. She asserted that the supervisor did not earnestly respond to her concerns and she found his statement that she could learn from a "negative example" unacceptable. Furthermore, because her experience did not relate to the form and content of her university coursework, she felt the experience undermined her university preparation. By midterm Gaye ceased to have any positive expectations for the internship stating that the rationale for including field experiences in the program had been rendered immaterial. She asked, "Why was I placed here?" and "Who is accountable?" Little wonder that by the end of her Level II experience Gaye felt "betrayed" by the university.
Implications for Teacher Education
Is experience a good teacher of teachers? Well, that depends! Clearly there are indeed a myriad of pressures in the school site (including the university supervisor) and there is little doubt that Gaye believes her Level II experience stifled her professional growth. In the case of Gaye the university faculty who worked with her were actually lucky. Not only was Gaye a thoughtful, reflective, and committed student, but with the Level III field experience still to come the opportunity was there for the program to, in her words, "redeem" itself. The question remains, what if her final experience had been unsatisfactory instead? Chances are this preservice teacher would have graduated feeling unqualified to teach and critical of her professional preparation.
There are some lessons to be learned from the diary accounts of Gaye. All teacher educators involved in field-based programs need to systematically consider issues of placement, the responsibilities of the university supervisor, and the role of field work within the larger program.
Placement of interns. Whoever determines the internís placement, whether university or local school personnel, it is essential that the needs of the intern are prioritized in these decisions. Teacher education programs must identify mechanisms which can be used to pair student teachers with appropriate cooperating teachers. University supervisors must work closely with school administration to devise a screening process for cooperating teachers. Preservice teachers like Gaye would never be placed with cooperating teachers similar to her Level II experience no intern deserves Gayeís Level II experience. The university should be proactive in training teachers who wish to mentor preservice teachers, and in return the resources of the university, including honorariums, waiving fees for graduate course work, creating opportunities to conduct joint research with university faculty, support for action research, and planned workshops and discussions, should be made available. Through such initiatives university personnel could identify a cadre of qualified and trusted cooperating teachers, ensuring placement decisions became based more on quality teaching and less on guess work.
If teacher education programs were seen to be more invested in the K-12 teachers, who are in reality essential to the success of any field work, those cooperating teachers would more likely mirror both the qualities associated with excellent teaching and the philosophy of teacher education programs. After all, Gayeís personal account confirms that far from being a profitable learning occurrence, "a negative experience" can crush a preservice teacherís professional aspirations and in doing so fundamentally undermine the very purpose of her professional preparation in the first place.
The responsibilities of the university supervisor. Far from being an advocate for Gaye during the Level II experience, her supervisor appeared unwilling or powerless to intervene on her behalf. If university supervisors feel they do not have the power or permission to uphold and promote the needs of the intern then they cease to be an effective advocate. Given that it is eminently possible to endanger fragile relationships with neighboring school systems, the same systems that agree to accommodate the interns in the first place, this is indeed a tricky situation! Nonetheless, university supervisors should become familiar with teachers at particular school sites, and work to ensure preservice teachers receive a message more consistent with their university preparation. Working closely with cooperating teachers can build an atmosphere of collegiality and collaborative resonance. Three-way conferencing with the intern can encourage a classroom culture within which the intern is encouraged to try creative and varied teaching strategies without being afraid that either the cooperating teacher or the supervisor will penalize them. All teachers should encourage pupils to take risks in their academic growth, and teacher educators are no different.
Supervisors must also initiate reflective discourse with their interns. If Gaye, who personifies an inquiring, thoughtful and reflective intern, reported adopting inappropriate behaviors which seemingly conflicted with her developing professional philosophy then other less gifted preservice teachers will encounter this dilemma and will likely be less able to respond adequately unless supervisors lend guidance. Gayeís Level II experience also demonstrates the need for supervisors to feel sufficiently at ease to have open and frank conversations about the reasons undermining a successful internship with school teachers and administrators. This process might well involve candid discussions about cooperating teachers, but even if Gayeís supervisor felt unable to help her, he could have ensured this particular cooperating teacher was not used again.
The role of field work within the larger program. The contrast found in Gayeís Level II and Level III experience indicates teacher education programs need a systematic process for gauging the effectiveness of field components, and a clear vision of the purpose and future development of such initiatives. Programs can relate coursework theory to intern practice and vice versa. Purposefully building field assignments into course requirements might have diminished the likelihood that Gaye would have felt "isolated." What would have happened to Gayeís career expectations and professional preparation if her final internship had been as disastrous as the Level II experience? In such scenarios, programs need to consider ways they can offer practical support for graduates as they enter their first years of teaching. Programs can assist novice teachers overcome the infinite first year pressures, and in doing so strengthen the bond with local school systems. The alternative to these measures, as seen in Gayeís Level II experience, involves continuing to place student teachers, without systematic forethought, with cooperating teachers in school cultures which adhere to more traditional teaching philosophies and in doing so face the danger of setting preservice teachers up for at the least a disappointing, if not exasperating, experience. Indeed, the field work might undermine the very teacher education programs it is supposed to enrich.
This study shares the remarkable, but perhaps not so unusual case of one preservice teacher as she completed her fieldwork requirements. It serves the purpose of reminding teacher educators how extraordinarily complex and challenging, and how exasperating yet exhilarating an internship can be. Teacher educators need to remember that at its best field work can represent a capstone experience for each preservice teacher full of professional gratification and growth as Gaye found in her Level III placement. It can also be a redeeming feature of a preparation program which requires an enormous commitment of time and energy. Sadly, field work can also lead to a miserable experience and leave a sense of abject failure. It can destroy both the perception of, and the trust felt toward, the program and the preservice teacherís commitment to the profession. The challenge for teacher education programs is to ensure that a strong collaborative relationship is fostered with surrounding school districts, one within which the university supervisor can be empowered. At the same time, careful planning for the systematic evaluation and future evolution of field work should be undertaken to ensure that it augments the mission of the larger program. Gaye expects nothing less!
Bibliography
Aitken, J., & Mildon, D. (1991). The dynamics of personal knowledge and teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 21, 141-162.
Alexander, D., Muir, D., & Chant, D. (1992). Interrogating stories: How teachers think they learned to teach. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(1), 59-68.
Ball, D., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachersí guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401-423.
Bird, T., Anderson, L., Sullivan, B., & Swidler, S. (1993). Pedagogical balancing acts: Attempting to influence prospective teachers' beliefs. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9(3), 253-267.
Bolin, F. (1988). Helping student teachers think about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 48-54.
Book, C., & Freeman, D. (1986). Differences in entry characteristics of elementary and secondary teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education 34(2), 47-51.
Borko, H., Lalik, R., & Tomchin, E. (1987). Student teachersí understandings of successful and unsuccessful teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 3(2), 77-90.
Britzman, D. (1991). Student makes student: A critical study of learning to teach. New York: SUNY Press.
Brousseau, B., & Freeman, D. (1988). How do teacher education faculty define desirable teacher beliefs? Teaching & Teacher Education, 4(3), 267-273.
Bullough, R. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 43-51.
Bullough, R. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(3), 239-252.
Bullough, R., & Knowles, J. (1990). Becoming a teacher: Struggles of a second career beginning teacher. Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 101-112.
Calderhead, J. (1991). The nature and growth of knowledge in student teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(5), 531-535.
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachersí early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(1), 1-8.
Clandinin, J., & Connelly, F. (1986). Teachersí personal knowledge: What counts as ëpersonalí in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 487-500.
Clark, C. (1988). Asking the right questions about teacher preparation: Contributions of research on teacher thinking. Educational Researcher, 17(2), 5-12.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 9(2), 2-11.
Corcoran, E. (1981). Transition shock: The beginning teacherís paradox. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 19-23.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. Teachers College Record, 87(1), 53-65.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1986). Knowing, thinking and doing in learning to teach: A research framework and some initial results. East Lansing, MI: The Institute for Research on Teaching.
Floden, R. (1985). The role of rhetoric in changing teachersí beliefs. Teaching & Teacher Education, 1, 19-32.
Fosnot, C. (1989). Enquiring teachers, enquiring learners: A constructivist approach for teaching. New York: Columbia University Press.
Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4(2), 121-137.
Gore, J., & Zeichner, K. (1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7, 119-136.
Griffin, G. (1989). A descriptive study of student teaching. Elementary School Journal, 89, 343-364.
Grossman, P. (1989). Learning to teach without teacher education. Teachers College Record, 91(2), 191-208.
Grossman, P., & Richert, A. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4(1), 53-62.
Guillaume, A., & Rudney, G. (1993). Student teachersí growth toward independence: An analysis of their changing concerns. Teaching & Teacher Education, 9(1), 65-80.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160-190.
Hoover, L. (1994). Reflective writing as a window on preservice teachersí thought processes. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(1), 83-93.
Johnston, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding the practical knowledge of student teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(2), 123-136.
Johnston, S. (1994a). Conversations with student teachers?Enhancing the dialogue of learning to teach. Teaching &Teacher Education, 10(1), 71-82.
Johnston, S. (1994b). Experience is the best teacher; or is it? An analysis of the role of experience in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 199-208.
Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1990) Teacher education and the social context of schooling: Issues for curriculum development. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 610-636.
Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching: A cognitive analysis and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4), 36-43.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McDaniel, J. (1991, April). Close encounters: How do students make sense of their social foundations? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Reiff, J., & Cannella, G. (1994). Rethinking teacher education from a constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Teacher Education, Atlanta.
Ryan, K. (1986). The induction of new teachers. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Tabachnick, B., Popkewitz, T., & Zeichner, K. (1978). Teacher education and the professional perspectives of student teachers. Interchange, 10(4), 12-29.
Tabachnick, B., & Zeichner, K. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 28-36.
Tippins, D., Kagan, D., & Jackson, D. (1993). How teachers translate learning theory into instruction: A study of group problem solving by prospective science teachers. In P. Rubba, L. Campbell, & T. Dana (Eds.), Excellence in educating teachers of science: The 1993 yearbook of the Association of Educators of Teachers of Science. Columbus, OH: ERIC.
Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Weinstein, C. (1988). Preservice teachersí expectations about the first year of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4(1), 31-40.
Wubbels, T. (1992). Taking account of student teachersí preconceptions. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8(2), 137-149.
Zeichner, K. (1980). Myths and realities: Field-based experiences in education. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(6), 45-49.
Zeichner, K., & Tabachnick, B. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education ëwashed outí by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7-11.
Zeichner, K., Tabachnick, B., & Densmore, S. (1987). Individual, institutional and cultural influences on the development of teachersí craft knowledge. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachersí thinking. London: Cassell.
Zeichner, K., Liston, D., Mahlios, M., & Gomez. (1988). The structure and goals of a student teaching program and the character and quality of supervisory discourse. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4(4), 349-362.