Scaffolds in the field

¹eaching and ¹eacher Education, Vol. 14, No. 7, pp. 715—733, 1998 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0742-051X/98 $19.00#0.00

PII: S0742-051X(98)00024-9

SCAFFOLDS IN THE FIELD: VYGOTSKIAN INTERPRETATION IN A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS! and SHELLY GISMONDI" ! Assistant Professor and Director of Teacher Education, The Catholic University of America, U.S.A. " Doctoral Candidate, Educational Policy and Administrative Studies, The Catholic University of America, U.S.A.

Abstract—Vygotskian theory has often been promoted for understanding children’s learning, yet few studies have examined this theory in relation to preservice teachers’ understanding of teaching. This paper seeks to address this gap by reporting on a study of four preservice teachers in a teacher education program designed from Vygotskian tenets of learning. Peer and cooperating teacher support systems in learning to teach are explored. The analysis suggests that socially shared cognition in field work and course work makes a significant difference in enhancing preservice teachers’ sense of what it means to teach in terms of using partnership for cognitive and collegial support, perspective-taking, social negotiation, and ownership. Control and feedback styles of cooperative teachers had an impact on preservice teachers’ perceived readiness for student teaching, opportunities for reflection, and spirit of social reconstructivism. Implications for teacher education programs are addressed in regard to relationships that best prepare preservice teachers for the real world and field experiences and sociocultural learning contexts that assist in that process. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction We hopped on the metrorail to return to campus after our visit with a cooperating teacher at a practicum school site and sat in the front car. The ride was different from the usual ride. A feeling of danger overcame us as the car jerked and zigzagged. Then we heard conversation that verified our uncertainty. ¹hat’s it. Here it comes. Pass slowly. ½ou’ve got it. The coaching helped us realize that the driver was new at this job. The car stopped suddenly and the coach left. We watched her grow smaller and smaller as the car pulled away. It seemed such a short and insignificant lesson. The driving suggested to us that the coaching was insufficient. Now the driver continued the job alone — carefully and with much hesitation. Our stop was next. We were glad to be getting off but we asked ourselves, ‘‘Is this what it’s like for the preservice teachers we teach? Is the 14 week student teaching experience substantial enough for their solo drives? Would learning and problem-solving with others, in the context of teaching tasks,

assist them in knowing the dimensions of teaching?’’ In this study, we investigate a Vygotskiandesigned, sociocultural context for preparing and supporting preservice teachers as they enter the professional realm of teaching. It involves the first author’s efforts in redesigning a practicum for early childhood and elementary education majors that is purposely aligned with course work. Through situated engagement and negotiation with practitioners and peers in a teaching community, preservice teachers come to define for themselves what it means to be a teacher. Preservice teachers, grouped in two’s, attempt to learn what Lave and Wenger (1991) call the newcomer’s tasks in ‘‘legitimate peripheral participation’’ (p. 35). Our hypothesis is that learning to teach requires more than time and practice. It requires supported experiences — both successful and unsuccessful ones. We examine case studies of preservice and cooperating teachers and represent their perceptions of experiences in this intentional curriculum. We also discuss the implications of

715

716

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

this study in the design of teacher education programs. Theoretical Perspective Although there is a wealth of research investigating the Vygotskian (1978) approach of peer collaboration in teaching children (Berk & Winsler, 1995), there is little research in the application and interpretation in teacher education programs. Manning and Payne (1993) state, ‘‘We know of no other published works whereby this (Vygotskian) theory has been outlined for teacher education’’ (p. 368). For example, Forman and Cazden (1985), investigating collaborative problem-solving with nine-year olds on a chemical reaction task, found a two stage process of collaboration. Initially, in the setting-up or planning stage of the task, children demonstrated collaborative problem-solving by taking turns in offering their expertise. Later in the task, children solved the same problem independently. When one contemplates the multiple competencies needed in teaching, a reciprocal model of peer assistance becomes an invaluable strategy to consider. Yet, a social environment that models a participatory classroom, social negotiation, interaction, and social dependence is uncommon in teacher education classrooms and field experiences. Britzman (1986), interviewing inservice teachers, found that the emotional and cognitive processes in learning to teach are filled with frustration and self-doubt in an unexpected state of disequilibrium. Teachers often see themselves as rugged individuals, competitive and possessive, and as lone rangers who hold the myth that teachers are supposed to know it all. It has been suggested that one of the major causes of educator burnout is the absence of a social support network (Schwab, Jackson & Schuler, 1986). Teacher training may encourage a cadre who come to view their teaching isolation as autonomy (Bullough, 1987) and remain hesitant to discuss educational issues with colleagues (Nias, 1987). Short and Burke (1989) contend that teacher educators need to live their own models. According to Goodlad (1990), teacher education programs should ‘‘be characterized in all respects by the conditions for learning that future teachers are to establish in their own schools and

classrooms’’ (p. 59). Nonetheless, graduates of teacher education programs, armed with few experiential models of peer collaboration, later undertake cooperative learning strategies with their own students and/or work on teacher grade level teams. Hausfather (1996) calls for a Vygotskian approach in teacher education; a social environment supportive with models of collaboration and interpersonal activity, yet how one characterizes and studies that environment is unclear. There are far too many Vygotskian tenets to present in this article, so we will speak of those most integral to our program design and to this study: (1) Situated ¸earning: Learning occurs during situated activity or in authentic settings, i.e., in classroom settings with contextual and interactional episodes and cues. Zeichner (1990) notes that the practicum has been viewed as an ‘‘unmediated and unstructured apprenticeship’’ which lacks connection to course work and adequate supervision. Research supports the notion that teachers perceive student teaching as the most useful part of their teaching preparation (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Griffin et al., 1983). Perhaps, it is not practice that teaches, but that practice breathes life into and awakens the dormant methods courses — if there are concurrent connections between the field and course work. That is, ‘‘understanding and experience are in constant interaction — are indeed, mutually constitutive’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, pp. 51—52). The association of theory to practice is meaningless, as Guskey (1986) notes, until teachers see the differences their teaching makes in children’s learning. (2) Socially Shared Cognition: Vygotsky (1978) believed that cognition is always socially mediated or influenced by others in social interaction. Learning, thinking, and knowing arise through collaboration with others (see Hatano & Inagaki, 1991). Higher mental functions, like memory, attention, and self-regulation, occur from a shared task definition between individuals, i.e., ‘‘all higher mental functions are internalized social relationships’’ (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 146). They are socially shared cognitions and are based in the Vygotskian (1978) principle

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

that effective instruction includes a concern for the learner’s potential development. For preservice teachers, that could include knowledge of pedagogy, such as mediated notions of teacher planning, and knowledge of self, such as becoming a teacher professional. It might also include knowledge of learners and content knowledge enhanced through partnerships with peers and cooperating teachers. Preservice teachers are not typically afforded opportunities to analyze, evaluate, and reconstruct their experiences in their own words (Clift, Meng & Eggerding, 1992; Erdman, 1983). They need experiences to integrate their reflections with practical matters (Eby, 1992) and talk about them, make adjustments, develop thought and view themselves as change agents (McMahon, 1997). We hypothesized that teaching and learning in a constant community of discourse would serve metacognitive purposes and encourage a cohort collegiality and bonds of support. (3) Joint Activity: Vygotskian theory states that in order for learning to become internalized, mediation must occur during the actual problem-solving and joint activity or shared task definition with others (Vygotsky, 1981). According to Vygotsky, thinking begins on the interpersonal or social plane before it is internalized as intrapersonal knowledge. Course and field experiences for preservice teachers can offer a shared space for collaborative interaction and assisted performance with skills acquired within-context of a specific activity, e.g., planning and teaching an interdisciplinary unit. Meaning is constructed through social mediation, negotiation, and dialogue (Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989). (4) ¹he Zone of Proximal Development: Instruction should be aimed at the learner’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), that is, ‘‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 85). Learning can be enhanced through sensitive relationships that employ: (a) shared responsibility within the learner’s ZPD, (b) gradations of free reign for

717

experimentation, and (c) structured, content-specific, and contingent feedback, and (d) reflective assessments, or bringing attention to the ongoing action during instruction (Samaras, 1991). This learning occurs through others’ assistance, not assessment (Dixon-Krauss, 1996; Tharp & Gallimore, 1990). We postulate that the practicum, unlike the student teaching experience, affords a formative, rather than summative assessment to occur, yet within a very real and often problematic classroom. (5) Culture, Context, and Cognition: Culture and social contexts impact upon how and what students think. Preservice teachers’ educationrelated life histories affect how they interpret theory into practice (Bullough & Gitlin, 1995; Knowles & Cole with Presswood, 1994). Many of our preservice teachers attended small, suburban, middle to upper class, Catholic elementary and high schools with homogenous populations and now, as college students, are placed for practicums in urban, public, or Catholic elementary schools with diverse populations. In some situations, the new contexts of teaching in schools are a big stretch, and in other situations when the context is not supportive of personal or university goals, dilemmas and tensions arise. Support from others is essential in the process of knowledge reconstruction and personal theory building, or what Manning, and Payne (1993) identify as a ‘‘spiral restructuring of knowledge’’ (p. 362). Program Description The program described in this study is a reflective teacher education program in an urban area. It has been described as a deliberative, reflective program (Valli, 1990) with the goal of broadening and deepening preservice teachers’ thinking about teaching and learning. Preservice teachers are asked to question practice and to relate theory to experience-based knowledge in order to continuously improve practice. Field work is infused with interdisciplinary assignments from methods courses with the central goal of promoting reflective thought. Reflection, as defined in the program, is the ability to stand apart from the self; where students (and I add faculty) are asked to critically examine their

718

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

actions and the context of those actions (Berlak & Berlak, 1981). The purpose of reflecting is to act in a manner based on professional knowledge rather than habit, tradition, or impulse and to counteract a tendency to respond to events by imitating the actions of the cooperating teacher, or by applying knowledge without thorough analysis (Ciriello, Valli & Taylor, 1992). Preservice teachers keep reflection journals during the practicum experience, which incorporate Posner’s (1996) framework with specific components to encourage perspective-taking. Preservice teachers reflect upon dilemmas observed in the practicum classroom weekly and share these insights through electronic mail with peers and professors teaching the methods classes. In the reflection journals, preservice teachers are expected to communicate their thinking processes as they react to specific puzzlements, (e.g., dilemmas inherent in creating and teaching reading ability groups; teaching a holiday curriculum in Social Studies). Our education department has approximately 50 undergraduate and 10 graduate students in the early childhood and elementary education programs. Preservice teachers progress sequentially through four foundational courses (i.e., Introduction to Teaching, Foundations of Education, Human Development, and Psychology of Education) with observational, tutorial, and

Monday

Tuesday

community service experiences. In accordance with National Council for Association of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards, preservice teachers receive experiences in various types of schools and observe many different teaching styles and curricula throughout their program. Figure 1 represents the schedule of methods classes and practicum experiences in the first and second professional semesters which occur after students gain acceptance into the teacher education program. Both professional semesters involve preservice teachers in field experiences concurrent with methods courses and a practicum seminar. In the first 13 week professional semester, preservice teachers become participant-observers in a two-half-day-a-week practicum at one of two schools. The more demanding, 13 week second professional semester requires preservice teachers to attend a three-half-day-a-week practicum and plan, implement, and evaluate original, interdisciplinary units in their practicum classrooms. This study is an investigation of the second professional semester of the spring, 1995 cohort. Practicum School Settings At the time of this study, preservice teachers were grouped in pairs and placed either at a public school, The Gardner Road School, or a

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

First Professional Semester 8:30—11:30 1:00—2:00

Practicum

Practicum

Practicum seminar

4:10—6:40

Curriculum and instruction

6:45—9:15

8:30—11:30 9:30—11:30 1:00—2:00 4:10—6:40

Math methods

Children’s literature Practicum

Practicum

Second Professional Semester Practicum Reading methods

Practicum seminar Classroom management and special needs

Health and PE methods

Science and social studies methods

Note: Classroom management is now taught in the first professional semester, and math methods in the second. They were switched on an experimental basis in this particular semester. Figure 1. Sequence of method courses and practicums

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

parochial school, St. John’s School. Pseudonyms are used for all schools and informants. Both schools are about one-half hour drive from the university, accessible by metrorail, and are adjacently located in the city. They are quite different in terms of the type of students enrolled and their curriculum approach. The Gardner Road School includes pre-kindergarten through sixth grade classes and has approximately 400 students, most of whom live in the neighborhood. Children from nearby embassies attend and give the school an international focus. Racial composition is: 75% Caucasian, 13% African American, 8% Hispanic, and 4% Asian American. Progressive educational methods are used in the school such as multi-aged groupings, interdisciplinary teaching, technology, and group art projects. This school is lively with children working and learning inside and outside of the classrooms; in hallways, outdoors, or field trips. St. John’s School includes grades one through eight and enrolls approximately 200 students from all parts of the city. Racial composition is: 35% Caucasian, 50% African American, 12% Hispanic, and 3% Asian American. The school is a quiet place with teachers patrolling students as they move through hallways. First and second graders place their fingers to their lips to remind themselves to be quiet. In the classroom, students sit in orderly rows and are not allowed to speak unless their hands are raised and they are called upon. Some activities go on in the school to promote students’ sense of self worth and concern for each other, e.g., cross-age tutoring and school themes of caring and respect. Since the school does not have a playground, Gardner Road School arranges their schedule so that students from St. John’s School can share the outdoor area. The principals of Gardner Road School and St. John’s School, as well as university faculty, communicated frequently about how to move the traditional curriculum of St. John’s School towards a more holistic and meaning-centered approach to education. The school was selected as one of the practicum sites as part of a partnership arrangement between the university and school. One component of the partnership was that the Reading Methods course was taught on site during the day with children and some school faculty involvement. This meant that

719

preservice teachers were at a school site for four half-days each week. Methodology Background This study is an outgrowth of an earlier collaborative research project which began in 1992 on the assessment of program revisions in the early childhood and elementary program sequence in both course work and field experiences. Although there was research evidence in an earlier 1994 study that preservice teachers were connecting theory from course work with field practice, we questioned if there was a halo effect since the researchers served as program coordinators and professors; additionally, one was the principal of Gardner Road School.1 In 1995, the second author of this study, a former elementary and special education teacher and now a doctoral candidate, became involved in the research while completing an assistantship as the university’s practicum field liaison. She attempted to better understand the department’s reflective framework and program while working closely with the first author who was investigating a follow-up study of the 1995 cohort. Since she was unfamiliar with the earlier research, her input enhanced the reliability of program evaluation. Restructuring efforts centered on the following program goals, which were shared at an orientation meeting with preservice and cooperating teachers: (1) provide preservice teachers with a coherent experience that will allow them to see the curriculum in action, the way learning experiences build upon learning experiences, (2) give preservice teachers an opportunity to design and carry out a sequence of instruction, and (3) give preservice teachers an opportunity to learn instructional techniques from cooperating teachers and try out practices advocated in course work. Restructuring of the course and field work, particularly in the Curriculum and Instruction and Social Studies and Science methods courses, incorporated a Vygotskian approach and utilized: (1) socially shared cognitive formats or multiple opportunities for audience relationships (e.g., dyads, small groups, practicum school cohorts, practicum seminar) with peer and cooperating teacher

720

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

formative assessments, (2) dialogue for a social, technical, and reflective support network, and (3) authentic settings for problem-based learning through others (Samaras, 1995; 1998). ¹he Context: Methods Courses and Field ¼ork During the first professional semester, examples of socially shared cognitive formats in the Curriculum and Instruction course included: sharing education-related life histories, symposium presentations of each practicum school’s ethos, learning teaching models using the jigsaw method (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes & Snapp, 1978), electronic, reflection journals, microteaching and peer coaching lessons, peer response groups, and exit conferences. Assignments in the methods courses were aligned directly with concurrent field experiences to encourage reflection in and reflection on action (Schon, 1982) and give preservice teachers opportunities to make connections, interpretations, and justifications from what they learned in course work to what they experienced in the field (see Richardson, 1990). Preservice teachers had limited teaching responsibility in the first professional semester practicum (e.g., conducting morning meetings, teaching reading and math groups, short lessons, grading, and preparing teaching materials). Their tasks were small, but allowed them to participate while observing the multiple, interconnected tasks of teaching. While opportunities for preservice teachers to participate and express conscious reflections of teaching experiences began in the first professional semester, it was greatly intensified in the second professional semester. As Lave & Wenger (1991) explain, ‘the newcomers’ legitimate peripherality provides them with more than an ‘observational’ lookout post: It crucially involves participation as a way of learning — of both absorbing and being absorbed in — the ‘culture of practice’2 with opportunities to make the culture [of teaching] theirs (p. 95). It is our belief that neophytes’ knowing about teaching develops not only through membership in a community, but through their interest in becoming agents of its activity. Some preservice teachers were invited or initiated themselves into the new role more than easily others which gave them differential experiences. The second prac-

ticum was designed to immerse them as much as possible into the realities of teaching but with a great deal of university and field support. Our class projects centered around each preservice teacher’s development as a teacher with extensive and continuous opportunities for peer discourse and feedback. The Social Studies and Science methods course was designed to introduce preservice teachers to planning, experimenting, and integrating sciences with other content areas as they planned and taught an interdisciplinary unit. The unit was also a pedagogical frame for preservice teachers’ planning (preactive), teaching and assessment (interactive), and self-assessment (postactive) components of teaching. The unit structured the center of our class dialogue. Planning, teaching, and evaluating units were to be conducted with the cooperating teachers and flow naturally from the ongoing practicum classrooms. Careful consideration was given to the contextual applicability of course assignments which the preservice teachers shared with their cooperating teachers (e.g., conducting a field trip or a science investigation lesson). The unit also housed related assignments from other methods courses that demonstrated knowledge of course concepts, e.g., an annotated bibliography of children’s books and a guided reading comprehension lesson related to the unit topic were assigned in the Reading methods course, observations of parent-teacher and Individual Education Plan conferences were Classroom Management and Special Needs course assignments, and lessons that integrated movement experiences were assigned in the Health and Physical Education methods course (Samaras et al., 1998). During the preactive phase of planning the unit, preservice teachers presented unit sketches in an author’s chair format with peer questions and suggestions. In the science shadow assignment, preservice teachers shadowed and interviewed two science teachers and brought their observation and interview notes to the methods class for discussion. Preservice teachers participated in roundtable sessions focusing on science and social studies background knowledge with pre-concept and post-concept maps (Novak & Gowin, 1984) of content knowledge related to the unit topic.

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

The teaching or interactive phase of the unit involved preservice teachers in implementing their lessons and reading reflective journal entries of experiences encountered while implementing their units (e.g., forfeiting a planned lesson due to a school assembly or schedule change, adjusting lessons to a large variance in ability levels, overlapping when discipline problems arose, and finding out first graders ask sophisticated questions). They met with peers, cooperating teachers, and the university liaison to discuss their mid-term teacher and self-evaluations. Preservice teachers adopted a ‘‘partnership perspective’’ (Erdman, 1983) developing, discussing, experimenting, and reflecting on their lessons. Over time, confessing mistakes and receiving feedback were more welcomed by preservice teachers and applauded as reflection and self-study by professors. There was a heavy course emphasis on preservice teachers’ self-study with opportunities to reconstruct and assess their teaching through reflection and dialogue in the postactive phase. For example, one postactive assignment required a final unit assessment, e.g., what preservice teachers learned, whether pupils acquired the concepts and skills they were teaching, what they would do differently, and how the unit project reflected their interpretation and analysis of what it means to be a teacher. In a video-taped poster session, preservice teachers presented pre-concept and post-concept maps of their notions of planning accompanied by a planning paper. This paper included: (a) the development of understanding about shortterm and long-term unit planning, (b) the support, directions, resources they sought out and received, (c) examples of curriculum decisions made, and (d) any related issues, such as teaching as an art or science, classroom management, motivation, assessment, and organization. Preservice teachers also wrote and shared in class a field progress report, as outlined by Posner (1996), where they described: (a) the context of their field experience, (b) goals set, (c) what they learned from the field experience, (d) observed learning episodes, (e) generalizability of field observations, (f ) goal achievements, and (g) future goals. They met again with their cooperating teachers and university liaison to discuss their final teacher and self evaluations.

721

A debriefing session (Raths, 1987) was held where we constructed a class webbing of the linkages between the field experiences and course work with an opportunity for shared reconstruction of planning and teaching knowledge. A privately scheduled audio-taped exit conference with an oral self-evaluation was conducted. In addition, preservice teachers wrote self-evaluation papers where they commented upon: (a) the quality of their work, participation, and effort for the semester, (b) a current view of self as teacher, i.e., what changed or remained the same in their thinking about teaching, (c) how insights described were gained, and (d) future professional goals. These narrative reports created a rich and multiple data set for analysis. Data Sources, Collection, and Analysis The primary data sources for this research were preservice teachers: (1) final self-evaluations of their unit, (2) planning papers, (3) field progress reports, (4) self-evaluation papers, and (5) interviews with preservice and cooperating teachers. One-on-one, audio-taped semi-structured interviews, approximately 45—60 min in length, were conducted at the end of the second professional semester of spring, 1995 to assess program restructuring (see Appendices A and B). All interviews occurred after the semester was over and grades were submitted and were transcribed by professional typists. From a cohort of 13 undergraduate preservice teachers and one student in a certification only, program; three early childhood majors (all female, Caucasian) and 11 elementary majors (10 female, Caucasian and one male, Caucasian), 13 preservice teachers were available for interviews. Secondary data sources included preservice teachers: (1) background knowledge papers with pre-concept and post-concept maps of content knowledge, (2) weekly, electronic, reflection journals, (3) mid-term and final self-evaluations of practicum experiences, (4) mid-term and final cooperating teachers’ evaluations, (5) videotaped, poster presentations of their unit planning, (6) pre-concept and post-concept maps of notions of their planning, and (7) audio-taped exit conferences. As in the 1992 cohort study, the preliminary analysis suggested that the restructured program enhanced the alignment of course work and field practice. The cooperating

722

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

teacher interviews however, had not yet been analyzed. During this data analysis stage, the second author, blind to the earlier research findings, analyzed case samplings from the 1992 and 1995 cohorts and also found that preservice teachers reported a ‘‘connectedness’’ or the opportunity to learn instructional techniques from cooperating teachers and try out practices advocated and taught in university course work (see Gismondi, 1997). However, she also noted that one set of preservice teachers had a quite different field experience from others. This study then, is a second line of analysis from the 1995 cohort study and was conducted apart from the main data analysis of the 13 preservice teachers. The outlier set and another set of preservice teachers, who reported an overwhelming positive experience, were chosen for in-depth case analyses with the primary criteria for selection based on investigating the contrasting reports of support systems in field experiences, which also now included those of the cooperating teachers. The rationale for the case study format was based on the fact that it afforded a grounded assessment of context, and as Lincoln, and Guba (1985) explain, ‘‘an emic inquiry or a reconstruction of the respondents’ constructions and a thick description so necessary for judgements of transferability’’ (p. 359). The four preservice teachers (partnerships of two) were female and Caucasian and were in the elementary education program. The two cooperating teachers were also female and Caucasian. Pair one (Irene and Alexis) worked with a cooperating teacher (Ms. Athens) in a fourth grade classroom at The Gardner Road School. Pair two (Gina and Ann), worked with a cooperating teacher (Ms. Rose) in a first grade classroom at St. John’s School. The multi-data source of preservice and cooperating teachers’ reports were read and reread with marginal remarks and memoing. As each data source was read, repeated statements were compared and contrasted with other statements across the data, which allowed an analysis for patterns of similarities and differences and the marking of preliminary categories. Also during this process in the beginning readings of the data, numerous matrixes and charts were sketched as a precursor to data displays (Miles & Huberman, 1984) which gave a visual overview of preliminary codes and patterns. Case

analysis meetings were held throughout the study. The codes were operationalized by the authors to seek agreement on definitions. Check-coding was conducted for the two cooperating teacher interviews with 90% agreement and on a sample of two preservice teacher interviews with 100% agreement. Once categories were identified, the data was reanalyzed more systematically using the written and transcribed data sources, first-level analysis with line-by-line coding. Pattern coding was used to group overarching themes or constructs of preservice teachers’ views about learning to teach and to cluster views across participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). Each data set was read again, with continuous refinement and reduction of categories over the large, multi-data set. Findings The analysis resulted in three major categories which characterized the perceptions reported by preservice and cooperating teachers of their experiences in the restructured program. These were: (1) situated learning, (2) partnership/ ownership, and (3) feedback/free reign. The primary data is discussed in terms of how it integrates with the Vygotskian tenets that frame the teacher education program. (1) Situated ¸earning In this study, preservice teachers did seem to gain experience as teachers by taking part in and becoming accustomed to an actual classroom. They were able to use and situate their learning from their methods courses, recognize when they were doing so, and acquire a better understanding of teaching. In numerous ways they connected theory to practice by trying out techniques in the environment of a particular grade and class. The classroom dynamics required them to reflect and take action in terms of integrating content, individualizing, and revising plans as the following preservice teacher’s comment suggests: Irene: I learned a lot in classes, but I think planning the unit — I mean we do lesson plans but more or less they’ve been hypothetical all the way through. I think actually doing the unit, doing the time, having to combine the strategies, the timing, the disciplines, and

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

all that. Before everything was so separate. I would try to combine the disciplines but it was all on paper. I wouldn’t have had to do that without the unit and without the field work.

Preservice teachers reported that teaching the unit taught them about how children think and process information on particular tasks. They came to know and assess children as individuals in the real contexts, noting that the diversity among learners was greater than they could ever have imagined. Learning to be comfortable with the different paces of students and their effects on the lessons, and trying out ways to motivate and manage classrooms took place in the practicum. As they faced dilemmas, they had to make curriculum decisions. In a Vygotskian sense, the authentic setting let them experience and see the concepts and theories, which they had only read about in textbooks. Alexis reflected: I learned a lot of what I learned in my classes in the classroom. I learned a lot about the heterogeneous and the homogeneous groupings, and it helped me a lot in my groups to understand. And I saw it working — that children can learn from one another. I think every day I pulled on my course work. I have so many examples and it just all fell in together, at the end especially.

The situated learning also enabled preservice teachers to observe the impact of a particular school’s curriculum, which for Gina and Ann, was in contradiction to what they were learning in the university culture. Nevertheless, they expressed the dissonance they found in context: Ann: I was shocked because Gina and I went in there (the library) with the class when they had their library time, and they were looking at books, and they were talking, ‘‘Look at the book I found,’’ and she (the librarian) just would tell them to shut up. We were like ‘‘Oh no! Don’t tell them to shut up. They’re excited about it’’2 We would go to science class with our class, and I would sit in the back and just cry in my tea watching this woman teacher. I thought, this is awful. She was shouting out answers and throwing candy at who got them right, and yelling at kids who weren’t paying attention. I thought, Oh God, no, this is awful.

Numerous control, curriculum, and societal dilemmas, observed within-context, encouraged much reflection for Gina and Ann. Conversely, there were few reported dilemmas by Irene and Alexis. Gina and Ann realized that the practicum placement was not ideal with respect to the cooperating teacher’s model of teaching.

723

However, they repeatedly remarked that they gained a deeper understanding of the dynamics and instruction of a classroom, who they were becoming as teachers, and what might await them after graduation: Gina: It made us think. It gave us great journals. It make me think a lot. Well this is exactly what we learned not to do. How would I have done it? Ann: I learned many valuable lessons that I would not have learned at a more progressive school. I was forced to reflect upon how I would choose to handle the situation. I was forced to look at a deeper and personal level of understanding of how I plan to implement my lessons2 This is the real world. I learned that the way our teacher taught, it works but it just doesn’t work the way that I want it to work. So, I definitely know when I’m going into that and realize, well do I want to be teaching this way?

(2) Partnership/Ownership The category of partnership was sub-coded with the following dimensions: (a) partner as cognitive and emotional anchor, (b) partner to facilitate perspective-taking and social negotiation, and (c) ownership through partnership. (a) Partner as Cognitive and Emotional Anchor. The partnership appeared to afford both sets of preservice teachers with positive experiences for cognitive and emotional peer support. The unit, as a shared goal task (partners completed one unit and received the same grade for the unit), created a common ground for continuous communication and socially mediated knowledge. Preservice teachers had to constantly discuss and assess their teaching with a peer, exchanging interpersonal knowledge about teaching, i.e., sharing between people to enhance their intrapersonal knowledge, i.e., within the person; internalized to use later independently (Wertsch, 1985). The cooperating teachers spoke of the practicum partnership in contrasting manners. Ms. Athens described the preservice teachers as a support to each other and to her in the classroom. She capitalized on their areas of expertise and gave them individual assignments. She did not see them as a burden but ‘‘like having two other teachers in the room.’’ Ms. Rose, on the other hand, felt the pair did not allow either one to have enough practice plus they made her nervous and self-conscious of her teaching.

724

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

Preservice teachers claimed the partnership was not easy or comfortable but was beneficial to their learning. They adapted the partnership strategies in their own classrooms. Each preservice teacher had her own learning style and very different from her partner. The first author had taught the same preservice teachers the semester before, which allowed her to read their education-related life histories, get to know them, and pair them in a complementary manner with each bringing her differing gifts to the teaching tasks. Additionally, Briggs & Briggs-Myers (1991) type indicators and temperament in teaching styles (Keirsey & Bates, 1984), tabulated in the first professional semester, were included in the pairing decisions. The sets of preservice teachers used each other as sounding boards to hear out their disappointments and to discuss and sort out their observations as they questioned practice. The partnerships supported them in their beginning efforts to teach against the grain and to deal with dilemmas that they knew they would soon encounter in the work world. The contrasts in theory to practice that Gina and Ann witnessed and shared, appeared to strengthen and validate their own theories of teaching. Although they learned to compromise with the cooperating teacher, they expressed a sense of social reconstructivism, a foundation for their unfolding theories of who they were becoming as teachers as evident in this statement: Ann: The first activity that I did with the kids — well, at first we were doing one-on-one tutoring, and she said, ‘‘Could you help Maggie?’’ and I said sure. So I went to the back of the room and I said to her ‘‘Would you like to sit in a chair or on the floor?’’ And Maggie said ‘‘On the floor’’. So I said okay and I sat on the floor with her. The little girl looked at me like I was crazy, and Ms. Rose was not happy at all. She just looked at me like ‘‘How can you do that? You’re on the floor! Get up’’. And I thought, I should get up, but I’m not because this is what Maggie wants. She’s more comfortable down here. I’m staying down here. And then I realized that I had to — I did sort of change to fit her classroom. I’d sit on a small chair instead of on the floor. But I refused to sit at the desk while the child was on the floor.

Although, Irene and Alexis did not struggle to teach against the grain as did Gina and Ann, they became aware of the difficulties of other school realities in the practicum seminar when peers read journal reflections. In her self-evalua-

tion paper, Alexis wrote: And my goals as a teacher, after this experience, would be that you’re not going to be in the perfect situation, but that’s the whole thing. You have to be the difference and you have to make the situation — create a situation where learning takes place. I do want a job, but I’m going to have to teach how I learned to teach. I have to take what I learned here, and I’m not going to back down, and I know God is looking at all times to help me through that.

Partnerships also included classmates who helped mediate unit development in the author’s chair activity, and offered lesson revisions. Groups of preservice teachers car pooled to the practicum sites, met inside and outside of methods courses, and shared their ordeals. One preservice teacher gave this assessment: Alexis: We felt the strongest support we received for implementing our unit was from our peers. They always offered ideas, and knowing that they were going through similar experiences, helped and motivated us. To work with others and succeed, is the best feeling in the world. I learned more than ever how much support is needed.

(b) Partner to Facilitate Perspective-¹aking and Social Negotiation. Data supported that the pairing fostered perspective-taking and required peers to learn negotiation strategies, with each other and their cooperating teachers. Preservice teachers saw negotiating as a necessary but difficult professional skill. They spoke of looking more critically at their views and actions as they attempted to articulate them to others. Although they complained about their differences in the beginning of the semester, over time they remarked that their way might not always be the best, or only way. Gina explains the tensions and benefits of this double-bind in her interview where she states: I would have liked to do a unit by myself. Just because we’re very different2 We were a big complement for each other because she relaxed me and I got her on the ball a little bit. You definitely had different perspectives which was good2 And it’s funny how we would interpret something that happened in the classroom. ‘‘Can you believe she did that?’’ Ann was like, ‘‘Yeah!’’ But Ann would have seen it in an entirely different way.

(c) Ownership through Partnership. There appeared to be a confluence of partnership yet individual ownership; a sense of collectivist perspective that occurred in joint activity with personal gains and understanding. Preservice

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

teachers were given opportunities to plan, teach, and take responsibility. They commented that the unit was a shared unit, belonging to and created by themselves. They felt ownership and some autonomy in planning. When lessons were implemented, either in a co-teach fashion or individually, they offered and easily accepted each other’s feedback. In the practicum, knowledge about planning was socially constructed. One can sense the problem-solving and joint decision making in a unit construction in the following example: It (the unit) seemed to shift the whole time. You think, okay, this is my unit. It never goes straight. You always branch out. We branched out so many times. Let’s do this. No this might not go too well. They might not learn. It may be too difficult. Let’s go this way.

The ownership was nested in a co-teach relationship with peer and cooperating teacher for Irene and Alexis and with peers only for Gina and Ann. Through the constant support from peers, they came to own their teaching, i.e., intrapersonal knowing. In a peer evaluation, Ann states: Gina’s ability and maturity in the classroom is quite advanced. Over the course of the semester, she has helped me not only as a peer, but also as a mentor. Her composure and creativity are inspirational. Much of the success I’ve experienced in my lessons was a direct result of her assistance.

The way that ownership developed however, was related to the role of the cooperating teachers and resulted in very different learning experiences. Cooperating teachers did not express any tensions in letting preservice teachers ‘‘do their own thing’’ however, they played different roles while preservice teachers tried practices advocated in course work. The differential support preservice teachers received from their cooperating teachers is discussed in the third category — feedback/free reign. (3) Feedback/Free Reign Analysis of data from preservice and cooperating teachers indicated stark contrasts in the types of feedback and reign of teaching responsibilities cooperating teachers provided. Tharp and Gallimore (1990), point out that teachers, like children, (Samaras, 1991; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1978), have ZPD that require

725

assisted performance. They identified six means of assisting the performance of inservice teachers, i.e., modeling, contingency management, feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive structuring. Feeding back was identified as ‘‘the single most effective means of selfassistance’’ (p. 54). We speak of feedback as the dialogue between individuals for correction that may lead to internalized self-regulation. Free reign is the amount of responsibility and control the cooperating teacher gave to the preservice teachers in the classroom. Without meaningful feedback, the preservice teachers had little professional support in taking over the classroom. Cooperating teachers’ feedback and free reign were examined from the task of the unit, from its conception to completion, i.e., planning, development, teaching, assessment, and conclusion of field experience (Figure 2). In the planning of the unit, Ms. Athens played a crucial, yet non-directive, role as partner in the conception of unit topic, the early stages of its development, and its long-term planning outline. As with her own students, she used the preservice teachers’ interests and experiences as spring boards for their learning. Although she pulled from their interests she asserts2 ‘‘it had to fit into what we were doing.’’ She considered the unit as essential to the ongoing curriculum. Ms. Rose allowed Gina and Ann total free reign on the selection of the unit topic. As Gina remarks, ‘‘it didn’t have anything to do with what they were doing in the curriculum.’’ Ms. Athens, unlike Ms. Rose, required mutual planning time, with dialogue about mapping out lesson sequence, objectives, and deadlines during the planning and development of the unit. Irene explained: From the beginning, she forced us to figure out how we were going to organize it (the unit). She sat down with us. She did the very beginning of the planning. From there we were kind of on our own, but she helped in that, the long range planning2 She wanted to know exactly what we were going to cover, when we were going to cover it, and how long it would take. She gives you so much freedom, so much time.

During the development of the unit, Ms. Athens perceived the preservice teachers as a part of the classroom and appreciated the shared teaching responsibilities in a mutual task. Ms. Athens notes, ‘‘I got ideas from them and they got ideas

726

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

Ms. Athens f f f f f f f f f

Ms. Rose Planning of unit

Structured planning Required to submit plans Set times to meet 1/2 hour planning Long-range planning Breaks down tasks Mapped course assignments with class Gave deadlines Mutual planning initiation

Development of unit Negotiated unit into existing curriculum Shared task goal of unit Used preservice teachers’ life experiences Focused on preservice teachers’ strengths for teaching Gave responsibility immediately which increased over time f Joint problem-solving f f f f f

f f f f f f f f f

Non-structured planning Informal Planning No specific meeting time 5 to 10 minutes planning No long-term time frame No involvement in planning No understanding of assignments No deadlines No teacher-initiated planning

f f f f f f

No integration of unit in curriculum Disassociated task goals Confusion of role in unit Laissez faire attitude Gave little instructional time Gave mainly observational, tutorial, and teacher aide roles

Teaching and assessment of unit f f f f

Partnership perspective in teaching/shared practice Constructive, content-specific feedback Pushed for self-analysis and self-regulation Offered feedback during evaluation sessions

f f f f

f f f f

Conclusion of unit and field experience Preservice teachers’ unit ownership f Preservice teachers’ unit ownership Smooth conclusion f Surprised of unit work Saw preservice teachers’ professional growth f Confused of her role Came to know preservice teachers f Cordial relationship

No partnership in teaching Little and general feedback Superficial assessment Feedback initiated by preservice teachers

Figure 2. Feedback/free reign: Cooperating teacher’s role

from what I had done before. I think that really helped me.’’ They met during her planning time where she made sure everything was working. Ms. Rose offered little feedback during the development of the unit which frustrated Gina and Ann. When they heard of other preservice teachers’ positive experiences during the practicum seminar, they said they felt cheated. Ann: Really the only thing she (Ms. Rose) worked with us on the planning is we would ask her ‘‘What do you plan on doing next week?’’ Usually as far as math was concerned. And she would have a list of the pages in the textbook that they were doing2 Very often after we had something planned, we would go to her and ask, ‘‘Do you think this will work?’’ — Just to get her opinion. Once in a while she would suggest a change, then that would make it easier to implement in the classroom and sometimes we said, ‘‘This is what we want to do, we need time.’’

In the teaching and assessment of the unit, both cooperating teachers did ‘‘hand over the class’’

to the preservice teachers, but in very different ways. In many ways, feedback and free reign from the cooperating teachers reflected their teaching styles and what they modeled in teaching their own students. The cooperating teachers needed to feel comfortable with the preservice teachers ‘‘taking over’’ in the class however, this comfort needed to be reached by receiving feedback from the cooperating teachers. Ms. Athens came to know the preservice teachers and established a climate for them to learn from and support each other. Working within preservice teachers’ ZPD, required her to: talk with them and find out what they were interested in and knew; structure an entrance into teaching by offering gradations of teaching responsibility depending on the task; give specific feedback; and require reflective assessments of their course and field work. From the outset, she gave the pair teaching time, encouragement to be risktakers, and try out what they had learned in

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

courses while she was in the classroom. She comments: Ms. Athens: I divided my reading group right away for them and gave them six students each and they had to take care of those students and we talked about the books that we were reading. I talked about different activities that I had done and I told them to come up with different activities that they enjoyed doing. I thought it was important they did what they had to do and what we were doing2 I gave them a group and we built activities on our reading and I linked it to geography and creative writing. I asked them for suggestions.

Although the Gina and Ann showed initiative in getting more involved in the classroom, Ms. Rose didn’t express confidence in their readiness to teach for any length of time. When they did teach, the feedback was general with no ideas offered for improvement. Ms. Rose kept them mainly in the role of observer, tutor, and teacher aide with limited teaching time. She even controlled the classroom while they taught as Ann notes: She definitely had control of the classroom at all times — even when I was teaching a lesson. This made it very difficult for me to work upon my goal of becoming an effective disciplinarian. I wanted to try some of the techniques that I was learning2 The first times Gina and I did lessons, Ms. Rose sat behind us and said ‘‘Sit on your bottom. Keep your mouth closed. If you have a question, put your hand up.’’ You know, I felt like, ‘‘Just let them go. Leave them alone. They’re first graders.’’

Gina and Ann appeared to rely heavily on each other and on classmates for feedback. Although Ms. Rose said she wanted to use the feedback as some tool of guidance, she was never quite certain how that should be accomplished so she left it more to chance as evident here: Ms. Rose: Being my first time (with practicum students), I was just like ‘‘whatever you want to do.’’ I didn’t want to be, you know, I was just very open to whatever they wanted to do. I was confused with my role basically. I just kind of saw it, when the opportunity came up, that I could illustrate a point to them2 I was not on them at all2 I guess I just waited for them to come to me... We never actually sat down during one of my breaks and discussed things.

Without a balance of feedback and free reign, Gina and Ann had little professional support in order to obtain the control of the class. At times, when the class became chaotic as they taught, Ms. Rose would indicate that she knew their

727

approach would not work, but she did not say what would help. When they could teach, Gina and Ann did try out strategies taught in methods courses, but strategies in which the children were not accustomed: Ann: Once in a while, when she was gone for about a week and we had a substitute who let us do quite a few different things. And we tried the get the kids to do cooperative learning, which I did last semester. Then I tried it at St. John’s and it was a disaster. We put them in groups, and everybody had a job2 and it ended up becoming a little fight in each group of kids. There was one group that worked together beautifully, and the rest had problems2 At the end of the exercise one of the little boys came up to me and said ‘‘Could we not play that game again? It made my tummy ache.’’

After completing lessons, each preservice teacher overall wanted to know ‘‘how did I do?’’ Ms. Athens used feedback as a way to have preservice teachers self-analyze. She spent a lot of time with preservice teachers during the mid-term and final evaluations. She often asked them to reconstruct their experiences, to think about what they thought they understood, and encouraged them to reflect beyond the immediate environment. Alexis explains Ms. Athens’ feedback style in the following statement: Alexis: I always asked her what she thought, and she would never tell me what she thought. She makes me be the critical thinker. Self-evaluation, that’s her big, — that’s her key thing2 She wanted me to selfanalyze myself all the time, and I learned from that. I learned a lot.

At the conclusion of the unit, Ms. Athens noted in the final evaluations of Alexis and Irene that they planned a unit that focused on the needs and interests of each student and that it was evident her students improved in reading comprehension, social studies, and art. Ms. Rose spoke of Gina’s and Ann’s patience, caring, and gentleness in their final evaluations. She was surprised when Gina and Ann showed her the unit binder at the end of the semester because she had no idea that they were actually doing that much work. Irene and Alexis stated in their interviews that they were ‘‘confident, not worried, and excited’’ about student teaching. In contrast, Gina and Ann felt they have grown, but not in a way that prepared them for student teaching. Ann: I’m scared (about student teaching). I don’t think I grew like I should have grown2 I felt like

728

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

I was really reinforcing everything that I had already learned because I was thinking about it all the time, but I wasn’t learning new things2 I definitely grew. I just grew in an entirely different way than I expected to grow.

Implications for Teacher Education This study, although limited in its generalizability from the case samplings, raises important issues for teacher educators. Our reflections have led us to the following implications for teacher education: First, this study exemplifies how action research and self-study can inform the practice of teacher educators and the design of teacher education programs. According the Zeichner (1995), most academicians involved in teacher research pay little homage to the process of action research in school-based inquiry or in studying their own university-based teaching practices as a form of knowledge production. In that respect, the study demonstrates the value and legitimacy of action research and self-study in teacher education. Second, the findings suggest that situated learning may benefit preservice teachers’ understanding of planning, perspective taking, social negotiation, and sense of ownership. The Vygotskian-designed program enabled preservice teachers to experience an authentic teaching experience with task demands shared between and among peers and a cooperating teacher. The multiple opportunities and structures for high interaction, may have assisted the development of preservice teachers’ sense of partnership and professional collegiality. Some cooperating teachers have shared with us that they feel a professional responsibility in assisting novices as they enter the profession of teaching. Maybe we need to instill that sense of commitment in today’s novices. Building collaborative mind sets during professional training may help offset this problem somewhat in the future. Preservice teachers had opportunities in socially shared cognition; to construct knowledge with others in course work and in the partnership relationship in the field. They were able to witness and experience theory into practice, problem-solve with others, and make public their reflections in journals, a series of papers, exit conferences, and interviews. They expressed

and sorted out their disappointments, confusion, and the connections they made between what they read about in methods courses and what they actually experienced in the field. They certainly saw curriculum in action, planned and tried out what they were learning in course work, and critically questioned practice. The experience appears to have led both pairs to a better understanding of teaching and helped bring practice closer to program goals. Third, the study highlights the differential support systems that preservice teachers can receive in practicum experiences. There were two collaborative relationships at work in this study, i.e., peer with peer, and peers with cooperating teacher. Two cautionary points should be made: (1) Placing preservice teachers in cohorts or pairs is not all there is to a Vygotskian approach in teacher education. It involves a process of joint activity. (2) The differential support systems that preservice teachers received from cooperating teachers indicates that preservice teachers can not always rely on the cooperating teachers’ support. Over many years, we have found only a handful of cooperating teachers who conceptualize Vygotskian notions of teaching, e.g., understanding supportive entry points for feedback, when to assist and when to let preservice teachers drive for awhile alone (which are not necessarily sequential in nature); working within preservice teachers’ ZPD; letting them make their own, small mistakes. Both cooperating teachers had blocks of time for informal exchange with preservice teachers before or after the learning experiences however, they did not both utilize it. At the beginning of the semester, we met with both cooperating teachers to explain the program, provide model units, and clarify their roles. We made multiple school visits, reviewed weekly notes from the university practicum liaison, and addressed concerns throughout the semester with preservice and cooperating teachers. Although we identified effective scaffolding characteristics used by Ms. Athens, we did not help build a trust and integrity between Gina, Ann, and Ms. Rose or between Ms. Rose and the university. On the other hand, the lack of a support system may have less to do with building trust and integrity between people and more to do with cultural and institutional constraints (see Straits, 1980).

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

Perhaps Ms. Rose felt obligated to work in unison with her school curriculum (although it was under serious revision). We have questioned if her laissez faire role had to do with her unfamiliarity with our program. It is not clear what factors inhibited her ability to serve as an effective support for Gina and Ann and contributed to their negative field experience. While the design for course work and support for preservice teachers was given much thought, less attention was given to supporting the cooperating teacher. We need to think about how we can provide a supportive environment for both the preservice teachers and the cooperating teachers and to examine the school environment in more depth. Unfortunately, the time and effort required for developing university-school partnerships is not always afforded or appreciated by schools and universities. From this study, we have come to understand that practicum experiences need to provide formative assessment within preservice teachers’ ZPD. Lortie (1975) states that in most professions, in formal apprenticeships a ‘‘neophyte is ushered through a series of tasks of ascending difficulty and assumes greater responsibility as his technical competence increases2 The circumstances of the beginning teacher differ2 Tasks are not added sequentially to allow for gradual increase in skill and knowledge; the beginner learns while performing the full complement of teaching duties’’ (p. 72). Unlike the student teaching experience, these practicum students could focus on a task while observing the full complement of teaching in a specific school curriculum and classroom context. They could also receive feedback that would not penalize their chances of getting a job after graduation due to a poor evaluation from the cooperating or university supervisor. Ralph, Kesten, Lang and Smith (1998) found that administrators place the highest value on the internship evaluation report and profile for hiring new teachers. Fourth, this study also reveals the need for more careful investigation of the professional and survival skills that best prepare preservice teachers for working in schools. The skills we note included: (1) collaboration — particularly for coping and persisting in a difficult situation, (2) negotiation, and (3) reflection. Goodman and Fish (1997) also found that a crucial teaching

729

skill is learning how to collaborate and negotiate with colleagues, especially with those in power and/or those who hold differing perspectives. We too strive, like Cochran-Smith (1991), Goodman and Fish (1997), and Short and Burke (1989), to place our preservice teachers with cooperating teachers who carefully examine their own practice, its impact on children’s learning, and who are willing to depart from current practices of the school if they are ineffective. However, since ideal cooperating teachers, field placements, and schools are not always available, the tool of negotiation will provide a modest shield for the battlefield ahead. Future Research This study focused on preservice partnerships and the cooperating teacher’s role in a practicum experience. It did not investigate the impact of the school environment on those relationships or look at curriculum in action from a broader perspective. The schools in this study certainly reveal fascinating contexts for future research. How did the cooperating teachers’ accustomed ways of teaching influence the practicum experience and their role as mentor? Does a more rigid school schedule and framework make it more difficult for cooperating teachers to work within preservice teachers’ ZPD? Did the more fragmented schedule of St. John’s School hinder cross-disciplinary projects? How do school standards, curriculum requirements, and the physical environment affect the role of a cooperating teacher working with preservice teachers on an interdisciplinary unit? The study also begs the old, yet unanswered question, ‘‘Which schools are best to use in promoting preservice teachers’ professional growth and reflection?’’ When are field experiences educative? Field experiences remain a perplexing issue in teacher education. We want our preservice teachers to see good schools and do not want to chance any poor teaching models they might mimic. Unfortunately, even when working with schools with which the university has established ties and with schools where the curriculum and school ethos appear to be quality models, the cooperating teacher may not be. Furthermore, we have found that despite the advantages and consistency that typically are

730

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

afforded when working with the same schools over time, and especially professional development schools, that stability is weakened with the transience of principals and teachers and/or interrupted by school closings and delayed school openings. This study painfully reminds us of the problematic nature of the practicum that teacher educators and their students often face. We would like to clearly note that the schools in this study are not representative of all public or parochial schools we have utilized and that schools can change over time. Each school is unique. We are currently working in parochial schools with excellent curriculum models. We ponder if the ideal, textbook model for a field placement prepares our preservice teachers for the real world of working in urban schools (Taylor & Wilson, 1997). As Ann commented, ‘‘I think we learned a lot as far as what it’s going to really be like when we have jobs as teachers.’’ It is not clear from this study why certain events are more meaningful than others. Negative experiences may provide insights and lead to critical reflection (Armaline & Hoover, 1989; Treiber, 1984). The seemingly ineffective field experience, reaffirmed and legitimized Gina and Ann’s beliefs as they began to see themselves as active creators in their socially constructed knowledge. Even in non-ideal practicum placements, learning through reflection, nevertheless, could take place. Providing multiple and various field placements with peer and cooperating teacher support, may offer preservice teachers opportunities for negotiation, deeper reflection, and validation of their beliefs about teaching. Peers can serve as additional scaffolds needed for support in learning to teach and sometimes may be the only support systems available. With few guarantees of what preservice teachers will encounter after graduation, peer scaffolding may ease some of the difficulty in learning to teach. We recognize that there is a need for further research and understanding about sociocultural models in teacher education and in a Vygotskian approach to mentoring (see Elliott, 1995). Further investigation is needed by other teacher educators with other cohorts and in other contexts, (e.g., inner-city public schools, private schools, charter schools). Currently, the first author is investigating sets of preservice teachers’ developing notions of planning. We will continue to carefully examine if our preservice

teachers have experienced a holistic process of learning to teach — a process that encompasses sociocultural experiences. Note 1 The authors would like to thank Nancy Taylor and Ann Gay for their contributions in the beginning study of program revisions which lay the foundation for this work (see Taylor, Samaras, and Gay, 1994).

References Armaline, W. D., & Hoover, R. L. (1989). Field experience as a vehicle for transformation: Ideology, education, and reflective practice. Journal of ¹eacher Education, 40(2), 42—48. Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). ¹he jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: »ygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling: ¹eaching and social change. London: Methuen. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Briggs, K. C., & Briggs Myers, I. (1991). Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Britzman, D. P. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 442—456. Bullough, R. V. (1987). Accommodation and tension: Teachers, teacher role, and the culture of teaching. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge (pp. 83—94). London: Falmer Press. Bullough, R. V., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring self and school context. New York: Garland Publishing. Ciriello, M., Valli, L., & Taylor, N. E. (1992). Problem solving in not enough. In L. Valli (Ed.), Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques (pp. 99—115). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Clift, R. T., Meng, L., & Eggerding, S. (1992). Mixed messages in learning to teach English. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61(3), 279—310. Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). »ygotsky in the classroom. White Plains, NY: Longman. Eby, J. (1992). Reflective planning, teaching, and evaluation for the elementary school. New York: Macmillan. Elliott, B. (1995). Developing relationships: significant episodes in professional development. ¹eachers and ¹eaching: ¹heory and Practice, 1(2), 247—264. Erdman, J. (1983). Assessing the purposes of early field experience programs. Journal of ¹eacher Education, 34(4), 27—31.

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher preparation. ¹eachers College Record, 87(1), 53—65. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition. »ygotskian perspectives (pp. 323—347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gismondi, S. (1997). Practice makes perfect: ¹he integration of theory and methods with practicum. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Washington, DC. Goodlad, J. (1990). ¹eachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodman, J., & Fish, D. R. (1997). Against-the-grain teacher education: A study of course work, field experience, and perspectives. Journal of ¹eacher Education, 48(2), 96—107. Griffin, G. A., Barnes, S., Hughes, R., Jr., O’Neal, S., Defino, M. E., Edwards, S., & Hukill, H. (1983). Clinical preservice teacher education: Final report of a descriptive study. (Report No. 9026) Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5—12. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 341—348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hausfather, S. J. (1996). Vygotsky and schooling: Creating a social context for learning. Action in ¹eacher Education, 18(2), 1—10. Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character and temperament types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Knowles, J. G., Cole, A. L., & Presswood, C. S. (1994). ¹hrough preservice teachers’ eyes: Exploring field experiences through narrative inquiry. New York: Merrill Publishers. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: ¸egitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Manning, B. H., & Payne, B. D. (1993). A Vygotskian-based theory of teacher cognition: Toward the acquisition of mental reflection and self-regulation. ¹eaching and ¹eacher Education, 9(4), 361—371. McMahon, S. I. (1997). Using documented written and oral dialogue to understand and challenge preservice teachers’ reflections. ¹eaching and ¹eacher Education, 13(2), 199—213. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). ¹he construction zone: ¼orking for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

731

Nias, J. (1987). Learning from difference: A collegial approach to change. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge (pp. 137—152). London: Falmer Press. Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). ¸earning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press. Posner, G. J. (1996). Field experience: A guide to reflective teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman. Ralph, E. G., Kesten, C., Lang, H., & Smith, D. (1998). Hiring new teachers: What do school districts look for? Journal of ¹eacher Education, 49(1), 47—56. Raths, J. (1987). Enhancing understanding through debriefing. Educational ¸eadership, 45(2), 24—27. Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10—18. Samaras, A. P. (1991). Transitions to competence: An investigation of adult mediation in preschoolers’ self-regulation with a microcomputer-based problem-solving task. Early Education and Development, 2(3), 181—196. (1990 Student Research Award, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia). Samaras, A. P. (1995). My journey to Ithaca: Reflections of a teacher educator. ¹eaching Education, 7(1), 96—101. Samaras, A. P. (1998). Finding my way: Teaching methods courses from a sociocultural perspective. In A. L. Cole, R. Elijah, & J. G. Knowles (Eds.), ¹he heart of the matter: ¹eacher educators and teacher education reform (pp. 55—79). San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press. Samaras, A. P., Straits, S. A., & Patrick, S. S. (1998). Collaborating through movement across disciplines and schools. ¹eaching Education, 9(2), 11—20. Schon, D. (1982). ¹he reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Schwab, R. L., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Educator burnout: Sources and consequences. Education Research Quarterly, 10(3), 14—30. Short, K. G., & Burke, C. L. (1989). New potentials for teacher education: Teaching and learning as inquiry. Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 191—206. Straits, S. A. (1980). The Alwin Nikolais Artist-in Residence program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: An ethnography of dance curriculum in use. Dissertation Abstracts International, 4109A, University Microfilms No. AAC 8020583. Taylor, N. E., Samaras, A. P., & Gay, A. (1994). Making connections: Aligning theory and field practice. (Report No. SP 035008). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, Department of Education, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367597. Taylor, N. E., & Wilson, J. C. (1997). ¹eaching in culturally diverse contexts: Findings from a reflective teacher education program. Paper presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1990). Rousing minds to life: ¹eaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Treiber, F. (1984). Ineffective teaching: Can we learn from it? Journal of ¹eacher Education, 35(5),45—47. Valli, L. (1990). Moral approaches to reflective practice. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 39—56). New York: Teachers College.

732

ANASTASIA P. SAMARAS and SHELLY GISMONDI

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds. & trans.), Mind in society: ¹he development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), ¹he concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144—188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). »ygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89—100. Zeichner, K. M. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education for ¹eaching, 16 (2), 105—132. Zeichner, K. M. (1995). Beyond the divide of teacher research and academic research. ¹eachers and ¹eaching: ¹heory and Practice, 1(2), 153—172.

Appendix A. Student Interview Goals: 1. Ideally, field work and university course work should support each other. Course work should help you understand the field, and the field should give you a deeper understanding of course work. How well did this work for you this semester? Can you give us instances or examples of this mutual support? 2. What do you feel you learned about schooling, curriculum, and instruction? 3. In what way(s) do you feel your practicum experience enabled you to develop a sense of the way curriculum builds student knowledge, through a sequence of instructional activity? What evidence did you see from your planning and students’ learning? Planning: 1. What was your impression of the unit you planned? 2. How did you see the unit as contributing to your students’ learning? 3. How much of the unit was your own work and how much came from the existing curriculum or your cooperating teacher? 4. How much and how did you and your cooperating teacher work together on this unit? How did your see teacher support different from the first professional semester? 5. In what ways did your cooperating teacher facilitate your learning about planning and instruction?

6. What other resources did you use? 7. What were the things that helped you most in learning to plan this unit? Dilemmas: 1. What tensions or dilemmas did you feel in planning and implementing your unit in your classroom? 2. Did you feel free to use teaching strategies and ideas from your university course work? Overall impressions/recommendations: 1. Now that the second professional semester is over, how confident do you feel about student teaching? How has this semester contributed to that feeling? 2. What recommendations do you have for us? Note: Interviews were developed and conducted by Taylor, Samaras and Gay (1994). Appendix B. Cooperating Teacher Interview 1. To what degree do you feel the revised practicum enabled [practicum students’ name] to develop a sense of the way the curriculum builds student knowledge through a sequence of instruction and activity? f What factors contributed to the success of this goal? f What things tended to get in the way or hinder the process? f What recommendations would you recommend for next semester? 2. What was your general impression about the unit [practicum student’s name] planned? [Can you give me an example of2] f How much of the work was the student’s own and how much was dictated by the existing curriculum? f What aspects in planning and instruction do you perceive to be particularly difficult for [practicum student’s name]. What suggestions do you have for the university? f What do you see as this student’s strengths in this area and in general?

Vygotskian Interpretation in a Teacher Education Program

3. Were you able to get a sense of what was being taught in [practicum student’s name] teacher education course work? What they were suppose to try out in practice? How would you describe it? f How easy/difficult was it to allow the student to do ‘‘their own thing’’? f What factors contributed to the ease of this? f What factors contributed to the difficulty of this? f In what ways did you support your practicum student? f Who decided what to teach and how to teach? 4. One of the goals in educational restructuring is to forge greater cooperative links between schools and universities. This is a lot harder than it sounds because although we share similar

733

goals, the primary purposes differ, i.e. schools are primarily responsible and accountable for the education of the children enrolled and universities are primarily responsible for their students and pushing for the best educative experiences possible. Sometimes these differences create tensions. Going back to the stated goals of our program, there is a strong emphasis on having the student try out their own ideas. How realistic are these goals? What tensions did you feel? Do you have any ideas about how to diminish these tensions? 5. How would you compare this experience with other experiences you have had with our university and other universities? What things do you think are most important in promoting collaborative relationships?