Preservice Teachers' Observations of Cooperating Teachers and Peers while Participating in an Early Field Experience.

Abstract

Because of the value of authentic classroom experiences, education programs in the United States typically include one or more early field experiences prior to final full-time student teaching. These early field experiences play a crucial role in the preparation of teachers (Guyton & McIntyre, 1990). In an early field experience, cooperating teachers serve as models who guide prospective teachers in the application of theory and instructional approaches introduced in university methods courses. The goal of such apprenticeship experiences is for preservice teachers to develop and practice their pedagogical skills, in part through close observation of the cooperating teacher. However, such field experiences do not always lead to analysis, reflection, and growth on the part of the novice teacher (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996, p. 171). In early field experiences, prospective teachers typically observe the cooperating teachers and assume increasingly higher levels of responsibility, from tutoring individual pupils to teaching small groups, and then to teaching whole-class lessons. Observation of cooperating teachers often continues in the final full-time student teaching experience, as preservice teachers observe while grading papers, helping pupils with seatwork, and performing other clerical tasks for cooperating teachers. Throughout their preservice training, students may spend many days in observation; however, little research has focused on preservice teachers' observation of teaching, particularly in early field experiences. Ben-Peretz and Rumney (1991) maintain that merely sitting in the classroom observing how experienced teachers teach does not necessarily help preservice teachers learn to teach. Dewey (1974) believed that observing teaching was necessary to the professional development of teachers, but he cautioned that the observer had to recognize the interaction of the minds of the and the pupils they were observing. We questioned how we could provide for preservice teachers' observations that would lead to greater understanding of effective instruction. One approach to sharpening observations and making them more meaningful is through peer observation and coaching in field settings. In this approach, preservice teachers observe a peer at the same level of training. In addition to sharpening observation, this experience can provide more frequent, on-site feedback to the preservice and reduce the sense of unease that often accompanies observations by the cooperating or university supervisor, whose comments tend to be primarily evaluative. It can also develop mutually supportive bonds as the peers progress in their development. We hypothesized that peer observation in a situation where the preservice had frequent opportunities to teach and observe peers teach might increase reflection and provide more feedback to improve instruction. Related Literature Peer Coaching To inform this study, we examined research both on peer coaching observations and on the approaches to observing teachers' instruction, targeting studies conducted during early field experiences. Peer coaching is a system whereby peers assist each other in developing skill or expertise in some aspect of teaching. It developed, in part, from clinical supervision, a professional development technique of the 1960s with emphasis on detailed observation data and specific behavior (Munson, 1998). A variety of different models have developed over the years, traditionally sharing three characteristics: direct observation with constructive feedback, nonevaluation, and goal setting for further self-improvement (Ackland, 1991). The typical format includes three stages. First, the peer holds a preobservation conference in which she or he shares concerns and targets a focused behavior or skill for improvement. Next, the peer observes, using some method of collecting data on the targeted behaviors. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 92 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.