This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 02:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational GerontologyPublication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uedg20

DEVELOPINGGERONTOLOGYEDUCATORS THROUGHA GRADUATE TEACHINGPRACTICUMDana Burr Bradley , James R. Peacock ,Dena Shenk & Meldrena ChapinPublished online: 10 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Dana Burr Bradley , James R. Peacock , Dena Shenk& Meldrena Chapin (2002) DEVELOPING GERONTOLOGY EDUCATORSTHROUGH A GRADUATE TEACHING PRACTICUM, Educational Gerontology,28:1, 45-57, DOI: 10.1080/036012702753304485

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/036012702753304485

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content

should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

DEVELOPING GERONTOLOGY EDUCATORS THROUGH AGRADUATE TEACHING PRACTICUM

Dan a Bu r r Brad leyGeron tology Program,

Univer sity of Nor th Ca rolina a t Cha rlot t e,Cha rlot te, Nor th Carolina, USA

Jam es R. PeacockGeron tology Program,

Univer sity of Nor th Ca rolina a t Cha rlot t e,Cha rlot te, Nor th Carolina, USA

Den a Sh enkGeron tology Program,

Univer sity of Nor th Ca rolina a t Cha rlot t e,Cha rlot te, Nor th Carolina, USA

Meldren a ChapinGeron tology Program,

Univer sity of Nor th Ca rolina a t Cha rlot t e,Cha rlot te, Nor th Carolina, USA

This article addresses the formal process of constructing and implementing agraduate teaching practicum in a Master ’s program in Gerontology. The modelpresented examines the two-semester experience of a graduate student learning toteach an undergraduate Introduction to Gerontology class, under the guidance oftwo faculty members. The roles of the gerontology program director, the faculty

Address corr espondence to Dana Bradley, Depar tmen t of Polit ical Scien ce, Univer sityof Nor th Ca rolina a t Char lot t e, 9201 Univer sity City Blvd, Char lot t e, Nor th Carolina28223, USA. E-mail: dbradley@email.un cc.edu

Educat ional Geron tology, 28: 45–57, 2002Copyr ight # 2002 Brunner -Rou t ledge0360-1277 /02 $12.00 ‡ .00

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

mentors, and graduate student are highlighted. Issues include balancing the re-sponsibilities and rights of a student with expectat ions of performance as an in-structor, developing responsible and personalized pedagogical practices whileinsuring high-quality undergraduate instruction, and insuring successful per-formance standards through evaluation. This is presented as an effective modelthat could be adapted by other graduate gerontoloy programs.

This a r t icle focu ses on a teach ing pr act icum as an approach to de-veloping gr adua te students’ teaching skills ba sed on a model devel-oped a t the Un iver sity of Nor th Carolina a t Char lot te (UNCChar lot te). Th is gra du a te teach ing pr act icum involved an evolving setof r ela t ion sh ips between facu lty member s and the gr adu a te student .While th is a r t icle is ba sed on the exper ien ce of the � r st studen t tocomplete th is exper ience, th e th ird studen t is cur r en t ly complet ing ateach ing pr act icum under th e model described in th is a r ticle. Theteach ing pract icum is discussed as a collabora t ive process between theprogram director, fa cu lty mentor s, and gr adua te studen t .

The impetus for developing a formal teach ing pr act icum with in theMast er ’s pr ogr am was concern with developing th e teaching skills ofgradua te students who ar e inter ested in teaching in Geron tology.Gr adua te students pu rsu e a va r iety of career pa th s upon complet ion ofth eir Master ’s degr ee, and some plan to teach . Some may go on toa t tend doctor al programs and teach a t the univer sit y level, other sbecome engaged in community edu ca t ion and t ra in ing as pa r t of th eirjob, and some students a re inter ested in teaching a t the communitycollege or university level as an adjunct inst r u ctor. The development ofth is teaching pr act icum was in tended to provide both a wide skill setand content a r ea appropr ia te for teach ing in a var iety of sett ings.

Resea r ch on beginn ing teacher s h as included an examinat ion ofth eir pr oblem s and concern s. Major concerns ident i� ed include dis-ciplin e and classr oom management (E lia s, Fish er, & Simon , 1980);r ole adjustment (Ryan et a l., 1980), and mot iva t ing and dealing withindividua l s tudents (Veenman, 1984). In ter est in improving teach ingskills has in par t focu sed on prepar ing and suppor t ing an individua lth rough collabora t ive teams (Blair -Lar sen , 1998; Vann, 1992).A collabor a t ive team lea rn ing exper ience is con sidered product ivewhen it provides suppor t to less exper ienced teacher s and oppor tu-n ities for per son al and professiona l r e� ect ion (Bercik & Blair-Larsen , 1993).

The teaching pract icum was conceptua lized as a collabor a t ive pro-ject involving mu lt iple individua ls who had mu lt iple inter est s. F ind-ing ba lance amon g th ese in terest s r emained a cha llenge. Incon sider ing th e design and implemen ta t ion of the project , the au thor s

46 D. B. Bradley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

felt th a t individuals involved with the replica t ion of the pr act icummodel shou ld:

1. remain though t fu l abou t the process over t ime;2. recognize th a t each par t icipant br ings a va r iety of perspect ives to

the process;3. a t tend to managing ou tcomes;4. commun ica te frequ ent ly; and5. recognize tension s over equ a lity and shared power.

The pr act icum requ ired cont inued cooper at ion in th e a r eas listedabove, which is on ly possible with in an admin ist r a t ive in fr ast ru ctur eand with administ r a t ive suppor t (H uxh am & Vangen, 1996). Th isprocess is cu rr en t ly in its th ird cycle and th is admin ist r a t ive in fra -st r uctur e and suppor t h ave proved invaluable.

In developing th e pr act icum it was crucia l to develop a formal set ofgu idelin es so tha t we cou ld assur e th a t th e studen t was developing theappropr ia te sk ills and con ten t . The use of a cont r act , formal andr egular repor t s, and summat ive eva lua t ions provided a fr amework forth e pract icum. The thr ee students have each cra ft ed th eir project soth a t it meets their own skill developmen t goals with in th e fr am ewor kof the pr act icum gu idelin es.

The gr adua te teach ing pr act icum exper ience descr ibed in th is a r -t icle was mon itor ed car efu lly by a ll those involved: th e progr am di-r ector and faculty advisor, the facu lty mentor s, and th e gr adu a testuden t . The � rst and second authors wer e the facu lty men tor s, theth ird author was th e pr ogr am dir ector and facu lty advisor, and thefour th au thor was the gradua te studen t .

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEACHING PRACTICUM

UNC Char lot te offers an undergr adua t e minor, a gr adua te cer t i� ca te,and a Master of Ar ts (MA) degr ee in geron tology. Each studen t in theGeron tology Master ’s program is r equ ired to complete a pr ofessiona l� eld exper ien ce in th e aging � eld. This exper ien ce is meant to pr ovideaddit iona l hands-on exper ien ce for those who ar e rela t ively new to the� eld or to br oaden the exper ien ce of those with extensive pr act ica lexper ien ce working with older adults. Each student works with his orh er advisor to design a pract icum tha t will meet h is or her speci� cn eeds. The teaching pract icum was developed to provide an a lter -n a t ive for studen ts who plan to teach geron tology. It is ava ilable forgradua te students in terested in explor ing the process of teaching anddeveloping pedagogica l sk ills.

Graduate Teaching Practicum 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

UNC Char lot te’s gr adua te teach ing pr act icum spanned two seme-sters, cover ing two sect ion s of the In t r oduct ion to Geron tology cour setaugh t by two differen t facu lty member s. The pract icum focused onprepar ing a gr aduate student to teach an int r oductor y level cou rse ingeron tology a t the undergradua t e level. Th is requ ired th e facu lty ofeach cou rse to serve as faculty men tor s.

In or der to mainta in successfu l development of th e gradua te stu -dent ’s t r a in ing throu gh ou t th e pr act icum, th e faculty men tor s followedth ree major pr inciples: (1) the gr adua te student is a studen t and not apeer inst r u ctor ; (2) the gr adua te studen t shou ld be encour aged todevelop an individua lized teaching style while incorpor a t ing soundpedagogica l pr act ices; and (3) commun ica t ion between the gr adu a testuden t and faculty mentor s needs to be both verba l and writ t en andneeds to be fr equent .

The gr adua te pr act icum requ ires a tot a l of 150 hour s devoted to theprocess, completed accord ing to a � exible t imeline. In order to insu reh igh-qua lity undergr adua te inst ru ct ion , th e gr adua te studen t ’s t imedevoted to th e pr act icum needed to follow the � ow of th e cou rse eachsemester. Pa r t icipa t ion and t ime commitments incr eased dur ing examand lectu r e presen tat ion t imes, and decreased du r ing observa t ionper iods.

The speci� c respon sibilit ies of th e gradua te student dur ing theteach ing pract icum incorpor a ted both cou rse conten t pr epara t ion andcou rse content examina t ion elemen ts. The cou r se content r esponsi-bilit ies included: (1) pr epar ing and pr esen t ing lectur es; (2) prepar ingclass handou ts on lectur e topics; (3) direct ing class discussion s; and(4) iden t ifying assignment goa ls and object ives, including developingr eading and homework assignmen ts. For each of these, a minimum oftwo con tent topics each semester was r equ ired (e.g., families in la terlife, Socia l Secu r it y, biologica l aging, etc.) for a tot a l of fou r con ten ttopics cover ed across th e pr act icum. The cou r se conten t examina t ionr espon sibilit ies included: (1) reviewing and assist ing in grading a llhomewor k assignm en ts th rough ou t each semester ; (2) developing a tleast on e exam and an exam key each semester ; and (3) grading andeva lua t ing the over a ll cla ss performance on each exam.

As sta ted above, th e gradua te studen t ’s pr act icum covered twosemester s and involved two facu lty mentor s (each having a dist inctteach ing style). In pr act ice, the ear ly par t of each semester involved thegradua te student pr imar ily observing the teach ing style of the facultymentor with th e process evolving over t ime. The facu lty men tor s’ con-t r ibu t ion s went beyond simply modeling how they taugh t ; it involvedtaking the t ime to descr ibe why th ey taugh t the way they did —theirunder lying pedagogica l pr inciples. Following the per iod of observa t ion ,

48 D. B. Bradley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

th e gra du a te student th en took charge of th e class on sever a l, occasions,bu t with sign i� cant adva nce pr epa ra t ion and gu idance. The facultymentor s a lways reta ined th e ult ima te r espon sibilit y for the class.

THE PRACTICUM PROJECT AS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

We have found it product ive to view this pr oject as a collabor a t ion andpay a t ten t ion to th e cha llenges inherent in a collabor a t ive pr ocess.Resear ch on collabor a t ion has cited th e problems inher ent in bu ildingand main ta in ing th e type of process descr ibed above and suggest s theu se of differ en t st r a tegies (Brown , 1980). Such effor t s often � ounderbecau se of th e lack of a t ten t ion to process (Huxh am, 1993). Facu lty–studen t rela t ionships in such a pr ocess a r e not withou t their own set ofcha llenges (Victor y, Ravda l, & Rowles, 1998).

What follows is a discu ssion of th e pr ocess va r iables involved incollabora t ive effor t s in terms of th is model teach ing pract icum. Theseprocess va r iables include par t icipant in teract ion , task coordina t ion ,and performance st r a tegies and are discussed drawing from theinsights of the va r ious pa r t icipants (the pr ogram director and facultyadvisor, fa culty men tor s, and graduate student ).

Participant Interaction

As sta ted above, th e success of th is project requ ires inter act ionbetween th e va r ious par t icipants th a t center s a round the shar ed taskor pr oblem. In it ia lly th e concept of the gradua te teaching pr act icumwas explored by th e program director with two core faculty who teachth e In tr oduct ion to Geron tology cou rse. Their suppor t was key becau seth ey wou ld be act ing as faculty mentor s to th e gr adua te studen t . Theinvolvement of both facu lty was sough t in or der to insur e a r ichlea rn ing exper ien ce for th e gradua te studen t through exposur e todiffer en t teach ing styles.

An MA student , who had pr eviously indica ted an inter est in teach -ing a t some poin t in her career, was approached about th e possibility ofcomplet ing a teach ing pr act icum for her requ ired pract icum project .Based on her init ia l in terest in th is possibility, issu es such as t imecommitment , schedu ling availability, and in terest in th e pr act icumwere explor ed. After th ese discu ssion s, she developed her cont r act incoopera t ion with th e facu lty adviser and facu lty mentor s.

The faculty men tor s fa cilit a ted the int r oduct ion of th e gr adu a testuden t in to th e wor ld of the classr oom in a nebu lous st r uctur a lloca t ion somewhere between studen t and inst r uctor. Mentor ing hasbeen described as a pr ocess by which ‘‘per sons of super ior r ank , specia l

Graduate Teaching Practicum 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

achievements, and=or pr est ige inst ru ct , coun sel, gu ide, and facilit a teth e in tellectu a l and=or career development of per son s iden t i� ed asprot eges’’ (Blackwe1l, 1989, p. 9). The mentor offers leader sh ip, andfoster s the growth of th e men tor ed toward gr ea ter independence andauthor it y (Barnet t , 1984). In the educa t iona l lit era t ur e, the men tor isa fr iend, a gu ide, a counselor, bu t above a ll, a teacher (Mer r iam, 1983).In th is pract icum set t ing th e faculty mentor s wer e, above a ll, t eachers.As such , th e act ivit ies of th e faculty mentor s focused on helping thegradua te studen t develop a teaching style with in th e boundar ies ofqua lity pedagogica l pr act ices. Faculty mentor s acqua in ted the grad-u ate studen t with th e va lues and customs of pedagogy, while a lsodescr ibing th e ava ilable resou rces (both mater ia l and human) a t herdisposa l. The pr ogr am director and two facu lty mentor s met weekly asth e cor e facu lty in the Geron tology Progr am. This set t ing a llowed forr egula r inpu t from the facu lty men tor s on th e implementa t ion anddevelopmen t of th e pr act icum exper ien ce.

The gr adua te studen t was involved in th e pr epar a t ion for speci� cclasses. There was substan t ia l in teract ion with th e gradua te studen tin developing both the con ten t and th e applica t ion of th e lesson plan .Discussion center ed upon pr ior it izing the, in format ion to be covered inth e class, pr esen t ing tha t in format ion , using va r iou s teaching tools(e.g., overheads, blackboards, etc.), discu ssing potent ia l cla ssroom si-tu at ion s, and init ia t ing and cont r olling classroom discussion .

The facu lty men tor s an t icipa ted t imes of st r ess and fru st ra t ion onth e par t of the gr adua te studen t , a s she was new to th e role ofinst ru ctor. There a lso was con sider able uncer ta in ty on the par t of thefacu lty men tor s since th ey could not pr edict th e r ange of gr adu a testuden t–undergradua te studen t interact ions. Ther efor e, it was ne-cessa ry to insu re th a t the lin es of comm un ica t ion remained openth rough ou t th e pr act icum exper ience. Th is included meet ing fre-quen t ly with the gradua te studen t . Regu lar meet ings were commonlyheld befor e and aft er a class session to discuss situ at ions th a t mayhave come up in class, to describe posit ive or pot ent ia lly nega t ivein ter act ion s tha t wer e observed , to discuss techn iques for dea ling withdif� cu lt students, to a llay anxiety, and to bolster con� dence.

Task Coordination

Collabor a t ive success a lso r equ ires car efu l a t ten t ion to th e coordin a -t ion of th e tasks involved in the process. Rega rding th e gr adu a teteach ing pract icum, the gr adu a te studen t developed a cont r act incon junct ion with both faculty men tor s. The cont r act detailed lea rn ing

50 D. B. Bradley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

goa ls, object ives, and act ivit ies. The program director signed off on thecon t ract as th e site supervisor, wit h th e faculty mentor s serving asfacu lty supervisor s for th e teaching pract icum. The progr am dir ectorinsur ed tha t th e pract icum was condu cted in a manner th at would notcomprom ise the intellectua l integr ity of the undergradua t e In t r oduc-t ion to Geron tology class while a llowing for th e necessa ry learn ingexper ien ce of the gr adua te studen t .

As listed above, the gr adua te studen t had sever a l r espon sibilit ieswith in the context of the pract icum, a ll of wh ich needed to becoordin a ted with her own employment and academic schedu les andwith th e schedu les of the facu lty men tor s. At th e beginning of eachsemester, the gr adua te student met with the facu lt y men tor for th a tsemester to coordina te wh ich topics she wou ld cover and where th eywou ld fa ll in the cou rse schedu le.

Performance Strategies

Also impor tan t to th e success of the pract icum, a re th e per formancest r a tegies u sed to carr y ou t th e tasks involved. Performance st r a tegiescan be described as those methods of assu r ing tha t the goals of theproject a r e being met . Both in formal and formal eva lua t ion methods.served to suppor t the teach ing pr act icum collabora t ion .

Fo rm a l S t ra t e g ie sTh r ee formal st ra tegies were used in UNC Char lot te’s gr adu a te

teach ing pract icum to insu re th a t the process was carr ied ou tsu ccessfu lly: (1) th e student prepared regu lar writ t en repor t s to thefacu lty advisor ; (2) th e faculty men tor s prepar ed mid-pr act icumeva lua t ion s; and (3) th e faculty mentor s and th e gr adu a te studen teach prepar ed � na l writ t en eva lua t ion s. Wh ile wr it t en r epor t s addedformal st ru ctu re to th e performance r eview, th ey a lso provided t imelyoppor tun it ies for re� ect ion and discussion about issues impor tan t toth e collabor a t ion . The facu lty men tor s r ead th e student ’s mon th lyr epor t s, wh ich were or ganized as an expanded log (with da te, t ime,act ivity, and commenta ry sect ion s). This a llowed the studen t to t r ackand describe her act ivit ies as well a s commen t on her roles and re-sponsibilit ies.

The gr adua te studen t ’s grade for the teach ing pract icum was basedupon fu l� llin g th e r equ iremen ts of th e prea r ranged cont r act . The gradewas a lso dependen t upon submit t ing t imely r epor t s to th e facultyadvisor, complet ing a postpr act icum eva lua t ion , and input pr ovided byth e faculty mentor s. The facu lty men tor s submit ted writ t en eva lua t ion sth a t a lso wer e used to determine th e gr adua te student ’s � n a l gr ade.

Graduate Teaching Practicum 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

In f o r m a l S t r a t e g ie s

Informally, the exchange of teach ing ideas, concern s, and issu esbefor e and aft er class sessions a llowed th e faculty mentor s to eva lua teth e gr adu a te student ’s developmen t as an inst ru ctor. These exchangespermit ted mon itor ing of her explor a t ion of teaching style th rough thekinds of quest ions, concerns, and issu es she ra ised. For example, thegradua te studen t was able to pr ocess how dif� cu lt sh e found it to focu supon those studen ts who did not nor mally pa r t icipa te in class dis-cussion . She shared her st r uggle wit h whether or not to ca ll uponth ese individuals; she wan ted to be fa ir, bu t s till being a studen t , couldvividly remember how uncomfor table it is to be pu t on the spot .Facu lty mentor s offered assur ances tha t they, too st r uggled with th isissu e and shar ed st ra tegies th a t th ey found effective in engaging lessvoca l studen ts.

MAJOR ISSUES IN A GERONTOLOGY TEACHING PRACTICUM

A number of issu es emerged in th e span of the two-semester teach ingpract icum. Althou gh th ere were ma ny, the major issu es included: (1)mainta in ing th e roles and respon sibilit ies of a gradua te studen t , whois th ere to lea rn , with expecta t ions of performance as an inst ru ctor ;and (2) developing respon sible and per sona lized pedagogica l pr act iceswh ile insu r ing h igh-qua lity undergradua t e inst ru ct ion .

Maintaining Roles and Responsibilities

While the role of th e gra du a te studen t remained clea r to th e facultymentor s, her role in th e undergradua te class was purposefu lly pre-sented with some ambigu ity. The gr adua te student was int r oduced asa member of th e classr oom ‘‘team’’ whose individua l r esponsibilit ieswer e never clea r ly iden t i� ed to the undergr adua te students. Th isa llowed th e gra du a te studen t to freely observe class and facultyin ter act ion s, exper iment with her own teaching style, and slowlydevelop a person a as an inst r uctor. The undergr adua tes did not h avepreconceived not ion s abou t her r ole in the class and ther efor e weremore open when she stepped into th e role of lectur er or classdiscu ssan t . This mon itor ed ambiguity a lso a llowed the facu lty mentor sto mainta in discr ete con t rol of th e classroom exper ien ce for th e un -dergradua tes. However, it was not uncommon for the gr adu a te stu -dent , ear ly in th e process, to st ruggle with th is r ole ambigu ity—� nding her self somewhere between student and inst ru ctor.

For example; th e graduate studen t not ed tha t on e of th e biggestcha llenges was keeping or der dur ing discussion t imes. She won dered

52 D. B. Bradley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

if the undergr adu a te studen ts wer e going to listen to her becau se shelooked so young and ‘‘didn ’t look like a teacher.’’ She not ed tha t act inglike a teacher makes you appea r to be a teacher, thou gh the cha llenger emained to keep th e peace and not let the discu ssion evolve into amass of voices with per sona l agendas.

Wh ile the gr adua te studen t did take charge of th e class on numerousoccasions, it was not withou t substan t ia l advance pr epar a t ion (a l-thou gh th is prepar at ion was un seen by the undergr adua tes). For ex-ample, lectur e not es wer e appr oved ahead of t ime for con ten t ,discu ssion st r a tegies wer e r ehear sed pr ior to class, and examina tionprepara t ion and grading were reviewed for cla r ity and corr ectness. Toassist in th e prepar a t ion of class discussion , faculty men tor s eith er roleplayed, h igh lighted potent ia l ways the class might meander off topic,and solicited a ltern a t ive st ra tegies from the gradua te student beforeplacing her in charge of th a t class t ime. Again , the faculty mentor sr eta ined the ult ima te respon sibility for the success of th e class.

Wh ile th e project involved teach ing th e gradua te student both skillsand content r ela ted to an int r oductor y cour se in geron tology, it wasimpera t ive tha t the qua lity of inst ru ct ion in th e undergradua te classwas never compromised. Main ta ining inst ru ctiona l integr ity for bothth e undergr adu a te member s and th e gr adua te student remainedparamou nt . For th is r eason th e act ivit ies of th e gradua te studen t werecarefu lly mon itored.

Developing A Teaching Style Within Pedagogical Practices

Every facu lty member develops a dist inct ive teach ing style over t ime.However, in a t ime limited environ men t (i.e., two semesters) th ere is acer ta in amou nt of tension concern ing con t rolling the impulse to shar eone’s own teach ing style ra th er th an taking th e t ime to explain theunder lying pr inciples to the gr adua te student . The exper ien ce oflea rn ing two sets of pedagogica l pr act ices fr om the faculty mentor sproved to be a va luable, if t ime-con suming, aspect of th e pr act icum. Inpract ice th is meant explaining not on ly how to iden t ify key concepts inth e reading, bu t how to commun ica te th em with th e students. Thu s,issu es of how to u se th e blackboard, how to u se overh eads, and whento use summary comments in lectu r es were frequen t ly discussed.

The tension concern ing shar ing teach ing styles and explain ing theunder lying r a t iona les was consider able. The issu e of blackboard u se istelling. The gr adua te student was init ia lly puzzled by each facultymentor ’s dist inct ive use of visua liza t ion in th e classroom. Before classbegan , on e faculty mentor wrot e th e class ou t line and key termsand de� n it ions on the blackboard. In th e subsequen t semester, the

Graduate Teaching Practicum 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

gradua te student observed an ent irely differ en t u se of th e board as thefacu lty men tor wrot e mor e ext emporan iously on the board dur inglectu r e. The gr adu a te studen t wor r ied abou t wh ich was th e ‘‘r igh t ’’way to u se the blackboard and if and when she was put t ing just the‘‘r igh t amoun t ’’ of informa t ion on the board. In order to help thegradua te studen t develop a feeling for how visua l cues cou ld bestsuppor t her own pedagogica l style and classr oom goa ls, th e facultymentor s h ad to th ink abou t how their own style h ad evolved and whyit best su ited their inst r uct iona l goa ls. One faculty men tor explainedth at sh e was uncomfor table th inking, wr it ing, and ta lking a t th e samet ime and liked to a llow studen ts to record informat ion in their not esbefor e she expanded upon a topic. The other faculty mentor liked tomot iva te discussion by pu t ting visua l cues on th e board. In terest ingly,th e gradua te studen t r esolved her own unea se with th e blackboard byr elying on PowerPoin t pr esenta t ions.

Developing judgmen t in th e classroom is a lso par t of th e teach ingstyle and pedagogica l pr act ices dilemma. In an undergraduate cour sefor 40 studen ts from diver se edu cat iona l backgr ou nds, each classbr ings new and unexpected r ichness to the mater ia l a t hand. Knowinghow long to let a discussion run , when to in t roduce a new viewpoin t ,or r edirect a long-winded comment is a combina t ion of good judgmen tabout classr oom dyn amics and being sur e abou t th e ult ima te goa l ofth e discu ssion . Assist ing th e graduate student in developing theseskills requ ired car efu l prepar at ion concern ing class goa ls and ar eadiness to casua lly step in when th e classr oom dynamics seemed indanger of car een ing ou t of con t rol.

The gr adua te studen t repor ted ga in ing increased self-con� dence inher pedagogica l, style th rou gh ou t the pr act icum. Toward the end ofth e second semester it was appar ent tha t sh e was much mor e com-for table in fron t of the classr oom and more r elaxed abou t not knowingth e answer to every quest ion an undergr adua t e studen t posed. Dur ingdiscu ssions with each faculty men tor sh e had shared how scar ed andfea rfu l she was. Both mentor s had t r ied to assur e her (though in dif-feren t ways) th a t no one had th e answers on an accessible CD-ROM inth eir bra in . It was okay to say, ‘‘I don ’t know’’ or to ask tha t studen tsinvest iga te th e topic and r epor t back to th e class wha t they discover ed.

Each faculty mentor met frequen t ly with the gr adu a te student ,often befor e and aft er class and before and aft er an exam was given .Althou gh th is was a t ime-con suming act ivity, it was crit ica l to thesuccess of the pract icum. It a llowed for the inform al exchange ofteach ing ideas, the t ime to pinpoin t potent ia l problems, and for eachpar t icipant to offer th eir pedagogica l concerns. The envir on men t ofsh ar ed exchanges was condu cive to the gradua te student explor ing

54 D. B. Bradley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

her teaching style wit h in th e boundar ies of th e project . The gr adu a testuden t apprecia ted being able to discuss va r iou s pedagogica l issu esbefor e embarking on her own teaching car eer, r ea lizing tha t such anexplora t ion might be dif� cult in th e compet it ive marketplace.

CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM THECOLLABORATION

We learned th a t it is h ard to ba lance mult iple r oles and needsth roughou t th e implementa t ion of a teaching pract icum. Th is meant ,for example, ba lan cing th e needs of the gr adua te studen t who is th ereto lea rn , with the expecta t ions of her performance as an inst r uctor.The facu lty men tor s n eeded to take prepar at ion ser iou sly and be r eadyto step in as appropr ia te. While r emain ing � exible about th e imple-menta t ion of th e lesson plan , car efu l a t ten t ion to th e classr oom en-vironment was key to insu r ing tha t th e classr oom exper ience wasposit ive for a ll involved.

One of th e key lesson s, wh ich we often reminded each other about ,was the need to r emain � exible. F lexibility was r equ ired both in theshor t term , rela ted to th e success of a class lesson plan , and from thelonger van tagepoin t of th e r ea liza t ion of th e gr aduate studen t ’s goa ls.The pract icum also hinged upon developing responsible and per son a-lized pedagogica l pr act ices wh ile insu r ing high-quality undergr adu a teinst ru ct ion . Th is tension in the implementa t ion mean t th a t the facultymentor s had to work closely with th e gr adua te student in advance ofclass sessions and exams. At ten t ion to deta il in sur ed th a t th e qua lityof the undergr adua t e cour se was never impacted nega t ively.

Mon itor ing and eva lua t ing the pract icum was an impor tan t aspectof the project . These included r egu lar discussion s between facultymentor s and th e program director and faculty advisor ; regu lar r epor t sfrom the gr adu a te studen t , mid and � na l eva lua t ion s from the facultymentor s, and cour se eva luat ion s by undergra du a te students.

Eva lua t ing the applicability of th is model to oth er educat iona l set -t ings r equ ires examin ing sever al under lying issu es. These includemat ter s r ela ted to educa t iona l mission , expa nsion of edu ca t ion a ln ich e, and skill n eeds of gr adua te students. The pr ime reason topur sue a teach ing pract icum is to advance th e educa t iona l mission andth e or ganiza t ion ’s cont r ibut ion s to the commun ity it serves. We rea li-zed tha t th e teach ing pr act icum could enable u s to develop a t r a inedcadr e of individuals ava ilable to tea ch th e in t roductor y geron tologycou rse on an adjunct basis in th e fu tur e. We can effect ively incr easeth e pool of pot ent ia l in st ru ctor s tha t a re familiar with th e program’svalues, goa ls, and undergr adua te studen ts.

Graduate Teaching Practicum 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

All pa r t icipa nts in the pr act icum shou ld under stand tha t theadvancement of th e edu ca t ion a l mission and th e enhancemen t of thegradua te studen t ’s skills ar e par amoun t . However, it becomes morecha llenging to accomplish th ese goals as mor e individua ls join thecollabora t ive exper ience. It is probably unr ea list ic to expect the prac-t icum to be equa lly bene� cia l to a ll pa r t icipants . Some will inevitablybene� t more th an oth ers will. Bu t , a t th e end of the t imefr ame, pa r t i-cipan ts must be able to say, unequ ivoca lly tha t the pr act icum con-t r ibu tes mean ingfu lly to th e accomplishmen t of th eir per sona l goa ls.

We u rge cau t ion in con sider ing th e development of a teach ingpract icum. P rograms tha t a r e tempted to reduce administ r a t ive orinst ru ct iona l overh ead by using the teach ing pr act icum to expandth eir r esou r ces shou ld be car efu l not to under est ima te the t ime andeffor t it t akes to successfu lly mentor a gradua te student . Gr adu a testuden ts shou ld be car efu lly scr eened for inclu sion in to the pract icum.The gr adua te studen t r eminded u s tha t th is pract icum is not foreveryone du e to the long t ime commitmen t , int r usion into th e usua lworkday, and th e requ irement th a t on e must be genu inely in terestedin teaching abou t geron tology.

Even successfu l collabor a t ion s encounter pr oblems and ba r r ier sth at thr ea ten th eir success. An t icipa t ing the following cha llenges mayinsur e a smoother implemen ta t ion of th e teach ing pract icum model.

Tu rf Menta lity: Facu lty mentor s a re used to th inking in terms ‘‘of my’’classr oom , and ‘‘my’’ cour se syllabu s. Sh ift ing from the role of fa -cu lty mentor to inst ru ctor to mentor with in th e same inst ru ct iona lper iod can be daun t ing.

Con� icting Cultur es: Every organiza t ion has a cultu re. Tha t is, a col-lect ion of va lues, beliefs, nor ms, and assumpt ion s, tha t provides theinvisible bu t very power fu l framework wit h in which people work .While the faculty mentor and th e gr adua te studen t essent ia lly comefrom the same organ izat iona l cu ltu re, th ey de� ne theft r oles and re-spon sibilit ies differ en t ly.

Role Con� ict: Oft en collabora t ive st r a tegies impose role con � ict . Forexample, the gr adua te studen t who is lea rn ing to be an inst ru ctormay st r uggle with act ing too much ‘‘like a gr adua te studen t ’’ infron t of th e undergradua te students. The faculty men tor may st r ug-gle with th e teacher–studen t r ole con � ict when sha r ing pedagogica lst ra tegies with th e gr adu a te studen t .

As long as the teach ing pract icum is viewed with in th e fr ameworkof a collabor at ive effor t , it r equ ires on going discussion s and super-vision . The need for fr equent discussion between th e facu lty advisor,

56 D. B. Bradley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

fa cu lty mentor s, and the gradua te studen t did not decrease over t ime.As the studen t became more con � dent in her pedagogica l style andmore comfor table in her role as inst r u ctor, discu ssion between thegradua te studen t and faculty men tor moved fr om concern with thecon tent of lectu r e and class discussion to mat ter s of subst an ce inpedagogica l interact ions.

The gr adua te student sh a red tha t she did not see how anyone cou ldfeel as if h is or h er � rst yea r of teaching wou ld be successfu l withou tth is type of pr act icum. Of pa r t icu lar inter est was her feeling tha t sh eencoun tered issu es (such as classr oom con t rol, gr ading of exams, anddirect ing classr oom discussion ) tha t wou ld have been dif� cu lt to dis-cuss with colleagues in a tenu re-t rack compet it ive envir onment . Sheviewed the pr act icum as an essen t ia l exper ience befor e emba rkingupon a solo teach ing car eer. With suf� cien t plann ing, st r ong coor-dina t ion , � exibility, and pa t ien ce th is pract icum model cou ld pr ovide aposit ive addit ion to oth er geron tology pr ograms.

REFERENCES

Barnet t , S. K. (1984). The mentor role —A task of gener at ivity. J ournal of Human Be-havior and Learning, 1(2), 15–18.

Bercik, J . T., & Blair-Lar sen, S. M. (1993). J oining forces to guide the new teacher.Por t land, OR: Na tion al Book.

Bla ckwell, J . E . (1989). Mentor ing: An act ion st r a tegy for incr ea sing minor ity fa cu lty.Academe, (September–October ), 8–14.

Bla ir-Lar ser, S. M. (1998). Designing a mentor ing program. Education, 118 (4), 602–605.Brown , E . (1980). P 1anned ch ange in underor ganized sys tems. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.)

Systems theory for organization development (pp. 181–203). Ch ichester, England:J ohn Wiley.

E lias, P., F ish er, M. L., & Simon , R. (1980). Helping beginning teachers through the � rstyear : A review of the literature. P r in ceton , NJ : Edu ca t ional Testing Service.

Huxh am, C. (1993). Collaborat ive capability: An int r a-organ izat ional per spective oncollaborat ive advantage. Public Money and Management, 9, 21–26.

Huxh am C., & Vangen, S. (1996). Working togeth er : Key th emes in the management ofr ela t ionsh ips between public and non-pro� t orga niza t ions. Public Sector Manage-ment, 9 , 5–17.

Mer r iam , S. (1983). Men tor s and prot eges: A cr it ical r eview of the lit er a tu re. AdultEducation Quarterly, 33(3), 161–173.

Ryan, K., Newman, K. K., Mager, G., Applegate, J ., Lasley, T., F lora , R., & J ohn ston ,J . (1980). Biting the apple: Accounts of �rst year teachers. New York: Longm an.

Vann, A. (1992). Pa ired mentor team . . . . an in-service concept . Catalyst for Change,21(2), 30–32.

Veenman, S. (1984). P er ceived problems of beginning teacher s. Review of EducationalResearch , 54(2), 143–178.

Victor y, K., Ravdal, H ., & Rowles, G. (1998). Conundrums of collaborat ion . In R. F.E lsn er (Ed.), Voices of experience: Listening to our elders (pp. 11–35). Athen s, GA:UGA Geron tology Cen ter.

Graduate Teaching Practicum 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

53 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014