ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.tat

�Tel.: +1 604

E-mail addre1The author

Curriculum Stu

research interest

the student-teac

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

The nature and substance of cooperating teacher reflection

Anthony Clarke�,1

University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T1Z4

Abstract

The learning opportunties for student-teachers in practicum settings has long been acknowledged and studied in

considerable depth. However, the learning opportunities for cooperating teachers, while celebrated and extolled as an

important reciprocal benefit, have not been verified to the same degree. Drawing on the concept of reflection, and

specifically the ways in which teachers reframe aspects of their advisory practice, this study follows the conversations of

five teachers and their student-teachers during a 13-week practicum. Among the things that we learn from these teachers is

that the oft-heard argument that ‘‘a teacher is a teacher is a teacher’’ is wrong-headed, that the biography and the cultural

milieu that shape one’s advisory practices needs to be explicit, and that reflection is born of incidents but primarily

thematic in nature.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cooperating teachers; Reflection; Practicum; Student teacher; Teacher education

1. Introduction

This paper is a companion piece to an earlierstudy that sought to identify the nature andsubstance of student-teacher reflection in practicumsettings (Clarke, 1995). While that line of inquirycontinues to occupy considerable research attentionin the literature, the issue of cooperating teacherreflection in practicum settings has been largelyignored. Nonetheless, a common assumption is thatpracticum settings provide an excellent opportunityfor cooperating teachers to reflect upon theiradvisory practices (Ganser, 1993; Davies, Brady,

e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

e.2006.04.039

822 2003; fax: +1 604 822 4714.

ss: anthony.clarke@ubc.ca.

is an associate professor in the Department of

dies at the University of British Columbia. His

s include teacher education, teacher inquiry, and

hing practicum.

Rodger, & Wall, 1999; Wepner & Mobley, 1998).While observation, questionnaire, and interviewdata (Weasmer & Woods, 2003; Koerner, Rust, &Baumgartner, 2002), along with self-report data(Johnson, 2003; Cheyne, 2002) support this conten-tion, to date, substantive analyses of the ways inwhich cooperating teachers frame and reframe theiradvisory practices have not been forthcoming. Thescarcity of such studies is understandable given theconsiderable time required for such an examination,the limited resources available to undertake this sortof inquiry, and the hectic work schedules ofcooperating teachers.

Mindful of such constraints, the cooperatingteachers in this study were provided with theopportunity to reflect on their advisory practices overthe course of a 13-week student-teacher practicum bydrawing on a modified stimulated-recall approach.The modified recall approach was particularly

.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921 911

important in this study as it allowed the cooperatingteachers, rather than the researcher, to set the agendafor their reflections, thus permitting a practitioner-ledexamination of advisory practices. Traditional stimu-lated-recall requires the participants to respond to anexcerpt of video or audiotape selected by theresearcher for its potential to stimulate conversationaround issues deemed important by the researcher(Tuckwell, 1982). By contrast, the modified recallapproach allowed the participants to view an entiretape and to stop and comment upon any issue thatthey regarded as relevant to their practice. Therefore,in this study, the cooperating teachers had theopportunity to frame and reframe (Schon, 1987)what was significant about their practice, providingan authentic account of the ways in which theyreflected upon their work as school-based teachereducators.

2. Literature review

Most studies that seek to document the beliefs,understandings, and meanings that cooperatingteachers bring to their relationship with student-teachers are studies on cooperating teachers ratherthan studies with or by cooperating teachers. Thesestudies indicate that the role of the cooperatingteacher is poorly defined (Applegate & Lasley, 1982;Cole & Sorrill, 1992; Griffin, 1983; Grimmett &Ratzlaff, 1986) and, at times, ‘‘ambiguous, diverse,and often overlapping or at odds’’ with the roles ofother practicum participants (Knowles & Cole,1996). Other authors note that a compoundingfactor is that cooperating teachers typically receivelittle or no preparation for their role and little or norecognition or support for their involvement;consequently, they rely heavily on their priorexperiences as student-teachers themselves to guidetheir advisory practices (Knowles, & Cole, (1996)than adopting a more deliberative approach to theiradvisory role. As a result, researchers such asGuyton and McIntyre’s (1990) caution that often:

yconferences are dominated by cooperatingteachers and student-teachers take on a passiverole. Conferences involve low levels of thinking:descriptions and direction-giving interactionspredominate. Analysis and reflection on teachingare not common; the substantive issues ofconferences tend to focus on teaching techniques,classroom management, and pupil characteris-tics. Craft and experiential knowledge, and

efficiency are rationales for most recommenda-tions. (p. 525).

Other issues highlighted in the literature includethe claim that field-based experiences appear to‘‘undermine the theoretical work being done at theuniversity because students are often assigned toteachers who do not question the wisdom ofpractice or model a variety of effective teachingstrategies’’ (Hollingsworth, 1988). Further, whenfeedback is provided ‘‘it tends to be judgmental andexpert in nature rather than reflective or analytical’’(Browne, 1992, p. 31).

There is, however, some evidence that advisorypractices may not be universally in the sad state ofdisarray indicated above. For example, contrary toApplegate and Lasley’s (1982) contention that‘‘there seems to be a tacit assumption [by cooperat-ing teachers] that preservice teachers learn best bydoing’’ (p. 15), a number of studies suggest thatcooperating teachers think about their advisorypractices in more diverse and professionally richways. Grimmet and Ratzlaff (1986), in a ground-breaking and frequently cited study, explored ‘‘theexpectations that teachers held for their work ascooperating teachers’’ (p. 42). Using a closed-response suvey instrument, the teachers indicatedfour key expectations they regarded as central toassisting beginning teachers in learning-to-teach:providing student-teachers with an orientation tothe school, supporting and modelling instructionalplanning, conducting and sharing formative andsummative evalutions, and involving the student-teachers in the life of the school (e.g. professionaldevelopment and extra-curricular opportunities).Projecting beyond what cooperating teachers cur-rently do, the cooperating teachers indicated theneed ‘‘to play a more active role in the professionaldevelopment of would-be teachers’’ (p. 48). Zim-pher and Sherrill’s (1996) study concurred withthese results, and noted that cooperating teachersfelt overall ‘‘that they [were] well prepared for theirwork with student-teachers’’ (p. 292). Other studiescontinue to show that cooperating teachers appreci-ate the opportunity to contribute to the professionthrough their work with student-teachers (Korinek,1989; Zimpher & Sherrill, 1996) in part because ofreciprocal professional development benefits thatoccur. Book (1996) notes that ‘‘supervisors havebegun to realize that their role in supervisingstudent-teachers has enabled them to learn moreabout teaching [because] in helping novices im-

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921912

prove, they articulate more explicitly what theyknow and believe about teaching’’ (p. 202). Otherresearchers, such as Neufeld and Freeman (1993),suggests similar outcomes.

However, what is largely missing is a deeperanalysis of the work of cooperating teachers thatmoves beyond what is revealed in the brief surveys,interviews, observations, or self-reports—an analy-sis that shows the diverse and professionally richways hinted at but not documented by the studiesnoted above. In particular, we know little abouthow cooperating teachers frame and reframe theiradvisory practices; that is, how they reflect on theirwork with student-teachers. The goal of this study,therefore, is to document and analyze cooperatingteacher reflection in practicum settings.

3. Method

This study is part of a multi-phase projectexploring the advisory practices of cooperating-teachers. In Phase One, a survey was used toconstruct a profile of cooperating teachers whosupervised 1250 elementary, middle school, andsecondary student-teachers from our institution in2000–2001 (Clarke, 2003). The survey was sent to1328 teachers (N.B.: Some secondary student-teachers had two cooperating teachers). The surveywas completed by 778 teachers (61% return rate).Attached to the survey was an invitation toparticipate in a second phase, specifically, an in-depth analysis of the cooperating teachers’ advisorypractices using a modified stimulated-recall ap-proach. It was anticipated that perhaps 20 or 30teachers might volunteer for Phase Two. In asurprising response, 254 teachers (or one fifth ofthe entire 2000–2001 cohort) indicated a desire toparticipate in an in-depth analysis of their advisorypractices. However, due to the resource-intensivenature of the data collection required for PhaseTwo, we were limited to working with six cooperat-ing teachers.

The in-depth study focussed on the most pre-dominant feature of an advisory relationship: alesson taught by a student-teacher and the asso-ciated pre- and post-lesson conferences. Each ofthese elements was videotaped. Immediately afterthe taping of each element, a stimulated-recallsession with the cooperating teacher was conducted(using the entire tape of each element as stimuli).During the recall sessions the participants weregiven the remote-control device for the playback

machine and stopped, commented upon, andrestarted the video tapes as they saw fit. In thisway, the agenda for these sessions was set by theparticipants and not by the researcher. The recallsessions were also taped. A lesson, the associatedpre- and post-lesson conferences, and the stimu-lated-recall sessions constituted one data-collectioncycle (i.e. 6 taped sessions per cycle). The datacollection target for the study was four to five cyclesfor each cooperating teacher during the course of a13-week student-teacher practicum. All teacherswere invited to participate in a ‘wrap-up’ interviewif they felt there were additional issues they wantedto address; two teachers availed themselves of thisopportunity.

The criteria for selecting the participants forPhase Two included voluntary participation, schoollocations that were within a reasonable commutingdistance of the research team (3 graduate studentsand myself), and school building layouts thatpermitted ease of movement and safe storage ofthe recording and playback equipment required forthe study. The research team worked through thelist of 256 teachers until 10 sites were identified thatbest fit the criteria: 6 as initial contact sites and 4 asback-up sites. One teacher withdrew from the studya week prior to data collection as he was calledupon to fill a Vice-Principal vacancy. The study wasexpanded to include the first back-up site. Unfortu-nately, the student-teacher at this site withdrew afterthe third week of the practicum. At that point, itwas difficult to establish another relationship with acooperating teacher and his or her student-teacherand still meet the data collection targets outlinedabove, so it was decided to complete the study withfive rather than six cooperating teachers.

As the study sought to understand how cooperat-ing teachers made sense of their work with student-teachers, the analysis of the data demanded arendering of cooperating teacher advisory practicesthat went beyond surface descriptions or one-offcommentaries. Therefore, the work of Schon (1983,1987), and his definition of reflective practice—employed frequently in education to analyze howpeople learn about and engage in a professionalpractice—was used (Pakman, 2000). Schon arguesthat an appreciation of professional practice is bestgained by documenting how professionals frameand reframe their practice. For Schon, skilledpractitioners learn to conduct frame experimentsin which they impose a kind of coherence on ‘messy’situations. They come to new understandings of

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921 913

situations and new possibilities through a spiralingprocess of framing and reframing. Therefore,identifying how the cooperating teachers framedand reframed aspects of their advisory practice wascentral to this in-depth understanding of their workwith student-teachers.

4. Results

At the outset, it should be noted that focussing onreflection emphasizes reactions such as surprise,confusion, intrigue, etc., all of which potentiallytrigger framing and reframing of one’s practice.Therefore, to the uninformed, it may appear thatthe cooperating teachers in this study were con-stantly uncertain, anxious, or insecure about theiradvisory practices. This was certainly not the caseand, if space permitted, a full accounting of theirwork would highlight the teachers’ wide-rangingtalents and abilities as advisors.

The research team was able to complete five fullcycles for one cooperating teacher and four cyclesfor the four remaining cooperating teachers. Thetapes from all cycles were transcribed verbatim.There were many issues raised by the cooperatingteachers that were potential themes. However, onlythose issues for which a frame and reframe could beidentified were regarded as reflective themes.Twenty-eight reflective themes were identified.General information about the participants andthe number of themes for each cooperating teacherare provided in Table 1 (Pseudonyms are usedthroughout the paper).

Of the five student-teachers involved in the study,Gloria and Lorrie’s student teachers were verysuccessful from the outset of the practicum andreceived a ‘Pass.’ The remaining three studentsfound their practicum somewhat challenging. San-dra and Susan’s student teachers, after overcomingsome difficulties in the first few weeks of theirpracticum, finally received a ‘Pass.’ However,

Table 1

General information about the participants in the study

Cooperating

teacher

Student-

teacher

Transcript

identifier

School level (a

Gloria Cindy G–C Elementary (G

Garry Elaine G–E Elementary (G

Lorrie Matt L–M Elementary (G

Sandra Anne S–A High (Home E

Susan Chris S–C High (Physics)

Garry’s student teacher failed her practicum. Shesubsequently completed a 6-week supplementalpracticum in a different school in the followingyear and received a ‘Pass.’

4.1. Reflective theme example

To illustrate the analysis process (e.g. theidentification of a frame and a reframe), a briefexample of a reflective theme (G–E Theme #1) fromthe study is provided below.

4.1.1. Reflection on active listening in a professional

development context

Garry based his feedback conferences with hisstudent-teacher on the concept of active listening; aconcept which he had first discovered in his earliervolunteer work in counselling, therapy, and media-tion. He later drew similarities between thisapproach and the non-directive approach to ‘super-vision’ of student-teachers that he encountered in a‘Supervision of Teaching’ course. For Garry, activelistening meant holding in abeyance one’s thoughtsand ideas about the issues under discussion. He wasimpressed by his ability to hold back and notintervene in his early interactions with Elaine:

This really intrigues me. Some of the things shesays, just her reasons behind things. It still bafflesme. So, I am surprised at myself that I can kindof hold back and then waitywithout intervening(C1 Post-Conf Stim Recall p.6).

He reasoned that by not intervening, he wasallowing Elaine to develop her own teaching style:‘‘I don’t want to be directing her on what to dobecause then she ends up having to try and teach mylesson’’ (C1 Pre-Conf Stim p.8). Again in the secondcycle, he was pleased with the tight rein that he kepton his desire to interject:

nd specialization) Previous advisory

experience

Reflective

themes

rade 2) 3 Student-teachers 7

rade 3/4) 2 Student-teachers 5

rade 6/7) 1 Student-teacher 4

conomics) 6 Student-teachers 7

8 Student-teachers 5

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921914

So, I just sat on that and I never brought it up. Iam kind of proud of myself. I really wanted totalk more about the author’s writing style [thefocus of the lesson] and I never did. In the backof my mind I was wondering if the momentwould arise during the discussion or if she wouldask the question. yIt didn’t come up and I neverdid interject (C2 Pre-Conf Stim Recall p.13).

However, as Garry observed video tapes of hispre- and post-lesson conferences in which he usedthis approach, he was curious by the way he seemedto fade into the background during his interactionswith Elaine; a situation which was in stark contrastto his interactions in other instructional contexts,for example, with the children in his classroom. Ashe thought more about his active listening approachhe framed it in terms of the way in which it maskedhis personality during his conversations with Elaine.

I think I’m in the styleythe active listening role.I have had training with active listening when Iwas a volunteer at different organizations . . .You know your personality is not there. It’sinteresting. It’s helpful to watch this. As muchpersonality as I put into the classroom [pause],and then I watch something like this and there’sno personality in this for me. It’s very strange.So, I have to think about what I am doing (C2Pre-Conf Stim Recall p. 30).

However, his discussion about personality high-lighted a deeper issue, an absence of voice, thatconfronted him as he continued to view thevideotapes. He felt that his ‘lack of personality’conveyed a neutral stance towards the pedagogicalissues under discussion: ‘‘I’ve struggled with thisissue, I don’t feel that I am all that positive. I’mneutral’’ (C2 Pre-Conf Stim Recall, p.24). He thenreframed the problem with his use of active listeningnot just in terms of it masking his personality but interms of the absence of judgements about practicethat his implementation of this feedback approachprecipitated.

You’re supposed to do all of this active listening.Well, when you do a non-directive approach oran active listening approach, somewhere youhave got to kind of talk it out in a sense because,especially in my mind, teachers tend to bejudgmental. yWe’re judging! (Wrap-Up inter-view, 35).

As he pondered this anomaly, the holding inabeyance one’s ideas, thoughts, and judgements,particularly in the professional development contextof the practicum, his use of active listening seemedto have its limitations. Thus, he reasoned that therewas a need for making and sharing judgementsabout practice. Therefore, Garry’s reflection onactive listening in professional development context,first framed in terms of constraining his personalityand later reframed in terms of constraining judge-ments about practice that he should share withElaine, constituted an important turning point inthinking more deeply about the feedback process heused with his student-teacher.

4.2. The substance of cooperating teacher reflection

The 28 reflective themes were grouped into twobroad categories (and a number of sub-categories):

�

the cooperating teachers’ reflections on the sensethey made of their own advisory practices (7 sub-categories representing 22 themes), and � the cooperating teachers’ reflections on the

sense they made of their student-teachers’ teach-

ing practices (3 sub-categories representing6 themes).

A summary of the categories, sub-categories, andreflective themes is provided in Table 2.

The sub-categories best capture the cooperatingteachers’ reflections, as they provide a generalsummary of the cooperating teachers’ learning thatoccurred as a result of framing and reframing issuesduring the practicum. Only sub-categories with twoor more themes are discussed in detail below. This isnot meant to trivialize single-theme sub-categories.However, given space limitations for sharing theresults, this report focuses on those categories thatwere evident in at least two of the five cooperatingteachers’ in-depth studies.

4.2.1. Cooperating teachers’ reflections on their

advisory practices

Reframing the feedback process (11 themes): Allfive cooperating teachers reflected on the ways inwhich they gave feedback to their student-teachers.Reflection on feedback ran the full gamut ofpossibilities from cooperating teachers simply need-ing to be more explicit to cooperating teachersneeding to model ‘teacher thinking’ when givingfeedback to their student-teachers. For example, in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Reflective Themes

Reflective theme categories, sub-categories, and frames/reframes Identifiers

Category #1: Cooperating Teachers’ Reflections on Their Advisory Practices

Sub-category #1: Reframing the feedback process (11 Themes)

From worrying that the feedback given was too brief to recognizing that the brevity was governed by the

desire to be authentic—‘‘it is difficult to be effusive when there is little to be effusive about’’

G–E #4

From worrying that early dominance in conversations with the student curtailed the student-teacher’s

interaction to recognizing that early conversations require significant advisor input to provide scaffolding so

the student-teacher can begin to construct his own practice

L–M #1

From viewing herself as being excessively directive to recognizing that her close monitoring of the student

teacher’s teaching practice came from her strong sense of responsibility for pupil learning

G–C #3

From believing that active listening was paramount in allowing a student-teacher to develop her practice to

recognizing that failure to express judgments about that emerging practice is more detrimental than helpful

G–E #1

From seeing feedback as information exchange—tell me the things that you noticed about your lesson and

then I will tell you the things I noticed—to seeing it as a critical time for modeling teacher thinking

L–M #3 S–A #5

From regarding the cooperating teacher’s role as teaching ‘a curriculum’ (as one might as a teacher in

schools) to regarding it as mentoring a disposition for inquiry and reflection

G–C #6

From being disappointed by the student-teacher’s lack of initiative to recognizing that her extensive

support of the student-teacher bound the student-teacher to her ideas instead of letting her student generate

her own ideas

S–A #7

From believing that supportive feedback means providing a full and detailed response to all the student-

teacher’s concerns to recognizing that excessive detail overwhelms rather than focuses the student-teacher on

the key things she needs to work on for the next lesson

G–C #2

From wondering why the student-teacher seemed to dismiss some aspects of the feedback to recognizing

that there is a special language that experienced teachers use that is not always readily understood by student-

teachers

G–C #5S–C #2

Sub-Category #2: Reframing good teaching practice (3 themes)

From realizing that it was not so much preparation that was the challenge for the student-teacher but the

student-teacher’s inability to anticipate the broad range of responses from the pupils that a lesson might

generate

S–C #1 L–M #4

From realizing that her (the advisor’s) criteria for good teaching practice was based on an implicit sense of

what she frequently used and was comfortable with (her ‘‘biases’’) rather than regular scrutiny of established

practices to determine if they were fulfilling the changing needs of the pupils

G–C #1

Sub-Category #3: Reframing the sense of ‘student-teacher presence’ (3 themes)

From worrying about the student-teacher’s failure to ‘take charge’ to realizing that the inability for the

student-teacher to develop a sense of ‘teacher presence’ in the classroom was directly related to the advisor’s

difficulty in ‘letting go’ of the classroom

L–M #2

From introducing the student-teacher as a full-fledged teacher to the pupils to recognizing that it would be

better to introduce her for what she is—as a beginning teacher who is visiting the classroom to learn more

about teaching—so that pupil expectations match the evolution of the student-teacher’s practice

G–E #2

Where the advisor realized that her constant presence in the classroom was not related to her concern for

pupil learning but the guilt trip the student-teacher ‘‘laid on her’’ if she was absent, by implying that she was

‘‘slacking off’’ and letting the student-teacher do all the work in the classroom

S–A #4

Sub-Category #4: Reframing a disconnect between student-teacher and advisor (2 themes)

From regarding problems in communication between student-teacher and the advisor as a difference in

teaching styles to recognizing it as a disconnect based on different cultural backgrounds

S–C #4 G–E #5

Sub-Category #5: Reframing the lesson planning process (1 theme)

From realizing that her idea of a lesson plan as being a relatively straight forward task (a ‘‘simple one-

pager’’) to recognizing the complexity of that task for beginning teachers

S–A #2

Sub-Category #6: Reframing notions of knowledge for teaching (1 theme)

From believing that a lack of general content knowledge was responsible for dull and boring lessons to

realizing that it was a lack of local knowledge that was the cause (i.e., a sense of local connectedness for the

children)

S–A #3

Sub-Category #7: Reframing the concept of risk undertaken by advisors (1 theme)

Where the risk associated with taking on a student-teacher is not so much in allowing them to take over

your classroom as it is in allowing another person to study your teaching

G–C #4

A. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921 915

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2 (continued )

Reflective theme categories, sub-categories, and frames/reframes Identifiers

Category #2: Cooperating teachers’ reflection on the sense they make of their student-teachers’ teaching practices

Sub-Category #1: Reframing the student-teacher’s academic approach (3 themes)

From regarding the student-teacher’s approach as being overly intellectual to seeing the approach as a

failure to acknowledge student conceptions

S–C #5

From regarding the student-teacher’s approach to be overly intellectual to seeing the approach as a fear of

intimacy with the pupils

G–E #3

From a focus on the student-teacher’s heavily academic approach to instruction to recognizing that the

student had no other experience to draw on, particularly in terms of being actively involved in her own

learning

S–A #6

Sub-Category #2: Reframing a disconnect between the student-teacher and pupils (2 themes)

From regarding the student-teacher as having difficulty in establishing relationships with her pupils to

realizing that the student’s poor grasp of content knowledge overwhelmed all other aspects of her classroom

practice

S–A #1

From regarding problems in communicating with pupils as being primarily pedagogical to recognizing

them as being essentially cultural in origin

G–C #7

Sub-Category #3: Reframing the student-teacher’s work ethic (1 theme)

From regarding the student-teacher as being particularly tardy and disorganized as a beginning

professional to recognizing the student’s reluctance (even resistance!) to let go of his strongly held ‘student’

identity

S–C #3

A. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921916

one instance, the cooperating teacher thought thather student-teacher was deliberately ignoring heradvice only to later reframe this in terms of thestudent-teacher being unable to distinguish the keypoints that she should incorporate into her practicefrom those points that were of a more generalnature and not requiring immediate action. As aresult the cooperating teacher realized the necessityfor being very explicit when giving feedback and toclearly specify two or three things that her student-teacher should focus on in the coming lesson.

Reframing the feedback process highlighted animportant pedagogical dimension of advisory prac-tice that differentiates this practice in significantways from a cooperating teacher’s daily classroomteaching practice. Although feedback is an impor-tant part of classroom teaching, its prominence asone of the most central, if not the central, element ofadvisory practice did not appear to be apparent tothe teachers prior to this study (even for those whohad worked with a number of student-teachers).Given the time and opportunity to think about theirfeedback strategies, all five cooperating teachersrealized they were in need of professional develop-ment in this area. Further, this finding suggests thatthe oft-heard argument that ‘‘a teacher is a teacheris a teacher,’’ frequently used to avoid distinguish-ing between those who should or should not becooperating teachers, is wrong-headed (Kelchter-mans & Vandenberghe, 1993); for the cooperating

teachers in this study, the feedback process for theirstudent-teachers’ practices was regarded as signifi-cantly different from the feedback process used intheir daily classroom teaching practice.

Reframing conceptions of good teaching practice

(3 themes): Three of the five cooperating teachersreflected upon their conceptions of good teachingpractice. All three teachers found that their originalconceptions of good teaching, which they usedfrequently during the practicum as a guide for theirstudent-teachers, fell well short of their intendeddepictions. Indeed, upon closer inspection theyfound these conceptions were quite misleading.Two teachers found that they were regularly usingthe term ‘‘preparation’’ when in fact they meant‘‘anticipation.’’ A third teacher realized that she waspromoting a heavily routinized approach to teach-ing that excluded on-the-spot improvisation inresponse to pupil input, the latter being an elementthat she felt was a defining feature of good teachingpractice. Therefore, in all three cases, the cooperat-ing teachers’ reflection on good teacher practiceunderwent significant revision during the course ofthis study. This category reminds us of theimportance of making explicit and reviewing theassumptions that underlie one’s practice, in thiscase, one’s advisory practice. Further, it begs thequestion as to whether the practicum, while animportant context for problematizing conceptionsof good teaching, is too late for the cooperating

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921 917

teachers to begin this process if they wish to makethe most of the relatively short time that they havein which to introduce their student-teachers to theteaching profession. This is particularly true ifaccording to a previous study (Clarke, 1995) theoutcomes associated with framing and reframingoften take weeks, if not months, to be translatedinto action in the practice setting.

Reframing the student-teachers’ attempts to

establish a ‘teacher presence’ (3 themes): Threecooperating teachers reflected upon the concept of‘student-teacher presence’ (i.e. the position ofauthority and respect teachers are able to establishwithin their classrooms). In all three cases, thecooperating teachers suggested that the student-teachers take a more active role in interacting withtheir pupils to help establish a sense of teacher‘presence’ in their classrooms. However, in twoinstances it was the cooperating teacher’s reluctanceto leave the classroom that they finally recognized ashindering the student-teachers’ attempts to establishtheir own teacher ‘presence’ in the classroom. In thethird instance, it was the cooperating teacher’s highexpectations of the student-teacher’s status as ‘ateacher’ that he had set in the minds of his pupilsthat thwarted the student-teacher’s attempt toestablish her teacher ‘presence.’ In all three cases,the cooperating teachers were surprised to discoverthat the difficulties their student-teachers encoun-tered stemmed more from their own actions in theclassroom than those of their student-teachers. So,while the cooperating teachers’ concept of teacher‘presence’ remained the same, the underlying causesfor a student-teacher’s failure to establish this senseof ‘presence’ underwent significant revision.

Enmeshed within the concept of teacher ‘pre-sence’ was a sense of transfer, specifically, of theresponsibility for the pupils and their work as itmoved from the cooperating teacher to the student-teacher (e.g. for establishing co-operative groups,for taking responsibility for tests and assignments,and so on). Central to this particular concept is that‘presence’ is not only something actively taken up bythe student-teacher but also something is activelygiven over by the cooperating teacher. Therefore thecooperating teachers’ reflections on student-teacher‘presence’ emerged as a duality in which ‘presence’ isa dynamic concept involving both parties.

Reframing a disconnect between student-teacher

and cooperating teacher (2 themes): Two advisorsreflected upon the disconnect that arose betweenthemselves and their student-teachers. This was

initially framed as a difference in teaching stylesbetween themselves and their student-teachers; inthe first instance the cooperating teacher regardedthe student-teacher as having an overly ‘academic’approach, and in the second case, as the student-teacher having an excessively ‘university’ approach.Although the cooperating teachers encouraged theirstudent-teachers to explore a range of alternativeteaching approaches, the student-teachers seemed toignore these entreaties and held fast to their lecture-based, teacher-centred practices. As the practicumprogressed, and the cooperating teachers began tolearn more about the backgrounds and lives of theirstudent-teachers in contrast to their own experi-ences, they reframed the disconnect between them-selves and their student-teachers not simply in termsof their different teaching styles but in terms of thevery different biographies and backgrounds thateach brought to teaching.

This outcome highlights the importance ofcooperating teachers and student-teachers exploringtogether issues of biography and contexts that giveshape to their work as educators. Further, itunderscores the importance of the relationshipbetween the cooperating teacher and student-teacher as something that needs to go beyond anexchange of relatively superficial information to areal commitment to understanding the personalbeliefs and experiences upon which one’s ideas arebased. Unfortunately, the single-page ‘Student-Teacher Introduction Sheet,’ that many programs,including UBC, use to introduce their student-teachers to the cooperating teachers, while a smallstep in the right direction, is insufficient by itself toaddress the issue raised here. While a number ofstudents and their advisors develop relationshipsconducive to sharing biographical and experientialissues that shape their conceptions and teaching andlearning, the outcomes of this study suggest thatdeliberate scaffolding and support to enable thistype of sharing needs to be a prominent part of thepre-practicum or introductory practicum experi-ences.

4.2.2. Cooperating teachers’ reflections on the sense

they made of their student-teachers’ teaching

practices

Reframing the student-teacher’s choice of an

‘academic’ approach (3 themes): Similar in contentto the final category discussed above, this categoryreveals three cooperating teachers’ attempts tomake sense of their student-teachers’ preference

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921918

for teacher-centred approaches to teaching. Theyframed these approaches in terms of the student-teachers choosing an approach that was consistentwith the students’ recent experiences as pupilsthemselves (i.e. in university classrooms). Despitethe cooperating teachers’ support and encourage-ment to explore other approaches (which all threestudent-teachers did to some extent), the cooperat-ing teachers were intrigued by the continual returnto an ‘academic’ approach by their student-teachers.Over time, as this approach seemed to elicit littleexcitement or enthusiasm for learning from thepupils in the classroom, the cooperating teachersbegan to explore more fully why this was theteaching method of choice for their student-teachers. In all three instances, the cooperatingteachers’ reframed their student-teachers’ choicesnot in terms of the student-teachers’ most recentuniversity experiences but rather:

�

in the first case, as a failure to recognize thepotential of involving pupils in the constructionof knowledge; � in the second case, as a fear of intimacy

associated with actually engaging pupils in one-on-one or group discussions; and

� in the third case, as the completely foreign nature

that a pupil-centred learning environment pre-sented for the student-teacher.

Consistent with an earlier theme, the cooperatingteachers’ reflections on the student-teachers’ choiceof teaching approach highlighted the need for allpracticum participants to deliberately explore andshare biographical and the contextual informationthat influence their teaching practice.

Reframing a disconnect between the student-

teacher and the pupils (2 themes): This categoryrepresents two cooperating teachers’ reflections onthe disconnect between their student-teacher andthe pupils. The curiosity surrounding their student-teacher’s inability to make connections with pupilswas framed by both cooperating teachers in terms oftheir student-teachers’ difficulties in establishingrelationships with the pupils. However, both co-operating teachers found that suggestions to theirstudent-teachers regarding pupil relationships didnot significantly improve the student-teachers’practices. Challenged by this incongruity, and afterfurther exploration, the first cooperating teacherrealized that the disconnect stemmed from herstudent-teacher’s poor grasp of content knowledge,

such that the student-teacher was so overwhelmedby her own struggles with the material required foreach lesson that she could attend to little else relatedto the lesson. The second cooperating teacherreframed the disconnect in terms of the student-teacher’s vastly different cultural understanding ofschools and schooling: a challenge that presentedher student-teacher with an almost insurmountablebarrier in addressing the issue of pupil relationships.Therefore, in both cases, the disconnect betweenstudent-teacher and pupils was symptomatic of adeeper issue. This category reinforces the belief thatissues around communication encountered duringpracticum serve as early warning signals—‘redflags’—of more significant issues related to astudent-teacher’s practice.

4.2.3. A summary of the substance of cooperating

teachers’ reflections

The substance of cooperating teacher reflection asidentified in this study resembles in part what weknow from previous surveys, interviews, observa-tions, and self-report data. In particular, thefrequently cited claim that working with a student-teacher prompts one to think more deeply aboutone’s own teaching practice was evident in thisstudy, for example, the reflective themes thatfocussed on conceptions of good teaching practice(Book, 1996; Neufeld & Freeman, 1993).

However, in a significant addition to the litera-ture, this study demonstrated that the single mostcommon issue the cooperating teachers reflectedupon was the feedback process. While this themewas not unexpected given that feedback plays animportant role in practicum settings, the frequencywith which this theme appeared among the co-operating teachers’ reflections and the range ofissues it addressed highlighted an important distinc-tion between the teachers’ advisory practices andtheir regular classroom teaching practices. Further,it focused attention on an important professionaldevelopment imperative for classroom teachers whowish to be cooperating teachers.

The study also contributes to our understandingof the ‘social’ dimension within the practicumcontext, not only within the classroom but alsobetween the student-teacher and cooperating tea-cher; in particular, the need for both to appreciatethe biographies that shape each other’s conceptionsof teaching and learning. Time is such a preciouscommodity in schools that taking ‘time out’ to getto know one another is often lost in the time press to

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921 919

discuss lesson and unit planning, etc. However, thisstudy provided clear evidence that a precursor toeffective advising is the development of a socialrelationship between the student-teacher and co-operating teacher. While many teacher educatorsacknowledge this need within their teacher educa-tion programs (Montgomery, 2000; Moore, 1992),few, if any, actually validate it by allocating time forthe practicum partners to get to know one another.As this study amply demonstrated, without addres-sing this social dimension, confusion, miscommuni-cation, and misinterpretation in the practicumsetting may occur and can hinder and frustrate thebest efforts of both advisor and student teacher.

4.3. The nature of cooperating teacher reflection

An early assumption in the literature on reflectivepractice, and one that remains common in manyarticles on reflection today, is that reflection isincidental in nature. That is, it is possible todocument a practitioner reflecting on his or herpractice in the course of a single conversation,interview, or stimulated-recall session (Borko,Livingston, McCaleb, & Mauro, 1988; MacKinnon& Erickson, 1988; Noordhoff & Kleinfeld, 1990).This assumption was challenged in a companionpiece to this paper which examined student-teacherreflection (Clarke, 1995). It was found that student-teacher reflection was born of incidents but thematicin nature. That is, there is a substantive temporalnature to reflection in which the elements (framingand reframing) emerge over time.

A tentative hypothesis for a thematic rendering ofstudent-teacher reflection rather than an incidentaldepiction previously reported in the literature wasthat most studies on reflection involved experiencedpractitioners who were able to frame and reframeissues on-the-spot (i.e. incidental) because of theiradvanced appreciative systems. It was suggestedthat student-teachers, however, lack the intellectualand practical experience that would enable them toframe and reframe teaching issues on-the-spot,therefore, their reflection was more likely to bethematic in nature (Clarke, 1998). This studyprovided the opportunity to test that hypothesisby using the same practicum context (a lessontaught by a student-teacher, the conferences sur-rounding that lesson, and the stimulated-recallprocess) and by documenting cooperating teachers’reflections. A reflective theme map depicting thetime frame for cooperating teacher reflection is

presented alongside the theme map for student-teacher reflection reported in the companion study(Clarke, 1995) (see Fig. 1).

Unlike the student-teacher reflective theme mapwhere there were no instances of framing andreframing within a single session or cycle, therewere three occasions where the cooperating teacherswere able to frame and reframe elements of theirpractice within a single session (G–C #6, G–E #2,S–C #2) and four occasions where they were able toreflect upon issues within a single cycle (G–C #4,G–C #5, G–E #4, S–A #7). This represents 25% ofthe cooperating teachers’ reflective themes docu-mented in this study. However, 75% of allcooperating teacher themes documented in thisstudy were temporal rather than episodic in nature.Further, it is interesting to note that the cooperatingteachers tended to be more reflective than student-teachers in the same context (on average 5 themesfor the teachers and 3 for the students).

4.3.1. A Summary of the nature of cooperating

teachers’ reflections

To the best of my knowledge, this study is the firstthat has provided data on reflection that allows adirect comparison between beginning and experi-enced teachers. While it is difficult to generalizefrom small, in-depth studies of this type, the natureof the cooperating teachers’ reflections documentedin this study supports the claim that the practicumprovides a rich reciprocal professional developmentenvironment for the cooperating teacher (Book,1996; Neufeld & Freeman, 1993), and also thecontention that their reflection is more likely to bethematic in nature.

5. Conclusion

This study represents one of the first attempts tosystematically explore the nature and substance ofcooperating teacher reflection in practicum settings.One purpose of the study was to move beyond briefobservations, surveys, interviews, and self-reportdata on cooperating teachers to a more in-depthexploration, from their perspective, of the natureand substance of cooperating teachers’ work withbeginning teachers. The results indicate that theinteraction between the cooperating teachers andtheir student-teachers promoted cooperating tea-cher reflection. Further, that reflection typically fellinto two main categories: reflection on one’sadvisory practices or reflection on the sense they

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. The time span across which the framing and reframing of each reflective theme occurred for the cooperating teachers (current

study) and the student-teachers (companion study).

A. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921920

made of the student-teachers’ teaching practices.Both categories are significant in that they enabledthe cooperating teachers to bring new perspectivesto bear on their work as school-based teachereducators. The small number of reflective themesper teacher identified in this study (approximately 5per cooperating teacher) indicates that reflection didnot occur as readily as one might expect and/or it isdifficult to identify when it does occur. Further, thetemporal dimension stood in contrast to manyepisodic renderings of reflective practice in theliterature. Therefore, the study supports the con-tention that reflection is often born of incidents butis thematic in nature.

While the learning documented in this study isdrawn from a self-selected population and mayreflect a group of teachers who were alreadypredisposed to thinking about and reflecting upontheir advisory practices, it nonetheless providessome broad parameters for understanding the sensethat cooperating teachers make of their work withstudent-teachers. Also, the research method itself

(e.g. the stimulated-recall sessions) provided in-creased opportunities for reflection that might nototherwise exist in regular practicum settings. How-ever, the study identified more clearly the natureand substance of cooperating teacher reflection thanpreviously captured in the literature.

The challenge now is to draw upon the natureand substance of the reflective themes outlinedabove in developing responsive and needs-basedprofessional development programs for cooperatingteachers. As student-teachers regard their work withcooperating teachers as the single most importantfeature of their teacher education program(Knowles & Cole, 1996) it is incumbent upon theprofession to not only support cooperating teachersin this important work but also to know how thiswork interacts with and informs their advisorypractices. The reframing evident in this study standsas a measure of cooperating teacher learning andone that needs to be supported as classroomteachers take on the role of school-based teachereducators.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Clarke / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 910–921 921

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Debra Clark, Mary Leah deZwart, and Sandra Scott, who were responsible forcollecting the data for this project, and the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Council(SSHRC) of Canada for funding the project.

References

Applegate, J., & Lasley, T. (1982). Cooperating teachers’

problems with preservice field experience students. Journal

of Teacher Education, 33(2), 15–18.

Book, C. L. (1996). Professional Development Schools. In Sikula,

J. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.,

p. ix). New York: Macmillan.

Borko, H., Livingston, C., McCaleb, J., & Mauro, L. (1988).

Student-teachers’ planning and post-lesson reflections: Pat-

terns and implications for teacher preparation. In J. Calder-

head (Ed.), Teacher’s professional learning (pp. 3–27).

London: Falmer Press.

Browne, C. (1992). Classroom teacher as teacher educators.

Action in Teacher Education, 14(2), 30–37.

Cheyne, M. (2002). Why We Accept the Challenge. The Science

Teacher, 69(7), 10.

Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum

settings: Reflective practice under scrutiny. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 11(3), 243–262.

Clarke, A. (1998). Born of incidents but thematic in nature: A

critique of a prevalent conception of knowledge construction

in practicum settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 23(1),

47–62.

Clarke, A. (2003). Characteristics of cooperating teachers.

Canadian Journal of Education, 26(1), 237–256.

Cole, A., & Sorrill, P. (1992). Being an associate teacher: A

feather in one’s cap? Education Canada, 32(3), 41–48.

Davies, M., Brady, M., Rodger, E., & Wall, P. (1999). Mentors

and school-based partnership: Ingredients for professional

growth. Action in Teacher Education, 21(1), 85–96.

Ganser, T. (1993). The benefits of mentoring as perceived by

beginning teachers and mentors. Forward, 17(2), 61–68.

Griffin, G. A. (1983). Introduction: The work of staff develop-

ment. In G. A. Griffin (Ed.), Staff development. Eighty second

yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education

(pp. 1–12). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Grimmett, P., & Ratzlaff, H. (1986). Expectations for the

cooperating teacher role. Journal of Teacher Education,

37(6), 41–50.

Guyton, E., & McIntyre, D. J. (1990). Student teaching and

school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of

research on teacher education (pp. 514–534). New York, NY:

Macmillan.

Johnson, K. A. (2003). Every experience is a moving force:

Identity and growth through mentoring. Teaching and

Teacher Education Volume, 19(8), 787–800.

Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1993). A teacher is a

teacher is a teacher is ay Teachers’ professional development

from a biographical perspective. Atlanta: Paper presented at

the annual AERA-meeting.

Knowles, G. J., & Cole, A. L. (1996). Developing practice

through field experiences. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher

educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the

preparation of teachers (p. xv). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koerner, M., Rust, F., & Baumgartner, F. (2002). Exploring

roles in student teaching placements. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 29(2), 35–58.

Korinek, L. A. (1989). Teacher preferences for training and

compensation for field supervision. Journal of Teacher

Education, 40(6), 46–51.

MacKinnon, A. M., & Erickson, G. L. (1988). Taking Schon’s

ideas to a science teaching practicum. In P. P. Grimmett, & G.

L. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection In Teacher Education

(pp. 113–137). New York: Teachers College Press.

Montgomery, B. (2000). The Student teacher and cooperating

teacher relationship. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences

Education, 18(2), 7–15.

Moore, D. T. (1992). Perspectives on learning in internships. In

A. Ciofalo (Ed.), Internships: Perspectives on experiential

learning. A guide to internship management for educators and

professionals (pp. 11–20). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Neufeld, J., & Freeman, D. (1993). Teachers as teacher educators

within a professional development school context. San Diego:

Paper presented as the annual meeting of the American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Noordhoff, K., & Kleinfeld, J. (1990). Shaping the rhetoric of

reflection for multicultural settings. In R. T. Clift, W. R.

Houston, & M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective

practice in education: An analysis of issues and programs

(pp. 163–185). New York: Teachers College Press.

Pakman, M. (2000). Reflective practices: The legacy of donald

Schon. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 7(2-3), 5–8.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals

think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:

Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the

professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tuckwell, N. (1982). Stimulated-recall: Theoretical perspectives

and practical and technical considerations. Occasional Paper

Series: Technical Report 8-2-3. Alberta: University of Alberta,

Centre For Research in Teaching.

Weasmer, J., & Woods, A. M. (2003). Mentoring: Professional

development through reflection. The Teacher Educator, 39(1),

64–77.

Wepner, S. B., & Mobley, M. M. (1998). Reaping new harvests:

Collaboration and communication through field experience.

Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 50–61.

Zimpher, N. L., & Sherrill, J. A. (1996). Professors, teachers, and

leaders in SCEDs. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teacher education (2nd ed.) (pp. 279–305). New York:

Macmillan.

Further reading

Hruz, T. (2001). Performance-based pay for teachers in Wisconsin:

Options and opportunities (Report 14-4). Thiensville, WI:

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Available online:

www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume14/Vol14no4.pdf

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher develop-

ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(4), 591–596.