What the teaching perspectives of cooperating teachers tell us about their advisory practices

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Correspondifax: +1604 639

E-mail add

[email protected]

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 65–78

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

What the teaching perspectives of cooperating teachers tell usabout their advisory practices

Anthony Clarkea,�, Sandra Jarvis-Selingerb

aDepartment of Curriculum Studies, Centre for the Study of Teacher Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall,

Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4bDepartment of Medicine, Division of Continuing Medical Education, University of British Columbia, Downtown Site,

104-740 Nicola Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6G 2C1

Abstract

This study drew upon the recently developed Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI) to compare and contrast the

teaching perspectives of cooperating teachers against a range of demographic data specific to cooperating teachers. The

outcomes indicate, among other things, that a high percentage of cooperating teachers base their pedagogical

relationship with learners upon a Nurturing perspective, that a Social Reform perspective among cooperating teachers

is almost non-existent, and that a Transmission perspective is more prominent at the secondary school level than at

other school levels. Collectively, the insights from this study provide one of the most comprehensive surveys of a single

cohort of cooperating teachers reported in the literature.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The practicum setting and the work of coop-erating teachers have long been regarded bystudent teachers as the two most importantelements of their professional programs in Educa-tion (Blakey, Everett-Turner, Massing, & Scott,1988; Wideen, Holborn, & Desrosiers, 1987).Understanding the complexities of that learning

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

te.2004.11.006

ng author. Tel.: +1604 822 2003;

4714.

resses: [email protected] (A. Clarke),

c.ca (S. Jarvis-Selinger).

environment, particularly what gives meaning andstructure to the work of cooperating teachers asthey engage in pedagogical relationships withstudent teachers, is essential for providing exemp-lary practicum settings. While much has beenwritten for and about cooperating teachers—forexample, Zimpher and Howey (1987) commendthe attention directed at specific advisory ap-proaches and training practices—there are re-peated calls for more extensive research in thisarea (Knowles & Cole, 1996; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998; Zeichner, 1992)While there has been a concerted effort to

explore ‘training’ programs to facilitate the work

ed.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Clarke, S. Jarvis-Selinger / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 65–7866

of cooperating teachers (e.g., Glickman & Bey,1990; Marvin & Beasley, 1996; Metcalf, 1991) andseveral publications on improving supervisorypractices (e.g., Acheron & Gall, 1997; Marvin &Beasley, 1996, Wiles & Bondi, 1996), substantiveconsideration of cooperating teachers’ work con-texts and the influence of their teaching perspec-tives on supervisory practices are conspicuous bytheir absence. These issues, first raised by Zeichnerand Liston (1987) and recently taken up byWilliams (1995) and Knowles and Cole (1996),are beginning to feature in arguments for researchthat seeks in-depth understandings of the pedago-gical relationship constructed between cooperatingteachers and student teachers. An importantelement in understanding how cooperating tea-chers construct pedagogical relationships withstudent teachers is understanding the teachingperspectives that guide their practice as educators.Exploring the teaching perspectives of cooperatingteachers and the significance of these perspectivesin their work with student teachers is the focus ofthis paper.

2. Teaching perspectives and supervisory practices

The beliefs, actions, motivations, and intentionsin relation to the manner in which one conceivesthe context of learning is known as a teachingperspective (Pratt, 1998). Teaching perspectivesgive shape and meaning to educational practicesincluding supervisory practices. The way in whichwe plan instruction, the manner in which weengage students, the elicitation strategies weemploy, our consideration of the social milieu inwhich learning takes place, the assessment strate-gies we draw upon, etc., reveal our understandingof what constitutes knowledge, and our sense ofthe relationship between the knower and theknown. Therefore, teaching perspectives are im-portant in any exploration of pedagogical prac-tices that cooperating teachers employ in theirinteractions with student teachers.

Many researchers have attempted to concep-tually define and empirically document perspec-tives on teaching (Chan, 1994; Feiman-Nemser,1990; Stofflett & Stoddart, 1994). Their efforts

have resulted in considerable agreement betweenand among the various attributes. For this studywe chose the work of Pratt and Collins (1992) andPratt (1998) who drew heavily on this intellectualheritage in developing a contemporary and easilyself-administered instrument called the TeachingPerspectives Inventory (TPI). This inventory hasspecial appeal because of its broad applicability toa range of education contexts. Further, we believethat its use in this study and the types of results itgenerates are beneficial for readers who areseeking ways to develop more comprehensiveunderstandings of cooperating teachers withwhom they work. A quick appreciation of theinventory can be gained by taking it online at‘www.teachingperspectives.com.’ Finally, we be-lieve that the TPI provides a more substantiverendering of supervisory practices than someearlier instruments, for example the directive,collaborative, and non-collaborative classificationsprovided by Glickman’s Supervisory Belief Index(Glickman, 1985).The TPI differentiates between five perspectives

on teaching: Transmission, Developmental, Ap-prenticeship, Nurturing, and Social Reform. Thedevelopment and use of the TPI has undergonerigorous testing with a wide range of practitioners,educators, and student teachers (Pratt, Collins, &Jarvis-Selinger, 2001b). Pratt (1998) articulateeach perspective from a normative frame, allowingthe reader to appreciate the strengths of goodteaching practice that is represented within eachperspective. This rendering allows sufficient dis-tinction between the perspectives and avoids anoverly atomistic or excessively expansive represen-tation of each.It is important not to confuse teaching perspec-

tives with teaching styles or teaching techniques.Teaching perspectives encompass more than arepertoire of behaviours and teaching actions(Pratt & Collins, 2000). Each perspective incorpo-rates fundamental beliefs about teaching andlearning, instructional intentions within teachingcontexts, and actions in situ (Jarvis, 2002). Noperspective is either good or bad, and excellent orpoor forms of teaching can occur regardless of theperspective(s) that shape one’s practice (Pratt,Arseneau, & Collins, 2001a).

http://www.teachingperspectives.com

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Clarke, S. Jarvis-Selinger / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 65–78 67

For instance, good teaching from a Transmis-

sion perspective is directly associated with contentor subject matter expertise. According to thisperspective, an educator’s primary responsibility isto present the content accurately and efficientlyand ‘‘[g]ood teachers take learners systematicallythrough a set of tasks that lead to mastery of thecontent. They are clear and enthusiastic abouttheir content and convey that enthusiasm to theirstudents’’ (Pratt et al., 2001a, b, p. 4). Within thisperspective, it is the learners’ responsibility tolearn that content in its authorized forms.

The Developmental perspective emphasizes that‘‘good teaching must be planned and conductedfrom the learner’s point of view [and teachersmust] therefore understand how their learnersthink and reason about the content’’ (Pratt et al.,2001a, b, p. 4). An important dimension of thisperspective is anchoring new knowledge to alearner’s prior knowledge. Therefore, from thisperspective, good teachers are alert and flexible tothe exploration of a learner’s existing understand-ings as they seek ways of bringing about newunderstandings.

The Apprenticeship perspective starts with theassumption that learning is facilitated whenstudents ‘‘work on authentic tasks in real settingsof application or practiceywhere both teachingand learning are rooted in the doing of work, notjust in talking about it’’ (Pratt et al., 2001a, b, p.6). In some academic contexts, apprenticeshipperspectives have been shunned because thesupposed lack of intellectual engagement suchapproaches require of the part of the learner—where the learner duplicates another’s practicerather then constructing their own practice(Zeichner & Liston, 1990; Wells & Claxton,2002). In defence of such characterizations, Schon(1987) argues that imitation is a creative act, wherethe ‘master’ models both the practice and theintellectual processes that underlie the practice,and that the reconstruction of that practice by the‘apprentice’ requires sophisticated intellectualwork on the part of the learner. Nonetheless, theemphasis in the apprenticeship perspective, ascaptured by Pratt et al. (2001a, b), remains solidlyconnected to the action setting and the activityitself.

In contrast, educators that exemplify a Nurtur-

ing perspective believe that learning has a signifi-cant emotional component; both the head and theheart need to be engaged for good teaching tooccur (Noddings, 1984). From this perspective,good teachers ‘‘care about their students, promotea climate of caring and trust, help people setchallenging but achievable goals, and supportlearners’ efforts as well as their achievements’’(Pratt et al., 2001a, b, p. 8).Finally, from a Social Reform perspective

educators awaken students to ‘‘values and ideolo-gies that lie hidden in texts and common practices[and] challenge the status quo to encouragestudents to consider the ways in which they andtheir [students] are positioned and constructedwithin particular discourses’’ (Pratt et al.,2001a, b, p. 11). This perspective borrows fromcritical theorists such as Carr and Kemmis (1983)who, among others, argue that educational prac-tices should be examined to determine whoseinterests are being served and for what purposes.In short, educators with a social reform perspectiveemphasize that the practice of teaching is inherentlypolitical and any discussion of teaching should notbe isolated from the social milieu in which it occurs.In sum, it is likely that all five perspectives may

be evident in the beliefs, understandings, motiva-tions, and practices of cooperating teachers.However, Pratt et al. (2001a, b) have demonstratedthat often one or two perspectives are usually moredominant for individual teachers across a range ofpedagogical contexts and, as such, the TPIprovides insight into the ways in which theteachers view knowledge and the sense they makeof the relationship between the knower and theknown. Such insights are particularly important iffaculties of education are to provide professionaldevelopment opportunities that are responsive toand respectful of the perspectives that cooperatingteachers draw upon as they construct and reflectupon their advisory practices.

3. Research method

Each year the University of British Columbia’s(UBC) Teacher Education Office draws upon

ARTICLE IN PRESS


approximately 1300 classroom teachers to providepracticum placements for its 1000 student teachers(the difference between the two numbers is becausemany secondary student teachers have more thanone cooperating teacher). The practicum constitu-tes one third of UBC’s Bachelor of Educationprogram. Student teachers spend approximately16 weeks in schools (4-day orientation, 2-weekintroductory, and 13-week extended practica).

The study reported here represents the secondphase of a two-part project entitled the ‘Voice ofSchool Advisors’’ (VOSA). The aim of the VOSAproject is to develop a more comprehensive profileof cooperating teachers than currently exists (e.g.,RATE IV, 1990). In the first phase, VOSA I, ageneral survey was distributed to the 1999–2000cohort of UBC cooperating teachers to elicit theirbackgrounds and beliefs about supervision. Anumbered double-blind envelope system was usedto ensure anonymity and track survey returns. Thereturn rate for the survey was 61% (778 cooperat-ing teachers) and was representative of the overallcooperating teacher population in terms of geo-graphical distribution, gender, school level, andage. In the second phase, VOSA II, conducted 18months later, the TPI was distributed to those whoreturned the VOSA I survey. We did not surveythe entire cooperating teacher cohort again be-cause we felt that the teachers who did not respondto VOSA I were unlikely to respond to VOSA II.The return rate for VOSA II was 39% (301cooperating teachers). The VOSA II return ratewas effected by the movement of teachers to andfrom schools which were difficult to track, andresignations or retirements by teachers from theprofession between the mailing of VOSA I andVOSA II. Therefore, not all VOSA II surveysreached the VOSA I respondents resulting in areduced number of responses to the TPI. Also, theVOSA II survey arrived in schools during a periodof industrial unrest in schools, which adverselyaffected the return rate. However, the VOSA IIsurvey returns were both sufficient in number(n ¼ 301) and representative of the 1999–2000cooperating teacher cohort (in terms of geogra-phical distribution, gender, school level, andage) to ensure that the outcomes are valid andreliable.

The VOSA II survey, because of the way inwhich it was packaged and presented to cooperat-ing teachers, was clearly intended to seek theteaching perspectives they drew upon in theirrelationship with student teachers. However, as theindividual TPI items do not specifically use thewords ‘cooperating teacher’ or ‘student teacher,’but rather ‘teacher’ and ‘learner,’ we believe theVOSA II rendering of cooperating teachers’teaching perspectives is more encompassing andrepresentative of the ways they think and act inpedagogical contexts and potentially avoidsguarded or wary responses that might arise fromthose teachers who worry about providing the‘correct’ answers to ensure continued involvementin student teacher practica.In order to compare teaching perspectives

among cooperating teachers, the first level ofanalysis was to calculate each respondent’s domi-nant perspective(s). This was accomplished bycalculating the raw scores for each perspective(which can range from 9 to 45 points) and thencomparing the means of each perspective score todetermine perspective dominance. A perspective isconsidered dominant if its score is one or morestandard deviations above the means across thefive perspective for each person. Therefore, dom-inance is calculated ‘within participant’ rather than‘between participants’ (Jarvis, 2002). Or statedanother way, dominance is calculated relative tohow a person answers each item on the TPI ratherthan comparing it to an absolute group value. Tocompare and contrast the VOSA I and VOSA IIdata, we conducted a series of univariate analysisof variance (ANOVAs). As suggested by Hubertyand Morris (1989), a series of multiple ANOVAsrather than a multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA) is appropriate when the variables oneis examining are conceptually distinct, as in thecase of teaching perspectives as measured by theTPI.One of the limitations of VOSA II is that we

were documenting cooperating teachers’ espousedperspectives, not their perspectives-in-action. AsArgyris, Putnam, and McLain Smith (1985) warn,what people say when given the time to thinkabout a response might well be at variance withwhat they actually do in the immediacy of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


action setting. Another limitation is that thecooperating teachers who returned the surveyswere, to some extent, a self-selected populationbecause they chose voluntarily to complete andreturn the survey. A third limitation, which ischaracteristic of survey instruments, is theirtendency to shed a little light on many issues butinsufficient illumination to allow a detailed exam-ination of key themes—explanations of whichwould require further follow-up study. Any read-ing of the results reported below should betempered by the knowledge of these limitations.However, given these constraints, this studyprovides one of the most comprehensive surveysof a single cohort of cooperating teachers reportedin the literature.

4. Research results

Our analysis is presented in five sections. Thefirst section draws upon a whole-group analysisand reveals, among other things, the prominenceof the Nurturing perspective among cooperatingteachers. This examination provides a backdropfor sections two to five that explore the relation-ship between the initial profile that was developedfrom VOSA I (Clarke, 2003) and the TPI data.While there were many interesting features of theanalysis that caught our attention, we focus solelyon those areas for which statistical significance wasattained (ap0:5). Results are reported in percen-tages within groups to ensure that any comparisonreflects the number of respondents in each groupand not percentages of the total number ofcooperating teachers for the whole study.

4.1. Prominence of the nurturing perspective

Of the 301 respondents, 232 had a singularlydominant perspective, 42 had a combination oftwo dominant perspectives, and 27 had nodominant perspective. For those who held asingularly dominant perspective the breakdownamong the five perspectives in descending order is:

�
156 Nurturing, � 31 Apprenticeship,
�
27 Transmission, � 16 Developmental, and � 2 Social Reform
The analysis illustrates that 52% of the VOSA IIrespondents were comprised of teachers for whomNurturing is their single dominant perspective.This rises to 64% if we include teachers with acombination of two dominant perspectives ofwhich Nurturing is one. Teachers with Apprentice-ship or Transmission as their single dominantperspective account for 10.2% and 9%, respec-tively, of the survey population. This rises to18.2% and 11.3%, respectively, if we includeteachers with a combination of two dominantperspectives of which Apprenticeship or Transmis-sion, respectively, is one. The Developmentalperspective accounts for 5.3% of teachers whohad a single dominant perspective. This increasesto 11% if we include those with a combination oftwo dominant perspectives of which Developmen-tal is one. Those for whom Social Reform wastheir single dominant perspective comprise only0.6% of the population. This percentage rises to1% when we include those with a combination oftwo dominant perspectives of which Social Reformis one.The prevalence of the Nurturing perspective

among cooperating teachers speaks to an interest-ing dynamic within the cooperating teacherpopulation. Clearly, many cooperating teachers(64%) see the ethic of care (Noddings, 1984) ascentral to teaching and learning. The adoption ofthis perspective in their pedagogical interactionwith student teachers augurs well for those whoargue that the relationship between teacher andstudent is one of the most critical elements of thepracticum environment. Given the intensely per-sonal nature of the cooperating teacher andstudent teacher relationship this finding is parti-cularly important. If nothing else, an environmentof trust and care that a Nurturing perspectiveprovides increases the possibility that feedback isboth accepted willingly and actively sought out bythe student. Without these conditions, opennessand inquisitiveness can be quickly replaced bystudent defensiveness and deflection, two attri-butes which negate the very purpose of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


cooperating teacher and student teacher relation-ship. Further, a climate of care and trust willencourage students to entertain uncertainty, ex-press confusion, and articulate doubt, all of whichare precursors to framing and reframing, orreflecting on, one’s practice (Schon, 1987).

Apprenticeship and Transmission perspectives,hovering around 15% of the cooperating popula-tion provide an interesting commentary on apossible shift in recent years with respect to thesetwo perspectives in teacher education. For exam-ple, in the 1980s concerns were expressed that therelationship between students and cooperatingteachers was dominated by an apprenticeshipapproach (Boydell, 1986; Zeichner & Liston,1987) where activities for student teachers arecarefully prescribed in advance allowing littlediscretion on the part of the student during eitherthe design or implementation phases during theirpractica (Kilbourn, 1982; Zeichner, Liston, Mah-lios & Gomez, 1987). Further, Shulman (1986a)and Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner (1979)lamented the fact that teacher education hadbecome imbued with a technical, almost scientific,disciplinary language that was supposedly anaccurate representation of classroom practice.The results from this study suggest that far fewercooperating teachers within the 1999–2000 cohortseem to be drawn towards similar elements in theApprenticeship and Transmission perspectivesthan formerly suggested in the literature.

Another surprising result is the very lowpercentages of cooperating teachers for whomthe Developmental or Social Reform perspectiveswere dominant. Among other groups of educatorswho have taken the TPI, these two perspectives,while always lower than the other three, havenever registered at such low levels. Unfortunately,the number of teachers within these categories isinsufficient to shed much light or allow furtherinterpretation. However, of the two results, theSocial Reform result is particularly alarming forthose who see teaching and teacher education as avehicle for social change. This is especially true forteacher educators who conceptualize their pro-grams around social reform or social justiceperspectives, and look to cooperating teachers tomodel the very practices that they would like to

witness in their student teachers’ practices. Thisraises interesting questions for a follow-up study:How do university teacher educators’ teachingperspectives compare with their school-basedcooperating teacher counterparts? and How doesthe potential difference between the two impact onthe students’ teacher education program?A cautionary note is in order here with respect

to the dangers associated with teachers adoptingany single perspective to the exclusion of all otherperspectives. While we commend the vast numberof teachers for whom care and trust clearly formthe basis of the learning environment they provide,holding rigidly to that perspective in all situationsis inadvisable and potentially detrimental tostudent teacher learning. There will be occasionswhen cooperating teachers need to draw uponelements of other perspectives, for example, with aparticularly self-centered learner, and a whereblended approach exhibiting both care and trustbut strong direction and specific instruction isnecessary.

4.2. Sex

There were 183 female and 118 male partici-pants who responded to VOSA II. The analysis ofTPI data revealed three statistically significantresults between the teaching perspective held bymen and women. In the order that the perspectivesappear in Fig. 1, first, men were three times morelikely than women to hold a Transmissionperspective among those for whom Transmissionwas their single dominant perspective (Fig. 1).Second, women were twice as likely as men to

hold an Apprenticeship perspective among thosefor whom Apprenticeship was their single domi-nant perspective. And third, women were twice aslikely as men to hold a Nurturing perspectiveamong those for whom Nurturing was their singledominant perspective.These results indicate that despite the distribu-

tion of the teaching perspectives across thecooperating teacher population as a whole (asdetermined in section one of the analysis), thedifferences between women and men outlined inthe three instances above cannot be accounted bythe normal variation that exists within the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Transmission Apprenticeship Developmental Nurturing Social Reform No Dominance Two Dominant

Teaching Perspectives

Per

cen

tag

es o

f S

urv

eyed

Sam

ple

female

male

Fig. 1. Sex differences on mean TPI scores.


categories. Therefore, the result that the Transmis-sion perspective is disproportionately held by men,from among the group of teachers who hold this asa dominant perspective, suggests that the assump-tions that underlie this perspective hold a parti-cular attraction for males more so than females.When we consider this attraction—taking learnerssystematically through a set of tasks that lead tomastery of content—this approach to teachereducation bears closer scrutiny beyond just theattraction of this perspective for males.

The reader will recall that the Transmissionapproach is directly associated with subject matterexpertise. Given this association, two importantquestions about subject matter expertise in teachereducation arise: Is teacher education a mature fieldof study in its own right? And, is there anauthoritative body of knowledge upon whichcooperating teachers can draw upon as they teachbeginning teachers how to teach? In the firstinstance, it has been argued that teacher educationis only now approaching the point at which onemight consider that a coherence in the field isbeginning to emerge such that maturity might be

claimed (Clarke, 2001; Ducharme & Ducharme,1996). In the second instance, the concept of abody of knowledge that might constitute acurriculum for teacher education continues to behotly debated (Donmoyer, 1996; Darling-Ham-mond & Cobb, 1996). Therefore, those who adopta Transmission perspective in their work withstudent teachers face significant challenges. In theabsence of a broadly accepted knowledge baseupon which to draw, there is the danger that theseteachers assume that their personal beliefs aboutteaching and learning constitute the disciplinaryknowledge for the profession. Such assumptionsare likely to reify idiosyncratic practices withoutthe necessary scrutiny that, say, reflection onpractice and peer debate within the professionmight afford. Therefore, it is among the malecooperating teachers that particular professionaldevelopment efforts might need to be directed toensure, at the very least, that recent argumentswith respect to a knowledge base for teaching isproblematized.The significant difference that emerged for

women in drawing upon an Apprenticeship

ARTICLE IN PRESS


perspective in their work with cooperating teachersis at odds with societal notions of apprenticeshipand apprenticeship training—typically regarded asmale in orientation and composition (Fuller &Unwin, 1998). Although the reasons for thisVOSA II result are unclear, the finding is quiteinstructive. The difference in favour of womensurprised us and provides a useful reminder to thedangers of gendered expectations with regard tothe teaching perspectives. Furthermore, the pro-portion of cooperating teachers for whom thisperspective guides their practice is not trivial,rising to 18% when single and dual dominance iscombined. Therefore, it is incumbent upon teachereducators to recognize the prevalence of thisperspective—with its emphasis on skill and ex-pertise—somewhat unexpectedly among women.

The third finding, that women are twice as likelyto adopt a nurturing perspective, is consistent withthe literature on the feminization of teaching(Bradley, 1989) that has occurred in recent decadesand where ‘‘women were said to be more nurturantthan men and therefore viewed as especiallysuitable for [teaching]’’ (Johnson, 1989, p. 241).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Transmission Apprenticeship Developmental Nu

Teaching

Per

cen

tag

es o

f S

urv

eyed

Sam

ple

Fig. 2. School level differenc

This finding was anticipated but nonetheless thecaution associated with the adoption of any oneperspective to the exclusion of others still remains.

4.3. School level

Of the participants who completed the TPI, 117taught in an elementary school, 13 at a junior high,and 171 taught at a secondary school. Fivesignificant results emerged from the TPI data.First, cooperating teachers who held a singularlydominant Transmission perspective were all sec-ondary school teachers (Fig. 2).Second, the majority of those who had Appren-

ticeship as their dominant perspective were alsofrom secondary schools. Third, secondary schoolteachers constituted almost all of those for whomthe Developmental perspective was dominant.Fourth, teachers for whom Nurturing was theirdominant perspective were twice as likely to comefrom elementary schools than secondary schools.And finally, respondents who had a combinationof two dominant perspectives were likely to besecondary school teachers. Again, we are reminded

rturing Social Reform No Dominance Two Dominant

Perspectives

elementary

junior high

secondary

es by mean TPI scores.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


that these findings are significant in that theyoccur with a frequency greater than wouldnormally be expected within these categories giventhe distribution of the perspectives across thesurvey population as outlined in section one of theanalysis.

As content matter is at the forefront of thesecondary school curriculum, it is not surprisingthat the appeal of the authoritative nature ofdisciplinary knowledge is embraced at the second-ary level. This is evident in the Transmissionperspective held by secondary school teachersmore so than their junior high and elementaryschool counterparts where there is a deliberateattempt to slip the boundaries of disciplinaryknowledge in favour of a more interdisciplinaryapproach to learning. Given that secondary schoolteachers comprise the entire category of those forwhom Transmission is the dominant perspective—taking learners systematically through a set oftasks that lead to mastery of a content—we repeatour earlier warning regarding the ongoing disputeabout the status of disciplinary knowledge inteacher education and the need to explore thepotential contribution of other perspectives inlearning to teach.

The second and third findings, while highlight-ing smaller differences between school level none-theless point to an almost monopoly by secondaryschool teachers over Transmission, Apprentice-ship, and Developmental perspectives. The nearabsence of these perspectives among the juniorhigh and elementary populations is a curiousphenomenon and not one that we expected.Therefore, the richness of conversation amongcooperating teachers as they compare and contrasttheir ways of working with student teachersafforded by the presence of colleagues whoseviews represent a variety of perspectives is lost inthese settings and they maybe poorer for it. Wesuggest that professional development efforts,particularly at the junior high and elementarylevels deliberately present multiple perspectives toensure, at the very least, a vigourous andstimulating debate about differing perspectivesthat one might employ as a teacher educator.Such a presentation at least provides an opportu-nity to name, problematize, compare and contrast

one’s own perspectives, which otherwise mightremain tacit and unchallenged.The finding that teachers for whom Nurturing is

their dominant perspective are twice as likely tocome from an elementary school setting is inkeeping with the family orientation and pastoralcare structure of elementary schools, a philosophythat appears to lend itself to the endorsement of aNurturing perspective among teachers at thatlevel. Nonetheless, this brings us back to an earlierpoint with respect to Nurturing, and its impor-tance in providing an environment of trust andcare in which beginning teachers feels comfortablein taking risks and sharing doubts with cooperat-ing teacher without worrying excessively that suchexpressions might signal incompetence or a lack ofknowledge on the student teachers’ part. It isreassuring to note that Nurturing perspective,although more commonly found in the elementaryschool settings is represented by across all schoollevels among cooperating teachers.The final finding in this section, the predomi-

nance of secondary school teachers among thosewho have two dominant perspectives, reinforcesthe earlier notion of multiple perspectives abound-ing at that level in contrast to a distinct lack ofdiversity at other levels. Again, the advice wouldbe to encourage a broadly based discussion withcooperating teachers particularly at the junior highand elementary levels, that highlights the potentialof various perspectives.

4.4. Academic qualifications

VOSA I results demonstrated that cooperatingteachers are almost twice as likely to have obtaineda graduate degree than their non-cooperatingteacher counterparts. This result was reflected inthe VOSA II returns where 25% had a graduatedegree. The analysis of the teaching perspectivesdata in relation to the academic qualifications datarevealed two statistically significant findings. First,those who hold an Apprenticeship perspective astheir single dominant perspective are more likelyto hold an undergraduate degree than would beexpected given the distribution of undergraduateand graduate degrees for the cooperating teacherpopulation (Fig. 3).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Teaching Perspectives

Per

cen

tag

es o

f S

urv

eyed

Sam

ple

Undergrad

Advanced Degree

Fig. 3. Academic degree differences on mean TPI scores.


Second, those who hold a Nurturing perspectiveas their single dominant perspective are also morelikely to hold an undergraduate degree than anadvanced degree given the distribution of under-graduate and graduate degrees for the cooperatingteacher population. On the surface, it is difficult toconclude anything other than cooperating teacherswith Apprenticeship and Nurturing as their singledominant perspectives are less likely to pursuegraduate studies than their cooperating teachercounterparts.

However, this information takes on a slightlydifferent meaning when coupled with an earlierVOSA I finding that cooperating teachers withundergraduate degrees are less likely to have faileda student than those with an advanced degree(22% versus 30%, respectively). The supervisorychallenges associated with border-line ‘Pass’ stu-dent teachers are well documented (Knowles &Cole, 1996; Glickman & Bey, 1990) and in the faceof such challenges it is often easier for supervisorsto just ‘Pass’ these students. Therefore, teacher

educators need to be particularly alert to situationsinvolving border-line ‘Pass’ student teachers wherethese situations are combined with cooperatingteachers who: (1) have not had the intellectual oreducational advantage afforded by graduate stu-dies, and (2) seem to rely exclusively on anApprenticeship or Nurturing perspective. Thiscaution is predicated, in part, on the assumptionthat an advanced degree equips cooperatingteachers with a greater capacity to reflect uponand evaluate the abilities of border-line ‘Pass’students; an assumption that would need to beverified with further research. Nonetheless, theVOSA II findings outlined above provide sufficientreason to monitor such circumstances more closelythan might be the ordinarily the case.

4.5. Years of teaching

The final statistically significant result fromVOSA II is based on the number of years ofteaching experience for cooperating teachers.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30


Teaching Perspective

Per

cen

tag

es o

f S

urv

eyed

Sam

ple

0-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21-25 years

26+ years

Fig. 4. Years of teaching differences on mean TPI scores.


Years of teaching experience were grouped intofive-year intervals, resulting in groups that rangedfrom 39 to 69 participants. The one significantresult to emerge was that teachers for whomTransmission was their single dominant perspec-tive were more likely to be experienced teachersthan other teachers in that category (Fig. 4).

This result is not surprising as the field ofteacher education has undergone considerablechange in the past 50 years (Clarke, 2001;Zeichner, 1998) and these changes are reflected inprograms of studies for beginning teachers. Oneresult is a reduced pursuit of content knowledgeper se in teacher education programs that wouldguide student teachers through a set of tasksleading to mastery (a Transmissive perspective)—an approach that was evident in the 1970s and1980s—to a consideration of different ways ofconceiving of knowledge, for example, a socio-cultural perspective (Wertsch, 1991), that are moreprevalent in programs todays.

Therefore, it is not surprising that those with agreater number of years of teaching experience,

and for whom their teacher education programswere based upon research from the teachereffectiveness, process-product, and teacher compe-tency paradigms of the 1970s and 1980s (Boydell,1986; Shulman, 1986a), might still view teaching asprimarily instrumental problem solving maderigourous by the application of scientific theory.If this view guides one’s advisory practice, thenstudent teachers are seen as technicians whofaithfully implement a predetermined set of tasksleading to mastery in the profession (Zeichner &Liston, 1987). The result reported above suggeststhat particular attention needs to be given to oldercooperating teachers as many seem to have apreference for a Transmissive perspective in theirpedagogical practices.

5. Conclusion

This study is based on an assumption that theTeaching Perspective Inventory renders an overallsense of a particular perspective, or set of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


perspectives, that teachers draw upon in theirrelationship with students; in this instance theteacher educator relationship that develops be-tween a cooperating teacher and a student teacher.In this study we used the TPI to extend currentunderstandings of cooperating teachers that existin the literature. Earlier attempts to developsimilar profiles are based on large-scale demo-graphic data or small-scale in-depth studies. Ourresearch is distinctive in that we sought to combinethe strengths of both approaches: a large scale-study that went beyond demographic data to offermore substantive insights into the pedagogicalrelationship between teacher and student. In ourconcluding remarks we focus on five key outcomesand their implications for teacher education.

One of the most important results from thestudy is the prevalence of the Nurturing perspec-tive among our cooperating teacher population.We have written at length in the paper about theimportance of this perspective in allowing studentteachers to entertain uncertainty as they explorewhat it means to teach. Further, we are heartenedby this result because of the intensely personalnature of the one-on-one pedagogical relationshipbetween cooperating teachers and student tea-chers, and the critical role that trust and care playin discussing a student teacher’s suitability andsuccess in the profession. These two qualities areeven more important in a situation where a studentteacher in trouble is encouraged to self-select outof the profession—an option that provides themost gracious exit for the student, and for whichcare and trust are essential if the decision is to berecognized as being in the best interest of allconcerned. For these reasons the Nurturingperspective is a very important dimension of theprofessional practice of cooperating teachers andwhen combined with the results from this study itbehooves all teacher educators to explore anddiscuss the elements that underlie this perspectivewith their cooperating teachers.

While the widespread use of the Nurturingperspective is encouraging, our celebration of thisfinding is tempered by the almost overwhelmingsingularity of this perspective at the junior highand elementary school levels in contrast to themore diverse perspectives found among cooperat-

ing teachers at the secondary school level. At issuehere is the value of multiple perspectives inproviding the potential for stimulating debateand discussion among cooperating teachers aboutvarious perspectives, appreciating the differencebetween these perspectives, and drawing uponelements of each in interactions with studentteachers as the situation demands. A follow-upin-depth analysis of cooperating teacher practicesin relation to the different teaching perspectivesthat they draw upon over the course of apracticum would be beneficial in confirming oralleviating this concern. However, the results ofthis study point to a dimension of supervisorypractice that all jurisdictions might explore moreclosely, than would ordinarily be the case, todetermine if a similar pattern exist.Another important aspect that emerged from

the TPI results surrounds the Social Reformperspective—a perspective that influential educa-tors such as Ken Zeichner have promoted formany years within teacher education (Zeichner &Gore, 1990). We can only speculate on the reasonsfor the almost total absence of this perspective inour 1999–2000 cohort of cooperating teachers andwonder about the challenge that this absencepresents for increasing attempts to include socialreform and social justice issues within teachereducation programs (Adams, Bell, & Griffin,1997). Unless there is some understanding of thisperspective by cooperating teachers and, at mini-mum, an attempt at the school level to engagestudent teachers in these issues, then it is unlikelythat on-campus efforts around social reform orjustice issues will have much effect. This resultrecalls the general challenges faced by thoseengaged in change efforts (Fullan, 1993) butprovides a very real and vivid instance that hasimmediate relevance to those involved in per-service teacher education programs.The emergence of the Transmission perspective

at a number of points in the analysis raises theissue of what is the knowledge about teaching thatcooperating teachers expect their student teachersto master especially given the current debatessurrounding the issue of a ‘knowledge base’ for theprofession. It would be interesting to return toShulmans’s earlier attempts to delineate different

ARTICLE IN PRESS


forms of knowledge in teaching (Shulman, 1986b)and examine these in relation to what it is thatcooperating teachers, who have a preference forthe Transmission perspective, believe they areconveying to student teachers. Nonetheless, theemergence of the Transmission perspective inBritish Columbia’s cooperating teacher populationis problematic in the highly complex and relationalenterprise that constitutes ‘learning how to teach.’As such, it serves as an important cautionarysignal to all teacher educators to attend closelyto the emergence of this perspective as beingdominant among a significant portion of thepopulation.

Finally, many trends within the analysis wereanticipated; for example, the prevalence of theTransmission perspective among secondary schoolteachers as opposed to teachers at other schoollevels. However, the TPI was quite instructive indemonstrating some discrepancies between ourintuitive sense of the pedagogical relationshipbetween cooperating teachers and student teachersand the actual relationship; for example, thefinding that women more so than men were likelyto adopt an Apprenticeship perspective fromamong those for whom Apprenticeship was theirsingle dominant perspective. If for no other reasonthan this, the results of this study are important inthat they encourage us to scrutinize more closelythe assumptions that underlie our conceptions ofcooperating teachers and how they approach theirwork with student teachers, and provide clearerdirection for designing professional developmentefforts (the substance of another paper!) that bothenable and enhance their work as school-basedteacher educators.

Acknowledgement

Our thanks to the Social Sciences and Huma-nities Research Council of Canada for supportingthis research.

References

Acheron, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (1997). Techniques in the clinical

supervision of teachers (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching

for diversity and social justice: a sourcebook. New York:

Routledge.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action

science: concepts, methods, and skills for research and

intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blakey, J., Everett-Turner, L., Massing, C., & Scott, N. (1988).

The many faces of beginning teachers. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of

Education, Windsor, Ontario.

Boydell, D. (1986). Issues in teaching practice supervision

research: a review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 2(2), 115–125.

Bradley, H. (1989). Men’s work, women’s work. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming critical: knowing

through action research. Australia. Deakin: University Press.

Chan, C. H. (1994). Operationalization and prediction of

conceptions of teaching in adult education. Unpublished

dissertation, the University of British Columbia, Vancou-

ver, British Columbia.

Clarke, A. (2001). The landscape of teacher education: critical

points and possible conjectures. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 17(5), 599–611.

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

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

Darling-Hammond, L., & Cobb, V. (1996). The changing

context of teacher education. In Murray, F. (Ed.), The

teacher educator’s handbook: building a knowledge base for

the preparation of teachers (pp. 14–62). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Donmoyer, R. (1996). The concept of a knowledge base. In

Murray, F. (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: building

a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers

(pp. 92–119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ducharme, E. R., & Ducharme, M. K. (1996). Development of

the teacher education professoriate. In Murray, F. B. (Ed.),

The teacher educator’s handbook: building a knowledge base

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

Bass.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: structural and

conceptual. In Houston, W. (Ed.), Handbook of research in

teacher education (pp. 212–233). New York: Macmillan and

the Association of Teacher Educators.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. London: Falmer Press.

Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (1998). Contemporary apprenticeship:

perspectives on learning, teaching, policy and design.

Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50(2),

149–151.

Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision and instruction: a develop-

mental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Glickman, G., & Bey, T. (1990). Supervision. In Houston, R.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education

(pp. 549–566). New York: Macmillan.

Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis

versus multiple univariate analysis. Psychological Bulletin,

105, 302–308.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Jarvis, S. (2002). Journeys toward becoming teachers: charting

the course of professional development. Unpublished dis-

sertation, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,

British Columbia.

Johnson, W. R. (1989). Teachers and teacher training in the

twentieth century. In Warren, D. (Ed.), American teachers:

histories of a profession at work (pp. 237–256). New York:

Macmillan.

Kilbourn, B. (1982). Linda: a case study in clinical supervision.

Canadian Journal of Education, 7(3), 1–24.

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

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

educator’s handbook: building a knowledge base for the

preparation of teachers (pp. 648–688). San Francisco, CA:

Jossy Bass.

Marvin, H., & Beasley, W. W. (1996). A guide for cooperating

teachers: supervising teachers the professional way. Cham-

paign, IL: Sycamore Press.

Metcalf, K. (1991). The supervision of student teaching: a

review of the literature. The Teacher Educator, 26, 27–42.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (1998). Teaching perspectives

inventory. On line. Available: http://www.teachingperspec-

tives.com

Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult

and higher education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing

Company.

Pratt, D. D., & Collins, J. B. (2000). The Teaching Perspectives

Inventory (TPI). Paper presented at the adult education

research conference, Vancouver, BC.

Pratt, D., Arseneau, R., & Collins, J. B. (2001a). Theoretical

foundations: reconsidering ‘good teaching’ across the

continuum of medical education. Journal of Continuing

Education in the Health Professions, 21(2), 70–81.

Pratt, D., Collins, J. B., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. A. (2001b).

Development and use of the Teaching Perspectives Inven-

tory (TPI). Presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington,

April.

RATE IV (1990). Teaching teachers: facts and figs. Washington,

DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educa-

tion.

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

new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the

study of teaching: a contemporary perspective. In Wittrock,

M. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, (3rd ed.)

(pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.

Shulman, L. (1986b). Those who understand: knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Stofflett, R., & Stoddart, T. (1994). The ability to understand

and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior

content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 31(1), 31–51.

Tabachnick, R., Popkewitz, T., & Zeichner, K. (1979). Teacher

education and the professional perspectives of student

teachers. Interchange, 10(4), 12–29.

Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (Eds.). (2002). Learning for life in the

C21st: sociocultural perspectives on the future of education.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural

approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Wideen, M., Holborn, P., & Desrosiers, M. (1987). A critical

review of a decade of Canadian research on teacher

education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Association of Educational Research, Washington,

DC.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical

analysis of the research on learning to teach: making the

case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of

Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178.

Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1996). Supervision: a guide to practice

(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Williams, E. (1995). Educative research in initial teacher

education: postpositivist possibilities. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 27(1), 55–66.

Zeichner, K. (1998). The new scholarship in teacher education.

A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Zeichner, K. M. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the

professional development school. Journal of Teacher Educa-

tion, 43(4), 296–307.

Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to

reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23–48.

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1990). Traditions of reform in

US teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2),

3–20.

Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (1990). Teacher socialization.

In Robert Houston, W. (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teacher education (pp. 329–348). New York: Macmillan.

Zeichner, K., Liston, D., Mahlios, M., & Gomez, M. (1987).

The structure and goals of a student teaching program and

the character and quality of supervisory discourse. A paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Washington, DC.

Zimpher, N. L., & Howey, K. R. (1987). Adapting supervisory

practices to different orientations of teaching competence.

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 2(2), 42–49.

Further Reading

Pratt, D. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching. Adult Education

Quarterly, 42(4), 203–220.



Documents

What the teaching perspectives of cooperating teachers tell us about their advisory practices