Preservice practicum supervision is often carried out by special supervisory staff rather than by tenured or tenure-track education faculty. Some researchers feel this creates an unfortunate separation between the campus program and the practicum and results in lost opportunities to strengthen the school-university partnership. Five years ago, in an elementary preservice cohort program, the authors adopted a policy of heavy involvement in practicum supervision by all members of their faculty team; the authors also devised ways of supporting the faculty in their supervision. Over the past 4 years, the authors studied the effects of applying this model; it was found to strengthen the school-university partnership, enhance both the practicum and the campus program, and help faculty grow in knowledge and understanding of schooling. However, the approach was time-consuming and presented some other challenges for faculty. If it is to be adopted widely in preservice education, stronger institutional support is needed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beck, C. , & Kosnik, C. (2000). Associate teachers in preservice education: Clarifying and enhancing their role. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 207-224.
2.
Borko, H. , & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of cooperating teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5), 501-518.
3.
Bullough, R. , & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring self and school context. New York: Garland.
4.
Bullough, R. , & Kauchak, D. (1997). Partnerships between higher education and secondary schools: Some problems. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 215-233.
5.
Campbell, D. , & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
6.
Casey, B. , & Howson, P. (1993). Educating preservice students based on a problem-centered approach to teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 361-369.
7.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating teachers for the next century: Rethinking practice and policy. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: 98th NSSE Yearbook (Pt. 1, pp. 221-256). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
9.
Fullan, M. , Galluzzo, G., Morris, P., & Watson, N. (1998). The rise and stall of teacher education reform. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
10.
Goodlad, J. (1990a). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Goodlad, J. (1990b). Connecting the present to the past. In J. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. Sirotnik (Eds.), Places where teachers are taught (pp. 3-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Guyton, E. , & McIntyre, J. (1990). Student teaching and school experiences. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 514-534). New York: Macmillan.
14.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography?New York: Routledge.
15.
Kosnik, C. , & Beck, C. (1998, April). The effect of student teachers’participation in action research on the attitudes and practices of teacher education faculty: A self-study. Paper presented at the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
16.
Kosnik, C. , & Beck, C. (2000). Who should perish, you or your students? Dilemmas of research in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(4), 119-135.
17.
Maynard, T. (1996). The limits of mentoring: The contribution of the higher education tutor to primary student teachers’ school-based learning. In J. Furlong & R. Smith (Eds.), The role of higher education in initial teacher training (pp. 101-118). London: Kogan Page.
18.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
20.
Samaras, A. , & Gismondi, S. (1998). Scaffolds in the field: Vygotskian interpretation in a teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 715-733.
21.
Slick, S. (1998). The university supervisor: A disenfranchised outsider. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 821-834.
22.
Snyder, J. (1994). Perils and potentials: A tale of two professional development schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools (pp. 98-125). New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
Teitel, L. (1997). Changing teacher education through professional development school partnerships: A five-year follow-up study. Teachers College Record, 99(2), 311-334.
24.
Whitford, B. L. , & Metcalf-Turner, P. (1999). Of promises and unresolved puzzles: Reforming teacher education with professional development schools. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: 98th NSSE Yearbook (Pt. 1, pp. 257-278). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
25.
Williams, A. (1994). The mentor. In A. Williams (Ed.), Perspectives on partnership: Secondary initial teacher training (pp. 134-150). London: Falmer.
26.
Winitzky, N. , Stoddart, T., & O’Keefe, P. (1992). Great expectations: Emergent professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 3-18.
27.
Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(2), 105-132.
28.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 215-234). New York: Teachers College Press.
