Describing the Complexities of Field Instruction Practice: an Exploratory Case Study in a University-Based Teacher Education Program
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DESCRIBING THE COMPLEXITIES OF FIELD INSTRUCTION PRACTICE: AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY IN A UNIVERSITY-BASED TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM by Hui Kiang Tan A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Education) in the University of Michigan 2013 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Donald Freeman, Co-Chair Emeritus Professor Lesley A. Rex, Co-Chair Professor Deborah L. Ball Professor Silvia Pedraza © Hui Kiang Tan All rights reserved 2013 DEDICATION To my parents ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To my dissertation committee – your dedication as scholars and educators have inspired this work. Thank you for your kind guidance. To Prof. Lesley Rex – your heart as a mentor is legendary and I stand forever grateful to have benefitted from your wise counsel and tireless coaching. To my colleagues and students – you have taught me so much. Thank you. To Ojas – your spirit of excellence and heart of gold have left an indelible mark on my life. Thank you. To my Ann Arbor family – I am so proud of your individual accomplishments and so grateful for your love and support. Samuel, your drive and trust inspire greatness. Angel, your generosity and baking are delightful. Gloria, you are the catalyst who remained a pillar of strength right to the end; you know I continue to lean on your faithfulness. Caroline, your friendship and kindness sustain me; thank you for taking care of me in so many ways. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 PURPOSE OF STUDY................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.............................................................9 II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ..............................................................11 REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ..............................................11 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST PERSPECTIVE ....................................16 POSITIONING THEORY .........................................................................19 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................24 III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................27 IV. FINDINGS......................................................................................................46 OVERARCHING STORYLINE 1: IVORY TOWER ..............................48 iv OVERARCHING STORYLINE 2: STUDENTING ................................65 OVERARCHING STORYLINE 3: SINK OR SWIM ..............................77 OVERARCHING STORYLINE 4: PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT .....97 OVERARCHING STORYLINE 5: NATURAL TEACHING PERSONALITY ......................................................................................108 CASE A: FI-BEN ....................................................................................122 CASE B: FI-NINA ..................................................................................151 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................178 V. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................180 IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS ...........................................................183 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FIELD INSTRUCTORS AND TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS ......................................189 APPENDIDICES .............................................................................................................196 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................223 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1 Embedded Case-design with Pseudonyms of Triad Members ....................................32 3.2 Summary of Interview Data .........................................................................................35 3.3 Fieldwork Data: Field Instruction Activities & Associated Paperwork ......................36 4.1 Overarching Storylines ................................................................................................47 vi LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................197 B. INITIAL CODE LIST .................................................................................................200 C. CROSS-CASE MATRIX (INITIAL INSTANTIATION) ..........................................201 D. EXAMPLE OF TRANSCRIPT ANALYSIS (POSITION & STORYLINE) ............205 E. INFORMED CONSENT: COVER LETTER & CONSENT FORM .........................207 F. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STUDENT TEACHER, COOPERATING TEACHER, AND UNIVERSITY FIELD INSTRUCTOR (STUDENT TEACHING HANDBOOK, P. 5-9) .......................................................211 G. UNIT PLAN PROJECT (STUDENT TEACHING HANDBOOK, P. 22-27) ...........217 vii ABSTRACT Pre-service teacher education programs that engage university supervisors and cooperating teachers to mentor teacher candidates during clinical practice depend heavily on the interaction of these triadic members to ensure student teacher learning. Yet, we know from reports and research that triad member interactions can be riddled with problems and do not always produce intended results. This qualitative study engages this issue by seeking to understand, from a social constructionist perspective, how members of student teaching triads engage with programmatic elements and with one another, and how these interactions influence the practice of university supervisors. Adopting Positioning Theory as a framework to analyze meaning –making patterns, this multiple case study of two university supervisors and their work with two student teaching triads surfaced five dominant storylines from which members were observed to draw their interpretations: Ivory Tower, Studenting, Sink or Swim, Practice Makes Perfect, and Natural Teaching Personality. The results revealed that members not only drew upon these storylines, they also reinforced and perpetuated them, often without explicit intention. Although university supervisors strongly desired to help student teachers learn, their efforts were hindered by these tacit but persistent narratives and their respective assumptions. As an increasing number of scholars are examining ways to improve teacher education, especially its field-based component, this research supplements their work by describing the powerful influences of tacit storylines on student teaching triadic member interactions and proposes that viii teacher education programs, as well as their field-based instructors, attend to their members’ tacit meaning-making patterns in their quest to improve teacher education. ix Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose of the Study Pre-service teacher education programs that engage university supervisors and cooperating teachers to mentor teacher candidates during clinical practice depend heavily on the interaction of these triadic members to ensure student teacher success1. Yet, we know from reports and research that triad member interactions can be riddled with problems and do not always produce intended results. This study engages this issue by seeking to understand, from a social constructionist perspective, how triadic members engage with programmatic elements and with one another, and how these interactions influence how university supervisors enact their practice. All triadic members bring into the arrangement a variety of meaning-making resources, which are historically situated and culturally derived. Studying how field supervisors navigate these relationships in such complex settings can reveal the social factors that influence such guided teaching relationships during student teaching. A more nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay of such factors can help programs conceive of more effective ways to support the field experiences of student teachers. 1 Student teaching is usually the last unit of the curriculum and can last from several weeks to a full year in some institutions. During student-teaching, the student teacher (ST) understudies an experienced teacher (sometimes called the cooperating teacher (CT) or mentor) in a school classroom and practices teaching in that field setting. A field instructor (FI, sometimes called a supervisor) – a university representative who is usually an adjunct or a graduate student instructor but rarely a faculty member – is deployed to “supervise” this field experience and facilitate the learning of the pre-service teacher, hence making up the third party in the student-teaching triad. Although the arrangements vary from institution to institution (as do their titles), many programs continue to employ this triad model to help pre-service teachers