Journal of Teacher Education http://jte.sagepub.

com/

Professors and the Practicum: Involvement of University Faculty in Preservice Practicum Supervision
Clive Beck and Clare Kosnik
Journal of Teacher Education 2002 53: 6
DOI: 10.1177/0022487102053001002

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jte.sagepub.com/content/53/1/6

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)

Additional services and information for Journal of Teacher Education can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jte.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jte.sagepub.com/content/53/1/6.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2002

What is This?

Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002

PROFESSORS AND THE PRACTICUM

INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY
IN PRESERVICE PRACTICUM SUPERVISION

Clive Beck
Clare Kosnik
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
University of Toronto

Preservice practicum supervision is often carried out by special supervisory staff rather than by ten-
ured 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 au-
thors adopted a policy of heavy involvement in practicum supervision by all members of their fac-
ulty 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 fac-
ulty 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.

I kind of expected to be more of a number. I expected
to go to big lecture halls and hear some mighty edu-
cation god, probably male, stand at the front of the
room and give us this dogma on child development
and so on. . . . I certainly never expected to get to
know my professors on a one-on-one basis, where
they would understand who I am and where I’m
coming from and . . . be able to understand whether a
practicum placement is going to work for me or not.
—Janet, Mid-Town student teacher,
toward the end of her program
Involvement of education faculty in super-
vising preservice students in their practicum
placements does not occur to the degree one
might expect. In many teacher education pro-
grams, practicum supervision is conducted by
specially appointed supervisory staff, typically
doctoral students, retired teachers, teachers on
leave from their school board, or retired educa-
tion professors. In programs where practicum
supervision is carried out by tenured or tenure-
track faculty, supervisory staff often make just
the minimum number of school visits needed
to assign a practice teaching grade (Borko &
Mayfield, 1995; Goodlad, 1990a, 1994; Slick,
1998).
There are several reasons for the phenome-
non of limited faculty supervision, the most
obvious being time pressures on university fac-
ulty. In addition to preservice teaching, educa-
tion professors typically have commitments to
graduate teaching, thesis supervision, research,
publishing, administration, and committee
work. A second reason is that in most universi-
ties today, preservice work is not as highly
regarded or rewarded as graduate work,
research, and publishing. As a result, faculty
often give lower priority to preservice course
instruction; and practicum supervision, the
rationale and expectations for which are often
vague, tends to receive the least attention of all.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002 6-19

© 2002 by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education

Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014

A third reason for the neglect of practicum
supervision, in our view, is that many education
professors believe they can make a greater con-
tribution to schooling through research and
theorizing.
Five years ago, in the Mid-Town elementary
preservice program at the Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, University of Toronto
(OISE/UT), we adopted a policy of intensive
practicum supervision by all members of our
faculty team, including subject specialists and
foundations instructors. For the past 4 academic
years (1996-2000) we conducted research on our
program to assess whether the effects of imple-
menting this model of supervision were such as
to warrant continuation of the approach. In this
article, we provide a brief review of relevant lit-
erature on practicum supervision; describe our
model of supervision; outline the goals and
methodology of our research; present the find-
ings of the research; and discuss a number of
issues that arise, notably the need for institu-
tional support for practicum supervision by
faculty.
RESEARCH AND THEORY
ON PRACTICUM SUPERVISION
BY UNIVERSITY FACULTY
The research literature reveals that in many
preservice programs, there is little communica-
tion between the academic program and the
practicum (Goodlad, 1990b; Zeichner, 1990,
1996); two largely separate worlds exist side by
side. The problem is not just lack of contact and
communication. In many programs, there is not
a coherent philosophy of teaching and learning
that guides both the campus program and the
practicum (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Zeichner,
1990, 1996). As Goodlad (1994) said in his wry
fashion, even if the various parties involved in
teacher education “were to come together to
assemble the parts of the vehicle each has cre-
ated, the composite result would not function
well” (p. 25).
Studies of the role of associate teachers, the
term we use at OISE/UT for cooperating or
mentor teachers, reveal a gulf between the
views of these teachers and university faculty.
Associate teachers often see their task as a fairly
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
practical one, a matter of initiating student
teachers into the “realities” of teaching
(Bullough & Kauchak, 1997; Guyton &
McIntyre, 1990; Maynard, 1996). Many univer-
sity faculty, by contrast, feel associate teachers
should take an interventionist stance; they
advocate adopting a “critical” approach, inquir-
ing into current practices rather than merely
transmitting them (Maynard, 1996; Williams,
1994; Winitzky, Stoddart, & O’Keefe, 1992).
However, as long as education professors and
associate teachers live in separate worlds, it will
be difficult to resolve these issues and develop a
sound, shared approach to teaching and learn-
ing (Beck & Kosnik, 2000).
Casey and Howson (1993) argued that educa-
tion professors, field supervisors, and associate
teachers should work closely together in a
three-person teaching team. This team should
meet to discuss goals and strategies and attempt
to build “a strong scaffolding for preservice stu-
dents” as they implement ideas discussed in the
campus courses (p. 365). But, although interac-
tion and dialogue of this kind is a step in the
right direction, it does not provide sufficient
basis for integration of campus and field experi-
ences. As long as most supervision is done by
nonprofessorial field personnel, a separation
between the campus courses and the practicum
will persist.
Bullough and Gitlin (1995) implemented a
preservice program in which a cohort of about
25 student teachers were together for most
aspects of the program under the guidance of a
small faculty team. They moved to this model
because student teachers, when consulted, com-
plained about “duplication and superficiality”
in course content, lack of integration of courses
and fieldwork, and inadequate student advis-
ing (p. 4). With the establishment of the cohort
program, in which faculty did “much of the
advising that had formerly been done by the
advising office,” it became possible to “experi-
ment with different approaches”; in particular,
the faculty were able to explore the same con-
cepts in both the classroom and the field and
keep revisiting these concepts throughout the
year (pp. 5-6). In a more recent work, Bullough
and Kauchak (1997) concluded that university
7
faculty need to spend even more time in
practicum schools than had been previously
realized.
One vehicle widely advocated in recent years
for bringing education faculty into practicum
settings is the professional development school
or PDS (Darling-Hammond, 1994, 1999; Fullan,
Galluzzo, Morris, & Watson, 1998; Goodlad,
1994; Teitel, 1997; Whitford & Metcalf-Turner,
1999). In a PDS, a school and university agree to
work together in a combined program of
inservice and preservice teacher development
and school-based research. The teacher educa-
tion program is “jointly planned and taught by
university-based and school-based faculty.
Cohorts of beginning teachers get a richer, more
coherent learning experience when they are
organized in teams to study and practice with
these faculty” (Darling-Hammond, 1999). As
university faculty become involved with PDSs,
there is significant improvement in their
approach both to practicum supervision and
campus teaching (Teitel, 1997).
However, even if increased faculty presence
in practicum sites would enhance teacher edu-
cation, is such an approach to the practicum fea-
sible given the many pressures on faculty in uni-
versities today? Research grants, publications,
and formal conference presentations are typi-
cally the main bases for promotion, tenure, and
merit pay increases (Samaras & Gismondi, 1998;
Snyder, 1994; Whitford & Metcalf-Turner, 1999).
Can teacher education faculty afford a major
commitment to working in partner schools?
Winitzky et al. (1992) hypothesized that past
school-university partnerships have failed
largely because most faculty opted out, and the
few who carried the burden “simply ran out of
energy” (p. 16). They suggested that perhaps
practicum supervision has to be mandatory for
all education faculty; but would schools of edu-
cation be willing to adopt this stance?
THE MID-TOWN PROGRAM’S MODEL
OF PRACTICUM SUPERVISION
At OISE/UT, there are approximately 1,200
student teachers in the 1-year, postbaccalaure-
ate preservice program. About half of these are
in the elementary stream, preparing to teach
8 Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
either kindergarten through grade six or grades
four through eight. Since the mid-1980s, the ele-
mentary stream has been divided into cohorts of
about 65 students, each cohort with its own fac-
ulty team. Our elementary cohort program is
called Mid-Town because the location of our
practicum schools is just north of downtown
Toronto in the multiracial, multiethnic urban
core. It should be noted that urban schools in
Toronto receive the same funding as in other
school districts in Ontario and are viewed by
teachers as desirable schools in which to be
placed. Hence, they do not share the problems
of poor funding and low morale encountered in
some urban schools in North America.
The Mid-Town program has an explicit phi-
losophy of teaching and learning, which is pre-
sented in our handbooks for student teachers
and associate teachers. Its emphases include an
inquiry approach to teaching and learning;
teachers as researchers; a close teacher-student
relationship; an interactive, dialogical peda-
gogy; integration of academic learning with life
learning; collaboration in teaching and learning;
and a strong class community. As far as possi-
ble, we model this approach to teaching and
learning in the program. For example, action
research by the student teachers is the central
assignment of the program, we get to know our
students well and seek their input in running
the program, there is emphasis on group discus-
sion and student collaboration in projects, we
collaborate in our own teaching, and we put
considerable effort into building community in
the program.
Our students are required to do two 5-week
blocks of practice teaching during the year, each
in a different school. Prior to each block, stu-
dents spend 1 day per week in STEP (student
teacher experience program) in the classroom
where they will do their practice teaching. STEP
and practice teaching combined are what we
refer to as the practicum. During the practicum,
we cluster five or more student teachers in each
school, thus enabling us to work with a small
number of partner schools. The advantage of
this is that over the years, we develop close rela-
tionships with these schools and achieve com-
mon understandings on teaching and learning
and on the practicum. Also, because we stay
with the same school or schools from one semes-
ter to the next and from one year to the next, we
are better able to provide support to associate
teachers, and we do our supervision in settings
where we are known and feel welcome. Further-
more, from a purely logistical point of view, we
can see many student teachers in a single school
visit rather than having to commute from school
to school.
Although we visit our student teachers sev-
eral times during the practicum, we feel we do
not see enough of their teaching to do the prac-
tice teaching evaluation; accordingly, this task is
performed by the associate teachers. They are in
the best position to do the evaluation, and giv-
ing them this role strengthens their ownership
of the program and increases the time and effort
they devote to it. From the student teachers’
point of view, although they feel under closer
scrutiny, the arrangement means they do not
have the age-old worry of teaching “a disas-
trous lesson” the day the university supervisor
visits. Although the program faculty do not per-
form the evaluation, we support the evaluation
process in several ways. We develop evaluation
rubrics, guidelines, and procedures and discuss
them with both the associates and the students.
We intervene in cases where it appears a student
is likely to fail. We act to protect the student and
possibly move her or him if we feel the difficul-
ties are due to features of the placement, or we
support the associate teacher in her or his deci-
sion if we agree that a student should indeed fail
the practicum. In such cases, we make special
visits to the school to observe the student teach-
ing and have discussions with the associate and
student. We often involve the principal and the
program coordinator in assessing the situation.
A key aspect of the Mid-Town practicum
model, noted earlier, is that all members of the
faculty team, including subject specialists and
foundations instructors, are required to do
practicum supervision. We had several reasons
for adopting this policy. First, spreading the
work around in this way ensures that no one fac-
ulty member has so many students to supervise
that the task is overwhelming. Second, this
arrangement helps avoid having “first- and sec-
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
ond-class citizens” in the program: those who
do research and publishing, and those who
“merely” teach and do practicum supervision.
Third, the approach promotes team building
and refinement of our program philosophy as
we work together across the whole program.
An essential element of this model is provid-
ing support to faculty members in practicum
supervision. The evaluation rubrics, guidelines,
and procedures are developed by the team as a
whole. Materials on expectations for associate
teachers and student teachers are also gener-
ated by the team. General issues and particular
cases are often discussed at team meetings and
in telephone and e-mail exchanges. Schools
and associate teachers are carefully selected by
the program coordinator, in consultation with
the team, to ensure as far as possible that the
practicum placements are satisfactory. There are
general inservice sessions for associate teachers
and regular liaison meetings with representa-
tives from all partner schools. When a student
teacher has to be moved, the program coordina-
tor and other team members help find a suitable
alternative placement. The cohort community
structure itself is a considerable help in
practicum supervision. Before the practicum
begins, we already know the student teachers
quite well and typically have a positive relation-
ship with them.
If the Mid-Town faculty do not evaluate the
students’ practice teaching, what do we do in
the practicum setting? We supervise the whole
context and process of the practicum, establish-
ing links between the campus and the school,
building trust and goodwill, communicating
the general philosophy of the program, model-
ing an approach to teacher-student relation-
ships, and supporting the associate teachers in
their work. We also, of course, give support to
the student teachers to a greater extent than in
many programs. Because of our prior knowl-
edge of the students, our familiarity with the
schools and associate teachers, and our frequent
visits, we are in a stronger position to arrange
good placements for them, resolve disagree-
ments or misunderstandings between them and
their associate teachers, move them to a more
suitable placement if necessary, and suggest
9
pedagogical directions and strategies. We also
approach the student teachers at a given school
as a group rather than just as individuals. We
bring them together for lunchtime chats,
encourage them to share with and support each
other, and generally extend the cohort commu-
nity and program into the school.
GOALS AND METHOD
OF THE RESEARCH
We conducted the present study because we
wanted evidence on the effectiveness of the
above model of practicum supervision, both for
our own consideration and to offer to our col-
leagues and to university and school of educa-
tion administrators. Specifically, in this study
we sought to (a) identify the effects of imple-
menting our approach to practicum supervi-
sion and (b) assess whether, on balance, these
effects were sufficiently positive to justify con-
tinuing the approach. Among the effects we
studied were (a) effects on the school-university
partnership, (b) effects on the student teachers’
experience of the practicum, (c) effects on the
campus program and cohort community, and
(d) effects on the university faculty.
Our research approach was qualitative, as
defined by Punch (1998). For example, our
method had the following characteristics cited
by Punch as typical of, although not exclusive
to, qualitative research: We used participant-
observers, including ourselves; we had a rela-
tively small sample, which we studied in depth;
our data were not usually expressed in num-
bers; our interview and observation sessions
were largely open-ended; and our categories or
“codes” emerged as the study progressed.
However, following Hammersley (1992),
Merriam (1998), and Punch (1998), there was a
quantitative component to our reporting: We
often indicated the number, proportion, or per-
centage of respondents who held a particular
view or responded in a particular way. We
believe such information is relevant even in a
qualitative study and can help readers under-
stand why we reached certain conclusions.
We gathered many forms of data over the 4
years of the study. Initially, we focused mainly
on the nature and effects of our own work as
10
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
practicum supervisors. We relied heavily on our
journals and reflective conversations. With
time, we began to “triangulate” these data by
including the perspectives of our student teach-
ers, our associate teachers, and the other five
members of the Mid-Town faculty team. Spe-
cifically, the data sources were as follows: (a)
Over the 4 years, the authors kept detailed jour-
nals, had conversations on their role with each
other and with other members of the faculty
team, recorded their reflections, kept a log of
time spent doing supervision, and responded to
the following questions: What am I trying to
achieve as a practicum supervisor? What is my
approach to supervision? What am I learning?
What words characterize my work with my stu-
dent teachers and associate teachers? How does
the investment in practicum supervision affect
me professionally? (b) In the spring of the 3rd
year of the study, a questionnaire on the role of
the faculty supervisor was administered to the
cohort (53 of 62 students were present at the
time). (c) In the spring of the 4th year, a question-
naire on the practicum experience was adminis-
tered to the cohort (61 of 64 students were pres-
ent). (d) A larger study we conducted on the role
of associate teachers also provided relevant data
for this study. In 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, we
interviewed 20 of our associate teachers indi-
vidually on their role in general and asked spe-
cific questions about their expectations and per-
ceptions with respect to university supervisors;
these interviews were audiotaped and tran-
scribed. (e) In each of the 4 years, we conducted
in-depth interviews on the program as a whole
with a random sample of 6 students; some of
these data were relevant to the issue of
practicum supervision. (f) In the last 2 years of
the study, we audiotaped and transcribed dis-
cussions of the practicum at faculty team
meetings.
In analyzing the data from these six sources,
we started by reading all the journal entries,
reflection notes, transcriptions, and question-
naire responses to identify references to positive
or negative effects of faculty involvement in
practicum supervision. As we read, we noted
recurring themes, for example, support for stu-
dent teachers, support for associate teachers,
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
evaluating student teachers, modeling good
practice, facilitating action research, increased
faculty workload, and time spent on problem
cases. When we moved to second and third
readings of the data, we used these themes as
codes for categorizing references. We developed
a table to record the frequency of each coded ref-
erence and the location of the references within
the data sources. As we continued to review the
data, we found it necessary to modify or delete
some of the codes, merge some of them, and add
new ones. For example, evaluating student
teachers was placed under support of associate
teachers, and facilitating action research was
placed under both supporting student teachers
and enhancing the campus program. In most
cases, the themes we chose for inclusion in the
final report were the ones mentioned most fre-
quently, or with greatest emphasis, in the data
sources. Sometimes, however, we included
themes—notably those having to do with effects
on faculty—that in our view were important but
unlikely to be considered by most categories of
respondent. In the later stages of analysis, we
began to gather quotations that we felt would be
useful in clarifying and elaborating particular
effects. As we drafted the report, we continued
to go back to the data to check the appropriate-
ness of categories and quotations.
It is possible that some of the effects identified
in the study were due to other features of our
cohort program or to influences of which we
were not aware. This brings us to the question of
“history” identified by Campbell and Stanley
(1966, pp. 7, 13-14). Given the time lapse during
the study, how can one be sure other factors did
not produce the changes we have ascribed to
involving faculty in the practicum? In respond-
ing to the history question, we would appeal in
part to the qualitative nature of the study. We
believe the participant-observers (student teach-
ers, associate teachers, and faculty, including
ourselves), given their knowledge of the con-
text, were in a position to weigh the phenomena
before them and make a judgment about the
extent to which faculty involvement in the
practicum was a factor in the effects observed.
We would also note, however, that even in tradi-
tional types of research, one cannot be sure that
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
all variables have been controlled. One must, as
far as possible, continue to repeat the experi-
ment to minimize the risk of mistaken conclu-
sions, as Campbell and Stanley (1966) acknowl-
edged. As with any research, our conclusions
are hypotheses, subject to future research.
EFFECTS OF APPLYING THE
MID-TOWN MODEL OF
PRACTICUM SUPERVISION
Our general conclusion, based on the data
gathered over the 4 years of the study, was that
involving education faculty in practicum super-
vision in accordance with the Mid-Town model
had substantial beneficial effects for the pro-
gram and the student teachers and both positive
and negative effects for university faculty.
Whereas the negative effects for faculty may
well reduce the transferability of the approach
to other teacher education settings, in our own
case we feel the benefits of the approach out-
weigh the negative aspects, and accordingly, we
plan to continue to follow it. In reporting the
specific findings of the study, we look first at
positive and then at negative effects.
Positive Effects
The School-University
Partnership Was Strengthened
The presence of university faculty in the
practicum schools resulted in greater interest in
and commitment to the program by the schools
and associate teachers. There were two sources
of data here: first, observations of the faculty
team; and second, the associate teacher inter-
views. The faculty observed that (a) attendance
by associate teachers and other school represen-
tatives at school-based practicum in-service ses-
sions was higher than in the past and in other
elementary programs, (b) schools were keen to
offer their facilities for programwide liaison
meetings, (c) schools and associate teachers
were quick to recommit to working with our
program for the following year despite the min-
imal stipend offered and our growing expecta-
tions of them, and (d) attendance of associate
teachers at on-campus in-services was higher
11
than in the past and in other elementary pro-
grams. In the 4th year of the study, 53 associate
teachers and 6 principals or vice principals
came to this in-service; this number was consid-
erably higher than at similar in-services in other
programs. Furthermore, when we visited the
schools, the associate teachers were very wel-
coming and were willing to talk with us at con-
siderable length about teaching, teacher educa-
tion, the student teachers, the current situation
in schools, and a variety of other matters. This
was surprising, given how busy they were, the
pressures they were under, and the generally
low morale of teachers today.
Most of the 20 associate teachers we inter-
viewed expressed satisfaction with the faculty
role in practicum supervision. When asked
about the good qualities of the Mid-Town pro-
gram, the highest frequency of responses (15)
had to do with “communication with the
school” and “support” by faculty of the associ-
ate teachers and student teachers. Mary (pseud-
onyms are used throughout this article)
commented,
I feel that I know people now at the faculty, and they
know me. Before it was just, well, I’m an associate
teacher; I’m trying to do a little bit extra. But it’s nice
to get to know the people behind the scenes.
When asked how to improve the program,
there were many suggestions about the campus
courses and the schedule of the practicum but
just two individual comments about the univer-
sity supervisor role, namely, that we should
make longer school visits and spend more time
talking with the associate teachers. When asked
about professional development, the highest
frequency of responses (11) named the valuable
impact on the school of the link with the univer-
sity through the student teachers and faculty
supervisors.
The Practicum
Experience Was Enhanced
With respect to the role of faculty in enhanc-
ing the student teachers’ practicum experience,
the main data came from faculty observations
(notably our own journals), the two question-
naires, and the in-depth student interviews.
Faculty observed that the student teachers wel-
12
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
comed us warmly when we came to the school,
were keen to have us in their classrooms, and
thanked us repeatedly for supporting them in
this way. Their appreciation of our school visits
was seen in the close relationship that devel-
oped between faculty and their supervisees. At
the end of the first practice teaching block in 1999-
2000, the first author wrote this in his journal:
Got an e-mail from Michelle inviting me to join the
Prince Arthur student teachers at a pub near the
school, on the last afternoon of practice teaching. All
seven were there, and we had a great time. They had
obviously enjoyed each other during the practicum
and become quite close. We had two jugs of the spe-
cial brew and some snacks, Rachel ordering. Rachel
had brought an amusing little article to read to us on
“how to recognize a teacher”: she copied it from the
Prince Arthur bulletin board. They talked about
their experiences in practice teaching and many
things were revealed. They told anecdotes about a
rather unaccommodating secretary and difficulties
getting photocopying done. Most of them shared, es-
pecially with me, how their practice teaching went
and their final evaluation. They said they wished
they could stay together—and with me—for their
next practicum, and I explained why we don’t do it
that way: they need to get to know other schools, as-
sociates, and student teachers, and I have to main-
tain the liaison with Prince Arthur. As we parted,
they thanked me warmly for my support during the
practicum.
In the questionnaire on the role of the faculty
supervisor administered in spring 1999, with 53
of the cohort present, the main theme was how
supportive the faculty were during the
practicum. Asked what role faculty supervisors
should play, 40 mentioned providing support,
and 19 said we should give guidance and ad-
vice. When asked about our actual perfor-
mance, 45 said we were supportive and helpful,
and 6 said that we were not; 10 said we provided
guidance and practical suggestions; and 7 said
that we kept the associate teachers informed.
Typical comments were, “My supervisor was
most supportive, and I was really impressed
with the rapport she had with the school staff”;
“My supervisor supports me and understands
my university workload; the associate teachers
are usually in the dark in this regard”; “My two
supervisors were great; they were supportive,
encouraged me, and ensured that the university
guidelines were being followed.”
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
 Responses to the spring 2000 questionnaire,
with 61 of the cohort present, indicated that a
shift had taken place. The percentage of stu-
dents describing their faculty supervisors as
helpful had declined slightly, and opinion with
respect to associate teachers was considerably
more positive than in the previous year: 78%
found the guidance given by their associate
teachers “adequate” or “just right”; 86% said
their associate teachers gave feedback that was
“adequate,” “satisfactory,” or “just what I
needed”; and 86% said their associate teachers
had their “best interests at heart.” We believe
these results reflected, on one hand, partial
lapses in supervision on the part of some of our
faculty in 1999-2000 and, on the other hand,
steady improvement in the performance of the
associate teachers, due in part to a clearer state-
ment of expectations and continued reinforce-
ment of them during our visits and in-services.
Turning to the in-depth student interviews on
the program as a whole, all showed strong ap-
preciation of the support given by the Mid-
Town faculty. We believe this was due in part to
our involvement in practicum supervision,
which to many student teachers is the most im-
portant and certainly the most stressful aspect
of the program. Janet said, “I’m finding the pro-
gram fantastic because it’s so supportive . . . if
we have any questions we can always come to
you. I just feel like it’s a very nurturing environ-
ment . . . ” Martha commented,
As soon as we walked in, all of you wrote your
phone numbers on the board. That really made an
impact because I thought, these are people who treat
us as professionals, who are willing to share their
thoughts with us, who don’t isolate themselves in
some kind of hierarchical pyramid . . . the accessibil-
ity, the way you made yourselves available.
And Janet said,
I certainly never expected to get to know my profes-
sors on a one-on-one basis, where they would under-
stand who I am and where I’m coming from
and . . . be able to understand whether a practicum
placement is going to work for me or not.
The Campus Program Was Enhanced
The impact of faculty involvement in the
practicum on the campus program was men-
tioned in just two of the data sources: our own
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
journals and the in-depth student interviews. In
our journals, we noted that our participation in
the practicum gave each of us a much closer re-
lationship with our supervisees from the two
placements. This strengthened the class com-
munity in general and resulted in fuller partici-
pation and more meaningful dialogue in
university courses. We also observed that our
time in the practicum classrooms gave us a
wealth of practical examples to bring to our
classes, examples that were familiar to the stu-
dents and honored their experience as practitio-
ners. After a foundations class on the
importance of “class community,” the first au-
thor wrote,
I was able to cite a number of examples from lessons
I had witnessed recently in the practicum. . . . I talked
about Marie’s math lesson, where keeping the class
working together as a community meant that some
children had to be held back while others caught up,
and inventive activities were needed to keep every-
one interested. I described how Nina talked pri-
vately to a potentially disruptive boy before her
Grade 8 dance lesson, appealing to him to help make
the lesson work, for her sake and that of the class;
much to her relief, he joined in and the lesson went
well. The student teachers were glad to elaborate on
the examples I mentioned, and provided others of
their own. I felt my ability to bring examples from
the practicum made the theoretical concepts more
accessible and encouraged the students to talk
openly about their practicum experiences.
Our movement back and forth between the
university and the practicum schools facilitated
having assignments that spanned both do-
mains. The major example here was the action
research work, the central requirement of the
program; but there was also the shadow study
in child psychology, the reflection paper on
classroom management, and the essay on the
role of the teacher. We believe our familiarity
with the practicum settings encouraged the stu-
dents to give more examples from their practice
teaching and helped us understand their work.
After a session on campus with two of the action
research groups, the second author wrote,
We had good discussions of what they were learning
from their action research, the problems they were
facing fitting it into the school day, the nature of
teaching today. My involvement in these discus-
sions was considerably enhanced by having been in
13
 their classrooms and schools over the last few days
and weeks. I had more to contribute and they took
my contribution more seriously; but more impor-
tantly, we had a basis for working through the issues
and problems together.
Turning to the in-depth student interviews
on the program as a whole, the majority indi-
cated how our support of the student teachers
enhanced their learning, including on campus.
Janet observed,
I’ve noticed that about the whole faculty
team. . . . You take time to actually talk to some-
one . . . and I’m going to do this with my own class
too. . . . It makes you feel so special. . . . That’s some-
thing I really need in order to develop and learn.
Michael said,
The teachers in the program showed us basically
what the program was about, what teaching was
about, right from the first moment. And that was
something it took me a while to figure out, that you
people were modeling everything right from the
very first introduction, although it’s not as if it was a
secret.
And Anita commented,
One thing that surprised me (about the program)
was that you weren’t solo in anything. There was al-
ways somebody that you could call on to talk to
about anything, and everything was open. . . . I hope
that (next year) I will be in a school situation where
the principal and teachers are supportive of this kind
of environment. If not, then at least in my classroom I
will build a community, you know, a respect for be-
ing able to share ideas, they feel comfortable, I feel
comfortable too . . . and I’m listening to the kids, the
stuff they’re talking about, and trying to make that
little connection.
Although these comments did not address di-
rectly the issue of practicum supervision, we be-
lieve our involvement in the practicum was
essential to the general pattern of support and
modeling that, according to the interviews, en-
hanced the students’ learning in the campus
program as well.
Faculty Grew in Their Knowledge
and Understanding of Schooling
As Bullough and Gitlin (1995) noted, aca-
demics can develop an overly ideological
approach to schooling, which leads them to
downplay what schools accomplish and the
14
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
challenges student teachers face in the class-
room. Participation in the practicum made us
more aware of the difficulties and successes of
“ordinary” schooling: the skills of teachers in
complex and demanding situations and the
patience, fairness, and compassion teachers dis-
play in their daily interactions with students.
This was not an effect associate teachers or stu-
dent teachers were likely to notice directly,
although we believe both groups appreciated
our knowledge of schooling. In this area, we
relied solely on our own journals and reflection
notes.
The second author, who had extensive, recent
experience of teaching and consulting in
schools, noted that she gained a number of new
insights while doing practicum supervision. At
one school, the effective use of multiage group-
ings made her more aware of the value of this
approach and showed her strategies for raising
it to a higher level than she had previously
thought possible. At another school she
observed, for the first time, intermediate-level
teachers planning together a comprehensive
program for high-needs students. In this way,
they resolved many of the difficulties posed by
the rotary system of teaching subjects. In yet
another school, she saw programming for lan-
guage-disabled students that was more innova-
tive and successful than she had encountered
before.
The first author, who had been largely absent
from the schools for many years, teaching only
at the graduate level, acquired learning of a
more basic type. For example, he was reminded
that some teachers are considerably more effec-
tive than others, and he saw more fully where
the differences lay. After a 2-day stint of school
supervision, he wrote,
In the morning of the first day I saw a couple of class-
rooms in which there was a relative lack of direction;
the lessons drifted and the student teachers did not
seem to mind or, perhaps, notice. . . . The next day I
saw Anita doing art with a Grade 8 class. She knew
how to inspire the whole group but . . . also went to
individuals and got them on track. It was clear to the
students that she cared both about them and their
doing the art in a interesting, competent, fulfilling
manner. I learned two things through these experi-
ences. First, teachers vary in their teaching level,
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
 with significant consequences for learning; students
quickly pick up on the style and expectations of their
teacher. Secondly, teachers need to be passionate
both about the students and the subject matter. Their
interest in the subject matter comes through in so
many ways in the classroom.
Learning of this type gave the first author a
better sense of what good teaching involves and
what skills and attitudes needed to be fostered
in our student teachers during the program.
Negative Effects
Our data did not show negative outcomes of
the practicum model for our school partner-
ships, the practicum, or the campus program;
the negative outcomes we observed only
applied to the university faculty. These effects
were not noticed by the students or associate
teachers; accordingly, in studying them, we
were reliant on our own observations and those
of the five other faculty members on the team.
The Work of Teacher Education Became
More Time-Consuming and Challenging
Obviously, becoming involved in practicum
supervision without reduction in course load
adds significantly to the time demands on fac-
ulty; that is the main reason education faculty
often avoid such involvement. Given our
model, we had to select partner schools and
associate teachers and find suitable placements
for individual student teachers. Earlier, we
described the extensive consultation process we
followed in selecting schools and associates.
With respect to individual student teacher
placements, we took into account not only the
distinctive needs of students but also where
they lived relative to their practicum school and
their transportation requirements. Other ele-
ments of the model also took a considerable
amount of time: the frequent school visits and
lunchtime in-service sessions; the programwide
liaison meetings and on-campus, in-service ses-
sions; and dealing with particular problem situ-
ations. The transcripts of our team meetings
were replete with discussions of individual stu-
dent cases. Even if a student was not failing, dif-
ficulties and misunderstandings often arose
that required special school visits and lengthy
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
communication by phone or e-mail. Because
our supervisory role gave us greater knowledge
of the students’ teaching abilities, we became
involved in writing reference letters for them
and helping them secure positions. Finally,
when problems arose, we had to spend time
shoring up relationships with the partner
schools. If we did not handle a student transfer
or failure delicately, we ran the risk of losing the
whole school. As a result of all these activities,
the practice teaching block ceased to be a rela-
tively free period when we could turn our atten-
tion to research and writing.
Time was not the only added burden of the
model. With the practicum an integral part of
the program, a new set of complexities and chal-
lenges emerged. First, student teachers talked
openly about their practicum placements and
experiences. Negative comments were some-
times made about associate teachers. We
emphasized the importance of professionalism
in such matters and tried to place limits on nega-
tive comments. But sharing and joint problem
solving are also part of professionalism; we
could not avoid this type of occurrence com-
pletely. A second difficulty was that faculty var-
ied in the extent to which they wished to make
school visits, in their opinions about what
should be done in the schools, and in their
capacity to give the support needed. The tran-
scripts of team meetings documented the resis-
tance of some faculty to making frequent or
lengthy school visits. It also documented dis-
agreements about how much support should be
given to students during the practicum. Stu-
dents talked among themselves about the fac-
ulty in their supervisory role, made compari-
sons, and wanted to be supervised by certain
faculty members rather than others. Once again,
these dynamics placed a considerable burden
on some members of the team, especially the
program coordinator.
The Gulf Widened Between Faculty Doing
Practicum Supervision and Those (in Other
Programs) Not So Involved
There was a tendency for faculty extensively
involved in the schools to be looked on—and
even see themselves—as second-class citizens
15
in a university culture that downgrades the
practical and sees academic work as not requir-
ing much reference to practice. This negative ef-
fect was noted only by ourselves; the data
sources were our own journals and reflection
notes. In a 1998 paper based on our journals, we
wrote,
The work in schools . . . led to some questioning
about our precise role in fieldwork. Clare, who had
been a curriculum consultant and has written a lan-
guage arts series, began to experience some role con-
fusion as she worked with student teachers. Was she
consultant, teacher, professor, co-researcher? At
times she was all of these yet there was a tension in
having to perform so many roles. In order to work
collegially with the associate teachers she had to
draw on her experience as a teacher. Most of the dis-
cussion was about curriculum practice and class-
room management. She seemed to spend the bulk of
her time with field personnel; she was not develop-
ing colleagues at the university . . .
Clive, having tenure (and having taught for
many years at the graduate level), is sensitive to how
he may be viewed by his academic colleagues. Is he
becoming soft on theory because of all this preoccu-
pation with practice? How can he have time for seri-
ous scholarly research when he is spending so much
time in schools and with school-oriented students
and teachers? (Kosnik & Beck, 1998)
With time, we have in fact overcome some of
these problems to a degree. By doing research
and writing on our teacher education practice,
we have been able to find time for such activity
and also make the case that our work in the field
is of academic worth; this in turn has made us
feel more at home in our department and school
of education. But this has required a great deal
of work and is still an uphill battle; the progress
can quickly be eroded by a period without
much “scholarly productivity.”
Faculty Heavily Involved in the Field Encountered
Difficulties Having Their Work Recognized
Once again, the data sources here were our
own journals and reflection notes. The reduced
sense of belonging and respect in the university
community noted earlier was a somewhat sub-
jective outcome and, to a degree, it was compen-
sated for by a strong sense of belonging and
appreciation in our cohort community and the
partner schools. But there were additional prob-
16
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
lems. Our fieldwork and “action research” on
the program were not given much weight in
terms of tenure, promotion, and merit pay. For
example, we had to fight every year to get an
average merit rating, whereas others doing con-
ventional teaching and research received almost
automatically an above-average rating. We also
experienced difficulty obtaining funding or
even approval for research on our program. We
have documented elsewhere in detail the prob-
lems we encountered (Kosnik & Beck, 2000).
Research funding and ethics committees
seemed to regard research on one’s own teach-
ing as inappropriate and even unethical. They
did not see the legitimacy of applying, in the
university context, the “teacher-as-researcher”
approach, which has been so widely accepted
for school settings. They assumed that students
agreeing to participate in the research would be
doing so under duress, out of fear of being
penalized by us, and so they felt the research
should be discouraged.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
To summarize, there were several positive
effects of having all members of the faculty team
do practicum supervision in accordance with
the Mid-Town model. The school-university
partnership was strengthened, the practicum
was enhanced, the campus program was
improved, and the faculty grew in knowledge
and understanding of schooling. There were
also some problems—for the university fac-
ulty—arising from implementing the Mid-
Town approach: heavier time demands, a more
complex and challenging practicum arrange-
ment, further distancing from the academic
community, and increased difficulty in having
work recognized. However, we feel the advan-
tages outweighed the disadvantages, especially
for the student teachers but also for the faculty;
we plan to continue to involve all faculty in
practicum supervision in the future.
It might be argued that practicum supervi-
sion is not in general a good use of time for uni-
versity researchers, who are sorely needed to
contribute to educational research and theory;
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
and, furthermore, that education faculty need
not be involved in school-based supervision,
because they can have a strong impact on
preservice teachers on campus. However, we
feel there are a number of difficulties with this
approach. In the first place, we believe it is very
difficult for academics to develop sound educa-
tional theory in isolation from the field. Follow-
ing Donald Schön, we do not accept a trickle-
down concept of educational inquiry, whereby
solutions are developed at a general level and
then applied in schools. One cannot distinguish
good solutions from inadequate ones, even at a
theoretical level, without close connections to
practice. Furthermore, as we have attempted to
show in this article, involvement of faculty in
the practicum is necessary to establish a basis
for dialogue with student teachers about teach-
ing and learning; faculty need to be familiar
with the contexts in which student teachers are
working and with the challenges they face.
Finally, we believe involvement in the
practicum is a key part of modeling a sound
teacher-student relationship. If we largely
ignore this important and stressful aspect of our
student teachers’ experience, they will have dif-
ficulty accepting our advocacy of a supportive
and caring approach by teachers toward
students.
What is new in this study? To begin, we
believe that through evidence and argument,
we have strengthened the general case for fac-
ulty involvement in the preservice practicum.
Second, we have presented a model of
preservice practicum supervision that has a
novel set of features: It involves all faculty in
practicum supervision, links practicum super-
vision closely with building school-university
partnerships, provides extensive support for
faculty in their supervisory work, and inte-
grates supervisory activities both across super-
visors and with the campus program. And,
third, we have provided evidence that this par-
ticular model of practicum supervision works
well for partner schools, associate teachers, stu-
dent teachers, and to a degree, the supervising
faculty themselves.
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
Although our study lends credence to the
view that preservice faculty should be heavily
involved in practicum supervision, we are con-
cerned that few teacher education programs
will go in this direction without more support
from schools of education. Apart from the prob-
lems for individual faculty mentioned earlier,
one consequence of the present lack of institu-
tional support and direction is that if a faculty
member does not wish to work within this
model, he or she can simply move to a
subprogram that places less emphasis on con-
nections to the field. Preferably, there would be
a general requirement that, except in very spe-
cial circumstances, all preservice faculty must
participate in practicum supervision. The com-
mitment of the school of education to this
approach would be made clear at the time of ini-
tial hiring, then emphasized through the system
of tenure, promotion, and merit pay as well as
through general statements about the goals and
practices of the institution. Of course, as
described earlier, faculty should be given exten-
sive support so that they can function effec-
tively and with a significant degree of satisfac-
tion in their supervisory role.
It might be thought that we are being unduly
prescriptive here. Why insist on one way of
doing things? Why not let a hundred flowers
bloom? However, we believe this approach to
practicum supervision is inherent in the
approach to teaching that most schools of edu-
cation explicitly advocate: respect for practice; a
close theory-practice connection; teachers as
researchers; an integrated curriculum; and a
caring, supportive, teacher-student relation-
ship. What is at stake here is our whole teacher
education enterprise, to which we have com-
mitted our careers and on which we spend
many billions of dollars per annum. So long as
we proclaim one approach to teaching and
learning but practice another, our students will
simply be confused and little will be accom-
plished. Of course, to a large extent, our institu-
tional practice in schools of education, with its
relative neglect of the field and practice-oriented
research, has arisen because of values and stric-
17
tures of the wider university world. But the time
has come, we believe, for schools of education to
challenge this outlook and way of operating,
not only through public statements about good
pedagogy but through the teaching and
research practices we support among our own
faculty.
REFERENCES
Beck, C., & Kosnik, C. (2000). Associate teachers in
preservice education: Clarifying and enhancing their
role. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 207-224.
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.
Bullough, R., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teach-
ing: Methodologies for exploring self and school context.
New York: Garland.
Bullough, R., & Kauchak, D. (1997). Partnerships between
higher education and secondary schools: Some prob-
lems. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 215-233.
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.
Casey, B., & Howson, P. (1993). Educating preservice stu-
dents based on a problem-centered approach to teach-
ing. Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 361-369.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Professional develop-
ment schools: Schools for developing a profession. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Educating teachers for the
next century: Rethinking practice and policy. In G. Grif-
fin (Ed.), The education of teachers: 98th NSSE Yearbook
(Pt. 1, pp. 221-256). Chicago: National Society for the
Study of Education.
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.
Goodlad, J. (1990a). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better
schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography?
New York: Routledge.
Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (1998, April). The effect of student
teachers’ participation in action research on the attitudes and
18
Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014
practices of teacher education faculty: A self-study. Paper
presented at the 1998 AERA Annual Meeting, San
Diego, CA.
Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2000). Who should perish, you or
your students? Dilemmas of research in teacher educa-
tion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(4), 119-135.
Maynard, T. (1996). The limits of mentoring: The contribu-
tion 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.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study appli-
cations in education (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative
& qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
Samaras, A., & Gismondi, S. (1998). Scaffolds in the field:
Vygotskian interpretation in a teacher education pro-
gram. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7), 715-733.
Slick, S. (1998). The university supervisor: A disenfran-
chised outsider. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8),
821-834.
Snyder, J. (1994). Perils and potentials: A tale of two profes-
sional development schools. In L. Darling-Hammond
(Ed.), Professional development schools (pp. 98-125). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Teitel, L. (1997). Changing teacher education through pro-
fessional development school partnerships: A five-year
follow-up study. Teachers College Record, 99(2), 311-334.
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.
Williams, A. (1994). The mentor. In A. Williams (Ed.), Per-
spectives on partnership: Secondary initial teacher training
(pp. 134-150). London: Falmer.
Winitzky, N., Stoddart, T., & O’Keefe, P. (1992). Great
expectations: Emergent professional development
schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 3-18.
Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum:
Looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 16(2), 105-132.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experi-
ences 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.
Clive Beck is a professor in the Department of Curric-
ulum, Teaching and Learning at the Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, University of Toronto. He teaches
social foundations and supervises practice teaching and
action research in the Mid-Town preservice program. He is
a past president of the Philosophy of Education Society.
Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002
His books include Educational Philosophy and Theory
and Better Schools.
Clare Kosnik is an assistant professor in the Depart-
ment of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning at the
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of
Toronto. She is coordinator of the Elementary Preservice
Program at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa-
tion, University of Toronto and also teaches and super-
vises in the Mid-Town preservice program. Her book, Pri-
mary Education: Goals, Processes and Practices, was
recently published by Legas Press.

Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53, No. 1, January/February 2002 19

Downloaded from jte.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on June 30, 2014