Structuring Effective Practicum Experiences for Pre-Service Teachers

Researchers have identified many reasons for university faculty involvement in pre-service teacher practicum experiences including a stronger school-university partnership, helping teacher education faculty grow in understanding and maintaining contact with the school community, and enhancing both the practicum and campus program (Beck & Kosnik, 2002a; Bullough & Kauchak, 1997). Roland (2010), found that teachers identified the availability of faculty for consultation as one of the most important pieces of the practicum experience. While the teachers in Roland's study indicate they welcome more frequent faculty visits to the classroom, it is unclear from this study if and how more frequent visits are actually beneficial to the pre-service teacher. Where does the potential benefit lie? Beck and Kosnik (2002a) studied the impact of implementing cohorts (involving university faculty, classroom teachers and pre-service teachers) in which the university faculty were present more in the field. While all involved enjoyed the power of such a supportive foundation in the field experience, the negative impacts on university faculty were measurable. University faculty reported the model to be more time-consuming and challenging to maintain. The faculty reported that while their relationships with their partner schools were enhanced, their relationships with other university faculty were hindered. While the participants in this group decided that the benefits experienced by pre-service and classroom teachers outweighed the negatives and continued the new cohort organization, it was not clear what longterm advantages this structure provides for the pre-service teachers. Other research has pointed to the classroom teacher as most integral to the development of pre-service teachers as professionals (Ferrier-Kerr, 2009). Beck (2002b) found that pre-service teachers greatly valued their relationships with their cooperating teachers. Are practicum students better prepared for classroom teaching with the implementation of a cohort model or is it the classroom teacher that makes a difference? Are there measureable differences that justify the added effort and use of resources for a cohort model or does the benefit simply lie in the enjoyment of the experience? Samaras and Gismondi (1998) explored a Vygotskian model where peer and cooperating teacher support systems in learning to teach were implemented. This was found to positively impact pre-service teachers' perception of their readiness for student teaching. It is not clear from this study if application of this method by the university faculty yields equal or greater benefits for the students. Volante (2006) found that pre-service elementary teachers emphasized the importance of having a consistent cohort throughout the program in order to develop strong relationships with colleagues allowing them to gain more from group activities. While Volante's study does not include the university professor, it might not be a huge leap to assume these benefits could extend to the relationship between a cohort and a professor. Description of the Study This study compares two models of practicum structure, one that allows for faculty to be present on a daily basis while the students experience their practicum and one that emphasizes faculty involvement in the beginning of the course and sends students to practicum without the faculty member (See Figure 1). The impact of these models in terms of preparation for teaching were reported on by the pre-service teachers. 1 hour/day In class with professor on site 1 hour/day In M.S. class with teacher Block 4 weeks on In M.S. with Schedule: campus Teacher 2 hours/day 1 hour/day In class with professor on site 1 hour/day In H.S. class with teacher Block 4 weeks on In H.S. with Schedule: campus Teacher 2 hours/day Figure 1. …