Gwyn C. Franson and Dr. Blaine Moore, Elementary Education
Fall semester 1994, Brigham Young University Department of Elementary Education began its first Cohort program for the training of elementary school teachers. This program focuses on integrating traditional methods classes into a two semester field-based pre-service experience. It provides for the placement of university professors on site. These professors are encouraged to (1) first model teaching strategies in a “real world” classroom, and (2) second provide opportunities for the pre-service teacher to practice and receive evaluation on the concepts taught in this same field-based atmosphere. The hope is that the combination of a field-based experience and on-site methods courses will have positive impact not only on student teaching, but ultimately on the professional experience.
As a member of that first BYU Cohort team, I felt I might add insights that could be helpful in evaluating the merits of the program. My research proposal was a request to address the question: How does the integration of field-based university methods courses and onsite pre-service experience impact subsequent student teaching behaviors, beliefs about teaching and learning, and discipline strategies.
The format of the research was a portrayal study of two student teachers and included me as a participant/observer. The original proposal called for qualitative data sources including formal and informal observations; interviews; dialogue journals; reflective and/or vision statements; and capture notes from seminars. As the research progressed, quantitative information gathering was also attempted through the use of survey tools. These included both student and supervisory evaluations of the impact of the pre-service training on the student teaching experience, and a student evaluation ranking various contributors as to their level of impact in helping prepare them for student teaching. The data sources encompassed information beginning with the Cohort experience and ending with the student teaching experience.
It was fairly evident that both student teachers were prepared for the student teaching experience. Both participants received the highest ranking (5 out of a possible 5) on the scaled evaluations completed by Brigham Young University supervisors and classroom cooperating teachers. The students themselves indicated rankings of successful (4 of 5) and very successful (5 of 5). Student reflective journal entries supported the findings. They, along with teaching observations, revealed an upward progression in confidence as the students worked through the hands-on practicum provided by the Cohort. In addition, interviews with student teaching cooperating teachers indicated that both students came to the classroom with the personal and teaching confidence that allowed them to have an immediate and positive impact.
A more detailed look at the student and supervisory evaluations revealed that preparedness levels varied with different elements. Preparedness in the areas of teaching behaviors and beliefs about teaching and learning generally had higher rankings than those in the area of discipline strategies. Journal entries, as well as teaching evaluations supported this. Another area that varied was curriculum preparedness. For instance, rankings ranged from a low of three to a high of five. The disparity in rankings appeared to align with either curriculum courses that were not a part of the Cohort, or with individual strengths and past experience.
As stated above, quantitative research was an added component to the study. It didn’t take long to realize that while the qualitative research could offer a general overview of preparedness and success, an in-depth study was needed to be able to identify specific contributors. Each of the student teachers was asked to rank in order according to a point system the primary resources she felt contributed to her effectiveness as a student teacher. Areas surveyed included the following: university general education classes; field-based 310R practicum assignments; education methods class lectures; education methods class assignments; education methods class assignments directly applied to classroom experience; modeling of concepts in the field-based classroom by methods teachers; modeling of concepts in the field-based classroom by cooperating teacher; modeling of concepts by the student teaching cooperating teacher; previous teaching experience; and, other experiences.
The above graph indicates a common trend in the resources the students found helpful. The most significant difference between them was the lack of previous teaching experience by Student #1 which appears to be compensated by her dependence on modeling by methods and cooperating teachers. General education classes received the lowest point ranking.
A collective assessment and summary of the research indicates that the integration of field-based university methods courses and on-site pre-service experience does have a positive impact on subsequent teaching behaviors, beliefs about teaching and learning, and discipline strategies, with the major contributor being the hands-on benefits of the 310R practicum. It also appears that while modeling by educators and course assignments have significant impact, the level of contribution is often dependent on past experience and individual strengths.