Cultivating Relationships With School Placement Stakeholders The Perspective of The Cooperating Teacher

European Journal of Teacher Education
ISSN: 0261-9768 (Print) 1469-5928 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20
Cultivating relationships with school placement

stakeholders: the perspective of the cooperating
teacher
Ann-Marie Young & Ann MacPhail
To cite this article: Ann-Marie Young & Ann MacPhail (2016) Cultivating relationships with
school placement stakeholders: the perspective of the cooperating teacher, European Journal
of Teacher Education, 39:3, 287-301, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2016.1187595
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1187595
Published online: 21 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 246
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cete20
Download by: [186.29.183.141]
Date: 19 November 2016, At: 19:14
European Journal of Teacher Education, 2016

VOL. 39, NO. 3, 287301
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1187595
Cultivating relationships with school placement stakeholders:

the perspective of the cooperating teacher
Ann-Marie Younga and Ann MacPhailb
a
Department of Education and Professional Studies, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland; bDepartment of
Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to analyse Irish school placement cooperating

teachers supervisory experiences when involved in various structures
of communities and explore factors which enabled or challenged
them in cultivating relationships with school placement stakeholders
where there is no formal system of supervision established in schools
in the Republic of Ireland. Describing learning as a social process,
research impliesthe significance of the development of relationships,
membership within communities and identity construction. Using
a qualitative approach, it was found that by formally engaging in a
supervisory process, cooperating teachers experienced each of these
characteristics to varying extents resulting in different supervisory
experiences. The different configurations of membership allowed
cooperating teachers to contribute towards school placement
collaboration.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 18 August 2015

Accepted 4 May 2016
KEYWORDS
Professional development;
preservice teacher
education; teacherstudent
relationships; Republic of
Ireland
Introduction
How a cooperating teacher (CT) learns to become an effective supervisor to improve the
school-based experience of a student teacher (ST) is recognised as an under researched area
in the literature (Graves 2010; Gursoy and Damar 2011; Russell and Russell 2011; Wang and
Ha 2012). If the relationship between the CT and the preservice teacher is at the heart of
every practicum (Graves 2010, 15), then it is time for teacher education institutions to recognise the importance and urgency in providing structured continuous professional development opportunities to enable CTs to establish and nurture school placement relationships.
Ganser (2002) recommends that schools, as sites for student teaching and mentoring, can
be transformed into professional learning communities where CTs can learn the skills of an
effective supervisor.
There is no equity of experience for STs in post-primary schools in the Republic of Ireland
due to the lack of a tradition of supervision in schools and poor schooluniversity partnerships (Belton et al. 2010; Conway et al. 2011; McWilliams et al. 2006; Moody 2009). The data
in this paper is drawn from the experiences of CTs in the Republic of Ireland in their attempts
to create formalised supervisory relationships with STs in a system lacking in clear mentoring
procedures at the initial teacher education stage. There are no clear expectations for CTs to
CONTACT Ann-Marie Young
annmarie.young@ul.ie
2016 Association for Teacher Education in Europe
288
A.-M. Young and A. MacPhail
observe STs on placement and vice versa. It is our view that it would be a detriment to
the field to exclude smaller investigations from the larger mentoring picture. Conway
et al. (2011) reported that STs had limited opportunities for observation of experienced
teachers and the emphasis in the school setting tended to be on working rather than
learning to be a teacher. The study recommends that policies are developed, in collaboration with schools, to support accomplished teachers becoming effective supervisors.
The absence of formalised and structured roles for CTs in a Republic of Ireland context
has resulted in a fragmented system lacking in consistency (Moody 2009). For the purpose of this paper the term supervision refers to CTs supervising STs on school placement. While there are many CTs who resist involvement in any form of supervision when
STs are on placement in their schools, there are CTs who provide supportive and engaging learning environments for STs and are willing to develop the role of the CT in the
supervision process.
New regulations for initial teacher education in the Republic of Ireland state that STs are
required to experience observation opportunities on school placement practicums (Teaching
Council 2011). It is acknowledged that the role of the school, and importantly the role of the
CT, deserves further research and that there is considerable scope for recognising the important influence that school-based experiences have on the development of STs and for re-considering and possibly extending this role (Conway et al. 2011, 30). This paper investigates
how and what type of relationships CTs can develop with STs and university tutors (UTs) to
enhance the school placement process and provide recommendations for future developments of CTs as school-based educators. The concept of communities of practice (Wenger
1998) is analysed in relation to experienced teachers learning to become supervisors to STs
on school placement.
Theoretical framework
Establishing communities of practice
Wenger (1998) defines a community of practice as groups of people who share a concern,
a set of problems, or passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and
expertise in this area by interacting on an on-going basis (4). For the purpose of this
paper, a community of practice is described as an infrastructure that supports change,
a setting where the school placement stakeholders come together to learn from each
other and identify professional development needs and opportunities, and acknowledges that working together as a learning community enhances a sharing of expertise
(Cochran-Smith and Lytle 1999; Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). As such, a community can provide an infrastructure where working together enhances both knowledge
and teaching performance.
Membership is an essential condition for learning (Lave and Wenger 1991). In a Republic
of Ireland context, the potential for various forms of communities is inadvertently created
when a ST arrives at a school on placement. The potential for the development of a community is created by a ST completing their placement at the CTs school and teaching the CTs
classes. For CTs, there is the possibility of establishing a professional learning community
with STs and potentially UTs. This is dependent on the willingness and motivation of each
stakeholder to contribute to the creation of such an infrastructure.
289
The three dimensions of practice

Participation in a community is based on access and exposure. Wenger (1998) explains that
to establish a community, participation must provide access to three dimensions of practice,
(i) mutual engagement, (ii) negotiation of an enterprise and (iii) a shared repertoire, with
each construct defining the development of social practice in a community (Davies 2005;
Fuller et al. 2005; Sutherland, Scanlon, and Sperring 2005).
(i) Mutual engagement: Dimensions of mutual engagement include engaged diversity,
doing things together, relationships, community and maintenance (Wenger 1998).
Wenger (1998) suggests that membership in a community is a matter of mutual
engagement and can also be what defines a community. Related to this paper, when
a CT and a ST are supportive in the development of a relationship to enhance each
others role, mutual engagement exists. It is important that, for a community to be
established, stakeholders must treat each other with respect and involve them in the
practices of the school placement (Davies 2005; Fuller et al. 2005). A breakdown can
occur if, and when, members do not connect effectively and, in such cases, membership
within a community may cease to be experienced.
(ii) Joint enterprise: Dimensions of joint enterprise include negotiated enterprise, mutual
accountability and interpretations (Wenger 1998). The negotiation of an enterprise
occurs and develops throughout a school placement, often getting stronger as relationships are developed. Given the potential differences in each of the members
teaching philosophies and beliefs, they must find a way to work together, understand
their differences and coordinate their aspirations (Safran 2010; Wenger 1998). A more
critical analysis of communities of practice is the absence of the individuals [CT and
ST] identity/interpretations in the learning process that occurs in the community
(Edwards 2005; Fuller et al. 2005). Studies have since reported that a learners new
identity is made up of previous histories enriched with new experiences (Fuller et al.
2005). Past experiences may have an impact on the development of communities, in
terms of this paper the communities created revealed each members interpretations
and how they impacted on the development of relationships.
(iii) A shared repertoire: The dimensions of a shared repertoire of a community include
ways of doing things, stories, actions and concepts and eventually become part of a
communitys practice (Wenger 1998). Two significant characteristics are a reflection
of mutual engagement and the fact that it remains inherently ambiguous, thus allowing new meanings to be generated (Safran 2010). For communities to function, it is
important for all members to share ideas, commitments and ways of approaching
and performing actions.
Studies have reported (Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2004; Patton et al. 2005) that communities of practice can be enormously varied. The purpose of these studies was not to see
whether communities of practice exist or not, but to identify their characteristics in relation
to learning. Results found that not being part of a close knit community, with mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire of actions, simply defines a different type of
membership and a different kind of community. The research does however, remain consistent with Lave and Wengers (1991) claim that membership is an essential condition for
learning, i.e. that learning is relational. The term community implies spatial and social closeness and cohesion (Grix 2004). It is therefore important to investigate the extent to which
290
collaboration occurs between each of the stakeholders in a school placement triad, and in
this study the CT and the ST in particular.
Methodology
Research questions
(i)To what extent does a CTs participation in mutual engagement, joint enterprise and
a shared repertoire impact their ability to learn the practices of a supervisor?
(ii)In attempting to engage in learning communities what factors enabled or challenged
the sharing of expertise between each of the school placement stakeholders?
Participants
This paper is part of an extended study investigating the learning experiences of CTs in their
supervision of STs in post-primary schools. The study involved five phases from September
2008 to December 2011 and included eighteen physical education CTs, ten female and eight
male, from fifteen schools (Table 1). During the research period, the CTs worked with year
2, year 4 (undergraduate STs from a four-year programme) and Professional Diploma STs
(graduate STs from a one-year physical education programme). This paper draws from the
experiences of the eighteen CTs over the period of the five phases.
Context
To produce an environment where the potential for the development of relationships
existed, the CTs participating in the study were asked to initiate structured support for
the ST throughout the school placement. This support involved formally observing the
ST a minimum of twice a week (providing both written and verbal feedback) and facilitating a weekly meeting with the ST. CTs were provided with a university-produced
Table 1.Summary of the data collection in each of the phases.

Phase number and title
Phase 1: setting the scene
Phase 2: the reality of the
school placement triad
Timeline
SeptDecember 2008
MarchApril 2009
SeptDecember 2009
Participants
8 STs
9 STs
8 CTs
5 male/3 female
Phase 3: developing
professional communities
FebruaryMay 2010
5 CTs
Phase 4: developing the

CTUT relationship
FebruaryMay 2011
4 CTs
Phase 5: the learning

experiences of CTs
SeptDecember 2011
2 male/2 female
4 CTs
1 male/4 female
2 male/2 female
Data collection methods

Reflective journal and observations
Individual semi-structured
interviews
Pre and post school placement
45 min1 hour duration
Focus group interview x3
Pre, mid and post school
placement
1 hour duration
interviews x4
Observations
interviews x2
Pre and post school placement
Debrief sessions x3 (per CT during
school placement)
291
physical education school placement booklet which contained CT guidelines on the role
and responsibilities of a supervisor, school placement assessment criteria and structured
CT observation sheets to enable the delivery of formal feedback to STs. The STs were
made aware that the data collection process for each of the phases was entirely separate
from their formal school placement and evaluation process. The study received ethical
clearance from the first authors institution and provided consent to conduct observations, individual interviews and focus group interviews with a sample of CTs. An information letter was sent to the CTs detailing the study and expectations, and participants
were provided with consent forms. Confidentiality was assured with regard to data
collection and a pseudonym was assigned to each participant whose quotes are shared in
the findings. All information gathered in the study remained anonymous and confidential.
Participants were made aware that involvement in the study was voluntary and they could
withdraw at any time.
Data collection
Qualitative methods were employed to elicit rich data from the participants. These included
reflective journals, individual interviews and focus group interviews (Creswell 2009; Grix
2004; Kvale 2007). Phase 1 involved the researcher recording detailed reflections based on
impressions and interpretations of the intricacies of the school placement process, in particular, the role of the CT. The findings from the observations as recorded in the reflective
journal informed the development of interview questions for CTs in phase 2. Interviews were
conducted pre and post placement with eight teachers. During the pre-placement interview,
teachers discussed their role as a CT and what problems or challenges they faced in that
role. A follow-up interview took place after the ten week placement period to gain an insight
into the realities experienced by the CTs in striving to provide support for the ST and develop
relationships with the UT. Phase 3 involved the introduction of structured professional communities where a group of CTs could meet throughout the school placement to share their
experiences. The participants attended two focus group meetings during the school placement period and a follow-up focus group interview to further explore issues which had
arisen during the experience. Phase 4 involved the researcher interviewing CTs prior to the
first and second ST official graded lessons and again after the official visits to investigate the
enablers and challenges CTs faced in carrying out structured supervision. The aim of phase
5 was to specifically investigate the learning experiences of CTs as supervisors to STs. Four
CTs were individually interviewed at their school sites a total of five times over a ten week
school placement period. The CTs were questioned about their role as a CT and what enablers
or challenges they face in the role and the relationships they develop with both the ST and
the UT.
The interviews were semi-structured in format allowing for a certain degree of flexibility during the interview and allowing elicitation of the participants own perspectives
(Byrne 2004, 181). All interviews were conducted in a location convenient to the participants (normally the school site) and lasted on average 45 min. The focus group interviews were conducted in a school central to the participants and were approximately
one hour in duration. These primary data collection methods were selected in the light
of their ability to address the specific research questions with each preceding phase
292
informing the next phase of data collection. Table 1 provides a summary of the data
collection in each of the phases.
Data analysis
A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the data as it is best suited to research
involving interaction between persons or among individuals and specific environments
(Grbich 2007). Grounded theory provided a tool to navigate through the myriad of data
collected in the five phases of the study. Relationships between concepts were sought among
the data that was collected and a system of coding occurred shortly after initial data collection and interpretation (Strauss and Corbin 1990).
Following interview transcription the data-sets were organised into themes through
a process of condensing and coding. The three phases of coding, open, axial and selective, were utilised to interpret the transcribed interviews and reflective journals. To carry
out the analysis in a coherent and structured manner, a computerised coding system
(ATLAS.ti) was utilised. Open coding involved repeatedly reading interview transcripts
and journal entries to identify codes. When a new code emerged, each of the other
transcripts were reanalysed for this particular code, continuing until saturation was
reached. During axial coding the codes were reanalysed and combined into broader
themes, known as families. Examples of these families included Developing the role
of the CT, CT/ST relationships and school-university partnerships. During selective
coding, the families were further condensed into three coded themes, with each of the
coded themes related directly to specific research questions in the larger study. The
findings presented in this paper emerged from the theme establishing communities in
school placements. An example of the process of open, axial and selective coding is
provided in Table 2.
Rigour of methods
A number of strategies (Creswell 2009) were used to validate the findings. Member checking
resulted in transcribed interviews being sent back to each of the participants to determine accuracy and that factual errors were addressed. Rich, thick description was used
to convey the findings. Also, presenting information that may have contradicted the
generated themes is presented to provide a realistic and valid account of the findings.
By using constant comparison reliability for this study was enhanced by ensuring that
there was not an overt shift in the definitions of the codes used during thematic
analysis.
Key constructs that arose through coding and that directly inform the research questions will be presented in this paper. These include (i) the key properties which underpin
communities, (ii) the enablers faced by stakeholders in their attempts to create effective
communities and (iii) the challenges in creating effective communities. This paper provides evidence that enables or challenges each of these constructs to establish the
possibility of developing sustainable communities in the school placement process. In
presenting the results below we add the caveat that due to the small numbers involved
in this study we are not attempting to generalise the findings reported here but rather
favour a tentative interpretation.
3. CT/UT Interaction
CT involvement in UT visit
Lack of CT/UT interaction
Positive CT/UT interaction
CT involvement in evaluation
Lack of CT/UT interaction
Negative/positive CT/UT interaction
Tutor inconsistencies
Lack of schooluni communication

Principal involvement
Principals role in the evaluation process
Schooluni partnership recommendation
CT/UT interaction
Lack of confidence in grading process
Lack of correspondence between uni
and school
Lack of guidelines from university
Positive contact with principal
Unclear roles
CT use of SP Booklet
(1) SchoolUniversity partnerships

Lack of guidelines from university
Positive schooluni communication
Schooluni partnership
recommendation
2. CT/ST Interaction
Creating a professional
relationship
CT facilitating ST development
Developing a community
Development of weekly meetings
Frequency of feedback/
observation
Negative CT/ST interaction
Positive CT/ST relationship
Phase 3
Creating a professional relationship
CT Facilitating ST development
CT presence in class
CT/ST interaction recommendation
Development of weekly meeting
Frequency of feedback/ observations
Negative CT/ST interaction
Positive CT/ST interaction
Phase 2
Phase 1
Establishing communities in school placement
Table 2.Data analysis example.
CT facilitating ST learning
CT presence in class
Development of weekly
meetings
Positive attribute of ST
Positive CT/ST relationship
Proactive CT
Two-way learning process
Type of CT/ST relationship

Recommendation for
partnership
Value of schooluniversity
partnerships
Phase 4
relationship
CT involvement in tutor visit
Developing a CT/UT relationship
Lack of CT/UT relationship
Positive/Negative CT/UT
relationship
The need to value CT opinion

Inadvertentlybecoming a CT
Lack of university support
Positive CT/university
interaction
Recommendation for future
practice
relationship
CT facilitating ST development
CT/ST relationship
Development of weekly
meetings
Lack of CT/ST interaction
Proactive ST
Phase 5

293
294
Findings
Key properties which underpin communities: mutual engagement, joint enterprise
and a shared repertoire
Motivated CTs, like Helen, enabled social and spatial closeness to develop early on in the
placement by creating opportunities for relationships and a joint enterprise to develop. This
involved inviting the STs in for a day before the placement began to help them integrate
into the school. It also allowed Helen the opportunity to lay the foundations of a professional
learning community;
We have our two students coming to school tomorrow for an orientation day. It starts with a
meeting with me in the morning, just going through how the cooperating teacher system will
work and I will be meeting them as well on a weekly basis to go through how they are getting
on (phase 3)
Steven also invited the ST into the school for an observation day to aid their transition
and orientation into the school and provide an opportunity to meet staff and pupils. Thus,
the CT established the basis of mutual engagement by agreeing school placement expectations, enabled the negotiation of a joint enterprise by including all stakeholders and initiated a shared repertoire by attempting to meet the needs of all involved.
The role of the CT in developing communities was discussed and all CTs stated that to
sustain a relationship they should initiate mutual engagement by acting as a guide and a
point of support for the ST and be someone they can approach for ideas and advice. For
thirteen of the CTs, this became a reality and led to the development of close and effective
communities. Luke articulated how his relationship evolved to the development of a professional learning community;
It was interesting to have the fact that I had to do it as opposed to I was doing it, in place. But
it did evolve and it got better and I got close with the student. It was very worthwhile. I think it
led to more discussion about teaching practice, about teaching theory and concepts of how to
take situations forward. It evolved by getting a better one-on-one relationship with the student.
(phase 2)
Shared ways of engaging in doing things together

In terms of sustaining engagement in a community, Steven believed that the basis of a
relationship must be forged on a strong professional boundary where friends are left at the
door (phase 3), qualifying that the relationship should be structured on the basis of respect
and both parties acknowledging each others roles. All CTs agreed that the structure of
supervision must include both formal and informal interactions as both are valuable in
establishing a bond between the two. Shared ways of engaging were created as a result of
CTs and STs meeting on a daily basis, observing each others classes, seeking advice, delivering constructive feedback, and communicating any problems or issues.
Sharing stories
The development of a shared repertoire formed the basis of many of the established communities and led to an enhanced experience for most of the stakeholders. Increased interaction and sharing between the two led to the STs developing confidence, especially in
approaching the CT for advice and support. Highlighting the change in interaction, Mark
commented She [ST] was bouncing ideas off me all the time, whereas that hasnt really
295
happened before on a consistent basis. Reading through her lesson plans and things like
that, she was more confident because I was okaying it (phase 2).
To establish a culture of sharing, Anna assured the ST that she was not necessarily the
expert but was providing them with the benefit of 20 years teaching. She also shared with
STs that she was always learning, a practice mirrored by five of the CTs. Jennifer highlighted
that she often slipped into a master-apprentice role which she did not think benefited either
her or the ST. As the placement progressed she found that she was developing more of a
co-enquirer stance which led to an in-depth and constructive relationship being
developed.
At the beginning of the placements, it was the CTs who initiated communication and
collaboration. However, six of the CTs found that as the placement progressed, the STs began
to instigate the sharing of information and resources more and the communities identities
were strengthened by the mutual appreciation of knowledge exchange.
Enablers
The potential for the development of valuable and sustainable learning communities was
somewhat dependent on a number of enabling factors. When these factors existed and the
stakeholders engaged, they provided the foundation for the successful development of
school placement communities.
The introduction of structured supervision

CTs were given guidance to develop relationships and received a university-generated school
placement booklet. The presence of expectations in the booklet aided clarification in the
process and helped set up an effective working relationship between the two. When roles
were clarified, the CTs became more confident in their supervisory behaviours and welcomed
the improved interaction and enhanced mutual engagement with both the STs and UTs.
Fourteen of the eighteen CTs found that the STs reacted well to the more formalised
structure and, as a result, they attempted to provide a more structured environment for the
duration of the placement, leading to the negotiation of a joint enterprise. The main change
the CTs reported since structuring their supervision was the improved interaction between
the CT and the ST, often leading to effective collaboration. Eight of the CTs began requesting
lesson plans before the class and many discussed their content during the weekly meetings.
John stated the importance of sharing expectations at the start of a placement;
We say to them [STs] We want your lesson plan before you go into the classes and we need to
see that in advance because we cant give you feedback if we dont have it. A meeting at the
start, having a good start is very important and have a structure base. (phase 2)
CTs agreed that a meeting at the beginning of the placement would highlight expectations and lay the ground rules (Vicky, phase 3).
Previous supervisory experience

A CTs previous supervisory experience enabled the formation of communities with one
such example being Jennifer who had a successful placement with a ST the previous year
and wished to replicate. This involved meeting at a scheduled time each week, observing
classes and delivering feedback on a regular basis, and sharing and creating resources
together, I would have to say last year I was really happy with the student, I had more time
296
with him and I ended up doing co-enquiry and it was a fantastic result for me as well as for
the student (Jennifer, phase 4). This positive experience was somewhat attributed to them
having compatible personalities and time to cultivate a relationship.
Alternatively, Carolines previous experience as a CT highlighted the need for a renewed
and innovative approach. Caroline had a challenging experience with a ST the previous year
(where she was unable to establish a working relationship) and, as a result, she approached
supervision in a more professional, structured manner than the previous year. Caroline found
that when they worked together they both benefited personally and professionally, resulting
in Caroline and the ST developing a supportive community.
Reinforcement from colleagues

A significant finding was the effect of Carolines structured relationship with the ST on the
rest of the staff at her school. During the placement, Caroline shared with other subject
teachers that she was observing and providing the ST with feedback. As a result, a number
of other school staff had begun considering similar practices;
They said to me it [structured supervision] is a great idea, especially sitting in on the classes,
nearly something they always wanted to do but were afraid to do and now they see it working.
They have said that the next time they have a student they will say it the very first day and make
sure the expectations are there from the very beginning. (phase 5)
Carolines colleagues were not only providing her support, they were also reinforcing her
role as a CT by intending to model her supervisory behaviours. This enhanced Carolines
intrinsic motivation and encouraged her to continue building learning communities within
the school placement process. As a result of this support, and an awareness of her own
professional development, in the final week of placement Caroline gave her ST a questionnaire based on her role as a CT, looking to consider the STs comments and use them to
inform her future supervisory practice with STs.
Challenges
Time constraints
Availability of time resulted in restricted participation in a community and consequently
acted as a barrier (to developing mutual engagement and a joint enterprise). Due to the lack
of a formalised role, many CTs found that there was an absence of dedicated time to meet
with the ST to deliver feedback and discuss the placement. Jennifer reinforced the limitations
of time and revealed her intentions for setting out time with future STs;
The biggest difficulty is making sure you have the time and even though I am 100% committed to
doing it I found the latter few weeks more difficult mainly because we have a lot of things going
on ... if I have another student I will be saying we will be having our weekly meeting on 45pm
on Mondays. Then I know the student is ready and I will be ready and it is established. (phase 4)
While Jennifer was motivated in her role as a CT, she was frustrated by the lack of time to
develop relationships. For Jennifer to become what she believed was an effective supervisor,
she needed dedicated time to sit down with the ST each week and discuss teaching and
learning, feedback, target setting and general conversation that would allow her to get to
know the ST. Although agreeing with the concept of structured meeting times once a week,
Anna believed they were mostly unachievable due to timetable constraints and the inevitable busy life of a school. As a result, she strove to develop a working relationship with the
297
ST through informal interactions during the school day, finding this valuable in the development of an effective relationship.
Lack of reciprocal relationships between the CT and ST

Some CTs experienced conflicting expectations with the ST and as a result failed to develop
professional relationships. Seventeen of the eighteen CTs engaged fully and sought opportunities to develop functioning learning communities. Five CTs experienced aspects of challenging relationships with the ST during a placement due to their lack of mutual engagement.
This was attributed to factors such as unmotivated STs, STs inability to develop relationships,
lack of clear roles and responsibilities, personality clashes and CTs perception of what an
effective supervisor entails. These five CTs discussed that the STs seemed disinterested in
the process and had limited expectations of the role of a supervisor, with the apathy towards
feedback a great source of frustration for the CTs. John found that some STs were not ready
to develop a relationship and did not know how to take feedback, equating the debrief
session to beating your head against a brick wall in some cases (phase 2). Laura concurred
by repeating that she felt she was giving the same feedback week after week without any
improvements, feeling disillusioned as she had suggested the ST watch her classes and had
provided opportunities for observation. She believed the ST was not considering her advice
and was in effect ignoring her feedback. While Laura was prepared to invest in the development of a relationship she was hindered by the lack of a joint enterprise with the ST. Helen
and Vicky also attributed their lack of a developing relationship with the respective STs to
the inability of STs to accept and take on board feedback;
During one visit from the tutor he [ST] asked all the children to get rid of their phones and then
his phone went off in the middle of the class. I just felt like a parrot and they werent taking a
lot of it on board. (phase 3)
Vicky noted her frustration by stating that she was the one who initiated feedback admitting that, if she had not, she believed the ST would not have sought it. This lack of interest
from the ST made Vicky feel redundant in the process and led to the absence of a mutually
beneficial relationship;
I felt I was overstepping the line if I asked for their lesson plans. I just felt, in the end, giving back
the critiques that I was being invasive. The reception I was getting when giving back the sheets,
I just felt there was no value in what I was doing. (phase 3)
The lack of formalised partnerships

A significant issue raised by the CTs was the lack of a formalised partnership between the
school and the teacher education institution. The lack of communication and unclear roles
and expectations for all stakeholders in the supervisory process led to the CTs feeling disillusioned and frustrated. By structuring the process of supervision it was hoped to provide
CTs with the tools to effectively supervise STs on placement and to make strides towards
developing aspects of a schooluniversity partnerships. One of the main stumbling blocks
in the school placement appears to be the common practice that all correspondence from
the teacher education institution goes through the principal with no direct contact with the
CT. This results in the institution sending STs to schools without direct knowledge about
whether the respective CTs have any supervisory experience. Three of the CTs in this study
(Laura, Jessica and Vicky) were new to the CT role and received no guidance or support from
298
the university. As a result, they felt that they were unprepared for when the STs arrived for
their placement and struggled in their attempts to initiate a community.
Discussion and conclusion

The study highlights the benefits of establishing and sustaining learning communities
through school placements. By facilitating collaborative relationships, a CTs learning experience can be positively enhanced and a ST is provided with a scaffolded entry into the
teaching profession. As the relationships in the study had various degrees of mutual engagement, joint enterprise and a shared repertoire, it allowed the ongoing interactions between
various stakeholders to be labelled communities. The contact CTs had, with STs in particular,
somewhat satisfied the connotations of what a community resembles in that they interacted
and collaborated on a daily basis. Supporting the research of Hodkinson and Hodkinson
(2004), the approaches of the CTs in developing communities were either enabled or challenged by other members in the school placement process, reinforcing Lave and Wengers
(1991) claim that learning is social and relational.
The development of CT/ST learning communities evolved throughout the study and their
success was determined by a number of factors. Firstly, the extent to which CTs and STs
engaged with the key properties of a community of practice; mutual engagement, joint
enterprise and identity and a shared repertoire (Wenger 1998). Secondly, the level of engagement was determined by the existence of characteristics which work to scaffold the development and existence of a community, and thirdly, the presence of enablers and/or
challenges to the attempts made to progress the development of learning communities. In
terms of the CTs learning experience, the strength of a community, based on these factors,
can determine the how and what quality of learning takes place.
Establishing communities
Communities consisting of a CT and a ST were the strongest and resulted in an enhanced
level of learning. The extent to which the stakeholders engaged in the negotiation of a joint
enterprise helped establish a common sense of identity. Where communities were successfully established, evolving forms of mutual engagement, understanding and negotiating an
enterprise, and developing and inventing a shared repertoire were evident (Wenger 1998).
In a system lacking in structured supervision procedures, these processes enabled CTs to
change their behaviours to engage effectively in practice and develop an identity within
the school placement process. In many instances, the emergence of communities was part
planned and part serendipitously created, as stakeholders progressively learnt each others
characteristics, strengths and weaknesses and realised the extent to which communities
could be developed.
Enablers and challenges to the development of communities

Lave and Wenger (1991) state that membership in a community is an essential condition for
learning. The extent to which each of the stakeholders is supported in their attempt to
become a member of a community determines how powerful the learning experience can
be. The opportunity for CTs to learn, based on collaboration with STs and UTs, was enabled
299
or challenged by a number of factors. A range of enablers which had a significant impact

on the successful development of relationships, particularly between the CT and the ST were
revealed. These included acceptance and support from principals and colleagues, the introduction of a supervision structure and provision of a university-generated school placement
booklet, positive interaction with UTs and positive previous experience in the supervision
process. A significant number of challenges arose which negatively impacted the CTs opportunity to learn and hindered the development of effective learning communities. The challenges included time constraints, the absence of reciprocal relationships, poorly defined
roles and expectations and limited schooluniversity partnerships. The importance of time
to develop a structure at the start of a placement to initiate a community is reinforced in
Moodys (2009) work that states that in order to create a positive practicum, time is needed
to develop a supportive and professional relationship between the CT and ST. Wright and
Smith (2000) reinforce this, attributing unsuccessful placements to lack of time made available to cultivate relationships, leading to frustration for all stakeholders.
Maintaining communities
Bullough and Draper (2004) found that the lack of effective communication between CTs
and university supervisors was a widely recognised problem. The development of effective
learning communities can be hindered when there is a clear breakdown in communication
and an obvious lack of interaction, resulting in dysfunctional relationships and inadequate
learning opportunities for CTs. Tercanlioglu (2004) stated that communication between the
university and the school can influence the success of school-based training.
While none of the relationships and interactions presented above could be described as
communities of practice in their fullest sense as found in the literature (Lave and Wenger
1991; Wenger 1998), elements of learning communities are evident, based on the characteristics and dimensions required for the establishment and maintenance of relationships.
The fullest form of communities of practice is restricted by each of the stakeholders lack of
experience and confidence in the supervisory process, the scarcity of time to cultivate relationships and the absence of established schooluniversity partnerships. The relationships
between each of the stakeholders can constitute some form of communities as they were
underpinned by a number of the characteristics required to create communities and were
all based on aspects of social interaction and closeness.
However, the study conveys that functioning learning communities, which involve CTs,
STs and UTs, do not necessarily exist, particularly in a Republic of Ireland context. The school
placement process lacks an infrastructure which supports change, exchange of knowledge
and few opportunities for the CT and UT to work together. While the study revealed some
interaction between the CT and the UT, it demonstrated the potential for the development
of various forms of relationships/communities between the two where learning can take
place.
A number of implications for future work on supervision in a Republic of Ireland context
arise. Firstly, there is a need for teacher education institutions to clearly define and communicate the roles and expectations of all school placement stakeholders. Many CTs strive to
provide a positive school experience for PSTs but without the presence of clearly defined
roles the experience may not always be an educational one. Secondly, in order to provide
positive school placements and oversee the application of stakeholders roles and
300
expectations, teacher education institutions must establish effective working partnerships

with schools. Thirdly, in addressing the need for increased communication and interaction,
stakeholders must be supported and prepared to establish relationships that promote professional growth and learning. Research (Armour and Yelling 2004; Cuenca 2011) states that
a structured approach to CPD must be provided if this is to be fulfilled.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Ann-Marie Young is a school placement development officer in the Department of Education and
Professional Studies at the University of Limerick.Her research interests include initial teacher education, school placement, school-university partnerships and curriculum change.
Ann MacPhail is the head of department and a professor in the Department of Physical Education
and Sport Sciences at the University of Limerick. Anns teaching and research interests revolve around
(physical education) teacher education, young people in sport, curriculum development, teaching,
learning and assessment issues, methodological issues in working with young people and ethnography. Annis Co-Director of thePhysical Education, Physical Activity and Youth Sport Ireland Research
Centre (PE-PAYS Ireland) (www.pepaysireland.com) and is Associate Editor for the journal Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy.
References
Armour, K. M., and M. Yelling. 2004. Professional Development and Professional Learning: Bridging the
Gap for Experienced Physical Education Teachers. European Physical Education Review 10: 7193.
Belton, S. J., C. Woods, C. Dunning, and S. Meegan. 2010. The Evaluation of a Cooperating Physical
Education Teachers Programme (COPET). European Physical Education Review 16: 141154.
Bullough, R. V., and R. J. Draper. 2004. Making Sense of a Failed Triad: Mentors, University Supervisors,
and Positioning Theory. Journal of Teacher Education 55: 407420.
Byrne, B. 2004. Qualitative Interviewing. In Researching Society and Culture, edited by S. Seale, 181182.
London: Sage.
Cochran-Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 1999. Relationships of Knowledge of Practice: Teacher Learning in
Communities. Review of Research in Education 24: 249305.
Conway, P. F., R. Murphy, M. Delargey, K. Hall, F. Long, J. McKeon, B. Murphy, S. OBrien, and D. OSullivan.
2011. Learning to Teach Study (LETS): Developing Curricular and Cross-curricular Competences in
Becoming a Good Secondary Teacher: Executive Summary. Cork: University College Cork. http://
cora.ucc.ie/bitstream/handle/10468/880/PFC_LearningPV2011.pdf?sequence=1.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuenca, A. 2011. The Role of Legitimacy in Student Teaching: Learning to Feel like a Teacher. Teacher
Education Quarterly38 (2): 117130.
Davies, B. 2005. Communities of Practice: Legitimacy Not Choice. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9: 557581.
Edwards, Anne. 2005. Lets Get beyond Community and Practice: The Many Meanings of Learning by
Participating. Curriculum Journal 16 (1): 4965.
Fuller, A., H. Hodkinson, P. Hodkinson, and L. Unwin. 2005. Learning as Peripheral Participation in
Communities of Practice: A Reassessment of Key Concepts in Workplace Learning. British Educational
Research Journal 31: 4968.
Ganser, T. 2002. How Teachers Compare the Roles of Cooperating Teacher and Mentor. The Educational
Forum 66: 380385.
301
Graves, S. 2010. Mentoring Pre-service Teachers: A Case Study. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
35: 1420.
Grbich, C. 2007. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. London: Sage.
Grix, J. 2004. The Foundations of Research. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gursoy, E., and E. A. Damar. 2011. Cooperating Teachers Awareness about Their Role during the
Teaching Practice Course: The Turkish Context. Education Sciences 6: 5465.
Hodkinson, Heather, and Phil Hodkinson. 2004. Rethinking the Concept of Community of Practice in
Relation to Schoolteachers Workplace Learning. International Journal of Training and Development
8: 2131.
Kvale, S. 2007. Doing Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McWilliams, S., P. Cannon, M. Farrar, B. Tubbert, C. Connolly, and F. McSorley. 2006. Comparison and
Evaluation of Aspects of Teacher Education in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.European
Journal of Teacher Education 29 (1): 6779.
Moody, J. 2009. Key Elements in a Positive Practicum: Insights from Australian Post-primary Pre-service
Teachers. Irish Educational Studies 28: 155175.
Patton, K., Pagnano, K., Griffen, L. L., Dodds, P., Sheey, D., Arnold, R., Henninger, M., Gallo, A. and James,
A. 2005. Chapter 2: Navigating the Mentoring Process in a Research-based Teacher Development
Project: A Situated Learning Perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24: 302325.
Russell, M. L., and J. A. Russell. 2011. Mentoring Relationships: Cooperating Teachers Perspectives on
Mentoring Student Interns. The Professional Educator 35: 1635.
Safran, L. 2010. Legitimate Peripheral Participation and Home Education. Teaching and Teacher
Education 26: 107112.
Strauss, A. M., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sutherland, L. M., L. A. Scanlon, and A. Sperring. 2005. New Directions in Preparing Professionals:
Examining Issues in Engaging Students in Communities of Practice through a School-University
Partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education 21: 7992.
Teaching Council. 2011. Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers.
Maynooth: Teaching Council. http://www.teachingcouncil.ie/_fileupload/Teacher%20Education/
ITE%20Criteria%20and%20Guidelines%20Final%20July%202011.pdf.
Tercanlioglu, L. 2004. Perceptions on School-based English Teacher Education: A Qualitative Study.
The Qualitative Report 9: 673705.
Wang, L., and A. Ha. 2012. Mentoring in TGFU Teaching: Mutual Engagement of Pre-service Teachers,
Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors. European Physical Education Review 18: 4761.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, S. C., and D. E. Smith. 2000. A Case for Formalized Mentoring. Quest 52: 200213.

Cultivating Relationships With School Placement Stakeholders The Perspective of The Cooperating Teacher

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cultivating Relationships With School Placement Stakeholders The Perspective of The Cooperating Teacher

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

European Journal of Teacher Education

ISSN: 0261-9768 (Print) 1469-5928 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20