technology supported cognitive apprenticeship transforms the student teaching field experience:...

This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]On: 07 October 2014, At: 06:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTEDCOGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIPTRANSFORMS THE STUDENTTEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCE:IMPROVING THE STUDENTTEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCEFOR ALL TRIAD MEMBERSChristianna Alger a & Theodore J. Kopcha ba Department of Teacher Education , San Diego StateUniversityb Department of Educational Technology , San DiegoState UniversityPublished online: 29 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Christianna Alger & Theodore J. Kopcha (2010) TECHNOLOGYSUPPORTED COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP TRANSFORMS THE STUDENT TEACHING FIELDEXPERIENCE: IMPROVING THE STUDENT TEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCE FOR ALL TRIADMEMBERS, The Teacher Educator, 46:1, 71-88, DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2010.529986

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2010.529986

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08878730.2010.529986

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2010.529986

are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Teacher Educator, 46:71–88, 2011

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0887-8730 print/1938-8101 online

DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2010.529986

PROMISING PRACTICE

TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTED COGNITIVE

APPRENTICESHIP TRANSFORMS THE STUDENT

TEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCE: IMPROVING THE

STUDENT TEACHING FIELD EXPERIENCE

FOR ALL TRIAD MEMBERS

CHRISTIANNA ALGER

Department of Teacher Education, San Diego State University

THEODORE J. KOPCHA

Department of Educational Technology, San Diego State University

Despite issues of fragmentation, isolation, and disconnection from the university

associated with the student teaching field experience, the field experience plays acritical role in teacher education. In this article, the authors provide an overview

of eSupervision, a technology-based innovation to improve the student teaching

field experience by using cognitive apprenticeship as a framework for its design.They present findings from a pilot study that focused on the effectiveness of

the cognitive apprenticeship and technology design elements. Using qualitativemethods to analyze interviews of the participants, they found eSupervision

functioned to support a cognitive apprenticeship through modeling, scaffolding

learning, coaching, and providing opportunities for articulation and reflectionwithin a community of learners. The authors conclude with suggestions for

implementation and further research.

The clinical experiences associated with teacher education are fallingunder intense scrutiny; student teachers often enter the teaching profes-sion lacking the confidence and skills critical to their success as teachingprofessionals (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Graham, 2006; Paris & Gespass,2001). Paris and Gespass noted that the teacher-centered supervision

Address correspondence to Christianna Alger, Department of Teacher Education,San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., Mail Code 1153, San Diego, CA 92182-

1182, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

72 C. Alger and T. J. Kopcha

practices of the traditional supervision model tend to promote ineffec-tive learner-centered teaching practices among the student teachers ex-periencing that model. Cornu and Ewing (2008) suggested that studentteachers should participate in models of supervision that focus moreon collaborative learning practices rather than on the more traditionalfocus of teaching in isolation. It makes sense, then, that student teachersneed quality student teaching experiences if they are to become highlyeffective classroom teachers.

Despite the pressing need for quality student teaching experiences,the field experience has a number of issues associated with it, such as‘‘being fragmented, lacking curricular definition, and appearing dis-connected from other components of teacher preparation programs’’(Graham, 2006, p. 1118). There is often an inconsistent quality tostudent teaching supervision (Simpson, 2006; Wilson, 2006), and co-operating teachers commonly lack guidance and direction from theuniversity regarding what to do with student teachers and how to doit (Walkington, 2005). Although there have been nuanced changes inthe student teaching field experience (e.g., a reflection component,technology add-ons), the basic triad structure engaging in clinical super-vision (cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and student teacher)and the longstanding issues that go along with that structure remain.

Despite the issues associated with the field experience, it plays acritical role in most teacher education programs. It is an opportunityfor student teachers to assume the role of the teacher (Simpson, 2006)and imitate the teaching practices to which they are introduced bytheir guide teacher and university courses (Graham, 2006). Thus, thequality of a student teacher’s field experience is highly likely to impacthis or her future practices as a teacher (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). It isimportant that the field experience contain opportunities for studentteachers to solve problems as a community (Cornu & Ewing, 2008),reflect on the teaching of themselves and others (Darling-Hammond& Snyder, 2000; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Walkington, 2005), and workclosely with experts in the field (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Graham, 2006;Wang & Bonk, 2001).

The purpose of this article is threefold. First, we present atechnology-based innovation called eSupervision, a student teachingsupervision program created to improve the field experience by usingcognitive apprenticeship as a framework for its design. Second, weanalyze program implementation to determine whether eSupervisionfunctions as it was designed. Lastly, we evaluate the stakeholders’perceptions of the program to determine the design and technologycomponents of the program that are working effectively. We concludethe article with suggestions for further research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Technology Transforms Student Teaching Experience 73

Method

An Overview of eSupervision

Conceptual Framework

Cognitive apprenticeship is an instructional framework supportedby several learning theories including Vygotsky’s (1978) socioculturaltheory of learning and zone of proximal development, as well as situatedcognition (Ghefaili, 2003; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick; 1996; Rogoff,1990). In a cognitive apprenticeship, these theories are blended withthe organization of traditional apprenticeships where an expert models,scaffolds, coaches, and gradually releases control of tasks as the novicelearns to perform those tasks. In traditional apprenticeships, what thenovice learns is external to the individual, meaning he or she canobserve the process to be learned. When what must be learned is aninternal mental process (e.g., mathematical problem solving), a novicemust have access to and be able to learn the internal, mental processesof the expert. The cognitive apprenticeship model endeavors to makethe invisible—the thinking of experts—visible to the novice (Collins,Brown, & Holum, 1991).

eSupervision is designed as a cognitive apprenticeship with theexperts (supervisors from the university and the cooperating teachers)working with the student teachers as novices. However, the roles andresponsibilities of the guide teacher (more commonly referred to ascooperating or master teacher) and the supervisor have shifted. IneSupervision, the number of observations by the supervisor is decreasedand some of this responsibility is shifted to the guide teacher who mustcomplete three formal observations. Releasing the supervisor from someobservations frees him or her to work face-to-face and online with thestudent teachers on planning, assessment, and reflection.

Program development was further guided by Collins et al.’s (1991)outline of six teaching strategies that support cognitive apprenticeships:modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation, reflection, and commu-nity. They describe modeling, coaching, and scaffolding as the core ofcognitive apprenticeships, ‘‘designed to help students acquire an inte-grated set of skills through processes of observation and guided practice’’(p. 13). Articulation and reflection refer to opportunities for studentsto explain their own understanding around complex problem solvingand also sharing and comparing their thinking with novices and experts.

Technology Components

Researchers have suggested that technology can play a powerfulrole in cognitive apprenticeships (Ghefaili, 2003; Wang & Bonk, 2001);

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


it can help reduce the difficulties associated with communication be-tween triad members (Blanton, Moorman, & Trathen, 1998; Bodzin &Park, 2002), prompt deeper levels of reflection (Barnett, Keating, Har-wood, & Saam, 2002; Bodzin & Park, 2002), and support the planningand implementation of instruction (Hew & Knapczyk, 2007).

eSupervision is built on a course management system (CMS) simi-lar to Blackboard. There are four main technology components used inthe CMS—discussion forums, instructional modules, an online lessonplan builder, and downloadable templates to guide performance. Theseare described below.

� Discussion boards: Online discussion boards allow participants in theCMS to post questions, thoughts, and experiences to a public forum.All triad members contribute to the discussions—experts and novicesalike—such that problems are shared and solved with support of thewhole community. This is accomplished by setting up the discussionboards so every person in eSupervision receives an e-mail each timea new post is submitted.

� Electronic delivery of instruction: eSupervision contains a series offive modules that focus on learning to plan, implement, assess, andreflect on teaching. These are, in order of completion, Analyzingthe Teaching Context, Classroom Management, Planning Instruc-tion, Engaging the Learner, and Assessing the Learner. Within eachmodule, students are presented with structured content that followsa similar design. First, students are presented with information andconcepts pertaining to the topic for the module (e.g., managementstrategies in Classroom Management). They then apply that knowl-edge by completing specific tasks and reflecting on their work. Fi-nally, supervisors and instructors from the university examine thecompleted work and provide written feedback.

� An online lesson plan builder: This tool provides support as studentsdesign lessons. When using the tool, they are prompted to inputspecific details of a lesson and attend to critical planning elementssuch as objectives, assessments, and differentiation of instruction. Inthis way, they receive a repetitive tutorial directing them to attendto specific elements when planning lessons. Completed lessons areautomatically stored in a searchable database and accessible to alltriad members.

� Downloadable templates to guide learning and performance: Thesetemplates support triad member performance in a variety of ways.During their formal observations of student teachers, all guide teach-ers used an observation protocol directing them to attend to specificteaching elements. Likewise, student teachers were provided with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


guides, protocols, and templates as they completed the five instruc-tional modules. For example, when student teachers engaged in theContext module, they were provided with an interview protocol tofoster communication with the guide teacher. Completed templateswere then uploaded to the CMS and accessible by appropriate mem-bers of the community.

Within each of these components, the different triad members aredirected to engage in specific activities that guide their performancewithin the six elements of cognitive apprenticeships. Within the discus-sion forum component, for example, triad members engage in activitiesthat foster coaching, articulation, reflection, and community. Studentteachers engage in articulation and reflection by posting promptedreflections and sharing problems. All triad members engage in coachingas they discuss solutions to those problems and reply to reflections.Community is fostered as triad members automatically receive an e-maileach time a new post is made. Table 1 contains the specific activitiesby each technology component and each element of cognitive appren-ticeship.

Participants and Context

Nine student teaching triads (two supervisors assigned to nine studentteachers and their guide teachers) from a large public university inthe Pacific Southwest participated in a pilot of eSupervision duringthe second semester of a year-long credential program. To reducecontextual variables that could have an impact on the study (e.g., varietyof school cultures), the pilot was implemented in a single setting—thatis, one urban high school. The high school served a diverse studentbody (50% Hispanic, 20% African American, 16% White, 7% Asian,and 7% other) of approximately 2,000 students. Guide teachers hadat least 3 years of teaching experience, and all but one had servedas guide teachers prior to implementation of eSupervision. Universitysupervisors were very experienced with both having at least 5 years ofsupervising experience with the university.

Regarding participant skills with technology, all of the studentteachers completed a three-unit education technology course in theirfirst semester in the credential program. Guide teachers had laptopsand experience with technology use for grading and access to thedistrict’s database on student records as well as e-mail. One of theuniversity supervisors was very facile with technology, whereas the otherneeded significant coaching. All participants held three on-site trainings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

TA

BL

E1

Th

eIn

stru

ctio

nal

Act

ivit

ies

ineSu

perv

isio

nb

yC

om

po

nen

tan

dE

lem

en

to

fC

ogn

itiv

eA

pp

ren

tice

ship

1

Co

mp

on

en

tM

od

eli

ng

Sca

ffo

ldin

gC

oac

hin

g

Art

icu

lati

on

&

refl

ect

ion

2C

om

mu

nit

y

Mo

du

les

-Str

uct

ure

dco

nte

nt

inal

lm

od

ule

s

Co

nte

xt

-In

terv

iew

GT

w/

pro

toco

l-

Pro

mp

ted

refl

ect

ion

-R

efl

ect

ion

shar

ed

ind

iscu

ssio

nb

oar

d

Man

agem

en

t-

Ob

serv

atio

nu

sin

gsc

affo

lds

-O

bse

rve

GT

w/

pro

toco

l-

Pro

mp

ted

refl

ect

ion

Pla

nn

ing

-E

xam

ple

so

fle

sso

ns

creat

ed

by

exp

ert

s-

Gu

idin

gp

rom

pts

inle

sso

np

lan

bu

ild

er

-E

xp

ert

sm

ake

com

men

tso

nle

sso

ns

-P

rom

pte

dre

flect

ion

-T

riad

mem

bers

com

men

to

nle

sso

ns

En

gag

em

en

t-

Exp

ert

feed

bac

ko

nvi

deo

tap

ed

less

on

-P

rom

pte

dre

flect

ion

Ass

ess

men

t-

Pro

mp

ted

refl

ect

ion

Less

on

Pla

nB

uil

der

-A

ccess

to

well

-pla

nn

ed

less

on

sb

yco

mm

un

ity

-G

uid

ing

qu

est

ion

s/p

rom

pts

-E

xp

ert

sm

ade

com

men

tso

nle

sso

ns

-P

rom

pte

dre

flect

ion

-Sca

ffo

lds

pro

mp

tth

ela

ngu

age

of

teac

hin

g

-T

riad

mem

bers

com

men

ted

on

less

on

s

Gu

ide

Teac

her

Ob

serv

atio

n-

Tem

pla

tes

dir

ect

ed

gu

ide

teac

hers

-F

eed

bac

kp

rovi

ded

via

tem

pla

tes

-Sca

ffo

lds

pro

mp

tth

ela

ngu

age

of

teac

hin

g

Dis

cuss

ion

Bo

ard

-T

riad

mem

bers

shar

ed

advi

ce&

solu

tio

ns

-P

rom

pte

dre

flect

ion

-Sh

ared

pro

ble

ms

&

solu

tio

ns

-T

riad

mem

bers

rece

ived

new

po

sts

via

e-m

ail

1A

rtic

ula

tio

nan

dre

flect

ion

are

com

bin

ed

beca

use

the

maj

ori

tyo

fac

tivi

ties

that

pro

mp

ted

arti

cula

tio

nw

ere

refl

ect

ive

inn

atu

re.

2T

he

acti

viti

es

wit

hin

eac

hco

lum

nre

fer

on

lyto

stu

den

tte

ach

ers

un

less

no

ted

oth

erw

ise.

76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


on the eSupervision technology over the course of the semester. Train-ings included skills such as logging on, uploading, and downloadingobservation forms, navigating the lesson plan builder, and participatingon discussion boards. The second author of the study was available fortechnology support.

Methodology and Analysis

The cognitive apprenticeship framework is theory-based and has beenshown to be an effective structure for learning in a variety of contexts.Therefore, our hypothesis was that structuring the field experienceon the framework of a cognitive apprenticeship would be an effectivemodel for the student teaching field experience. We defined success asutilization of the tools and users’ perceptions of the effectiveness andoutcomes of participation in eSupervision as related to the six cognitiveapprenticeship strategies (modeling, scaffolding, coaching, articulation,reflection, and community).

Participants were interviewed regarding their experience with eSu-pervison. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 of the20 participants (2 supervisors, 9 student teachers, 7 guide teachers). In-terviews were transcribed verbatim and coded according to commentaryregarding the participants’ experiences with the cognitive apprentice-ship components of eSupervision. The data were first aggregated byparticipant role in the triad, and initial coding was based on identifyingincidents of participants engaging in the six strategies of cognitiveapprenticeship (modeling, scaffolding, coaching, articulation, reflec-tion, and community). We then coded for patterns of each group’sperceptions of how they experienced/participated in the strategy andincidents when participants perceived themselves as novices and/orexperts. We used cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin,1994) to analyze the similarities and differences within and between thedifferent triad roles. To establish reliability, we, as well as a graduatestudent, coded the interviews independently. In cases where codingdiffered, we re-examined the transcripts and came to a consensus.

Results

Overall, student teachers, guide teachers, and supervisors found eSuper-vision to be a positive experience and were most favorable toward thecommunity aspect of the program. All nine student teachers expressedthat they had experienced growth in their teaching ability as a result ofparticipating in eSupervision. Table 2 summarizes the experiences of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 2 Summarized Results by Element of Cognitive Apprenticeship andTriad Member

Element Result GT ST S

Modeling Received an opportunity to see how otherstudent teachers plan lessons

3 4 2

Had access to a wide variety of experts tomodel problem solving, reflecting, and

planning.

3 8 NA

Modeling of teaching would have occurred

without eSupervision

9 9 2

Scaffolding Liked having the structure, and the clear

articulation of what was expected.

4 4 2

‘‘Training wheels’’ effect with regard to

lesson planning and understanding theteaching context

3 6 NA

Coaching GT was most powerful coach for ST, and thiswould have occurred without eSupervision

NA 9 2

eSupervision created opportunities forcoaching from/with community members

outside the triad

5 6 2

Discussion topics posted by other ST

informed coaching with their own ST

3 NA 2

GT observation template informed both

what they coached about and how theydid it

4 NA NA

Articulation andReflection

ST practiced articulation when postingreflections from each of the five modules

on the discussion boards

NA 8 NA

Reflection on the videotaped lesson was a

powerful learning tool

NA 6 2

Community Participants felt a strong sense of community

in eSupervision

9 9 2

Participants received emotional support by

reading the experiences of their peers on

the discussion boards

4 7 NA

Note. GT D Guide Teacher, ST D Student Teacher, and S D University Supervisor.

Only six student teachers completed the video assignment in full.

the triad members and reports the numerical results by triad memberrole and experience of each cognitive apprenticeship strategy. Experi-ences are described in greater detail below by individual strategy.

Modeling

Student teachers experienced the modeling of planning strategies fromone another, an outcome directly tied to the eSupervision program. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


lesson-planning tool within eSupervision was connected to a searchabledatabase; completed lesson plans could be viewed by all other par-ticipants in eSupervision. One student teacher noted that the lesson-planning tool was an opportunity to see how peers organized anddelivered their lessons.

As a result of participating in the discussion boards, student teach-ers experienced the modeling of problem solving and reflection tech-niques from a wide and varied set of sources. Although the situationsdiscussed on the discussion boards were not directly observed by thestudent teachers, the sharing of experiences and techniques after thefact provided students with an opportunity to see what their peersexperienced and how they solved problems in the classroom. Onestudent stated, ‘‘It was just comforting to know that someone else washaving the same problems, and I wasn’t alone: : : : Just getting new ideasand techniques for how to deal with certain students that helped a lotmore with classroom management.’’

Student teachers received a sense of perspective about teachingfrom supervisors, too. Supervisors shared stories and solutions through-out the discussion boards, and these provided many students with amodel regarding the level of success they should expect to experienceat this point in their teaching. One student teacher noted that thiswas his/her favorite part of eSupervision, because of, ‘‘Just everybodychiming in—people super-wise with tons of experience giving me advicetoo, from, like, a million years ago.’’

In slight contrast, guide teachers clearly noted that they would haveacted as teaching models for their student teachers regardless of partici-pating in eSupervision, stating, ‘‘I usually do [modeling] anyway,’’ and,‘‘I did model things, not related to eSupervision.’’ However, studentteachers found it beneficial to have other experts, such as supervisorsand peers, model teaching behaviors because it gave them a broad andvaried set of models that went beyond the traditional guide/studentteacher relationship.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is similar to teaching a child to ride a bike. As the childgains the skills to pedal and balance, training wheels are removed andeventually the parent stops running alongside; the child is confidentand able to ride on his or her own. This ‘‘gradual release’’ (Pearson& Gallagher, 1983) is evident throughout eSupervision, as a way to notonly support student teachers moving from novice to expert, but alsoas a support for guide teachers to increase their expertise in guideteaching.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


As in the traditional field experience, scaffolding of real-time stu-dent teaching still falls primarily with the guide teacher because heor she is there every day. One student teacher described this gradualrelease as ‘‘the transition:’’

I did weed out using his PowerPoints and so forth [in my lessons] andstarted doing my own thing, but when I did notice the transition, thatwas when I started taking his PowerPoints, looking at them, adding myown cites and changing slides, so that it fit what I wanted to say, whatI wanted to get across. So I learned how to take ownership over everysingle aspect of my lessons.

eSupervision also offered the scaffolding of planning and understand-ing the teaching context. The online lesson plan builder had a ‘‘trainingwheels’’ effect; student teachers moved from initially following theirguide teacher’s lessons to developing daily plans within the onlinelesson plan builder. Student teachers found the structure of theonline lesson plan builder helpful because it laid out the expectationsfor elements essential to a quality lesson plan. Guiding questionsserved as a ‘‘self-check.’’ As one student said, ‘‘I really like it whenI have something organized : : : it works a little better for me than‘here’s a blank sheet of paper, try and figure out a lesson plan’: : : I get more organized and I get more out of the lesson when Ihave that.’’ Toward the end of the semester, student teachers beganto improvise on the lesson plans to make them fit their particularsituations.

The online scaffolding for the student teachers had a reciprocaleffect on the guide teachers. Because the university expectations wereclear regarding lesson plans, when student teachers had difficultiesplanning, the guide teacher could walk them through the online pro-cess. In addition, the guide teachers revealed that they felt supportedand scaffolded in their guide teaching as they utilized an online formto guide their formal observations of their student teachers.

Coaching

The guide teacher was clearly the most powerful coach during the fieldexperience. Student teachers regarded their guide teachers as a ‘‘firstline of defense’’—that is, the first person they would turn to when inneed of coaching and advice. One student teacher stated, ‘‘If I everhad problems, [my guide teacher] is always the person to go to andtell.’’ Much like modeling, this powerful coaching relationship is onethat would have existed with or without eSupervision. All of the guide

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


teachers reported being in constant conversation with their studentteachers throughout the field experience, and primarily in the form ofinformal verbal communication.

Although the guide teacher may have been the student teacher’sfirst line of defense, the guide teacher was not always readily available.During such times, student teachers were relieved to know that coachingcould be accessed from other experts and peers through the discussionboards on eSupervision. One student teacher stated:

I liked the discussion board the best, because we were able to commu-nicate with other student teachers and supervisors and get feedback veryquickly. When we were having problems we could go online that nightand post it, and then the next couple of days get hints and tips fromother student teachers and supervisors.

As this quote indicates, eSupervision provided student teachers with ameans for accessing constant and relevant coaching advice from sourcesother than their guide teacher.

Guide teachers found that the information shared as a result ofeSupervision informed both how and what they coached their studentteacher about. One guide teacher found his/her feedback conflictedwith the university supervisor’s feedback. This, in turn, required theguide teacher and student teacher to engage in a deeper level of con-versation about the feedback given. It also required the guide teacherto align his/her comments and feedback more strongly with the super-visor’s.

In addition, guide teachers used the topics discussed on the dis-cussion boards as a vehicle for directing their interaction with theirstudent teacher. One stated:

I was able to read some of [my student’s] discussion board topics thatweren’t aimed at me at all. It gave me a little bit of a glimpse into whatshe was going through, without her talking to me. I remember readingone where I realized, ‘‘Wow, she’s really feeling down about classroommanagement, and her relationship with the class,’’ so I had that in myhead as something to discuss more with her.

As with the discussion board topics, guide teachers also used the topicsin the downloadable observation template as a vehicle for what theycoached about and how they did it. One guide teacher noted, ‘‘Therewas on one of the templates, I think, one of the observations about howshe did with ESL kids, and we talked about how she needed to get intouch with the [resources on campus] that support that.’’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Guide teachers were surprised to find that the written feedbackgenerated from the formal observations required under eSupervisionhelped build a relationship with their student teacher. One guideteacher noted, ‘‘I found with my student teacher this time that thewritten [feedback] was helping her : : : I felt like it created a betterrelationship with us, too, when I said, ‘This is really great aboutyesterday’ or ‘Think about this today.’ ’’

Articulation and Reflection

We discuss articulation and reflection together because these two strate-gies overlap on the discussion board and on the guided questionscontained within the modules. Articulation refers to opportunities forstudent teachers to communicate their understanding of the processesof teaching. Evidence of this can be seen when student teachers canexplain theory that undergirds their practice or when they can appro-priately use and apply the specialized language of the profession. Onestudent described this aspect of the discussion board, saying, ‘‘It’s nerdy,but I appreciated being able to talk online using academic language.’’She found the opportunity to try out this new professional language inan environment that was ‘‘not intimidating.’’

eSupervision was developed using several technology componentsto foster the development and growth of reflection in student teachers.Most notable are the discussion boards and reflection prompts withineach of the modules. The most frequently cited module was Engagingthe Learner, which had a three-cycle video reflection component. In thisassignment student teachers were asked to videotape a lesson, watch it,and do an open-ended reflection about what they saw. The video andreflections were given to the university supervisor to watch and respondto the reflections. Once completed, the supervisor and student teacherheld a face-to-face conference. This assignment proved to be a verypowerful experience for the student teacher:

The video assignment was especially good: : : : It was very organized withlots of reflections going back and forth, having to look at it multipletimes, and having guided questions that I knew I would be addressingwhen I was watching the video. I knew what to look for specifically, so itwasn’t just ‘‘what do I see?’’ It helped me.

By providing multiple opportunities for reflection, eSupervision com-municates that reflection is valued and important while exposing stu-dent teachers to the possibilities and nuances of reflection.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Community

Participants in eSupervision reported a strong sense of community inthe program, and eSupervision was the main factor in developing this.Guide teachers reported a broadened sense of community within thefield experience, from one triad being a community within itself tomany triads being part of a larger community. One stated, ‘‘We can getideas from each other [meaning guide teachers]. Because there’s allkinds of guide teachers on this campus, that I don’t normally interactwith.’’ Another put it this way,

It wasn’t just my student teacher and I in this classroom with the doorshut, struggling through it. You could see that there were a lot of similar-ities among all the classes and I just felt like it brought us together moreas a community.

Student teachers also reported a sense of community and used thediscussion boards to seek empathy from peers and expert opinion fromsupervisors. One student teacher noted, ‘‘I think [the discussion board]was a real positive experience for me because being the second semester,we don’t get to meet with our peers much.’’ eSupervision providedstudent teachers with the tools to confirm with others that their expe-riences were, indeed, normal, and in a way where the student teachersdid not feel like a burden on anyone else’s time. One student stated,

[I]t was non-threatening. It didn’t feel like I had to make somebody goout of their way to help me or bother him at home. I could just write acomment, or express a problem I was having, or a concern, a joy : : : andpeople could get back to me whenever.

As this student noted, the sense of community developed through eSu-pervision was not only strong, it was one where experiences, both goodand bad, were shared freely and openly.

Discussion

In many respects, eSupervision worked as it was designed to work—thatis, as a cognitive apprenticeship supported by technology. Participantsrecognized several aspects of the model that drew heavily upon thatframework and reported positive attitudes and experiences with it. Forexample, the strongest aspect of eSupervision by far was the broadeningof the traditional sense of the triad model of supervision with respect tomany of the elements of cognitive apprenticeship. Guide teachers and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


their student teachers both noted receiving help not just from theirown personal triad, but also from the entire eSupervision community.Hew and Knapczyk (2007) also noted that this broadening of availablesupport is an advantage of online mentoring. This is important becausestudent teachers need a wide variety of support and differing perspec-tives on teaching during the field experience (Cornu & Ewing, 2008;Hew & Knapczyk, 2007).

eSupervision also broadened the traditional apprenticeship rela-tionship, expanding the notion of who can serve as a model, howscaffolding can be delivered, who can act as a coach, and what teachers,both guide and student, are thinking about teaching. These outcomesare directly tied to the characteristics of a learning environment de-signed for cognitive apprenticeship, including authenticity in terms oflearning context and participant activity, collaboration of participantsthrough multiple roles, and reflection as an individual and as a com-munity (Collins et al., 1991; Ghefaili, 2003; Herrington & Oliver, 2000).This supports Levin and Waugh (1998), who similarly found that usingtechnology-enhanced apprenticeships often leads to shared problemsolving in a rich and meaningful context by all participants.

eSupervision strongly fostered a sense of community among triadmembers, and the actions of the community members were directly tiedto modeling, coaching, and reflection. For example, student teachersnoted that they became models for each other (rather than relyingon just the guide teacher) for how to plan instruction, solve prob-lems in the classroom, and reflect on teaching through the discussionboards. The community in eSupervision led to changes in guide teacherpractice, too. They reported that eSupervision was different than tradi-tional supervision because they used the information shared by otherstudent teachers, supervisors, and guide teachers to inform both howthey coached and what they coached. Researchers have inquired as towhether mentoring can serve to inform the practice of the mentor inaddition to the individual being mentored (Hew & Knapczyk, 2007;Lopez-Real & Kwan, 2005); this result indicates that eSupervision, inthis context, did inform the practice of the guide teacher.

One important finding from our conversations with the guide andstudent teachers in eSupervision was the undeniably powerful relation-ship between the guide teacher and his or her student teacher. Manyaspects of apprenticeship, such as modeling, scaffolding, and coaching,would have occurred regardless of eSupervision. This is not altogethersurprising—Clift, Mullen, Levin, and Larson (2001) found that studentteachers in immediate need of support relied heavily on direct contactwith the guide teacher rather than relying on support fostered by andthrough technology.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


However, the goal of introducing a technology-enhanced super-vision experience to the field experience was not to supplant the tra-ditional apprenticeship that occurs between a guide teacher and his/her student teacher. Rather, the goal was to update an outdated modelof supervision with the characteristics suggested by the research for astrong program of supervision. In that respect, much of eSupervisionwas successful. Although the guide teacher may have been the firstline of defense for student teachers in eSupervision, student teachersreported that they found it valuable to have additional lines of defensein times of need. Clift et al. (2001) similarly found that when peoplewere out of contact or difficult to reach, the availability of supportthrough technology was highly valued by student teachers.

eSupervision appears to have provided students teachers with op-portunities that are critical for their success as teachers, such as just-in-time support, the opportunity to serve multiple roles (as both noviceand expert), and attention to reflective practices. Each of these oppor-tunities is important in its own right. Devlin-Scherer and Daly (2001)and Hew and Knapczyk (2007) suggested that such timely support wasan important factor in successful student teacher field experiences.Researchers (Joia, 2001; Levin & Waugh, 1998) have suggested thattechnology can and should be used in teacher education to allow stu-dent teachers to both give and receive advice (that is, to be both noviceand expert) to strengthen the transfer of learning. Reflective practiceis highly promoted as a tool for helping new teachers improve theirabilities and confidence as a teacher (Darling-Hammond & Snyder,2000; Graham, 2006) and technology has been suggested as a way tofoster such reflection (Bodzin & Park, 2002).

It is important to note that these outcomes are not impossibleto achieve without eSupervision. However, they serve to indicate thatthey can, in fact, be achieved when designing a technology-enhancedsupervision program around the framework of cognitive apprenticeship.More importantly, technology helps manifest these outcomes in a singlecontext and provide student teachers with powerful learning activitiesassociated with learning to teach.

There are several limitations that should be considered when at-tempting to generalize these results. First, this is a small pilot studyand, while there is a good deal of consistency among the reports of theparticipants, it is difficult to tell with any accuracy if such results couldbe similarly achieved in a different setting or with a different groupof participants. Second, self-report data are susceptible to bias. Giventhe consistency between guide and student teacher responses, it is notlikely a good deal of bias was present but we cannot rule it out entirely.Third, the study lacks a comparison group. Although this prevents us

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


from making any statements about whether eSupervision is ‘‘better’’than a traditional model, we can use the study to determine if ourintentions in designing it around a cognitive apprenticeship frameworkwere actualized successfully.

Despite these limitations, the results suggest several avenues forfuture research. A study comparing the experiences of participantsunder eSupervision to participants in a traditional model of supervisionwould serve to determine where, how, and how much eSupervisionexceeds or falls short of the outcomes of a traditional apprenticeship.Along that same line of thinking, long-term studies during the inductionyears comparing the growth and confidence of student teachers whodid and did not receive eSupervision would help identify supervisionpractices that have a lasting impact on student teachers as they enter thefield. Research is also needed on methods for establishing a learningcommunity in the field experience and the outcomes of doing so.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that building a technology-enhancedsupervision experience around the framework of cognitive apprentice-ship is a viable and productive approach to re-imagining the field expe-rience of student teachers. This lends support to researchers who notonly call for new approaches to supervision that focus on the thinking ofstudent teachers (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Graham, 2006), but also thosewho suggest that doing so with technology may be a way to introducestudent teachers to experiences that are important for their success inthe future (Joia, 2001; Liu, 2005; Wang & Bonk, 2001). Whereas eSuper-vision may never replace the strong bond between a guide teacher andhis/her student teacher, it can certainly strengthen that relationshipand provide its participants with access to a broader community ofboth experts and novices. Such outcomes are likely to produce a morehighly prepared workforce of teachers equipped to handle the stressesand unpredictability of today’s classroom environment, both now andin the future.

References

Barnett, M., Keating, T., Harwood, W., & Saam, J. (2002). Using emergingtechnologies to help bridge the gap between university theory and classroompractice: Challenges and successes. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6),299–313.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Blanton, W. E., Moorman, G., & Trathen, W. (1998). Telecommunications andteacher education: A social constructivist view. Review of Research in Education,23, 235–275.

Bodzin, A. C., & Park, J. P. (2002). Using a nonrestrictive web-based forum topromote reflective discourse with preservice science teachers. ContemporaryIssues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(3), 267–289.

Clift, R. T., Mullen, L., Levin, J., & Larson, A. (2001). Technologies in contexts:Implications for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 33–50.

Collins, A., Brown, J., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Makingthinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38–46.

Cornu, R. L., & Ewing, R. (2008). Reconceptualising professional experiencesin pre-service teacher education : : : reconstructing the past to embrace thefuture. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1799–1812.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teachingin context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 523–545.

Devlin-Scherer, R., & Daly, J. (2001). Living in the present tense: Student teach-ing telecommunications connect theory and practice. Journal of Technology

and Teacher Education, 9(4), 617–634.Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a contin-

uum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.

Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and contextualiza-tion of learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design &

Online Learning, 4(Winter), 1–27.Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of

cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1118–1129.Greeno, J., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.

Berliner & R. Caffee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46).New York: MacMillan Library Reference.

Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towardsdefinition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework forauthentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Design,

48(3), 23–48.Hew, K. F., & Knapczyk, D. (2007). Analysis of ill-structured problem solving,

mentoring functions, and perceptions of practicum teachers and mentorstoward online mentoring in a field-based practicum. Instructional Science, 35,1–40.

Joia, L. A. (2001). Evaluation of a hybrid socio-constructivist model for teachertraining. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(4), 519–549.

Levin, J., & Waugh, M. (1998). Teaching teleapprenticeships: Electronic network-based educational frameworks for improving teacher education. Interactive

Learning Environments, 6(1–2), 39–58.Liu, T.-C. (2005). Web-based cognitive apprenticeship model for improving pre-

service teachers’ performances and attitudes towards instructional planning:Design and field experiment. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 136–149.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Lopez-Real, F., & Kwan, T. (2005). Mentors’ perceptions of their own pro-fessional development during mentoring. Journal of Education for Teaching,31(1), 15–24.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paris, C., & Gespass, S. (2001). Examining the mismatch between learner-centered teaching and teacher-centered supervision. Journal of Teacher Ed-

ucation, 52(5), 398–412.Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading compre-

hension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.

New York: Oxford University Press.Simpson, M. (2006). Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher edu-

cation programmes. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 241–254.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walkington, J. (2005). Becoming a teacher: Encouraging development of teacheridentity through reflective practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,

33(1), 53–64.Wang, F.-W., & Bonk, C. J. (2001). A design framework for electronic cognitive

apprenticeship. Journal of Asynchrounous Learning Networks, 5(2), 131–151.Wilson, E. K. (2006). The impact of an alternative model of student teacher

supervision: Views of the participants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1),22–31.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed., Applied SocialResearch Methods Series no. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

06:

50 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

technology supported cognitive apprenticeship transforms the student teaching field experience:...

Documents