The efficacy of training cooperating teachers

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights

Author's personal copy

The efficacy of training cooperating teachers

Christopher R. Gareis*, Leslie W. Grant 1

School of Education, The College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

� Trained Clinical Faculty (CF) tended to have greater self-efficacy for mentoring.� Evaluations of student teachers mentored by CF tended to be higher.� Assessment and feedback may be associated with stronger candidate performance.� CF in partnership schools may strengthen the mentoring skills of untrained CTs.� Novice teachers’ self-efficacy was unrelated to the training of CTs.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 3 January 2013Received in revised form19 November 2013Accepted 23 December 2013

Keywords:Clinical facultyCooperating teachersStudent teachers

a b s t r a c t

This study investigated outcomes of a clinical faculty training program designed to prepare cooperatingteachers for supervising pre-service teachers. Drawing on multiple data sources frommore than a decadeof implementation, researchers investigated initial outcomes of the program for cooperating teachers,student teachers, and new teachers. Findings suggest that the training resulted in a greater sense ofefficacy for aspects of the role and may lead to more effective evaluation practices by clinical faculty andto stronger performances by student teachers. The lack of other significant results may have implicationsfor policies related to the evaluation of teacher preparation programs.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Clinical experiences in teacher preparation

Teaching is an applied profession; therefore, the preparationof teachers is dependent upon the authentic practice anddevelopment of a broad set of knowledge, skills, and dispositionsin clinical settings, namely K-12 schools. This notion is not new.The history of novice teachers learning the craft of teachingunder the tutelage of master teachers stretches back formillennia in both Western and Eastern traditions (Plato, 1997;Waley, 1938). In more recent eras, this approach has continuedbut has changed given societal factors such as industrializationand the advent of common schooling. For example, in the UnitedStates, the role of preparing primary and secondary schoolteachers became the expressed mission of “normal schools” inthe 1800s, and a hallmark of this movement was the establish-ment of field-based practice in lab schools as an expected norm

in teacher preparation (Lampert, 2010). This model had Europeanroots and then was later emulated in the 1900s by countries suchas China as they developed their educational systems (Fitzgerald,2001; Liu, 2009).

The belief in the value of clinical experiences in teacherpreparation persists in the present day. On the cusp of the newmillennium, Darling-Hammond (2000) contended in her policyreview of educational research that the evidence supporting theimportant role of field experiences was inarguable. Even in theUnited States’ contentious political climate, the importance ofclinical experiences in teacher preparation appears to be a rarepiece of common ground. Consider the case of the NationalCouncil for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),which is the long-standing accrediting association for teacherpreparation in the U.S., and the National Council for TeacherQuality (NCTQ), which is a non-governmental organization thathas been highly critical of teacher preparation. Although NCATEand NCTQ are frequently at odds, each recently published reportsmaking the case that clinical experiences are not only vitallyimportant but that they merit continued research to harness fullythe potential effect they are believed to hold for the preparationof new teachers (NCATE, 2010; NCTQ, 2011).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 757 221 2319.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.R. Gareis), [email protected] (L.W. Grant).

1 Tel.: þ1 757 221 2411.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.007

Teaching and Teacher Education 39 (2014) 77e88


1.2. The role of cooperating teachers

Teacher preparation is developmental in nature, and clinicalexperiences have been described as a critically important elementin pre-service teacher development (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). Typically, clinical experiences in teacher prepara-tion occur in the classrooms of in-service teachers who mostdirectly and most immediately supervise teacher candidates fromtheir earliest observations to capstone student teaching experi-ences. These “cooperating teachers”dthat is, in-service teacherswho willingly open their classrooms to teacher candidatesdarethemselves a critically important link in the preparation of newteachers. This, too, is not a new notion. More than 50 years ago, forinstance, Andrews (1950) suggested the important role that coop-erating teachers (CTs) should play in providing field experiences.Furthermore, Andrews suggested that serving as a CT requiredparticular knowledge and skills that are not necessarily possessedby all classroom teachers and, therefore, would require advancedtraining. The implicit caution was that experience and expertise asa classroom teacher were necessary but not sufficient for effectivelymentoring aspiring teachers.

Mentoring is the central component of serving as a CT. Liketeaching, mentoring is an applied craftdit is enacted, and the effectof mentoring must ultimately be manifested in the beliefs and ac-tions exhibited by the mentee (Trubowitz, 2004). Mentoring in aprofession relies on at least three elements: (1) the mentor’s owndepth of knowledge, skills, and experiences in the profession, (2)the mentor’s ability to identify accurately the potential in a mentee,and (3) the mentor’s ability to enable a mentee to achieve his or herpotential (Trubowitz, 2004). In teacher preparation, a CT serves asmentor to a teacher candidate, which requires a foundation of craft-skill and experience in such areas as human growth and develop-ment, pedagogical content knowledge, and assessment forlearning. Additionally, a classroom teacher who is serving as a CTshould possess knowledge and skills related to characteristics ofadult learners, stages of teacher development, professional stan-dards of teacher competency, classroom observation techniques,coaching strategies, and the like. In other words, there is aspecialized set of knowledge and skills for mentoring that a CTshould possess. Experience as a classroom teacher is not likely to beadequate in and of itself to serve effectively as a mentor (Ganser,2002; Sinclair, Dowson, & Thistleton-Martin, 2006; Sykes, Bird, &Kennedy, 2011).

1.3. The need to prepare cooperating teachers for their role

Based upon the assumption that not all effective teachers arenecessarily effective CTs, teacher educators have designed, devel-oped, and investigated the outcomes of CT training programs, andthe findings suggest the efficacy of such training. Boatright, Phelps,and Schmitz (1986) found that training CTs helps improve obser-vation techniques and helps reduce the halo effect in evaluatingteacher candidates in field experiences. In other words, training CTsreduced the likelihood that a CT’s overall impression of a studentteacher would directly influence the CT’s evaluation of a specificskill of that student teacher. Other studies comparing trained anduntrained CTs have found that trained CTs are more likely to pro-vide evaluative comments, interact with their student teachers inplanning and preparation, engage in the clinical supervision pro-cess, and be nonjudgmental in their feedback (Bryant & Currin,1995; Kent, 2001; Killian & McIntyre, 1987; Koster, Korthagen, &Wubbels, 1998). Giebelhaus and Bowman (2002) drew similarfindings. Their study explicitly equated the role of the CT to that of amentor and posited that mentoring knowledge and skills could betaught (Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002). They concluded that such

training resulted in effective mentoring behaviors by CTs(Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002). Similar conclusions were drawnfrom studies in Australia (Sinclair et al., Thistle-Martin, 2006) andthe United Arab Emirates (Ibrahim, 2007), both of which placedonus on the university to provide such training.

In addition to the evidence that training CTs may be associatedwith positive outcomes for those CTs, previous research into char-acteristics associatedwith the absence of training is also instructive.For example, Clarke (2001) found that untrained CTs may be lesslikely to fail a student teacher who does not meet expectations ofperformance, a phenomenon that may be the result of either thehalo effect or a lack of understanding of performance expectations.In a study of teachers with 9e10 years of classroom experienceserving as CTs, Sanders and Sinclair (2005) found multiple in-stances in which complications in field experiences arose. Theyattributed this phenomenon to incongruence between the ex-pected roles of CTs and what CTs were actually observed to do(Sanders & Sinclair, 2005). The implication of Sanders and Sinclair’s(2005) finding is that if CTs are intended to serve as the clinicalextensions of university-based teacher preparation programs, thenthe assumed benefits of field experiences may be diminished if CTsare not aware of and/or do not enact their expected roles. In aqualitative study of student teaching in which none of the CTs re-ported having received any training for the role, Valencia, Martin,Place, and Grossman (2009) found that these CTs “viewedlearning to teach as experimentation, but instead of scaffolding theexperience, they provided little support, which resulted in anenvironment of benign neglect” (p. 310). While these CTs interactedwith their student teachers frequently, those interactions rarelydrew upon formal observations of instruction to inform any type ofcoaching discussion and they included little specific feedback aboutteaching. Valencia et al. (2009) noted, “these novice teachersyearned for, and could have benefited from, the perspectives andguidance of their classroom mentors” (p. 314). To summarize suchfindings, when teachers serve as CTs without the benefit of training,there is evidence that they are less likely to fulfill the expectationsof the role, which may detrimentally affect the intended purpose ofpre-service field experiences.

1.4. The state of cooperating teacher training

Despite evidence suggesting that training CTs results in moreeffective mentoring behaviors and that the absence of training isassociated with ineffective mentoring, CTs do not typically receivetraining to serve in the role. Levine (2002) alluded to the illogic ofthis phenomenon, noting that clinical experiences are vital toteacher preparation yet are perhaps the least intentional compo-nent of the process. Darling-Hammond (2006) posited, “Often, theclinical side of teacher education has been fairly haphazard,depending on the idiosyncrasies of loosely selected placementswith little guidance about what happens in them and littleconnection to university work” (p. 308). More recently, Zeichner(2010) characterized clinical experiences as historically being“unguided and disconnected” (p. 91). Clarke, Triggs, and Nielsen(2012) provided further evidence of the state of CT training intheir comprehensive review of the literature on cooperatingteachers. Drawing on 456 papers from 16 countries and covering aspan of 60 years, the authors concluded that the body of literature“reveals a strong sense that cooperating teachers lack specifictraining to enable high quality engagement and developmentallyprogressive support for student teachers” (Clarke et al., p. 49). In acomparative study of cooperating teachers in Australia and Canada,Mitchell, Clarke, and Nuttall (2007) found a paucity of studies of thepreparation of CTs for the role.

C.R. Gareis, L.W. Grant / Teaching and Teacher Education 39 (2014) 77e8878


There are many reasons why the training of CTs is not the normin teacher preparation programs. First, the previous body ofresearch on the training of CTs focuses almost entirely upon out-comes associated with the CTs themselves. Returning to the reviewof literature above, variables of interest in the previous studiestended to be the mentoring behaviors of CTs (e.g., interactions withstudent teachers, the use of observation techniques, the accuracy ofsummative evaluations). While these are important variables, thelonger-term and more important intended outcome of CT trainingis greater proficiency of student teacher performance. Thus, it may bethat the evidence is sufficient that training can improve CTs’mentoring behaviors, but there is little if any evidence that suchtraining improves student teachers’ performance. In other words,we may not yet be convinced of the efficacy of training CTs in termsof outcomes for student teachers.

A second reasonwhy CT training is not the normmay be that thetraining of CTs has not yet been adequately investigated and un-derstood such that it is readily replicable. Darling-Hammond (2010)seems to have alluded to this when she wrote, “The central issue Ibelieve teacher education must confront is how to foster learningabout and from practice in practice” (p. 42). In other words, there isno debate about the importance of clinical practice, but how toemploy clinical experiences to greatest effect remains a challenge.Giebelhaus and Bowman (2002) made a similar observation in2002 when they posited, “little attention has been given in theliterature to effective mentoring models [emphasis added] for pre-service teacher education programs” (p. 256). With these points inmind, we see a compelling need to make explicit the processes andactivities of a CT training model and to grapple with some of thecomplex issues associated with them. To that end, our study aimedto investigate attainment of intended outcomes for studentteachers but also to understand the CT training elements that mayhave contributed to those outcomes.

1.5. A model for training clinical faculty

The training model investigated in this study is an extant pro-gram within the school of education at a mid-sized public univer-sity in Virginia. Simply called the Clinical Faculty Program, thistraining initiative was established in 1998 and has been in opera-tion since then. The impetus for the program occurred approxi-mately ten years before its founding when the General Assembly ofVirginia enacted legislation that formally established a new roleamong teacher educators in the state’s approved teacher prepara-tion programs. The new role was that of a clinical faculty member,which was codified as a “licensed public or private school teacher”who has been “specially trained” (Code of Virginia, x 22.1-290.1, { 2and 5) to supervise and evaluate student teachers. In 2000, theVirginia Department of Education (VDOE) published Guidelines forMentor Teacher Programs for Beginning and Experienced Teachers, inwhich the purpose and concept of the clinical faculty role weremore fully explained. Specifically, the following definition wasarticulated:

Clinical Faculty [bold in original] means experienced teacherswho have served successfully as cooperating teachers, meetselection criteria established by the college or university, andreceive the consistent, extensive training in supervisory skills inorder to be designated clinical faculty by a college or university.(p. 20)

As used in the context of this program, the term clinical faculty issimilar to Zeichner’s (2010) recent description of “clinical faculty”as “hybrid teacher educators.[who] are based primarily in anelementary or secondary school and.supervise [student teachers’]

school experiences” (p. 94). Thus, there is precedent for the rolebeyond the context of our study.

The statutory establishment of the clinical faculty designation inVirginia built upon the two assumptions previously described: (1)that clinical experiences supervised by experienced classroomteachers are essential to the effective preparation of new teachersand (2) that experienced teachers who are fulfilling the role ascooperating teachers must be trained. Additionally, Virginia’sdesignation of clinical faculty identified mentoring as the centralskill set of the role (VDOE, 2000). This construct is evident in theliterature on CTs, as Clarke et al. (2012) noted that “While notsynonymous, supervision of student teaching and mentoring havemuch in common and cooperating teachers are often regarded asmentors” (p. 9).

Extending from this conceptual foundation, the Clinical FacultyProgram (CFP) upon which our study focused was designed anddeveloped as a training program for cooperating teachers anchoredin effective mentoring practices. The CFP aims to create andmaintain a network of partnering teachers and schools, all with theintent of improving the practica and student teaching experiencesof aspiring teachers. The core activity of the CFP focuses on theidentification, recruitment, selection, training, support, andongoing collaboration with experienced classroom teachers whoare serving as CTs. Cooperating teachers who become part of theClinical Faculty Program by virtue of the successful completion offormal training are then designated as Clinical Faculty (CF). Pro-spective CF must meet the following criteria:

� Hold a valid teaching license and must have successfully taughtat least three years

� Demonstrate content and pedagogical expertise� Demonstrate effective communication skills� Have a positive attitude and a professional demeanor� Show genuine interest in preparing and supporting aspiringteachers

� Demonstrate the ability to effectively prepare and supportaspiring teachers

� Demonstrate a willingness to work with other teacher prepa-ration professionals

� Enjoy the respect of their colleagues.

A prospective CF member must be recruited by a K-12 admin-istrator/supervisor or a faculty member in the school of education,must complete an application form, and must have a formalrecommendation completed by his or her principal. At the time ofour study, the eight criteria above had not been operationallydefined. Instead, they served as a holistic description by whichrecommendations for and about trainees were made.

CF training is delivered through a graduate-level course, whichconsists of two weeks of classroom-based instruction during thesummer and four follow-up sessions during the school year.Portner’s (2003) model for mentoring serves as a conceptualframework for the training, focusing on four fundamental roles of amentor: (1) fostering a trusting relationship, (2) assessing strengthsand struggles, (3) coaching for proficiency and mastery, and (4)guiding toward autonomy.More specifically, training focuses on thefollowing topics:

� Exploring teacher preparation and the role of Clinical Faculty� Building a professionally supportive relationship with theteacher candidate

� Setting expectations for student teacher competence� Demonstrating professional practice through competency-based, reflective portfolios

� Effectively using clinical supervision techniques

C.R. Gareis, L.W. Grant / Teaching and Teacher Education 39 (2014) 77e88 79


� Observing instruction and collecting reflective data� Implementing developmental coaching and conferencingtechniques.

Initial training during the summer relies on readings, discus-sions, concept attainment activities, panel presentations, casestudies, and simulations. The follow-up training during the schoolyear is more applied in nature, as CF trainees are actually engagedin mentoring their assigned teacher candidates. During this time,CF trainees complete two structured observation and coachingassignments. This role-embedded, sustained, activity-basedtraining model is intended to equip clinical faculty with a skill setfor mentoring that is adaptable to the strengths and needs ofdifferent teacher candidates (Thies-Sprinthall, 1984) and that em-phasizes the critical roles of clinical observation and coaching(Kent, 2001; Martin, Snow, & Franklin Torrez, 2011).

Upon successful completion of the nine-month training, CF gainadjunct faculty status, higher compensation than untrained coop-erating teachers, opportunities to collaborate with university fac-ulty, and opportunities for additional professional developmentprovided by the university. Additionally, CF members become partof a network of more than 225 active CF members and also join thecadre of CF in one of the university’s 25 partnering schools in sixschool districts. In each of these 25 partnering schools, a member ofthe CF serves as the lead clinical faculty member. The role of the leadclinical faculty member is to serve as (1) the point of contact forplacements, (2) a source of support for CF members and to regularCTs, (3) a coordinator of building-based internship activities, and(4) the primary liaison between the school and the university. The

lead clinical faculty role is integral to the CFP model and isconsidered by university staff to be a hallmark of the program.

1.6. Rationale for the study

Fig. 1 depicts the logic model for the Clinical Faculty Program. Alogic model is a tool used by program planners, researchers, andevaluators to represent graphically the theory of action for a pro-gram (Frechtling, 2007). The logic model includes the essentialcomponents of a program, organized from left to right by theheadings such as inputs, program activity, and outcomes. The logicmodel also depicts essential connections between and amongvarious components. These connections are represented by solidarrows. Dashed arrows indicate connections that may exist indi-rectly, while solid lines with no arrowheads indicate related com-ponents, but with no presumed causal link or temporal order. Thelogic model guided the conceptualization of our study.

Prior to conducting the present study, previous evaluations ofthe CFP focused on input and process elements, which indicatedsome degree of program efficacy. For example, the CFP hadcompleted 13 annual training cohorts of more than 350 class-room teachers, approximately 225 of whom were still active asCF members. While the majority of CF members were concen-trated in 25 partnering schools, there were a total of 35 schoolsacross six districts in which there was a CFP presence. As rep-resented in the logic model, the establishment and growth of anetwork of CF and partnering schools is an intended initialoutcome of the program, and the scope and numbers of CF are

Fig. 1. Logic model for clinical faculty program.



evidence of the realization of that program element. Additionally,as of the time of our study, more than 550 pre-service teachershad been served by the program, and the teacher preparationhad increased the percentage of teacher candidates who aresupervised by a trained CF from less than 5% in 1999 toapproximately 75% in 2011.

There was also evidence from previous program evaluationstudies that CF members had a strong sense of efficacy for theirroles as CTs both at the conclusion of the initial training in thesummer and at the conclusion of the follow-up training duringthe school year. Program evaluations based upon self-reportsurvey data of participants for more than 10 years indicatedconsistent ratings of 4 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale acrossall indicators, with average overall ratings by participants beingconsistently at 4.5 or higher (Gareis, 2010). Open-ended re-sponses consistently mirrored the self-ratings of CF, with typicalcomments such as, “This program is essential for bringing pro-fessionalism to the training of student teachers. Mentoring doesnot always come naturally and having techniques and strategiesto address problems and guide students is invaluable” and“[Before completing the program,] I didn’t realize how much Ididn’t know about being a CT.”

Despite the evident successes of the program, a fundamentalquestion remained: Does training CFmake a difference in outcomesfor CTs and for teacher candidates? In other words, are there dif-ferences that are associated with whether teacher candidatescompleted their field experiences with untrained cooperatingteachers (CTs) or with trained clinical faculty (CF)?

2. Method

Our current study sought to contribute to our understandingand the existing literature by investigating the effects of a formalprogram for training experienced classroom teachers to serve as CFin a university-based teacher preparation program. Specifically, thestudy examined differences between trained CF and untrained CTsin terms of their sense of self-efficacy for mentoring studentteachers; ratings of student teachers’ performance; studentteachers’ evaluations of the quality of field experiences; newteachers’ perceived competence; and new teachers’ perceivedimpact on K-12 student learning and development.

2.1. Research questions

We addressed three research questions in our study:

1. Towhat degree do CF differ from CTs in their sense of efficacy forfulfilling the roles of a cooperating teacher?

2. To what degree do midterm and final evaluations of studentteachers placed with CFs differ from those placed with CTs?

3. To what degree do new teachers who had been placed with CFdiffer from those who had been placed with CTs with regard toself-reported long-term outcomes (namely, sense of efficacy forteaching, intent to remain in the profession, and perceivedimpact on student learning)?

2.2. Data collection and analysis

A causal-comparative research design was used to examinethe research questions related to differences in CTs and CF. Bothgroups met similar criteria for selection (namely, experience,tenure status, licensure, recommendation of a supervisor, andwillingness), and both groups mentored teacher candidates.However, assignment of participants to respective groups wasnot purely random. Similarly, teacher candidates were notrandomly assigned to CTs or CF in a conventional sense ofresearch design. Rather, placements were made by universitystaff unaware of any research intent and through regular means,thus supporting the causal-comparative research design (Gall,Gall, & Borg, 2007). The study was limited to teacher candi-dates in the elementary (PK-6) and secondary (6e12) programs.

Multiple approaches were undertaken to answer eachresearch question, including the use of self-efficacy surveys forCTs, midterm and final evaluations of student teachers, andgraduate surveys for new teachers who had completed the pro-gram. To ensure the protection of individuals within this multi-year, multi-source study, our methods were reviewed andapproved by our university’s Institutional Review Board and theProtection of Human Subjects Committee. Below we provide abrief explanation of instruments, data collection, participants,and statistical analysis for each research question. These are alsosummarized in Table 1.

Table 1Overview of research methods.

Research question Data source Sample Statistical analysis

1. To what degree do CF differ fromCTs in their sense ofefficacy for fulfilling theroles of a cooperating teacher?

Survey of CF and CTs whosupervised one or morestudent teachers duringthe period of 1998e2011

273 CF/CTs surveyed101 respondents (37% response rate);75% CF;25% CTs

Descriptive statisticsTwo-tailed t-test

2. To what degree do midtermand final evaluations ofstudent teachers placedwith CFs differ fromthose placed with CTs?

Midterm and Finalevaluations of studentteachers

Evaluations completed by CF/CTs,Student Teachers, and University Supervisors;303 sets of midterm evaluations;283 sets of final evaluationsmatched to student teachers;1758 evaluation records total

Descriptive statisticsTwo-tailed t-test

3. To what degree do new teacherswho had been placed with CFdiffer from those who had beenplaced with CTs with regard toself-reported long-termoutcomes (namely, sense ofefficacy for teaching, intent toremain in the profession,and perceived impact onstudent learning)?

Survey of graduates of theteacher preparationprogram (i.e., new teachers)during the period of2005e2010

187 graduates (i.e., new teachers withintheir first five years of teaching);84 respondents (45% response rate);63% supervised by CF;37% supervised by CTs

Descriptive statisticsTwo-tailed t-testChi-square test



2.2.1. RQ1 e differences in sense of self-efficacy between CF and CTsTo investigate teachers’ senseofefficacy for servingasCFandCTs, a

survey of 12 questionswith responses on afive-point Likert scalewasused. Four groups of prompts were included on the survey, whichrespectively focused on (1) understandings of the role of the coop-erating teacher (broadly speaking), (2) use of specific mentoringstrategies, (3)perceivedeffectivenessasa cooperating teacher, and (4)perceived likelihood of specific outcomes for teacher candidates intheir eventual roles as in-service teachers. For example, one promptasked, “As a Cooperating Teacher, what degree of confidence do youhave in using conferencing techniques effectively to guide a studentteacher’s development?” Each prompt was developed to align withmentoring roles (Portner, 2003), clinical supervision strategies(Acheson&Gall, 2011), and targetedprofessional competencies of theteacher preparation program at the university. One limitation of theresearch study was the reliance on self-report data.

Trained CF and untrained CTs who had served as cooperatingteachers for the university between 1998 and 2011 were includedin this phase of the study. The sample was limited to active CF andCTs, yielding a sample of 273. Surveys were administered throughan online survey tool. An initial email was sent describing the intentof the survey with a link to complete the survey. A follow-up emailwas sent to participants reminding them to complete the survey.

A total of 101 CF and CTs completed the survey, which repre-sented a 37% response rate for the sample. Of the total respondents,74% (n ¼ 75) were trained CF and 26% (n ¼ 26) were untrained CTs.This proportion mirrors the proportion of teacher candidatestypically placed with trained CF (approximately 75%) and teachercandidates typically placed with untrained CTs (approximately25%), thus being a representative sample for this teacher prepara-tion program. As shown in Table 2, respondents had varied years ofteaching experience and had supervised from one to more than 26student teachers. No respondents had less than five years ofteaching experience. For both trained CF and untrained CTs, themajority of respondents (59% and 84%, respectively) had supervisedless than four student teachers.

Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.Measures of central tendency were analyzed in order to exploretrends and patterns and two-tailed t-tests were conducted to deter-mine whether statistically significant differences in sense of self-efficacy existed between trained CF and untrained CTs. The level ofsignificance selected prior to data analysis for rejecting the null hy-pothesis was .05.

2.2.2. RQ2 e differences in midterm and final student teacherevaluations

Evaluations of a student teacher’s performance were adminis-tered at the mid-point and at the end of student teaching

experiences. Cooperating teachers rated student teachers on 30competencies and provided a summative rating of “Overall Teach-ing Effectiveness.” (In this teacher preparation program, teachercandidates are evaluated by their assigned CT/CF. Most candidateshave only one CT/CF.) The 30 competencies upon which studentteachers were evaluated are organized into six broad domains,including (1) foundational understandings; (2) planning for in-struction; (3) teaching skills; (4) assessment and evaluation oflearning; (5) classroom management; and (6) professionalism. Thecompetencies are aligned with the standards of the InterstateTeacher Assessment and Support Consortium (2011) and theNational Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001).A three-point scale with the nominal categories of below expecta-tions, meets expectations, and exceeds expectations was used. Thethree-point scale is a limitation of the study as the range for ratingcandidates is restricted and thus may have limited variability. Arating scale and rubric provided anchor points for raters, and levelsof performance were distinguished by quality and consistency ofobserved evidence.

Midterm and final student teaching evaluations were retrievedfrom an online assessment system for the period from 2008 to 2011.This four-year period was selected due to the reliability afforded bythe online submission of student teaching evaluations followingfull implementation of the online assessment system in 2008. Atotal of 319 teacher candidates were represented in this sample,with each teacher candidate being evaluated at both the mid-pointand end-point by the cooperating teacher, university supervisor,and by her- or himself. Cases with missing values were excludedyielding 303 cases for the midterm evaluation ratings, with 210midterm ratings for student teachers placed with trained CF and 93placed with untrained CTs. For the final evaluation ratings, theexclusion of cases with missing values yielded 283 cases, with 195final ratings for student teachers placed with trained CF and 88placedwith untrained CTs. The samples for bothmid-term and finalevaluations were proportionally representative of this teacherpreparation program. (Note: The sample of CF/CT associated withdata collection for RQ2 is a subset of the sample associated withRQ1; however, we analyzed each data set separate from the otherand made no attempt to match CF/CTs between the sets.)

For purposes of quantitative analysis, ratings were converted to athree-point numeric scale, with below expectations as 1, meets ex-pectations as 2, and exceeds expectations as 3. Measures of centraltendency were analyzed in order to explore trends and patterns, andtwo-tailed t-tests were conducted to determine if statistically signif-icant differences existed between ratings of student teachers placedwith trained CF and untrained CTs. The level of significance selectedprior to data analysis for rejecting the null hypothesis was .05.

2.2.3. RQ3 e self-reported long-term outcomes for new teachersTo investigate long-term outcomes for new teachers, a follow-

up survey of program graduates was administered. Program grad-uates were asked to respond to prompts related to (1) their sense ofefficacy for teaching, (2) their perceived impact on studentlearning, and (3) their intent to remain in the profession. A limi-tation of the study is the reliance on self-report data from newteachers.

Program graduates who had graduated in the years of 2005e2010 were surveyed using an online survey system. This sampleyielded 187 program graduates. Graduates were sent an email withthe survey link and asked to respond. A follow-up email was sentreminding them to complete the survey. Administration of thesurvey yielded a response rate of 45% (n ¼ 84).

Of the 84 respondents, 63% (n ¼ 53) completed their studentteaching with trained CF and 37% (n ¼ 31) completed their studentteaching with untrained CTs. Program graduates were asked to

Table 2Demographic data for cooperating teacher survey.

CFn ¼ 75 (74%)

CTn ¼ 26 (26%)

Number years of teaching experience5e10 years 12 (16%) 6 (23%)11e15 years 20 (27%) 4 (15%)16e20 years 18 (24%) 6 (23%)21e25 years 11 (15%) 1 (4%)26 years or more 14 (19%) 9 (35%)

Number of student teachers supervised0e4 44 (59%) 21 (84%)5e10 23 (31%) 3 (12%)11e15 3 (4%) 1 (4%)16e20 3 (4%) 0 (0%)21e25 1 (1%) 0 (0%)26 or more 1 (1%) 0 (0%)



respond to a prompt indicating the status of their presentemployment. A majority of respondents who were supervised bytrained CF and untrained CTs (81% and 84%, respectively) wereteachers at the time they completed the survey (see Table 3).

Two-tailed t-tests were conducted to determine whether sta-tistically significant differences existed in sense of self-efficacy,perceived impact on student learning, and intent to remain in theprofession. Cases with missing values were excluded from indi-vidual analyses. Bonferroni’s correction was used to account forType I errors in the analysis of mid-term/final student teachingevaluations and surveys of CF and CTs. Chi-square tests of inde-pendence were conducted to determine whether graduates whocompleted their student teaching with trained CF were more likelyto remain in the profession than those graduates who completedtheir student teaching experience with untrained CTs. The level ofsignificance selected prior to data analysis for rejecting the nullhypothesis was .05.

3. Results

3.1. Differences in sense of self-efficacy between CF and CTs

As shown in Table 4, statistically significant differences werefound on three of the 12 items. However, these differences werewithin only two of the four groups of prompts. Specifically, trainedCF indicated a significantly higher sense of efficacy than untrainedCTs in understanding their roles as cooperating teachers, and CFindicated a significantly higher sense of efficacy with regard to twoout of five mentoring strategies, namely (1) effectively observingand (2) summatively evaluating teacher candidates’ performance.No significant differences between CF and CTs were evident withrespect to the other two roles of the training framework: (1)fostering a trusting relationship with teacher candidates or (2)effectively conferencing with teacher candidates.

3.2. Differences in midterm and final student teacher evaluations

Midterm and final evaluations of student teachers by CF and CTswere analyzed using a two-tailed t-test and applying Bonferroni’s

correction. No statistically significant differences were foundamong the ratings of the 30 student teacher competencies at eitherthe midterm or the conclusion of the student teaching experience.

Although there were no statistically significant differences be-tween CF and CTevaluations of student teachers, there is an evidentpattern to each of the two data sets that bears noting. As repre-sented by the line graph in Fig. 2, nearly every competency on themidterm evaluation was rated lower by trained CF when comparedto the ratings of student teachers by untrained CTs. A similarpattern is apparent in Fig. 3, which depicts final student teachingevaluations. Additionally, the visual gap between the lines in Fig. 3is narrower than the visual gap between the lines in Fig. 2, whichmay suggest that the differences in ratings for student teachersplaced with trained CF and untrained CTs lessened between themid-point and end of the student teaching experience.

Data for the summative rating of “Overall Teaching Effective-ness” on the midterm and final evaluations were also analyzed. Forthese analyses, all three groups that completed evaluations wereincluded: student teacher self-evaluations, cooperating teachers(both trained CF and untrained CTs), and university supervisors. Asindicated in Tables 5 and 6, there were no statistically significantdifferences between midterm and final evaluation ratings by stu-dent teachers, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors.

While no statistically significant differences were found, apattern similar to the midterm and final evaluation ratings on the30 competencies emerged. Trained CF tended to rate their student

Table 4Sense of self-efficacy for serving as a cooperating teacher.

Question CF CTs t-Value df p (two-tailed)

Convey Role as CF/CT 4.51 4.04 2.743 99 .007Four fundamental roles of mentoring 4.24 3.65 3.165* 99 .002Foster relationship 4.57 4.62 �.296 99 .768Effectively observe 4.59 3.92 4.475* 99 <.001Use a variety supervision strategies 4.51 4.19 1.857 99 .066Effectively conference 4.47 4.23 1.387 99 .169Summatively evaluate ST 4.55 4.04 3.533* 99 .001Impact professional abilities of ST 4.49 4.38 .805 99 .423Provide high quality field exp. 4.57 4.54 .275 99 .784Likelihood ST remains in teaching 3.99 4.04 �.288 99 .774Likelihood ST positive impacts

pupil learning in first year4.41 4.31 .752 99 .454

Likelihood ST emerges as a teacher leader 4.08 4.00 .439 99 .662

*p < .05, with Bonferroni’s correction (p � .0039; t-value � 2.9603).

Midterm Evaluation Ratings of Student Teachers by CF and CTs

Fig. 2. Midterm evaluation ratings of student teachers by CF and CTs.

Final Evaluation Ratings of Student Teachers by CF and CTs

Fig. 3. Final evaluation ratings of student teachers by CF and CTs.

Table 3Present employment of respondents.

Supervised by CFn ¼ 53 (63%)

Supervised by CTn ¼ 31 (37%)

Teacher 43 (81%) 26 (84%)Other 8 (15%) 2 (7%)Unemployed 2 (4%) 3 (10%)



teachers lower than untrained CT. The same pattern emerged whenreviewing student teacher self-evaluations. Student teachersplaced with trained CF rated themselves lower on the midterm andfinal evaluations than did student teachers placed with untrainedCT.

In addition to reviewing the ratings by cooperating teachers andby student teachers, we examined the ratings by university su-pervisors. University supervisors traditionally fulfill a role asobjective, third-party evaluators in the triadic relationship withcooperating teachers and student teachers (Cuenca, Scmeichel,Butler, Dinkelman, & Nichols, 2011; Slick, 1998). In reviewing themeans of ratings by university supervisors for student teachersplaced with trained CF and those placed with untrained CTs, adifferent pattern emerged. University supervisors tended to ratestudent teachers placed with trained CF higher than studentteachers placed with untrained CT.

The contrast in the pattern of ratings between university su-pervisors and both cooperating teachers and student teachers isvisually evident when depicted in a single graph. Fig. 4 representsthe means of the “overall effectiveness” rating on final studentteacher evaluations by rater and disaggregated by CF and CT statusof the cooperating teachers. The line represented by rater 1 is stu-dent teacher self-evaluation mean ratings, rater 2 is cooperatingteacher mean ratings (CF and CTs in separate columns), and rater 3is university supervisor mean ratings. The plotted results demon-strate the patterns discussed previously. It is important to reiterate

that the differences are not statistically significant. Nevertheless,the patterns are evident and consistent for each group at themidterm and final evaluation of student teaching, thereby war-ranting tentative consideration.

3.3. Differences in outcomes for new teachers

New teachers’ sense of self-efficacy for teaching was oper-ationalized by having respondents indicate their level of compe-tence in five domains of teaching: planning for instruction,instructional delivery, assessment, classroom management, andprofessionalism. Respondents indicated their level of competenceusing a four-point Likert scale: (1) not competent, (2) somewhatcompetent, (3) competent, and (4) very competent. Mean ratingsindicated that graduates perceived themselves as competent tovery competent in each of the five domains. As shown in Table 7, t-tests of significant differences indicated there were no differencesin perceived competence within the five domains between re-spondents supervised by trained CF and those supervised by un-trained CTs.

Recent graduates were also asked to indicate their perceivedeffect on student learning. Graduates indicated their level ofcompetence using the following Likert scale: (1) no effect, (2)minimal effect, (3) moderate effect, and (4) significant effect. Meanratings indicated that new teachers perceived themselves as havinga moderate to significant effect on student academic/scholasticachievement and on cognitive/intellectual development. As shownin Table 8, t-tests of significant differences indicated there were nodifferences for these two areas between graduates who had beenplaced with trained CF and those who had been placed with un-trained CTs for their student teaching experience.

Recent graduates were asked to indicate their career intentionsfor the next three to five years. In order to account for differences incareer goals (such as the possibility of pursuing an advanced degreeor seeking a different role in the education field), two prompts wereposed: (1) Do you intend to continue in your present position for thenext 3e5 years? and (2) Do you intend to seek a position in a differentfield in the next 3e5 years? Chi-square tests were conducted toindicate differences of the obtained frequencies from the expectedfrequencies of responses by CF/CT designation. Responses to each ofthe options did not differ by CF/CT designation. Specifically, thepercentage of graduates that intended to remain in the currentpositions did not differ by CF designation, c2(1, N ¼ 84) ¼ .537,

Table 5Overall midterm evaluation rating by student teachers, cooperating teachers, anduniversity supervisors.

Overall teaching effectiveness CF CTs t-Value df p (two-tailed)

Student teacher self-evaluations 2.10 2.12 �.364 304 .716Cooperating teachers 2.29 2.39 �1.492 301 .137University supervisors 2.10 2.07 .793 298 .428

*p < .05.

Table 6Overall final evaluation rating by student teachers, cooperating teachers, and uni-versity supervisors.

Overall teaching effectiveness CF CTs t-Value df p (two-tailed)

Student teacher self-evaluations 2.37 2.48 �1.688 278 .093Cooperating teachers 2.63 2.69 �1.051 281 .294University supervisors 2.69 2.64 .749 297 .454

*p < .05.

Mean Final Overall Ratings for Student Teachers by CF Designation

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Clinical Faculty (CF) Cooperating Teachers (CTs)

Mea

n O

vera

ll R

atin

g

CF/CTs

Student Teachers

University Supervisors

Fig. 4. Mean final overall ratings for student teachers by CF designation.

Table 7T-test of significant differences in level of competence in graduates, by CF and CTdesignation.

Student teaching domain CF CT t-Value df p (two-tailed)

Ability to plan, organize, and preparefor teaching

3.66 3.65 .117 82 .907

Teaching skills/Instructional delivery 3.53 3.52 .091 82 .928Assessment and evaluation for learning 3.17 3.42 �1.739 82 .086Classroom management 3.04 3.00 .192 82 .848Professional dispositions 3.58 3.61 �.304 81 .762

p < .05.

Table 8T-test of significant differences in perceived effect on student learning of graduates,by CF and CT designation.

Student learning CF CT t-value df p (two-tailed)

Academic/Scholastic achievement 3.69 3.65 .380 81 .705Cognitive skills/Intellectual development 3.60 3.48 .904 81 .369

*p > .05.



p ¼ .463. In addition, the percentage of graduates that intended toseek a position in a different field did not differ by CF designation,c2(1, N ¼ 84) ¼ .933, p ¼ .334. In summation, no statistically sig-nificant differences were found among any of the three long-termoutcomes indicators for program graduates.

4. Discussion

There is broad agreement across countries that clinical experi-ences are essential to the preparation and development of teachercandidates (Cobb, 1999), and previous research has indicated thattraining cooperating teachers for their roles in supervising teachercandidates can make a difference in their exhibition of effectivementoring behaviors (Boatright et al., 1986; Bryant & Currin, 1995;Clarke et al., 2012; Kent, 2001; Killian & McIntyre, 1987; Kosteret al., 1998). However, more recent scholarship has suggested thatthe structure of field experiences and, more specifically, the role ofcooperating teachers continue to be weak links in the professionalpreparation of new teachers (Clarke, 2001; Darling-Hammond,2006; Levin, 2002; Sykes et al., 2011; Zeichner, 2010). Our studysought to investigate outcomes of training CTs through a formal“clinical faculty program” that has operated at a teacher prepara-tion program in a public university in the United States for morethan a decade. We found both affirmations and contradictions toour theoretical framework, as well as some possible insights.

4.1. Evidence of more proficient performance by student teachersmentored by CF

Returning to the program logic model presented as Fig. 1, twokey sets of indicators for intended intermediate outcomes of theClinical Faculty Program are the midterm and final ratings of stu-dent teachers. Onemight assume that teacher candidatesmentoredby trained CF would be rated higher than teacher candidates placedwith untrained CTs. However, we found no statistically significantdifferences in teacher candidates’ performance based on the pres-ence or absence of a trained CF member. What’s more, furtheranalysis revealed a consistent pattern between the midterm andfinal evaluations suggesting that teacher candidates mentored bytrained CF tended to be rated lower than those placed with un-trained CTs. This finding echoes previous studies (Boatright et al.,1986; Bryant & Currin, 1995; Kent, 2001; Killian & McIntyre,1987; Koster et al., 1998), which concluded that training lessenedthe likelihood that evaluations of student teaching performanceswould be inflated.We reiterate that our discussion here is premisedon a pattern of data and not on statistical significance. However,given the current gaps in the research and “reform” (Rodgers & Keil,2007, p. 63) around clinical experiences, we believe the findingmerits consideration.

The CFP training course emphasizes the objective, ongoingassessment of teacher candidates’ performance as one of the fourfundamental roles of a cooperating teacher. Teachers in the trainingcomplete concept attainment activities to develop a depth of un-derstanding of the targeted student teacher competencies of theteacher preparation program, and they also engage in practice ob-servations and coaching conferences. Referencing the statisticallysignificant results of the self-efficacy of CF for effectively observingand summatively evaluating teacher candidates (see Table 4), theCFP training may result in CF having not only a clearer, moregrounded understanding of the expectations for student teachers’performance, but also stronger skills in gathering accurate infor-mation in order to determine teacher candidates’ strengths andweaknesses. If so, then the consistently lower ratings by trained CFcompared to untrained CTs on midterm and final evaluations mayindicate that CF provide more accurate evaluations of performance

and are not reflective of weaker performance by their studentteachers. Similarly, since student teachers with trained CF ratedthemselves lower than did their peers placed with untrained CTs, ifmay be that student teachers placed with CF have acquired a moreaccurate sense of their own performance.

Confirming evidence of this phenomenon was found in theanalysis of student teaching evaluations by university supervisors.In the teacher preparation program of interest, university super-visors are full-time or adjunct faculty whose role is to provide pe-riodic formal assessments of student teachers, act as officialsupervisors of the experience, and serve as the instructors-of-record of the student teaching experience. Because of their morelimited interaction with student teachers and given their centralfunction as evaluators, university supervisors tend to represent anobjective, third-party viewpoint in the student teaching triad. Inexamining the findings from university supervisor ratings, studentteachers placed with CF were rated higher by their university su-pervisors thanwere student teachers placed with untrained CTs. Asmeasured by the objective evaluations of third-party universitysupervisors, student teachers who are mentored by trained CFtended to exhibit stronger professional competencies than studentteachers placed with untrained CTs. Although the differences arenot statistically significant, the emergence of a pattern warrantsfurther study of this phenomenon.

4.2. The role of assessment and feedback in improving studentteacher performance

What might account for differences in the performances ofstudent teachers placed with trained CF as compared to thoseplaced with untrained CTs? Findings from the survey of experi-enced CF and CTs suggest an explanation. Trained CF indicatedsignificantly higher self-ratings on several constructs related toserving in the role of cooperating teacher, which notably includedunderstanding the roles of a cooperating teacher in the preparationof new teachers, effectively observing teacher candidates duringfield experiences, and summatively evaluating student teacherperformance. This set of knowledge and skills is grounded inliterature on mentoring in the teaching profession (e.g., Acheson &Gall, 2011; Portner, 2003; Rudney, 2003; VDOE, 2000). Moreover,this set of knowledge and skills constitutes a majority of the cur-riculum for the training in the Clinical Faculty Program. Indeed, theconceptual framework of the CFP is anchored in Portner’s (2003)mentoring model, which includes the central the roles of assess-ing and coaching as essential means of accurately determining astudent teacher’s performance and adeptly using the information/data from various assessment techniques to provide coachingfeedback to the student teacher.

Through the CFP training, CF are taught about, apply, and receivedevelopmental feedback in their use of six different techniques forgathering information about a student teacher’s professionalcompetence. These techniques include:

1. Intentional conversations2. Interactive journaling3. Observing in the classroom (“on-stage” teaching competencies)4. Observing outside of the classroom (“off-stage” professional

competencies)5. Reviewing teacher work samples6. Reviewing student work samples.

Furthermore, CF are trained to use at least four explicit class-room observation techniques, including wide lens, at-task, verbalflow, and selective verbatim (Acheson & Gall, 2011). Combined, thesevarious means of assessment are intended to equip CFwith a robust



skill set for accurately determining the relative strengths andweaknesses of their student teachers. Such supervision techniquesare associated with effective practices in teacher preparation(Borko & Mayfield, 1995; McIntyre & Byrd, 1998; Wilson, 2006).According to Darling-Hammond (2006):

Recent studies of learning to teach suggest that immersingteachers in the materials of practice and working on particularconcepts using these materials can be particularly powerful forteachers’ learning. Analyzing samples of student work, teachers’plans and assignments, videotapes of teachers and students inaction, and cases of teaching and learning can help teachersdraw connections between generalized principles and specificinstances of teaching and learning. (p. 307)

Effective supervision is dependent upon the accuracy of one’sjudgment about the quality of performance and the ability toconvey feedback constructively to the teacher candidate. CFtraining emphasizes the qualities and application of effectivefeedback, which has been characterized as being comprised ofhonesty, timeliness, specificity, accuracy, and constructiveness(Gareis & Grant, 2008). The provision of such feedback is consid-ered to be critically important to helping a pre-service teacherimprove performance (Acheson & Gall, 2011; Clarke et al., 2012;Connor & Killmer, 1995; Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002; Rodgers &Keil, 2007; Zeichner, 1992). However, as Clarke et al. (2012)caution, “There is also a tendency for the feedback to be narrow,particularistic, and technical. Further, it would appear that somecooperating teachers have difficulty in varying their feedback ac-cording to the stage of the student teacher’s development and thenature (oral or written) of the feedback” (p. 40). Therefore, it is notsimply the presence or prevalence of feedback that matters, but thenature of the feedback. To that point, it may be that the particulartraining of CF to employ feedback that is honest, timely, specific,accurate, and constructive is of particular significance.

Thus, three findings from the present study considered in tan-dem seem to reflect part of the chain of reasoning suggested by theprogram logic model (Fig. 1):

1. Experienced CF appear to have a stronger sense of self-efficacyfor key roles and skills associated with effectively serving ascooperating teachers.

2. CF and their student teachers might assess teacher candidateperformance in the field more accurately than do CTs and theirstudent teachers.

3. Greater accuracy in assessing student teacher performance mayresult in stronger actual performance of student teachers placedwith CF as compared to those placed with untrained CTs, asevidenced by comparably higher evaluations by universitysupervisors.

This reasoning suggests that training cooperating teachers forthe role through a program such as the Clinical Faculty Programmay, indeed, make a difference in performance outcomes for stu-dent teachers in the culminating field experience of their profes-sional preparation.

4.3. Consideration of long-term outcomes

As indicated on the program logic model (Fig. 1), the ultimateoutcome of empirically demonstrated impact on student learning(which was not investigated in the present study) is connected to aseries of “long-term outcomes” for new teachers (i.e., teacherswithin their first five years of teaching). This study investigatedthree of these intended outcomes for new teachers: (1) sense of

self-efficacy for teaching, (2) perceived impact on student learning,and (3) intent to remain in the profession. Per the program logicmodel, the positive relationship between placement with a CFmember and a student teacher’s performance would suggestsimilarly positive relationships with these three long-term out-comes for new teachers. However, our analysis suggests that thereis no relationship betweenmentorship by a trained CF member andlonger term outcomes for new teachers. Two possibilities mayexplain the lack of differences.

First, it may be that training experienced teachers to serve ascooperating teachers (that is, as “CF”) may have short-term effectson teacher candidate performance in clinical experiences but noresidual long-term effects in the early years of new teachers’ ser-vice. Michael Fullan (2001) described this phenomenon as animplementation dip, which is a decline in performance associatedwith initial efforts to put into practice new knowledge and skills.Perhaps the lack of significant differences in outcomes for newteachers being associated with the presence of a trained CF mem-ber during student teaching may be because the experience of thefirst years of teaching are so uniquely challenging that they cannotbe adequately prepared for, even with the mentorship of a trainedCF member. This assertion might be at the root of the high attritionrate that we see in teaching among early-career teachers (Ingersoll,2009). It might also be reflected in the debate that occurred in 2012when the U.S. Department of Education held rule-making pro-ceedings on the regulations governing teacher preparationaccountability reporting. During the proceedings, certain membersof the committee challenged the assumption that teacher prepa-ration programs can reasonably be held accountable for theirgraduates’ performance in the field because there are too manyvariables beyond the control of teacher preparation faculty(Sawchuck, 2012). If this is, in fact, true, then the internal veracity ofthe logic model for the Clinical Faculty Program (see Fig. 1) may bepremised on an erroneous assumption, namely between interme-diate and long-term outcomes.

The present study raises questions about the reasonableness ofassuming long-term intended outcomes of teacher preparation, butit does not resolve them. Notably, such questions are not new norare they limited to the United States alone. For example, in an in-ternational comparison of teacher preparation in eight countries(Australia, England, Hong Kong, Japan, Netherlands, Singapore,South Korea, United States), researchers described teacher prepa-ration as a pipeline comprised of relatively distinct phases of se-lection, preparation, and induction. The authors concluded that onecould not generalize across the countries in the study as to theseamlessness or discontinuity among these three phases. Thediffering policies and practices relevant to induction during the firstfew years of teaching seemed to suggest different assumptionsabout the adequacy of teacher preparation programs to preparenew teachers fully for all of the responsibilities and challenges ofthe profession. This conclusion was drawn against the backdrop ofcomparing selected countries that had ranked at the top of inter-national achievement measures against other countries that werecomparatively lower, and yet no correlations between teacherpreparation pipelines and achievement outcomes were found(Wang, Coleman, Coley, & Phelps, 2003).

A second possibility that might explain the lack of evidence oftraining cooperating teachers and long-term intended outcomesfor new teachers is actually related to one of the intended outcomesof the program, indicated in the logic model as “Growth of ClinicalFaculty network” (See Fig. 1.). As described previously, the ClinicalFaculty Program has operated for more than a decade, trainingmore than 350 area teachers, with a concentration of teachers in 25partnership schools, and a designated Lead Clinical Faculty mem-ber, who has the responsibility to serve as a support to all



cooperating teachers in the school (i.e., trained CF and untrainedCTs alike). The Lead Clinical Faculty member also coordinates allbuilding-based activities among cohorts of student teachers placedin the building. Additionally, and as described previously, recentyears have seen a majority of teacher candidates being placed withtrained CF, meaning that a much smaller percentage of untrainedCTs are being used for placements, and these tend to be CTs who areeffective in the role in their own right. The net effect may bedescribed as a “rising tide lifts all ships” phenomenon, wherein theuntrained CTs who continue to mentor student teachers tend to beindividuals who have served effectively in the role before and whomay be incidentally improving their mentoring abilities throughthe support and coordination that comes from teaching in “part-nership schools.” As previous research has suggested, the context ofa school in which a teacher candidate completes clinical experi-ences can have an effect on the quality of those supervised expe-riences (Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Cobb, 1999; Rodgers & Keil, 2007;Wang, 2001; Zeichner, 1992). This is to say that a tangential effectof the Clinical Faculty Program model may be the strengthening ofall placements, not only those with trained CF, which might explainthe lack of statistical significance in outcome measures.

5. Conclusions and implications for continuing inquiry

More than a decade ago, Clarke (2001) noted that cooperatingteachers play a major role in the preparation of new teachers, buthe also suggested that how cooperating teachers are prepared forthis work is an untapped research area. Our study suggests thattraining for the role through a process such as the Clinical FacultyProgram may be an effective basis for how to prepare classroomteachers tomentor pre-service teacher candidates. This model may,indeed, be strengthened by its further emphasis on developingnetworks of clinical faculty both within and between schools withwhom a university regularly partners, thus strengthening fieldexperiences for student teachers placedwith untrained CTs, as well.Other recent research has drawn similar conclusions about the ef-ficacy of training CTs for the role (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb,& Wyckoff, 2008; Clarke et al., 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2010;Giebelhaus & Bowman, 2002; Sykes et al., 2011; Zeichner, 2010).However, as suggested by the CFP logic model (Fig. 1), the com-ponents and connections among the components of the programare complex. Our study begins to grapple with the how of trainingCTs for their role.

The present study also prompts additional inquiries aboutpossible differences associated with trained CF as compared tountrained CTs. For instance, do student teachers perceive dif-ferences in the quality of their field experiences? In addition, thepresent study found an important pattern in the evaluations ofstudent teachers by university supervisors. Would similar pat-terns be seen in evaluations of student teachers by the principalsof hosting schools? Would similar patterns be evident on adifferent measure of teacher candidate performance, such as acomprehensive teacher portfolio evaluated by core faculty in theteacher preparation program? Finally, if ultimate intended out-comes for new teachers in their first several years of teaching areinvestigated, are there evident differences between those whohad been mentored by trained CF and those supervised by un-trained CTs? More specifically, would student teaching place-ment with a CF be positively correlated with new teachers’impact on their own students’ learning as measured bycurriculum-based assessments, such as teacher-made tests andstandardized assessments, as opposed to having been measuredby self-reported perceptions of effect? This question is, arguably,the gold standard by which a professional preparation programmight be judged, but, of course, is rife with problems of

feasibility of data collection and validity of methodology(Darling-Hammond, 2012). As suggested previously, these con-cerns may call into question the inherent illogic of the chain ofreasoning related to impact on student learning upon which twoof the three research questions of the present study were based.Are there countervailing variables between the long-term andultimate intended program outcomes that should be considered?If so, are such variables feasibly addressed through teacherpreparation or are they within the purview of K-12 schools? Suchquestions suggest that research on the effectiveness of teacherpreparation programs would benefit from clearer delimitationsthat define the practical boundaries of intended outcomes.

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1998). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Acheson, K. A., & Gall, M. D. (2011). Techniques in the clinical supervision of teachers:Preservice and inservice application (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Andrews, L. O. (1950). Experimental programs of laboratory experiences in teachereducation. Journal of Teacher Education, 1(4), 259e267.

Boatright, B., Phelps, L., & Schmitz, C. D. (1986). The effects of halo and leniency oncooperating teacher reports using Likert-type rating scales. Journal of Educa-tional Research, 79(3), 151e154.

Borko, H., & Mayfield, V. (1995). The roles of the cooperating teacher and uni-versity supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(5),501e518.

Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Teacher prepa-ration and student achievement (Working Paper No. 20). Washington, DC: Centerfor Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

Bryant, M., & Currin, D. (1995). Views of teacher evaluation from novice and expertevaluators. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10, 250e261.

Clarke, A. (2001). Characteristics of co-operating teachers. Canadian Journal of Ed-ucation, 26(2), 237e256.

Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. S. (2012). Cooperating teachers: A review ofliterature from 1948-2011. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC.

Cobb, V. L. (1999). An international comparison of teacher education. ERIC Digest.Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/62414398?accountid¼15053.

Code of Virginia (x 22.1-290.1. Clinical faculty). Retrieved October 12, 2011, fromhttp://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000þcohþ22.1-290.1þ701721.

Connor, K., & Killmer, N. (1995, October). Evaluation of cooperating teacher effec-tiveness. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, IL.

Cuenca, A., Scmeichel, M., Butler, B. M., Dinkelman, T., & Nichols, J. R. (2011).Creating a “third space” in student teaching: Implications for the universitysupervisor’s status as outsider. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1068e1077.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing:debating the evidence. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 28e56.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journalof Teacher Education, 57(3), 300e314.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal ofTeacher Education, 61(1e2), 35e47.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Value-added teacher evaluation: the harm behind thehype. Education Week, 31(24), 24, 32.

Fitzgerald, K. (2001). A rediscovered tradition: European pedagogy and compositionin nineteenth-century Midwestern normal schools. College Composition andCommunication, 53(2), 224e250.

Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Education research: An introduction. InPearson Education (8). Boston.

Gareis, C. R. (2010). The William & Mary clinical faculty program: 2009e2010 Projectreport. Submitted to the Virginia Department of Education. VA: Richmond.

Gareis, C. R., & Grant, L. W. (2008). Teacher-made assessments: How to Connectcurriculum, instruction, and student learning. Larchmont: NY. Eye on Education.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ganser, T. (2002). How teachers compare the roles for cooperating teacher and

mentor [Electronic Version] The Educational Forum, 66(4), 380e386.Giebelhaus, C. R., & Bowman, C. L. (2002). Teaching mentors: Is it worth the effort?

The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4), 246e254.Ibrahim, A. S. (2007). Approaches to supervision of student teachers in one UAE

teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 38e45.Ingersoll, R. M. (2009). Teacher preparation, staffing, and retention. Presented at the

annual meeting of the Virginia Association of Colleges of Teacher Education antthe Association of Teacher Educators-Virginia at Sweet Briar, VA.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (2011). InTASC modelcore teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Council ofChief State School Officers.



Kent, S. I. (2001). Supervision of student teachers: practices of cooperating teachersprepared in a clinical supervision course. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,16(3), 228e244.

Killian, J., & McIntyre, D. J. (1987). The influence of supervisory training for coop-erating teachers on preservice teachers’ development during early field expe-riences. Journal of Educational Research, 80(5), 277e282.

Koster, B., Korthagen, F. A. J., & Wubbels, T. (1998). Is there anything left for us?Functions of cooperating teachers and teacher educators. European Journal ofTeacher Education, 21(1), 75e87.

Lampert, M. (2010). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: what do we mean?Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1e2), 21e34.

Levine, M. (2002). Why invest in professional development schools? EducationalLeadership, 6, 65e68.

Liu, C. (2009). Prometheus of the revolution: rural teachers in republican China.Modern China, 35(6), 567e603.

Martin, S. D., Snow, J. L., & Franklin Torrez, C. A. (2011). Navigating the terrain ofthird space: tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships.Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 299e311.

McIntyre, D. J., & Byrd, D. M. (1998). Supervision in teacher education. In G. R. Firth,& E. F. Pajak (Eds.), Handbook of research on school supervision (pp. 409e427).New York: Macmillan.

Mitchell, J., Clarke, A., & Nuttall, J. (2007). Cooperating teachers’ perspectives underscrutiny: a comparative analysis of Australia and Canada. Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher Education, 35(1), 5e25.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Standards forprofessional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transformingteacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effectiveteachers. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Student teaching in the United States.Washington, DC: Author.

Plato. (1997). In J. M. Cooper, & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Complete works. Cambridge,UK: Hackett Publishing.

Portner, H. (2003). Mentoring new teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Rodgers, A., & Keil, V. (2007). Restructuring a traditional student teacher supervi-

sion model: fostering enhanced professional development and mentoringwithin a professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Edu-cation, 23(1), 63e88.

Rudney, G. L. (2003). Maximum mentoring: An action guide for teacher trainers andcooperating teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sanders, M., & Sinclair, C. (2005). What do associate teachers do anyway? A com-parison of theoretical conceptualizations in the literature and observed prac-tices in the field. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 706e738.

Sawchuck, S. (2012). Thorny issues hamper teacher-training rules. Education Week,31(23), 1, 26e27.

Sinclair, C., Dowson, M., & Thistleton-Martin, J. (2006). Motivations and profiles ofcooperating teachers: who volunteers and why? Teaching and Teacher Educa-tion, 22, 263e279.

Slick, S. K. (1998). The university supervisor: a disenfranchised outsider. Teachingand Teacher Education, 14(8), 821e824.

Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2011). Teacher education: its problems and someprospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464e476.

Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1984). Promoting the developmental growth of supervisingteachers: theory, research programs, and implications. Journal of Teacher Edu-cation, 35(3), 53e60.

Trubowitz, S. (2004). The why, how, and what of mentoring. Phi Delta Kappa, 86(1),59e62.

Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex in-teractions in student teaching: lost opportunities for learning. Journal of TeacherEducation, 60(3), 304e322.

Virginia Department of Education, Department of Teacher Education and Licensure.(2000). Guidelines for mentor teacher programs for beginning and experiencedteachers. Richmond, VA: Author.

Waley, A. (1938). The analects of Confucius. New York: Vintage Books.Wang, J. (2001). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: a

comparative study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,51e73.

Wang, A. H., Coleman, A. B., Coley, R. J., & Phelps, R. P. (2003). Preparing teachersaround the world. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wilson, E. K. (2006). The impact of an alternative model of student teachersupervision: views of the participants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,22e31.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Spokane, WA: Center for theStudy of Teaching and Policy.

Zeichner, K. M. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional developmentschool partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 296e307.

Zeichner, K. (2010). University-based teacher education: rethinking the connectionsbetween campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-basedteacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1e2), 89e99.


The efficacy of training cooperating teachers

Documents