Triad Relationships and Member Satisfaction with Paired Placement of Student Teachers
Carol Wilkinson, Todd Pennington, Erin Feinauer Whiting, Melissa Newberry, Erika Feinauer, Janet L. Losser, Liz Haslem, Amber Hall
Abstract
Open-access reader
Carol Wilkinson, Todd Pennington, Erin Feinauer Whiting, Melissa Newberry, Erika Feinauer, Janet L. Losser, Liz Haslem, Amber Hall
Abstract
Open-access reader
This study determined triad (a mentor teacher and two student teachers) members’ level of satisfaction (LOS) with paired-placement student teaching, focusing on mutuality and homophily to explore how triad relationships were linked to LOS. The constant comparative method was used to code interview transcripts and field notes. Results showed that of the six satisfied triads, five had mutuality, homophily, strong triad cohesion, and collaborative student teachers. Partially satisfied (four) and dissatisfied (two) triads experienced lack of mutuality and homophily, weak triad cohesion, and uncollaborative student teachers. Recommendations include providing formal training about triad relationships, considering mutuality and homophily when making placements, and placing weaker students in a solo experience.
OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This study determined triad (a mentor teacher and two student teachers) members’ level of satisfaction (LOS) with paired-placement student teaching, focusing on mutuality and homophily to explore how triad relationships were linked to LOS. The constant comparative method was used to code interview transcripts and field notes. Results showed that of the six satisfied triads, five had mutuality, homophily, strong triad cohesion, and collaborative student teachers. Partially satisfied (four) and dissatisfied (two) triads experienced lack of mutuality and homophily, weak triad cohesion, and uncollaborative student teachers. Recommendations include providing formal training about triad relationships, considering mutuality and homophily when making placements, and placing weaker students in a solo experience.
Key concepts: Homophily, Triad (sociology), Psychology, Cohesion (chemistry), Social psychology, Mathematics education, Pedagogy, Psychoanalysis