The Changing Roles of Student Teacher Supervisors
Sarah F. Sienty
Abstract
Sarah F. Sienty
Abstract
In 1992 East Texas State University (now Texas A&M University- Commerce) made a commitment to change its campus-based student teaching program to a field-based program. The Center for Professional Development and Technology (CPDT) replaced the Center for Educational Field Experiences (CEFE), and life as it was known by teacher education faculty suddenly became different. The simple changes were in nomenclature. Public school classroom teacher supervisors became mentors, university supervisors became liaisons, and student teachers became interns and residents. The most difficult change, however, was in the process of how teacher preparation decisions were made. In campus-based programs, decisions were made by the university and state regulating agencies. Public school approval was sought, but the university, or more specifically the College of Education and the CEFE, controlled the governance decisions. With the change to a field-based program, decisions about program design, content, and governance are collaboratively made among all parties. The most basic decisions about pre-service teacher courses and course content are made by an Advisory Board consisting of public school teachers and administrators, university faculty and administrators, recent graduates of the program and business representatives. This Advisory Board is the governing body for the program. Daily decisions are made by an Instruction Leadership Team (ILT) which includes mentors, liaisons, and interns or residents. The ILT is empowered to make the decisions about day-to-day activities and responsibilities of the intern or resident. While it is difficult to generalize about daily teacher education faculty responsibilities under field-based concepts, trends have begun to emerge. Role of Teacher Education Faculty in Campus-Based Program At Texas A&M-Commerce, undergraduate teacher education faculty have had varied roles. Initially, teacher education faculty not only taught methods classes but also supervised the student teaching experience. Although some faculty also worked with graduate students, their assignment was to work in the preparation of undergraduate teacher education students. As the institution experienced growth in both undergraduate and graduate program enrollment, and with no serious funding increases, teacher education faculty duties changed. In recent years it has not been uncommon for faculty to teach methods courses but not be involved in the field experience supervision. Instead, faculty taught methods classes that met two or three times a week which allowed time for involvement in other campus activities such as committees and faculty governance. Teacher education faculty also became involved in service activities for school districts, and were members and leaders in professional organizations. Frequently faculty also taught one or more evening graduate classes and these teaching duties, at both levels, often became a priority. The graduate program involvement required faculty to conduct research, write for publication, and attend and present at professional meetings. Time and energy requirements were centered on advising graduate students, and serving on masters and doctoral committees. Their class load and limited time in the public schools allowed faculty who share graduate faculty duties to meet these expectations, but limited their contact with student teachers and public school personnel. Role of University Supervisors in Campus-Based Program Faculty who supervised student teachers usually were given one section of 6 to 8 student teachers. Each student was visited four times during the 10 week student teaching period University supervisors had virtually no involvement with the placement of student teachers, training of public school supervisors or planning meetings or seminars for student teachers, as these activities were conducted by the CEFE Director. University supervisors attended CEFE-sponsored seminars at the middle and end of each semester at which they met with their student teachers, but the supervisors were not responsible for planning or coordinating the sessions. …
OpenAlex reports 3 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.
In 1992 East Texas State University (now Texas A&M University- Commerce) made a commitment to change its campus-based student teaching program to a field-based program. The Center for Professional Development and Technology (CPDT) replaced the Center for Educational Field Experiences (CEFE), and life as it was known by teacher education faculty suddenly became different. The simple changes were in nomenclature. Public school classroom teacher supervisors became mentors, university supervisors became liaisons, and student teachers became interns and residents. The most difficult change, however, was in the process of how teacher preparation decisions were made. In campus-based programs, decisions were made by the university and state regulating agencies. Public school approval was sought, but the university, or more specifically the College of Education and the CEFE, controlled the governance decisions. With the change to a field-based program, decisions about program design, content, and governance are collaboratively made among all parties. The most basic decisions about pre-service teacher courses and course content are made by an Advisory Board consisting of public school teachers and administrators, university faculty and administrators, recent graduates of the program and business representatives. This Advisory Board is the governing body for the program. Daily decisions are made by an Instruction Leadership Team (ILT) which includes mentors, liaisons, and interns or residents. The ILT is empowered to make the decisions about day-to-day activities and responsibilities of the intern or resident. While it is difficult to generalize about daily teacher education faculty responsibilities under field-based concepts, trends have begun to emerge. Role of Teacher Education Faculty in Campus-Based Program At Texas A&M-Commerce, undergraduate teacher education faculty have had varied roles. Initially, teacher education faculty not only taught methods classes but also supervised the student teaching experience. Although some faculty also worked with graduate students, their assignment was to work in the preparation of undergraduate teacher education students. As the institution experienced growth in both undergraduate and graduate program enrollment, and with no serious funding increases, teacher education faculty duties changed. In recent years it has not been uncommon for faculty to teach methods courses but not be involved in the field experience supervision. Instead, faculty taught methods classes that met two or three times a week which allowed time for involvement in other campus activities such as committees and faculty governance. Teacher education faculty also became involved in service activities for school districts, and were members and leaders in professional organizations. Frequently faculty also taught one or more evening graduate classes and these teaching duties, at both levels, often became a priority. The graduate program involvement required faculty to conduct research, write for publication, and attend and present at professional meetings. Time and energy requirements were centered on advising graduate students, and serving on masters and doctoral committees. Their class load and limited time in the public schools allowed faculty who share graduate faculty duties to meet these expectations, but limited their contact with student teachers and public school personnel. Role of University Supervisors in Campus-Based Program Faculty who supervised student teachers usually were given one section of 6 to 8 student teachers. Each student was visited four times during the 10 week student teaching period University supervisors had virtually no involvement with the placement of student teachers, training of public school supervisors or planning meetings or seminars for student teachers, as these activities were conducted by the CEFE Director. University supervisors attended CEFE-sponsored seminars at the middle and end of each semester at which they met with their student teachers, but the supervisors were not responsible for planning or coordinating the sessions. …
Key concepts: Corporate governance, Public university, Medical education, Pedagogy, Professional development, Public relations, Psychology, Political science