Reflections
Student teachers and the university consultants that supervised them engaged in a research project during Professional Semester I at the University of Lethbridge. These individuals expressed their pedagogical beliefs and practicum experiences, providing a varied source of perspectives that were used to construct this grand narrative. What follows is a reflection on the most significant themes evident in the research and a discussion of how these themes were exemplified in the grand narrative.
The University Consultant’s Role
University consultants have diverse dispositions and pedagogies, and they often tailor their supervision techniques to the needs of the student teachers. As a result, student teachers have had varied experiences with their university consultants. Some UCs were encouraging cheerleaders, while others were critical and “nitpicky.” Some showed an interest in the emotional well-being of student teachers, while others treated the supervision as a sterile duty. Some made themselves accessible for frequent contact, while others were only available during their school visits. Some acted as an advocate in navigating conflicts with the schools while others were seen as an adversarial figure.
The composite characters of Mariko, Georgia, and Irene were created based on these varied perceptions of the university consultant’s role. Mariko is a “guru,” always available, emotionally invested in the success of her students, and she plays an advocate role (see “Coach in the Corner” and “The Walls Have Ears”). In contrast, Irene is a “gatekeeper,” with a busy schedule, questionable professional decisions, and she goes through the process of failing one of her student teachers (see “Out in the Open” and “In My Defense”). Georgia represents a middle ground: Initially perceived as a “gatekeeper” with her high expectations, she transitions to a “guru” based on the progress of her student teachers, going so far as to host a dinner to provide a learning experience for them (see “A Flaw in the Plan,” “From Boredom to Bannock,” and “Attempts Toward Reconciliation”). These characterizations aren’t rigid. After all, Mariko is strict in “The Walls Have Ears” and Irene engages in a small mentor moment in “Attempts Toward Reconciliation”). But the three supervisors were intended to represent different experiences with university consultants, reflective of the research (as discussed in “The Grass is Greener”).
An element of the university consultant’s role that wasn’t discuss overtly in the grand narrative is a busy schedule. Many interviewees discussed the time constraints and stress of supervising practicum students, especially when they are also teaching university classes, the student teachers are very far away, or a student teacher is struggling to meet expectations. While this element isn’t explicitly addressed in the grand narrative, there are indicators. Evidence is shown in Irene’s busy schedule, stress-level, and unprofessional outbursts (see “Out in the Open” and “In My Defense”) and Georgia’s list of her qualifications (see “A Flaw in the Plan”). We also see the time commitment involved in Mariko’s willingness to meet with student teachers during the weekend and Georgia’s decision to host a dinner for them (see “Coach in the Corner” and “Attempts Toward Reconciliation”). In the research, even student teachers acknowledged the busyness of their university consultants, even if they didn’t know what other responsibilities they had.
Giving & Receiving Feedback
The topic of feedback is another area that showed significant variation in the research. Some student teachers received feedback with little outward difficulty, while others grew defensive. Some students recognized this defensiveness in themselves, while others pointed the blame at the supervisor. Some university consultants gave straight feedback while others gave consideration to how they delivered their feedback (such as starting with positives first, allowing the student teacher to reflect first, or encouraging the student teacher in a growth mindset).
This variation in feedback experiences has been represented through the composite student teacher characters. Elle perceives no feedback to be bad feedback and requests that her supervisor be more forthcoming (see “Coach in the Corner”). Carlos is a “tough egg to crack,” initially resenting his supervisor’s feedback as nitpicky and unimportant, but as Georgia changes her approach in providing feedback, he becomes more receptive (see “A Flaw in the Plan”). Sandeep is resistant to feedback from Irene but easily receives the same feedback from her teacher associate, and she recognizes her defensiveness with Irene as her own problem (see “Out in the Open”). Quaid believes that he is open to feedback but is repetitively identified as defensive by others, leading to his failure of the practicum (see “In My Defense”). Katelyn is initially startled by some blunt feedback from Georgia, but she internalizes the feedback and continues to seek growth in that area throughout her practicum (see “From Boredom to Bannock”). Desiree reacts to a reprimand by shutting down and avoiding the people associated with the feedback (see “Attempts Toward Reconciliation”). These varied experiences are intended to represent the diversity found in the research.
Quaid experiences the most feedback-related conflict (in “In My Defense”), based almost entirely on the interview responses of a single individual. Irene has been characterized as someone that is difficult to receive feedback from (see “Out in the Open”) and demonstrates questionable professionalism on occasion (in “In My Defense”). This makes Quaid’s character harder to interpret objectively because many of Quaid’s complaints about the feedback he receives could be justified. Readers can realistically sympathize with Quaid as he explains his situation and agree that he’s experienced some injustice. However, this reading is paired with the recognition that Quaid needs to explain himself and is unable to receive feedback without extensively defending himself. This is the nature of defensiveness and demonstrates that he is unreceptive to feedback, despite his belief that he is. Other student teachers, namely Sandeep and Desiree, also admit to difficulty receiving feedback from Irene, but their response is to receive the feedback quietly, rather than engage in a defense (see “Out in the Open” and “In My Defense.”) This contrast allows for a more nuanced representation of receiving feedback.
Practicum Failure/Withdrawal
Practicum failure/withdrawal was framed in both positive and negative ways in the research, and that has been captured in the grand narrative as well.
In “The Grass is Greener,” Desiree refers to a student teacher from a previous year who chose to withdraw after discussions with a mentor-like supervisor. This is a “positive” fail, where the student teacher ultimately recognized their unsuitability for the teaching profession and decided to pursue a different career. The university consultant acted as a mentor, guiding the student teacher in an assessment of their capabilities and desires, and there was no antagonism perceived.
Contrastingly, in “In My Defense,” Quaid is surprised when his university consultant begins the steps of failing him from the practicum and is resistant to them, trying to appeal the decision with the Dean of Education. This is a “negative” fail, where there is conflict and the end decision is against the student teacher’s wishes. In this instance, the university consultant is perceived to be a “gatekeeper,” controlling who becomes a teacher and who doesn’t. Several university consultants in the research indicated this as an important part of their role, “guarding” the teaching profession to ensure that student teachers who pass their practicums are truly suited to the career.
Professional Code of Conduct
The research interviews in this study provided an appropriate medium for discussing other teachers in a way that didn’t breach the Professional Code of Conduct. However, as these experiences were restoried into a grand narrative where characters disclosed information to each other about their experiences, occasions arose where these disclosures threatened to violate the Code of Conduct. These occasions were left unaddressed (for the most part) until “The Walls Have Ears,” where the issue of the Code of Conduct is addressed explicitly using a situation from the research.
In “Coach in the Corner,” Elle is caution by her UC not to overtly criticize her teacher associate, even during a conversation to find a solution. In “The Grass is Greener,” Elle, Desiree, and Carlos discuss their university consultants openly (although only Desiree uses a name), and there is reference to Elle and Desiree having discussed their supervisors even more explicitly before this conversation. In “Out in the Open,” Desiree shares information with another student teacher about Quaid’s experience being supervised. In “In My Defense,” the carpool setup with Desiree and Quaid allows them to frequently discuss their university consultant, Irene. Eventually, the violation of the Code of Conduct is identified when the details of Quaid’s practicum (having been passed from Quaid to Desiree to Elle) are revealed publicly in a staffroom (see “The Walls Have Ears” and “Attempts Toward Reconciliation”).
Breaches in the Professional Code of Conduct certainly occur more than they are reported, whether in staffrooms, carpools, or seemingly harmless talks between friends. While instances like Elle calling a teacher an “incompetent old hag” in a school staffroom are obvious enough to identify, other instances may go ignored. Was it inappropriate for Elle, Desiree, and Carlos to discuss their relationships with their university consultants? When does “talking about your day” during a carpool ride cross the line? These “grey areas” have been left unaddressed for the reader to consider themselves. While this theme of the Professional Code of Conduct had limited reference in the research, it became a more significant theme across the grand narrative due to the nature of restorying.
Lesson Planning
The importance of good lesson planning was featured in several interview responses, with particular emphasis on scaffolding, chunking, and multiple modes of representation.
In “A Flaw in the Plan,” Georgia guides Carlos through creating a lesson plan using a back-to-the-basics approach. He perceives lesson planning as a meaningless task that teachers are required to complete, separate from the actual act of teaching—a perception that isn’t uncommon, given the number of research references to lesson planning being a chore. Without calling it a lesson plan, Georgia coaches Carlos through identifying the structure of the concept he is teaching and organizing it in a way to facilitate learning. Dividing fractions, taught in Math 8, is used as a medium to model the importance of chunking and scaffolding in context, as a strictly-theoretical discussion wasn’t as meaningful.
In “From Boredom to Bannock,” Katelyn is told that her lesson was boring, and she spends the remainder of the practicum finding creative ways to make her lessons more engaging. While the structure of her lesson plans is acceptable, the contents are limited to reading from the textbook and going through questions with the class. This situation in the research didn’t have context or a solution, so it was paired with the theme of finding FNMI resources, which had a wealth of references to student teachers starting out confused and then gaining traction. When a student teacher doesn’t feel knowledgeable about content, it is harder to construct creative and engaging lessons. This can be responded to both by learning more about the content and finding creative resources prepared by other teachers.
FNMI Resources
Integrating First Nations, Metis and Inuit perspectives and accessing relevant resources was a targeted focus in the research, given the new Teaching Quality Standard. Student teachers reported a spectrum of experiences. Some felt prepared by their university classes, while others felt they’d barely scratched the surface. Some were placed in schools with their own FNMI initiatives underway, while others felt that incorporating FNMI perspectives would be out of place. Some reported knowledgeable teacher associates, principles, liaisons or elders, while other felt alone in the task.
“Attempts Toward Reconciliation” was intended to provide a collection of these experiences with as little restorying as possible. The student teachers and university consultants throughout the narrative join together in a dinner to discuss the incorporation of FNMI perspectives using direct references to research. The Curriculum Lab at the University of Lethbridge was referenced as a valuable source of FNMI teaching tools (also indicated in “The Grass is Greener” and “From Boredom to Bannock”), as well as the Blanket Exercise workshop at the university. Individuals also referenced a database of FNMI resources they contributed to during their teaching seminars; however, only a limited number of interviewees experienced this. Individuals such as school librarians, principles, teacher associates or university consultants with FNMI background, FNMI liaisons, and elders were also referenced as valuable sources of information. School-wide initiatives (such as constructing moccasins, hosting guest speakers, or developing a school play) were also reported, with varying degrees of impact.
The largest commonalities in the research were that: (1) individuals who felt unknowledgeable or uncomfortable about FNMI perspectives were reluctant to integrate them into their teaching, and (2) individuals who did integrate FNMI perspectives took it upon themselves to engage in the research required to do it successfully. Collaboration and sharing resources was acknowledged in the research but has been emphasized in the restoried narrative as a means of having many experiences shared all at once.
Closing Remarks
While many themes were unearthed in the research and have strongly influenced the development of this grand narrative, one theme was threaded through the rest. These teachers (whether student teachers, university consultants, or teacher associates) had a resounding desire to foster the learning and growth of student teachers during practicum.
As Mariko said in “Out in the Open,” which Dale UC I said in his interview, “It’s not putting a student teacher in there to just have experience. It’s putting a student teacher in there to grow, to mature and to develop as a teacher.”
Thankfully, student teachers aren’t put into their practicums alone, but with a team of experienced teachers to coach and guide them. After all, we don’t learn alone.