The Arachnet Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture __________________________________________________________________ ISSN 1068-5723 November 30, 1993 Volume 1 Issue 7 BLANTON V1N7 THE APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGIES TO STUDENT TEACHING William E. Blanton BlantonWE@Conrad.Appstate.Edu Max S. Thompson ThomsonMS@Conrad.Appstate.Edu Sara O. Zimmerman ZimmermnSJ@Conrad.Appstate.Edu College of Education Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 Abstract This article describes a study conducted at Appalachian State University where a virtual community of student teachers and university supervising professors was created in order to facilitate the student teaching experience. Historical-cultural activity theory was used as the foundation for the construction of meaning by these participants. The impact of this virtual experience on strategies, interactions with cooperating teachers, morale, and reflection is discussed. Research On Student Teaching It is commonplace to find requirements for various kinds of clinical teaching experiences in teacher preparation programs. Students complete between 30 and 150 hours of early clinical experiences before being admitted to teacher preparation and engage in 50 to 100 hours of early clinical teaching experiences accompanying foundations and methods courses before entering student teaching (Pucket, 1985; Webb, Gehrke, Ishler, & Mendoza, 1981). The time devoted to student teaching ranges from 7 to 19 weeks (Yates & Johnson, 1982; Simbol & Summers, 1984). Problems With Student Teaching The traditional model of student teaching continues to dominate clinical teaching experiences (Zeichner, 1992). Most often, placement of student teachers is based on convenience rather than best learning context (Goodlad, 1990; Zimpher, 1990). The prevailing practice is for student teachers to focus their attention on applying what was learned in university courses and on making their teaching behavior match that of cooperating teachers. Many professionals argue that this orientation undermines student teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985; Zeichner, 1990). The literature offers little indication that student teaching experiences facilitate induction into the real world of teaching. According to Peck & Tucker (1983), by the end of student teaching, there is an almost universal decrease in attitude toward student teaching, as compared to the starting position of trainees. The RITE study (Griffin, Barnes, Hughes, O'Neal, Defino, Edwards & Hukill, 1983), a large-scale study of student teaching, revealed that there is probably very little variability in how student teachers identify and solve instructional problems, regardless of context. More important, this research questions whether cooperating teachers and university supervisors possess the shared knowledge and time necessary to assist student teachers in understanding professional practice and making the transition from student teacher to teacher. There are a number of factors contributing to the problems related to the clinical preparation of teachers. Among the more significant variables are context, communication, and reflection. Context One significant variable appears to be context. Research indicates that the influence of context is often negative (Boothroyd, 1979; Grimmett & Ratzlaff, 1986; Seperson & Joyce, 1973; Zevin, 1974). As an illustration, Richardson-Koehler (1988) reported that student teachers reject the content of their university courses after as little as two weeks in the clinical setting. In isolated classrooms and/or in isolated schools, trainees are usually confronted with conservative practices, structured and prepackaged curriculum, and deskilled teachers who are often more mechanical than reflective (Goodman, 1983; 1985). The result is that many prospective teachers learn to view teaching as a management activity and to fit into traditional practice rather than becoming reflective, thinking teachers (Hooper & Johnson, 1973; Iannacone, 1963; Salzillo & Van Fleet, 1977; Tabachnick, 1980). Communication Poor communication among members of the student teaching triad (university supervisor, cooperating teacher and clinical intern) is also a serious problem, often resulting in a lack of understanding of each other's problems. Cooperating teachers often think there is one set of goals, while student teachers and university supervisors have another agenda (Campbell & Williamson, 1983; Martin & Wood, 1984; Tittle, 1974). Members of the triad also tend to blame each other for problems (Tittle, 1974). In short, from the beginning to the end of student teaching, members of the triad become more negative toward each other (Yee, 1967) and dissatisfaction with the role of the university supervisor becomes more prevalent (Funk, Hoffman, Keithley & Long, 1982; Griffin et al., 1983). Reflection Student teachers also seem to lack opportunities to engage in reflective activities during clinical teaching (Feiman-Nemser, & Buchmann, 1985; Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles & McLaughlin, 1990). It is argued that the process of student teaching may prohibit reflection and the construction of the organized knowledge necessary for successful classroom teaching. For example, research reveals that most conferences between interns and supervisors focus on factual descriptions of events, management, and procedural issues (Barbour, 1970; Housego & Bolt, 1985; Zeichner, Liston, Mahlios, & Gomez, 1988; Tabachnick, Popkewitz, & Zeichner, 1979). Surprisingly, Zeichner and Liston (1985) have reported that less than one percent of supervisory discourse is devoted to the critical analysis of teaching. Their findings also reveal a paucity of discussions focusing on conditional knowledge related to instructional decision making. Similarly, in conferences with the cooperating teacher, the teacher talks over 70 percent of the time (O'Neal & Edwards, 1983; Richardson- Koehler, 1988). As with university supervisors, very little time spent with the cooperating teacher is devoted to the critical analysis of teaching. Similarly, group seminars for student teachers tend to focus on concrete events (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1982) or mastery of procedures and management (Lanier & Little, 1986). Since group seminars appear to be narrow in focus and targeted on immediate needs, critical thought and reflection are seldom observed (Liggett, Fulwiler, Clark, & Hood, 1988). As can be seen, student teaching is often performed in highly routinized and controlled settings. Cooperating teachers focus on predetermined patterns to maintain the flow of activity and manage the behavior of pupils. The university supervisor and cooperating teacher seem to view reflection as the application of procedures and practices drawn from effective teaching literature rather than on analytic, critical thinking processes. Moreover, an analysis of the discourse surrounding student teaching reveals that trainees are prohibited from performing penetrating analyses of the complexities of classrooms and teaching. The result is that student teaching becomes a technical rather than a reflective activity. Thus prospective teachers learn how to do teaching rather than how to become professional decision makers. According to Dewey (1904), student teachers who focus on routinely replicating the methods of their cooperating teachers might appear to have an early advantage as they begin their teaching practice. However, in his opinion student teachers who are taught to think and reflect about their practice will be better teachers in the long run. Dewey (1933) also makes a distinction between routine teaching and reflective teaching. On the one hand, routine teaching is guided by tradition and authority within the culture of schooling. On the other, reflective teaching is the active, persistent, careful deliberation on beliefs and knowledge in relation to the grounds that support them and the careful consideration of the consequences of actions taken. Traditional supervision of student teaching is unlikely to generate the kind of discourse necessary for reflection (Cochran-Smith, 1991). Student teachers are usually placed in unconnected schools at great distances from universities. The culture and architecture of schools further isolate student teachers from each other (Feiman- Nemser & Floden, 1986). Moreover, the lack of contact among student teachers and among university supervisors, cooperating teachers, and student teachers is an obstacle prohibiting the generation of discourse necessary for reflection and the social construction of meaning (Su, 1990). In summary, research on the effects of student teaching experiences reveal a number of problems. First, university supervisors, cooperating teachers, and interns have difficulty communicating and understanding the expectations of clinical experiences. Second, the supervisory process does not seem to facilitate interns' application of formal concepts to the real world of teaching or the construction of meaning from the everyday practice of teaching. Third, student teachers seem to reject formal knowledge acquired in university courses early in their clinical teaching experience. This problem may be linked to the inconsistency between university courses and classroom practice and/or the lack of communication with others as student teachers try to interpret and reflect on classroom events and solve teaching problems. Next, university faculty and cooperating teachers do not appear to share a common body of knowledge and language. Last, the structure of student teaching activity seems to prohibit the social construction of knowledge and reflection. What seems to be sorely needed, then, are new theoretical perspectives through which to view student teaching, new tools to facilitate communication and link university classrooms to clinical teaching settings, and new tools to help constitute social arrangements enabling prospective teachers to engage in the public, joint construction of knowledge and reflective processes. The purpose of this paper is to describe the application of cultural-historical activity theory, telecommunications, and other tools to the clinical preparation of teachers. Application Of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, Telecommunications, And Other Tools To The Clinical Preparation Of Teachers Cultural-historical Activity Theory We selected cultural-historical activity theory as a lens through which to view problems confronting the clinical preparation of teachers and to create solutions to many of the problems confronting the clinical preparation of teachers. Cultural-historical activity theory is associated with the ideas of the Soviet school of psychology. Important figures of this school include L. S. Vygotsky (1962; 1978), A. R. Luria (1978), and A. N. Leontiev (1978). In America, the work of Cole and his colleagues (Cole, Gay, Glick & Sharp, 1971; Newman, Griffin & Cole, 1989; Scribner & Cole, 1981), Moll (1990), Wertsch (1985; 1991), Tharp & Gallimore (1988), and Valsiner (1988), has been highly influential. A fundamental tenet of cultural-historical activity theory is that human activity is mediated through tools (Lektorsky, 1984). Tools are created and modified by human beings as a way of connecting to the real world and regulating their behavior and their interactions with the world and each other. Each individual attains consciousness by engaging in tool-mediated activity which unites the mind with the real world of objects and events (Ilyenkov, 1977). Wartofsky (1979) has offered the idea, that tools are to cultural evolution as genes are to biological evolution. From his perspective, axes, hammers, pencils, books, telephones, microcomputers, ISDN technology, and telecommunication networks are examples of primary or instrumental tools. Primary tools enable one to operate on the "outside" - to interact with others and to modify the environment. Secondary or psychological tools include tools such as language, ideas, scripts, and modes of action. Secondary tools enable one to operate on the "inside" to self-regulate behavior. A second tenet is that socially organized activity is important for the construction of consciousness. Consciousness is formed by the capacity of humans to engage in social forms of productive, constructive activity. According to Mehan (1981), "social structures and cognitive structures are composed and reside in the interactions between people." (p. 81) Third, the theory proposes that all higher psychological processes and concepts appear twice, or on two planes. First, they appear on the interpsychological (intermental) plane in social processes, shared between and among people. Second, they appear on the intrapsychological (intramental) plane as they are internalized by the individual (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus the meanings of objects, events, information, and other phenomena are constructed by social interactions and exist in the collective memory of social groups. Next, the theory proposes that there are two kinds of concepts, scientific (academic) and everyday (Vygotsky, 1978). These concepts have different origins and courses of acquisition. Scientific knowledge and concepts are embedded in cultural systems and transmitted through formal schooling. Everyday concepts, in contrast, are acquired through participation in the activities of everyday life. Everyday concepts begin with a grasp of concrete events and phenomena and develop by becoming increasingly more abstract as they move "upward" and are integrated into formal knowledge systems. Scientific concepts, on the other hand, are acquired through verbal exposition. They become more meaningful as they move "downward" and make contact with everyday objects and events. This comparative analysis provides a framework for thinking about the movement of theoretical knowledge about teaching presented in university classrooms to the level of meaningful practice in school classrooms and the movement of practical knowledge encountered in school classrooms to the level of theoretical knowledge. In summary, cultural-historical activity theory provides a conceptual framework for making predictions about how individuals construct consciousness with tools and social activity. In addition, it explains how academic and everyday concepts move upward and downward in different contexts. These ideas are very applicable to the clinical preparation of teachers. Telecommunications Our expectation is that telecommunications is a powerful tool that may be used to solve many of the problems besetting the clinical preparation of teachers. In particular, we predict that cultural genes such as microcomputers, telecommunication networks, and multimedia platforms may "jump-start" needed change and expansion in the clinical preparation of teachers. These are tools that can mediate the activity of clinical teaching interns, constitute social structures, and actively promote reflection. The use of technology to create electronic networks has been proposed as a means of constituting communities of practice in teacher education (Watts & Castle, 1992). Exploratory research indicates that prospective teachers and in-service teachers are comfortable in collaborating with each other to solve problems and to engage in the joint construction of knowledge about teaching on e-mail networks (Baker & Obermeyer, 1993; Blanton & Thompson, 1993; Merseth, 1990; Nicklin, 1991; Sunal, Sunal & Helfeldt; 1991; McIntyre & Tlusty, 1991; McIntyre & Tlusty, 1993; Thompson, 1993). It is rare, however, to find the programmatic application of telecommunications to teacher preparation. The application of e-mail and computer mediated conferences has been structured in a number of ways. At the level of university courses, Levin and his colleagues (Levin, Waugh, Brown, Clift, & Glidden, 1993; Levin & Waugh, 1992; Stapleton, Levin & Waugh, 1992) have used the teleapprenticeship as a tool to engage undergraduates in activities related to methods courses. Others have successfully demonstrated that fiber optics and Integrated Systems Data Network (ISDN) may be used to conduct videoconferences and computer-mediated conferences between and among university supervisors, cooperating teachers, and student teachers (Bednar, Ryan & Sweeder, 1993; Blanton & Thompson, 1993; Clawson & Weiner, 1993; Hakes, 1991). Local area networks affording computer mediated conferences among student teachers has also been reported (Blanton & Thompson, 1993; Swift, 1988; Thompson, 1993). Wide area networks have also been developed to support communications among teachers and student teachers at the state-wide level. For example, Miami University has developed EDTNet for student teachers and supervisors (Perry & Brooks, 1987). The MICH: EdCorps at the University of Michigan connects colleges of education throughout the state (Swift & Coxford, 1988). Teacher-LINK at the University of Virginia (Bull, Harris, Lloyd & Short, 1989) and the Beginning Teacher Computer Network at Harvard University (Merseth, 1988) have also obtained favorable results in supporting communication among teachers, student teachers and university faculty. Applied to the clinical preparation of teachers, then, telecommunications is potentially a powerful tool for creating social contexts for active, goal-oriented professional behavior. Telecommunications removes the boundaries of time and distance in communicating. Likewise, telecommunications may enable clinical teaching interns, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors to; (1) reflect on their learning, (2) use writing as a tool for both communication and thought, (3) constitute social structures for the critical analysis of teaching and reflection, (4) communicate about jointly addressed teaching problems, (5) mediate activity on learning to teach at distances in non-real time, (6) compare experiences with others, (7) access networks and information sources, (8) interact with specialists, (9) and to become less isolated. We propose that it is possible to develop an extremely robust activity system for the clinical preparation of teachers that is mediated by technology by configuring tools already available to teacher preparation with telecommunications. E-mail, computer mediated conferences, and videoconferencing are tools especially suited for constituting social arrangements that enable students to jointly construct knowledge about teaching. Such communication should provide opportunities for students engaged in student teaching to discuss how they are relating everyday experiences to academic knowledge acquired in university courses and how they are using academic knowledge to make sense out of everyday classroom events. Similarly, electronic dialogue journals and other forms of writing may be shared between and among students and faculty (Bolin, 1990; 1988; Holt- Reynolds, 1991; Yinger & Clark, 1981). Discourse of this kind becomes a tool for reflection and the creation and restructuring of knowledge about teaching. Method Setting We have created what we call a "Thoughtful Community of Teaching, Learning, and Technology." It is constituted of teacher preparation faculty, cooperating public school teachers, and prospective teachers who intern in two elementary schools in our university-public school partnership. The community is supported by an Information System Data Network (ISDN) technology, enabling the transmission of data and auditory and visual signal over twisted copper telephone line. The university and public school sites each have a technology room containing 10-24 microcomputers and a multimedia platform, affording a wide array of telecommunications such as computer mediated conferencing, videoconferencing, scanning, faxing, and the like. Prospective teachers perform their student teaching in this community and are supervised by university faculty. Along with traditional supervision, university supervisors, cooperating teachers, and interns use telecommunications as a means of continuous communication related to program management, information sharing, and topical discussions. Interns also send dialogue journals and personal messages over the system. All participants receive training on the technology. In addition, the application of technologies is a part of most methods classes taken by students. Participants This report involves the activity of 8 faculty and 40 student teachers over two semesters. In addition, 40 cooperating teachers worked with the student teachers in their classrooms. The Activity Although the community engaged in many activities afforded by the technologies available, the particular activity this report is based on involved the public e-mail discussions among student teachers and their university supervisors. Participants were not required to send messages, although they were encouraged to do so. When messages were sent, they were sent to a Listserve named STMAIL. Messages contained a subject line and the sender was identified. All members of STMAIL received the messages and responses. Results During the two semesters comprising this report, 981 separate messages were posted on STMAIL, along with a large number of private messages. We found these messages to be suffused with data. Topics discussed included instructional strategies, curriculum, behavior and discipline, measurement, evaluation, effective teaching, lesson planning, frustration with teaching, moral support, cooperating teacher effectiveness, opinions and attitudes, and housekeeping. In addition, many videoconferences were held between and among faculty, student teachers, and cooperating teachers. Most of these conferences emerged as a result of e-mail discussions. Now, we would like to present examples of our e-mail discussions. The examples we present are organized under the headings of questioning strategies, evaluation of student teaching, and moral support. Questioning Strategies This episode begins with a message from JH to her university supervisor. JH presents him with two problems; whether she is using appropriate questioning strategies and how she can provide instruction to students of differing ability levels. JH also reveals her misconceptions about questioning and grouping. The origin of her misconceptions (university course or everyday practice) is not clear. As will be seen, however, the discussions will provide an opportunity for the downward movement of academic concepts and the upward movement of everyday concepts, along with the shared construction of meaning by the collective. JH wrote: ********************************************** Dr. B, I had a message from you yesterday that I did not read carefully because several students were standing over me. Now the message is evidently lost in computer space. I did not delete it. I don't really have any problems as such, but I am noticing several things about my teaching. The main one pertains to questioning. A lot of times I call on a student because I know that student will give me the answer I am looking for. Then if it is a lower level question I find myself calling on the slower students because I know this gives them a chance to be successful. But I'm not sure this is a good strategy. I had a questioning seminar last semester, and it sure would be helpful now. Another problem I see for me, or any teacher, is different ability levels within the classroom. In my class, there are 22 students,9 are "AG," 1 is "LD" and two have been referred for LD evaluation. Anything we do, a few people always get everything exactly right while a few people really are never successful. How do you stimulate those who need to move ahead and yet get the others up to par. All our classwork taught us against grouping by ability, doing this is sure to psychologically damage, etc., but what can you do. For example, I gave the students a math pretest yesterday. Several students missed only one or two while several students missed 12 to 18. Mixing this ability range seems to me that it would frustrate both groups. Any ideas for reading on this subject? JH ********************************************** Upon receiving JH's message, he asked if it could be sent out to the whole group for discussion. She agreed. The group read the message. The professor forwarded the message and prompted the group to make any comments they would like: ********************************************** Earlier I sent you a copy of JH's message to me. She agreed to have all of us on STMAIL discuss it. So let's talk about the two issues she has identified. First, is JH using the most appropriate questioning strategy? Why? Why not? What are some alternatives we can discuss? Second, how might she deal with the ability levels in math and/or other areas? This might also be a good time to discuss the gaps between what you were taught in methods courses and the real world. ********************************************** The first response to JH's problem with questioning is very interesting. We learn that this student's cooperating teacher has suggested this questionable strategy. The student teacher has joined the useful construct of wait- time during questioning to the unacceptable strategy of calling on students whom she knows are likely to answer questions correctly: ********************************************** I am teaching Kindergarten at M school and have run into the same situation as JH. I have three students who always know the right answer, while others seldom do. In talking with my cooperating teacher, I have decided to call on those students who I know have the right answer to enrich and emphasize what we are learning. For those who I know do not have an answer, I go to them individually and give them the individual attention they need. This way, they are not put on the spot or embarrassed about not knowing the right answer. This seems to work well in Kindergarten, but I'm not sure how it would work with fourth grade. I think that JH is doing a good job of asking different levels of questions to allow for everyone's success. You can ask the students different levels of questions to allow for everyone's success. You can ask the students different levels of questions without them realizing it and allow wait time for answering questions. Maybe if you ask a student a question that is difficult for him/her, you could allow a little more wait time to give the student a chance to think and then after 3 or 4 seconds, ask another student to help. I would like to hear more suggestions on this matter because it is so important. ********************************************** Next, AP describes a strategy she has found to be useful: ********************************************** One way that I have found to be successful in first grade is a method called share, pair, and square. After you have asked a question, ask the students to share their thought with a neighbor. After they have done this, these 2 students pair up with 2 more. They all discuss their thoughts to the question. The children love this and the ones who are unsure or scared that their answer is wrong, have the support of their group when they answer the question. This method seems to get a lot of students who do not usually answer questions during class to speak up. ********************************************** Then JH sends a message to the group. She informs the group that her cooperating teacher does not think her questioning strategy is correct: ********************************************** Since my question on questioning the other day, I have discussed the matter with my cooperating teacher, Mrs. AJ. Mrs. AJ does feel that my approach of calling on students that I know will give successful answers is not correct. As she pointed out to me, the purpose of questioning is not to receive correct answers, but rather to begin a thinking process. Always receiving a correct answer the first time does not require an active thinking process from other students, but rather an "oh it's answered" attitude. Mrs. AJ has suggested that I keep a check sheet for at least some of my lessons and actually put a check mark when I call on a student, as she did. Some students, usually the quiet ones, are left out every time. I think this will be helpful for me. I am still interested in what you think about calling on those that you know will give a successful answer (maybe at times that is what is needed) and allowing other students to answer lower level questions to allow them to feel successful. ********************************************** The next message in the conversation was from a professor. The professor reviews the comments up to this point, provides reinforcement to a student teacher's message, and indicates that he agrees with Ms. AJ's discussion with JH. The professor then provides the group with the idea that questioning is used to attain a particular learning outcome. He also explores routines teachers use to ask questions and briefly talks about conditional knowledge related to questioning routines. Finally, this conversation ends with the professor informing the group that another professor has offered to conduct a videoconference on questioning. As a result, a number of videoconferences on questioning were held at different times during the school day. Most of the student teachers were able to participate in these conferences: ********************************************** Sooooooo, we have some interesting responses to JH's first note about questioning. Out at M school, the report is that it's okay to ask students questions because you know they know the answers. At BR school, it seems that the appropriate strategy is to make sure you call on all students. The purpose, according to Ms. AJ is to get students to actively process information. I tend to agree with Ms. AJ. I also liked the strategy suggesting that students work in pairs to discuss answers and then it is squared-expanded to other students. However, there is still more to questioning than just getting students to think. First, questioning is an instructional strategy to be selected when the outcome is to get students to think, recognize the weakness in their logic, confront their misconceptions, and so on. Second, their are a number of routines for asking questions. Each routine has its strengths and weaknesses. Some teachers use the round robin routine. Each student is given a turn at answering a question. The teacher simply goes around the circle or up and down the rows. We all recognize the problem this creates. Students are often seen to count down the page in the text or count the questions to find which one they will have to answer. Then they rehearse the answer. Consequently, they do not attend to the discussion. Put another way, the teacher does not have their attention. An alternative is to randomly call on students. We expect them to be on their toes because they don't know who is going to be called on. When this routine is used, some kids put their attention on "Am I going to be called on?" So although it appears that the teacher has their attention, the teacher really does not have their cognitive attention. Last, and perhaps the best method, is to ask the question. Give the kids some wait-time and then ask one to answer. Just make sure all the kids have an opportunity to participate. It is also a good idea to stop every 8-12 minutes and let the kids talk about what has been discussed and then identify for the teacher the problems/misunderstandings they are having. A final note. If questioning is based on having read the text, chapter, story, etc. This procedure might be followed. First, ask what are called text-based questions (literal questions about what is in the text) and have the correct answer in the text. Next, ask questions that require children to go beyond the text (critical thinking questions having many potentially correct answers). Last, ask questions related to style, technique, point of view, etc). In other words, don't mix kinds of questions. Teachers who follow this routine and don't mix questions tend to get better achievement from their students. And one more final note. Research shows that teachers ask an average of 40-50 questions every 50 minutes. That is too many. It is impossible to have thinking time. The kids dodge questions like bullets. Probably, about 12 questions are needed to engage students in a good discussion. And one more final note. If you are a kid in school, all the questions the teacher asks and the ones they read on worksheets all look alike. The message here is "begin to help students recognize the kind of question." They need to learn when the answer will most likely be found on the page, in their head, or between the sentences and paragraphs. Then model, demonstrate, and think aloud how you go about answering those questions. Professor MT has volunteered to do a set of videoconferencing workshops on questioning. If you would like this, send me a message. ********************************************** Now What About JH's Problem With Grouping? As can be seen, JH had a misconception about questioning. Fortunately, her cooperating teacher provided her with better information. But what about the student teacher at M school? Her teacher has given her incorrect information. Parenthetically, we might add that most student teachers usually get one answer to their questions. As can be seen, the e-mail discussion provided additional information and points of view for the construction of meaning. The discussion also became diagnostic and a videoconference was used as a tool for further intervention. Evaluation of Student Teaching One component of the evaluation of student teachers in this program is their development of a teaching portfolio. Among other artifacts included in the portfolio are a video of a lesson and an accompanying reflection and evaluation paper on the lesson. A troublesome aspect for the student teachers is how to deal with a six-point lesson plan and presentation of the lesson. (This lesson framework is modeled after the effective teaching literature and is presented in most methods classes. In addition, this lesson plan is used as a basis for the professional evaluation of in-service teachers). As student teachers and faculty soon learn, this framework does not generalize to most subject matter, grouping patterns, grade levels, and pupil outcomes. To begin, BB, a student teacher in music education has told the group about his first try at planning a lesson and making a video of it. Our discussion begins with a response to BB's message about his video lesson. The first student wrote: ********************************************** B, it is good that you did a video. Do you have any advice for other student teachers who might want to do the same? ********************************************** The next response from M is a prime example of a student teacher's struggle with whether to compromise what she knows and believes and comply with expectations of the university supervisor. She is also confronting the task of how to apply an academic concept obtained in a university course to everyday practice: ********************************************** This is in response to B's video lesson. This is M out at PW school and I'm having trouble trying to decide when and what to video. Due to the unique curriculum of middle school, it is very rare that I am up in front of the class. My middle school kids do A LOT of hands on and a lot of independent work that only requires my monitoring and answering individual or small group questions. Also, there is a lot of free movement and tons of group interaction, so it is rarely quiet and to an outsider observing these methods, I'm sure it seems like total chaos. Should I design a lesson that fits the 6 point lesson plan just for the video? If I do, will I be compromising my professional beliefs? Middle School kids definitely do NOT fit into the 6 point lesson plan and neither do their hormones. Help. M ********************************************** In the real world of student teaching, M may struggle with this task for awhile. Her university supervisor may not visit her for a few weeks. There is high probability, then, that this activity may not be meaningful to her. In this case, however, a university professor uses e-mail to provide an immediate response, along with other student teachers: ********************************************** M, I think you have a number of options you can think about. For sure I would not plan a lesson that conforms to the six point lesson plan. That is not the context in which you are working. You might begin with what you have planned-a video of you telling this. Follow it with why you have the classroom organization you use, what and why you expect and how you are going to work with middle school kids. Then you might have the camera focus on groups of kids, revealing that what you planned works for them. You might also have the camera focus on you when you work with one of the groups, revealing how your role fits into the plan for these kids. As an afterthought, you might even at the beginning of the video explain why you don't use the six-point lesson plan, at least do so in your paper. Any other suggestions from the group? GM ********************************************** Next, ST reiterates his experience with the lesson plan. He also describes how he acquired information in his methods classes that provided alternatives to the lesson plan: ********************************************** I understand what you are saying about the video and the six point lesson plan. There are a lot of times that the six point lesson plan doesn't fit into the high school curriculum either. However, I think it is even more important for you to use the video and explain how you plan your lessons/activities when you don't use the six point lesson plan. I remember seeing some videos in my education classes that did not focus on the six point lesson plan. In the lessons, the camera focused on a group or groups of students and as a viewer, I got to witness that student- student interaction and the student-teacher interaction. It gave me new ideas of how to use cooperative groups in my planning and how to encourage positive student interaction. I feel like your video will benefit many people to come! ********************************************** As can be seen, this brief discussion provides student teachers with procedural information. In addition, the discussion reveals how the joint construction of meaning leads to the "shaping" of information for situation- specific problems. Moral Support During the beginning phase of student teaching, many interns experience feelings of isolation, frustration and insecurity. The message below was sent by TH. The message reveals her frustration with the performance of the last class she teaches each day: ********************************************** I am trying not to be upset. I just finished with my last class and they really made me mad today. I tried not to show that I was upset. My plans sometimes work for this period, and sometimes they do not. Today was a simple day, as far as the work that the students were required to do. They have an assignment that is due around once a month, on current events. This is to try to get them to read what is happening in the world. I have reminded the students to bring these for the past week. It has even been on the board for a week. Well, only half the class turned in their assignments. We usually read a couple of these out loud and discuss them. This did not work. They continued to talk and they were not listening. I did not even get to read their papers on pro-life or pro-choice. Today was supposed to be a good discussion. All the other classes really were involved in the discussions and took part in reading and the current events. I can not understand why this class did not even try to discuss. I am really confused on how to plan for this class. Sometimes they are very involved, and sometimes they could care less. I do have some students in this class that get involved and are willing to work with each other. I am not trying to punish these students for the behaviors of the others. I feel that they would rather work with their peers than listen to me the whole class period. I know that I have no structure to this letter, however, I had to vent my frustration out. I'm just really confused and angry at some of the students in my last class, and I do not know how I am going to deal with it. ********************************************** AG, a classmate of TH in CI2800: Introduction to Teaching, empathized with TH and then told her own story, saying that she, too, was having a similar problem. Her instructional plans did not always seem to work. She ends her message by encouraging TH to "hang in there": ********************************************** Hi, T, this is your old friend AG from 2800. I had one terrible class today, too. I had great activities planned and nothing seemed to work with them. I was so frustrated that I had to fight the urge to walk out of the class. It seems that there are some students who misbehave no matter what you do. I try to start each day with a new attitude, but it's hard when you know you're going to have to deal with the same kids again. Luckily, I had a really good group later in the day. Hang in there. ********************************************** Next, a faculty member enters the discussion by asking T to think about her classes and how she was presenting instruction. His goal was to get her to reflect on the class and identify the problem. As will be seen, the discussion will then begin to focus on a problem rather than with a "I have a student who ... " structure: ********************************************** T, let's try this. After school today, reflect back on the problem class and the other classes. As you think, think about your goal for learning, time given, instructional strategy, organization of the class, and the general setting. You might even make a chart of this. What we need to see is what is different in the setting you and this class create that is different from the setting you and the other classes create. What we are looking for is a statement of WHAT IS THE PROBLEM YOU ARE HAVING. You have vented your frustration- which we all need to do. Now let's see if we can define the problem. For the rest of you-it is hard to define the problem while you are frustrated. After T goes through the above process, let's all see if we can give her help with this difficult problem she has. Thanks, TH, for sharing your problem with us. ********************************************** Then, a brief statement of moral support and humor was provided by MC who wrote: ********************************************** HEY TH! NO SWEAT. THEY MAY BE JUST TRYING YOU RIGHT NOW. DON'T LET 'EM SEE YA SWEAT! ********************************************** Next MG sends a message indicating that she had had some problems with some of her classes. She also offers a suggestion on how to solve the problem: ********************************************** Hey, this is MG out at PW school with the 7th grade. T, I can totally sympathize with you. My third block classes are out of control cause it's the end of the day. I've been in your situation except I don't think middle school kids have figured out how to be as obnoxious as high schoolers. (They are close, however.) I've had to be so much less flexible with my third block kids. But before that, we all sat down and talked about what was going on and what the problems were and what each of us could do to fix the problems. That has really worked, even though one of my third block children gave me the finger today. Even though the talk took out some of my "lesson" time, it has helped. Let me know how things work out and maybe we can use some of your techniques on my 7th graders. Hang in there! MG ********************************************** Then one professor agrees with what another said earlier. He also reminds T that she should focus on the problem and not describing the students.: ********************************************** T, Dr. B is right on target with what he is advocating for you. Take Dr. B's concept of reflection and try to see what the problem is. When you get that on the table then you can begin to deal with the problem. If your cooperating teacher was in the class, or even if she wasn't discuss the situation with her. You need to keep in mind that you are first of all trying to determine what the problem is, and not "I have a student who." ********************************************** At this time a number of messages have been posted on this problem. In the next message, T reaches a milestone. She articulates her problem to the group and then thanks them for their support: ********************************************** I want to thank everyone for making suggestions on how to deal with my frustration. Part of my problem is that I travel to a new classroom for this period. I have all my other classes in the same classroom. Also, in this fourth period class, we were provided with new tables last Friday and "lost" the traditional desks. These tables are round and four students sit at a table. I think they are great for group activities and peer teaching, however, these tables also make the students more tempted to talk (and this class likes to do that anyway.). Probably most of the problem is my own fault. I feel disorganized traveling to another class, and classroom problems are even more exaggerated. I just feel uneasy about my capabilities when I finish with this class. I realize that this is a learning experience and we are not expected to know everything, but my confidence can really go down after a "bad" class. I am not just talking about the students, I am also referring to my actions dealing with classroom problems. I also know that experience will help me handle many of these situations. ********************************************** A professor responds to T's problem by reminding her of content in her introduction to teaching class. He also praises T: ********************************************** I like your attitude. You are discovering some of the changes that create a new setting for you and the students. Now, let's all of us help her develop some solutions. We might begin with how to walk into that classroom and take charge with ease (in CI 2800, I think Berliner called this with-it-ness. Given the organization of the room she goes to, can it be reorganized? Are there particular instructional strategies that can be use in an organization like this? Any ideas? T, you are my heroine!!!!!!! I like the way you have responded to the problem. Let's keep working on it. ********************************************** Another student writes to offer moral support and to let T know that she is not alone: ********************************************** Hey T, you are not alone when you say you feel like a failure after some classes. I have 4 classes of basic English and it is rare that I get any kind of positive reinforcement from the students. I often feel frustrated after classes and walk out of class feeling like an idiot and a failure because students don't respond, pay attention, stay awake, and especially do any work that you stay up half the night preparing so it wouldn't be boring to them. I guess all I can say is that I am used to it and I rely heavily on reinforcement from my cooperating teacher. The students lack of interest is a constant challenge to me. They are teaching me probably more than I am teaching them. I can't offer you any solutions or probably any good advice, but just know that you are not alone . ********************************************** T writes back and tells K that it makes her feel better to know she is not alone. Along with sharing the personal stress experienced by her and a close friend, she also expresses how difficult it is to make the transition from student to teacher: ********************************************** K, I think that it is hard to get use to a new atmosphere, especially when we are trying to play the role of teacher. This is a new concept and has personally caused me a lot of stress. I'm having a hard time adjusting from being a student to being the one in charge. I stress out every night thinking about my lessons for the next day. As far as crying, I think that it is a natural release of built up energy. I know that I have cried a few tears this semester so far. KH and I just laugh at each other when we start to get upset. I don't know why, it makes us both feel better to know that we are not alone with our feelings of anxiety. We'll make it K, we may feel all "RAGGED OUT" at the end, but this experience will make for a "SWEET" graduation!!!!!!! ********************************************** Toward the end of the interchange on this topic, AG provides a calming note: ********************************************** It sounds like everyone who was upset yesterday is already feeling much better! Today was much better for me, too. I realized that some kids just need more structure than others. They actually responded better when I didn't try to make as much fun!? I think it helps to know the needs of the students and that only comes with time. As each week goes by, I feel that I know these kids better and can plan my lessons around their needs. April G. P.S. Sorry for the spelling errors. It kills me that I can't go back to correct it. ********************************************** And, another student adds the following coda to the episode: ********************************************** WE SHALL OVERCOME!!! REMEMBER THAT WE LOVE THE CHILDREN!!!! EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T ACT LIKE THEY LOVE US VERY MUCH!!!!! WE ARE OVER 1/3 DONE AND WE SHALL WHIP THESE MONSTERS INTO SHAPE AND THEY WILL LIKE IT AND THEY WILL LEARN SOMETHING WHETHER THEY WANT TO OR NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ********************************************** We think that this brief episode demonstrates how e- mail provides support and coping strategies for student teachers. Here, the conversation reveals how a socially organized group can offer both support and advice, and, at the same time serve as a self-help device for student teachers. The examples we have presented demonstrate the potential of telecommunications to change the context of student teaching, constitute social structures for communicating, afford the social construction of meaning, and link university teacher preparation to schools. This potential is, perhaps, better understood when one considers the fact in traditional teacher preparation programs, the questions asked and problems posed by the student teachers in this study would have been influenced by a single cooperating teacher. Perhaps, at some point in time, the university supervisor might have been involved. To be sure, the student teachers would not have had an opportunity to engage in early and continuous conversations with 19 others who were experiencing the same issues and problems. Conclusions At this point, it is too early to reach conclusions from this and other studies exploring the application of technologies to the supervision of clinical teaching. However, we believe that the results provide evidence for the continued exploration and application of technologies to problems in this area. Our results reveal the potential power of telecommunications to enable the joint- construction of meaning. Results also demonstrate that telecommunications may be useful in helping student teachers actively move academic and everyday concepts upward and downward. With regard to the supervision of clinical teaching, this study conveys the power of technologies to provide insight and understanding about the transition from student teacher to teacher. The potential of telecommunications as a tool for reflection is also demonstrated. There is evidence that telecommunications may be effective in reducing feelings of isolation among student teachers. Before closing, we would like to point out a number of issues needing further exploration. First, telecommunications alters the material conditions of mediating systems used for student teaching supervision. There are far reaching implications for how the social and psychological processes of learning how to teach and clinical supervision are organized. Next, telecommunications create a space of sufficient size and complexity such that the activities in which student teachers, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers engage may escape control. We should constantly be aware of this potential. Third, we are in the first phase of applying telecommunications to clinical supervision. We must turn some attention to the development of protocols for the joint-construction of meaning and reflection. Finally, there is a need for researchers to explore the units of analysis appropriate for determining the effects of telecommunications as a tool for mediating clinical supervision activities. References Baker, T. L., & Obermeyer, G. (1993). The Educational Implications of electronic networks: An in-depth Case Study of Teachers' Professional Collaborations. Paper presented of the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta. Barbour, C. (1970). Levels of thinking in supervision conferences. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Bednar, M. R., Ryan, F. J., & Sweeder, J. J. (1993). Technology and Teacher Education Review, 196-199. Blanton, W. E., & Thompson, M. S. (1993). Application of telecommunications to Clinical teaching experiences. In Technology and teacher education annual (pp. 696-699). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing Education. Bolin, F. S. (1990). Helping student teachers think about teaching: Another look at Lou. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 10-19. Boothroyd, W. (1979). Teaching practice supervision: A research report. British Journal of Teacher Education, 5, 243-250. Bull, G., Harris, J., Lloyd, J., & Short, J. (1989). The electronic academical village. Journal of Teacher Education, 18, 27-31. Campbell, L. P., & Williamson, J. A. (1983). Supervising the student teacher: What is really involved? NASSP Bulletin, 67, 77-78. Clawson, B. N., & Weiner, A. M. (1993). Two-way, interactive A/V applied to the supervision of student teachers. T. H. E. Journal, 67-69. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 279-310. Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J. A., & Sharp, D. W. (1971). The cultural context of learning and thinking: An exploration in experimental anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking of the education process. Chicago: Henry Regenery. Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In The relation of theory to practice in the education of teachers, Third yearbook, Part I (pp. 9-30). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchman, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 87, 53-65. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd Edition, (pp. 505- 526). New York: Macmillan. Funk, F. F., Hoffman, J., L. M. Keithley, A. M., & Long, B. F. (1982). Student teaching program: Feedback from supervising teachers. Clearinghouse, 55, 319-321. Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers of Our Nation's Schools. San Francisco: Josey-Boss. Goodman, J. (1985). Field-based experiences: A study of social control and student teachers' response to institutional constraints. Journal of Education for Teaching, 11, 26-49. Goodman, J. (1985). What students learn from early field experiences: A case study and initial analysis. Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 42-48. Griffin, G. A., Barnes, S., Hughes, R., O'Neal, S., Defino, M., Edwards, S., & Hukill, H. (1983). Clinical preservice teacher education: Final report of a descriptive study. Austin, TX: University of Texas, R & D Center for Teacher Education. Grimmett, P. P., & Ratzlaff, H. C. (1986). Expectations for the cooperating teacher role. Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 41-50. Hakes, B. T. (1991). Two-way video and audio: Removing the walls of schools and teacher preparation institutions. In Technology and teacher education annual (pp. 152-154). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Teacher Education. Heald, J. E. (1983). Report to the profession. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Holt-Reynolds, D. C. (1991). The dialogues of teacher education: Entering and influencing preservice teachers' internal conversations. Research Report 91-4. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Hooper, D., & Johnson, T. (1973). Teaching practices: Training or social control. Education for Teaching, 92, 25- 30. Horisego, B., & Boldt, W. (1985). Critical incidents in the supervision of student teaching. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 31, 113-124. Iannacone, L. (1963). Student teaching: A transitional stage in the making of a teacher. Theory into Practice, 2, 78-30. Ilyenkov, E. (1977). The problem of the ideal. Philosophy in the USSR: Problems of dialectical materialism. Moscow: Progress. Lanier, J. E., & Little, J. W. (1986). Research on teacher education. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd, (pp. 527-569). New York: Macmillan. Lektorsky, V. A. (1984). Subject, object, cognition. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Leontiev, A. W. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Levin, J. A., & Waugh, M. L., (1992). Teaching teleapprenticeships for mathematics and science. Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. Levin, J. L., Waugh, M., Brown, D., Clift, R., & Glidden, P. (1993). Teaching teleapprenticeships: A new organizational structure for improving teacher education via electronic networks. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta. Liggett, A., Fulwiler, L., Clarke, J., & Hood, K. (1988). Supervisory experience as means of reflection: Policy implications for schools of inventories. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Luria, A. R. (1978). The making of mind: A personal account of soviet psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Martin, R. E. & Wood, G. H. (1984). Early field experiences: Unifications of cooperating teachers' and teacher education students' diverse perspectives. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. McIntyre, S. R., Tlusty, R. H. (1991). Computer-mediated discourse: Electronic dialogue journaling and reflective practice. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. McIntyre, S., & Tlusty, R. (1993). Electronic dialogue journaling and its effect on reflective practice with preservice teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta. Mehan, H. (1981). Social constructivism in psychology and sociology. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 3, 71-77. Merseth, K. (1988). Project at Harvard Graduate School of Education. Education Week, 7, 1. Merseth, K. (1990). Beginning teachers and computer networks: A new form of induction support. (Research Report, 90-9). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University. Moll, L. C. (Ed.) (1990). Vygotsky in education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nicklin, J. L. (1991). For newly hired school teachers, an electronic lifeline. The Chronicle of High Education, November 6, A-24, A-26. O'Neal, S., & Edwards, S. (1983). The supervision of student teaching. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Peck, R. F., & Tucker, J. A. (1983). Research on teacher education. In R. M. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. Perry, B., & Brooks, D. (1987). EDTNet department of teacher education computer network grant. Miami, OH: Miami University Graduate School and Apple, Inc. Pucket, E. H. (1985). A national survey of field experiences in elementary teacher education programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, Las Vegas. Richardson-Koehler, V. (1988). Barriers to effective supervision of student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 28-34. Salzillo, F., & Van Fleet, A. (1977). Student teaching and teacher education: A sociological model for change. Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 27- 31. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sepperson, M., & Joyce, B. (1973). Teaching styles of student teachers as related to those of their cooperating teachers. Educational Leadership Research Supplement, 31, 146-151. Simbol, M. A., & Summers, J. A. (1984). Administrative policy and supervisory load for student teaching programs in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri. Muncie, IN: Indiana Unit of the Association of Teacher Educators. Stapleton, C. E., Levin, J. A., & Waugh, M. L. (1992). Organization of successful teacher education activities on electronic networks. Paper presented at Society for Technology and Teacher Education Conference, Houston. Su, Z. (1990). The function of peer groups in teacher socialization. Phi Delta Kappan, 7, 723-727. Sunal, J. W., Sunal, C. S., & Helfeldt, J. (1991). Use of LAN technology to enhance the quality of field based teacher education programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Swift, K., & Coxford, A. (1988). Computer networking for student teachers. The Innovator, 19, 1, 5. Tabachnick, B. B. (1980). Intern-teacher roles: Illusion, disillusion, and reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 31, 123-137. Tabachnick, B. R., Popkewitz, T. S., & Zeichner, K. M. (1979- 80). Teacher education and the professional perspectives of student teachers. Interchange, 10, 12-29. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, A. (1993). Patterns of use of an electronic communication network for student teachers and first- year teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta. Tittle, C. K. (1974). Student teaching: Attitude and research bases for change in school and university. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models. Dordrecht: Reidl. Watts, G. D., & Castle, S. (1992). Electronic networking and the construction of professional knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 684-689. Webb, C. D., Gehrke, N., Ishler, P. & Mendoza, A. (1981). Exploring field experiences in teacher education: A report of the commission on exploratory field experiences of the association of teacher educators. Reston: VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Wertsch, J. V., (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wildman, T., Magliaro, S., Niles, J., & McLaughlin, R. (1990). Promoting reflective practice among beginning and experienced teachers: Encouraging reflective practice in education. New York: Teachers College Press. Yates, J. W., & Johnson, J. A. (1982). A national survey of student teaching programs: Innovations in student teaching programs (Supplemental Report #4). Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University. Yee, A. H. (1967). The student teaching triad: The relationship of attitudes among student teachers, college supervisors, and cooperating teachers. Austin, TX: University of Texas, College of Education. Yinger, R., & Clark, C. (1981). Reflective journal writing: Theory and practice. Occasional Paper No. 50. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Institute for Research on Teaching. Zeichner, K. (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead to the 1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16, 105-132. Zeichner, K. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 296-307. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1985). Varieties of discourse in supervisory conferences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 155-174. Zeichner, K. M., Liston, D. P., Mahlios, M., Gomez, M. (1988). The structure and goals of a student teaching program and the character and quality of supervisory discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 349-362. Zeichner, K. M. (1982). The belief systems of university supervisors in an elementary student teaching program. Journal of Education for Teaching, 8, 34-54. Zevin, J. (1974). In thy cooperating teacher's image: Convergence of social studies student teachers' behavior patterns with cooperating teachers' behavior patterns. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Zimpher, N. (1990). Creating professional development school sites. Theory Into Practice, 29, 42-48. _____ Articles and Sections of this issue of the _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ may be retrieved via anonymous ftp to byrd.mu.wvnet.edu or via e-mail message addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU (instructions below) Papers may be submitted at anytime by email or send/file to: Ermel Stepp - Editor-in-Chief, _Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture_ M034050@MARSHALL.WVNET.EDU _________________________________ *Copyright Declaration* Copyright of articles published by Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture is held by the author of a given article. If an article is re-published elsewhere it must include a statement that it was originally published by Electronic Journal on Virtual Culture. The EJVC Editors reserve the right to maintain permanent archival copies of all submissions and to provide print copies to appropriate indexing services for for indexing and microforming. _________________________________ _________________________________ _THE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ON VIRTUAL CULTURE_ ISSN 1068-5327 Ermel Stepp, Marshall University, Editor-in-Chief M034050@Marshall.wvnet.edu Diane (Di) Kovacs, Kent State University, Co-Editor DKOVACS@Kentvm.Kent.edu ____________________________ GOPHER Instructions ____________________________ GOPHER to gopher.cic.net 70 ____________________________ Anonymous FTP Instructions ____________________________ ftp byrd.mu.wvnet.edu login anonymous password: users' electronic address cd /pub/ejvc type EJVC.INDEX.FTP get filename (where filename = exact name of file in INDEX) quit LISTSERV Retrieval Instructions _______________________________ Send e-mail addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM (Bitnet) or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU Leave the subject line empty. The message must read: GET EJVCV1N7 CONTENTS Use this file to identify particular articles or sections then send e-mail to LISTSERV@KENTVM or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU with the command: GET where is the name of the article or section (e.g., author name) and is the V#N# of that issue of EJVC