Student Teaching : Oklahoma
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers Policy
Analysis of Oklahoma's policies
Commendably, Oklahoma requires candidates to complete a minimum of 12 weeks of full-time student teaching. However, the state does not address the qualifications of cooperating teachers.
Recommendations for Oklahoma
Ensure that cooperating teachers have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness as measured by student learning.
In addition to the ability to mentor an adult, cooperating teachers should also be carefully screened for their capacity to further student achievement. Research indicates that the only aspect of a student teaching arrangement that has been shown to have an impact on student achievement is the positive effect of selection of the cooperating teacher by the preparation program, rather than the student teacher or school district staff.
Explicitly require that student teaching be completed locally, thus prohibiting candidates from completing this requirement abroad.
Unless preparation programs can establish true satellite campuses to closely supervise student teaching arrangements, placement in foreign or otherwise novel locales should be supplementary to a standard student teaching arrangement. Outsourcing the arrangements for student teaching makes it impossible to ensure the selection of the best cooperating teacher and adequate supervision of the student teacher and may prevent training of the teacher on relevant state instructional frameworks.
State response to our analysis
Oklahoma asserted that all preparation programs are held to NCATE's Standard 3, which requires that criteria for cooperating teachers are clear and known to all of the involved parties: They are accomplished professionals who are prepared for their roles as mentors and supervisors.
The state added that the Oklahoma Mentor Network (OMN) is a project of the Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation, Oklahoma Education Association, Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma. OMN has developed and piloted a high-quality, three-year mentoring program that is consistent, replicable and sustainable. Elements of the mentoring program include: creating high-functioning learning communities, developing beginning teachers into high-quality professionals who improve student learning and delivering professional development for all teachers. Components include: Beginning Teacher Performance Standards, a rubric of the development of teaching, a three-year mentoring program, five-day training for mentor teachers, annual training for principals, three days of training for school-based leadership teams, follow-up visits to schools and research conducted by the Oklahoma Technical Assistance Center. Oklahoma noted that although the residency year program had been placed on a two-year moratorium, the OMN training was held in many schools.
Last word
NCATE's standards do not distinguish between school personnel and professional education faculty, which is problematic. The state should articulate a clear distinction between cooperating teachers and the supervisors who oversee the candidates from the programs.
-
Oklahoma
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Preparation Programs
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Research rationale
Further evidence and discussion surrounding the impact of student-teaching on student achievement can be found in NCTQ's report: Student Teaching in the United States (2011) which includes citations of all of 34 studies published since 1997 in peer-reviewed journals on student teaching. They include: Anderson, N. A., & Radencich, M. C. (2001). The value of feedback in an early field experience: Peer, Teacher, and Supervisor coaching. Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 66-74; Brink, B., Laguardia, A., Grisham, D. L., Granby, C., & Peck, C. A. (2001). Who needs student teachers? Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 33-45; Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 319-343; Bullough Jr., R.V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., Egan, M. W., Berrie, C. F., Hales, V. & Smith, G. (2002). Rethinking Field Experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68-80; Cochran-Smith, M . (1991). Reinventing Student Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (2), 104-118; Connor, K. R., & Killmer, N. (2001). Cohorts, Collaboration, and Community: Does Contextual Teacher Education Really Work? Action in Teacher Education, 23(3), 46-53; Danne, C. J. (2000). Clinical Master Teacher Program: Teachers and Interns Perceptions of Supervision with Limited University Intervention. Action in Teacher Education, 22, 93-100; Fresse, A. R. (1991). The role of reflection on pre-service teacher's development in the context of a professional development school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 429-442. Grossman, P., Hammereness, K. M., McDonald, M., & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Structural Predictors of Perceptions of Coherence in NYC Teacher Education Programs. Journal on Teacher Education, 20(10), 273-287; Hopkins, W. S., Hoffman, S. Q., & Moss, V. D. (1997). Professional development schools and pre-service teacher stress. Action in Teacher Education, 18(4), 36-46; Lesley, M. K., Hamman, D., Olivarez, A., Button, K. & Griffith, R. (2009). "I'm Prepared for Anything Now." Student teacher and cooperating teacher interactions as a critical factor in determining the preparation of quality elementary reading teachers. The Teacher Educator, 44 (1), 40-55; Justen, J. E., III, Mc Junkin, M., & Strickland, H. (1991). Supervisory beliefs of cooperating teachers. The Teacher Educator, 34(3), 173-180; Kent, S. I. (2001). Supervision of Student Teachers: Practices of Cooperating Teachers Prepared in a Clinical Supervision Course. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16, 228-244; Knight, S. L., Wiseman, D. L., & Cooner, D. (2000). Using collaborative teacher research to determine the impact of professional development school activities on elementary student's math and writing outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 26-38; Knoblauch, D., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2008). "Maybe I can teach those kids." The influence of contextual factors on student teachers efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 166-179. Knudson, R. E., & Turley, S. (2000). University supervisors and at-risk student teachers. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 175-186.Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020-1041. McNay, M. & Graham, R. (2007). Can Cooperating Teachers Help Student Teachers Develop a Vision of Education? The Teacher Educator, 42(3), 224-236.Student Teaching in the United States, 2011; Mewborn, D. S. (1991). Learning to Teach Elementary Mathematics: Ecological Elements of a Field Experience. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(1), 27-46. Mule, L. (2006). Preservice teacher's inquiry in a professional development school context: Implications for the practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 205-218; Nguyen, H.T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 655-662; Pence, H. M., & Macgillivary, K. I. (2008). The impact of an international field experience on pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 14-25; Peterson, B. E., & Williams, S. R. (2008). Learning Mathematics for Teaching in the Student in Teaching Experience: Two contrasting cases. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 459-478. Putman, M.S. (2009). Grappling with Classroom Management: The Orientations of Preservice Teachers and Impact of Student Teaching. The Teacher Educator, 44(4), 232-247. Richardson-Koehler, V. (1988). Barriers to the Effective Supervision of Student Teaching: A Field Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 28-34; Ridley, D.S., Hurwitz, S., Hackett, S. & Miller, K.K. (2005). Comparing PDS and Campus Based Preservice Teacher Preparation: Is PDS-based preparation really better? Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 46-56; Rodgers, A., & Virginia, K. L. (2007). Restructuring a traditional student teacher supervision model: Fostering enhanced professional development and mentoring within a professional development school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(1), 63-80; Roth-McDuffie, A. (2004). Mathematics Teaching as a Deliberate Practice: An Investigation of Elementary Pre-service Teachers