Planning for What Kind of Teaching? Supporting Cooperating Teachers as Teachers of Planning.

Models of preservice teacher education that include year-long internships require classroom teachers who serve as school-based teacher educators to "bear a large burden for beginning teacher growth" (Bullough Jr., R. & Draper, R., 2004, p. 409). The success of field-based internships rests on cooperating teachers' ability to view teacher candidates as learners of teaching and themselves as teachers of teaching. This means that preservice mentors not only understand the content to be taught--the learning to teach "curriculum"--but also are able to design learning opportunities based on knowledge of their intern and what she needs to learn (Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996; Tomlinson, 1995). A core component of that curriculum of learning to teach is instructional planning. Considered a core task in "the work of teaching" (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 497), planning is often identified in university teacher preparation standards, state teacher certification standards, and more general standards for professional practice such as those developed by The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). While most teacher candidates receive some university support in learning to plan, much of their learning occurs during student teaching or internships where novices plan particular content for a particular group of students under the guidance of an experienced classroom teacher who has practical knowledge of the context, curriculum and learners. Oftentimes, however, mentor teachers do not view themselves as teachers of planning or understand what teaching planning entails. Thus being a strong teacher of children does not automatically translate into the necessary skills needed to carry out the role of school-based teacher educator (Feiman-Nemser, 1998; Koerner, 1992). Historically, cooperating teachers have received little formal preparation for their role (Sparks & Brodeur, 1987). In their recent study of the student teaching experience, Valencia, Martin, Place, and Grossman (2009) found that as both classroom teachers and mentors, the cooperating teachers "were given little support or training in how to serve these dual roles" (p. 318). Thus cooperating teachers must continue to figure out for themselves what they are supposed to do when working with interns (Abell et al, 1995). Because experience has been their best teacher and they have "learned the ropes" on their own (Lortie, 1975), cooperating teachers may believe that they should stay out of the way so that novices can demonstrate their know-how (Feiman-Nemser & Beasley, 1996). By underestimating the guidance that novices need in learning to plan, cooperating teachers may not give interns access to the intellectual work that they engage in while planning for student learning. In addition, they may not provide guided support to novices in developing plans of their own. To complicate matters, the roles and expectations not only of the cooperating teacher, but also the novice and university supervisor are often unclear (Slick, 1997). Negotiating the triadic relationship between mentor, student teacher, and university supervisor is fraught with tensions including power and position. In their examination of one such "failed" triadic relationship, Bullough and Draper (2004) describe the competing and conflicting expectations that the novice, mentor teacher, and university supervisor held of one another. Without making their underlying beliefs about each other's roles and practices explicit, their lack of effective communication--a well-documented problem between cooperating teachers and university supervisors (Beck & Kosnik, 2002)--led to a breakdown in their relationships. Planning is a central task of teaching and a central focus in learning to teach. But what does planning entail, and how is planning best learned? What challenges do experienced teachers serving as school-based teacher educators face in becoming teachers of planning? …