Against-the-Grain Teacher Education: A Study of Coursework, Field Experience, and Perspectives:

Several teacher preparation programs foster a substantive and critical stance toward children's education (Clift, Houston, & Pugach, 1990; Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Grant & Secada, 1990; Novak, 1994; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1991; Valli, 1992), what Cochran-Smith (1991, p. 279) refers to as learning to teach against the grain. Research on what happens in the classrooms and field experiences of these programs is rare. Teaching against the grain stems from and generates critical perspectives on the macrolevel relationships of power, labor, and ideology. Teaching against the grain is also deeply embedded in the culture and history of teaching in individual schools and biographies of teachers and their individual and collaborative efforts to alter curricula, question common practices, and resist inappropriate decisions. Feiman-Nemser (1990) notes that most of these teacher education programs combine a progressive social vision with critical reflection on schooling. Our purpose was to explore ways in which a group of elementary preservice student teachers experienced teacher education coursework and early field experiences designed to foster a commitment to teach in a socially and pedagogically progressive manner. We particularly investigated the against-the-grain perspectives that these students internalized at this point in their education. Methodology We used a methodology emphasizing the students' existential experiences (e.g., Erickson, 1986; Glaser & Strauss, 1975; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This methodology combines a variety of data-gathering methods stressing interpretive field studies and analysis grounded in recorded data. The Setting The Master's Teacher Education Program (MTEP) is a graduate level, three-semester sequence of professional coursework and field experiences to foster understanding and commitment among prospective teachers to teach against the grain. Faculty with progressive educational perspectives were asked to work in the MTEP; however, the course titles and organization are similar to the conventional teacher education program. We collected data for this study during the semester prior to student teaching, during which the students took art education, language arts/reading education, and social studies education, and an early field experience/seminar. We focused on data collected from the social studies education class and the early field experience and seminar, the core of the semester's work. The course, Elementary Social Studies Curriculum, had three goals: empowering future teachers to alter conventional education, strengthening the link between progressive views of education and society and teaching children, and encouraging reflective analysis as an integral aspect of becoming a teacher (Adler & Goodman, 1986; Goodman, 1986). During the course, students developed and taught an original unit. Data Sources Following theoretical sampling guidelines (Glaser & Strauss, 1975) and using case history interviews, we selected 15 students as informants. We included students from diverse social and economic backgrounds and of different ages, races, and gender. They held a variety of ideologies about teaching, learning, children, and society. We collected additional, limited data from the MTEP instructors and used relevant print material as further data. In particular, we used students' final term papers, in which they articulated their philosophy of education and how this philosophy guided their practice. Data Collection We recorded interviews on audiotape and observations in field notes. The research team of the research director and three assistants observed students during each 3-hour session of the social studies education class, at least one session of their other courses, and in early field placements and related seminars. We used the following questions to guide initial observations: How is the university classroom and field placement organized? …