communication in the socialization of preservice teachers

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 24 November 2014, At: 19:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

Communication in the socialization of preserviceteachersAnn Q. Staton‐Spicer a & Ann L. Darling b

a Department of Speech Communication , University of Washington , DL‐15, Seattle,Washington, 98195 Phone: 206–543–4860b Department of Speech Communication , University of Washington ,Published online: 18 May 2009.

To cite this article: Ann Q. Staton‐Spicer & Ann L. Darling (1986) Communication in the socialization of preservice teachers,Communication Education, 35:3, 215-230, DOI: 10.1080/03634528609388345

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528609388345

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03634528609388345

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634528609388345

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COMMUNICATION IN THESOCIALIZATION OF

PRESERVICE TEACHERSAnn Q. Staton-SpicerAnn L. Darling

There is a renewed and widespread interest in educational excellence in Americatoday. In A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983) theNational Commission on Excellence in Education recommended new directions infive broad areas, one of which was labeled Teaching and defined as "intended toimprove the preparation of teachers or to make teaching a more rewarding andrespected profession" (p. 30). An important aspect of teaching effectiveness is that ofteacher preparation. While certainly not the only factor contributing to success inteaching, many educators believe that teacher education is critical to the quality ofteachers who enter the marketplace. The focus of this paper is on the internshipphase of teacher training, the period in which individuals learn to be teachers andfirst enter schools as teachers.

Socialization has been defined as "the process by which people selectively acquirethe values and attitudes, the interests, skills and knowledge—in short the culture—current in groups to which they are, or seek to become a member" (Merton, et al.,1957). Primary socialization is that which occurs from birth, the process by which achild becomes a part of society, while secondary socialization is "any subsequentprocess that inducts an already socialized individual into new sectors of the objectiveworld of his society" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 130). As college/universitystudents become teachers, they experience a process of secondary socialization whichtakes two forms: (1) occupational or role socialization, and (2) organizationalsocialization.

Prospective teachers experience a decision-making period during which they makea commitment to enter the teaching profession, to become members of the occupa-tional group known as teachers. To do so is to agree to learn the role, to acquire therequisite skills and knowledge necessary to teach, and to become a part of the cultureof teachers, that is, to think and feel and join the world of teachers. As such, onenecessary dimension of teacher socialization is that of occupational learning(Wanous, 1977).

A second component of teacher socialization is that of organizational socialization.In the structure of American society, the educational system is a social institution inwhich people learn through interaction with others (Bassett & Smythe, 1979). Thus,most instruction occurs within the context of schools, which are organizations in theirown right. Van Maanen (1976) has defined organizational socialization as "theprocess by which a person learns the values, norms and required behaviors whichpermit him to participate as a member of the organization" (p. 67). In addition tolearning how to teach, the socialization process also entails an individual becoming amember of the particular organization, becoming a part of the school system in whichhe or she teaches. Organizational socialization involves the new teacher learning both

Ann Q. Staton-Spicer, Department of Speech Communication DL-15, University of Washington,Seattle; Washington 98195, 206-543-4860.Ann L. Darting, Department of Speech Communication, University of WashingtonThe authors wish to thank Dave Games for his conscientious contributions to this study.

COMMUNICATION EDUCATION, Volume 35, July 1986

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

216—COMMUNICATION EDUCATION

the culture of the school as well as his or her individual role within the school (Louis,1980).

Teacher socialization must be viewed, then, as complex and multifaceted. Theway one chooses to examine it is inextricably tied to the model of socialization towhich one adheres. Traditionally, teacher socialization has been viewed from afunctionalist perspective, a model in which "socialization fits the individual tosociety" (Lacey, 1977, p. 18), one in which people are considered as empty vessels,and one which takes a deterministic view of the individual in society (Parsons,1951).

In his excellent review of key processes in the socialization of student teachers,Zeichner (1980) identifies seven factors that serve as socializing influences: earlychildhood, peers, persons with evaluative power, pupils, persons in lateral roles,classroom ecology, and teacher subculture and the bureaucratic structure of theschools. Because of the variety of factors identified as important socializing agents inthis body of research, much of it can be viewed as disparate. The unifying thread,however, is that the various influences are seen as acting upon the preservice orbeginning teachers in a linear fashion. For example, a variety of research hasexamined attitudes and predispositions of persons before and after teacher training(Day, 1959; Hoy, 1968; Jacobs, 1968; Kremer & Moore, 1978; Mahan & Lacefield,1978; Muus, 1969), and before and after the early teaching experiences (Kuhlman &Hoy, 1974; McArthur, 1978; McArthur, 1979). When changes are found to occur,they are attributed to the influences Zeichner identified, such as the cooperatingteacher or the school bureaucracy. These functionalist studies have provided insightsabout important socializing influences and changes that may occur, but have not beenas helpful in our understanding of what actually occurs during socialization.

An alternative perspective to that of functionalism is what Lacey (1977) refers toas a conflict model of socialization and Zeichner (1980) terms a dialectical model.Lacey views socialization as going beyond the simple explanations provided by thefunctionalists, and presents it as "a more complex, interactive, negotiated, provi-sional process. The model. . . also stresses the importance of man as a creative force,as a searcher for solutions and as possessing a considerable potential to shape thesociety in which he lives" (p. 22). In this perspective people cannot be viewed aspassive recipients of external socializing forces. As Zeichner states, the "dialecticalmodels of the socialization process focus on the constant interplay between individu-als and the institutions into which they are socialized" (p. 2).

Research on teacher socialization grounded in the dialectical perspective isbeginning to emerge. Friebus (1977), in an interview study of teacher trainees,concluded that preservice teachers are active agents in their own socialization.Tabachnick, Popkewitz, and Zeichner (1980) examined the student internship as aforum for exploring "students' developing beliefs about teaching and about them-selves as teachers" during socialization (p. 12). Gehrke (1981) conducted a five-yearstudy to "generate a grounded theory of the way teachers adapt the teacher role tomeet their own needs (role personalization), while at the same time being socializedto the role demanded by others" (p. 34). More recently, Zeichner and Tabachnick(1984) studied four beginning teachers to understand "the interplay of individualintent and institutional constraint during entry into the teaching role" (p. 5).

The assumptions of our study are congruent with these four studies. We viewteacher socialization from a dialectical perspective and conceive of it as occurring inphases. The three commonly discussed phases of organizational socialization (Van

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

COMMUNICATION IN THE SOCIALIZATION OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS—217

Maanen, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) are applicable to teacher socialization.As Van Maanen describes, anticipatory socialization refers to the choice phaseduring which a person decides to become a member of an organization. We haveexpanded his description to include the choice phase of occupational socialization aswell, in which a person decides to enter the chosen profession. The entry or encounterphase is that in which the newcomer confronts the job situation (both theoccupation—the actual teaching, and the organization—the particular school) forthe first time. The third stage is that of continuance or adaptation or metamorphosisduring which the individual makes changes as needed to remain in the profession orin the organization.

Our study examines the formal, almost universal preservice training componentknown as the internship. It emerged as a critical aspect of study for several reasons.First, much literature touts the internship as "the most valuable experience of thepreservice program" (Pataniczek & Isaacson, 1981). Second, the internship providesthe opportunity to study both formal and informal aspects of the socializationprocess. Internships are formal, structured programs for learning to be teachers.Within the formal structure, however, are numerous informal socializing influences(e.g., routine interactions with others on the job) that serve to define more clearly theteacher role and reduce uncertainty. A third reason is that individuals involved in aninternship simultaneously experience both anticipatory socialization and entryphases of occupational and organizational socialization. Although these preserviceteachers have already made some commitment to the teaching profession, they arestill in training and often view the internship as the final factor in their occupationaldecision to enter teaching. Thus, occupational or vocational (Jablin, 1985) anticipa-tory socialization is occurring. At the same time, however, these preservice teachersface the everyday job realities of the teaching profession for the first time. Certainlythe internship is different from a first teaching position (e.g., the time period isusually shorter, it is a temporary position, the intern does not have full authority orresponsibility for pupils, the intern is under constant and close supervision), but thesepreservice teachers do experience what can be considered the entry or encounterphase of occupational socialization. Similarly, these preservice teachers also undergoorganizational anticipatory socialization and organizational entry or encounter.Since the internship occurs in a particular school setting that they have selected orthat has been selected for them, they have the experience of entering a neworganization. Because interns remain in a given school for the entire school year, theuniversity teacher education program encourages them to become a part of theschool. These interns had a range of alternative settings available to them, includinginner city, suburban, and even private schools. As Jablin (1984) notes, the basiccomponents of anticipatory socialization are the previous work experiences and theexpectations about the new organization (p. 8). None of the interns was assured of aregular job in the school and, indeed, viewed the internship as a time to experiencewhat it was like to teach in an inner-city school and compare that to theirexpectations of teaching in other contexts. At the same time, however, the internsactually entered a new school and realized what Jablin refers to as "the degree towhich his/her job and organizational expectations are congruent with the 'reality' oforganizational life" (p. 9). Finally, the internship is an important focus of studybecause it is a distinct socialization mechanism. While certain other professionsinclude internships as part of the training experience, (e.g., medical), the descriptionsof the socialization of doctors (Merton, et al., 1957) and nurses (Olesen & Whittaker,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


1968) clearly indicate that a teaching internship is different from a medicalinternship. For example, preservice teachers interact regularly with a large numberof students (e.g., 25-30) at one time while those in the medical profession typicallyinteract with patients on a one-to-one basis.

Thus, our study focuses on the internship period of preservice teacher education.This period is one in which preservice teachers experience both anticipatory andentry phases of occupational and organizational socialization. Because of the trainingdimension and temporary nature of the internship, we do not consider thesepreservice teachers to have experienced the continuance stage of either occupationalor organizational socialization.

COMMUNICATION CONCERN FRAMEWORK

The perspective we take for understanding socialization is that of communication. AsZeichner (1980) comments, "It has become evident from a dialectical perspective onteacher socialization that many of the significant aspects of a teacher's socializationare embedded in the continual human interactions within the process itself (p. 36).Bernstein (1972) observes that "Individuals come to learn their social roles throughthe process of communication" (p. 474).

As a way of examining communication in teacher socialization, we drew upon theframework of teacher communication concern. Adapted from Fuller's (1969) generalconstruct of teacher concern, communication concern is defined as "a constructivefrustration or anticipation of a future problem situation that involved participation inface-to-face interaction with students, other teachers, parents, and principal"(Staton-Spicer, 1983, p. 159). Staton-Spicer and Bassett (1979) found that teachercommunication concerns could be categorized according to the self as a commu-nicator, the task of communicating, and the impact of one's communication on others.They also discovered a developmental sequence, with the communication concerns ofpreservice teachers differing from those of inservice teachers. Preservice teacherswere primarily concerned about self and task dimensions, while inservice teacherswere more concerned about impact dimensions. Book and Eisenberg (1979) alsoreported that communication concerns of teaching assistants changed during anacademic term, shifting from primarily self to task concerns. In a subsequent casestudy, Staton-Spicer and Marty-White (1981) found a relationship between aninstructor's concerns about communication and his classroom communication pat-terns.

Pataniczek and Isaacson (1981), after reviewing the research on teacher concerns,conclude that "Although studies of teacher concerns seem to be phenomenologicaldescriptions of individual experiences, they are, in reality, the closest we can come toan account of the effect of the socialization process on beginning teachers themselves"(p. 17). In our study, we employ the teacher communication concern framework toaid us in understanding occupational and organizational socialization—as a way oforganizing preservice teachers' communication perspectives and activities, and as away of discovering relationships among communication perspectives, activities, andthe socialization process.

Our general purpose was to discover the role of communication in preserviceteacher socialization. Specifically, we addressed the following research questions:

(1) What are the important communication activities/interactions of preserviceteachers during the internship phase of socialization?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


(2) What is the relationship between the preservice teachers' communicationconcerns and communication activities/interactions during the internship phaseof socialization?

METHOD

SUBJECTS

Employing methods of the qualitative case study approach (Philipsen, 1982), oursubjects were 12 student interns in a secondary education preservice trainingprogram. These preservice teachers were involved in a three quarter internship inwhich they took coursework at the University and also worked in a public schoolsystem. During the first quarter they observed in the schools for six hours a week,during the second quarter they taught two or three courses and were in the schoolsdaily for half a day, and during the third quarter they were in the schools all day,with teaching responsibility for five classes.

For this study, data were collected while preservice teachers were in their secondand third quarters of the program, a five and one-half month period. The teachingfields of the preservice teachers differed widely, ranging from Math to English toSocial Studies. Participants included five males and seven females who taught at fourdifferent public high schools within the same large city and ranged in age from 21 to28 years.

PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION

There were two data bases for the study. First, in order to identify the communica-tion activities/interactions of the preservice teachers, participants were asked to keepweekly logs of their communication interactions. Specifically, they were asked to:"Think back on your teaching week. Identify the people that you talked with aboutany aspect of your teaching. For each person you identify, please briefly describe theinteraction (what you talked about, how you felt, etc.)." Open-ended logs wereutilized, instead of checklist records, because of our emphasis on topics and targets oftalk generated by the participants themselves (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982).

The second data base was a set of two one-hour interviews which served to verifyand elaborate upon the communication activities/interactions reported in the logs.Each preservice teacher was interviewed at the end of the second quarter and again atthe end of the final quarter of the internship. The questions were standardized for allparticipants, with individualized follow-up probes, and were designed to generatereflections about their socialization experiences, both formal and informal. Severalquestions overlapped with the weekly logs and asked participants to identify thosewith whom they talked, and to discuss the most important communicative relation-ships and the interactions. Responses verified the log data, (i.e., no additional targetsor topics of talk emerged), thus serving as a reliability check (LeCompte & Goetz,1982). Transcriptions of the interviews provided a wealth of data about communica-tion concerns, activities, influences, and interactions, as well as about teaching stylesand satisfaction with teaching.

PROCEDURES FOR DATA ANALYSIS

To identify the important communication activities/interactions of the interns, andthe relationship between concerns and activities/interactions, we employed a fourstep procedure for content analysis. First, each interview transcript and weekly

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


communication log was read independently by both authors. A list of topics of talk,recorded verbatim as written or spoken by the interns, and persons to whom theinterns talked was generated from these documents.

Second, we constructed a preliminary table to chart the relationship between topic,target of talk, and communication concern category of the talk. All topics were listedin the intern's own words. To identify the topics as self, task, or impact, each authorindependently reviewed the table and categorized topics according to the type ofconcern the talk seemed to be addressing. Cohen's (1960) kappa was computed fromactual frequencies and a reliability estimate of .72 was obtained. When there wasdisagreement, the discrepancies were discussed until agreement was reached. Thisprocedure resulted in a list of topics, sorted according to self, task, or impact.

Third, this list of individual topics was examined by both authors to eliminateredundancies, combine related topics, and record the number of interns whoidentified the topic and respective target. This process resulted in a more parsimoni-ous list of unique topics categorized according to type of concern with notation of thetarget persons involved in the talk.

The fourth phase of data analysis was to refine further the topics of talk withineach concern category and focus on function. For talk that occurred with others in theschool, we used Greenbaum's (1974) descriptive typology for communication in theorganization. Each author independently coded each topic, with target person, intoone of Greenbaum's categories. Differences were discussed until agreement wasreached; for the two topics about which agreement could not be reached, bothcategories were recorded in the table. His functional framework, modified for use indescribing the talk of interns, includes the following categories and definitions:

REGULATIVE: Talk related to control, order, direction and feedback between superiors andsubordinates in work related activities. Example: Talk in which the intern's teaching effectiveness isevaluated.

INNOVATIVE: Talk related to change and new ideas. Example: Talk in which creative ideas abouta lesson plan are brainstormed.

INTEGRATIVE: Talk related to employee-morale, group acceptance, and feeling for others.Example: Talk in which the intern discusses personal goals or experiences of the internship in orderto create a comraderie among colleagues and increase his or her feelings of being part of the schooland of the teaching profession.

INFORMATIVE: Talk related to exchange of information. Example: Talk in which the interngives specific information to a student's parents about a problem situation involving their child.

Since Greenbaum's framework was developed for communication within anorganizational setting and thus, did not handle adequately the function of talk withindividuals outside of the school, we examined the topics of talk with family andfriends to determine what, if any, functions were reported by the interns themselves.Based on the descriptions of their interactions from the weekly logs and the interviewtranscripts, one of the authors identified and defined three emergent functions. Usingthese categories and definitions, the second author then went back and coded thetopics according to the three functions. The one topic upon which agreement couldnot be reached was listed in the table as serving two functions. The emergentfunctions were categorized and defined as follows:

CATHARTIC: Talk to relieve frustration or tension. Example: Talk in which the intern shares withhis or her significant other intense feelings about the overwhelming pressures of the internship.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


ACKNOWLEDGING: Talk that allows others to see them in the new role of teacher (i.e., talkabout their behavior as teachers helps interns redefine themselves both in their own eyes and in theeyes of family and friends). Example: Talk in which the intern reports to family members routineevents of the day in order to be seen as a teacher in their eyes.

AFFIRMING: Talk guided by the need for affective support (i.e., talk that reports teacher behaviorand solicits advice or reinforcement). Example: Talk in which a significant other listens to the way anintern handled a student behavior problem and agrees that the intern "did the right thing."

Cohen's (1960) kappa was computed for the coding into the seven functionalcategories and a reliability estimate of .83 was obtained.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIALIZATION EXPERIENCE

There were a number of similarities in the overall socialization experience of ourinterns.1 Specifically, they reported consistencies in: (1) the type of orientation theyhad at the individual school, (2) the nature of the reality shock they experienced, (3)the aspects of the internship they enjoyed most and least, (4) the preparation theyconsidered most valuable, and (5) the extent to which they felt they had beensocialized.

OrientationWhen asked how they were oriented to the school in which they were teaching, all ofthe interns reported that there were no formal orientation programs for them.Although our interns were grouped in only four different schools, this finding stillseems remarkable in that the participating schools were ones that routinely servedstudent interns and had been doing so for years. Each of these schools had anadministrator who was primarily responsible for the interns, yet in no case was thereeven an introductory meeting to explain school policies and procedures. Theseinterns oriented themselves to the new schools, with varying degrees of assistance andprompting from others. One of the interns was given specific assignments by heruniversity coordinator to locate different places in the school building. In anotherinstance, the Field Associate (FA) took the intern around and introduced him toadministrators and other teachers. All other interns, however, were left on their own.The desire for some kind of formal orientation was voiced by five of the interns whoreported that an orientation would have greatly facilitated their feeling a part of theirnew environment. Three others, however, felt such a program was unnecessary andthat it was more valuable to be required to go out and explore the school on theirown.

Reality shockThroughout the interviews, eleven of our interns reported a common experience, thatwhich has been termed "reality shock." Gaede (1978) defined reality shock as thefeeling of severe disillusionment that beginning teachers experience during the firstyear of teaching (p. 405). Veenman (1984) described it as "the collapse of themissionary ideals formed during teacher training by the harsh rude reality ofeveryday classroom life . . . reality shock deals with the assimilation of a complexreality which forces itself incessantly upon the beginning teacher, day in and dayout" (p. 143). Although most authors refer to reality shock as a phenomenonexclusive to the beginning teacher, the descriptions our interns provided of the match

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


between their expectations and their actual experience can be characterized as a typeof reality shock.

Our interns reported many indications of reality shock as well as several differenttypes of disillusionment. Three themes or types of reality shock emerged. First, forseveral interns the amount of time that was consumed by teaching was an unexpectedreality. One of the surprises interns experienced was the excessive amount of timeinvolved in planning, preparing, and grading. Three said they knew teaching was atime consuming job, but had no idea that the time demands would be so great for astudent intern. A second type of reality shock was related to the amount of workrequired to teach satisfactorily. Four interns expressed surprise about how muchadministrative and procedural paper work was involved in addition to the amount ofwork needed to plan a single lesson. A third type of reality shock involved the degreeof emotional stress interns felt throughout the teaching experience. The degree ofemotional involvement with the job was both unexpected and difficult to manage forfour of the interns.

Enjoyed most and leastWhen asked what aspect of the internship they enjoyed most, all of the interns,without exception, identified talking with students as most enjoyable. Specifically,they described the experience of developing rapport, encouraging high levels ofthinking, and relating with "kids" as the most enjoyable and rewarding aspect oftheir job.

What they identified as least enjoyable was much less uniform, but discipline wasthe aspect most often mentioned. A number of remarks were made during interviewsabout how much they disliked having to discipline students. Additional dimensionsincluded time management, being criticized, having to adapt to different levels ofstudents, and having to adapt one's teaching style to match the expectations of theFA.

Most valuable preparationWhen asked about the most valuable preparation for the internship the mostconsistent reply was having had some previous experience with "kids." Five of theinterns had prior experience teaching young people (e.g., swimming, Sunday school,day camp). For two who did not report such prior experience, the most valuablepreparation was said to be the first quarter of the internship during which they wereable to observe adolescents in the school setting. For two others, the most importantpreparation was taking content specific classes at the university; the remainder wereundecided.

Extent to which socialization occurredAt the end of the internship the preservice teachers were asked whether they feltmore like college students or high school teachers, and whether or not they wouldactively seek a teaching position. Eleven of the 12 strongly indicated they did want toteach, and 10 reported they were applying for jobs. (Of the two who were not seekingjobs, one was planning graduate study and the other was going into the seminary.)Regarding their feeling like college students or high school teachers, there wereconsistencies in the responses yet also some differences. Of 11 responses,2 sevenindicated they definitely felt more like teachers, two reported ambivalence (e.g., "Idon't feel like I'm a college student. I don't have those feelings/freedoms any more.I'm a 9 to 5 responsible person. I feel more like a teacher but at the same time I'm notreally a teacher."), and two stated they did not feel like teachers. Of the four who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


expressed either ambivalence or definitely felt they were not teachers, three had apoor relationship with their FA. The fourth indicated that "I'm closer to the studentsin age and I feel more like them." Since all of the interns except one were firm intheir commitment to teach, and since only two did not feel more like teachers thanwhen they began, the pattern for this group of interns is that most felt socialized intothe profession.

RESEARCH QUESTION ONE

With respect to the communication activities/interactions of the interns, they talkedwith a range of persons about a variety of topics. They talked about their teachingwith almost anyone and everyone both in and out of the school environment. Whilethere was a wide spectrum of people with whom they talked (e.g., friends over fordinner, Grandmother, the school custodian, the FA), there appeared to be a clearreliance on some individuals more than others. Eleven of the interns reported fourtargets for talk about teaching: the FA, other teachers in the building, significantothers or immediate family, and other interns. These targets were the ones reportedby these interns throughout the internship period.

As indicated in Table 1, there was a variety of topics discussed about teaching. Ourprocess of categorizing and collapsing topics resulted in 21 distinct clusters. Five ofthese will be described and illustrated with examples from the data to providedetailed views of the talk: (1) anxiety about discipline, (2) discipline and classroommanagement, (3) relationships, (4) lesson planning, and (5) role discrepancies.

Under the heading anxiety about discipline was talk which indicated some concernor discomfort on the part of the intern about having to "do" discipline. For example,one intern reported talking with other interns about how much "bad students"caused teaching to be a negative experience. Another reported a discussion of howuncomfortable he felt when having to "pull rank" on his students. In each instance oftalk categorized under this heading the essence of the reported conversation was howill at ease the intern felt with having to invoke disciplinary procedures.

Talk categorized under the heading of discipline and classroom management wasdifferent from the previous category because it focused more on getting ideas abouthow to perform discipline tasks and how actually to manage classrooms and less onthe accompanying anxiety felt. The interns reported a reliance on the FA and otherteachers and described discussions of specific adolescents and/or classes. Forexample, one intern was having difficulty managing a low level math class which metduring the last hour of the day. She consulted both her FA and other teachers to getspecific ideas about how to handle her "problem class". In another instance an internhad put his 9th grade class into small groups for a long term project and wasexperiencing difficulty keeping them working. He solicited advice and assistancefrom his FA. Other examples were reported in which general lunch room talkrevolved around specific students and strategies for management in the classroomand ways of maintaining discipline.

Relationships with the FA as well other relationships were topics of conversationreported by interns. The relationship with the FA was discussed with the family,significant other, other interns, and the university coordinator. In five of our cases,the FA and intern did not have a positive relationship. One of these interns talkedwith members of her family, her university coordinator, and another intern at theschool about the discomfort she felt as a result of this poor relationship. Even in theseven cases in which there were not major problems between the intern and the-FA,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 1

COMMUNICATION OF INTERNS

Concern Topics Persons Functions

Self 1. The pressures of teaching(N - 12) (N - 12)

2. Experiences with intern-ship (N - 10)

3. Evaluation of teachingperformance (N - 10)

4. Daily routine and grind(N-8 )

5. Relationships (N - 6)

6. Relationship with FA(N-6 )

7. Orientation (N - 5)

8. Role discrepancies (N — 5)

9. Anxiety about discipline(N-5 )

10. Life in general (N - 5)

11. Student characteristics( N - 4 )

12. Personal goals (N - 3)

Task 1. Lesson planning (N — 12)(N - 12)

2. Procedures & protocol(N-ll)

3. Discipline & management(N-9 )

significant other (N - 8)family (N - 5)other interns (N - 3)other teachers (N - 1)university coordinator (N - 1)other interns (N — 7)other teachers (N - 4)field associate (FA) (N - 3)university coordinator (N - 1)university teachers (N — 1)university coordinator (N — 7)field associate (FA) (N - 6)students (N - 4)administration (N — 2)significant other (N - 7)family (N - 3)other interns (N - 5)significant other (N - 2)other interns (N - 3)university coordinator (N - 2)significant other (N — 2)family (N - 1)field associate (FA) (N - 3)staff ( N - 2 )administration (N — 1)other interns (N - 1)university coordinator (N — 1)students (N - 1)other interns (N - 2)field associates (FA) (N - 1)administration (N - 1)significant other (N — 1)other interns (N - 5)

other teachers (N - 3)administration (N - 2)students (N - 2)staff(N-l)family (N - 4)

university coordinator (N - 1)other teachers (N - 1)significant other (N - 1)family (N - 1)

field associate (FA) ( N - l l )other teachers (N — 7)other interns (N — 6)

significant other (N - 2)field associate (FA) (N - 6)other teachers (N - 4)administration (N - 4)staff (N - 2)students (N - 2)field associate (FA) (N - 8)

other teachers (N - 3)administration (N - 2)university coordinator (N — 1)significant other (N - 1)

CatharticCatharticIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeRegulativeRegulativeRegulativeRegulativeAcknowledgingAcknowledgingIntegrativeCatharticIntegrativeInformativeCathartic/AffirmingAffirmingIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeInformativeInformativeInformativeCatharticIntegrative

IntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeIntegrativeAcknowledging

IntegrativeIntegrativeAcknowledgingAcknowledging

InformativeInformativeInformative/

InnovativeAcknowledgingInformativeRegulativeRegulativeInformativeInformativeRegulative/Informative

InformativeRegulativeInformativeAffirming

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


TABLE 1 (Continued)

COMMUNICATION OF INTERNS

Concern

Impact(N-4)

Topics

4. Individual students( N - 6 )

5. Subject matter (N - 4)

1. General perspectives onteaching and learningissues (N - 2)

2. Feelings about studentspoor performance (N - 1)

3. Problem with individualstudent learning (N - 1)

4. What students like anddislike ( N - l )

Persons

field associate (FA) (N - 4)counselors (N - 3)other teachers ( N - l )field associate (FA) (N - 4)university teachers ( N - l )

field associate (FA) (N - 2)other teachers (N - 2)

significant other (N - 1)

specific students' parents (N — 1)

family ( N - l )

Functions

InformativeRegulativeInformativeInformativeInformative

InformativeInformative

Cathartic

Informative

Acknowledging

N — number of interns.

the relationship was a crucial one and, as such, merited discussion. This wasespecially true for a group of three interns who taught at the same school. Talk aboutthe changing relationships between themselves and their FAs was routine lunchroomconversation. Discussion of other relationships was also a topic of talk for the interns.It seemed that along with reality shock (i.e., the sudden realization of the time,energy, and emotional drain required of a teacher) came the recognition thatpersonal relationships were suffering. Five interns expressed unhappiness anddissatisfaction about how much their private social lives had suffered as a result of theinternship. They talked about having little time and/or energy for dating andrecreation.

Lesson planning was a heading under which talk about instructional strategiesand evaluation of students was grouped. For instance, one intern wanted topersonalize her lessons and talked with her FA about how to do that. In another casean intern had created a new idea for a student project and talked with his significantother, who was also an intern, about the idea. Eight of the interns reportedconversations about ways of evaluating and grading students with the FA, otherteachers, and other interns.

Role discrepancy was a topic that included conversations centering on a feeling ofdiscomfort with the role interns were acquiring and in some cases required toperform. For example, one intern expressed uneasiness over the pace she was forcedto keep by her FA. She did not believe the students were deriving benefit from thequick pace and she talked about feeling uncomfortable teaching in a way that wascontrary to her own beliefs. Another kind of talk about role discrepancy had to dowith the way the interns perceived that others in the environment reacted to them,e.g., they expressed discomfort when school counselors and/or parents asked to seethe "real teacher". Thus, talk about role discrepancy centered around role expecta-tions of others being different from the intern's own, or ambiguity and uneasinessover the somewhat tentative and temporary role of an intern.

RESEARCH QUESTION TWO

Regarding the relationship between communication concerns and communicationinteractions/activities, the talk reported by the interns could be categorized according

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


to concern phases. Our content analysis revealed several noticeable patterns of talkrelated to the stages of self, task, and impact. The first pattern dealt with the topics oftalk, a second involved targets of talk, and a third emerged with respect to thefunctions served by the talk. Table 1 displays the topics and functions of talkcategorized according to concern phase. Notation is included of the number of internswho reported talk with particular target persons.3

SelfThe greatest number and variety of topics of talk reported were those that reflectedself concerns. From a total of 12 general topics, four emerged as most salient for theinterns, based on number of interns who mentioned the topics: the pressures ofteaching, experiences with the internship, evaluation of my teaching performance,and the daily routine and grind.

Like the topics of talk, the targets varied when the interns talked about issuesrelated to self concerns. They reported talking virtually to everyone in their personalnetwork, both family and friends outside the school as well as administrators andstaff within the school. Although the talk was not limited to a few individuals, theredid appear to be a reliance on the FA, other interns, and at least one member of theintern's family. Ten of the interns reported heavy reliance on someone at school (e.g.,the FA or another teacher) and someone at home (e.g., spouse or parent). In someinstances, however, when people at home were not responsive to the tribulations ofteaching (we had two such cases), there was an active seeking of someone in additionto the primary agent at the school (in both of our cases the interns turned to faculty attheir university).

The function of self-related talk within the school setting was primarily integra-tive, serving to facilitate the development of a group identity. For example, anxietyabout discipline was discussed with other interns and functioned to build a sense ofshared identity. Similarly, the interns talked about life in general (e.g., religion,politics) with staff, administrators, other teachers and students in order to buildrelationships and be a part of the school culture. Such talk related to self concernsresulted in the intern feeling more integrated into the school community.

Self-related talk with persons not in the organization, with those at home, servedcathartic and acknowledging functions. When, for example, the intern talked withhis or her spouse or other family member about relationships or role discrepancies orthe pressures of teaching, the talk served as a release and was cathartic. Otherconversations, however, such as about the daily grind, served to gain acknowledge-ment for a changing view of self.

Overall, talk about teaching related to self concerns served to integrate, relievefrustration, and gain acknowledgement for acquiring the image of a teacher.

TaskWhen related to task concerns, talk became more localized with respect both to topicsand targets. Whereas there were 12 general topics related to self, only fivetask-related topics of conversation were reported: lesson planning, procedures andprotocol, discipline and classroom management, individual students, and subjectmatter. Talk tended to focus on specific behaviors and strategies needed to do the jobof teaching. Based on the number of interns reporting conversations, the mostimportant categories were (1) lesson planning, (2) procedures and protocol, and (3)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


classroom management. Talk about what to do in the classroom seemed more criticalthan the content of teaching, as only four interns reported discussing subject matter.

Like the topics, the number and variety of people with whom the interns discussedthe task of teaching was smaller than for the targets of self-related talk. The samepersons were targets of task and self-related talk, but there was a clear dependence onthe FA and other teachers, with each of the five topics discussed with either the FA orother teachers, or both. The FA was the major partner for talk when there was apositive (i.e., complementary and supportive) relationship between the FA and theintern. When the relationship was not positive, as in five of our 12 cases, the internrelied more on other teachers in the building for advice and assistance. There waslittle task-related conversation with individuals outside the school setting; only threeinterns reported talking about task issues with their significant other and nonereported such talk with family members.

At the task level the main functions served by talk were informative and regulative.Informative conversations with others helped the neophyte become aware of variousways to conduct class, handle responsibilities and manage problems. Regulativeconversations served to instruct the intern in the rules for conduct or business at theschool. For example, conversations with the FA or other teachers about disciplineproblems were reported as seeking advice for alternative ways to manage theclassroom, an informative function. When talk occurred between an intern andadministrator about the school attendance policies, it served a regulative function. Asindicated in Table 1, conversations between the FA and intern about discipline andclassroom management could serve either informative or regulative functions. Insome cases the FA took an authoritarian approach and issued directives as to how theclass must be handled. In other cases, the FA was more flexible and offeredalternatives for management rather than imperatives. Finally, when task-related talkoccurred between interns, it was innovative and informative, in some instancesserving to generate new ideas and at other times to exchange information.

Because task-related talk with those outside the school setting was limited, itsfunction cannot be viewed as major. When such talk did occur, it served affirmingand acknowledging functions. Discipline and classroom management, the leastenjoyed activity of interns, was discussed by one intern with his significant other. Theconversation served to affirm that what he was doing was acceptable. Talk aboutlesson planning served an acknowledging function, to provide a vehicle by which theintern could let those at home see him or her as a teacher figure. Finally, there wereno instances of task-related talk that served a cathartic function.

ImpactAs indicated in Table 1, there were four topics of talk related to impact, but it mustbe noted that only four of the 12 interns reported conversations related to thisdimension. A pattern for the limited talk that did occur was that each topic wasisolated to a given individual or group of individuals, unlike the self and task-relatedtalk in which an intern talked about an issue with a variety of persons. For example,one intern who was concerned about the learning problems of a student in his classtalked with that student's parents about the problems and possible solutions, but didnot report talking with any others about the situation. For impact-related talk, thesefew interns sought out only a select few for conversation.

With respect to the functions served by talk at the impact level, again the reported

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


talk was so limited that discussing trends is inappropriate. The particular functionsare identified in Table 1.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONSIn this study we have examined the role of communication in the socialization of 12preservice teachers. We identified 21 general topics of talk about teaching, withtarget persons, and found that the talk was related to, and indeed, could becategorized according to the concern phases of self, task, and impact. Twelve of thetopics were related to self, five to task, and four to impact dimensions. All 12 of theinterns talked about self and task-related topics, while only four reported talk aboutimpact. These results are consistent with previous research that neophytes expressprimarily self and task concerns (Staton-Spicer & Bassett, 1979).

We further refined the topics of talk within the concern phases according tofunction. Talk with others in the school setting was categorized as regulative,innovative, integrative, or informative. Talk with those outside of the school wascategorized as cathartic, acknowledging, or affirming. Self-related talk within theschool was primarily integrative, while talk with family and friends served catharticand acknowledging functions. Most of the interns reported task-related talk occur-ring with persons within the school, serving informative and regulative functions.We found talk that served an innovative function occurred only when interns talkedto one another, thus lending some support to the view that teacher trainingperpetuates the status-quo.

Although a considerable amount of data related to communication during theinternship was collected from each subject, there were only 12 participants. Casestudies of these interns provided rich descriptions of the communication activities/interactions, but because of the small sample, we caution readers about generalizing.The findings, however, do open several new avenues for research as well as providesome support for the communication concerns framework in socialization.

Keeping in mind the above considerations, our results suggest that the communica-tion activities/interactions are important aspects in socialization. It is through talkwith others that interns learn about their new role, begin to feel a part of the cultureof teachers and of the school community, and relieve some of their own frustrationsand uncertainties in order to survive. In addition, the socialization process seems tohave both affective and cognitive components, with self concerns being generallyaffective in nature and task concerns being cognitively oriented. Interns talked bothwith school personnel and those in their personal network about self-related issues,while task-related talk centered around those in the school environment. Much of theprevious research has focused on the school setting and task dimensions and has notexamined the role of family and friends. Only Karmos and Jacko (1977) found, as wedid, that family and friends provided positive sources of support. Other researchersinvestigating the influence of those in lateral roles have generally found that familyand friends act as negative influences and cause conflicts through time demands(Friebus, 1977; Olesen & Whittaker, 1968). This is a dimension that warrantsadditional study. Similarly, our results regarding the extent to which interns feltsocialized into teaching merits further scrutiny. The nature of the FA-internrelationship, and the degree to which it is positive or negative, may have importantbearing on anticipatory socialization (e.g., the decision actually to enter teaching),the entry phase (e.g., the degree to which an intern views him or herself as a teacher),and the overall quality of the internship experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


The topics of talk the interns reported indicate that the internship period ofpreservice training is more appropriately characterized as belonging to occupationalsocialization rather than organizational socialization. One of the assumptions of ourstudy was that these preservice teachers were simultaneously experiencing anticipa-tory and entry phases of both occupational and organizational socialization. Of the21 general clusters of topics of talk, 18 centered around the actual teaching role andonly three (i.e., life in general, orientation, procedures and protocol) focused ondimensions of the particular setting or other aspects that served to make the internsfeel a part of the school. We conclude from this finding that, indeed, bothorganizational and occupational socialization are occurring during the internship,but that the occupational dimensions are most salient to the interns.

Consistent with Gehrke's (1981) findings, our interns were very much activeagents in their own socialization, selecting certain individuals with whom to talk,avoiding others, and making their own decisions about ways to teach without alwaysacquiescing to the advice and directives of others. We conclude that socialization is adialectical process and that the role of communication is critical to its understanding.The communication concern framework is a productive one, and as both Veenman(1984) and Pataniczek and Isaacson (1981) suggest, concerns of teachers areimportant in understanding socialization.

While the present study makes an important contribution to understanding therole of communication in socialization, additional research is warranted. Subsequentresearch is needed to chart the changes in communication that occur during theinternship. The identification of target persons and topics of talk is a valuable firststep, but research is needed to trace the changes in communication patterns as internsprogress from their early to late experiences. Observation of interns' communicationinteractions/activities, in addition to self-report interview and log data, wouldfacilitate description and analysis of the changes during socialization.

NOTES1Although the interns taught in four different schools, since all were in the same district, the district policies may

have confounded their socialization experiences.2One of the 12 interns did not respond to the question of whether she felt more like a teacher or a college student.3There is overlap in that some interns talked about a topic to more than one person.

REFERENCESBassett, R. E., & Smythe, M. J. (1979). Communication and instruction. New York: Harper and Row.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday.Bernstein, B. (1972). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization; with some reference to educability. In J. J.

Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 465-497). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Book, C. L., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1979). Communication concerns of graduate and undergraduate teachingassistants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio.

Cohen, J . (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20,37-46.

Day, H. P. (1959). Attitude changes of beginning teachers after initial teaching experience. The Journal of TeacherEducation, 10, 326-328.

Friebus, R. J . (1977). Agents of socialization involved in student teaching. The Journal of Educational Research, 70,263-268.

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational ResearchJournal, 2, 207-226.

Gaede, O. F. (1978). Reality shock: A problem among first-year teachers. The Clearing House, 51, 405-409.Gehrke, N. J . (1981). A grounded theory study of beginning teachers' role personalization through reference group

relations. The Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 34-38.Greenbaum, H. H. (1974). The audit of organizational communication. Academy of Management Journal, 17,

739-754.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Hoy, W. K. (1968). The influence of experience on the beginning teacher. School Review, 76, 312-323.Jablin, F. M. (1984). The assimilation of new members into organizational communication systems: A longitudinal

investigation. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication Association, SanFrancisco.

Jablin, F. M. (1985). An exploratory study of vocational organizational communication socialization. The SouthernSpeech Communication Journal, 50, 261-282.

Jacobs, E. B. (1968). Attitude change in teacher education: An inquiry into the role of attitudes in changing teacherbehavior. The Journal of Teacher Education, 19, 410-415.

Karmos, A., & Jacko, C. (1977). The role of significant others during the student teaching experience. The Journal ofTeacher Education, 28, 51 -55.

Kremer, L., & Moore, M. (1978). Changes in attitudes toward education during teacher training. InternationalReview of Education, 24, 511-513.

Kuhlman, E. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1974). The socialization of professionals into bureaucracies: The beginning teacherin the school. The Journal of Educational Administration, 12, 18-27.

Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers, London: Metheun & Co.LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of

Educational Research, 52, 31-60.Louis, M. R. (1980). Career transitions: Varieties and commonalities. Academy of Management Review, 5,

329-340.Mahan, J . M., & Lacefield, W. (1978). Educational attitude changes during year-long student teaching. Journal of

Experimental Education, 46, 4-15.McArthur, J . (1979). Teacher socialization: The first five years. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 25,

264-274.McArthur, J . T. (1978). What does teaching do to teachers? Educational Administration Quarterly, 14, 89-103.Merton, R., Reader, G., & Kendall, P. (1957). The student physician. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Muus, R. E. (1969). Differential effects of studying versus teaching on teachers' attitudes. The Journal of

Educational Research, 63, 185-189.National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education.Olesen, V., & Whittaker, E. W. (1968). The silent dialogue—A study in the social psychology of professional

socialization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Pataniczek, D., & Isaacson, N. S. (1981). The relationship of socialization and the concerns of beginning secondary

teachers. The Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 14-17.Philipsen, G. (1982). The qualitative case study as a strategy in communication inquiry. The Communicator, 12,

4-17.Staton-Spicer, A. Q. (1983). The measurement and further conceptualization of teacher communication concern.

Human Communication Research, 9, 158-168.Staton-Spicer, A. Q., & Bassett, R. E. (1979). Communication concerns of preservice and inservice elementary

school teachers. Human Communication Research, 5, 138-146.Staton-Spicer, A. Q., & Marty-White, C. R. (1981). A framework for instructional communication theory: The

relationship between teacher communication concerns and classroom behavior. Communication Education, 30,354-366.

Tabachnick, B., Popkewitz, T., & Zeichner, K. (1980). Teacher education and the professional perspectives ofstudent teachers. Interchange, 10, 12-29.

Van Maanen, J . (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization,and society (pp. 67-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research inOrganizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54, 143-178.Wanous, J . P. (1977). Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to inside. Psychological Bulletin, 84,

601-618.Zeichner, K. M. (1980). Key processes in the socialization of student teachers: Limitations and consequences of

oversocialized conceptions of teacher socialization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Boston.

Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1984). Social strategies and institutional control in the socialization ofbeginning teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

19:

46 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

communication in the socialization of preservice teachers

Documents